Federal Appeals Court Revives Suit Against French Bank Over Aiding Atrocities in Sudan. Banksters Processed Thousands of Transactions that Funded Genocide Campaign

BNP Paribas CEO Jean-Laurent Bonnafe speaks during a news conference.

BNP Paribas CEO Jean-Laurent Bonnafe speaks during a news conference.

From [HERE] The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Wednesday reversed the district court’s dismissal of a class action lawsuit against French bank BNP Paribas over aiding atrocities in Sudan.

The lawsuit was brought in 2016 by 21 refugees from Sudan’s ethnic-cleansing campaign alleging that the bank conspired with and aided and abetted the Sudanese regime. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that BNP processed thousands of illegal transactions through its New York offices, which financed weapons purchases and funded a militia in a “well-documented genocidal campaign.”

The reversal comes nearly five years after BNP pleaded guilty to committing large-scale violations of sanctions against Sudan, Cuba and Iran, which resulted in a record $8.97 billion fine.

Circuit Judge Barrington Parker wrote the opinion, which held that the claim is indeed subject to judicial review because the lower court “misapplied the act of state doctrine and erroneously determined that the Adult Plaintiffs’ claims were untimely.”

In the 2018 dismissal, Judge Alison Nathan said the act of state doctrine barred her from examining the validity of Sudan’s official actions. However, the reversal notes that BNP did not introduce evidence suggesting “that genocide is the 13 official policy of Sudan.” Further, the Second Circuit held that “even for purposes of act-of-state deference,” the court cannot deem “genocide, mass rape, and ethnic cleansing” as valid state actions because such acts “violate jus cogens norms.”

The case will be remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Under Proposed Bill CA Cops Must Use Other Options Before Using Deadly Force “if reasonably safe & feasible" [how will racist DA’s, judges, jurors & cops enforce & interpret the law?]

lapd gang .jpg

From [HERE] and [HERE] California’s most prominent bill to restrict when cops can use deadly is moving forward, but with changes that make criminal prosecutions of police officers less likely.

Assembly Bill 392 is now co-sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, all but ensuring the legislation moves closer to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

Following the amendments, Newsom said in a news release that AB 392 is “an important bill” that “will help restore community trust in our criminal justice system.”

The changes signify compromise between principal co-author Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, and law enforcement groups that had opposed it.

Police unions and chiefs worried that the bill’s original language declaring that cops could only use deadly force if it was “necessary” would cause officers to second guess themselves in split-second decisions for fear of repercussion and thus compromise public safety. In April, a police lobbyist called the bill an “impossible standard.”

Currently, officers can use lethal force if their actions are considered “reasonable” to protect themselves or others.

“We need this resolution to save lives, protect public safety, and guarantee justice in every community,” Rendon said in a written statement that praised Weber’s dedication to the issue.

The language now allows lethal action only when “an officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person” and when apprehending a fleeing felon that threatens considerable harm.

The bill leaves it up to the court to analyze whether an officer’s action is justified.

The proposed bill language leaves out a specific definition of "necessary," which would leave interpretation up to the legal system to figure out case by case. The current law defines necessary as

(3)“Necessary” means that, given the totality of the circumstances, an objectively reasonable peace officer in the same situation would conclude that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

The most significant aspect of the bill seems to be that it attempts to make it clear that police officers should only use deadly force when they don’t have other options. The proposal states:

As set forth below, it is the intent of the Legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case, and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer.

It defines the following:

(1) “Deadly force” means any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.

(2) A threat of death or serious bodily injury is “imminent” when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person. An imminent harm is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm, but is one that, from appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed.



The entire proposed bill reads as follows:

SEC. 2.

 Section 835a of the Penal Code is amended to read:

 (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) That the authority to use physical force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a serious responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The Legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law.

(2) As set forth below, it is the intent of the Legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case, and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer.

(3) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated carefully and thoroughly, in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority and the serious consequences of the use of force by peace officers, in order to ensure that officers use force consistent with law and agency policies.

(4) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.

(5) That individuals with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to experience greater levels of physical force during police interactions, as their disability may affect their ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers. It is estimated that individuals with disabilities are involved in between one-third and one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement.

(b) Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force, other than deadly force,force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape escape, or to overcome resistance.

(c) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:

(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.

(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.

(2) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

(d) A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from their efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. A peace officer shall not be deemed an aggressor or lose the right to self-defense by the use of objectively reasonable force in compliance with subdivisions (b) and (c) to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. For the purposes of this subdivision, “retreat” does not mean tactical repositioning or other deescalation tactics.

(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Deadly force” means any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.

(2) A threat of death or serious bodily injury is “imminent” when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person. An imminent harm is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm, but is one that, from appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed.

(3) “Totality of the circumstances” means all facts known to the peace officer at the time and includes the tactical conduct and decisions time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force.

Laws Protect No One.” Laws will not change the relationship between racists and Black people or the master servant relationship between Government and people. FUNKTIONARY warns, “obsessions with law bring oppression by law.”

Neely Fuller explains that an otherwise neutral law or policy becomes a "non-law" when it is used by racists in such a manner as to promote injustice. It is the application of policy or laws by racist citizens, prosecutors, jurors and judges that creates injustice for non-whites.  At any rate, if there were a legislative remedy to address the unnecessary and disproportionate use of deadly force on Black and Latino people it would be a law created and funded by white legislators, administered by white Government workers, enforced by white prosecutors and remedied by white jurors and judges - the same racist suspects who participate, perpetuate and/or benefit from this system of white domination and control.

The system of White supremacy/racism, a system of vast unequal power between whites and blacks is the source of police brutality and so many other problems affecting Black people. To end or neutralize white supremacy Black people must end or neutralize white power. This can begin as soon as Blacks stop participating in, legitimizing, consenting to and drop out of white people’s fantastic con game.

New Videos Show Min Cops Trying to Cover-Up the Killing of Justine Damond. But it’s Historically Rare for a Black Cop to Shoot or Get Away w/Shooting an Unarmed White Person in White Supremacy System

minn cop noor.jpg

“In Death of a Dark Nation” Anon explains, “It is rare for a white police officer to be punished for using excessive force against a black man, woman, or child. It is just as rare for a black police officer to use excessive force against a white person.

In fact, the authors were unable to find a single instance of a black police officer shooting or killing an unarmed white person in the history of modern law enforcement. This is not surprising but it is absolute proof that the black individual operating within a system of white supremacy cannot mistreat whites even if he or she is wearing a uniform, a badge, and carrying a gun." [MORE



Note than Anon is also necessarily saying that it is even more rare for a Black cop to get away shooting or killing an unarmed white person. BW can only find 2 perhaps 3 episodes [Dillion Taylor in Utah and allegedly Ofc Christopher Dorner in LA] involving a Black cop shooting an unarmed white person in the history of modern law enforcement. The cop who shot Taylor was not charged. If you know of any others let us know.

Similarly, prominent researchers have documented a pattern of discrimination in the application of the death penalty based on the race of the victim, race of the defendant, or both, in nearly every state that uses capital punishment. Blacks who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." [MORE] and [MORE] In fact, the Baldus study found that Blacks are 22 times more likely to be put to death when the victim is white.

minn cop noor 2.jpg

According to [FTP]New details are emerging about the tragic shooting of Justine Damond, a white woman shot to death by Officer Mohamed Noor, a Black police officer. On April 30, Noor was convicted for murder and manslaughter in Damond’s death. And now, evidence from the trial — in the form of body camera footage and 911 recordings — is being released.

