Saturday, January 28, 2023

"Cops Kill Because We Gave them the Legal Framework to Do It"

Excellent article by James Bovard, "Cops Kill Because We Gave them the Legal Framework to Do It," published in May 2020 following the George Floyd killing. Even more relevant today after the Tyree Nichols killing.  

Several excellent points.  One, instead of targeting racial justice stoked by race baiters Rev. Al Sharpton and others following a young man's murder, organize against the legal agencies that grant and protect these kinds of crimes with impunity and qualified immunity.

Focusing on racial bias also risks obscuring the fundamental problem: the Supreme Court has effectively given police a license to shoot, pummel, or falsely arrest ill-fated citizens across the nation. 

Let this sink in.  Police brutality is the result of federal, state, and municipal laws that grant cops immunity for aggressive even violent actions and decisions.

James Bovard again,

How does the Supreme Court’s idealism on “good faith” G-men play out in the real world?  Courts have “approved qualified immunity for cops who allegedly shot people without cause, sicced a dog on a man who was surrendering, tased a driver who was stopped for failing to buckle his seat belt, and ordered a 17-year-old boy to disrobe and masturbate so they could take pictures of his erect penis,”  Reason columnist Jacob Sullum reported in 2019. That year, a federal appeals court bizarrely granted qualified immunity to Fresno, California, police officers who stole $225,000 during a search of two businessmen.

Congress writes bills and passes laws, then when unintended, because unforeseen, consequences and evils occur it's "We see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." 

But Congress has, as usual, been asleep on the job. As Dan Alban, an Institute for Justice attorney and  the nation’s most effective litigator against asset forfeiture abuses, observed, Congress could pass legislation “clarifying that there is no qualified immunity” for civil rights lawsuits against state and federal officials.

Politicians make things worse.

But the problem goes far beyond qualified immunity. Politicians criminalize practically everything in daily life and then tell police “be nice”—or maybe mandate that cops attend  sensitivity training. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a blizzard of new mandates and prohibitions that further empower police. A video went viral earlier this month of a New York Police Department officer tackling and pummeling a young black man who was suspected of violating new dictates on social distancing. One wonders if there are a hundred such instances of idiotic brutality for each one that trends on Twitter today.

See how politicians make this crime worse.

Friday, January 27, 2023

Slavery ended with the Civil War but that was only private slavery. The state has replaced that and it outright claims you are its property

Thank you to Martin Armstrong @ Armstrong Economics

Some people have written in and said I am just a Republican and I hate California. Sorry, I consider myself in the middle. I disagree with a lot on the Republican side as well. Simply put, the government should NOT be in the business of trying to manipulate society any more than the Investment Banks have tried to manipulate the markets and when they blow up, they run to the government for bailouts. The fines they get from CFTC ad SEC and just their 10% take of the amount of money they make on such schemes.

California is the absolutely  WORSE state to live in. They are so MARXIST you cannot even imagine. They are proposing to create a WEALTH TAX and apply it to anyone who has ever worked in California. You better know that California has been going after people who worked in that state, but then moved to Florida. They then hunt them down and demand state income taxes arguing that they earned that pension while they were in California.

Plain and simple, California is the state from HELL. It views people as its economic slaves. Yes, you are a slave – the property of the state. It does not matter where you have moved to, they view it that you remain their property.  California is out of control. It will NEVER reduce its size, it looks down upon the people as their endless possession. Slavery ended with the Civil War but that was only private slavery. The state has replaced that and it outright claims you are its property. They never heard of no taxation without representation. If you move out of state, you forfeit your right to vote in California. So we have exactly the very same situation that led to the American Revolution – you are taxed under tyranny and have no right to even be heard.

What California has been doing to those who retire out of state, they will do to absolutely everyone who has ever worked in that God-forsaken land of inequity.

Just for the record, you must report every asset you own everywhere in the world, and then you are taxed on that as if it were a property tax. Every year you will be taxed and if your assets declined, that’s your problem. You will be taxed on what the state says it is worth.

WHAT DIVERSITY SOUNDS LIKE

Her name is Charnelle Marie Bjelkengren, and she is

an American lawyer who has served as a judge of the Spokane County Superior Court since 2019. She is a nominee to serve as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

Article V of the Constitution provides for Congress to make amendments to the Constitution.   

Article II 

Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the president of the United States lays out the procedures for electing and removing the president and establishes the president's powers and responsibilities.

 

PROJECT VERITAS OUTS JORDAN TRISHTON WALKER, PFIZER CONSULTANT

You won't find this levelof entertainment just anywhere. 

Thursday, January 26, 2023

DON'T GET A MEDICAL OR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION? WHY NOT?

DON'T GET A MEDICAL OR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION?  WHY NOT? 

why would your adversary offer you a remedy? Because it's not a remedy.   --Jon Jay Singleton 

medical exemption might be easier, but a lot of times the medical exemption can legally be denied--and doctors are told not to give it.  --Singelton

06:45  The EEOC is deliberately participating in the violations you're experiencing at your job and with retailers.  

06:53  They're not a remedy.  

06:55  They're trying to falsify the initial records so that you will not have a case if you go beyond the EEOC, if you go to court, your case will get dismissed. 

Find the video here under "Are Exemptions a Trap?"

Jon recommends not getting a medical or religious exemption.  It's not the best, correct legal procedure.  

