Seek

Subscribe   Contact   

Twitter       Facebook  

About         Archives


HEADLINES

Latest Entries
More News

OLDER HEADLINES
Login
Powered by Squarespace


Racist Suspect Watch
Racist Business Index
Support Justice!


free your mind!

Cress Welsing: The Definition of Racism White Supremacy

Dr. Blynd: The Definition of Racism

Anon: What is Racism/White Supremacy?

Dr. Bobby Wright: The Psychopathic Racial Personality

The Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation and Racism (White Supremacy)

What is the First Step in Counter Racism?

Genocide: a system of white survival

The Creation of the Negro

The Mysteries of Melanin

'Racism is a behavioral system for survival'

Fear of annihilation drives white racism

Dr. Blynd: The Definition of Caucasian

Where are all the Black Jurors? 

The War Against Black Males: Black on Black Violence Caused by White Supremacy/Racism

Brazen Police Officers and the Forfeiture of Freedom

White Domination, Black Criminality

Fear of a Colored Planet Fuels Racism: Global White Population Shrinking, Less than 10%

Race is Not Real but Racism is

The True Size of Africa

What is a Nigger? 

MLK and Imaginary Freedom: Chains, Plantations, Segregation, No Longer Necessary ['Our Condition is Getting Worse']

Chomsky on "Reserving the Right to Bomb Niggers." 

A Goal of the Media is to Make White Dominance and Control Over Everything Seem Natural

"TV is reversing the evolution of the human brain." Propaganda: How You Are Being Mind Controlled And Don't Know It.

Spike Lee's Mike Tyson and Don King

"Zapsters" - Keeping what real? "Non-white People are Actors. The Most Unrealistic People on the Planet"

Black Power in a White Supremacy System

Neely Fuller Jr.: "If you don't understand racism/white supremacy, everything else that you think you understand will only confuse you"

The Image and the Christian Concept of God as a White Man

'In order for this system to work, We have to feel most free and independent when we are most enslaved, in fact we have to take our enslavement as the ultimate sign of freedom'

Why do White Americans need to criminalize significant segments of the African American population?

Who Told You that you were Black or Latino or Hispanic or Asian? White People Did

Malcolm X: "We Have a Common Enemy"

Links

Deeper than Atlantis
Sunday
Feb122017

Thief Trump says there is “no reason” to reform the civil forfeiture practices of Police Stealing from the Public 

From [HERE] The technique has been called (by this columnist) “immunity through profusion.” By keeping the molten lava of falsehoods flowing, the volcano that is Donald Trump can inundate the public and overwhelm his auditors’ capacity to produce a comparable flow of corrections. This technique was on display the other day when the president met with some sheriffs.

He treated them to a whopper that is one of his hardy perennials, market-tested during the campaign: He said the U.S. murder rate is “the highest it’s been in 47 years.” (Not even close: The rate — killings per 100,000 residents — is far below the rates in the 1970s and 1980s.) This Trump Truth (Sen. Eugene McCarthy’s axiom: Anything said three times in Washington becomes a fact) distracted attention from his assertion to the sheriffs that there is “no reason” to reform law enforcement’s civil forfeiture practices.

There is no reason for the sheriffs to want to reform a racket that lines their pockets. For the rest of us, strengthening the rule of law and eliminating moral hazard are each sufficient reasons.

Civil forfeiture is the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved in, crime. If property is suspected of being involved in criminal activity, law enforcement can seize it. Once seized, the property’s owners bear the burden of proving that they were not involved in such activity, which can be a costly and protracted procedure. So, civil forfeiture proceeds on the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle. Civil forfeiture forces property owners, often people of modest means, to hire lawyers and do battle against a government with unlimited resources.

And here is why the sheriffs probably purred contentedly when Trump endorsed civil forfeiture law — if something so devoid of due process can be dignified as law: Predatory law enforcement agencies can pocket the proceeds from the sale of property they seize.

The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment says property shall not be taken without just compensation, and the 14th Amendment says it shall not be taken without due process of law. President Trump, 18 days from having sworn to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, sympathized with the sheriffs’ complaint that they are being pressured to reform civil forfeiture practices.

These practices are a textbook example of moral hazard — of an incentive for perverse behavior. They give law enforcement a financial interest in the outcome of cases.

It is conceivable that Trump’s studiousness has been stretched too thin to encompass the facts of civil asset forfeiture. He says he would like to “look into” it. Meanwhile, however, he is for it because he assumes “bad people” are behind the pressure for reform. And speaking of a Texas state legislator who favors reform, Trump said, “We’ll destroy his career.” Just another day on America’s steep ascending path back to greatness.

Sunday
Feb122017

Fabricating Evidence to Lock Up Latinos & Blacks: Austin crime lab mistakes linked to cases of 2,200 convicts

Statesman

Travis County prosecutors as early as Friday will begin notifying about 2,200 convicted criminals — including people in prison for murder and rape — that forensic evidence in their cases may have been flawed because of faulty testing at the Austin police crime lab, and that they may be entitled to an appeal.

