Government Probots Insist Non-White Kids are Not Kept in Cages but "Child Actors" are Held in Metal-wired, Chain-link Fenced Areas on the Grounds of a Secured Facility Under Armed Guard & Surveillance

From [HERE] and [HERE] Inside an old warehouse in south Texas, hundreds of children wait away from their parents in a series of cages created by metal fencing.

One cage had 20 children inside. Scattered about are bottles of water, bags of chips and large foil sheets intended to serve as blankets.

One teenager told an advocate who visited she was helping care for a young child she didn’t know because the child’s aunt was somewhere else in the facility. She said she had to show others in her cell how to change the girl’s diaper.

Whistleblower exposes the no-hugging policy amongst child siblings @ Family Destruction Center in Arizona. 

On Sunday, the US border patrol allowed reporters to briefly visit the facility where it holds families arrested at the southern border, responding to new criticism and protests over the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy and resulting separation of families.

More than 1,100 people were inside the large, dark facility that was divided into separate wings for unaccompanied children, adults on their own and mothers and fathers with children. The cages in each wing open into common areas, to use portable restrooms. The overhead lighting stays on around the clock.

Reporters were not allowed by agents to interview any of the detainees or take photos.

Nearly 2,000 children have been taken from their parents since the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, announced the policy, which directs homeland security officials to refer all cases of illegal entry into the US for prosecution. [MORE

In the first place are they really "children?" Racist Anne Coulter says they are paid actors playing the victim role to sway master Trump in order to get his permission to enter the country. Also are these cages? It depends on which racist suspects you ask.

For example, the Associated Press reported over the weekend: “Inside an old warehouse in South Texas, hundreds of children wait in a series of cages created by metal fencing. One cage had 20 children inside. Scattered about are bottles of water, bags of chips and large foil sheets intended to serve as blankets.”

The AP is an influential news source. Since most local outlets around the country can’t send reporters to the border, they end up relying on stories from the AP to deliver the news to their readers. In addition, the wire service studiously aims for impartiality in language and reporting, and outlets around the world often adopt the AP’s guidance on language and usage. For the AP to deem the enclosures “cages” means that language will spread.

Breitbart, the faithful servant of the Trump White House’s messaging line, is well aware of this. On Sunday, editor Joel B. Pollak wrote a post devoted to criticizing the AP’s word choice. “The AP’s choice of words is only the latest in what appears to be a series of politically-charged word choices by the wire service,” he said, and contrasted the AP dispatch with a story in the Los Angeles Times that described “chain-link fenced holding areas.” Of course, these descriptions are not mutually exclusive, and the Times’ description defines a cage. Yet Pollak insisted that the correct terminology is “chain-link partition.”

Before taking center stage on Sunday, this debate had been slowly building for weeks. Earlier this month, The Washington Post’s fact-checkers scolded Senator Jeff Merkley for saying children were kept in cages, only to earn a counter-rebuke from MSNBC reporter Jacob Soboroff, who tweeted, “I saw myself: there are kids, families and adults in cages, cells, kennels—whatever you call them. No question.”

The increasingly ontological cast of the debate continued Monday morning. Steve Doocy of Fox and Friends, the president’s favorite show, echoed Pollak’s line, saying that children weren’t being held in cages, but that authorities had “built walls out of chain-link fences.” Meanwhile, CBS News’s Gayle King was reporting from the border, where she described “cages.” The Border Patrol, CBS reported, took issue with that description, not because they felt it was inaccurate, but because they were “very uncomfortable” with the implication that the children were being treated like animals. [MORE]. Trump has repeatedly referred to non-white immigrants as animals. See video below. 

What is "government?" [a trick bag] "an abstraction (hoax) created for the sole purpose of making theft respectable & mind-control acceptable" - FUNKTIONARY


Copyright 2016 Chocolate City Press 

Resonated & Orchestrated by Dr. Blynd, Ph.F.

"Government" - Latinized Greek ("Gubematlo" = control; and from the Latin "menre" = mind; "The control of the mind." 2) an abstraction (hoax) created for the sole purpose of making theft respectable and mind-control acceptable. 3) the societal manifestation of mass individual psychological reversal, i.e., the statutes, regulations, agencies, and agents (so-called bureaucrats) needed to threaten and shrink one's comfort zone. 4) a granfalloon. 5) a fiction supported by those who kill on command and steal on demand under the guise of "protecting" their victims.

The outworking of history consistently demonstrates that government will, in spite of the Bill of Rights, arrogate all power to itself eventually, if the people don't act to prevent it. You have rights alright, just don't get caught exercising them, O.K.? "Government" is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else.

Official "government" is disorganized, politicized; centralized; canonized and revered initiation of force, but it is no less initiation of force and coercion than any unofficial singular action of the same offensive or violent content.

"Government" is an abstract infinite entity acting as a possessive noun. There is not a single line in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any governmental document that states that a natural person will be left alone as long as she or he does not impose upon another or others.

By commission and omission, all official decrees make clear that a human is regarded as owned property or resource of the god called "Corporate State."

It is controlling the lives, energy and property of others that requires coercive force and this is its sole function.

Endorsing the lie of an imagined abstract collective interest supports the very concept that gives rise to all covert and overt oppression.

"The government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way. It does not keep the country free.

The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way." -Kirkpatrick Sale. The wayward notion that government redistributes wealth is widely held as sacrosanct as it is patently false. There are redistributes aspects, sure, but that's as close as it gets. "As long as government is allowed to exist, it will everywhere keep growing and getting worse.

Nearly everything that "governments" do (i.e., those with wholly symbolic roles "running" it, and who perform acts in its name) is grounded in fear.

Government will cease to exist when people cease to grant it legitimacy—in other words stop believing in it, stop looking to it for solutions to problems in their lives, and stop supporting it." -Fred Woolworth.

Government has failed at every attempt in 6,000 years of recorded history.

Government atrocities—carried out by irrational functionaries, economic hit men, soldiers, diplomats, emissaries, etc., under every possible flavor or form of government—have littered the bloody pages of recorded history. Government is the indisputable greatest purveyor of murder, mayhem, genocide, exploitation, rape, forced starvation, pillage and chaos in the annals of humanity.

Government does not need to be abolished; merely rendered obsolete through seeing it for what it truly is—a prime manufacturer of poverty, brutal oppression, violence, coercion, conformity and fear.

The monetary genius E.C. Riegel once wrote that petitioning to government is like writing to Santa Claus.

Government has created its own necessity by making people (its fictitious subject-citizens) fearful of the violence it creates by the effects of its very existence— in the form of violent criminals and external aggressors. "Government is men and women providing services on a compulsory basis; pay or get shot. To be legitimate they would have to drop their guns and provide their services on a voluntary basis. However, the moment they do so, they cease to be a government. That's quite the conundrum." -Marc Stevens.

Government is at the root of the cycle of violence—you run to it for protection and run from it out of fear for your life. The Slaughterhouse is to cattle as "government" is to people.

"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." -U.S. "President" Ronald 'McDonald' Reagan.

"The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this—that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot." - No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, Lysander Spooner.

Men and women calling themselves "government" violently impose themselves on victims labeled "citizens," and "ordain" scriptures called "laws" that define the way "government" sanctions business as a crime by providing services over the barrel of a gun.

What exactly is "government?" Have you ever seen a "government?" While there are varying degrees, "government" very simply is "one man violently controlling the life and property of another man." In some places this violent control is "decreed" to be for the latter's "own good" and "protection" and hailed as the "best system in the world." Because it's based on violence, there are no "states" or "nations," "states" being "voluntary associations."

You may recognize that violent control over a man's life and property is what we like to call—slavery. Slavery is a form of "government," and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with "government."

Govern means control, not protect. Have you ever noticed the word "protect" is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern? "govern." To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v. Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683." -Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.

Just as there are no legitimate governments (power, jurisdiction and control over), there is no political "money" or currency (token) that isn't counterfeit (by its very nature). With government ("stationary bandits"), the final assessment is always: "Pear for your life and pay tribute to the overrulers or else." For subjugated people, given the choice of losing your wealth or your life, most choose to sacrifice their wealth in the form of exactions, i.e., tribute-cum-taxation. Government everywhere fastens itself on the backs of its victims. Rulers sustain their predation at the reluctant and fearful consent of the victim (garnering faux legitimacy)—a direct vestige of the Divine rights of kings trickbag.