On that fateful night, officer Noor was sitting in the passenger seat of his patrol car and opened fire through the driver’s side door hitting Damond at least once in the abdomen. Noor and his partner were responding to her 911 call about a possible sexual assault. Noor’s pending appeal explains:

“Mr Noor reacted to a dark alley in the middle of the night, a thump on the squad, a voice, a body appearing at the driver’s side window, the startled announcement of fear by officer Harrity as he reached for his firearm, and his observation that the person in the window was raising their right arm,” the lawyers wrote.

“Mr Noor’s actions to defend his partner and himself, in the context of that night, are not evidence of the depraved mind envisioned by Minnesota courts for the last hundred years.”

Conveniently, for Noor and his partner, it was revealed at the time that neither of them had activated their body cameras. The dashcam, we were told, was not recording any video footage either.

Now, however, with the release of this new evidence, we see that the entire department has a problem with turning off their body cameras.

As the Star Tribune reports:


“It sounds like sex noises, but it’s been going on for a while and I think I just heard, ‘Help.’ And it sounds distressed,” Damond told the dispatcher on the original 911 call. She then called back a few minutes later to see where the officers were. Five more minutes would pass before Damond’s 911 call would be her death sentence.

When Damond walked out to talk to the officers, Noor shot and killed her.

Since 2016, Minneapolis has required all officers to wear and activate body cameras “at all times when they could reasonably anticipate that they may become involved in a situation for which activation is appropriate,” as noted by HuffPo.

But these officers conveniently managed to turn off both of their body cameras and the dashcam before entering the alleyway in response to Damond’s call about an alleged sexual assault taking place behind her home.

What’s more, nearly every officer on the scene whose body cameras were actually working, either turned it off or were caught helping Noor, advising him to stay quite.

Imagine for a moment that a regular civilian had just shot and killed an innocent woman, would they receive this same treatment as witnessed below? [the folks at FTP are a little naive. Racist authoritarians have been known to give white people who murder Blacks 1st class treatment, for ex. George Zimmerman and Dylann Roof.]

When officers arrived at the scene they were responding to a “shots fired” call, so they began looking for a suspect. However, once they realized there was no suspect and the cop shot an innocent woman in her pajamas, they immediately began coaching Noor and turning off their body cameras.

When Officer Jesse Lopez arrives on the scene, he tells a visibly distraught Noor, “You all right, kiddo? Just keep to yourself. Keep your mouth shut until you have to say anything to anybody.” He then puts him in a vehicle and drives him away from the scene.

In one video, officer Joseph Grout is heard telling someone his body camera is recording: “I’m hot right now. I don’t know if we’re s’posed to be or not.”

Then, even more disturbing is the fact that when Noor’s supervisor, Sgt. Shannon Barnette showed up and Justine Damond was dying in the street, Barnette called Damond’s phone.

“Hey Justine, this is Sgt. Barnette, Minneapolis police,” she said. “Say I know you called in the unknown trouble call of a woman screaming and I have a question for you, it’s pretty important.”

Prosecutors also brought up damning evidence against Barnette at the trial. According to KARE 11, Barnette admitted in testimony that she did not mean to record the below video. Her body camera captured it, without sound, because the cameras include a 30-second cache prior to pushing the button.

Prosecutors say Noor is demonstrating to Barnette how he fired the shot.

“Did you find out the direction he shot?” someone asked Barnette. “He was in the car,” she replied.

But on the witness stand, as KARE reports, Barnette said Noor never told her anything about the shooting, even though under MPD policy she was supposed to ask a couple of basic questions, like the direction of the shot.

Barnette is also captured on her own body camera turning it off and on.

“The blue wall of silence is alive and well,” Lawyer Bob Bennett, who negotiated a $20 million settlement for Damond’s family, said of the content of the videos. “Who were they protecting and serving?”

Joseph Daly, an emeritus professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, had a similar view about the impact of the body-camera videos, according to the Star Tribune.

“I think the public is going to see a conspiracy of silence,” said Daly. “The public’s going to look at this and say, ‘Is this what police officers do all of the time when they get in trouble? They tell them to keep their mouth shut?’ ”

We agree.

Who Wins a Case where Bodycam “Failed to Activate" & Evidence Comes Down to a Credibility Contest btw a Sworn White Police Officer & a Black Teen? NJ Cop Not Guilty of Battering Monte Stewart

Carteret Police Officer.jpg

"The Evidence Surrounds [the belief in] Authority" & Racism/White Supremacy. An experienced trial attorney will tell you that it is very difficult to get a judge or a jury to believe a cop is lying. The "inaccurate statement(s)" almost have to be totally outrageous before most judges or a jury will go there. A better strategy, especially if the defendant is Black, is to get the judge to believe the cop is incompetent in some way or just mistaken. Reality or anything too real (such as racism) in court is simply unbelievable to judges or jurors in the fake world created in court. Many racist cops are sophisticated, masterful liars who are taught how to testify and create persuasive, detailed police reports. Mixing actual facts with nonsense sounds & looks real in court. White media are also eager and programmed to believe anything foul cops say about Blacks. In a case involving “a failure to activate body camera” and very blurry surveillance video, like this one, the evidence would essentially consist of a credibility contest between a sworn white police officer and a Black teenager[s].  Why would a cop make it up? Because they will believe it.

From [HERE] A Carteret police officer accused of assaulting a teen following a vehicle pursuit was acquitted on all charges Friday, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office confirmed.

Carteret Mayor Daniel Reiman, the officer's older brother, said he was "thrilled' with the verdict by a jury of six woman and seven men who found Joseph Reiman not guilty.

"Justice was served. Not by a 35-second video but by an ethnically and culturally diverse jury from Middlesex County. The jury saw right through this fraudulent persecution of a law enforcement officer doing his job," Reiman said in a text message, adding the jury heard weeks of testimony and saw hundreds of exhibits.

But the mayor, who attended much of the key testimony during the trial and is also white said the case should have never gone this far.

Reiman said the case was a "persecution, not a prosecution" by the prosecutor's office and he will be asking the state Attorney General's Office to investigate.

The mayor criticized the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office for releasing the patrol vehicle video clip of the interaction between Reiman and the teen, Monte Stewart, who was 16 at the time.

"The question is, what happened to the charges filed against Monte Stewart two years ago for his criminal conduct, for his motor vehicle violations? The prosecutor's office buried these and the persecuted a police officer who was doing his job," the mayor said.

"Now they put every officer in my town in jeopardy because of Andrew Carey, the county prosecutor," Reiman said. "So, I'm filing a complaint with the Attorney General's Office. I want an investigation."

Reiman alleged prosecution was hindered and covered up and witnesses were allegedly tampered with. He declined to provide more details or specifics.

"Action will be taken," the mayor said.

The mayor there were expert witnesses in the use of force, crime scene reenactment, medical doctors and a professor of mechanical engineering.

“They (prosecutor's office) argued this was all caused by the police while it was clear as day his (Stewart's) face and head hit the windshield. They still couldn’t answer how they failed to seize the car, and why the family crushed it within days. The prosecutor's office never tested the air bag, or the windshield for blood tissue or DNA," Reiman said. [in other words non-existent evidence would have cleared him]

The Middlesex County Prosecutor's office declined comment.