The first batch of letters will be mailed to 642 people who have addresses that prosecutors and investigators have been able to recently verify, and officials said they are pressing forward to locate the other 1,559 defendants in coming days and to notify them as soon as possible. [MORE]

Friday
Feb102017

White Supremacy System is the Opposite of Justice: White Marion County Cop Who Struck Surrendering Black Man Over 20 Times Not Guilty

Stop Resisting! Liar White Cops Add Audio on Bodycam. From [HERE] A surveillance video on Aug. 7, 2014, showed a Black man running into a business parking lot with his hands in the air and a pickup truck with four white deputies following behind. The man, Derrick Price, can be seen kneeing down, Then he lies down, with his arms outstretched, showing he was surrendering. The four Marion County Sheriff's Office deputies in the truck got out. One sat on the man's legs and the other three kneed, kicked and punched him. A fifth deputy, the last to arrive, stood by and did nothing. There is no doubt deputy Jesse Terrell helped beat Price and there is no doubt Terrell's blows -- more than 20 by prosecutors' count -- to Price's head were injurious.There is no doubt Price had surrendered and was compliant when Terrell and his four Sheriff's Office colleagues unleashed their fury on him. There is no doubt about any of this because it was all caught on security camera video. But not in a system of racism/white supremacy. A system of injustice. To end white supremacy we must end white power.    

Despite shocking surveillance video showing Jesse Terrell and four other white Marion County deputies kicking and beating a Black man in 2014, it took a jury an hour to find Terrell not guilty.

“I just thank the jury for everything they did,” said Terrell afterwards. After the reading of the verdict, and with red eyes, Terrell said he was very happy that the trial was over.

"One time should have been enough," he said, referencing his federal trial. He said he now plans to go to Disney World. [MORE]

Terrell and his girlfriend were both visibly emotional after the verdict was read. The surveillance video shows the now ex-deputies beating Derrick Price after he surrendered. The video shows him lying on the ground, his arms out, appearing not to resist.

“The question is: is what Jesse Terrell did to Derrick Price reasonably necessary to protect himself or to protect someone else as he claims?” asked Chief Assistant State Attorney Richard Ridgway.

The defense countered Terrell never saw Price surrender. They argued he only saw Price struggling with deputies and he jumped in to help protect them.

“This is a case about what Jesse Terrell perceived,” said his attorney, Bill Rampiti. “And what he did to protect his fellow deputies and the community in arresting a fleeing felon.”

It is the second time Terrell has been acquitted in a case connected to the 2-year old attack on the Black man. Last year, he was acquitted by an all white jury on federal civil rights charges. The other four deputies pleaded guilty and were sentenced to around a year in jail. In the previous case, of the 75 potential jurors, only two were black, both were male. The two lawyers said one of the men, they later learned, was excused because he had received information that his brother had a serious health crisis and the court decided to exclude him due to extreme hardship. They said they felt the court was proper in leaving him out. The second man was excluded by the two of them because his wife is an attorney who litigated cases against the government, and also because he was friendly with corrections officers. Holloman said leaving that juror out had nothing to do with race and that he and McCallum were extremely disappointed they did not have any African-American juror who would hear the case. [lol] 

The racial make up of the jury in the present case has been kept a secret by the mainstream media. 

Click to read more ...

Friday
Feb102017

Suit Says Race Soldier Chicago Cops Attempted to Murder Black Man After Unlawful Traffic Stop – IPRA Ruled Shooting Unjustified

From [HERE] A Black man has filed a federal lawsuit against the city, and five Chicago police officers, accusing the officers of using excessive force when they shot him during an unlawful traffic stop two years ago. During the traffic stop he called 911.

The Independent Police Review Authority ruled the shooting of Antwon Golatte on Feb. 7, 2015, was unjustified, but his lawsuit accuses the city of dragging its feet on disciplining the officers until December 2016, nearly two years later.

The officers claimed Golatte tried to run them down after he was pulled over in the 300 block of West 115th Street, but the bullet holes in his car were all in the rear, and Golatte was acquitted of aggravated assault charges. The officers allegations were found to be baseless

On February 7, 2015, Golatte said he was out running errands traveling in his vehicle near 310 West 115th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60628 when Police Officers Jaime Gaeta and Harry Matheos notified Defendant Police Officers Matt Dercola and James Whigham by mobile phone, to conduct a traffic stop on Plaintiff.

Police Officers Jaime Gaeta and Harry Matheos arrived at the scene minutes later and the Officers without probable cause, or any other lawful basis seized Plaintiff for an excessive period. Golatte recognized Defendants Gaeta, Matheos, Dercola, from February 5, 2015, when they unconstitutionally searched and seized him by dumping his pizza onto the ground, made him stand barefoot in the snow, placed him in handcuffs, and searched his vehicle without his consent or a lawful basis.

