Popcorn Time FREE Movies on Android Through Netflix !!!!

Download here !!!

Popcorn Time users who get their Netflix-style pirated movie fix on Android devices will be extremely happy to hear that the “company” has come up with a brand new version of its Android app that brings some awesome features to the table.

Popcorn Time for Android has reached Android beta 2.1, which brings built-in VPN support, a feature that can help out with hiding your torrent streaming traces, but also support for a vast majority of devices.

In fact, starting with Android beta 2.1, Popcorn Time will work with smartphones and tablets running Android 4.0 or later (rather than Android 4.2, the previous minimum OS requirements).

Moreover, the developers have further tweaked the app’s performance, improving Chromecast functionality, as well as movie loading times.

“The whole experience is much smoother,” developers say, “and we also fixed many minor annoying bugs while we were at it.

Finally, a Popcorn Time version for iOS will be here “soon,” developers say.

To download the new Android app beta version, check the source link below – but also remember that Popcorn Time is still a service that enables movie piracy, and using it may get you in trouble, so make sure you understand how it works before proceeding.

Download here !!!!

“Black-Ops” Helicopters Buzz Kentucky Residents

“Black-ops” helicopters with their lights turned off buzzed Kentucky and Cincinnati residents last night as part of an unannounced military drill, with one eyewitness telling Infowars the maneuvers resembled something out of a “war zone”.

Image: Black Hawk Helicopters (Wiki Commons).

Under the headline, Yes, Those were ‘Black Ops’ helicopters over Florence, 700WLW News reports, “Several callers to the 700 WLW news room overnight said that there were “black ops” helicopters flying over the Florence area. Our news partners at Fox 19 said they received calls as well. Callers said that they spotted at least two choppers, and they were running without lights.”

The news station confirmed with Boone County dispatch center there were indeed “black ops” helicopters flying over northern Kentucky and the Greater Cincinnati area and that they were part of an exercise out of Fort Campbell which was using Lunken Airport as a base.

“The Army said it had coordinated the exercise with appropriate leaders,” states the report, although there was no indication that citizens were told in advance of the drill. The purpose of the exercises was also withheld. The Army also claimed that, “the safety of the personnel and the public was maintained,” despite the fact that the choppers’ lights were turned off.

An Infowars reader and a Florence resident emailed to inform us that he was suddenly awoken at midnight by the exercises.

“I woke and looked but could not see a thing. I knew the sound because of the deep whip and vibration. No lights or indicators were on to view the presence. Two pass overs and maneuvering you would expect in a war zone,” he stated, adding, “What is this government thinking?”

Although the term “black helicopters” is used as a pejorative slur by the mainstream media, such aircraft are often a part of unannounced military drills over metropolitan areas which have stoked concerns that Americans are being pacified into accepting martial law-style activities as routine.

In 2012, Miami residents were shocked to be awoken by a military exercise in the middle of the night which involved helicopters, fighter jets, along with simulated gunfire and grenades. Black Hawk helicopters also flew low over Los Angeles during a military drill the same year.

Back in March, we reported on Department of Defense exercises in Broward County during which low flying military helicopters landed on city buildings in Fort Lauderdale. According to a local reporter, the drills were centered around, “scaring the crap out of people”.

Gynecologist Arrested for Secretly Taking Nude Photos of Patients with Phone

 A gynecologist from Arkansas is facing charges of video voyeurism after he allegedly used his cell phone to shoot nude footage of patients during office exams, reports the tell-all website The Smoking Gun.

The website reported that police began looking into Dr. Paul Becton, Jr., in April after a patient reported that she was concerned the 68-year-old physician “produced his cellular telephone and took photographs of her pubic region and buttocks” during a visit to his office, according to an arrest affidavit.

The site reports that Becton has been in practice for more than three decades and is “very knowledgeable in the latest surgical techniques and women’s health issues.”

‘There appeared to be photos of the victim’

Arkansas State Police investigators who were armed with a search warrant seized the gynecologist’s phone during a visit to his office April 10 in the city of Paragould, about 20 miles northeast of Jonesboro. An analysis of the phone revealed “numerous images of nude females that appear to have been taken in a medical office during medical examinations,” the site reported. Investigators found the photos “in the deleted images within the hard-drive” of the phone.

According to the affidavit, investigators said, “Also recovered during the examination were what appear to be photographs of the victim who reported this incident,” to Paragould police. The woman who made the report subsequently identified five “nude photographs that were taken without her knowledge or consent,” the affidavit said.

Becton, who maintains a private OB/GYN practice at the Arkansas Methodist Medical Center, has been charged with five felony voyeurism counts related to the naked images of the woman who contacted police, The Smoking Gun reported.

According to Becton’s practice website:

Raised in Little Rock, Arkansas, Dr. Becton is a graduate of Hall High School and Baylor University where he attended on a football scholarship. Between 1967 through 1969, Dr. Becton played professional football. Between 1969 through 1973, Dr. Becton worked in Public Accounting where he later attended the University of Arkansas Medical School. His residency specialized in OBGYN at University Hospital in Little Rock. For over 30 years, Dr. Becton has been delivering babies and giving women excellent medical care in Arkansas. Dr. Becton remains committed to continuing his education and is very knowledgeable in the latest surgical techniques and women’s health issues. In 2007 Dr. Becton moved to Paragould, Arkansas and opened his practice, Becton Women’s Clinic and became a member of the staff at Arkansas Methodist Medical Center.