Earlier this year, Carey questioned the leadership of the Carteret Police Department after Reiman appointed Dennis McFadden as the new chief.

In addition, in January 2015, Carey called and sent a letter to Mayor Reiman about a news story in which the mayor commented about a man's body found in an abandoned two-family Essex Street home. 

In the letter, Carey said the mayor was "very rude and disrespectful" to him and the prosecutor's office during their conversation and that Reiman's statements to the press about the 2015 homicide did not best serve Carteret residents.

On Wednesday, the final day of testimony, Joseph Reiman testified he did not use excessive force in apprehending Stewart after the teen crashed his father's car, which he had taken without permission, into a guide wire on May 31, 2017. 

white cop jersey.jpg

SWORN WHITE COP TESTIFIES. Reiman testified that he did strike the teen in the head and face in an effort to handcuff him, but he denied including any false information in a police report and said he did not intentionally fail to activate his body worn camera during the arrest. He also testified that he did not use any physical force on the teen once he was handcuffed.

Joseph Reiman was indicted in September 2017 of allegedly assaulting and causing injury to Stewart following a vehicle pursuit, crash and arrest. He was accused of repeatedly hitting the teen after the boy exited the car.

He was charged with aggravated assault, official misconduct for failing to use reasonable discretion or restraint in the amount of force used to apprehend the teen and including false information on his police report. An official misconduct charge related to failing to activate his body camera was dismissed by the judge during the trial.

BLACK TEENAGER TESTIFIES. Stewart, now 18, also testified during the trial. He said Reiman repeatedly beat him, even while he was handcuffed. He said he tried to use his hands to protect his face. Stewart also testified he did not threaten the officers, reach for their guns, or have any drugs, alcohol or weapons in his possession.

Throughout the trial, Joseph Reiman was joined in court by a group of supporters. Stewart also had a group of supporters, including some who wore T-shirts with photos of the injuries on his face he allegedly suffered during the incident with Reiman.

Stewart's family could not be reached for comment. The family has a civil suit pending against Reiman. 

A media report indicated Stewart's father, Russell Stewart, who also testified during the trial, had to be restrained following the verdict and shouted that Joseph Reiman had beat his son.  

Judge Orders Release of Charles Ray Finch After 43 Yrs: Black Man Wrongly Sentenced to Death Based on False Forensic Testimony & an Eyewitness ID Manipulated by White NC Cop’s Misconduct

charles ray finch.jpg

“No Reasonable [non-racist] Jury Would Have Convicted Him” From [DPIC] A Black man wrongly convicted and sentenced to death based upon false forensic testimony and an eyewitness identification manipulated by police misconduct has been freed from prison after 43 years. On May 23, 2019, federal district court judge Terrence Boyle ordered North Carolina to release former death-row prisoner Charles Ray Finch (pictured with his members of his legal team) from custody, five months after a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found Finch “actually innocent” of the murder. Finch, now 81 years old, was freed from Greene Correctional Institution in Maura, North Carolina, that afternoon. Finch’s daughter, Katherine Jones-Bailey, was two years old when he was convicted and sentenced to death. “I knew the miracle was going to happen,” she said about her father’s release. “I just didn’t know when.”

Following the appeals court ruling, Finch’s lawyers from the Duke Wrongful Convictions Clinic filed a motion in federal district court seeking his immediate release. The North Carolina Attorney General’s office joined in the motion. The district court formally overturned Finch’s conviction and gave Wilson County prosecutors 30 days to decide whether to retry him. With no credible evidence of guilt, a retrial is considered unlikely. If charges are not refiled, Finch will become the 166th former U.S. death-row prisoner to have been exonerated since 1973. He will be the second death-sentenced prisoner to have waited more than four decades to be exonerated. In March 2019, Clifford Williams, Jr. was exonerated in Florida 42 years after his wrongful conviction and death sentence. 

Finch was convicted in 1976 of murdering a grocery store clerk during an attempted robbery. He was sentenced to death under the mandatory death-sentencing statute then in effect in North Carolina. A state forensic witness testified at the trial that the victim had died from two shotgun wounds, and a shotgun shell was found in Finch’s car. A store employee who saw the killer flee the scene told police that the killer had been wearing a three-quarter length jacket. An eyewitness later identified Finch in three different lineups. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the sentencing statute and, in 1977, the North Carolina Supreme Court vacated Finch’s death sentence and resentenced him to life in prison.

In 2013, testimony by Dr. John Butts, then North Carolina's Chief Medical Examiner, revealed that the victim had been killed by a pistol, not a shotgun and North Carolina State Crime Laboratory Special Agent Peter Ware, the forensic scientist manager for the lab’s firearm toolmark section, testified that the bullet found at the scene and the shell found in Finch’s car did not come from the same firearm. Finch also presented testimony that the eyewitness identification procedures had been unduly suggestive. In an interview, Finch told WNCN-TV, “[w]hen I was picked up, they didn't question me or nothing. They put me there in a line-up. Straight in a line-up. And they put me in a line-up with a black leather coat on.” Chief Deputy Tony Owens claimed that he had put the jacket on another man in the lineup, but photos the defense had discovered showed that Finch was the only person in the three lineups wearing a coat. “That’s one of the highlights at the evidentiary hearing,” said Jim Coleman, Finch’s long-time lawyer and the director of the Duke Wrongful Convictions Clinic. “[W]e were able to expose that [Owens] had lied about the line-up and he had dressed Ray in a coat and he was the only one wearing a coat in the line-up.”

Coleman and the clinic have represented Finch for fifteen years, and Finch was the clinic’s first client. “We have students who work their hearts out on these cases,” Coleman said. “We feel an enormous sense of vindication.”

Oregon Abolishes Death-in-Prison Sentences for Children

From [EJI] Oregon lawmakers passed a bill yesterday that abolishes life-without-parole sentences for children and bars automatic adult prosecution of children.

Senate Bill 1008 reforms draconian and discriminatory provisions enacted by Oregon voters in 1994, when fear of juvenile crime was at an all-time high across the country. Recognizing that the feared juvenile crime wave never materialized, and that developments in neuroscience compel different treatment of children charged with crimes, lawmakers restored judicial discretion to decide when children may be tried as adults for major crimes.

Children convicted and sentenced to adult prison will now be eligible for parole after serving half their sentence, and the law creates a new mechanism for some juveniles to secure early release rather than be transferred to the adult prison system.

Governor Kate Brown and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, as well as retired judges, prison guards, and the Oregon Department of Corrections, supported the bill, which passed the House last night with bipartisan support and a two-thirds majority vote. It now goes to the governor, who "actively looks forward to signing it," her office said.

"As people who have worked with these youth, we know firsthand that a majority of them — when given the opportunities, support and guidance — have the capacity to grow and become productive members of our communities," representatives from the prison guards' union wrote to the Oregon House.

Rep. Greg Smith (R-Heppner) supported the bill. He spoke on the floor about his work at a juvenile correctional facility. "I had a chance to work with these youths every single day," he said. "Here’s the reality: They're kids. They're kids who made a mistake."