(See: Fear, Slavery, Conquest, Anarchy, Granfalloon, Political Money, Public Service, Jurisdiction. Subjugation, RICO, Violence, Standing, Statism, Oppression, Fascism, Citizens, Authority, State, Gangs, Stationary Bandits, U.S. citizen, Taxtortion, TIN-Man, States, Allegiance, SSN, Power, Authority, Hierarchy, Holodeck Court, Constitution, Taxation, Corporate State, Murder, Ecocide, Political Monetary Units, Taxtortion, Control & Citizenship)


Government - (as commonly misunderstood)—a communal exchange of autonomy for appearance of order (peace via coercion), expanded over time, with the option of exercising violence being reserved to those who define and provide an illusion of order through force and fear. 2) a coercive institution—dysfunctional force and veiled violence. 3) the compelled enforcement of involuntary society. The Corporate State)—a fictitious entity (mental aberration or abstraction) and thus a non-producer of wealth, but masquerading as the prime merchant. 4) human failure programs that stay (hold off) maximumissness and depend on the support, (stealing then redistributing wealth) of its subject-victims. 5) 'organized' coerced support of selected monopolized services. 6) licensed, sanctioned and legalized criminal activity. 7) a sticky residue on your shoe. The whole idea of government is this: If enough people get together and act in concert, they can take some and not pay for it.

Any government represents a crucial compromise with freedom and distortion of reality, and no reified abstraction (however crafted by crafty corporate cartoonists) can protect anyone from any and all danger. The feudal subject-King relationship is exactly the same as the federal citizen-Government relationship. "That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections that have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army in the U.S. is only an arm of the standing government put into action only after the economic hit men and "jackals" (wet-ops) return home unsuccessful in their missions to earn their booty off dirty intrigue commissions.

The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before people can act through it." -Henry David Thoreau (slightly adapted). Government was formed with one major and one minor purpose—the major purpose, being to protect the wealth of the wealthy; and the minor purpose being to prevent the non-wealthy from becoming wealthy and subjecting them to the dictates of statutes (written laws—not common law).

Government is itself an evil—an abstraction given artificial life for the ostensible purpose of preventing certain conditions from arising, these conditions being the product of injurious behavior (actual injury) on the part of other persons as well as autonomous freedom (ownership of one's body, mind and labor) of those subjugated to force, exploitation, jurisdiction and control.

Government is that group of people who hold the generally tolerated monopoly on acceptable violence.

"It is a function of government to invent philosophies [and sophistries] to explain the demands of its own convenience." -Murray Kempson.

Until people wake-the-spell up to a higher level of individual and collective consciousness, government so-called will remain an unnecessary, yet banefully suffered evil to battle the evil that itself breeds as a matter of course.

The creation and imposition of government is the compelled pressure to conform to what is common, established, unoriginal, unacceptable, and ultimately inimical to all, whether reinforced by law, lethal force or acculturation.

Throughout history many intelligent thinkers all around the world have tried to contemplate or design some way to have "government" and freedom too. Failing miserably and repeatedly to find one either in practice or in theory, it is time for intelligent human beings to give way to beings of higher consciousness using sagacity and sapience to finally realize that:. 1) "government" itself is a deadly mental contrivance and immanent threat to their freedom; 2) there is no way to prevent "government" from constantly increasing its power and eroding freedom; 3) "government" itself being a reification (deadly cartoon) will vanish when the illusion on which it rests dissipates.

This goes for all brands and flavors of "government" across the ideological spectrum.

Violence (against statists) makes government appear government legitimate. Non-violence and non-cooperation exposes government for what it is: a gang of killers, thieves and liars. Governments do not protect the people they subjugate and control; on the contrary, they control, kill, maim spray from the skies, lie, steal, harass, wrongfully imprison, torture and spy on them.

It is high time for the nature of "government" itself (not any particular brand on the violence spectrum) to be fully and plainly overstood and be regarded as an enemy—for it is truly our enemy. Freedom is the enemy of the State and our enemy is the State.

Government is deadly force deified and reified then superimposed (falsified) on non-consenting, clueless and passively willing duped-victims alike.

"The concept of some people telling other people what to do results in corruption of a fundamental kind the instant it is enacted into reality. All officials of government are corrupt because they draw their pay from people who are forced under dire threats to pay them." -Fred Woolworth.

The "agents" of "government" have in mind for you what you have in mind of it.

I find it odd that people trust the "government" when the "government" doesn't even trust them. How does it feel to get "felt-up" in a "pat-down" while opting out of the pervert's dream full electronic undressing body scan at airports?

The only true government is self-government.

"There's no government like no government."

Grow up and let Freedom Reign like it never has before in the history of the world. But until then, we get the government we deserve—New World Order—same old lies.

"This monstrous lumbering murder machine known as the government has become a self-service operation. It services itself. The people representing you are representing themselves or the vampires who own them.

Your government is not just inefficient, venal and a crack whore for the corporations. Your government is dangerous and out to get you. These people aren't fooling around and we shouldn't be either." -Les Visible.

"Government is always the most successful gangster." -Alan Watts, (cognitive dissident Anglican Priest).

"I am 44 years old and have never known any government but fascism and take it as a matter of course that they are out to get me. That is their job." -Don Smith, (cognitive dissident freedom activist) R.I.P.

(See: Violence, Voluntiered Slavery, Holodeck Court, Pathocracy, Technique, Self-Government, Cooperative Federalism Slavery, Taxation, Labor. "Money," Anarchy. Privilege, Eugenics, Force Continuum, Capital Punishment, "Wet Jobs," Corporate State, Nation-State, Granfalloon, Soldier, Citizen, Human Resources, Screwed, Constitutional Protections. Backside Economics, Territorial Gangsters, Property, Liberty, Freedom WHO, Merchant, Tort-Feasor, Bureaucrat, Taxtortion. Exaction, Conformity, Voting, Rights, Declaration of Independence, Private Services, Elections, Declaration of Interdependence & U.S. Constitution)

After Warriors Game White SF Cop Stopped a Group of Latino Men For Possessing Alcohol in Public Without the Permission of Puppetcians, Shot a Fleeing Man in the Back 5X & Started a Small Riot

sf cops kill.jpg

"YEAH NO ONE IS GOING ANYWHERE." From [FTP] An incident that began over an open alcohol container ended with one man in the hospital with two bullet holes in his back, a riot nearly kicking off, and a San Francisco cop under investigation.

Over the weekend, as revelers filled the area for the last game of the NBA finals, a police officer spotted a group with open containers of alcohol and targeted them for arrest or extortion. Not wanting to be arrested or extorted for drinking a can of beer in public, a man in the group, identified as 28-year-old Oliver Barcenas took off running.

A brief foot chase ensued and during the chase, Barcenas was alleged to have taken out a .45 caliber pistol with an extended magazine. Even though video shows Barcenas was still running away when he allegedly pulled out the weapon, the officer in pursuit opened fire, shooting him in the back—twice—causing him to immediately fall to the ground.

“He had a firearm,” an officer can be heard saying. “He had like a Tec-9… Dude back people up. There’s a gun around here.” Police say they found a .45 caliber pistol near the scene.

When bystanders saw what happened, all hell broke loose. Immediately after the shooting, an angry crowd began to gather around Barcenas who lay bleeding on the ground. They were recording with their cellphones whilst threatening and yelling at the officer.

The officer repeatedly told the bystanders to back up but none of them listened. In fact, one bystander took a break from filming to reach down and see if Barcenas had a pulse.

“What did you do! F— you!” the enraged group shouts at the officer.

Luckily, for the officer, just as it appears that he’s going to be overtaken by the crowd, his fellow cops show up to push them back—but not without resistance.

As the cops arrive, multiple people refuse to leave and even push back at officers. However, once the police officers outnumbered the citizens, they were cleared.

In the body camera video released by police this week, we do not see Barcenas point the weapon in the direction of the officer. According to SF Gate, the San Francisco Police Department’s General Order on use of force states that officers may use deadly force only “as a last resort when reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or are not feasible to protect the safety of the public and police officers.”

Judging from what we see in the video, that did not appear to be the case.

“Those videos do not look good,” Supervisor Aaron Peskin said after police played the videos at town hall meeting. “I did not see the part where he takes the jacket off. I did not see the part where anyone is swinging around with a gun.”

Natalie April, 24, said she works with Barcenas at Farmgirl Flowers in Potrero Hill. “As far as co-workers go, everyone is completely in shock,” she said. “I think you can tell from the video he was scared, and I don’t feel safe being around the streets with officers shooting people. I think it’s beyond disappointing. I’m floored.”

“I’m very concerned about the shooting,” said 62-year-old North Beach resident Theresa Flandrich. “I would have hoped there would have been some awareness that there are other people here. It’s just shocking to me to see this.”

Ironically enough, this is the second time Barcenas has been shot by police. In 2012, the current assistant Chief Toney Chaplin opened fire on Barcenas after he was accused of pulling a Tec-9 pistol. In that case, he was shot three times and survived.

