Suit Filed Against El Paso Cop who Pointed a Gun at a Group of Latino Kids & Arrested a Teen Filming an Unlawful Arrest of a Child Dragged by Overseer on Hot Pavement

From [HERE] and [HERE] Four parents have filed civil rights lawsuits against police in El Paso, Texas, after an officer was caught on video pointing a gun at a group of children.

An attorney for the parents announced the filing of the two lawsuits Tuesday. Television station KVIA reports both suits accuse Officer Jose Rivas and four other officers of using excessive force and violating the civil rights of the eight children in the July 5 confrontation and another incident in late 2016.

The incident reportedly took place near a recreation center in the Lower Valley Area of El Paso, Texas. The video, which was posted by a Facebook user who goes by the name AJ-King Stoner, showed the police officer confronting a boy.

The video showed a boy sitting on the sidewalk and the police officer standing next to him. The officer’s hand was placed on the boy’s head.

A gaggle of boys then gathered around the officer and began yelling at him. The cop then pointed his handgun at the boys and shouted at them to “back off”.

The boys continued to scream until he put his gun back into the holster and called for additional officers on the radio.

Minutes later, another officer ran into the frame of the video. Together, the two men pushed the young boy onto the ground dragged him on the pavement and handcuffed him. The other officer waved his nightstick threateningly at the crowd and pushed a woman who dared to come close.

"It's all good," said the boy recording the footage. "We're going to put a report on these two fools. It's all good."

However, he was also grabbed by the officer and put in a squad car - arrested apparently for filming the incident. Amid the altercation, the boy handed his phone to the woman who recorded the police officer handcuffing and throwing him into the car.

The police officer turned to the woman and threatened her with consequences and said, “I know where you live.”

“I don't [care],” she responded. “I'll move.”

The officer then moved towards another boy who looked even smaller in stature. The cop towered over him and said, “Do something”.

A voice was then heard saying, “He pulled out a gun on a little kid. That's assault. That's assault on a minor.”

The boy was then grabbed and pushed against the squad car.

An El Paso Police Department internal investigation cleared Rivas of any wrongdoing.

Ron Martin, President of the El Paso police union, says the department did extensive research, even using six civilians to review footage, and assist in the investigation, which reports Rivas was pointing at just one child. 

"You can't see him go back-and-forth he's looking around he's not doing that just for the hell of it. His brain is giving him that warning there's a threat," said Martin.

Solomon Radner, the attorney for the seven plaintiffs, says he's not buying that, and that the proof is in the video. Radner says the offenses of officer Rivas aren't just pointing a gun. He also claims that the officer violated the children and their parents constitutional rights. 

"There's absolutely no excuse for it there's no justification for it when you're gone at a group of children and then claiming I was scared I thought they might attack me makes no sense," said Radner.

In the second incident, which occurred back in November of 2016, Officer Rivas allegedly used excessive force to arrest a teenage girl.

A unnamed female officer also allegedly used excessive force took a house key from the girl's bra, and two other officers allegedly used that key to enter the girl's house without a warrant or probable cause. 

Courts Rule for Two Latino Prisoners Scheduled to be Murdered by Texas on Intellectual Disability, Junk-Science Claims

Texas Death Row is 70% Black & Latino [murders by the government]

From [HERE] Two Latino Texas prisoners took steps away from death row as state courts ruled in their favor on issues involving false or faulty scientific evidence and argument. On October 5, 2018, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) granted a stay of execution to Juan Segundo directing a Tarrant County trial court to reconsider a claim of intellectual disability that the courts had previously rejected based on an unconstitutional, unscientific standard for measuring his functioning. Four days later, an El Paso trial judge found that prosecutors had “presented false and misleading evidence and argument” concerning the cause of death of a 19-month-old whom Rigoberto “Robert” Avila (pictured, right) had been convicted of killing, and recommended that the CCA grant Avila a new trial. [data in graph is from [HERE]

Texas had been set to execute Segundo on October 10. Segundo’s lawyers had long argued that he is intellectually disabled and therefore exempt from execution under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Atkins v. Virginia. However, the Texas courts had dismissed that claim, relying on a series of nonclinical factors—some based on the fictional character Lennie Smalls from Of Mice and Men—to say that Segundo was not intellectually disabled under Texas law. In 2017, in the case of Moore v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that intellectual disability determinations must be “informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework.” The Court struck down Texas’s approach, calling it an “outlier” that created “an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed.” In Segundo’s case, the CCA wrote, “[i]n light of the Moore decision and the facts presented in applicant’s application, we have determined that applicant’s execution should be stayed pending further order of this Court.”