A coalition of advocates and organizations supported SB 1008, including the Oregon Justice Resource Center (OJRC), the ACLU of Oregon, and Koch Industries. OJRC Executive Director Bobbin Singh said the legislation puts Oregon on the right track. "Moving toward a system based on what the science teaches us about brain development in young people and what actually works to reduce harm is the right choice," he said in a statement. "We all want to see accountability, but healing needs to be part of the equation."

Supreme Court Denies Review in Black Man's Death-Penalty Case where Texas Judge Rubberstamped or Adopted the Prosecutors’ Proposed Findings of Fact Verbatim

From [HERE] The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a case in which the Texas courts decided a death-row prisoner’s appeal by adopting the prosecution’s fact findings and legal arguments word-for-word without providing the defendant’s lawyer any opportunity to respond. In a May 20, 2019 ruling, the Court without comment denied the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Ray Freeney, thereby permitting the Harris County prisoner’s conviction and death sentence to stand. The decision was the latest in a series of cases in which the Court has refused to take up the issue of state-court rulings that are verbatim copies of proposed orders written entirely by the prosecution. In June 2018, researchers at the University of Texas School of Law Capital Punishment Center exposed the systemic rubberstamping of prosecutors’ pleadings in Harris County capital cases. The researchers found that county judges had adopted prosecutors’ proposed findings of fact verbatim in 96% of 191 capital cases in which factual issues had been contested. Harris County has executed 129 men and women, more than double the number executed in any other county in the United States and more than have been executed in any state in the country other than Texas.

In a Washington Post op-ed, columnist Radley Balko said Freeney’s case not only raises questions about the practice of judges rubberstamping prosecutorial findings, but also “test[s] the absurd, outer limits of AEDPA’s deference to state courts.” AEDPA is the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the habeas corpus amendments passed by Congress in 1996. Those amendments have significantly reduced federal courts’ ability to review and redress violations of a state defendant’s right to a fair trial and sentencing by requiring federal judges to give a high level of deference to state court findings. Balko explains, “to get a federal court to review a state court’s ruling, a defendant must show not only that the state court (and the state courts that upheld the ruling) were wrong, but that the prevailing ruling was either ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,’ or an ‘unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.’ Put plainly, you must convince the federal courts not only that the state courts were wrong, but also that they were unreasonably wrong.”

When Ray Freeney’s case came before Texas District Court Judge Renee Magee, his appeal lawyers sought a new sentencing hearing because his trial lawyers had failed to investigate and present to the jury evidence that Freeney suffered from mental illness and had been the victim of chronic child abuse. Judge Magee, who had spent 19 years as a prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, asked for briefs, and received 204 proposed findings of fact from the prosecution, based on over 800 pages of testimony. The next day, she adopted the factfinding verbatim. Freeney’s defense attorneys were never given an opportunity to respond, or to submit their own brief containing new evidence to support their claim that his trial attorneys had provided inadequate counsel. The University of Texas study has demonstrated that “rubberstamping” of prosecutors’ proposed orders is common in Harris County, particularly in cases in which the judge was a former county prosecutor. But Feeney’s case stood out even more in that Judge Magee provided his lawyers no opportunity to respond to the prosecution’s proposed disposition of the case. “When you have such egregious inattention to facts and lack of stewardship of constitutional rights as we’ve seen in Harris County,” Balko said, “the entire system begins to look like a farce.”

Under AEDPA, rubberstamped findings are routinely treated with the same level of deference as findings that judges wrote themselves. Balko explains that, “under the controlling case law for the [Texas federal courts], ‘a full and fair hearing is not a precondition to presumption of correctness to state habeas court findings of fact.’” “The message sent to state judges by the Fifth Circuit in Mr. Freeney’s case was clear,” says Richard Bourke, one of Freeney’s attorneys. “You don’t need to consider the defense’s legal arguments. You don’t need to consider the defense’s evidence. You don’t even need to wait until the defense has presented either. You can just rubber stamp the state’s brief. And you needn’t worry about the Fifth Circuit overruling you.” 

Rubberstamping “isn’t even all that uncommon. In some parts of the country, it’s routine,” Balko said. In several 2016 articles for The Marshall Project, Andrew Cohen noted court decisions “ghostwritten” by prosecutors in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. On May 16, 2018, Texas executed Juan Castillo after a Bexar County judge denied him an evidentiary hearing on his claim that prosecutors had presented false testimony to secure his conviction. The judge adopted the prosecution's proposed findings and order verbatim—changing only the signature line on the order—without permitting Castillo’s lawyers to submit proposed findings or to respond to the prosecution’s submission. Alabama attempted to execute Doyle Hamm in February 2018 after state courts had adopted word-for-word an 89-page order written by the state attorney general’s office one business day after receiving the prosecution’s proposed order, without removing the word “proposed” from the title of the order.

Video Shows Several White Hayward Cops Sitting On Top of a Dying Black Man & Holding his Head Down to Place Him in a Restraint Device as He Begged for Air. Committed No Crime, Suit Filed

From [HERE] Video of a 2015 death stemming from an arrest shows several Hayward officers sitting on top of a 42-year-old man, holding his head down as they attempt to place him in a restraint device.

Roy Nelson Jr. died that night , moments after whimpering and saying he couldn’t breathe. His death was ruled a result of physical exertion combined with methamphetamine intoxication, according to court records.

Several officer point-of-view videos of his death were publicly released through a federal lawsuit filed by Nelson’s son, who retained the services of well-known civil rights attorney John Burris. The suit against the Hayward Police Department names officers Nathanael Shannon, Matthew McCrea, John Padavana, Lloyd McKee and Michelle Hall as defendants.

The lawsuit still is in its pretrial stages, but in March a federal judge allowed excessive force claims against Hayward to proceed.

“Officers detained Nelson, who was mentally ill, pursuant to a 5150 hold and, while waiting for the ambulance to pick him up, restrained him in a prone position and continued to apply weight to his back even after he said he could not breathe,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim wrote in her decision. “Nelson was unarmed, handcuffed, restrained at the ankles, and suspected of no crime when Defendants made their decision to continue applying the WRAP device after he cried out that he was suffocating and after he lost consciousness.”

roy nelson murderd.jpg

Kim noted in her decision that both sides claim the video supports their point of view but said the ultimate decision should be left to a jury.

Hayward police Chief Mark Koller did not respond to requests for comment.

The video shows an officer at one point dismissing another officer when she pointed out that Nelson had stopped breathing. A minute later, the officers agree that Nelson lost consciousness and stopped breathing but don’t begin lifesaving measures for more than five minutes.

Unlike most police videos, this footage was recorded by the officers’ Google glasses, not body cameras.

Melissa Nold, an attorney for Nelson’s son who works for the law offices of John Burris, called the video, “easily one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen on video.”

“This was a strictly medical call, not a situation where he was accused of a crime. They were there to facilitate a mental health call, and how he could end up deceased when he’s clearly not resisting is beyond me,” she said, later adding, “When a large-sized person is facing down on the ground, putting weight on their back can kill them. This is something police have been warned not to do for years.”

Attorneys for the city of Hayward wrote that Nelson wasn’t complying with officers’ orders, which gave them just cause to continue applying pressure to his back and head.

Nelson died in December 2015, after his ex-wife called police and reported he was going through a mental health crisis and hallucinating. The responding officers agreed and placed him in a mental health hold, putting him in the squad car without handcuffs on.

