No Right to Defend Yourself in Case of Assault, Robbery, Rape etc on DC’s Dangerous Subway. Blight House Urges Court to Keep Gun Ban for Law Abiding Citizens [so That Only Criminals Will have Guns]

From [HERE] The Biden administration is urging a federal judge to uphold Washington’s ban on individuals carrying firearms on the city’s crime-ridden local public transit system popularly known as the DC Metro.

The lawsuit is one of many filed nationwide challenging gun laws after the Supreme Court’s landmark 6–3 ruling on June 23 recognizing a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. The opinion states that to ban concealed weapons in a specific place, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.”

The plaintiffs—city residents Gregory T. Angelo, Tyler Yzaguirre, and Robert M. Miller, along with Fairfax, Virginia, resident Cameron M. Erickson—filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 30.

Judge Randolph D. Moss, an Obama appointee, is presiding over the case. The plaintiffs are suing the District of Columbia and Metropolitan Police Department Chief Robert J. Contee III. Yzaguirre is president of the nonprofit Second Amendment Institute.

The four men, all holders of concealed pistol carry licenses issued by Contee’s office, are regular riders of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, which runs bus and subway lines in the greater Washington area, including in northern Virginia and Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland. [MORE]

Although, the Supreme Court made it clear that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in public, liberal puppeticians and freedumb believers work tirelessly to make said inalienable right illusory. The court clearly stated;

Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in- fringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.

Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 599; see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, id., at 628, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant else- where. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. See Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 937 (CA7 2012) (“[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”). The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.

The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.

At Trial for Excessive Force Portland Cops say Their Right to Attack People 'Authorizes Force Against Protestors who are Passively Resisting and People in a Crowd who may have Committed Crimes before'

From [HERE] The first civil lawsuit against Portland for police behavior during 2020 protests to reach a jury is being heard this week. Testimony from officers who suggests the bureau is still at odds with the federal government about when the use of force is allowed

Portland police officer testimony in a civil trial last week suggests police in the city have an understanding of civil rights and use-of-force laws that stands in sharp contrast to that of the federal courts and of lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice. In one instance, an officer appeared to not fully understand the bureau’s use-of-force directives.

Officers Brent Taylor and Craig Lehman and Det. Erik Kammerer, all members of the now disbanded Rapid Response Team, which was the primary unit policing the 2020 protests, testified last week in a lawsuit brought by Erin Wenzel. The officers who allegedly assaulted Wenzel have not been identified, but Lehman, Taylor and Kammerer were all present the night she was injured. Wenzel alleges officers shoved her to the ground from behind multiple times on Aug. 14, 2020, while she was following their orders to disperse.

Lehman, who briefly took the stand on Wednesday, appeared stumped when asked to explain the bureau’s use of force directives. Wenzel’s attorney John Burgess asked Lehman if he would have been permitted to shove a person to the ground from behind if that person were following officer instructions. Lehman, quoting directly from bureau policies, said it would depend on the totality of the circumstances and the reasonableness of the force.

“What does that mean?” Burgess asked.

“I don’t know how to elaborate more than that,” Lehman responded after a six-second pause, before repeating the directive’s language. “Just the totality of the circumstances, what’s going on and if it was reasonable to do so.”

The police officers who have testified and the attorneys for the city have so far suggested they are free to use force they deem necessary against protesters who are passively resisting and against people in a crowd who they believe may have committed crimes in the past or may commit crimes later in the protest.

Taylor said his experience in past protests and whether or not he knew that someone was a known agitator or that they had been complicit in shield holding or “defending the crowd” all factored into his decision to use force.

“They feel totally justified using force against people who they deem to be troublemakers based on their physical appearance or past actions,” said Portland attorney Whitney Stark, whose firm represents clients suing the city over alleged violations during 2020 protests. “That’s so wrong. Your job is to protect and serve everybody, including protesters who are protesting you, and you are not doing that.”

Stark said it appeared as though the police had targeted Wenzel and other protesters simply because they were wearing black. [MORE]

Richcraft: The Richest 1% Now Owns One Third of US Wealth. Puppeticians Make Lip Service about Reform ["the only way a ruling class minority can retain power is by oppression, force and deception"]

From [HERE] U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) reacted Wednesday to new government figures showing the wealthiest 1% of Americans now owns over one-third of the country’s wealth by reasserting calls for systemic reforms to tackle the highest economic inequality of any major developed nation in the world.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday published Trends in the Distribution of Family Wealth, 1989 to 2019, a report revealing that while the total real wealth of U.S. families tripled over those 30 years, the growth was dramatically unequal.

“Families in the top 10% and in the top 1% of the distribution, in particular, saw their share of total wealth rise over the period,” the report notes.

“In 2019, families in the top 10% of the distribution held 72% of total wealth, and families in the top 1% of the distribution held more than one-third; families in the bottom half of the distribution held only 2% of total wealth.”

In a statement, Sanders said that “this report confirms what we already know: The very rich are getting much, much richer while the middle class is falling further and further behind, and being forced to take on outrageous levels of debt.”

“The obscene level of income and wealth inequality in America is a profoundly moral issue that we cannot continue to ignore or sweep under the rug,” the two-time Democratic presidential candidate argued. [MORE]

'Postal Service Can't Reliably Deliver Mail but Uses Its Resources to Spy on Americans?' Records Show USPS Inspectors Surveilled People Protesting Against Unlawful Police Conduct and Biden Election

From [HERE] The US Postal Service surveilled protesters across the country, according to heavily redacted documents obtained by Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow at Cato Institute, through a Freedom of Information Act request.

According to the records, between September 2020 and April 2021, postal inspectors spied on protests, including through a covert social media surveillance program dubbed the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP).

The inspectors spied on conservative groups that marched to DC following President Biden’s election, protests in Louisville, Kentucky, following an investigation into the death of Breonna Taylor at the hands of the police, and gun rights activists in Richmond, Virginia.

According to Eddington, the records show the extent of the USPS surveillance efforts, which are capable of reaching every business and home in the US.

“The Postal Service cannot reliably deliver mail to my own home, yet they can find the money and people to effectively digitally spy at scale, including on Americans engaged in First Amendment-protected activities,” Eddington told the Washington Times.

One of the documents Eddington obtained was a redacted situational awareness bulletin from a social media analyst in 2020 that said that Louisville was in a state of emergency in anticipation of the state’s investigation into Taylor’s death.

The social media surveillance program also concluded that a “Million MAGA March” would cause traffic jams in DC, Virginia, and Maryland.

Most of the bulletins by the postal inspectors included disclaimers that the reports are not supposed to violate human rights, the intention is to make law enforcement aware of potential criminal activity and violence.

The US Postal Inspection Service defended its surveillance of Americans, arguing that its inspectors are federal law enforcement officers tasked with protecting USPS employees, customers, and infrastructure.

“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service occasionally reviews publicly available information in order to assess potential safety or security threats to Postal Service employees, facilities, operations, and infrastructure,” the agency said in a statement.

However, last year, the USPS inspector general said that the surveillance was an overreach and potentially illegal. The institution faced backlash over its covert program to scan citizens’ social media accounts for “inflammatory” content.

The Kentucky representative Thomas Massie expressed his concern over the USPS’s move. “The USPS has been losing money for many years … so where do they find money to run this surveillance program?”

[Put on a Blue Costume and Poof, you Have Authority!] White Cop Beats Up Pregnant Black Woman After Tail Light Stop [the Cop's Right to Attack People Isn't Reformable. Its Stupid to Believe Otherwise]

FUCK AUTHORITY AND FUCK ALL GOVERNMENTS.

From [HERE] After returning from a trip to Walmart earlier this year, Elayshia Boey was pulled over in her own driveway in McCracken County, Kentucky, for having a broken taillight.

Within moments, Boey, a 24-year-old pregnant woman, was "face-planted" into a cruiser and pinned to the ground by a sheriff's deputy, "with his knee planted in her back, crushing her, and her unborn child, beneath his full weight," according to a federal lawsuit.