‘A woman should expect her privacy not to be violated’

report in the local Paragould paper dated April 24 said that Becton had yet to be served with papers regarding the woman’s civil lawsuit because he could not be found.

“When a woman goes to the doctor, she should expect that her privacy not be violated,” said Scott Ellington, second judicial district prosecutor, to Region 8 News.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion Number 373, August 2007, says, “The relationship between the physician and patient, therefore, requires a high level of trust and professional responsibility.” What’s more, the document goes on to say the physician-patient relationship is damaged when there is confusion regarding professional roles and behavior, or clear lack of integrity that allows “sexual exploitation and harm.”

Sources:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com

http://www.bectonclinic.com

http://www.paragoulddailypress.com

http://www.medicaldaily.com

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Cops No Longer Need Warrants to Search Vehicles

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has ruled police officers in the Commonwealth are no longer required to obtain a warrant prior to searching a vehicle, a decision that essentially overturns the protections enumerated in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in Pennsylvania’s own state constitution.

 San Francisco Police searching a vehicle after a stop in 2008. / Photo: Drew Stephens, Wikimedia Commons

Yesterday, Justice Seamus McCaffery issued the court’s opinion, stemming from a 2010 Philadelphia police department traffic stop of a man for having dark tinted windows, who was later found to be hiding two pounds of marijuana under the hood of his vehicle.

In a 4-2 vote, the court decided “the prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search.”

Previously, as explained by Lancaster Online, police were not allowed to search a vehicle unless a driver consented, “or if the illegal substances were in plain view.”

“Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with the search without a warrant,” writes Brett Hambright.

Not surprisingly, police are ecstatic.

“It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs,” said New Holland Police Lt. Jonathan Heisse, reports Hambright.

However, in her dissenting opinion, Justice Debra McCloskey Todd rightly noted the ruling “heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure which our people have enjoyed as their birthright.” Todd also called the decision “diametrically contrary to the deep historical and legal traditions” of Pennsylvania, according toAssociated Press.

Several defense attorneys also view the court’s ruling as a monumental government overreach that could negatively impact the normal, day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens.

“It’s an expanding encroachment of government power,” Jeffrey Conrad, a defense attorney with the law firm Clymer Musser & Conrad told Hambright today regarding the court’s final opinion. “It’s a protection we had two days ago, that we don’t have today. It’s disappointing from a citizens’ rights perspective.”

“I am concerned,” another defense attorney, Christopher Patterson, expressed to Hambright, “that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement.”

Another lawyer clarified that the ruling does not grant police the authority to search vehicles arbitrarily.

“This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop,” Mike Winters with the law firm McMahon & Winters said. “They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant.”

SCOTUS Weighs Warrentless Cellphone Searches

 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday concerning the legality of policemen searching an arrested citizen’s cellphone without a warrant. The two cases, Riley v. California and United States v Wurie, solicited an hour each.

The AP reported:

 

“People carry their entire lives on their cellphones,” Justice Elena Kagan said.The court heard arguments in cases involving a drug dealer and a gang member whose convictions turned in part on evidence found on their cellphones.

The justices suggested they might favor limiting warrantless cellphone searches to looking for evidence of the crime on which an arrest is based. Both defendants could lose in such an outcome.

But such a ruling would allow the court to avoid subjecting people arrested for minor crimes to having all the contents of their cellphones open to police inspection.

If police should arrest someone for driving without a seatbelt, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “it seems absurd that they should be able to search that person’s iPhone.”

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures” when a warrant is not presented. This is a basic privacy right. Cell phones are highly personal items with direct access to photographs, notes, emails, and even bank accounts. At the same time, these devices could reveal calls, email threads, and imperative information in pressing cases where obtaining a warrant could jeopardize the public safety.

According to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in Riley v. California, the Court is merely seeking “some standard on where we draw the line.”

Dash Cam Footage Shows Nevada Deputy Extorting $50,000 from Innocent Motorist

Newly released dash cam footage shows the tactics used by one Nevada sheriff’s deputy to extort large amounts of cash from innocent motorists.

Watch Video Here

8 News NOW

In video obtained by KLAS-TV this week, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Deputy Lee Dove, who just pulled over a driver for going 3 miles over the speed limit, can be seen searching a vehicle without probable cause.

“Well, I’m gonna search that vehicle first, ok?” Dove says to the driver, Tan Nguyen.

As Dove opens the vehicle’s doors and hatchback, Nguyen, who has not given the deputy permission, demands to know why his vehicle is being searched. Without a legitimate explination, Dove refuses to answer.

“Because I’m talking to you… well, no, I don’t have to explain that to you,” Dove says as he discovers $50,000 in cash and $10,000 in cashiers checks. “I’m not going to explain that to you, but I am gonna put my drug dog on that. If my dog alerts, I’m seizing the money. You can try to get it back but you’re not.”