The San Francisco Police Department’s homicide unit and Internal Affairs Bureau are currently investigating the shooting, along with the district attorney’s office and city Department of Police Accountability.

Barcenas was transported to a nearby hospital where he is expected to survive. He has been charged with numerous charges in relation to the incident including felon in possession of a firearm. [MORE]

Video Catches Border Patrol AWIK [assault w/intent to kill]: Cop SUV Intentionally Runs Over Native American Man Without Stopping or Slowing Down

From [HERE] Tensions flared on Friday between federal authorities in Arizona and residents of a Native American reservation straddling the border with Mexico after a video surfaced in which a Border Patrol vehicle appears to hit a man from the tribe before driving away.

The video, which was recorded on the phone of the victim, a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation identified as Paulo Remes, spread quickly on social media after several tribe members and Indivisible Tohono, an organization focused on the impact of border policies, posted the footage on Twitter and Facebook.

“They just ran me over, bro,” Mr. Remes is heard saying on the video. He told The Arizona Daily Star that he was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment of injuries from the incident, which took place on Tohono O’odham land about 60 miles southwest of Tucson. Mr. Remes appeared to be standing in a dirt road facing the vehicle when it made contact, knocking him to the ground.

Mr. Remes told the newspaper that the driver of the vehicle did not stop.

border patrol cops native american .jpg

The United States Border Patrol said in a statement that it was “actively investigating” the incident. “We do not tolerate misconduct on or off duty and will fully cooperate with all investigations of alleged unlawful conduct by our personnel,” the Border Patrol said.

Robert G. Daniels, a spokesman in Arizona for the Border Patrol, said the agency was not able to release the identity of the agent involved in the episode; the video seems to show the vehicle speeding away after the victim is hit.

“All I can say is that this incident is under investigation,” Mr. Daniels said.

The vehicle incident is the most recent episode in a history of strain between federal authorities and the Tohono O’odham, a tribe with about 34,000 enrolled members whose territory straddles the border between the United States and Mexico. The tribe controls about 2.8 million acres in Arizona.

Edward D. Manuel, the chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation, said in a statement that the victim is 34 years old. Mr. Manuel, who did not identify the victim by name, added that the tribe’s police department was investigating the incident together with the F.B.I. and the United States Attorney’s Office.

“The Nation is aware of disturbing video footage of the incident,” Mr. Manuel said, adding that it was under “active investigation.”

Leaders of the tribe have expressed opposition to President Trump’s pledge to build a wall through their land along the border. Largely because officials strengthened security at other points along the border, the reservation of the Tohono O’odham has emerged as an important transit point for unauthorized immigrants and drug traffickers, leading to frequent encounters with law enforcement and the Border Patrol.

Some in the reservation said the vehicle incident was part of a history of federal agents acting with impunity on their land. They pointed to an episode in 2003 in which a Border Patrol agent, Cody Rouse, ran over and killed a Tohono O’odham teenager, Bennett Patricio. A federal judge cleared Mr. Rouse in 2006 of wrongdoing in the case.

Mesa Crime Spree Continues: Video Catches White Cops' Brutal Aggravated Assault on Unarmed Latino Car Passenger After Unlawful Search - Ear Sewn Back on & Head Stapled Together



From [HERE] and [HERE]  Newly released body camera footage from January shows police officers in Mesa, Ariz., hitting and mocking a 23-year-old man they were taking into custody.

It's the third use-of-force controversy for the Phoenix suburb so far this month. The police chief told The Associated Press that the arrest is under review.

The video was shared with the press by Bret Royle, a lawyer representing Jose Luis Conde, the man arrested in the video.

Royle said that the video shows an arrest that was more brutal than the arresting officers described in their official report.

"We're not here trying to seek monetary damages," he said at a press conference Thursday. "We're trying to exonerate Jose of charges brought about by the Mesa police department."

Conde, who was unarmed, was charged with narcotics possession, escape, resisting arrest and aggravated assault on police, The Arizona Republic reports. The arresting officers reportedly sustained injuries to their knuckles, arms, hands and knees, resulting in the felony charge of aggravated assault.

"It's really salt to the wounds because not only did you beat him up but charge him with the injuries you sustained from beating him," Royle told the paper.

The footage released does not show the moments leading up to the arrest.

The AP describes the incident in question, first as recounted by police, then as documented on video:

"The 23-year-old landscape worker was a passenger in a car Mesa police stopped Jan. 28 for possible drunken driving. An officer did a pat-down search of him and believed he was concealing drugs, according to the police incident report.

"The officer then thought Conde was going to attack him and took him to the ground. He continued to struggle and allegedly swung his fists at the officer. They later found three baggies appearing to contain cocaine inside his sock.

"While two officers sustained scrapes, Conde was transported to a hospital. Police said Conde tried to flee his hospital room but was caught in the hallway and pushed back by officers.

"Video shows an officer punched and elbowed Conde four times while he was handcuffed."

The first video shows Conde screaming in pain as the police punch him. In addition, Conde said at the press conference that he was tazed, thrown into a wall, gouged in the eye and hit with a flashlight.


A second video shows a bloodied Conde later lying on the ground in the hospital hallway while an officer mockingly says "Awwwww."

The officer tells Conde to "man up." At one point the gathered officers laugh at a remark made by a nurse.

"After all of this, they laughed," Conde said at the press conference. "They laughed at me while I laid in a pool of my own blood, barely conscious — and this is no laughing matter."

"And what happens to these guys? Nothing. ... They just go back to their jobs and they possibly do this to other people, and that's unacceptable," he said.

Two other videos of violent arrests by Mesa police have prompted multiple investigations.

The first video, as NPR reported, showed police repeatedly punching an unarmed man in the face when he leaned against a wall instead of sitting down. The May 23 beating was captured on surveillance camera footage and a member of the community brought it to the attention of the police chief, who released footage to the public in early June.

In one video clip from the traffic stop, someone can be heard saying "F--k you" just before Mis punches Conde. Later, as Conde screams in pain, someone tells him to "eat sh-t."

Before Conde fell to the ground, officers had pushed him into a brick wall, causing a cut behind his right ear, according to the police report and video. That cut resulted in Conde's being taken to a hospital. 

A second video, also from May, was released last week. It shows police arresting a 15-year-old suspected of armed robbery. After the teenager cursed at police, officers were seen repeatedly "pushing on pressure points behind the boy's ears, on the back of his jaw," as a reporter for ABC 15 described it.

A total of seven police officers have been placed on administrative leave as those two arrests are investigated, local media report. [MORE]

Bogus Charges [not obeying public rulers commands fast enough] Dropped against Black Man Attacked by Mesa police


From [HERE] A Mesa judge has dropped all charges against Robert Johnson, the 35-year-old Mesa man whose case received national attention after video surfaced of police officers beating him during an incident in May.

Mesa city prosecutor John Belatti on June 13 filed the motion to dismiss the charges of disorderly conduct and hindering police without prejudice.

The motion said the charges should be dropped "in the interest of justice." Municipal Judge Elizabeth P. Arriola granted it Thursday.

"We are pleased to hear the false and drummed up charges against my client Mr. Johnson have been dropped," said Benjamin Taylor, a lawyer for Johnson. 

Johnson's case received national attention after video showed officers kneeing and punching him multiple times before bringing him to the ground. The case brought additional scrutiny to the Mesa Police Department, which has faced backlash for its use of force in other high-profile episodes.

Mesa police Chief Ramon Batista has since called for multiple investigations into how his officers have used force not only in Johnson's case, but all instances in the past three years.

Five officers have been put on leave as the Scottsdale Police Department investigates if the Mesa officers used excessive force with Johnson. The case will be forwarded to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, which will decide whether charges should be filed against any of them.

Johnson had accompanied his friend, 20-year-old Erick Reyes, to pick up belongings from the apartment of Reyes' ex girlfriend on May 23. Someone called 911, alleging that Reyes had tried to force his way into the Main Street apartment about a mile east of Country Club Drive.

Mesa police last week released video and audio of the encounter. It shows three officers approach Johnson, search his pockets and then ask him to sit on the floor against a wall. Reyes can be seen feet away, already seated.

Johnson asks why he needs to sit down and refuses, even after police repeatedly tell him to, the video shows.

Officers close in on Johnson. An officer identified in the police report as "J. Jones" knees Johnson twice in the stomach and punches him six times in the face, the video shows.

The police report details that another officer, identified as "R. Monarrez," punched Johnson in the face at least once. As Johnson was being hit, someone is heard saying, "Sit your ass down, motherf--ker."

One of the officers pulls Johnson's leg, dropping him to the floor. Someone is heard saying, "See what happens?"

Police handcuff Johnson and tie his feet together. As he lies on his stomach on the floor, Johnson tells the officers, "You didn't need to put all that force on me."