The CCA stayed Avila’s January 2014 execution based on a new law giving prisoners access to the courts to litigate new evidence that their convictions had been based on false or misleading forensic evidence. His was one of the first cases sent back to a lower court for reconsideration under the 2013 junk-science law. In his 2001 trial, prosecutors argued that Avila had killed his girlfriend’s infant son. “There’s no other way the kid could have died,” they told the jury. New evidence showed, however, that the infant could have died from injuries caused by his four-year-old brother. Judge Annabell Perez wrote that this new evidence “probably would have led jurors to harbor reasonable doubt about [Avila’s] guilt” if it had been available at trial. In a prepared statement, Avila’s lawyers wrote: “The new scientific evidence creates a compelling case for Mr. Avila’s innocence, and a judge has now found that the verdict against him rests on false and misleading testimony. After spending 17 years on death row—and facing four serious execution dates—for a crime he did not commit, Mr. Avila is anxious to present the reliable scientific evidence to a jury.”

NYT Revelations Prove Liar Trump is Not the Self-Made Billionaire Elite Media Billed Him Out to be; He is Just Another Unqualified Neuropean Born with a Package of Unearned Assets [white privilege]

WHITE SUPREMACY IS THE ULTIMATE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. From [HERE] Donald Trump rose to prominence and the presidency on the strength of his self-proclaimed mastery of “The Art of the Deal.” It was that business acumen, Trump claimed, that allowed him to turn a paltry loan from his father into a vast empire. But last week, The New York Times revealed that Trump was not the self-made billionaire he had claimed to be but rather the recipient of at least $413 million from his father, in part through tax schemes the paper described as “outright fraud.”

The painstaking investigation by Times reporters David Barstow, Susanne Craig, and Russ Buettner is not just a skillful demolition of the origin story Trump told. It’s also a rebuke to generations of journalists who bolstered Trump’s tale. Trump provided the myth, but he needed the press to trumpet it out to the public. The result was a lie so durable that no single story, however brilliant, can unravel it.

As president, Trump has waged war on the “fake news” press. But long before he reached the Oval Office, he depended on overly trusting journalists to burnish his reputation. To their credit, the Times reporters are up front about the role their own paper played, noting early in the piece that his self-proclaimed narrative “was long amplified by often-credulous coverage from news organizations, including The Times.” In one particularly devastating example, they highlight a 1976 Times profile -- “a cornerstone of decades of mythmaking about his wealth” -- in which the then-30-year-old Trump simply passed off his father’s businesses as his own, claims the paper’s reporters obviously didn’t scrutinize at the time.

In the years that followed, media coverage would crystallize that image of Trump as a self-made success and deal-maker extraordinaire. Some pushed back on that story -- the Times article names four journalists and biographers whose work was particularly vital: Gwenda Blair, David Cay Johnston, Timothy L. O’Brien, and the late Wayne Barrett. But on balance, reporters were taken in by Trump’s skillful manipulation, vulnerable to his understanding that they were “always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better.” The early profiles of the 1970s would generate the magazine covers, tabloid frenzy, and talk show interviews of the 1980s. By the 1990s, Trump was a pop culture icon, a symbol of wealth and power. And in 2004, NBC launched the blockbuster reality show The Apprentice, bringing Trump’s preferred persona as a respected and ever-successful mogul into the homes of millions.

“Money is at the core of the brand Mr. Trump has so successfully sold to the world,” the Times’ reporters conclude. “Yet essential to that mythmaking has been keeping the truth of his money — how much of it he actually has, where and whom it came from — hidden or obscured. Across the decades, aided and abetted by less-than-aggressive journalism, Mr. Trump has made sure his financial history would be sensationalized far more than seen.”