In addition, Deputy Jon Hayden, who threatened to use a Taser against Boey, is accused of taking her to jail instead of the hospital, even though she was bleeding from her head and complaining of pain.

Only after a jail nurse refused to admit Boey — because of her injuries and being six months pregnant — did the deputy take her to an emergency room, according to the suit filed in April.

Attorney James Russell, who represents Boey with co-counsel Michael Smith, said Hayden approached the stop in "an aggressive fashion" that is not typical for a minor traffic offense. [MORE]

STATIST DELUSION. Here is where all statist’s [republicans and democrats] get lost, asking shit like ‘was the use of force appropriate?’ and/or ‘it was too much force for a tail light!’

In reality, the so-called “right” to attack people is evil regardless of whether it is done lawfully by persons having “authority” or done unlawfully by criminals. Acts that would be considered unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by people are just as unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by government agents. The fact that the white man in the video had on a blue costume and another, higher, authority granted him “authority” to be police makes no difference - you are rationalizing away your own slavery if you believe otherwise.

To be clear, all persons have the natural right to defend themselves and come to the defense of others if they believe another person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. Private security workers and guards also work under said natural law.

In contrast police officers also have the extra or additional “power” to act as offensively as aggressors; the right to attack people or initiate unprovoked acts of violence against people whenever they deem it necessary. Police are said to have such powers when they are acting on behalf of “authority.” As such, “citizens” police are permitted to lawfully attack (make arrests) people, touch them against their will, assault them, interfere with freedoms in many ways, kidnap people (detain and transport) or imprison them because higher authorities have empowered them to do so. In turn, people are said to have a moral and legal obligation to obey police commands and have no right to even resist an unlawful arrest in most states.

The problem is that there is no rational basis for authority. Authority, the basis for all governments and rulership, is a farce. Government “authority” can be summed up as the implied right to rule over people. It is the government’s ability and moral right to forcibly control citizens, its right to be obeyed and the citizen’s corresponding moral and legal obligation to obey.’ Authority requires that government’s laws, commands and orders to be obeyed on a content-neutral basis (regardless of whether they agree or not.) [MORE] Michael Huemer defines political authority as “the hypothesized moral property in virtue of which governments may coerce people in certain ways not permitted to anyone else and in virtue of which citizens must obey governments in situations in which they would not be obligated to obey anyone else.” Said hypothesized moral property makes government the supreme authority over human affairs.

Authority has no meaning in reality because it does not come from people nor is it derived from any natural source. All governmental power allegedly comes exclusively from the people. Citizens delegate their individual power to government and it’s representatives for them to represent citizens. Such representation works much in the same way agents represent their principals in all kinds of business or other contractual relationships. For instance, a manager at McDonalds represents the owner of McDonalds when she carries out the owners business everyday ordering inventory and hiring workers, etc. She is the agent, the owners are the principals. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her. For instance, you grant the babysitter access and power to use your living room but not the basement. And it goes without saying that an agent cannot have more power than the principal because all said power originated exclusively from the principal.

Inexplicably, the government has granted itself the authority to do things that no individual could do. While citizens have the inalienable right to act in self-defense or come to the defense of others, citizens have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on other people and no right to forcibly control other people. As such, it is logically impossible for citizens to delegate the right to forcibly control others to the government - because citizens cannot possibly delegate rights that they don’t have. In other words, if you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then you cannot delegate or authorize anyone else acting on your behalf to do so. Clearly for example, your neighbor has no right to stop, search and detain you and put you into handcuffs, kidnap you and lock you in a basement for failing to comply with one his commands. So, how could your neighbor delegate a government representative the power to do so?

Larken Rose explains, ‘in the case of “government,” the people whom the politicians claim to represent have no right to do anything that politicians do: impose “taxes,” enact “laws,” etc. Average citizens have no right to forcibly control the choices of their neighbors, tell them how to live their lives, and punish them if they disobey, So when a “government” does such things, it is not representing anyone or anything but itself.’ As stated, it is a logical and legal impossibility for a representative to have more power than the person he is representing. Larken Rose explains, “you can’t give someone something you don’t have.” There is nothing complicated about this. Rose states;

“Despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations, all modern belief in “government” rests on the notion that mere mortals can, through certain political procedures, bestow upon some people various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with. The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. There is no ritual or document through which any group of people can delegate to someone else a right which no one in the group possesses. And that self-evident truth, all by itself, demolishes any possibility of legitimate “government.”

Rose explains if those in “government” have only those rights possessed by those who elected them, then “government” loses the one ingredient that makes it “government”: the right to rule over others (”authority”). If it has the same rights and powers as everyone else, there is no reason to call it “government.” If the politicians have no more rights than you have, all of their demands and commands, all of their political rituals, “law” books, courts, and so on, amount to nothing more than the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis. Nothing they do can have any legitimacy, any more than if you did the same thing on your own, unless they somehow acquired rights that you do not have. And that is impossible, since no one on earth, and no group of people on earth, could possibly have given them such superhuman rights.”

---

The point here is not a theoretical discussion about the purpose of government or history of government or how it should run. Rather, the question is - for what reasons does one man (or government) have supreme authority over another? Although explanation and justification for the right to rule is necessary, none exists.

Other commonly asserted basis for authority have been thoroughly debunked and at this point are mythology:

MAJORITY RULE. Is government authority justified or made legitimate if a majority of people support it? Rose explains that the above stated clogic concerning representation doesn’t get stronger when you add more people to the mix.

To claim that a majority can bestow upon someone a right which none of the individuals in that majority possess is just as irrational as claiming that three people, none of whom has a car or money to buy a car, can give a car to someone else.

Additionally, as Michael Huemer explains, “The fact that a majority of persons favor some rule does not justify imposing that rule by force on those who do not agree to it nor coercively punishing those who disobey the rule. To do so is, typically, to disrespect the dissenters and treat them as inferiors.” He states, “the will of a majority does not suffice to cancel or outweigh the rights of a minority. An action that is normally impermissible does not suddenly become alright merely because most people support it. Consider a hypothetical example, which I call the Democratic Dinner Party:

I go out for dinner with four students, At the end of the meal, there is a debate about how the bill should he divided up, a topic we have not previously discussed. I propose that each person should pay for the items that he or she ordered. "Three of the students, however, make the alternative proposal that I should be forced to pay for the entire meal, Since they are a majority, am I now morally obligated to pay for their meals? And are they entitled to force me to do so? If I refuse, may they kidnap me and lock me in a cage?

No, I am not obligated to pay for everyone, and they are not entitled to force me to do so. This example shows that majority will does not cancel or outweigh individual rights. In this case, my right to my own money and my general liberty right are not canceled or outweighed merely because a majority of the group wants to take away my money or imprison me.

This example is on point because, again, what we need from a theory of political authority is an explanation for why the state should be entitled to engage in behavior that would be deemed to violate individual rights if performed by anyone other than the government. [MORE]

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY. How about the social contract theory - the idea that there is a contract between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws, in exchange for citizens obedience and taxes? That is, individuals have contractually agreed to obey the government and must do so and the government is obliged to provide services and protection. However, if such an agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? We were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet we are bound to obey authority. Therefore, there is no contract and no social contract exists.

At any rate, the so called “public duty” doctrine renders the “social contract theory” meaningless. The Supreme Court has explained the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. [MORE] and [MORE]. This means for instance, police departments and their officers have no legal duty to protect any particular person. Courts throughout the nation have upheld and expanded on what is known as the “public duty doctrine.” Specifically, with regard to police protection services, governments and their agents have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence by other private parties unless the victim was in government custody. [MORE] and [MORE] This means that police cannot be sued for any federal constitutional claim for an alleged failure to protect citizens unless they were in government custody. Despite reality concealment by puppeticians and their Dependent Media, the public duty doctrine is a legal reality that, as explained by the DC Court of Appeals, is “well established” throughout the nation. Most recently in the so-called Parkland “mass shooting” a failure to protect children was claimed and then dismissed without controversy. A federal court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims concerning a failure to protect.