Officer R. Gambee, as named in the report, said as the officers escort Johnson into the elevator, it looked as if Johnson was about to spit on him. Gambee shoved Johnson's face into the corner of the elevator door and the door frame, according to the report.

One officer then wrapped a spit mask, or what appears to be a mesh-type cloth, around Johnson's face. Three officers picked him up by his feet and arms, carried him into the elevator and then into a patrol car, the video shows.

Mesa police have faced additional scrutiny from other use-of-force instances.[MORE]

Federal Appeals Court: Cops Use of LRAD Noise Cannons at Non-Violent Protestors Can be Considered Excessive Force

From [HERE] A federal appeals panel ruled Wednesday that cops' use of noise cannons against peaceful protesters can be considered excessive force.

Three judges from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued their decision in Manhattan Federal Court case over the use of sound cannons at a December 2014 protest.

Six people attending that protest, which developed after a grand jury decided not to indict any police officers in the chokehold death of Eric Garner, claim NYPD cops wrongly blasted them with Long Range Acoustic Devices, or LRADs.

The attendees, represented by lawyers Gideon Orion Oliver, Elena L. Cohen and Michael Decker, alleged they endured pain and migraines from the sound blast.

"In a narrow ruling, we hold that purposefully using a LRAD in a manner capable of causing serious injury to move non-violent protesters to the sidewalks violates the Fourteenth Amendment under clearly established law," the decision said.

The Second Circuit panel also rejected two cops' push for immunity from the lawsuit, claiming they weren't informed that nonviolent protesters were protected from excessive force.

"In their view, because this Court has not applied 'substantive due process principles to crowd control,' the officers lacked notice that the right against excessive force applies to nonviolent protesters," the decision said. "But that is like saying police officers who run over people crossing the street illegally can claim immunity simply because we have never addressed a (constitutional) claim involving jaywalkers."

"This would convert the fair notice requirement into a presumption against the existence of basic constitutional rights," the ruling also stated.

Unwanted "Service" from Unaccountable Thugs: White Baltimore Cop Unlawfully Stops Black Man Shopping in Store & Asks "Do you have any warrants"

Here is some mind control for your Saturday:

In order for the police to stop you the Supreme Court has ruled that pursuant to the 4th Amendment police must have reasonable articulable suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot and that you are involved in the activity. Police may not act on on the basis of an inchoate or unclear and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion. 

baltimore cop.jpg

Undeceiver Larken Rose explains that the police uniform, badge and vehicle convey the following message to the public about the superior, cult status of police in a shamocracy: 

“I am not acting as a thinking, responsible, independent human being, and should not be treated as such. I am not personally responsible for my actions, because I am not acting from my own free will or my own judgment or right and wrong. I am, instead, acting as the tool of something superhuman, something with the right to rule you and control you. As such, I can do things that you can’t. I have rights that you don’t. You must do as I say, submit to my commands, and treat me as your superior, because I am not a mere human being. I have risen above that. Through my unquestioning obedience and loyalty to my masters, I have become a piece of the superhuman entity called ‘authority.’ As a result, the rules of human morality do not apply to me, and my actions should not be judged by the usual standards of human behavior.  [MORE]

To Trick Workers Undercover Cops Brought Donuts & Called Fake Meeting @ Gardening Co, Then ICE Race Soldiers Broke In w/Dogs, Helicopters & Handcuffed All Brown People Speaking Spanish - 114 Jailed


In the US Without Permission From Puppeticians. From [HERE] and [HERE] At 7 a.m. on June 5, a man walked into Corso’s Garden Center in Sandusky, Ohio. He carried with him a stack of donut boxes and announced a spur of the moment company meeting. Employees of the garden center were gathering when, suddenly, the man began shouting orders. Heavily armed agents in military fatigues stormed in with canine units. Outside, 100 armed agents formed a perimeter, and overhead, helicopters circled to ensure that no one could escape.

The horrible truth had become apparent. This man, who had just offered them free donuts, was not a company representative. He was an ICE agent, and the workers were trapped. People were crying and panicking. One woman fainted.

ICE agents moved through the crowd, zip-tying the farm workers’ hands behind their backs without bothering to distinguish between U.S. citizens and those without documentation. Ultimately, 114 employees were loaded onto buses and taken to a Border Patrol station in Port Clinton. From there, the men and women were separated, with most sent to detention centers in Youngstown, Ohio, and Battle Creek, Michigan, respectively.

I was told the details of this horrible day by people who had witnessed it themselves. I am the executive director of HOLA Ohio [2], a grassroots Latino organization that has been advocating for immigrants’ rights for over two decades. As soon as news broke of the raid, my colleagues and I got in the car and drove several hours to the trailer park in Norwalk, Ohio, where many of Corso’s employees live. By the time we arrived, it was essentially a ghost town. Rumors had spread that the trailer park was ICE’s next stop and most residents had fled, many leaving behind their cars and all of their possessions.

It was there that we encountered a traumatized 17-year-old girl who had just been released by ICE. She was a U.S. citizen and worked at Corso’s as a summer job. She, too, had had her hands zip-tied behind her back. Other minors who had been swept up in the raid, including other U.S. citizens, were detained for 12 hours before being released.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the raid is the number of children who have had their lives thrown into turmoil as a result. The day of the raid, at a nearby church where many community members sought shelter, adults scrambled to make sure that the frightened children whose parents had been arrested would have someone to take care of them. Today, over 200 children are still without one or both of their parents.

The day after the raid, ICE announced that it was releasing a number of detainees for “humanitarian reasons,” including those with health issues and those who are the primary caregivers of minor children. Yet, many people who match these criteria remain in ICE custody. One individual still in ICE custody lost his eye while working at Corso’s and needs to take medicated eye drops. Another man in custody is on medication to prevent seizures. There are people still in custody who have diabetes and arthritis. Family members are telling us that these individuals currently do not have access to their medications. It is not clear whether the parents of young children will be released.

The chaos and fear that ensued last week has not abated. Lawyers were finally able to initiate contact with the 56 men in detention, but they have still not been able to contact the women, who are being detained in Michigan. The majority of families have still not been able to speak on the phone or have any contact with their loved ones who are in custody. Deportations could begin as soon as today, though no one knows for sure. This lack of information is only creating more terror in the community.

Though large-scale immigration raids have happened before, the size and brutality of this particular raid, along with the use of military tactics, have shocked even the most seasoned immigrants’ rights activists. Regardless of citizenship status, for workers — including teenagers, mothers, fathers, and those with medical issues — to be treated like enemy insurgents is beyond disturbing. It is terrible, barbaric, and inhumane.


"Niggerism" & 'The definition of Terrorism & Terrorist Depends on what side of the equation a person or Government is positioned'

Terrorism and Civil Rights - James M. Atkinson

However, appealing to authorities and government is no answer. It is the problem. Government is simply, unequivocally , and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else." Dr. Blynd. 

Niggerized - "unsafe, unprotected, subjected and subjugated to random violence, hated for who you are to the point you become so scared that you defer to the powers that be while willing to consent to your own domination." Dr. Cornel West quoted in FUNKTIONARY

Fed Appeals Ct: The Right to Effective Counsel Presumably Not Violated by Having a Racist Attorney. Like a Bear Representing Salmon, White Atty said his “Nigger Clients" "Got What They Deserved"

  Lex-icon -  law as image- the appearance of justice (the form) over the substance of justice via truth and law over humanity.     FUNKTIONARY

Lex-icon - law as image- the appearance of justice (the form) over the substance of justice via truth and law over humanity. FUNKTIONARY

The Difficulty of Proving the Existence of Racism When Ignoring the System of White Supremacy. In [reality] System of Racism There is a Rebuttable Presumption that Most White People are Racist - but not so in the fake world of court. A three-judge panel for the "liberal" 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that representation from a racist attorney does not violate a Black defendant's 6th Amendment right to effective counsel unless the black client is aware his attorney is racist; no prejudicial conflict of interest can be presumed to exist unless the Black client is aware the attorney is racist or; there must be evidence that racism otherwise adversely affected the racist attorney's performance. 

Donald Ames, esq. referred to all Blacks as "niggers." He was a racist. His nigger client Ellis Ezzard was sentenced to life in prison after Ames allegedly provided a well planned rigorous defense and gave him an "adversarial" "zealous" trial. Undoubtedly Ames provided a 1st rate legal service to all the niggers he represented. If you believe any of that then you want to be deceived. To maintain the system of racism/white supremacy courts require smoking gun proof of racism in various contexts - something that is rare because racism is carried out primarily through deception & tangible evidence of an individual's thought process only exists under egregious or random circumstances. The court's fake search for tangible evidence from the mind of a bigoted decision maker ignores white supremacy as an operating system of oppression- the Court's inquiry is done only for show.  Even klansman wear hoods. Here then, the court has upheld the racist lex-icon, upholding the deception - if Blacks knew they were dealing with racists then they would not deal with them at all, any fool would drop his coins in the street upon learning they are fake, valueless - and any salmon would move quickly away from a bear.  