Despite Nguyen explaining how he won the cash in Las Vegas, Dove continues the confiscation with no proof that the money was obtained illegally.

“Good luck proving it. Good luck proving it. You’ll burn it up in attorney fees before we give it back to you,” Dove says.

Although police departments are allowed in some states to seize and spend cash linked to criminal activity under heavily abused forfeiture laws, Dove instead decides to outright extort Nguyen, telling him that his vehicle will be towed if he does not give up the $50,000.

“It’s your call. If you want to walk away, you can take the cashiers checks, the car and everything and you can bolt and you’re on your way,” Dove says. “But you’re gonna be walking away from this money and abandoning it.”

Unsurprisingly, according to local blogger Dee Holzel, the sheriff’s department and District Attorney have claimed that no illegal activity has ever taken place in regards to officers seizing cash.

“What they said initially was, ‘well, these are civil forfeiture programs. These kinds of things happen everywhere. There’s nothing unusual about Humboldt County.’ But that turned out to not be true,” Holzel explained. “When you have people by the side of the road and you’re having them abandon their money so they’ll be allowed to get in their car and drive away, they don’t do that everywhere.”

Nguyen’s lawyer, John Ohlson, also blasted the actions of the officer, describing it as blatant highway robbery.

“An armed person stops a traveler and demands the traveler’s money and tells the traveler that unless he gets in his car and moves on down the road and forgets all about it, he’s going to take his car too,” Ohlson said. “I would say that’s pretty close to what you’re describing as highway robbery.”

Luckily, Nguyen was not only given his cash back but was granted an extra $10,000 for attorney fees from the department. Other victims such as Matt Lee, who had $2,400 taken by Dove, was forced to sign a confidentiality agreement with Humboldt County in order to get his.

“They’re buying their silence with their own money,” said Ohlson, who also represented Lee.

Following a massive uproar from local residents, Humboldt County Sheriff Ed Kilgore now claims his officers will no longer ask for people’s money during traffic stops unless a crime is suspected, even though Dove has seized cash before by claiming to smell non-existent marijuana in vehicles.

“We want to do the right thing. I am a strong proponent of fighting the war on drugs, and I want to make sure everything we do here is on the up-and-up,” Kilgore said.

Unfortunately, Nevada is only one of many states experiencing similar corruption. Earlier this year, a Tennessee cop struggled to answer questions from a local news group after seizing $22,000 from an innocent driver. Despite telling the officer he was using the cash to buy a new car, the officer was found to have left the driver’s explanation out of his police report.

In 2012, a Wisconsin family attempting to bail their son out of jail had $7,500 seized after police claimed a drug dog alerted to narcotics on the cash. It was soon learned that the officers had forced the family to bring cash instead of a check, likely knowing that 90 percent of cash is tainted with cocaine residue.

Ironically, while corrupt law enforcement officers use the war on drugs to shake down innocent Americans, large banks such as HSBC continue to launder billions for DEA-backed Mexican drug cartels.

Watch a Congressional Candidate Shoot Down a ‘Government Drone’

As a “government drone” hovers over Matt Rosendale, the Republican House candidate from Montana tells the camera what he thinks of government overreach, regulation, and “spying on our citizens.”

Then, standing in front of an ATV, Rosendale coolly puts a rifle to his shoulder, looks up through the sight and “downs” the drone with a single shot.

“The federal government is too big and too powerful,” Rosendale says. “I’m ready to stand tall for freedom and get Washington out of our lives,” he says.

Rosendale is trying to stand out in a five-way primary for Montana’s at-large seat in the House.

Sporting a barn jacket and a flattop buzz cut, the state senator lowers the rifle and pledges to get the feds off his constituents’ backs—or at least not hovering over their heads.

Montana is among the states that prohibit law enforcement from using drones without a warrant. On the federal level, U.S. Customs and Border Protection runs surveillance operations with its nine-drone fleet.

Customs also loaned its drones to other agencies for surveillance missions 700 times over a three-year period, including to state and local departments. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other advocacy groups have expressed concern that these missions have strayed from the government’s border-security directive.

Though it’s unlikely the government has sent drones buzzing over Rosendale’s property, which is in a small town not particularly close to the Canadian border, he’s tapping into the sentiment that helped fuel Sen. Rand Paul’s drone filibuster last year.

Paul envisioned a scenario in which the government could use a drone to take out an American “in a cafe in San Francisco” so long as the target was suspected of being a terrorist. The Obama administration responded that Americans not engaged in combat would not be the target of drone strikes on U.S. soil.

Still, some—and not just Republicans—are concerned that the government’s growing use of drones could lead to privacy overreaches if not kept in check. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said earlier this year a drone spied into her house and called for guidelines for law-enforcement use of the technology. The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation are among groups who hope to set strict boundaries for drone use by the government.

Shooting down a drone, however, is illegal, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Here’s how the agency responded when a small town in Colorado made it legal to hunt drones: “A [drone] hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air. Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane.”

Rosendale isn’t the first candidate to send a bullet at a chosen specter of big government. Obamacare and cap-and-trade have previously found themselves in candidates’ crosshairs.