With regard to the social contract undeceiver Michael Huemer states, ‘Given the wide and indefinite range of laws that might be created by the state and the range of punishments to which one might be subjected for violating them, an individual’s concessions to the state under the social contract are quite large. The state, in turn, is supposed to assume an obligation to the citizen, to enforce the citizen’s rights, including protecting the citizen from criminals and hostile foreign governments.’ Although ‘protection from crime is the most central and widely recognized function of the state,’ under the public duty doctrine the state has no obligation to protect individuals from crime and no circumstances exist that count as failing to meet the obligation. Under the social contract theory, citizens are theoretically contractually obliged to obey all laws and commands and when they fail to do so the government can punish them, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but to no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it? Huemer states, ‘one cannot maintain that the individual owes duties to the state but that the state owes nothing to the individual.’ Thus, the social contract theory do not legitimize authority, the government’s implied right to forcibly control people and its right to be obeyed.

IMPLICIT AGREEMENT. What about an implicit agreement to obey authority - where we are deemed from birth to have agreed to obey authority until we decline, opt out or reject it? This proposition is also an illusion because whether you reject or object to authority you must obey authority regardless. You have no real choice in the matter. Like a plantation system, there is no way to opt out and avoid being subject to another authority

AGREEMENT BY ACCEPTING BENEFITS. Perhaps authority is made legitimate when citizens agree to accept the benefits provided by government, such as public schools or police “service?” For the same reasons no one has an implicit contract with the government, government authority is not made legitimate through acceptance of benefits. Whether a person accepts the benefits of government or not, all persons are still subject to the laws and required to obey authority.

CONSENT BY PRESENCE. How about consent to authority by simply remaining in a particular location - consent by presence on the land? In other words, in order to remain on your own land then you must pay a government and obey laws to do so. Said theory means governments own all land and property everywhere government exists. According to such clogic as stated by Huemer, “Those seeking to avoid all governmental jurisdiction have three options: they may live in the ocean, move to Antarctica, or commit suicide.” [MORE]

Larken Rose explains, “To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.”

It is also obviously circular thinking to say ‘the government has authority over everything and everybody because it has authority over everything and everybody’ - such statement may indeed be the case but it cannot be a justification for the legitimacy of authority in the first place.

CONSENT THRU PARTICIPATION. Finally, does consent through participation make government authority legitimate or valid? Not at all. “If you didn’t vote in the election, would you then not have to obey the laws made by whoever wins? Of course not. You will be subject to the same laws whether you vote or not.” [MORE]

It should also go without saying but there is no magic ceremony, voting process or magic statements (oaths) which can grant certain people extra-human powers to rule over people, exempt them from morality, accountability and do things which no individual or group of individuals can do.

---

Therefore, there is no rational basis for authority, the implied right to rule over others. No person(s) or entity has the right to rule over other human beings. Michael Huemer explains, “political authority is an illusion: no one has the right to rule, and no one is obliged to obey a command merely because it comes from their government.”

FUNKTIONARY explains Authority “has no meaning in reality.” “Only you have authority over your Self…anything else, i.e., to accept any authority external to one’s Self once of discriminating age, is the very definition of irresponsibility. There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.” Dr. Blynd explains that authority is a cartoon because it is like a drawing of something that has no existence. Like Santa or The Green Latern, Authority is a mere belief in people’s minds; no one is supreme over anyone.

Consequently, all governments, no matter how they are characterized, are illegitimate because they are organizations imagined to posses “authority.” Without a legitimate basis, all such rulership is based on mind control and/or force.

As explained in FUNKTIONARY, government is control of the mind and “authority is the means by which society uses to control its population.” Trent Goodbaudy calls authority a “statist delusion.” He states, “We are stuck in an illusory construct that only exists in a diseased psyche. There really are no rulers and no masters anyway; just claims of authority, and acceptance of these claims by the brainwashed. There really is no government other than what you choose to be governed by: they only have the authority that you grant them.”

The statist delusion or mind control maintains the illusion that citizen and government relations are free, voluntary and consensual. Yet reality utterly destroys these legal truths. “Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. As stated by FUNKTIONARY, 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.” It states, “While there are varying degrees, “government” very simply is “one man violently controlling the life and property of another man.” Governmental rule based on authority (and there is no other kind at this point in history) cannot be voluntary or consensual.

Nevertheless, it must be understood that when manufactured consent or mind control fails, the true nature of government reveals itself; brute force or the force continuum. "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -John Jay, Castilian Days II, 1872 quoted in FUNKTIONARY.

As the pregnant Black woman experienced in her interaction with a white cop in the video (and many others who discover the bounds of their “freedom”), all government services are compulsory. Robert Paul Wolf explained, obedience to authority is not a matter of doing what an authority tells you to do. It is a matter of doing what he tells you to do because he tells you to do it. Citizens are presented with a false choice; you can either comply with government commands or face death, jail or a lesser sanction.

Citizens in systems of authority are made to believe that their compliance is voluntary but the entire legal system is anchored in physical coercion (violence). Such rationalized consent is a placebo to make the citizens living experience feel better. In reality, as explained by Rose, Every so-called “law” enacted by politicians is a command, backed by the threat of violence against those who do not obey.” An individual can choose not to comply with a law or an order, which will subsequently lead to another order/command or threat of a worse sanction, but in all governmental systems, at the end of the chain of orders or worsening sanctions comes a threat that the violator cannot defy. “The system as a whole must be anchored by a nonvoluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices. That anchor is provided by physical force.” Huemer explains, “One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it. Thus, the legal system is founded on intentional, harmful coercion.’

The fact that individuals may not exempt themselves from governmental rule or choose to opt out of receiving government services is more proof that there is no free, voluntary association with those claiming to possess authority. The new government is Afghanistan provides a good example: people living there have no right to reject their new government; new authoritarians took over and replaced the old ones and now they are the government. Citizens can flee the country to another “jurisdiction” where they will then be subject to the authoritarians who claim to have authority there. Huemer states, “every human being is born under this subjection and has no practical means of escaping it.” FUNKTIONARY explains the attempted refusal of services of those in power or any effort made by an individual to deny that they are subject to government authority is deemed “disobedient” in the lex-icon. FUNKTIONARY explains that in general, “disobedience is the only crime—all others are offshoots.”

In reality, persons do not actually live under “democracies” or “republics” or monarchies or dictatorships. Said descriptions or characterizations are designed to conceal the reality of an elite ruling class and the master/servant relations it has with its citizens. In the United States and everywhere else government exists, Rose states “there is a ruling class and a subject class, and the differences between them are many and obvious. One group commands, the other obeys. One group demands huge sums of money, the other group pays. One group tells the other group where they can live, where they can work, what they can eat, what they can drink, what they can drive, who they can work for, what work they can do, and so on. One group takes and spends trillions of dollars of what the other group earns. One group consists entirely of economic parasites, while the efforts of the other group produce all the wealth. It is patently obvious who commands and who obeys. The people are not the “government,” by any stretch of the imagination, and it requires profound denial to believe otherwise. For example, it is also claimed that “the government works for us; it is our servant.” Again, such statements does not even remotely match the obvious reality of the situation; it is little more than a cult mantra, a delusion intentionally programmed into the populace in order to twist their view of reality.”

Rather as explained in FUNKTIONARY, it is more accurate to describe such systems as “free range plantations” or “free range prisons.” The inhabitants are “free range slaves” or “free range prisoners.” FUNKTIONARY observes there are different brands and flavors of “government” across the ideological spectrum but all are free range prisons/plantations; some are more restrictive than others but all people within them are subject to authority, the force continuum. Slaves or prisoners in the Free Range Prison may face greater or lesser restrictions depending upon their income, status or race but none are free.

Whether individuals choose to be willing slaves (citizens) or unwilling slaves (denizens) depends upon how aware they are of their true reality and their response to it.

Nevertheless, there is no need to revolt against authority. It is only a belief that must be dropped. FUNKTIONARY states, ‘there are no tyrants only tyranny exists. How can one man or woman rule a multitude against their will except through mind-control and word-conditioning control?’