Amos Wilson explained, "The bane of the African community is the exploitative White American community which projects a so-called civilized, fraternal, egalitarian, liberal face while concurrently seeking to maintain White supremacy. This means that the White American community must maintain African subordination while not appearing to do so." 

Racism is deception. Racists rule non-white people, particularly Blacks through the use of many lies and false pretenses. Elite racists are masterful liars. For obvious strategic advantages racists seek to keep their racism concealed. It is difficult for non-white people to "always determine who is a racist, and who is not - as it is impossible to monitor (or judge) all the individual actions and words of any white person at all times.” [MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Racists are "upholders, supporters and perpetrators of the institution of the White Supremacy Dynamic."

Racist suspect - any white person who is capable of practicing racism against non-whites. In general, if a Caucasian is able to be a Racist (White Supremacist), he or she may be one and should be presumed to be racist. According to Neely Fuller, as long as white supremacy exists, every person classified as 'white' should be suspected of being Racist (White Supremacist). Since all whites are able to practice racism in a white supremacy system if they choose to do so, it is correct (and logical) to use the term "racist suspects" to identify whites who do not openly function as white supremacists (racists). [MORE]

From [HERE] A black man serving life in prison for a 1989 murder learned years later that his white trial lawyer was a racist who often expressed contempt for his Black clients. On Thursday, a federal appeals court panel said the case made a “mockery” of the constitutional right to legal representation, but because of binding court precedent there was nothing it could do about it.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the conviction and life-without-parole sentence of Ezzard Charles Ellis for a robbery and fatal shooting at a McDonald’s restaurant in San Bernardino County in November 1989. Ellis, now 48, was tried five times before a jury found him guilty in 1991.

His trial lawyer, Donald Ames, died in 1999. Four years later, a friend sent Ellis an article about Ames’ misconduct at death penalty trials. Federal courts overturned at least one death sentence of a man he had represented because of Ames’ incompetence,, and judges said in published opinions that he did little to prepare for the cases, referred to several clients with racial slurs, said one Latino client “deserved to fry” and told a jury that execution would be good for his client. [MORE]

The following opinion is easy to read. 



Ezzard Ellis, a California inmate, appeals the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel because his trial attorney held deeply racist beliefs about African Americans in general and him in particular. Our precedent involving the same attorney and mostly the same evidence requires us to reject this contention. When defense counsel does not express his racist views to his client, no conflict will be presumed, and the defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice to establish a Sixth Amendment violation. Since Ellis fails to do so here, we affirm the district court.

Ellis and his co-defendant were charged with the November 1989 murder, attempted murder, and robbery of

Page 4

two men who were waiting in their car at a McDonald's drive-through window. Several witnesses who observed the crime to varying extents testified with corresponding certainty that Ellis looked like the shooter. Although the surviving victim repeatedly failed to identify Ellis in live and photographic lineups, a McDonald's employee who knew Ellis from school testified that he was the shooter.

        Attorney Donald Ames, now deceased, was appointed to represent Ellis. Ellis's first two trials ended in mistrials due to witnesses being unavailable. His third and fourth trials resulted in hung juries. At the conclusion of his fifth trial in June 1991, Ellis was convicted of special circumstance murder, attempted murder, and two counts of robbery. He received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. His conviction became final on May 29, 1996.

        In March or April 2003, Ellis's friend sent him a newspaper article about Ames's "lousy" performance as a capital defense attorney. The article described Ames as "deceptive, untrustworthy, and disloyal to his capital clients" (quoting Anderson v. Calderon, 276 F.3d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 2001) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)). It recounted the testimony of Ames's adult daughters regarding his "frequent use of deprecating remarks and racial slurs about his clients."

        Ellis obtained declarations from two of Ames's daughters in which they described their father's racism. According to one, Ames harbored "contempt for people of other races and ethnic groups" and "especially ridiculed black people, referring to them with racial invectives." The other daughter recalled a May 1990 conversation in which

Page 5

Ames referred to his client Melvin Wade as a "nigger" who "got what he deserved."1

        Ellis also obtained declarations from individuals who worked with Ames. A fiscal clerk at the San Bernardino Superior Court stated in a declaration that Ames employed "racist terms to characterize court personnel, his employees, and his clients."2 A legal secretary who worked for Ames from September 1990 to January 1991 heard Ames talking about a client: "because his client was black," Ames said, "he did not trust him and did not care what happened to him." A secretary in Ames's office from January to June 1991 stated that Ames "consistently refer[red] to his African American employees as 'niggers'" and "his African-American co-counsel as 'a big black nigger trying to be a white man.'" In the fifth trial, which took place during the

Page 6

first half of 1991, Ellis's co-defendant was represented by an African American attorney.

        Ellis sought habeas relief in the state courts, arguing that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel's "racial prejudice against African-Americans" created an actual conflict of interest. When that proved unsuccessful, Ellis filed a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court initially denied relief on the ground that Ellis's petition was untimely. We reversed, holding that the petition could be timely if Ellis were entitled to equitable tolling. Ellis v. Harrison, 270 F. App'x 721 (9th Cir. 2008). On remand, the district court determined that Ellis was not entitled to equitable tolling and again denied relief. We disagreed and once more remanded for further proceedings. Ellis v. Harrison, 563 F. App'x 531 (9th Cir. 2014). Ellis now appeals the district court's denial of his Sixth Amendment claim on the merits.


        We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § §1291 and 2253. Because Ellis's habeas petition is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), we cannot grant relief unless he meets its "demanding standard." Virginia v. LeBlanc, 137 S. Ct. 1726, 1727 (2017) (per curiam). As applicable here, Ellis must show that "the underlying state court merits ruling was 'contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law' as determined by [the Supreme] Court." Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). In making this determination, we look to the last reasoned state court decision, see Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018), which is the state superior court's order denying Ellis's habeas petition.

Page 7

        Whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective counsel was satisfied is generally analyzed under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Strickland requires a showing of both deficient performance by counsel and consequent prejudice. Id. at 687. In this context, "prejudice" means "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694. A "reasonable probability" is less than a preponderance of the evidence. See id. at 693 ("[A] defendant need not show that counsel's deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.").

        Not every Sixth Amendment claim requires the same showing of prejudice. When the assistance of counsel is actually or constructively denied altogether, "prejudice is presumed." Id. at 692 (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 & n.25 (1984)). A similar but more limited presumption of prejudice arises "when counsel is burdened by an actual conflict of interest." Id. (citing Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 345-50 (1980)). Prejudice is presumed in such cases only if counsel "actively represented conflicting interests" and "an actual conflict of interest adversely affected [the] lawyer's performance." Id. (quoting Sullivan, 446 U.S. at 350, 348).

        The Supreme Court has not established the applicable standard of prejudice—Strickland, Cronic, or Sullivan—when counsel is alleged to have performed deficiently on account of racial animus towards a client. The superior court, evidently applying Strickland, concluded that Ellis was not prejudiced because "[h]e has not reasonably shown by competent evidence that, absent any or all of [Ames's] acts, the outcome of the trial would have been more favorable to him." However, the superior court required

Page 8

"proof of this prejudice" to be "by a preponderance of the evidence," a standard more stringent than and therefore "contrary to" Strickland, Cronic, and Sullivan. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000) ("If a state court were to reject a prisoner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on the grounds that the prisoner had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the result of his criminal proceeding would have been different, that decision would be [contrary] to our clearly established precedent [under] Strickland . . . ."). Consequently, the state court decision is not entitled to AEDPA deference, and we review Ellis's claim de novo. See Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 173 (2012); Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724, 735 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).


        Even under de novo review, any relief for Ellis must be based on a rule that was clearly established at the time his conviction was final. See Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 (1989) ("[N]ew constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced."). This differs from AEDPA review in that we may consider our own as well as Supreme Court precedent in determining which rules are clearly established. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 412; Burton v. Davis, 816 F.3d 1132, 1142 (9th Cir. 2016).

        Before Ellis's conviction was final, we decided a case concerning "an appointed lawyer who calls [the defendant] to his face a 'stupid nigger son of a bitch' and who threatens to provide substandard performance for him if he chooses to exercise his right to go to trial." Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 783 (9th Cir. 1994). We held that these facts "would render so defective the relationship inherent in the right to trial counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment

Page 9

that [the defendant] would be entitled to a new trial with a different attorney," id. at 784, and that the constitutional defect was "so egregious . . . that 'a presumption of prejudice [would be] appropriate without inquiry into the actual conduct of the trial," id. at 785 (quoting Cronic, 466 U.S. at 660).