According to court records, Nelson — 6-feet-4 inches and around 300 pounds — had a history of schizophrenia and recently had spent time at a psychiatric institution. Officers have since testified that they recognized Nelson from previous contacts.

Police called for an ambulance, which was delayed for more than a half hour. While waiting, Nelson reportedly told an officer he wanted to die and started talking to his uncle, who wasn’t present.

According to police, Nelson then began kicking at the windows of the police car, from the backseat. So officers called for backup and ultimately decided to put Nelson in a full body restraint device known as a WRAP.

Police decided to move him to a nearby parking lot at Chabot College and called for backup, thinking it would be good to take him away from the ex-wife’s home before putting him in the restraint device. At least four officers are required to use a WRAP, according to court records.

The video shows officers yelling at Nelson as he sits inside the squad car, telling him to turn around so they can remove him. When he complies, they take him out of the car and instruct him to lie down. After briefly resisting, Nelson agrees and gets on his knees, then lies face down as several officers get on top of him and handcuff him.

roy nelson 2.jpg

After about 20 seconds of being on the ground, Nelson says, “I can’t breathe.”

Nelson can be heard whimpering as officers tell him to “stop resisting” and “relax” as they attempt to put him in the device. About two minutes later, he stops moving altogether.

One officer, Hall, has her hand on Nelson’s head. Attorneys for the city of Hayward say that was to prevent him from raising his head and also from hitting his head on the pavement.

“I don’t know if he’s faking it, but he’s not reacting … he’s not doing anything, guys,” a female officer, presumably Hall, can be heard saying. A few seconds later, she says, “I think he’s unconscious.”

“Is he breathing?” another officer asks.

“I don’t think so,” the woman replies.

“He’s breathing,” another officer insists, dismissively. But about a minute later, they roll Nelson over and acknowledge he’s unconscious. They then check for a pulse.

About five minutes later, the officers cut Nelson’s shirt off, and one can be heard saying he detected a pulse. About a minute after that, paramedics arrive and begin performing CPR. Nelson was brought to a hospital and declared dead later that night.

Nelson’s son, Roy Nelson III, said he’s affected by the loss of his dad every day and that it has soured his faith in law enforcement.

“But I’m glad it is getting put out there that my father called for help, he was actually wanting help,” Nelson III said. “I want people to know that even when you call the police for help, if you’re African-American they’re gonna put you in a different light, especially in Hayward, California.”

At 1AM a White SAPD Cop Crept Up On an Open Door w/his Gun Out Talking About, “What’s Up Man?" & then Fatally Shot an Unarmed Black Teen. Never Identified Himself, bodycam released

Contrary to this Government spun video, the Supreme Court has explained that as a constitutional matter, police may not arrest a person in his home without a warrant absent exigent circumstances or consent and may not arrest a person in another person’s home without a search and perhaps an arrest warrant absent exigent circumstances or consent. As such, its unclear what the white cop in the video was trying to accomplish when he went to the house- he had no exigent circumstances & no warrant and could have got one if a judge found those 2 drug fiend snitches credible. This episode and countless others demonstrate that “your rights” are myths or hallucinations that only exist if a cop thinks they exist.

From [HERE] On the morning of October 17, 2018, yet a visit from a white police officer snowballed into an officer-involved shooting that killed Charles "Chop" Roundtree Jr.

Police said the gunfire was intended for  the 18-year-old's companion, Davante Snowden. According to Police Chief William McManus, Snowden took a threatening stance against Officer Steve Casanova. 

McManus said Casanova then fired his service weapon, striking Snowden in the backside. The chief said the gunfire exited Snowden's buttocks hitting Roundtree in the chest. 

The unarmed 18-year-old was killed. He had no criminal record.

Eyewitness News has been working for months to get a copy of Casanova's body camera video. SAPD denied the requests, citing the officer had not been cleared criminally, as well as the ongoing case investigation.

However, a source wishing to remain anonymous sent a copy of the officer's body camera video with a note that said, "You should see this."

KENS 5 was able to authenticate the nearly 90-minute-long video with Snowden's criminal attorney, Alex Washington. He had no comment beyond its verification.

The footage begins with Casanova sitting in his police cruiser, talking to Maria Herrera. Initially, there is no audio until the policeman gets out of his vehicle to investigate assault allegations.

Herrera said she was delivering soup to a Facebook client even though it was after 1 in the morning. [lol. Only racist suspect media & prosecutors would believe some bullshit like that]

Casanova and a second officer were reportedly watching 217 Roberts St. The couple was parked across the street from the house when the attack happened.

Herrera tells the officers the attacker was tall, skinny and had no hair. Casanova said officers would look for the attacker before returning to his vehicle to wait for backup to arrive.

According to the body camera, three officers got in position down the street from 217 Roberts in case any potential suspect ran.

SAPD kill people.jpg

Two officers accompanied Casanova to the house.

Casanova: What’s up, man? (Walks up to the house. Opens gate as he speaks to a man eating on the porch.) You live here?
Man: No, sir.
Casanova: You don’t? Who’s staying here right now?
Man: I don’t know.
Casanova: You don’t know. Remove your hat for me. (Shines police light on the man. The man pulls his hat up.) I recognize you.

The white cop walks on the porch and pulls on a locked screen door to the side of him. Two knocks can be heard on his body camera video. A nudge from the officer opens the front door, behind the screen door. 

Snowden: What’s up?
Casanova: What’s up, man?
Snowden: Hey who the f*** is this?
Casanova: Hey lemme see your f***ing hands! (Fires gun twice) F***! Shots fired! (Runs toward the street.) Oh s**t! Watch out! Move out my way!
Dispatcher: 2330, you said shots fired?
Casanova: F***! Get back!
Officer: Back! Back! Back! (Emergency tone goes off. Dogs are barking and coming toward police.)
Casanova: Get that f***ing dog outta here!
Officer: What did you see?! What did you see?!
Casanova: Hey, he had a f***ing gun and pulled it out (Emergency tone sounds off).

Casanova is never seen entering the home in the video; he shot from outside the front screen door. 

Officers rushed to the scene when they head the distress call. In the middle of the chaos, Casanova and the other officers allow the man who was eating on the porch to crawl out of the yard.

Snowden was shot in the backside. He was taken to University Hospital. Roundtree died inside of the home.

'Nothing...that would justify a use of deadly force'

Geary Ramey and George Saidler watched the body camera video in a KENS 5 conference room.

Ramey is a St. Mary’s Law School professor who was formerly a Dallas-based attorney. He also served as legal advisor for the Irving Police Department. He is an expert in criminal law, criminal law procedure, police searches, seizures and use-of-force.

“There’s nothing at the point of the shooting that would justify a use of deadly force in order to make an arrest,” Ramey said.

Saidler has 45 years of law enforcement experience, having worked at SAPD, where he was a robbery and homicide detective and SWAT member. 

He also worked as a capital crimes investigator at the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office, where he also looked into officer-involved shootings.

Before retiring, Saidler served as the deputy chief of criminal investigations. Officer-involved shooting investigations were investigated under his eye. 

“I’m not aware of anything right off the top of my head that I see that just stands out to me and goes, 'Yeah, that’s not the way you should have handled that,'” Saidler said.