“Then when I see their faces, I knew who they was. Fear came automatically,” he said.

On February 7, 2015, Golatte, fearful for his safety, called 911. As a result, Officers began yelling, using profanity, threatening violence, and pointed their firearms at him. Golatte lowered his driver’s side window in an attempt to communicate with Officers, to no avail.

Officer Gaeta then stood on the running board his car, grabbed the inside of his driver side window, pulled, and shattered the glass. was completely unarmed, had not committed any crime, and posed absolutely no threat to the Officers, or anyone else.

Nevertheless, Officers Gaeta and Matheos shot at Golatte at least five (5) times, injuring him. Three of the bullets entered Plaintiff’s side and pierced his stomach and rib cage, barely missing his lungs. To this day, bullet fragments remain trapped in Plaintiff’s body near his vital organs.

Golatte was transported to Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois after being shot, where he underwent lifesaving surgery.

Golatte, who had done absolutely nothing wrong, was neither arrested nor charged with a crime between February 7-10, 2015.

While in Christ Hospital, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) against Defendants and on July 14, 2016, IPRA found that “Officer Gaeta’s and Matheos’ use of deadly force was therefore objectively unreasonable and a violation of policy.” 

After realizing the severity of Plaintiff’s injuries, the cops each conspired to cover up the unconstitutional use of excessive force by Defendants Gaeta and Matheos. In this manner, Defendants, acting in concert with each other, conspired and acted together to cover up and prevent disclosure of the misconduct alleged above by engaging in the following non-exhaustive conduct: completing false, misleading and incomplete official reports; giving of false statements regarding the circumstances of their detention of Plaintiff; providing false testimony at trial; and inventing false claims to justify the use of excessive force.

To protect their fellow officer, and pursuant to a code of silence, each officer initiated and/or continued the false and malicious prosecution of Plaintiff although they knew they lacked probable cause.

According to the lawsuit the cops sole purpose in causing and continuing the false charges against Golatte was malicious in that it was done to cover up their wrongdoing. He was arrested and later incarcerated at the Cook County Jail, from February 14, 2015 until April 1, 2015.

 

Click to read more ...

Friday
Feb102017

Cleveland Settles Suit for $2.25 Million: White Cops Crushed Mentally ill Black Woman to Death, Left Her in the Street & Refused Medical

From [HERE] The family of a mentally ill Black woman who died during an encounter with white Cleveland police officers in November 2014 has settled its lawsuit with the city for $2.25 million, according to a news release from the family's attorneys.

Tanisha Anderson, 37, died on the pavement outside of a police cruiser with her hands cuffed behind her back. The settlement ends more than two years of litigation.

Anderson family attorney David Malik said in an interview that while negotiations during mediation with a federal judge failed, the city and family negotiated separately and reached an agreement last week. 

The settlement is one of the largest the city has ever agreed to pay in a case involving allegations of police misconduct. Officers Scott Aldridge and Bryan Myers remain under criminal investigation for Anderson's death. A Cuyahoga County Probate Court judge must approve the settlement before it is final.

On 13 November, a cold night in Cleveland, her younger sister Jennifer said Tanisha was having one of her "bad days". Anderson suffered from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and was suffering from a breakdown. Wearing only in a nightgown, with no shoes on, Tanisha was disoriented and kept trying to leave the house. Joell Anderson was the one who made the first 911 call. He wanted her taken to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. 

Two sets of police officers arrived instead of an ambulance. Anderson seemed calmer for a time, but then the family called again. The second set of cops, they claim, were ruder and more brusque. They were Detective Scott Aldridge, a seven-year veteran of the force, and his partner Brian Meyers. They told the family to stay in the house and walked Anderson to their patrol car.

She died after Aldridge and Myers cuffed her hands behind her back and placed her in the back of a police car following a struggle. On the night Anderson died, the Cleveland police department released a statement claiming the officers had handcuffed her because she was resisting them. They said that once in the car, she began kicking them.

"A short time later," the statement continued, "the woman stopped struggling and appeared to go limp."

That version of the story does not appear to account for the prone position, nor for the multiple abrasions and contusions the coroner found on Tanisha's body, nor for her fractured sternum.

The family says in its civil lawsuit against the city and the officers that they watched and listened from the house as Tanisha, who was afraid of confined spaces, cried out for her mother and brother. They heard her recite the Lord's Prayer.

Then after Anderson got out of the car, the family explained, the senior of the two officers, Detective Aldridge, "slammed her to the sidewalk and pushed her face into the pavement. He placed his knee onto her back, placed his weight on her and placed Tanisha in handcuffs."

The family says that Aldridge's partner, Brian Meyers, helped him hold her down.