“The real threat to "authority" is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property.” FUNKTIONARY explains, “We don’t violently overthrow government, rather we silently and organically outgrow it in its current form as we know it. Where there is no energy for conflict upon which to feed, it starves itself into oblivion or becomes malnourished to the point of ineffectual irrelevance.”

Where a critical mass of individuals see authority for what it is – an irrational, self-contradictory and evil granfalloon, contrary to civilization and morality that “constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed”- they will drop it like a wooden coin or not consume it like an unwanted vaccine.

The Alameda Sheriff Fired 47 Deputies who Failed Psychological Exams but Says Some Can Get Jobs Back After Re-Test [citizens can't Fire/Hire or control Cops b/c Cops are Public Masters Not Servants]

• SOME WHITE COPS SUFFER FROM THE PSYCHOPATHIC RACIAL PERSONALITY.

• SOME BLACK COPS SUFFER FROM MENTACIDE.

• ALL COPS BELIEVE THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM NORMS OF HUMAN MORALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

From [HERE] A total of 47 Alameda County Sheriff's deputies were told on Friday that they were relieved of their law enforcement duties because they received "unsatisfactory" on psychological examinations dating back to 2016, KTVU has learned.

That means the deputies – 10% of the force – who received "D. Not Suited" for the job will be stripped of their arresting powers and firearms, but they will retain their pay and benefits. 

KTVU obtained a copy of the letter over the weekend.

On Monday, Sheriff's spokesman Lt. Ray Kelly said it "was horrible" to have to relieve the deputies of their duties.

In his letter, Sheriff Gregory Ahern promised to schedule another psych exam and that his intention is to "resolve this issue as quickly as possible" and "return to full duty status once you obtain a ‘suitable’ finding." 

Kelly said he hoped that the retests would occur in the next "couple months." He said he had no idea how many of the 47 deputies would be able to get their jobs back. 

As for whether the public can trust the results of the second test, Kelly said that they will all be conducted with a POST-certified psychologist who doesn't work for the sheriff. POST stands for the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. [lol]

The letter comes in the same month that former Deputy Devin Williams Jr., 24, shot and killed a couple in their Dublin home. Four sources told KTVU that Williams failed his psychological exam and because of liability issues, the sheriff is now auditing who else in the department might have also failed.

When asked if the audit was prompted by Williams, Kelly answered: "I'd have to say yes."

Williams did not pass the probationary period when he applied for a job with Stockton police, KTVU reported earlier.

However, he was hired as an Alameda County Sheriff's deputy in September 2021.

At a news conference on Sept. 7, Kelly said that Williams passed all the reference and psychological tests and there was nothing in his background that would have prevented him from being hired as a deputy. Kelly called Williams' record with the department "immaculate."

Civil rights attorney Adante Pointer questioned just how many cases would have to be opened up again if these "unsatisfactory" deputies were involved in any type of arrests or excessive force. Pointer also pointed out how long these deputies have been working on the streets with these type of test results. 

And Kara Janssen, an attorney who is helping to supervise the consent decree over certain aspects of the Santa Rita Jail, told KTVU that she found this issue "deeply concerning."

First, her firm was never told about the unsatisfactory letters; she was alerted over the weekend by KTVU.

And second, she wants to know how many deputies work in the jail, where her authority lies over the treatment of mentally fragile inmates.

In addition, she noted how stressed [lol] the department will be with nearly 50 less badged employees being able to perform their normal duties; other deputies will now have to pick up the slack working even more overtime. 

All four sources who spoke to KTVU on condition of anonymity said that they feel the psychological exam process under Ahern has been flawed. They alleged he often passes his friends and family on these tests to get them hired and nixes the candidates he doesn't like. 

Kelly added that the department has been under "tremendous pressure" to hire more deputies under the consent decree and that is extremely difficult to hire the right people for the tough job.

"I know that people are going to assume that all these deputies are killers," Kelly said. "But that's not true. This test tries to find out if you are psychologically suitable for the job, to handle all the horrible things we see. At the age of 22, sometimes your're not. I know this isn't good. But it's not as bad as it sounds." 

While Kelly said the test often tries to determine maturity issues, a source who used to do recruitment for the Sheriff's Office said that the rules used to be much stricter before Ahern. 

The source, a retired employee, said that candidates who used to get unsatisfactory results were told they simply wouldn't be hired. He said the range of issues to get an unsatisfactory could be mental health problems, financial issues, too many marriages and divorces or drug and alcohol issues, to name a few. 

Alabama Prison Guard Caught on Camera Beating Black Inmate on Roof

From [EJI] Multiple videos posted on social media show correctional officer Ell White beating a man during an apparent mental health crisis at Elmore Correctional Facility in central Alabama last Wednesday. 

The video footage shows an incarcerated man, 44-year-old Jimmy Norman, sitting on the roof of the chapel at Elmore. The Alabama Department of Corrections confirmed the identity of the guard and the incarcerated man in the video and said correctional officers, including Mr. White, were “attempt[ing] to escort Norman off the roof.”

Mr. Norman appears to be in distress in the videos, which show that Mr. White pulled him from the edge of the roof and then punched him five times. Mr. White has been placed on mandatory leave pending an internal investigation, according to Alabama Political Reporter.

This is not the first time Mr. White has been investigated for excessive force. Since he started work at Elmore in January 2017, he has been named in several complaints charging that prison guards used excessive force against people in their custody, including one incident where an incarcerated man died.

According to an investigative report by ADOC’s Investigation and Intelligence Division, Mr. White lied to investigators about his involvement in the death of Billy Smith, who died of blunt force trauma to the head after being assaulted by both inmates and officers at Elmore in 2017. Officers hogtied Mr. Smith and left him on the ground for several hours as he cried for help and vomited on himself. A review of Mr. White’s state personnel file found no disciplinary action was taken against him following this incident.

Excessive physical violence is endemic at Elmore, where EJI found correctional staff at the highest levels engaged in extreme and excessive violence against incarcerated people. 

Alabama prison beating from Alabama Political Reporter on Vimeo.

EJI filed a complaint with the Justice Department after our investigation uncovered nearly a dozen instances over a six-month period where incarcerated men at Elmore were handcuffed, stripped naked, and beaten by several guards, and that the warden and other high-ranking prison officials were implicated in beatings and misconduct.

On July 21, 2021, former Alabama Department of Corrections lieutenant Willie M. Burks III became the fourth Alabama correctional officer to be convicted in federal court in connection with two such assaults at Elmore. 

On February 16, 2019, former Correctional Sergeant Ulysses Oliver Jr.—who was promoted and transferred to Elmore after he was accused of choking, assaulting, and sexually abusing women at Tutwiler Prison for Women—beat two handcuffed and unresisting men with his fists, feet, and collapsible baton, while his supervisor and two other officers failed to stop him. Mr. Oliver was convicted and sentenced in April 2022 to 30 months in federal prison.

If a Cop Lies 1 Time Can You Believe Anything Else He Says? Nearly 1 Thousand Cases Dismissed or Convictions Vacated at the Request of NYC Prosecutors Due to Unreliable Testimony by Corrupt, Liar Cops

NYC’S FINEST: No Criminal Charges Filed by DA after a Disciplinary Hearing Judge Found 2 Cops Guilty of Raping a 15 Yr Old Girl Multiple Times. Record of Hearing Decision Previously Kept Secret by NYPD

From [HERE] No matter how expensive law enforcement is, it can always get more expensive. Most agencies demand outsized portions of local budgets. That’s just the ground floor.

Cops want more money and less accountability. Perpetually. The cost of keeping bad cops on the payroll is far, far more than their paychecks. Bad cops generate lawsuits, which generate legal fees and settlements, all paid for by the people already paying their salaries.

That’s what the NYPD does. In addition to its ~$10 billion (with a “B”) annual budget, the city (via the billfolds of residents) hands out more than $250 million a year in lawsuit settlements. 