Now Barstow, Craig, and Buettner have provided the aggressive journalism that had been lacking. But it remains to be seen whether the facts they have mustered can convince the public that the story so many of their colleagues helped Trump tell was a lie.

Trump has a built-in insurance policy against such reporting. No longer relying on the press to burnish his image, Trump has convinced his supporters that critical news outlets can’t be trusted. As the media critic and journalism professor Jay Rosen puts it, “Before journalists log on in the morning, one third of their potential public is gone.” Trump’s supporters instead tune in to sycophantic right-wing outlets like Fox News, where the Times story has been alternately ignored and spun as a good thing for the president. The network’s audience isn’t going to believe a story from what Trump terms the “failing New York Times” over the president himself.

And even audiences that might be open to learning new facts about Trump could simply miss them. The Times report was initially met with a flurry of secondary coverage by other media outlets. But that focus quickly dissipated in the face of the GOP push to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and by the end of the week, the story had largely faded from broadcast and cable news. On Saturday, the Times itself published an analysis finding that the previous week had been the best of Trump’s presidency. The piece did not mention the paper’s own bombshell report exposing how the president benefited from tax fraud.

The next day, perhaps in an effort to regain momentum, the Times republished its story in a separate section. But that morning, Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox News Sunday -- weekly talk shows that focus on politics and historically set the news agenda for the week -- all completely ignored it. (The story was brought up in passing by a panelist on CNN's State of the Union.)

But for all that Trump has been the star and producer of his own long-running soap opera, he’s not its only author. And the Times report has brought new players onto the stage: New York City and state regulators plan to review the foundations of Trump’s fortune, while congressional Democrats are promising to force the release of the president’s tax returns if they regain power. If the Times investigation turns into a long-running storyline rather than a one-off episode, it might finally break through.

Cuban Doctors Lead Aid for the Quake In Haiti

In Response to President Trash, Saints RB Alvin Kamara Wears "Make Africa Home Again" Hat & Kaepernick Jersey After Game

[MORE]

African Liberation - the raised level of Afrikan-centered consciousness, blackprint, strategy, and tactics necessary to reclaim the history of the future that belongs to us now through applied Nationhood. The first abuse of power is not realizing that you have it. The first law of power is: “Assume the position or appearance of power, and people will give it to you.” Afrikan culture must be used to liberate Afrikan people. - Dr. Blynd.

Anti Non-White Immigrant Signs Appear in Queens, NYC, Linked to National Neo-Nazi Group

From [HERE] A Queens politician is calling on New Yorkers to confront white supremacist activity in the borough, after anti-immigrant posters linked to a violent neo-Nazi group were found in Sunnyside this past weekend.

The signs—which inform New Yorkers of their "civic duty to report any and all illegal aliens," and include a number for the ICE hotline—were seen pasted to electrical boxes on 35th Street and Skillman Avenue. Councilmember Jimmy Van Bramer discovered two of them while out for a jog on Sunday, and promptly recorded himself tearing one down.

On Tuesday, Van Bramer hosted a press conference alongside local residents and immigration activists with Make the Road NY to condemn the xenophobic flyers. "It's meant to intimidate all immigrants —whether they're documented or not," he told Gothamist. "The vast majority of people in this neighborhood, and in Queens, support immigrants," he told Gothamist. "But make no mistake, there are racists and white supremacists among us."

The councilmember also urged the community to serve as "“sanctuary neighbors” by actively confronting hateful anti-immigrant rhetoric," and said he'd be seeking more information about potential white supremacist activity in the neighborhood. According to the latest census, Sunynside boasts a population that is 35% Hispanic, 34% Asian, 28% white and 2% African-American.

Van Bramer's office believes the signs are the work of Vanguard America—a white supremacist group led by a self-identified neo-Nazi and former staff sergeant in the marines. The underground organization has emerged as an increasingly prominent far-right voice since President Trump's election, and made headlines for their visible presence during the deadly #UniteTheRight rally in Charlottesville. (James Fields, who allegedly murdered Heather Hayer with his car during the event, was photographed wearing the Vanguard uniform, though the group denies he is a member).