After she stopped moving, the family claims, the police did not call an ambulance for some time and left Anderson’s half-naked body exposed to the public (with her nightgown hiked up around her hips), didn’t provide her with medical care and told her family that she was “sleeping.”

In its reply to the lawsuit, the city concedes only that emergency medical services were not called until 45 minutes after the officers arrived, and that Anderson was handcuffed when the paramedics got there.

The Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office ruled Anderson's death a homicide-"sudden death in association with physical restraint in a prone position in association with ischemic heart disease and bipolar disorder with agitation". She asphyxiated while being restrained in a prone position. Obesity and other health factors also contributed to her death, the office said.

An expert hired by the Anderson family said in a report released in July that Aldridge and Myers acted "contrary to generally accepted police practices" and that their actions were "unreasonable and excessive for the circumstances."

The expert, former Deputy Los Angeles Police Chief Lou Reiter, said both officers also failed to provide adequate medical care to Anderson.

Aldridge and Myers have been the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. One of the two officers was involved in a 2012 police chase of a Black couple through the streets of Cleveland that ended fatally in a hail of 137 bullets into the couple's car. The cops claim they couple fired a gun at police but no gun was ever found or seen. Must have been the muffler. 

The case is now in the hands of the Ohio Attorney General's Office. The family has expressed frustration that the criminal investigation has dragged on for more than two years.

Click to read more ...

Friday
Feb102017

Suit Says White Cops in Lima, Ohio Tasered a Pregnant Black Woman in the stomach after Unlawful Seizure & False Arrest

From [HERE] White police officers in Lima, Ohio, shocked a black woman in the stomach with a stun gun after she repeatedly told them she was pregnant and then arrested her to cover up the incident, she claims in a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday.

Brittany Osberry was forcefully arrested by Lima police officers on Aug. 10, 2016, while trying to pick up her friend’s children from a house that was under police surveillance, according to her complaint filed in Toledo federal court.

Osberry sued Lima Police Chief Kevin Martin and three Lima police officers – Zane Slusher, Aaron Montgomery and Mark Frysinger – for claims of civil rights violations, excessive force, assault and failure to train.

According to incident reports from the Lima Police Department, several Lima police officers had set up a perimeter around the house prior to Osberry’s arrival because they believed a suspect in a drive-by shooting was barricaded inside.

When Osberry pulled her vehicle into the property’s driveway, Frysinger allegedly approached her with his gun drawn and ordered her to leave.

She says she asked why she had to leave and told the officers that she was there to pick up the children, at which point Frysinger forcefully removed her from her vehicle, slammed her against the side of the car and placed her under arrest.

Osberry repeatedly told the officers she was pregnant as Frysinger and Montgomery physically restrained her, the complaint states.

Slusher then approached the vehicle and shocked Osberry in the stomach with his stun gun despite her warnings about the pregnancy, according to the lawsuit, causing her severe physical and emotional injuries.

The officers then allegedly denied Osberry medical treatment and charged her with resisting arrest, obstructing official business and disorderly conduct.

“Plaintiff was wrongfully detained, at the direction and training of defendant Martin, to cover up the abuse and intentional and/or reckless assault and harm caused by the other defendants,” the complaint states. “Plaintiff was further denied medical treatment for her tasing, in the stomach, and medical treatment for her in utero child, by defendant Martin.”

Click to read more ...

Friday
Feb102017

Fed Court May Grant Immunity to Plainclothes [White] Border Patrol Cops Who Burned Latino Man To Death After Chase in Unmarked Car

From [HERE] The Ninth Circuit indicated Wednesday that though it may grant qualified immunity to four white San Diego Border Patrol agents who Tasered and "accidentally" killed a Latino motorist when his car caught fire, it could hold the federal government accountable for his death.

Two of the three judges on the panel asked whether tort claims against the United States brought by the parents of Alex Martin, the 24-year-old man who was killed, would remain intact if qualified immunity were granted to the agents.

“It appears to me that there is at least a triable question of fact as to whether the amount of force used was excessive,” Ninth Circuit Judge Susan Graber said. “If qualified immunity is nonetheless available because of a lack of clearly established law, what survives of the tort claims? Would that leave the assault and battery claim in place?”

The family’s attorney Gene Iredale said Martin had been driving for 22 hours on his way back from Texas when he got lost in Pine Valley, California, in March 2012. Border Patrol agents tried to pull him over for driving the wrong way on Interstate 8. However, the pursuing agents were all in plain clothes and unmarked cars, so Martin did not stop. For about three minutes, Martin led the agents on a high-speed pursuit that ended when he drove over spike strips that deflated his tires.

Martin, who had pulled over on the side of the road, had no way of knowing the men approaching him were law enforcement, Iredale claims.

“These agents approached in unmarked cars, in plain clothes and never identified themselves by the display of badges or even the simple statement ‘Border Patrol,’” the attorney said.