Ramey said it’s unclear if Snowden has a gun in the video. He doesn’t believe the people inside of 217 Roberts St. knew Casanova was an officer because he never identified himself.

“He certainly needs to identify himself quickly because he’s wearing a dark uniform. This is in the middle of the night,” Ramey said. “So it’s not going to be clear to anyone who is on the porch.”

Snowden was charged with felon in possession of weapon. Police have not held anyone criminally responsible for Roundtree’s death.

SAPD’s review was turned over to the DA’s office. It’s unclear where the case stands but Christine Del Prado, chief of Special Crimes for District Attorney Joe Gonzales, released the following statement:

“The officer shooting is under review, so we cannot make any further comment at this time."

Ramey said the DA’s Office has a lot of power and persuasion in such cases, including the ability to present the shooting to a grand jury for an indictment. He said most grand jurors are sympathetic to police.

“If we’re going to prosecute an officer, we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that officer not only caused the death,” he said. “And that it was an unlawful killing. We have to prove as a parcel that the officer was not justified, that the officer was not acting in self-defense.”

According to court filings, Casanova continues to work at SAPD. His attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

After a Black Woman Dared to Question a White Atlanta Cop’s Authority for Unlawfully Seizing Her in a Parked Car, He Assaulted Her in Front of Her 4 Yr Old Child. Cop Fired but Not Charged

From [HERE] A white Atlanta police sergeant was fired after a cellphone video surfaced showing him yanking a black woman from her car, slamming her to the ground, punching her in the face and deploying a stun gun on her during an arrest this month in front of her 4-year-old daughter.

All charges against the woman, Maggie Thomas, were dropped after the video surfaced earlier this month. The woman and her attorney had both called for Sgt. James Hines to be fired.

In a statement released to ABC News on Wednesday, Atlanta police officials said they were made aware of the incident on May 10, and launched an investigation that led to the sergeant's dismissal and a recommendation from police to prosecutors to drop the charges against the woman.

"Accordingly, the Chief of Police directed the Office of Professional Standards to immediately begin investigating the circumstances surrounding this incident," the police statement reads. "Following its investigation, the Office of Professional Standards determined that the force used during the arrest was unnecessary and inconsistent with Atlanta Police Department training. Subsequently, Sergeant Hines was dismissed from employment on May 17, 2019."

Thomas said the episode unfolded on May 1 when Hines approached her car as she and her child sat inside and began questioning her. The incident, according to her attorney, quickly escalated into police brutality.

"A recommendation has been made to the City Solicitor that consideration be given to the dismissal of the charge against Ms. Thomas," the police department's statement reads.

Thomas' attorney, Gerald Griggs of Atlanta, told ABC News that Thomas was arrested on a traffic warrant that he said was issued in error and disorderly conduct.

In an incident report released by police, Hines wrote: "I asked Ms. Thomas if the car was hers and she said it was. I then told her that the car had no insurance and to make sure that she did not drive it."

Hines wrote that Thomas became "agitated" and told him, "There shouldn't be a white officer harassing her," and asked for the name of his supervisor.

He claimed that he gave Thomas the name of his supervisor and left the scene.

"As I got a block or so away I began to wonder why she became so agitated at my mere presence and ran her name," he wrote.

Hines wrote that a warrant came back on Thomas for failing to appear in court for a speeding ticket.

Hines, according to his report, went back to Thomas' car and demanded to see her driver's license and the incident quickly escalated.

He wrote that Thomas refused to cooperate and that when he attempted to take her into custody, a struggled ensued.

Sgt. James Hines .jpg

"I then took Ms. Thomas to the ground and she still refused to give me her right hand. I took out my Taser and drive-stunned her in the back," Hines wrote. "She then began to comply and I eventually was able to get both hands cuffed."

He wrote that as he was walking Thomas to her car, she began struggling with him again and "bent over and bit my right hand."

"I immediately punched her in the face and she fell to the ground," Hines wrote.

When reached by ABC News, Hines said, "I don't have any comment."

Griggs said Thomas never bit the officer's hands, and that the circumstances of the episode did not warrant such brutal force.

"She wasn't driving. She hadn't been driving and he made contact with her twice," Griggs said of the officer.

When the officer approached Thomas the second time and asked for her name, she told him, according to Griggs, "I just gave you my name when you ran everything the first time."

"She starts asking him what's the warrant for and then her baby, the 4-year-old, latches onto her and he Tasers her," Griggs said.

In a cellphone video Griggs shared with ABC News, the officer is seen slamming Thomas to the ground, and punching her in the face before he deploys a stun gun on her and places her in handcuffs.

Griggs said Thomas was punched in the left eye during the encounter.

"She still has headaches. You can still see the bruising," Griggs said. "She's getting counseling for the traumatic effects of this incident and her daughter is getting counseling as well."

Old Dumb MF Can't Even Talk or Spell: Dumbentia Trump Wrote "No Achomlishments" on Notes for His Prepared Tantrum [spelling out “White Presumacy" as the Ultimate Affirmative Action]

dumbentia trump.jpg

[MORE] and [MORE]

white supremacy - White Presumacy. (See: Racism, Windigo, Yurugu, Western Civilization & White Presumacy)

White privilege - an invisible package of unearned assets bequeathed to all Caucasians. 2) an invisible weightless knapsack of advantages including but never limited to: special provisions and dispensations, over-passports, code words, maps, signs, codebooks, visas, clothes, vistas, tools, etc. of which most Caucasians are oblivious to wearing or utilizing. 

white propaganda - a game two can play—which consists simply in repeating '"I am better than you" and "you are utterly unlike (opposite to) me" over and over again; despite the historical record to the contrary.    (See: Black Propaganda, Intoxification, Oppositional Imaging, Oppositionalism, Neuropeans, Superiority Complex, Caucasian & Disinformation)  

New Study says Black Men & White Men Have the Same Risk of Dying from Prostate Cancer When Access to Care and Treatment are Equal: Disparity is Due to Racism/White Supremacy Not Genetics

theodore allen .jpg

White Over Black System of Vast Unequal Power & Conditions From [NBC] For African American men, the risk of dying from prostate cancer is the same as that of white men when access to care and treatment are equal, a new study finds.

This casts doubt on the widely held belief that, when it comes to African American prostate health, genetic factors play a larger role than health disparities.

The results of the study were published Thursday in the journal JAMA Oncology.

“Black men have similar outcomes to white men once they’re diagnosed with prostate cancer, when you account for differences in access to health care and receiving guideline-recommended treatment,” said lead study author Dr. Daniel Spratt, associate professor and vice chair of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan. “In fact, black men, on average, had better outcomes than white men, when looking at patients who enrolled on clinical trials.”

“This data suggests that — although on the population level, more black men die from prostate cancer than white men — this disparity is largely, if not entirely, driven by social constructs and even systematic racial disparities in our country,” Spratt told NBC News. These include less access to health care, insurance, and appropriate and timely treatment.

The University of Michigan researchers led by Spratt and Dr. Robert Dess looked at data from 306,100 men — 54,840 black men — ages 59 to 71 from the Veterans Affairs system and four other clinical trials. When the researchers compared black and white men of similar age, socioeconomic status, and tumor characteristics, such as prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, stage and grade of cancer — all of which predict the cancer’s aggressiveness — they found that black men had comparable rates of death to white men, when they had similar access to care and standardized treatment.