Then there’s the double-charging NYC residents have seen over the past couple of years. They pay cops to make busts, only to have those cops repay their trust with corruption and severe misconduct. Now, prosecutions that residents have paid for are being tossed, thanks to their link to disgraced or convicted NYPD officers. 

The additional bleeding started early last year, when a single corrupt NYPD narcotics detective (Joseph Franco, a 20-year-officer hit with 26 criminal charges in 2019) resulted in the dismissal of 90 cases. One officer, nearly 100 cases. The flow of blood continued throughout 2021, leading to another 60 dismissals in November, these related three officers facing criminal charges. One of those officers had been with the NYPD for thirteen years before finally being fired.

The bleeding has only accelerated since then. In August of this year, another 133 convictions linked to former detective Joseph Franco were dismissed by the Bronx district attorney, bringing this one officer’s total to more than 500 tossed cases. 

This is the latest news on the corrupt cop/case dismissal front for the NYPD. It very likely won’t be the last. 

District Attorney Eric Gonzalez presented 378 cases to a Brooklyn Supreme Court judge asking for their dismissal based on new evidence that the police officers who testified were not reliable witnesses.

“These former police officers were found to have committed serious misconduct that directly relates to their official job duties, calling into question the integrity of every arrest they have made,” Gonzalez said. “A thorough review by my Conviction Review Unit identified those cases in which their testimony was essential to proving guilt, and I will now move to dismiss those convictions as I no longer have confidence in the integrity of the evidence that underpinned them.”

These cases are linked to 13 officers, some who have been found guilty of criminal acts including planting drugs, taking bribes, perjury, and… um… murder[!!!]. 131 of the cases are linked to a corrupt Brooklyn narcotics unit. The other 78 cases are linked to two drug officers who admitted to accepting sexual favors as bribes. [MORE]

'There's no justice to be had in our justice system. I will No Longer Participate in a system that's a Total Farce.' Super Attorney Drops Her Role of 'Helping to Make It Look Fair' in the Lex-icon

From [HERE] Attorney Leslie McAdoo Gordon Saturday announced in a 14-part Twitter thread she will no longer litigate cases in court due to the corrupt criminal and federal justice systems. 

McAdoo Gordon, principal at McAdoo Gordon & Associates, specializes in defending individuals and contractors against the federal government. Specialty areas include criminal defense, security clearances, federal employee discipline and removal, debarment of contractors, criminal, OIG and Congressional investigations, expungements, and attorney discipline. 

But after 26 years of litigating these cases in court, McAdoo Gordon says she is “retiring from the active practice of law in the courts.  I will no longer be representing clients in litigation (criminal, civil, appeal, administrative) matters or defending investigations. I am done being a working litigator.” 

McAdoo Gordon, formerly a special agent for the Department of Defense, Defense Investigative Service (now the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency), was frank about why she will no longer fight in court. 

“I'll have more to say later, but the bottom line is, after 26 years, & especially the last few, I have come to an inescapable conclusion: there is no justice to be had in our ‘justice’ system. I am no longer willing to participate in a system that I consider to be a total farce,” she said. 

“The state of our institutions - particularly the criminal ‘justice’ ones, but also the federal civil courts - is dire, & is unacceptable for a functioning republic. They must be radically overhauled & reformed, & a renewed emphasis on first principles restored,” she added. 

The attorney said that far from giving up the fight, she is shedding the shackles that have been holding her back. 

“My status as a practicing litigator has constrained me from speaking truth to and about the system.  With that constraint removed, I will not be silent any longer." 

“Some of us will need to be outside the system to do what is necessary & what can only be done by speaking freely,” she continued. “That can't be done by me personally unless I no longer have clients whose interests I am honor-bound to place above those of the system and the nation.  So, I am changing that to chart a new course.” 

McAdoo Gordon's plan remains a mystery, though she did confirm to America's Frontline News that she is “absolutely not running for public office.”

“The decision to do so was made only recently, although after a long period of contemplation.  But recent events - national, personal, & with regard to my caseload - have made it clear to me that the time is now right to begin this new chapter.” 

She confirmed she may continue to consult and provide expert testimony. 

“But, in the main, & for the foreseeable future, I am going to be focusing on our most urgent needs as a nation. We must rededicate ourselves to the rule of law, to federalism, to free speech, to true tolerance, to the Bill of Rights, to liberty values.  

“We have lost our connection to these things. We must find it again.  We will lose the Republic if we don't.” 

“We need now to screw up our courage and do what needs doing to preserve the Republic,” McAdoo Gordon concluded. “No one else is going to do it for us. It will not be easy. Nothing worth doing is. The Republic is absolutely worth it. And we will do it.” 

Nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe the United States has a two-tiered justice system, with politicians and members of the D.C. elite treated differently than ordinary Americans, reported America’s Frontline News.  

The Nationwide Issues Survey by The Trafalgar Group conducted last month asked 1,080 likely general election voters, “What is your opinion of the current state of the American justice system?”  

The poll found that 79.3% of Americans agreed that “There are two tiers of justice: One set of laws for politicians and Washington, D.C. insiders vs one set of laws for everyday Americans" while 11.6% said “There is one system of justice with laws applied to all Americans equally,” and 9.1% were not sure.  

When broken out by party, 87.8% of Republicans agreed that there are two tiers of justice, 6.9% believe it is a just system, and 5.3% are not sure.  

Surprisingly, most Democrats appeared to agree with the majority of Republicans, with 66.7% saying they believe there is a two-tiered justice system, 17.5% saying the justice system is equal for all, and 15.8% remaining unsure.

“The 2nd Amendment is not a 2nd Class right:” Federal Court Rules that a Law Prohibiting People who are Indicted from Buying Guns is Unconstitutional

From [HERE] A federal law banning those under felony indictments from buying guns is unconstitutional, a federal court in West Texas ruled Monday (article available here (link is external)).

The court dismissed a federal indictment against Jose Gomez Quiroz that had charged him under the federal ban of obtaining a firearm while under indictment and noted it was unknown “whether a statute preventing a person under indictment from receiving a firearm aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

According to the court, Quiroz was under a state burglary indictment when he tried to buy a handgun and challenged the ensuing federal charge.

In a 25-page opinion filed in Pecos, Texas, the court acknowledged “this case’s real-world consequences — certainly valid public policy and safety concerns exist.” However, he said a Supreme Court ruling this summer in New York Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen(link is external) “framed those concerns solely as a historical analysis.”

“Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that ... (the federal ban) — which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm — aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition.”

“The Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right,’” the court ruled. “No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right.”

DHS to Blow $700,000 of Taxpayers’ Money on Studying “Extremism” in Video Gaming

From [HERE] The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has awarded researchers a $699,768 grant to investigate extremism in gaming.

As reported by VICE, the money will go to Logically, a company committed to the issue of “bad” online behavior, Middlebury Institute’s Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism (CTEC), and Take This, a nonprofit that specializes in mental health in video gaming.

“Over the past decade, video games have increasingly become focal points of social activity and identity creation for adolescents and young adults. Relationships made and fostered within game ecosystems routinely cross over into the real world and are impactful parts of local communities,” the grant announcement on the DHS website said. “Correspondingly, extremists have used video games and targeted video game communities for activities ranging from propaganda creation to terrorist mobilization and training.”

The DHS announcement adds that the project will develop, “a set of best practices and centralized resources for monitoring and evaluation of extremist activities as well as a series of training workshops for the monitoring, detection, and prevention of extremist exploitation in gaming spaces for community managers, multiplayer designers, lore developers, mechanics designers, and trust and safety professionals.”

“Game developers in general—from small, independent studios to billion-dollar multinational corporations—have lagged in awareness of how extremists may attempt to exploit their games, and how their communities can be targeted for radicalization,” states the DHS announcement.

The funding follows news that DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas suggested radicalized Americans who believe “false narratives” online are the new terror threat and following the DHS having to shut down the controversial Disinformation Governance Board over First Amendment concerns.