Martin’s family claims the agents pointed guns at him and failed to identify themselves as officers.

Martin, believing they were thieves, sped away, eventually blasting through the Highway 80 Border Patrol checkpoint, where he swerved off the road to evade spike strips another agent had placed on the road to stop him, and drove off a second time.

The chase is described in the family’s brief to the Ninth Circuit, and in the government’s answering brief.

When the agents finally forced him to stop, the cops claimed Martin reached for something near the center console of his car. Believing Martin was reaching for a weapon, one of the agents broke a window and Tasered him. No gun was found. 

The Taser touched off gasoline that had spilled from a canister inside the car and the car exploded, burning Martin to death.

In the video, a plainclothes agent is seen using a flashlight to break the passenger side window. He then raises up his Taser and shoots inside. Immediately, an explosion rocks the car, throwing the agent against the hillside behind him.

Martin burned to death. The video shows that instead of trying to save him, all of the agents pulled their vehicles away from the scene.

“All three of those cars had large fire extinguishers in them and standard equipment,” Iredale said. “Not one of these agents ever even tried to spray any of the fire extinguisher solution on that car.” [MORE]

Martin’s parents said their son was so badly burned his skin was charred black and the underlying tissue and bone exposed.

The Martins sued in June 2013, alleging excessive force, assault and battery, wrongful death and Bivens civil rights claims against the agents, and negligence, wrongful death, assault and battery and excessive force against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Click to read more ...

Friday
Feb102017

[Fear Creates a Need for Security] Racist Trump To Create New [Non-white] Immigrant Jails & Turn Local Cops into de facto deportation forces

From [The Intercept] ON JANUARY 25, Donald Trump signed two executive orders calling for a series of dramatic new measures aimed at hardening the country’s domestic immigration enforcement apparatus. Despite their grave implications for millions of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., the measures were largely overshadowed by a particularly high-profile component of the directives — the construction of a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico — and receded further into the background two days later, when Trump signed another order banning travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

As the world’s attention was occupied with the chaotic implementation of the travel ban and its dramatic domestic and international impacts, the Trump administration and the Department of Homeland Security has quietly moved forward with elements of the earlier executive orders, according to internal communications obtained by The Intercept.

Trumps orders on border security and public safety in the interior of the U.S. resurrect some of the most controversial immigration enforcement programs of recent years, seek to deputize state and local law enforcement as immigration officials across the country, and threaten major cuts to federal funding for cities that fail to fall in line with the administration’s vision.

In order to address the massive strain those efforts would place on the nation’s already overburdened immigration system, Trump has called for the construction of new immigrant detention facilities along the U.S. border with Mexico — including through private contracts — as quickly as possible. Trump has also directed DHS to “allocate all legally available resources to immediately assign asylum officers to immigration detention facilities” for the purpose of conducting so-called credible fear hearings for asylum seekers. According to internal DHS communications obtained by The Intercept, this latter step is already underway.

In an email sent to personnel on Monday, Kathy Valerin, chief of staff at the Arlington Asylum Office for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, put out a call for asylum officer volunteers to conduct screening interviews at two for-profit immigrant detention facilities in Arizona as part of an ongoing effort to support the president’s orders beginning this week.

“In response to the recent Executive Orders, asylum offices have been instructed to immediately begin sending employees to conduct in-person CF and RF interviews [at] several detention facilities,” Valerin wrote, referring to “credible fear” and “reasonable fear” interviews, which are legally required in asylum cases, depending on the status of the individual. Specifically, Valerin added, USCIS was looking for volunteers to take up posts at private immigrant detention centers in Eloy and Florence, Arizona, “for two-week minimum increments through mid-March.”

Click to read more ...

Friday
Feb102017

Judge Rules NYPD Must Turn Over Info On Black Lives Matter Surveillance

From [HERE] A state judge has ruled that the NYPD cannot keep secret information related to surveillance operations it carried out several years ago on Black Lives Matter protests at Grand Central Terminal, a victory for civil libertarians who had claimed the NYPD was ignoring state freedom of information rules.

The suit, brought by protester James Logue, had sought to compel the NYPD to release information on video and audio recordings collected at protests from the fall of 2014 through January 2015. Logue had originally filed a Freedom of Information Law request for the data, but the NYPD rejected the request, claiming that it needed to keep the information proprietary to protect law enforcement strategies.

Logue was in attendance at a BLM protest at Grand Central in November 2014 when he noticed uniformed and plainclothes police officers recording the proceedings. Believing these actions infringed upon protesters' First Amendment rights, he filed his FOIL request.

The NYPD had said that releasing information about surveillance would reveal information about counter-terrorism activities, particularly related to potential activities by ISIS, but the presiding judge, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Manuel Mendez, ruled that the department's claims failed "to provide a causal connection to the protesters and are insufficient to state a generic risk." He also noted that redaction could mitigate any legitimate departmental concerns about sensitive operations.