The new findings underscore the need for equal access to care and treatment.

“When a black man shows up in my clinic [for prostate cancer treatment], I am confident that I can tell him that he will have very similar long-term outcomes … to a white man, in regards to dying of prostate cancer,” Spratt said.

“This study debunks that there is a large genetic driver of stage-for-stage worse prostate cancer outcomes in black men compared [with] white men, and [instead suggests] that previously detected differences are largely, if not entirely, driven by social and cultural factors.”

Socioeconomic factors, for example, could play a role in the disparities seen between black and white men with prostate cancer, said study co-author Dr. Brandon Mahal, a radiation oncologist at Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center in Boston who researches prostate cancer.

But another factor, Mahal said, is that doctors may provide biased treatment to black men, based on the idea that they inherently have more aggressive cancers.

Mahal published a separate study Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine that looked at the increasing trend of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer. That study noted that, while conservative management for prostate cancer has increased for both black and white men, doctors offer the approach to black men disproportionately less often than white men.

“Conservative management of low-risk prostate cancer — through either active surveillance or watchful waiting — has been increasingly used as an alternative to radiation … or [surgery]. However, this approach may be underused among black men, because they are generally underrepresented in clinical trials and are thought to have more aggressive cancers,” Mahal said.

A larger conversation on health disparities

Factors leading to health disparities for prostate cancer in African Americans include stress, income, lifestyle and poor diet. Biological differences and medical access also contribute.

Prostate cancer is diagnosed in about 164,000 American men every year. It kills about 29,000 a year, according to the American Cancer Society. And African American men have about a 15 percent chance of developing prostate cancer in their lifetimes, compared to about a 10 percent chance for white men, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Previous studies — most notably the SEER trial — have shown that African American men have the highest rates of new prostate cancer diagnoses (158.3 per 100,000 men) and are twice as likely to die from the disease as white men. Although this disparity is nothing new, researchers have been unable to provide concrete answers as to why it exists.

While the new JAMA Oncology study does not answer the question of why black men develop prostate cancer more often than white men, it does highlight several factors that black men should be aware of when addressing their health.

Compared with white men, “black men have lower rates of PSA screening, are often diagnosed at [a] later stage of disease, have less access to insurance, have lower socioeconomic status, and higher rates of obesity and diabetes … all of these factors impact the type of treatment they receive and their ability to complete” that treatment, Spratt said. “These differences likely largely explain why, on a population level, black men are more likely to die from prostate cancer than white men.”

More importantly, Spratt notes that the numbers of black men dying from prostate cancer pale in comparison to the numbers of black men dying from causes such as heart disease. But this research opens the door to a larger conversation.

“The larger and more important question to address is why black men are dying [at higher rates than white men] of other causes, like heart disease. This emphasizes the importance of addressing the social inequities for black men [in the U.S.] and making sure they have access to, and can afford timely and quality health care,” Spratt said.

Spratt and Mahal both believe that increasing racial diversity in clinical trials, as well as in the health care workforce, can go a long way in helping to create true equality in health care.

“America needs fundamental socioculture changes to reduce — and hopefully one day eliminate —discrimination, and [to] improve access to health care, providing insurance coverage and … access to quality care not just for cancer, but for other diseases” as well, Spratt said. “One method that can help with this is by expanding the diversity of the health care workforce.”

[In the Presence of Color Racist Authoritarians are Unable to See Things as They Are] White Philadelphia Cop Shoots Unarmed Black Man Panhandling in Traffic who Posed No Threat

From [HERE] and [HERE] Shocking footage shows the moment that a Black man said to be mentally disabled was shot by a white plain-clothes officer through a closed car window in Philadelphia. 

Joel Johnson, 28, was walking between several cars on Monday night at approximately 8.50pm when a white officer fired at him three times, striking him once in his torso. The 29-year-old Philadelphia Detective Francis DiGiorgio is now on desk duty while an internal affairs investigation is conducted. [as is standard protocol in a police state and system of white supremacy where white cops are judged by different standards of morality, legality and accountability] Johnson is in critical, but stable condition.

Johnson, whose brother Jose Tirado referred to him as 'Eddie', was taken to Temple University Hospital late on Monday, according to a post by Tirado on Facebook.

shot through closed window.jpg

Surveillance video obtained by CBS Philadelphia is dark and grainy, but you can make out Joel Johnson panhandling Monday evening between slow-moving traffic.

Just as the 28-year-old Black man approached an unmarked police car with his arms outstretched, four shots were fired from  inside, shattering the closed window and sending Johnson stumbling to the ground -- hit once in the torso. The white cop shot him through the glass.

"He approached the driver's side of the vehicle and the detective believed what he saw was a firearm in this man's hands," said Police Captain Sekou Kinebrew. "The detective believing that he was gonna be robbed or something was going to happen to him, induced his firearm."

Video shows Johnson walk up to the detective's vehicle and in the next moment, several shots are fired and the man falls to the ground.  

'The detective believed what he saw was a firearm in this male's hands,' Philadelphia Police Captain Sekou Kinebrew said.

'The detective, believing he was going to be robbed or something was going to happen to him, produced his firearm, discharged his firearm - we believe at this time - three times.'

'A lot of people say he just made a hand gesture for change like he always does,' one of Johnson's brothers said. 'The officer was on his phone and when he looked up he got startled, he got nervous, and started shooting through the window.'

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross Jr. said there was no weapon at the scene.  

'It's not automatically an issue of whether there's a weapon or not. I know for some people they think that's the way it should be - obviously, it's the first thing we look for,' Ross said.

'But I'm always going to be very candid with you when I know there's not one. So I'm not going to sit here and tell you that we haven't found one, we don't expect to find one.'

Karaoke With A Bored Cop in West Philly on 5/23. Black cops public relations effort to deceive Black people and create better false relations with the people they surveil and treat as enemies of the state on behalf of their elite, white masters.

Tyranny Requires an Accomplice but so far Western Territorial Gangsters Have Only Tricked Americans into Believing in the Authority of an Unelected, Attempted-Puppet “President" in Venezuela

puppet in venezuala .jpg

According to FUNKTIONARY

tyrants - there are none; only tyranny exists. How can one man or woman rule a multitude against their will except through mind-control and word-conditioning control? "Find out the exact amount of injustice any people accept, and you will find out the exact amount of injustice they receive." -Freddy D. "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -John Jay, Castilian Days II, 1872. (See: Tyranny, Terms, "The Law," Dictatorship, Corporate State & Fascism)

tyranny - the miscarriage of self-government. 2) the absence of ethical anarchy. In our system, tyranny must have an accomplice. The perpetrator by intent must be accommodated by the perpetrator by consent. The former initiates, the latter accommodates. Of all tyrannies, the greatest is the tyranny of the ego-mind. "If the government is allowed to place a tax on what is a natural right it can raise that tax to the point where that right has been effectively destroyed. That is tyranny."" Butcher's Union Company v. Crescent City. "No man, no group, and no nation has the right to any man's individual freedom. No matter how pure the motive, how great the emergency, how high the principle, such action is nothing but tyranny. It is never justified." -John W. Parsons. Tyranny Law #1 - Any power that can be abused will be abused. Tyranny Law #2 - Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. Tyranny Law #3 - If people don't resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt. -John Curran. Retaining and exercising the unalienable right to distribute one's own property and wealth without restriction is the only guarantee of freedom from tyranny. (See: Labor, Anarchy, Appropriation, Income Taxes, IRS, Bill of Rights, Property, Freedom, Self-Determination, GIMME!, Autotyranny, Matrix, Organizations, Private Services & Liberation)

With the world’s largest oil reserves Venezuela is "a threat" to white supremacy. [MORE] The UN found no humanitarian crisis in Venezuela just the weaponization of one by territorial gangsters and their corporate media.

