Questions surround feds' raid of Stockton home

STOCKTON, CA - A federal education official Wednesday morning offered little information as to why federal agents raided a Stockton man's home Tuesday.

DOCUMENT: Search Warrant

The resident, Kenneth Wright, does not have a criminal record and he had no reason to believe why what he thought was a S.W.A.T team would be breaking down his door at 6 in the morning.

"I look out of my window and I see 15 police officers," Wright said.

As Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts, he said the officers barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn.

"He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there," Wright said.

According to Wright, officers also woke his three young children, ages 3, 7, and 11, and put them in a Stockton police patrol car with him. Officers then searched his house.

"They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids," Wright said.

As it turned out, the person law enforcement was looking for - Wright's estranged wife - was not there.

Wright said he later went to Stockton Mayor Ann Johnston and Stockton Police Department, but learned the city of Stockton had nothing to do with the search warrant.

U.S. Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton confirmed for News10 Wednesday morning federal agents with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), not local S.W.A.T., served the search warrant. Hamilton would not say specifically why the raid took place except that it was part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Hamilton said the search was not related to student loans in default as reported in the local media.

OIG is a semi-independent branch of the education department that executes warrants for criminal offenses such as student aid fraud, embezzlement of federal aid and bribery, according to Hamilton. The agency serves 30 to 35 search warrants a year.

"They busted down my door for this," Wright said. "It wasn't even me."

The Stockton Police Department said it was asked by federal agents to provide one officer and one patrol car just for a police presence when carrying out the search warrant.

Police officers did not participate in breaking Wright's door, handcuffing him, or searching his home.

"All I want is an apology for me and my kids and for them to get me a new door," Wright said.

Health Care Law: Appeals Court Seems Skeptical of Obama Administration's Argument

A lawyer for the Obama administration told a panel of federal judges on Wednesday that health care is a "universal feature of our existence" and that Congress was well within its authority in passing a sweeping health care law.
But the judges seemed, at times, skeptical of some of the key arguments made by Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal on behalf of the government.
Twenty-six states are challenging the constitutionality of the law, the Affordable Care Act, and arguing that it should be struck down.
At the heart of the case is the key provision of the law, the individual mandate, that requires individuals, with few exceptions, to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax penalty.
The case was heard by three judges from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the third appellate court to hear a challenge to the law considered the signature legislative achievement of the Obama administration.
Paul Clement, representing the states, said that Congress exceeded its authority in passing the individual mandate because it forces people into the market place.
Clement said the case turns on "whether or not the federal government can compel an individual to engage in commerce."
The judges began by asking the government whether the case is unprecedented.
"I can't find any case that is just like this," said Chief Judge Joel G. Dubina.
Dubina asked the government whether there would be any limits to Congress' reach if the court upheld the individual mandate.
Katyal said that health care is a unique market because "every single person can't guarantee that they won't need health care," adding that the mandate was "all about financing" how health care could be paid for.
Judge Stanley Marcus pressed again on the issue of precedent.
"Is there any case out there," he asked, that involves the power "to compel the purchase of a product on the open market?"
Katyal said the case wasn't about the government forcing someone to buy a product. It was about how to regulate the payment of a product that every American will eventually need.
He noted that in 2008 the cost of the uninsured was $43 billion, and those costs were shifted to other participants in the health care system across the country. He said that the commerce clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate such interstate commerce.
Clement argued that although Congress may have the right to regulate interstate commerce, it doesn't have the authority to "compel people to engage."
Judge Frank M. Hull challenged Clement's notion that a person choosing not to buy health insurance is involved in economic "inactivity," and thus outside of Congress' reach.
"The whole inactivity discussion doesn't get me very far" she said, noting that someone's choice to not participate in the market is still an "economic decision."
But Hull asked a long series of questions that would be of concern to the government regarding whether the law would be able to survive if its key provision, the individual mandate, was struck down.
The only way the court would need to reach the so called "severability" argument is if it threw out one or more provisions of the law.
Clement said that the individual mandate is the "driving force" behind the entire law and suggested the court should uphold the lower court decision that threw out the entire law after finding the individual mandate was unconstitutional.
Hull also questioned whether other parts of the law could solve some of the health care problems addressed by the individual mandate.
Katyal reacted sharply by saying it would be a "deep, deep" mistake to say that some of the problems could be solved through other mechanisms in the law.
Former Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who attended the arguments and believes the law is constitutional, said Wednesday's panel of judges asked "more skeptical questions of each side and, perhaps, asked more skeptical questions of the government" than a panel of judges who heard a similar case in Virginia. The panel in that case was comprised of three judges who were nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents and they seemed openly skeptical of the arguments of those challenging the health care law.
Judge Dubina was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while Hull and Marcus were both Clinton nominees.
The arguments also marked the first time an appellate court has heard a challenge to another provision of the law that expands the reach of Medicaid.
Clement argued that the government had gone too far in asking the states to add significant administrative expenses and force them to eventually cover more citizens through Medicaid.
According to the law, the federal government will initially fund 100 percent of the expanded benefits. State participation in the program has always been voluntary.
Judge Dubina seemed receptive to Clement's argument.
Elizabethe Wydra, the chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center who filed a brief in defense of the law, noted that this is the third appellate court to hear arguments.
"Many of the judges, whether considered to be conservative or liberal, recognize that the decision not to buy health insurance is, in fact, an economic decision," she said. "Supreme Court precedent makes clear that Congress has authority to regulate such economic activity."
But Florida's attorney general, Pam Bondi , who attended the arguments and is opposed to the law, said afterwards, "The federal government could not rebut our argument that the individual mandate is an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberty.
The issue is expected ultimately to reach the Supreme Court.