David Thompson, Logue's attorney, told the Daily News that the NYPD frequently ignores transparency laws. "Their practice is to simply deny all the requests," he said.

Click to read more ...

Friday
Feb102017

Missouri Gov signs right to work bill [gives employees the right to be free riders—to benefit from collective bargaining w/o paying for it] 

From [HERE] Missouri Governor Eric Greitens signed a bill [text] into law on Monday, making Missouri the most recent right to work state. The law, which will go into effect August 28, prevents employers from requiring union membership or dues to support a union as a condition of employment, making it a misdemeanor to do so. Missouri will become the twenty-eighth state to have right to work legislation when the law goes into effect. Greitens signed the bill just weeks into his first term. Former governor Jay Nixon vetoed [St. Louis Post-Dispatch report] such a bill in 2015.

The Missouri branch of the labor union the AFL-CIO issued vowed to fight the measure, filing a referendum [Kansas City Star report] to overturn it. Right to work laws have become more prevalent across the country in recent years. Earlier this month the Kentucky House of Representatives advanced a bill [JURIST report] that would allow workers to avoid paying dues at union workplaces. The West Virginia legislature passed the WV Workplace Freedom Act in February 2016 [JURIST report], overruling a veto by the Democratic Governor Earl Ray Tomblin the day before. West Virginia became the twenty-sixth state in the country with a right to work law. In May the Wisconsin Court of Appeals stayed [JURIST report] a lower court's decision striking down Wisconsin's "right to work" law, thus reinstating it at least for the time being.

While it is an effective political slogan, the phrase "right-to-work" is a misnomer because the lack of such a law does not deprive anyone of the right to work; a right-to-work law simply "gives employees the right to be free riders—to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it". Under labor laws in the United States, the union as the exclusive collective bargaining agent has a duty of fair representation for all persons in the bargaining unit, including those who choose not to be members and pay dues. Thus, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court of the United States permitted agency fees so that employees in the public sector could be required to pay for the costs of representation, even as they opted not to be a member. The right to challenge the fees must include the right to have it heard by an impartial fact finder.

Freedom of contract and association

Opponents argue that right-to-work laws restrict freedom of association, and limit the sorts of agreements individuals acting collectively can make with their employer, by prohibiting workers and employers from agreeing to contracts that include "fair share fees". This creates a free rider problem among non-union employees who find the union contract beneficial. Thus, union members may end up subsidizing non-union members. Moreover, American law imposes a duty of fair representation on unions; consequently non-members in right to work states can and do force unions to provide without compensation grievance services that are paid for by union members. Hence right-to-work laws are not neutral, but rather impose an active and artificial burden on labor unions.

In December 2012, libertarian writer J.D. Tuccille, in Reason magazine, wrote: "I consider the restrictions right-to-work laws impose on bargaining between unions and businesses to violate freedom of contract and association. ... I'm disappointed that the state has, once again, inserted itself into the marketplace to place its thumb on the scale in the never-ending game of playing business and labor off against one another. ... This is not to say that unions are always good. It means that, when the state isn't involved, they're private organizations that can offer value to their members."

In the early development of the Right to Work policy segregationist sentiment was used as an argument, as many people in the south felt that it was wrong for Blacks and Whites to belong to the same unions. Vance Muse, one of the early developers of the Right to Work philosophy in Texas used this type of argument in the development of anti-union laws in Texas in the 1940s. [MORE]

Friday
Feb102017

Studies Show TSA Airport Profiling Program is Based on Delusional Nonsense [aka racism/white supremacy]

From [gizmodo] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a damning report today that shows how the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), better known as your airport’s security force, created and then expanded a program meant to spot suspected terrorists based on deceptive behavior, even though it relied on unscientific data and ultimately led to racial profiling and harassment in airports nationwide.

The TSA program in question—called behavior detection program—started in 2007 under the name SPOT, or Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques. It originally required special “behavior detection officers” to roam airports in uniform or plain clothes, looking behavioral clues from people that may have an intent to harm others.

But the TSA has never produced empirical evidence in support of the programs, despite rapidly expanding it in the last few years, costing taxpayers a total of $1.5 billion between 2007 and 2015. When the TSA commissioned a 2011 study to validate its behavior detection techniques, an assessment from Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the study “did not demonstrate their effectiveness because of study limitations, including the use of unreliable data.”

The GOA recommended in 2014 that future funding for the TSA’s behavior detection programs be stopped, citing “400 studies from the past 60 years” that found “the human ability to accurately identify deceptive behavior based on behavioral indicators is the same as or slightly better than chance.”

It’s not the only agency fighting the behavioral detection program, either. Government watchdogs, members of Congress, and the ACLU have vehemently fought against the program, claiming it lacks grounding in science. In an effort to prove this theory, the ACLU filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in June 2015 and published a report today based on the 13,000 pages of TSA documents it obtained through the lawsuit.