00:20  An exemption is an exclusion from a legal duty.  So there has to be a legal duty for you to qualify for a legal exemption.  And there are criteria for that; not everyone is exempt from a certain thing.  Most understand it in terms of taxation.  So, if something is a non-profit, like a church, it's exempt from taxation because it's a church, as long as that money is used in that way.  But there's a legal duty to pay taxes, you see, and the legal exemption is an exclusion from complying with a law.  It's an exception to the law.  

00:50  By its nature, it says that a legal duty exists that you are asking for an exemption from.  So if you ask for an exemption, you're forfeiting the great arguments, the burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof on yourself to say that the legal duty exists. 

1:09  You're acting as if there's a legal duty.  And now you're just asking for permission not to be included in that.  And so those who are trying to push this on people love that.  They want to set that up so they can always just deny the exemption because it's a privilege, not a right, like the right to informed consent is a right.  You don't have to ask for permission for the right to informed consent. 

Right.  So there's something really tricky about it.  Using the idea of exemption means you're asking for a privilege rather than standing on your rights by denying that there's any policy that can even ask you to do this in the first place.  It's kind of like knocking out the foundation is a stronger way to go about it than asking for an exemption.

01:48  Notice how when someone is telling you to submit to accommodations, and I don't know what accommodations we should talk about, the mask-wearing and all that stuff, notice how when someone does that, that organization or individual offers you the opportunity to ask for a medical or religious exemption.  At that moment when someone is doing this to you and he becomes your adversary, why would your adversary offer you a remedy?  Because it's not a remedy.  It's not a real remedy.  

02:18  Are they even revealing the criteria for a religious or medical exemption?  No.   

02:25  We see a bird's eye view of all 50 states.  What's happening is someone gets an exemption and someone else wants it and someone else wants it, and a week later, a month later it's revoked.  It's because it's arbitrary.  Capricious and arbitrary.  When you file for an exemption, a lot of times people just fill out a form.  Who gives you the form?  The very person who is denying your rights, making you think you have an exemption.  So you fill out this form, but nowhere is it disclosed what the criteria are that constitute an exemption, like a medical or religious exemption.  The criteria are never disclosed.  The way you find out what the criteria are is you go look at case law.  And then in order to enforce those, you've got to spend $25,000 minimum if not a $250,000 in legal fees to go through a year's long, several years process to prove that you have a religious exemption, and possibly a medical exemption, the medical exemption might be easier, but a lot of times the medical exemption can legally be denied--and doctors are told not to give it.  The whole thing is a trick.  It's a dead end.  It's a way to create a false record of something that has no legal defense or no legal merit.  If you had to try to enforce something on your employer or business or something.  In the end, it's going to be enforceable, and everyone's going to look at you like you're just a joke and that you don't know what you're doing, and you really don't.  You cannot rely on a religious exemption or a medical exemption.  The criteria for these are never disclosed [by whom? isn't it disclosed by the law?]  And they're never going to tell you what they are.  You can even go look up the case law, and who knows what they're making up in the background, it's ad hoc, it's capricious, it's arbitrary like Melissa said, and it shifts the burden of proof.   

04:26  The Burden of Proof.  90% of cases . . . 

04:30  90% of cases in court don't go to trial.  They get resolved in what's called a Summary Judgment Hearing.  Summary Judgment is a way to get out of trial.  It's overused but it's very effective.  90% has to do with whether or not the plaintiff has the right to sue.  That's all they talk about.  They don't even talk about what you're suing over.  

04:52  They don't even get to the merits of the case.  It's just "Should the case be here, or should it be there? Do you have the right?  Are you on time?"  All the little rules and things . . . 

05:00  So if you do not have the Burden of Proof on a situation, for example, if a person tells you, "You have to wear a mask to come into this building."  Now at that moment, you don't have the burden of proof to prove that you have to wear a mask.  Yes, there has to be proof that you have to wear a mask.  And what is that proof?  The proof is that you are a direct threat, and the only way to prove this is to conduct an individualized assessment to establish that you are a direct threat and that therefore you have to submit to the accommodation of wearing a mask.  How can someone ever conduct an individualized assessment or diagnose you without your consent?  They can never get to that point.  So, the burden of proof stays where it is.  So if the store or employer, whomever, wants to enforce a measure or accommodation like this, it has to go to court.  If you claim an exemption from something, you have to go to court.  Totally different.  

05:57  People have convictions they want to protect, and so they rely on religious or medical exemptions.  What we're saying is that using either of these exemptions is a trap.  The burden of your exemption falls on you and establishing the criteria is very difficult.  Your exemption is not going to be held up by the EEOC.  In fact, the EEOC tries to guide people into religious and medical exemptions and tries to change their charges because that's the path that's been carved out by these "creatures."    

06:45  The EEOC is deliberately participating in the violations you're experiencing at your job and with retailers.  

06:53  They're not a remedy.  

06:55  They're trying to falsify the initial records so that you will not have a case if you go beyond the EEOC, if you go to court, your case will get dismissed.

07:03  And interestingly, what you claim in your EEOC is basically what you're locked into what you're able to claim in court.  We've had some clients, who after their consultation with the EEOC, who changed their claim back to a religious exemption .. . don't do that because that's the case that you have to argue in court.  

07:30  There's no exemption guys.  No medical, no religious exemption, even if you can get one and weasel through it, it's still a legal dead end.  Even if you get it, you're still going to have to submit to the examinations, the temperature testing