Violent, "Progressive" Do-Gooder Puppeticians in Madison Refuse to Ban Police from Using Tear Gas, Mace and Other Weapons to Silence Speech [in Defense of Authority not Liberty]

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:

The Do-Gooders – that most dangerous tribe of pseudo-moralists armed with ignorance and golden rulers. The do-gooders absence of the true nature of Self (the ‘I Am,’) strengthen all the forces of illusion and collusion and ensure the continuity to the realm of unreality for the sleep-walking masses. “The world suffers most from the disinterested tyranny of its well-wisher.” ~Rabinath Tagore. (See: Status-Quoticians & The Golden Rule)

From [HERE] The Madison City Council on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a compromise to allow continued police use of tear gas, mace and devices that fire less-lethal projectiles under certain circumstances to control unruly crowds, but require the city’s independent police monitor to do an after-action review when tear gas is deployed.

Ald. Juliana Bennett, who represents the campus-area 8th District, initially proposed to ban police and law enforcement responding under mutual aid from using tear gas, mace and devices that fire less-lethal projectiles such as bean bags or sponge-tipped rounds to control unruly crowds, a move strongly opposed by Police Chief Shon Barnes and other police agencies.

But on Tuesday, Bennett and Ald. Yannette Figueroa Cole offered an alternative that allows continued use of those munitions, but requires the city’s yet-to-be-hired first independent police monitor to do an after-action review of any use of tear gas by the Madison police for crowd control. The monitor would have to start the review within 30 days and share its findings with the council and the city’s Police Civilian Oversight Board. [MORE]

Media Continues to Mischaracterize the Parkland Shooter's Sentencing Hearing as "a Trial;" Misleading the Public to Believe a Trial On the Merits is Going On. Guilty Pleas Don't Make False Flags Real

CNN reported “The defense team in the trial of Parkland, Florida, school shooter Nikolas Cruz abruptly rested its case Wednesday, leading the judge to admonish his attorneys for what she described as a “level of unprofessionalism” she had never before experienced.

The defense team planned to call 80 witnesses, lead defense attorney Melisa McNeill said in opening the case, but by Wednesday it had called just 26. So, its move appeared to come as a shock to the judge and prosecutors, who’d arrived in court expecting Cruz’s defense team to call its first witness of the day.

Prosecutors in the case then told the judge they were not ready to proceed with their rebuttal.  “We were waiting for 40 more witnesses,” lead prosecutor Mike Satz said Wednesday, throwing up his hands.

Without jurors present, state Judge Elizabeth Scherer went on to criticize the defense for “another day wasted” in a trial that has seen numerous delays and postponements.” [MORE]

You would think that an actual criminal defense trial on the merits was taking place. BUT HE ALREADY PLED GUILTY. Cruz pled guilty last October to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted murder in the Parkland shooting. That triggered the current phase of his trial, which is meant only to determine his sentence; specifically whether he will be sentenced to die.

A guilty plea is just a guilty plea - it is not proof that anything happened in any case. A guilty plea is a way to avoid an actual trial or avoid having to prove that a crime took place. The guilty plea here doesn’t prove that Mr. Cruz committed a massacre or that Parkland happened - its just a plea, nothing more. If an actual, contested criminal defense trial had taken place the Government would have had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a massacre took place and Mr. Cruz committed it. That is, the Government would have had to show that Parkland was real - with actual authenticated, admissible evidence and testimony subject to cross-examination, credibility determinations, investigation and inspection in an adversarial process before a jury who would decide on the merits. But that never happened. Nevertheless, in The Spectacle The Dependent Media goes on implying that “a trial” is presently being conducted. Similarly, “Sandy Hoax” was not proven to be real simply because a court entered default judgments against Alex Jones when he failed to respond to court orders in lawsuits.

The hearing is a sentencing - not an actual criminal trial on the merits. [MORE] The Dependent Media is promoting confusion because the Parkland episode looks staged.

FAKE AS FUCK [MORE]

Due to the contrived nature of the Parkland narrative, voluntary confession, many fake looking/sounding media interviews with in-credible witnesses providing inconsistent facts, a lack of corroborating forensic evidence, a lack of cell-phone video from high school students, miraculously quick medical recoveries by kids shot in the chest, books that deflected bullets and more, many consider Parkland a false flag operation or cover story. Belief isn’t needed to come to such a conclusion- go watch the many videos online about it. On the other hand however, belief is needed to conclude that an actual massacre occurred because the evidence has never been seen. We must believe cops and whatever emotional words the media put before our eyes. It takes absolutely no intelligence to believe.

The fact that there was no trial only strengthens the doubt of persons who don’t blindly believe whatever the media says. In all microwave terror episodes the media simply parrot whatever police say from a crime scene closed to the public in an instantly open and shut case. To be clear here, no criminal trial means no contested, adversarial proceeding in which the government would have to establish facts beyond a reasonable doubt with actual, admissible, authenticated evidence and credible witness testimony that is subjected to rigorous cross -examination, rules of evidence, discovery, Brady disclosures and the defendant’s right to face to face confrontation with his accusers. What better way could there be to drop any doubt as to whether this fake looking bullshit ever took place?

[MORE]

Gun Sales w/Credit Cards are Now Tracked w/a New Code [in The Spectacle freedumb advocates believe criminals lawfully buy guns, leave guns at crime scenes and gun registration is used to solve crimes]

RESEARCHER JOHN LOTT EXPLAINS, “The idea behind a registry is that guns left at a crime scene can be used to trace back to the criminals. Unfortunately, guns are very rarely left at the scene of the crime. Those that are left behind are virtually never registered—criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind guns registered to them. In the few cases where registered guns were left at the scene, the criminal had usually been killed or seriously injured.” LOtt further explains that crimes are rarely if ever solved by registration [MORE] and Very few criminals legally purchase guns themselves. [MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

gun ban – the precursor to servitude. Enslavement is like old age; it creeps up on you. Banning guns to reduce crime is like banning sex to reduce rape. If guns supposedly cause (or encourage) crime, why are we arming police officers? The same people who fear firearms in the hands of the people also fear information in the minds of people. Information bans (censorship) only affect people who desire to think for themselves. The methodology of the gun-grabbers is simple; pick any group, and with the help of the press, abolish their rights. Then pick another group and abolish their rights, etc. Those who meet publicly to defend their right to life should not take threats idly. While threats to anyone’s safety should not be tolerated in public meetings, being public about your arms (within non-slave states—right to open carry) and your intention to defend your rights is your best protection against lawlessness, even or especially lawlessness by government agents. [MORE]

The Spectacle – a constructed reality; the concrete inversion of life; via the autonomous movement of the apparently non-living. 2) the mirrorization of the noumenon into the phenomenal universe without understanding or overstanding it as such an objectivization in duality. The Spectacle is not a collection of images but a social relation among people mediated by images. The Spectacle is a theoretical construct—a tool for explaining many things about society; how people live vicariously through the dominant images of production, consumption and power relations. It is the thoughtforms in which people create, contemplate and consume mediated by images of what-life-is, so that they will forget how to live radically for themselves. It is the totality of images and illusions that alienate people from living, its the primary production of modern societies. It is ideology materialized. It is the social relations that are mediated by the mass media; it is what makes people apathetic and reduces them to inactivity. It is what prevents people from realizing what their collective problems are and dissolving them. It is what perpetually absorbs people into activities that prolong their misery. It is the mediated stream of unreality that channels desire-energy against itself, producing a separate world, a pseudo-world apart form one’s self-history—from all those powerful institutions of Self-actualization. It is what motivates people to live a pseudo-life in submission to products and machines, basking passively in the acceptance of oppression, to blindly do what is manifestly against their own self-interest, to pollute the land they love and the air they breathe—it is a fundamental sickness of modern societies superimposed over and aided by the “Rolebots” (clones and drones) of Corporate State. It is the mass media and the propaganda from the pure war machine and the military prison industrial police state complex. It is Doggy, the double-bind of not knowing real from unreal, (hypereal) or what you say from what you want. It is the mass objectivization and unholy marriage (union) of the Beasthood with the Syndrome, leaving people fragmented, separated, isolated, alienated, fascinated, pixelated, dilated, intimidated, exasperated, mediated, concatenated, weak, docile, dependent, submissive and uncritical. “The Spectacle is the ultimate commodity in that it makes all others possible.” ~Scott Bukatman. “Without the slightest hint of suppression or intolerance, the spectacle ensures that the appearance of real dissent precludes its real appearance.” ~Sadie Plant. (See: PIC, Commodity, Screen, Maya, Pseudolife, The Passing Show, Rolling Mirror, MEDIA, Materialism, Funktionalize, F-Prime, Meta-Frame, Naïve Realism, “Dream,” Trance, Emergency, Consumers & Doggy)

From [HERE] Visa Inc., V -1.06%▼ Mastercard Inc. MA -0.58%▼ and American Express Co. AXP -1.95%▼will add a new merchant category for firearms retailers, a victory for freeDumb advocates who have pressed the financial industry to do more to disarm the public.