Vanguard America has also been linked to hateful signage that's previously appeared in the region: Members of the group allegedly held signs reading "Feminists Deserve the Rope" during a women's march in Rhode Island, and hung a banner reading "(((Heebs))) Will Not Divide Us" outside a Holocaust memorial in Lakewood, New Jersey. The white men who unfurled a banner in Fort Tryon park this summer declaring "STOP THE INVASION, END IMMIGRATION" were part of a separate neo-Nazi hate group, known as Identity Evropa.

Immigrant advocates with Make the Road NY see the surge of hateful rhetoric and incidents in the city as a direct result of President Trump's hardline policies designed to strip immigrants of their humanity. As of August 24th, there were 217 hate crimes reported in New York City in 2018—a slight decline from this time last year, when hate crimes soared by nearly 100 percent in the wake of the election.

"Hate has no place in Queens," Javier H. Valdés, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York, told Gothamist. “What makes Queens so special is its phenomenal diversity, and we will continue to insist on respect and dignity for all, period. Immigrant communities across Queens are here to stay."

[Is Fear Making Them Slaves?] Selling Hate & Fear to Obedient "Order Followers" in Brazil, Trump-Like, Psychopath Fascist in 2nd Run-Off Election for Presidency

[MORE] Your fear makes you a slave.

Nazi-Like Israeli Government Detains 22 yr old Palestinian American Graduate Student Over her Alleged Support for a Campus Boycott of Israel

From [HERE] and [HERE] An American student has become the latest victim of Israel’s law targeting supporters of the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Lara Alqasem, 22, has been held since last Tuesday at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport.

Alqasem is a graduate of the University of Florida and a US citizen whose grandparents are Palestinian She tried to enter Israel to study on a Master’s degree programme at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, having been granted a student visa by the Israeli Consulate General in Miami.

Upon her arrival at the airport, Israeli officials denied the student entry. Her “crime”, according to the Strategic Affairs Ministry, is that while studying for her bachelor’s degree in Florida, she was president of an organization that supported the BDS campaign against Israel.

A special ministry report has been compiled about Alqasem and her political activities. It was labeled, somewhat dramatically, “Sensitive” and, according to Haaretz, includes information from five web pages. Four are from Facebook, apparently, but the bulk of the information used to detain her is from a website called Canary Mission. This notorious pro-Israel organization blacklists activists and academics seeking justice for Palestinians and has even been criticized by other pro-Israel groups for its aggressive tactics.

The Interior Ministry is reported to have denied the request of a group of lecturers from the Hebrew University to visit Alqasem at the detention facility, where she is being held until a final decision on her case is made. So far, only Alqasem’s lawyers have been allowed to visit her.

An official at the US Embassy in Israel said earlier on Sunday that it is aware of Alqasem’s detention. “We are aware of the case and our Embassy is providing consular assistance,” the official told Haaretz.

As of Sunday afternoon, supporters of the student have raised nearly $6,500 for her legal fund on a GoFundMe page.

Alqasem is the latest individual to fall foul of the Israeli law targeting supporters of BDS. In May, US civil rights activists were deported by the Israeli authorities following their detention at Ben Gurion Airport. The law has been slammed by the human rights group, which have denounced the measure as “blatantly anti-democratic”.

BDS supporters say that in urging businesses, artists and universities to sever ties with Israel, they are using nonviolent means to resist unjust policies toward Palestinians. Israel says the movement masks motives to delegitimize or destroy the Jewish state.

Tennessee Supreme Court Upholds Lethal Injection Protocol Used to Carry Out its Murders - may Cause 10-18 minutes of Drowning, Suffocation & Burning Prior to Death. Execution Set for Thursday

From [HERE] The Tennessee Supreme Court [above] on Tuesday upheld the state’s lethal injection protocol over a challenge by several death row inmates who argued the three-drug injection inflicted unnecessary pain.

In July the Tennessee Department of Corrections revised the protocol to eliminate pentobarbital, providing for a three-drug injection now including midazolam to provide pain relief.

The 33 inmates that filed the complaint have each been sentenced to death in Tennessee, with three scheduled for execution in 2018. They assert that the eliminated drug pentobarbital offered a quicker and less painful method for execution, making the revisions cruel and unusual under both the US and Tennessee Constitutions.