UN report states: “A disquieting media campaign seeks to force observers into a preconceived view that there is a “humanitarian crisis” in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. An independent expert must be wary of hyperbole, bearing in mind that “humanitarian crisis” is a terminus technicus that can be misused as a pretext for military intervention.

Instead, international solidarity with the Venezuelan people should facilitate the free flow of food and medicines in order to alleviate the current scarcity. Help should be genuinely humanitarian and not pursue ulterior political purposes. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Caritas Internationalis and other organizations could assist in coordinating the importation and distribution of aid; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation could help wipe out malaria in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

…Although the situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has not yet reached the humanitarian crisis threshold, there is hunger, malnutrition, anxiety, anguish and emigration. What is crucial is to study the causes of the crisis, including neglected factors of sanctions, sabotage, hoarding, black market activities, induced inflation and contraband in food and medicines.”

The “crisis” in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is an economic crisis, which cannot be compared with the humanitarian crises in Gaza, Yemen, Libya, the Syrian Arab Republic, Iraq, Haiti, Mali, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Somalia, or Myanmar, among others. It is significant that when, in 2017, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela requested medical aid from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the plea was rejected, because it ”is still a high-income country … and as such is not eligible”. During his mission, the Independent Expert discussed the issues of food and medicine scarcity with experts from FAO and obtained pertinent data from the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The December 2017 FAO report and the March 2018 report list food crises in 37 countries. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is not among them.” [MORE]

"Who Controls You?" Government is Arrogating All Power to Itself to Service Itself. It is All About Control of You

government hoax - next to money, the biggest hoax of them all. "The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It's the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it's claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone and their property. Another reason is: no service or product should y be provided at the barrel of a gun. It's that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn't exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don't "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don't acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't." -Marc Stevens. " [MORE]

government paradox - Government is men and women providing services on a compulsory basis—pay and obey 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. (See: Statism, Nations, Slavery, Standing, Jurisdiction, State, Unalienable Rights, Freedom, Predictive Programming, Education & Citizens)

work for you 2x.jpg

"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 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. [MORE]

Congressional Hearing Reveals that More than Half of American Adults are Part of Facial Recognition Databases, MIT Researcher says it's use [by Government] Poses “too great a risk" to the Public

Hungry Cop Watching You.jpg

From [HERE] In a Wednesday hearing on face recognition technology, experts and members of the House Oversight Committee expressed concern about errors and bias linked to the technology and its impact on civil liberties.

“More than half of American adults are part of facial recognition databases, and they may not even know it,” said Elijah Cummings, the Maryland Democrat and the committee’s chairman, who later suggested that the technology is a “defective system.”

Experts testifying pointed to evidence that facial recognition software often has lower accuracy rates with people other than white men and the lack of oversight over how police agencies deploy the technology.

“Federal, state, and local police continue to expand the use of this controversial technology–even amid ample evidence that it is not being used consistent with our core constitutional values,” said American Civil Liberties Union senior legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani in a written statement. “Congress should press federal agencies to hit the pause button and stop using this technology until rights can be safeguarded and there is a democratic process dictating what, if any, uses are appropriate.”

Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher Joy Buolamwini, who has studied racial and gender bias in face recognition, also called for a halt to police use of the technology, which she says poses “too great a risk” to the public.

“Congress should pass a moratorium on the police use of facial recognition,” she told the committee.

recent report from the Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology found police departments used the technology to search databases in ways the underlying science doesn’t support, including searches based on celebrities suspects were said to resemble, based on sketches drawn from witness reports and based on altered photographs.

“Defendants are left in the dark about all of this, often never told that face recognition was used to identify them,” said Clare Garvie, the paper’s author and a senior associate at the Center on Privacy and Technology, to the committee.

Witnesses also expressed concern about the civil liberties ramifications of police using cameras to automatically scan the faces of wide swaths of the population, with University of the District of Columbia law professor Andrew Ferguson calling for a ban to such practices.

“Congress must act now to regulate facial recognition technologies,” he said. “I think we should ban face surveillance, which is the use of these technologies without any kind of individualized suspicion.”

Committee members from both sides of the political aisle also aired their own concerns about the technology, expressing hope for bipartisan legislation to regulate police face recognition.

“Let’s get together and work on legislation,” said North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows. “The time is now, before it gets out of control.”

California State Senate May Ban Police Departments from Using Facial Recognition Technology in their Body Cameras

From [HERE] The California state Senate is considering legislation that would ban law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology in body cameras.

The proposal passed the state Assembly earlier this month and is among a flurry of bills the upper chamber will consider starting next month. Backers of the ban contend facial recognition software is currently faulty and misidentifies people.

Last week San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance banning facial recognition software by law enforcement and other local agencies. The action requires city departments first to get approval to use surveillance technology, including license-plate readers.

In the East Bay, the city of Oakland is considering a ban on facial recognition technology.

Assembly Bill 1215 would ban the installation and use of facial recognition and biometric scanners statewide in police body cameras, which are widely used by law enforcement agencies across the state.

“Much of it that is being used right now is actually not very accurate,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, who introduced the measure in February.

Ting has been critical of Amazon’s Rekognition facial recognition technology, as have some company shareholders. Amazon investors are set to vote on a shareholder resolution Wednesday at the company’s annual meeting in Seattle that seeks to halt sales of the Rekognition system to government.

False identification

Last month, Ting testified to an Assembly public safety panel that the Rekognition “system falsely identified 28 sitting members of Congress as people in a mug shot database, with members of color disproportionately misidentified.” Facial scanning technology also has been criticized for misidentifying women and young people.

AB 1215 is endorsed by a coalition of privacy and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Facial recognition technology already has been used in airports in California and other parts of the country by the federal government.

The California bill passed the Assembly on May 9 with bipartisan support. It still must overcome hurdles in several Senate committees before it can reach the chamber’s floor.

“Without my bill, face recognition technology can subject law-abiding citizens to perpetual police line-ups, as their every movement is tracked without consent,” Ting said. “Its use, if left unchecked, undermines public trust in government institutions and unduly intrudes on one’s constitutional right to privacy.”

But some state lawmakers reject privacy concerns when it comes to the proposed facial recognition ban.

“Individuals, you and me, forgo our privacy when we enter public spaces,” Assemblyman Steven Choi, R-Orange County, said before voting against AB 1215. “The use of biometrics by law enforcement agencies not only places our agencies in a proactive stance in finding known criminals but it also saves the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in time and resources.”

Several law enforcement groups in the state also raised concerns about the state’s proposed legislation.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association argues that the legislation would take away tools that could potentially protect public safety and aid in investigations. In addition, the California Police Chiefs Association believes curbing the use of the facial recognition technology could hurt law enforcement’s ability to identify and detain suspects.