        Frazer's rule of prejudice per se relied in part on the outburst itself. The racial slur combined with the extortionate statement "completely destroy[ed] and negate[d] the channels of open communication needed for the [attorney-client] relationship to function as contemplated in the Constitution." Id. at 785. At the same time, Frazer also relied on the attorney's racial animus, regardless of the defendant's awareness of it. See id. at 782 ("[A]n attorney who adopts and acts upon a belief that his client should be convicted 'fail[s] to function in any meaningful sense as the Government's adversary.'" (quoting Osborn v. Shillinger, 861 F.2d 612, 625 (10th Cir. 1988))); id. at 784 ("Discrimination within the judicial system is most pernicious because it is 'a stimulant to that race prejudice which is an impediment to securing to [black citizens] that equal justice which the law aims to secure to all others.'" (quoting Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 87-88 (1986))).

        Seven years later, however, we rejected a claim that "Ames' racism and his concern that he not be perceived by the San Bernardino bar or bench as requesting too much funding prevented [him] from effectively representing [the defendant]." Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). The habeas petitioner submitted the same declarations from Ames's daughters and colleagues upon which Ellis now relies. Analyzing the claim under Sullivan, we held that the petitioner "ha[d] not demonstrated that Ames performed poorly because of the alleged

Page 10

conflicts" and therefore was not entitled to relief. Id. at 925. To the extent Frazer held that defense counsel's extreme animus towards the persons of the defendant's race violates the Sixth Amendment without need to show prejudice, Mayfield implicitly overruled that holding.3


        In order to demonstrate that Ames's racist views prejudiced him, Ellis must show either that he knew of these views during a critical phase of the proceedings, leading to a complete breakdown in communication as in Frazer, or that Ames's racism otherwise adversely affected his performance as counsel. Ellis concedes that he was unaware of Ames's racism until several years after his conviction was final. And while the relationship between counsel's bigotry and his performance at Ellis's trial is much less attenuated than in Mayfield—here, the representation occurred contemporaneously with the statements at issue whereas Mayfield's trial was held approximately a decade earlier—Ellis fails to identify any acts or omissions by Ames that "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Strickland,

Page 11

466 U.S. at 688 (1984). We are therefore bound under Mayfield to reject his claim.


NGUYEN, Circuit Judge, with whom HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, join, concurring:

        If we were writing on a blank slate, I would vote to grant relief. Of the constitutional rights given to a criminal defendant, none is more important than the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. By allowing Ellis's conviction to stand, we make a mockery of that right.

        Ellis's lawyer, Donald Ames, openly and repeatedly expressed contempt for people who look like Ellis based on the ugliest of racial stereotypes. This was not just the depressingly common assumption that criminal defendants of certain races are more likely to be guilty, but something far more sinister: a belief in the inferiority of all people of color—be they support staff, co-counsel, or judge. Most damning of all, Ames made it clear that he did not care what happened to his black clients. It would be impossible for anyone with such views to adequately represent a non-white defendant.

        I do not suggest that a conviction should be overturned whenever a racially tinged comment by defense counsel comes to light. Racism has as many shades as race, and we generally assume that counsel can set aside any personal distaste for a client, whatever its motivation, to zealously advocate on his behalf. But when an attorney expresses such utter contempt and indifference about the fate of his minority clients as Ames did here, he has ceased providing the

Page 12

reasonably competent representation that the Sixth Amendment demands. A defendant in such an untenable position may be better off with no counsel at all.

        Lawyers today look very different than they did in 1991, when Ellis was tried. Within a generation, diversity among legal practitioners has markedly increased. On appeal in our court, of the three judges and two advocates at oral argument, four were people of color. These changes matter. Minority lawyers' greater representation on the bar has led to a growing acknowledgment and intolerance of racial bias in the practice of law. But it has not ended racism, both subtle and overt. People of color are still underrepresented in the legal profession but overrepresented among criminal defendants and face greater odds of conviction and higher average sentences. See, e.g., Robert J. Smith et al., Implicit White Favoritism in the Criminal Justice System, 66 Ala. L. Rev. 871, 877-90 (2015).

        When examining the reasonableness of counsel's performance, we extend considerable deference to strategic choices. This deference is predicated on the assumption that counsel is acting in the client's best interest. For an attorney as deeply racist as Ames, that assumption is unfounded. It makes no difference that Ellis was unaware of his counsel's beliefs. The deleterious effect of such racism on the outcome is usually impossible to prove and, under these circumstances, we should presume prejudice.

        Because I cannot in good faith distinguish Ellis's case from Mayfield, I reluctantly concur in the opinion. Had we not been bound by Mayfield, I would have granted Ellis's petition.



        *. Judge Hawkins was drawn to replace Judge Reinhardt on the panel following his death. Judge Hawkins has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to the oral argument.

        **. This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

        1. We overturned Wade's death sentence due to Ames's ineffective assistance at the penalty phase. See Wade v. Calderon, 29 F.3d 1312, 1325 (9th Cir. 1994). The declarations from Ames's daughters were executed in the 1990s in connection with Wade. In the district court proceedings, Ellis submitted more recent declarations from the daughters. In one, Ames's daughter recalls a case from 1990 or 1991 involving "African-American men . . . accused of holding up or robbing someone at a fast food restaurant," in which Ellis "referred to his client . . . with racial slurs" and "commented on how stupid his client was." We cannot consider the updated declarations because the state courts had no opportunity to do so. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) ("[R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.").

        2. Referring to African Americans, Ames stated, "those people can't learn anything." In a case tried during the summer of 1990, Ames opined that his Hispanic client "deserves to fry" and that the presiding judge was "a fucking Jap" who should "remember Pearl Harbor." The client was convicted and sentenced to death. See People v. Gutierrez, 52 P.3d 572 (Cal. 2002).

        3. It is possible that the en banc court in Mayfield was simply unaware of Frazer, since neither the majority nor the dissent cites it. See Mayfield, 270 F.3d at 925 ("It is by no means clear from precedent that the grounds for conflict alleged . . . are cognizable under ineffective assistance case law."). In any event, Mayfield was a pre-AEDPA case applying the extremely permissive standard for granting a certificate of appealability: whether "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," resolving "any doubt regarding whether to issue a COA in favor of [the petitioner]." Id. at 922 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)); see Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[T]he showing a petitioner must make to be heard on appeal is less than that to obtain relief.").


[In Defense of Other Racists] White Media Omits Details: After White Woman Pizza Driver Tried to Run Over Black Man, White St Petersburg Cop Gave Him Citation & Called Him "Nigger"

In the absence of white supremacy, niggers would not exist.

Officer Michael Naples, a racist police officer who was caught on video using the n-word resigned Tuesday hours later. "The officer admitted that while he was on the scene he did use a racial slur," St. Petersburg Police Chief Tony Holloway said at a Tuesday news conference. The recipient of that slur was Levonte Daniels, 27.

St. Petersburg police gave this account: Naples was dispatched to a dispute along 62nd Place S between a pizza delivery driver and Daniels, a customer. Police said Daniels had struck the hood of the driver’s vehicle with a fire extinguisher. The racist cop did not witness what happened because he was not present when the incident occurred. Nevertheless, the media parrots the racist cop's version of events.  Racists tell lies because racism is deception.

st pete racist cop.jpg

Daniels denied that allegation. He told the Times that the extinguisher hit the car because he had to jump out of the way. The white woman pizza delivery driver tried to run him over.

Daniels said he was incensed because he had called the police to complain that the white driver threw change at his face. Her provocative conduct was clearly intended to bring the nigger out of Daniels. He said he tried to block the path of her car so she couldn’t leave before police arrived but she wouldn’t stop and tried to run him over. Then he was shocked to learn the officer cited him instead.

The officer referred Daniels to a pre-trial diversion program on a misdemeanor charge of criminal mischief. The program allows qualifying offenders to avoid arrest and court by admitting their crime.

But as Naples was leaving, he and Daniels got into an argument over the referral. That is, got into an argument about what the racist cop planned to do with a nigger. That’s when Naples, who is white, called Daniels nigger, police said. Daniels, who is black, recorded the exchange and posted it to Facebook. After getting caught the racist cop resigned. 

"This situation has everything to do with another black man being railroaded into a system by being forced to take charges or go to jail," he said. [MORE]

  The St. Petersburg Police Department's HQ at 1300 First Ave. N.