In the ruling, the court clarified that the claimants did not meet the burden established by the Supreme Court in 2015 in Glossip v. Gross in which they had to prove an available alternative. The court also found that the facts do not violate the constitution as to constitute torture or deliberate infliction of pain.

Although Blacks make up on 17% of Tennessee’s entire population they are 46% of its death row population. [MORE]

Ignoring declarations by six jurors in Edmund Zagorski’s 1984 trial that they would have spared Zagorski if they could have sentenced him to life without parole, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam rejected Zagorski’s petition for clemency on October 5, 2018. In conjunction with the Tennessee Supreme Court's October 8 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the state's lethal-injection protocol, Haslam’s decision moved the state closer to executing Zagorski on October 11.

At the time of Zagorski’s trial, Tennessee law required jurors in death-penalty cases to choose between sentencing a defendant to death or risk the possibility that he could later be released on parole. The jurors in Zagorski’s case submitted sworn declarations in support of clemency, saying that they would have sentenced him to life without possibility of parole, rather than the death penalty, if they had been given the no-parole option.

Juror Michael Poole told Nashville Scene, “Our concern was that at some point in time maybe this man would be released and could actually be out in society and commit such a crime again. ... [Zagorski] has paid a significant price up to this point, I feel, and the continuation of his imprisonment until he dies of natural causes I think is punishment enough.” Nancy Arnold, another juror, agreed. “[A]s far as the law was concerned, all we could do was what we did. We had no choice of life without parole. I would have definitely done that if it had been available.”

Zagorski’s clemency plea was also supported by correctional officials who said he has been a model prisoner and has reformed during his 34 years on death row. Despite those statements, Gov. Haslam denied clemency, writing that “the jury in Zagorski’s case heard the evidence at trial and rendered a unanimous verdict in accordance with the law at the time and their duty as jurors. Ten courts, including the Tennessee Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States, have reviewed and upheld the jury’s verdict and sentence, and the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the addition of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a sentencing option does not affect previous verdicts.”

In response to the October 8th ruling, Zagorski requested that the state execute him with the electric chair, saying, “I do not want to be subjected to the torture of the current lethal injection method.” In a statement, Zagorski’s lawyer, assistant federal defender Kelley Henry, said the Tennessee high court decision had left Zagorski to choose between “two unconstitutional methods of execution.” Describing the prospect of “10-18 minutes of drowning, suffocation, and chemical burning” as “unspeakable,” Henry said Zagorski found the electric chair to be “the lesser of two evils.” Zagorski is appealing the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision.

Lawsuit says 2 LA County Deputies Savagely Beat Unarmed Black Man while Yelling NGHR, Falsely Arrested Him & Charged Him w/Attempt Murder - Detained 8 months before Charges Dropped

From [HERE] A lawsuit brought by a Compton resident detailing an alleged beating by deputies is just one of nearly three dozen federal civil rights lawsuits alleging brutality and racial bias at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

On Jan. 15, 2016, Sheldon Lockett was standing outside his godmother’s house in Compton, California, when he said Los Angeles Sheriff’s Deputy Samuel Aldama and his partner Mizrain Orrego jumped out of their squad car, guns drawn. Lockett became frightened and ran. Aldama and Orrego announced on the radio that Lockett was armed, then they chased and cornered him in a nearby backyard. When he attempted to surrender, the two deputies savagely beat him while yelling the N-word, according to a federal civil rights lawsuit filed in July against the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), Aldama, and Orrego.

Even though they found no weapon and Lockett hadn’t committed any crime, Aldama and Orrego arrested him and charged him with attempted murder. Because he couldn’t afford bail, Lockett was locked up in the county jail for eight months before the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office finally dropped all charges against him. Lockett’s mother filed a complaint against Aldama and Orrego with the LASD, but the department declined to investigate and took no disciplinary action against the officers, according to the lawsuit. Instead, one month later, deputies broke down Lockett’s mother’s door and ransacked her home, searching for the non-existent gun they claimed Lockett had pointed at the officers.

A review by The Appeal of nearly three dozen federal civil rights lawsuits involving deputies who have been previously named in brutality lawsuits with Aldama suggest that these alleged incidents of violence are not isolated. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that LASD deputies regularly target people with mental illnesses and disabilities for violence, beat Los Angeles residents and prisoners alike, and punish those who file abuse complaints. Critics of the department say such violence is being driven, in part, by the department’s white supremacist gang culture that encourages excessive force, particularly against minorities.