The new merchant-category code was recently approved by an international entity that sets standards for the payments industry.

Merchant-category codes, or MCCs, are four-digit numbers that networks use to identify types of merchants by the goods and services they sell. Card networks assign specific codes to many kinds of specialty merchants, such as fast-food restaurants, bars and bicycle shops. 

Until now, gun shops were often categorized as specialty retailers or durable-goods sellers—categories that include a much broader collection of companies. [MORE]

Natural News states “The Democrat left has found another way to infringe on the constitutional rights of Americans, this time attacking two amendments with the same initiative, and they are using their woke international and corporate allies to do it.

Specifically, leftists associated with the International Organization for Standardization’s Registration and Maintenance Management Group met last week to discuss a proposal already adopted by the country’s largest payment processor, Visa, to attach a special code to the sale of firearms so they can be tracked under the lie of “public safety.”

So, with one proposal, these international leftists have convinced American payment processors to infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights and their Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The company claims that the new classification will allow for easier tracking of firearms sales as a means of helping to prevent mass shootings, according to The Associated Press. But of course, gun rights advocates see the move as a huge encroachment on the legal sale of firearms by left-wing activists who, 10 minutes ago, were complaining about a ‘woman’s right to privacy’ having been taken away by the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

“The (industry’s) decision to create a firearm-specific code is nothing more than a capitulation to anti-gun politicians and activists bent on eroding the rights of law-abiding Americans one transaction at a time,” said National Rifle Association spokesman Lars Dalseide.” [MORE]

Keshawn Thomas' Family is Forced to Sue Albuquerque to Obtain Video and Reports after Cops Shot Him to Death. Materials Sought are Allegedly Owned by the Public but Kept Secret by Alleged "Servants"

From [HERE] The 27-year-old Black man who was shot and killed by three Albuquerque Police Department officers at a West Side gas station late last month had given the officers a magazine and told them he had a gun in the trunk of his car before he was shot, according to a search warrant affidavit filed in 2nd Judicial District Court.

“My understanding is that he lawfully owned the weapon …,” said attorney Taylor Smith, who is representing Keshawn Thomas’ family. “It’s also my understanding that he always kept the gun and magazine separate from one another – like a responsible gun owner would.”

Thomas’ family has filed a lawsuit against the city alleging it has not produced records requested under the Inspection of Public Records Act. Smith said he has also been retained to investigate for a wrongful death lawsuit.

The shooting was the 12th by APD officers this year. Out of those cases, seven people were killed and one was injured. In the remaining shootings the officers missed but in one case it turned out a man had killed himself before they fired.

All shootings by law enforcement in Bernalillo County are investigated by a Multi-Agency Task Force. APD typically does a media briefing in the weeks following shootings by its officers.

August shooting

The entire encounter – from when officers arrived on the scene to when they fired shots – lasted about five minutes, according to a warrant to search Thomas’ car that was filed after the shooting.

Around 11:15 p.m. Aug. 28, officers were called to a Valero gas station on Coors, near Quail NW, because the clerk reported a car had been parked in one of the gasoline bays for about four hours, according to the affidavit.

When the officers arrived they found Thomas in his 2022 green Dodge Challenger.

In a briefing at the scene hours after the shooting, Chief Harold Medina said the officers thought Thomas “may be intoxicated and passed out.” He said the officers had Thomas step out of the car and he started to smoke a cigarette so they asked him to move away from the gasoline.

Medina said that at some point Thomas re-entered the vehicle and “some kind of confrontation occurred between the officer and the individual and multiple officers fired shots.”

According to the search warrant affidavit, the clerk told investigators she saw the officers talking with a man, later identified as Thomas, on the sidewalk for several minutes.

“The officers walked the individual back to his vehicle where she observed the individual start the vehicle (this was indicated to her by the headlights coming on),” a detective wrote in the affidavit. “A few minutes later (the clerk) heard gunshots.” Thomas was taken to the hospital, where he died.

The detective reviewed the lapel camera footage of the shooting and said that during the encounter the officers told Thomas “he appears intoxicated and needs to call for a ride.”

He said Thomas handed the officer a magazine and told them he had a gun in the trunk.

“The suspect enters his vehicle and is observed reaching around the seat and console area,” the detective wrote in the affidavit. “Officers tell the suspect to get his cellphone and exit the vehicle. One officer standing near the driver’s side door, walks up to the driver side of the vehicle and yells ‘gun’ approximately three times before all three officers fire their weapons at the suspect.”

The officers told APD dispatch that after the shooting they removed a firearm from Thomas’ person and placed it in the trunk of his car.

The return and inventory on the search warrant states that the detective found a projectile, magazine, and firearm accessories in the car.

Records request

The day after Thomas was shot, his mother filed a records request asking for audio, video, photographs, Computer Aided Dispatch records, reports, and all written communication within APD about the incident or about press releases.

She received a reply saying it was “excessively burdensome and broad” and the City Clerk’s Office requested an “additional reasonable period of time.”

Smith said he has received audio CADs from dispatch but they were incredibly hard to hear. He filed the lawsuit on Tuesday asking the city to produce the rest of the records and for damages, costs and attorney fees.

On Video Costumed, Masked White Folks (cops) Pop Up at a Black Woman’s (citizen) House and Attempt to ConVince Her to Allow Them to Search It (warrantless). Who Benefits from Rights Role Play Theater?

According to MoorInfo this episode occurred in Arlington

Authority is a farce - it is only a belief in your mind and never rises above the level of a “hypothesized moral property.” FUNKTIONARY explains that authority “has no meaning in reality,” it “is the means by which society uses to control its population.” Michael Huemer explains, “political authority is an illusion: no one has the right to rule, and no one is obliged to obey a command merely because it comes from their government.”

Dr. Blynd states that like ‘All Corporate State fictions,’ authority was “created” by its creators as a psychological retro-virus in people’s minds as if it were a real (existential and volitional) entity, the sole purpose of which is to command, mediate, control and subdue the natural inclinations of a sleeping people who do not understand (know) themselves in order that they may silently rob them of their property and mind—under the Great Brain Robbery.’ Trent Goodbaudy describes authority as a “statist delusion.” He states, “We are stuck in an illusory construct that only exists in a diseased psyche. There really are no rulers and no masters anyway; just claims of authority, and acceptance of these claims by the brainwashed. There really is no government other than what you choose to be governed by: they only have the authority that you grant them.” Dr. Blynd states, ‘there are no tyrants; only tyranny exists. How can one man or woman rule a multitude against their will except through mind control and word-conditioning control?’ Larken Rose explains, ‘millions of people have hallucinated that puppeticians have authority and then do their bidding, paying for their empires and carrying out their orders.’ [MORE] Among other things FUNKTIONARY explains such an arrangement as a consensus reality, “an aggrieved upon hallucination. . . the most malefic trickster of all.” FUNKTIONARY defines consensus as the hypnotic communal cultural trance—the collective psychosis. 2) a common agreement about reality. 3) an artificial overlay or semantic screen (filter) that obfuscates the clarity of our subjective reality. . . Consensus is the art of conning the group—Con-Sense-Us— you con. Consensus has nothing to do with census, but with common sense, albeit mostly manufactured through programming and social conditioning of the masses. [MORE]

Larken Rose explains that within this consensus reality various fictions and devices are used to disguise the reality of the master-servant relationship, such as “consent of the governed,” “we the people,” “democracy,” “representative government,” “social contract” and “constitutional rights.” According to FUNKTIONARY these ‘fictions lead only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality.’ Discussion and debates about fictions such as “rights” merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any “right” and who will benefit from the pretense.”