The St. Petersburg Police Department's HQ at 1300 First Ave. N.

white supremacy chart 2.jpg

White Cop Who Intentionally Struck Black Man w/Car Not Charged with Any Crime & Hired Days Later by Oglethorpe County. Sheriff Publicly Announced: “he will be a great asset"

Sheriff David Gabriel.jpg

From [HERE] The white Georgia police officer who was fired for hitting a fleeing suspect with his cop car on Saturday was out of work for just two days.

Taylor Saulters [racist suspect in photo below], who was fired by Athens-Clarke County Police Department on Saturday for running down a suspect with his car, was hired by the neighboring Oglethorpe County Sheriff's Office on Monday.

Oglethorpe County Sheriff David Gabriel [in top photo] announced the news on Facebook, saying, "I have known him since he was a baby and I know he will be a great asset to our county."

Gabriel defended the hiring in the same post. He referred to the incident as "a fleeing felon struck his patrol car" and said he has "no reservations."

"If his name sounds familiar it is probably due to the fact that he was recently terminated by ACCPD for an incident where a fleeing felon struck his patrol car while he was attempting to apprehend him," Gabriel said in the statement. "In talking to Saulters the first question he asked was if our citizens supported law enforcement. Without hesitation I assured him they did and that we have excellent people that live in our county. I have no reservations about Dep. Saulters serving this community."

On Friday, Saulters and his Athens-Clarke County police partner had stopped Timmy Patmon, who had an open warrant for a probation violation, when the suspect fled on foot, according to authorities. Saulters' partner, Hunter Blackmon, chased Patmon on foot while Saulters got into his police cruiser and chased after the suspect.

Taylor Saulters.jpg

Video released by the Athens-Clarke County Police Department showed Saulters swerved left in front of Patmon, but he isn't able to stop him from running. Saulters then accelerated again and turns right, hitting Patmon with the right front quarter panel of his car. Patmon rolled up on the hood of the car and then fell to the pavement.

Patmon was then taken into custody by the two officers as bystanders assembled and shouted at the two members of law enforcement for hitting Patmon.

Athens Police Chief Scott Freeman placed Saulters on administrative leave before firing him Saturday after reviewing the body camera footage.

Patmon, who was born in 1994, was wanted for a felony probation violation as a result of a previous arrest for possession of marijuana and methamphetamine. He was taken to the hospital for minor injuries and is currently being held on $1,500 bond at Athens-Clarke County Jail on a misdemeanor charge of obstruction of a law enforcement officer, according to court records.

Gabriel offered to speak to anyone who had concerns about Saulters being hired in Oglethorpe County.

"As a citizen of Oglethorpe County you will find the wisdom of this decision in getting a deputy of this caliber," Gabriel said. "If you still have concerns I will discuss them with you if you contact me. If you are not an Oglethorpe County resident, I wouldn’t worry about it."

Mesa Cops Attacked Non-Resistant Black Man b/c he “was projecting he was preparing for a physical altercation" [wha?] Public Rulers Angry He Didn’t Immediately Bow Down in the Presence

robert johnson mesa police.jpg

"Sit your ass down, motherfucker." From [FTP] and [HERE] A shocking video has surfaced out of Mesa, Arizona last week showing a half-dozen cops jump an unarmed and non-violent Black man—punching him in the head until he falls unconscious to the floor. Despite several cops participating in the beating, not one word of it was mentioned in a report and the chief claims he had no idea it even happened.

The video is of an incident from May 23, in which police were responding to a call at an apartment complex. The Mesa Police department says they received a call from a woman stating that 20-year-old Erick Reyes was trying to get into the apartment of his ex-girlfriend.

When police arrived on the scene, Reyes and another man, 33-year-old Robert Johnson were leaving the complex. When police told Reyes to sit down on the ground, he reportedly complied with their order. Johnson was given the same order as he walked to the elevator.

Instead of sitting on the ground, Johnson, likely knowing he had done nothing wrong, simply sat against the wall. Apparently, this was not enough to appease the officers who then swarmed the unarmed and seemingly innocent man.

Cops are then seen on video brutally punching the non-violent man in the face and kneeing him in the stomach. Even after he’s knocked unconscious, the massive cop in front of him pummels his face as he falls to the ground.

Johnson was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and hindering police. Erick Reyes, 20, who was with Johnson that night, was arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct and suspicion of possessing drug paraphernalia. 

The case started when someone called 911 to report that Reyes had tried to force his way into his ex-girlfriend's apartment on Main Street about a mile east of Country Club Drive where the incident happened.

Johnson said he accompanied Reyes to help him take his belongings from his ex-girlfriend's apartment. 

Officer Jhonte Jones said in his report he kneed and punched Johnson because Johnson leaned against a wall and extended his feet instead of sitting on the floor as police had ordered.

"Johnson's body language was projecting he was preparing for a physical altercation," the police report said. "Johnson's shoulders were bowed forward slightly and head slightly nodded.

"That was a position I recognized from past physical confrontations where a person ops (sic) to look toward the floor in order to use their peripheral vision to track several opponents simultaneously. Johnson's breathing became shallower and intentional, suggesting physiologically his body was transitioning to fight-or-flight mode." 

Miller, the Mesa pastor, took issue with the officer's report.

"It makes for a very good novel," he said.

The Police Department released footage Tuesday captured on an apartment complex surveillance cameras, which doesn't have audio. The next day, the department released footage from police body cameras with audio and a 20-page police report.

Judge Finds that Testi-lying Florida Cop Probably Used Deadly Force to Commit Murder, Not Stand His Ground: Black Man Shot to Death Waiting for Tow Truck on Side of the Road

nouman raja cop.jpg

From [HERE] and [MORE] A Florida judge on Friday denied a request from a police officer who fatally shot a Black driver to have criminal charges against him thrown out under the state’s so-called Stand Your Ground law, calling his testimony “unreliable and not credible.”

The defendant, Nouman K. Raja, was on duty in plain clothes early on Oct. 18, 2015, when he approached a vehicle that he said he thought was abandoned on the side of an interstate. His brief exchange with the man he found inside the vehicle, Corey Jones, was recorded on a phone call Mr. Jones had placed seeking roadside assistance.

corey jones.jpg

At the time of the deadly encounter, Mr. Jones, a 31-year-old musician and housing inspector, had a legally purchased handgun with him. Mr. Raja has claimed that Mr. Jones, who was black, pointed it at him, but prosecutors say Mr. Raja fired shots even as Mr. Jones fled. Within moments of making his approach, Mr. Raja had fired six shots and struck Mr. Jones three times, killing him.

Less than a month later, Mr. Raja was fired from the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department. He was charged in June 2016 with manslaughter by culpable negligence and attempted first-degree murder with a firearm.

In a 27-page ruling on Friday denying a motion by the defense to dismiss the case against Mr. Raja, the judge, Samantha Schosberg Feuer of Florida’s 15th Judicial Circuit Court, cited numerous inconsistencies between Mr. Raja’s testimony and the physical evidence.

Pointing to audio captured on Mr. Jones’s roadside assistance call, Judge Feuer indicated skepticism that Mr. Raja had clearly identified himself as a police officer — or that he had identified himself at all.

Her ruling noted that a 911 call Mr. Raja said he had placed while pursuing Mr. Jones — and before firing a second volley — was in fact placed some 33 seconds after he had fired the second volley. She also wrote that the position of shell casings found at the scene was at odds with Mr. Raja’s description of each volley of shots.

One of the judge’s observations appeared to hold particular relevance for a defendant claiming defense under the Stand Your Ground law, which removes the obligation to retreat if a person feels threatened and frees the person to use deadly force “if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary” to prevent “imminent death or great bodily harm.”

“Although the witnesses were unable to determine when each of the shots were fired or the order in which Jones received the wounds,” Judge Feuer wrote, “two of the three wounds entered through the back side of Jones, consistent with someone who is running away from the shooter.”

Although she denied Mr. Raja’s motion to dismiss the case on the basis of Stand Your Ground, the judge said he “remains free to use the defense at trial.”

[Old & Dying White Party [GOP] Must Rig Elections to Survive in DeMockery] Supreme Ct [a mostly white jury] Upholds Ohio’s Purge of Blacks & Latinos Off Voting Rolls in [s]Elections

republican fear.jpg

Purged From Fake Participation in Illusion. From [HERE] The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ohio’s aggressive efforts to purge its voting rolls.

The court ruled that a state may kick people off the rolls if they skip a few elections and fail to respond to a notice from state election officials. The vote was 5 to 4, with the more conservative justices in the majority.

The ruling cleared the way for the mass disenfranchisement of low-income, minority voters across the country.

The case concerned Larry Harmon, a software engineer and Navy veteran who lives near Akron, Ohio. He voted in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections but did not vote in 2012, saying he was unimpressed by the candidates. He also sat out the midterm elections in 2010 and 2014.