The new TSA documents reveal that the agency relied on academic studies to justify the program that according to the ACLU “broadly reject” the notion of identifying criminals based on the way they look and behave. The documents obtained through the ACLU’s lawsuit include several details that have not previously been public. The new revelations include TSA files filled with academic research that undermine the validity of behavioral detection program.

Click to read more ...

Friday
Feb102017

Trump Homeboy Security says [Non-White] US visitors may have to reveal social media passwords to enter country [this prison] 

From [HERE] US Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has informed Congress that the DHS is considering requiring refugees and visa applicants from seven Muslim-majority nations to hand over their social media credentials from Facebook and other sites as part of a security check. "We want to get on their social media, with passwords: What do you do, what do you say?" he told the House Committee on Homeland Security on Tuesday. "If they don't want to cooperate, then you don't come in."

Kelly was referencing Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen, citizens of which were barred from entering the US by President Trump's executive order. That order, however, remains in legal limbo after a federal judge blocked its enforcement. The Trump administration urged a federal appeals court on Tuesday to overturn the lower court's ruling. 

Kelly told the House panel that the idea was among "the things we're thinking about" to bolster border security. Another form of vetting under consideration, he said, is demanding financial records. "We can follow the money, so to speak. How are you living, who's sending you money?" he said. "It applies under certain circumstances, to individuals who may be involved in on the payroll of terrorist organizations." [MORE]

Friday
Feb102017

Seattle Divests $3 Billion from Wells Fargo over Dakota Access Pipeline

From [HERE] On Tuesday, word came from Washington, D.C. that the Trump administration would be issuing the final easement needed to complete the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. The announcement was a deep blow to the Standing Rock Sioux. The tribe has been protesting the pipeline for months, along with environmentalists and social justice activists from around the world. Their resistance culminated in President Barack Obama’s decision to halt the project in December — a hard-fought victory seemingly wiped away in a matter of weeks.

But hours later, across the country, something different happened in Washington state. On a chilly afternoon, cheers and chants of “Mni Wiconi,” or “Water is Life,” erupted outside Seattle City Hall as news broke that the city council had unanimously voted to sever ties with Wells Fargo over the bank’s funding of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

In deciding not to renew its contract with Wells Fargo when it expires in 2018 — effectively removing some $3 billion in city funds from the bank — Seattle became the first major city in the country to sever ties with the bank over its relationship to the pipeline.

Click to read more ...

Friday
Feb102017

20 Years in Jail b/c White Prosecutors Withheld Favorable Evidence: Murder Charges Dropped Against "East Cleveland 3"

From [HERE] and [HERE] The "East Cleveland Three," cleared in August in the 1995 murder of Clifton Hudson after spending nearly 20 years in prison, had a hearing Monday.

A judge ruled in May of 2016 that Eugene Johnson, Derrick Wheatt and Laurese Glover should have a new trial after a key witness became unsure of her identification of the men. A motion was filed in June to dismiss all charges. The judge granted the motion. 

At the hearing, prosecutors said that they will not dismiss the case without prejudice, which means that, if new evidence is found, the men can be tried again. The attorney for the three men is asking the prosecutor's office for expungement, but that will be ruled on at a later date.

The Black men, known as the "East Cleveland Three," were convicted in 1996 for the shooting of Clifton Hudson in East Cleveland.

Attorneys at the Ohio Innocence Project had discovered a trove of exculpatory evidence that had never been disclosed to the original defense counsel.  The judge in the case called the Brady violation “deliberate and malicious.”  It involved a notorious former chief prosecutor writing a letter to the East Cleveland police ordering them not to hand over evidence, including eyewitness statements that contradicted the state’s case.

In February of 1995, nineteen year-old Clifton Hudson was shot and killed on a street in East Cleveland.  In its case against Glover, Wheatt, and Johnson, the state produced one eyewitness, fifteen year-old Tamika Harris, who testified that she had seen Johnson shoot Hudson and then get into a van with two other black men in it.  In addition, they called two experts to testify on “gun residue” evidence obtained through an “Atomic Absorption Kit” (a now widely discredited forensic method).

The defense put on two eyewitnesses of their own.  Both testified that they had seen the shooter, and that he was taller than Johnson, and lighter skinned.  Assistant Prosecutor Michael Horn urged the jury to ignore these witnesses.  Further, in order to explain why the “gun residue” was found on Wheatt, despite the state’s eyewitness identifying Johnson as the shooter, Horn urged the jury to believe his “two shooter” theory, in which Wheatt had fired, missed, and then handed the gun to Johnson, who he claimed must have been wearing gloves found in the vehicle.  The jury took his urging and convicted all three men of murder.