According to FUNKTIONARY:

rights – fantasmatic or fictitious objects having no reality in actuality by those imagining as an identity being in possession of them. Rights are cultural gratuities perceived through various fantasy frames, recognized, and sometimes even created, by man’s system of law to provide a modicum or pretense of civility under a system whereby their very undermining and violation is vouchsafed. Rights are merely rites unless you know how to assert and defend them in order to enjoy them. 2) things people are free to do whether they are able to or not. 3) conditions of existence required by hue-man’s nature for their potential survival (primarily against the cartoon that kills, i.e., the wholly unconscionable entity called the “State”). It is a mistaken notion that rights are enjoyed by one at the expense of the many—that is the realm of privilege. Enjoyment of rights in a neo-imperialistic world controlled by Yurugu through the Greater System (Symbolic Order), paradoxically, entails not only a recognition of their inevitability but, equally, their impossibility. How can we be endowed with rights, or even know what rights are when they are based on binary considerations? Rights, as ontological ephemera, cannot be universally observed, recognized, realized or enforced—and paradoxically, act also as its own eternal source for its assertion and vessel for its fulfillment in our imaginary enjoyment of them. While the law reads rights referentially, what is universally needed in the praxis of rights discourse today is a particular re-inscription, demystification or reontologising of rights (revivified and convivial) by the pan-gendered subject-citizendecoder— taken symptomatically rather than seriously. Most people rarely experience the cognizance of being property of corporate fictions because as long as you don’t violate the rules of society your real status as feudal-property-slave is not involved or revealed. If there is no ‘I,’ to what and to whom do rights as objects accrue? Those who are confused by suffering (and the subject of same) require a re-onotoligisation of rights through the trajectory of meaning independent of their existence. Rights and even ‘lefts’ (i.e., what remains after all of our imaginary rights are traced to their inception as figment) for that matter, like good and evil, are human inventions which humans treat as non-human realities. While fantasy frames invent rights, romanticism reinvents them. Enjoy your symptoms and play with your syndrome—the symptom is the solution. Read carefully the holding in the supreme Court case of U.S. v. Babcock. Rights are myths—obedience to servitude or jail is the reality. Always remember: “The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right.” ~William Safire. (See: Abilities, Bill of Rights, Monoright, Servitude, Fantasy, Jurisdiction, Human Resources, Citizenship, Frankenstein, Autonomy, Rule of Law, Surrogate Power, Indigenous Power, Yurugu, Jouissance, Privilege, Disobedience, Duty & Willpower)

Baltimore Police Gun Trace Task Force Falsely Arrested/Incarcerated Many Residents and Cost City Over $15M. Gang of Thug Cops Used Authority to Routinely Violate Rights and Steal Drugs and Money

From [HERE] The long-term cost of the Baltimore Police Department’s notorious and disgraced Gun Trace Task Force(link is external) to taxpayers just jumped by more than half a million dollars, the result of a newly-approved settlement with one of the unit’s victims (article available here(link is external)).

Baltimore’s spending board approved a $575,000 settlement Wednesday stemming from an arrest made by members of the city’s Gun Trace Task Force, bringing the total paid out as a result of the rogue force’s actions to more than $15 million.

The Board of Estimates voted unanimously in favor of the settlement reached with Darnell Earl, who sued the Baltimore Police Department and three members of the task force over a 2015 arrest that resulted in a year and a half of jail time.

Earl was a passenger in a car in October 2015 that was stopped by police officers Marcus Taylor, Evodio Hendrix and Wayne Jenkins. Following the stop, the officers said they found a firearm under Earl’s seat. Earl had prior convictions for illegal possession of a gun and was charged with multiple firearms-related offenses as a result of the stop. He pleaded guilty to one charge.

After revelations that the task force routinely violated people’s rights and stole drugs and money using the authority of their badge, Taylor, Hendrix and Jenkins pleaded guilty to federal charges. Earl’s conviction, along with many others related to the force, was vacated due to credibility issues with the officers.

Earl sued the department in 2020, alleging numerous violations of state and federal law, arguing there was no probable cause for the traffic stop and that the gun was planted in the vehicle by the officers.

Taylor, who was sentenced to 18 years behind bars, remains in federal prison in Arkansas. Jenkins, sentenced to 25 years(link is external), is being held in Kentucky. Hendrix, sentenced to seven years, was released in February(link is external).

The settlement approved Wednesday brings the total paid out by the city for settlements related to the task force to $15.48 million. The largest of those settlements, $7.9 million, was paid to Umar Burley and Brent Matthews(link is external), who both went to federal prison for drugs that were planted in their vehicle in 2010. That amount eclipsed the settlement paid to the family of Freddie Gray in 2015.

Heavily Redacted Records Show the FBI Surveilled Black Activist Darren Seals. Feds Kept His Traffic Warrants Open to Enable Police to Stop Him Whenever They Wanted and without Lawful Cause

From [HERE] A previously classified, heavily redacted FBI file shows that the agency opened a file on Darren Seals before his death.

Seals was an activist from Ferguson who came to prominence during the protests following the 2014 killing of Michael Brown. In September 2016 he was found shot and killed in his car, which had been set on fire. The murder has never been solved.

In the file, the FBI refers to Seals as "a self-described revolutionary who has espoused somewhat “militant rhetoric” and has access to weapons."

Seals, who was 29 when he died, suffered numerous gunshot wounds throughout his life. In the wake of the 2014 protests he gained national attention for his anti-violence activism, with a focus in particular on combating police brutality.

Seals was outspoken in his criticism of national Black Lives Matter organizers and activists, whom he accused of getting rich off the name of Michael Brown while doing little for the area of St. Louis where Brown came from.

The FBI file shows Seals was under some level of FBI surveillance, though to what extent is unclear. The file on Seals runs over 900 pages, but around 860 of those pages were fully redacted. The remaining 45 or so pages still had significant partial redactions.

Notations in the file indicate that much of the redacted text pertains to "investigative techniques and procedures" as well as private information about people other than Seals.

According to the report, at one point Seals was "investigatively detained" during a traffic stop conducted by police at the request of the FBI.

That detention, which the report says lasted about 20 minutes, seems to be referring to a traffic stop that occurred June 8, 2016.

When police pulled him over, Seals was driving his 2012 Jeep Wrangler with a companion whose name is redacted.

The specific police agency working with federal law enforcement is redacted as well. The report does indicate that an FBI agent and a U.S. Marshal assisted in the stop.

A search of Seals' car turned up nothing.

Law enforcement told Seals there were warrants out for his arrest but then let him go.

A later addition to the FBI file states, "Traffic warrants for subject's arrest remain active if additional car stops are deemed merited."

The investigation into Seals would be reviewed by the field office's chief division counsel "at least semi-annually," the file says.

The chief division counsel is a field office's senior legal counsel.

One partially unredacted page records Seals' death. But like the vast majority of the document, its meaning is largely hidden behind redactions.

"SEALS was found shot to death and burned in his known vehicle on 9/6/2016. [redacted] Police Department is investigating the matter as a homicide," the report says. "The investigative plan will be to [redacted] homicide of SEALS because it is anticipated that violent protests may be generated by his death as conspiracy theories are already forming that Seals was killed by the police because of his black lives matter affiliations."

Seals was not the only Ferguson activist to meet a tragic fate at a relatively young age. Talk of conspiracy has surrounded his death since it happened.

Seals’ FBI file was provided to the RFT by St. Louis-based activist James Cooper, who said he requested it two years ago from the agency using the Freedom of Information Act. FBI files typically become public records after a subject’s death.