But in 2015, Mr. Harmon did want to vote against a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana and found that his name had been stricken from the voting rolls. State officials said that they had done so after sending Mr. Harmon a notice in 2011 asking him to confirm his eligibility to vote and that he did not respond. Mr. Harmon said he did not remember receiving a notice.

Federal laws prohibit states from removing people from voter rolls “by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” But they allow election officials who suspect that a voter has moved to send a confirmation notice.

In a 5-4 ruling, Justice Samuel Alito found that the National Voter Registration Act does not prevent Ohio from purging from the rolls voters who do not participate in federal elections for two years. If inactive voters do not respond to a mailer asking them to verify their address and do not vote for two more years, they are purged from the rolls.

A Reuters study in 2016 found that at least 144,000 people were removed from the voting rolls in recent years in Ohio’s three largest counties, which are home to Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus.

“Voters have been struck from the rolls in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods at roughly twice the rate as in Republican neighborhoods,” the study found. “Neighborhoods that have a high proportion of poor, African-American residents are hit the hardest.”

Twelve states, generally led by Democrats, filed a brief supporting Mr. Harmon. Seventeen states, generally Republican, filed a brief on the other side.

The Justice Department for decades took the position that failing to vote should not lead to disenfranchisement. In the appeals court, the Obama administration filed a brief supporting Mr. Harmon.

The ruling will have implications beyond Ohio.

“Today’s decision threatens the ability of voters to have their voices heard in our elections,” said Stuart Naifeh, senior counsel at Demos, which challenged the state’s practices.

Six other states — Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia — use similar practices to remove voters from the rolls if they fail to vote. A total of 17 GOP-controlled states signed onto a brief supporting Ohio’s position, indicating that they would be interested in using a similar list-maintenance procedure if it’s found to be constitutional.

With the approval of the Supreme Court, more states are likely to begin discriminatory purges like Ohio’s, and more states will likely remove a disproportionate number minority, low-income, and housing-insecure voters — people who are more likely to support Democrats. Those voters are more likely to move frequently and not respond to mailers asking them to verify their registration status. [MORE]

Thug Nashville Cops Break Into Black Veteran's Home at Night [without a warrant] & Knowingly Take His BMW by 'Farce' [robbery] b/c 'His Son May Driven it to Drug Deal Place'

From [HERE] On September 18, 2017, Lewis Cain, a disabled Vietnam veteran living in Nashville, Tennessee, woke to a flashlight shining in his eyes.

It was officers from the Mount Juliet Police Department, who had arrived at Cain’s home with an arrest warrant for his son. Cain himself had not been accused of any crime, and the police had no warrant to enter his house or remove property from his home.

Yet the officers later asked for the keys to Cain’s car. Confused but wishing to cooperate, he handed them over. When he objected, police told him that they were allowed to take his car.

Then they opened his garage door and drove away in his 2009 BMW.

The police allege that Cain’s son used Cain’s car to drive to a few locations where drug deals took place. However, this does not give them the right to take the car — Lewis Cain himself is an innocent property owner with no connection to any alleged criminal activity, and the police knew that the car belonged to Cain and not his son. Police clearly violated Cain’s constitutional rights when they took his car without a warrant or a hearing.

“I took an oath to defend our Constitution when I served in the military,” he says. “I have the highest respect for law enforcement, but the Fourth Amendment has to mean something. Police officers can’t just take people’s property for no reason.”

The seizure was part of a practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement agencies to seize an individual’s cash and property simply by asserting that they believe the property is connected to illegal activity. Oftentimes officers seize property without ever pursuing criminal charges against the property owner.

Law enforcement has a strong incentive to use — and even abuse — civil asset forfeiture because the proceeds from this practice go right back into their budgets. In Tennessee, the practice nets law enforcement agencies millions of dollars every year.

Unfortunately, Mr. Cain’s case is another example of the way Tennessee’s overly broad asset forfeiture laws invite, and even incentivize, abuse by law enforcement. While it is important for law enforcement to have adequate resources to protect public safety, these resources should not be obtained by picking innocent people’s pockets or taking their property.

Originally intended to target drug kingpins, the current civil asset forfeiture system actually harms legitimate property owners. While some asset forfeitures are validly connected to criminal activity, many others are not.

In fact, 87 percent of federal forfeiture proceedings between 1997 and 2013 were civil cases, not criminal. The median forfeiture amount in Tennessee is $502 — hardly a “kingpin” level haul. And there’s no research indicating that asset forfeiture reduces crime. To the contrary, when law enforcement is focused on profit rather than public safety, they aren’t serving the public interest. This defies the stated purpose of asset forfeiture.

Meanwhile, the deck is unfairly stacked against the innocent property owners caught up in this broken system, who essentially bear the cost of going to court and the burden of proving their innocence.

In January, the ACLU of Tennessee filed a petition with the Department of Safety, arguing that the seizure without a warrant violated Cain’s Fourth Amendment rights and that the officers had purposefully misrepresented Cain's son as the owner of the car in police reports, despite evidence that the son was not the owner. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case and return the vehicle to Cain.

But we also want to make sure that the Mount Juliet police know that they can’t do this again. This week we filed a federal lawsuit on Cain’s behalf. The lawsuit asserts that the actions of the police violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects innocent property owners like Cain from unreasonable searches and seizures. Cain’s due process rights were also violated, as he was not given notice of a fair hearing prior to the seizure of his vehicle.

Outside the courtroom, we have also been working for five years with organizations from across the political spectrum — including the Beacon Center of Tennessee and Right on Crime — to demand reform of Tennessee’s civil asset forfeiture system.

Recently some incremental legislative progress has been made in our state. More data on the practice is now being collected and reported. And as of October 2018, property owners must be given reasonable notice of forfeiture warrant hearings and the burden will be on the seizing officer to prove that the property is subject to seizure — instead of property owners having to prove that their property is not associated with a crime.

But we still have a long way to go. Ultimately, we would like to see seizures tied to actual convictions and placement of seized assets into a general fund rather than law enforcement coffers. These reforms would disrupt the profit incentive and ensure that forfeiture is used as it was intended — to target criminal activity, not innocent civilians like Lewis Cain.

Racial Targeting Going Unchecked b/c Only the Law of the Jungle Applies to ICE Race Soldiers [the 4th Amendment is an Illusion, it protects no one]

Racial Targeting Going Unchecked b/c Only the Law of the Jungle Applies to ICE Race Soldiers [the 4th Amendment is an Illusion, it protects no one]

'WE'LL SHOW YOU THE WARRANT LATER.' From [HERE] When immigration officers raided a rural Pennsylvania poultry transport company early last year, a lawyer for five undocumented men arrested saw plenty of evidence their rights had been violated.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers had no warrant to drive past the company's "No Trespassing" signs and block the exits with their vans, or to demand documentation on the workers' legal status. According to witnesses, the officers seemed to target workers solely based on their ethnicity: They lined up Latinos for questioning and asked white employees to lead them to more Latino workers.

In a ruling last month, a Philadelphia immigration judge, John Carle, found there was a strong argument that the ICE officers had "egregiously violated" the Constitution. He noted that the agency presented no evidence to counter allegations of racial profiling.

If the case had played out in criminal court, such a finding might well have resulted in the men going free.

In immigration courts, however, there's a higher bar, both for proving officers violated defendants' rights and for getting cases thrown out as a result. Even when immigrants manage to meet this standard, they can get deported anyway.

The system is backed up by decades-old court rulings that consider undocumented immigrants to be in continuous violation of the law, regardless of how they are arrested, and that give officers extra latitude to factor in their targets' physical appearance when making immigration arrests.

"Even if you were to suppress the evidence because you didn't have proper consent … that doesn't matter," said Claude Arnold, a former ICE special agent. "The fact remains that the person is here illegally."

ICE says its agents are forbidden from racial profiling, and are refreshed on training every six months.

But advocates for immigrants and some judges say that the logic governing immigration rulings only emboldens officers to trample over constitutional rights.

"It gives a huge incentive to do intentionally illegal searches, because they have a huge way to take advantage of it," said Rex Chen, an attorney at Safe Passages Project.

In the case involving the Lancaster County poultry workers, the racial-profiling argument has done little to derail ICE's deportation efforts.

After arresting the workers, ICE officials looked them up in a database and found that four of them had overstayed their visas. Since this information did not stem from their arrests, but was obtained separately, Carle decided their deportation cases could proceed.

"All they did instead was basically almost say, 'Nanny-nanny, boo-boo, we got you anyway,'" said Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer at the Legal Aid Justice Center who has worked on similar cases. "Like, so what if we violated constitutional rights? We have this other piece of evidence, and that's it, you're done for."

Read More