By fits and starts, the case has been unraveling ever since.  Most pointedly, in 2004, Tamika Harris recanted her identification of Johnson, saying she had never seen the man’s face, only his clothing, and that her testimony to the contrary had been weighing on her conscience.  Based on her affidavit, a trial court granted Johnson a new trial.  The grant, however, was overturned by a state appellate court, which held, first, that Johnson had failed to appeal within 120 days of learning of Harris’ recantation, and second, that her changed testimony wouldn’t have made a difference to the outcome of the trial because she had been cross-examined on what she did and didn’t see.

“Vindictive, Unprofessional, and Outrageous”

The recantation of the lead witness being insufficient to warrant a new trial, the case eventually wound up at the Ohio Innocence Project, which reviewed the history of the post-conviction proceedings.  Back in 1998, the defendants had sought, through a public records request, to obtain the original investigative files of the East Cleveland Police.  We now know that those files contained the following:

  • Evidence that the victim, Clifton Hudson, had been threatened with deadly force the week before he was killed, and that his brother had been shot at, both by men other than the defendants.
  • Statements by two previously undisclosed eyewitnesses, the Petty brothers, who had unobstructed views of the shooting, and said the shots had come from a different direction than the state asserted.
  • A statement by Dante Petty that he personally knew the shooter he saw commit the murder, and that he was not one of the three defendants.

The First Assistant Prosecutor in Cuyahoga County at the time (later to become the Chief Prosecutor), was Carmen Marino (more on him in a minute).  In response to the defendants request for these files, Marino sent a letter to the East Cleveland Police:

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Feb052017

Targeting People by Appearance & Demanding ID: Trump's Immigration Order to Use Police State Tactics to Round Up & Detain Non-Whites

In Nazi Germany How Could Cops Tell Who Was Jewish & Who Was Not? During Nazi Gernamy Jews were identified by the outward marking of persons - as Jews six years or older could only appear in public when wearing the Jewish star on their clothing. [Identification papers are an importatnt part of any police state system as are restrictions on people's freedom of movement.] In a system of racism/white supremacy there is no need for any such star or outward marking because your skin color makes you their target.

How Will Cops Know Who is Undocumented & Who is Not? From [LA Times] and [HERE] When President Trump ordered a vast overhaul of immigration law enforcement during his first week in office, he stripped away most restrictions on who should be deported, opening the door for roundups and detentions on a scale not seen in nearly a decade.

Up to 8 million people in the country illegally could be considered priorities for deportation, according to calculations by the Los Angeles Times. They were based on interviews with experts who studied the order and two internal documents that signal immigration officials are taking an expansive view of Trump’s directive.

Far from targeting only “bad hombres,” as Trump has said repeatedly, his new order allows immigration agents to detain nearly anyone they come in contact with who has crossed the border illegally. People could be booked into custody for using food stamps or if their child receives free school lunches.

The deportation targets are a much larger group than those swept up in the travel bans that sowed chaos at airports and seized public attention over the past week. Fewer than 1 million people came to the U.S. over the past decade from the seven countries from which most visitors are temporarily blocked. 

Deportations of this scale, which has not been publicly totaled before, could have widely felt consequences: Families would be separated. Businesses catering to immigrant customers may be shuttered. Crops could be left to rot, unpicked, as agricultural and other industries that rely on immigrant workforces face labor shortages. U.S. relations could be strained with countries that stand to receive an influx of deported people, particularly in Latin America. Even the Social Security system, which many immigrants working illegally pay into under fake identification numbers, would take a hit.

The new instructions represent a wide expansion of President Obama’s focus on deporting only recent arrivals, repeat immigration violators and people with multiple criminal violations. Under the Obama administration, only about 1.4 million people were considered priorities for removal.

“We are going back to enforcement chaos — they are going to give lip service to going after criminals, but they really are going to round up everybody they can get their hands on,” said David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. and an immigration lawyer for more than two decades.

Trump's orders instruct officers to deport not only those convicted of crimes, but also those who aren’t charged but are believed to have committed "acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense."

That category applies to the 6 million people believed to have entered the U.S. without passing through an official border crossing. The rest of the 11.1 million people in the country illegally, according to a study by the Pew Research Center, are believed to have entered on a valid visa and stayed past its expiration date.

Also among those 11.1 million are about 8 million jobholders, Pew found. The vast majority have worked in violation of the law by stating on federal employment forms that they were legally allowed to work. Trump’s order calls for targeting anyone who lied on the forms.

Trump’s deportation priorities also include smaller groups whose totals remain elusive: people in the country illegally who are charged with crimes that have not yet been adjudicated and those who receive an improper welfare benefit, used a fake identity card, were found driving without a license or received federal food assistance.

An additional executive order under consideration would block entry to anyone the U.S. believes may use benefit programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, according two Trump administration officials who have seen the draft order.             

The changes reflect an effort to deter illegal migration by increasing the threat of deportation and cutting off access to social services and work opportunities, an approach that 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney called “self-deportation.” 

Click to read more ...