China Calls US Culprit in Global 'Internet War'

The Chinese military accused the U.S. on Friday of launching a global "Internet war" to bring down Arab and other governments, redirecting the spotlight away from allegations of major online attacks on Western targets originating in China.
The accusations Friday by Chinese military academy scholars, and their urging of tougher policing of the Internet, followed allegations this week that computer hackers in China had compromised the personal Gmail accounts of several hundred people, including government officials, military personnel and political activists.
Google traced the origin of the attacks to the city of Jinan that is home to a military vocational school whose computers were linked to a more sophisticated assault on Google's systems 17 months ago. China has denied responsibility for the two attacks.
Writing in the Communist Party-controlled China Youth Daily newspaper, the scholars did not mention Google's claims, but said recent computer attacks and incidents employing the Internet to promote regime change in Arab nations appeared to have originated with the U.S. government.
"Of late, an Internet tornado has swept across the world ... massively impacting and shocking the globe. Behind all this lies the shadow of America," said the article, signed by Ye Zheng and Zhao Baoxian, identified as scholars with the Academy of Military Sciences.
"Faced with this warmup for an Internet war, every nation and military can't be passive but is making preparations to fight the Internet war," it said.
While nuclear war was a strategy of the industrial era, Internet war is a product of the information age, the article said. Such conflicts stand to be hugely destructive, threatening national security and the very existence of the state, it said.
China needs to "express to the world its principled stance of maintaining an 'Internet border' and protecting its 'Internet sovereignty,' unite all advanced forces to dive into the raging torrent of the age of peaceful use of the Internet, and return to the Internet world a healthy, orderly environment," the article said.
China already heavily filters content and blocks numerous foreign websites, a system known as the "Great Firewall of China." The police employ a large force of Internet monitors to scour the Web for content deemed illegal or subversive, and those users transmitting sensitive contact can be charged with sedition or other crimes.
A number of foreign governments say they've been targeted by hacking attacks from China, although Beijing routinely denies undertaking such operations and says it too is a victim of such activity.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters attacks such as the one alleged by Google were a primary reason why the State Department had for the first time created a cyber-security coordinator.
The FBI said it was investigating Google's allegations, but no official government email accounts have been compromised. Google said all the hacking victims have been notified and their accounts have been secured.