It is a law enforcement culture that, ironically, apparently mirrors the very people they target for arrest in anti-gang operations: Deputies in these gangs sport tattoos signifying the number of people they have killed, flash gang signs, and tag buildings with graffiti to mark their territory. In June 2016, a tattoo artist secretly traveled to Aldama’s home to give him a tattoo with a skull, rifle, flames, and military-style helmet emblazoned with the letters “C P T” for Compton, his department’s station house, Aldama later admitted under oath. He said 10 to 20 of his colleagues had the same tattoo. Critics cited the tattoo as proof that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has not escaped its long-standing history of white supremacist gang culture.

In a deposition in May, Lockett’s attorney, John Sweeney, asked Aldama, “Do you have any ill feelings towards African Americans in general?” Aldama asked Sweeney to repeat the question several times, before answering, “I do, sir.” He later claimed have misunderstood the question and denied having ill feelings toward Black people.

Before joining the Compton station, Aldama worked as a guard in the 3000 module of the county’s Men’s Central Jail, which was home to a notoriously violent deputy gang known as the 3000 Boys. According to a 2012 federal lawsuit, Aldama was allegedly part of an assault on a prisoner and the subsequent coverup. The lawsuit said Aldama pinned the man to the ground while other deputies beat, tased, and pepper-sprayed him, leaving him with chemical burns and abrasions on his back.

Two months after Aldama got the tattoo, he and Orrego were on patrol, half a mile west of Lockett’s home, when they encountered Donta Taylor, a 31-year-old Black man, walking along the street. It’s unclear exactly what happened next. The deputies later claimed that Taylor drew a pistol and ran after they asked him if he was on probation or parole, but no gun was ever found and no witnesses corroborated the deputies’ claims. What is undisputed is that minutes later, Aldama and Orrego killed Taylor, shooting him six times after a brief foot chase. A review of the fatal shooting by Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey in 2017 concluded that “there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Aldama and Orrego did not act in self-defense and the defense of others when they fired their service weapons at others.”

(On Sept. 20, Aldama filed a response to the complaint in which he denied its allegations. Aldama’s attorney did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Appeal. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office referred The Appeal to a July 26 statement on “alleged subgroup cultures” in the department stating in part that “At the end of the day, everyone, most importantly our public, should be confident that there are no ‘gangs’ of deputies operating subversively anywhere within the Department.”)

Abusing prisoners with disabilities or mental illnesses

The LASD patrols nearly 4,000 square miles and maintains a jail system that houses approximately 17,000 inmates making it the largest jail system in the world. But for decades, the department has been accused by advocates and public officials of routinely failing to meet the needs of and mistreating prisoners with disabilities and mental illnesses. In 2008, civil rights attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against the department, based on interviews with 70 prisoners. The lawsuit included stories of guards taking away disabled prisoners’ catheter bags as well as prisoners who were forced drag themselves on filthy restroom floors because there was no accessible entrance for their wheelchairs. In 2011, Joshua Sather, a rookie deputy, claimed that a supervisor ordered him to beat up a mentally ill prisoner. Sheriff’s officials investigated the incident, determining that that no misconduct took place. In 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported on how mentally ill prisoners, who then accounted for 15 percent of the jail’s population, bore the brunt of roughly a third of deputies’ use of force incidents.

The Appeal has identified numerous lawsuits since then with similar allegations regarding abuse of prisoners with mental illness or physical disability by LASD deputies. The allegations include officers denying prisoners medicine and allowing them to be beaten by other prisoners.

In 2013, Daniel Cohen was arrested by LASD deputies and denied access to his glasses and contacts without which he was legally blind, according to his suit. At his jail facility, he alleged, guards soon became hostile toward Cohen for his what they perceived to be his noncompliance with their visual cues. In his cell, Cohen alleges, another prisoner attacked him. But when he called for help, he said, two guards laughed as he was being struck in the face and eyes repeatedly. “Ouch, that’s gotta hurt,” one allegedly said while watching. After the beating, Cohen was taken to medical staff and later returned to the jail’s disciplinary unit, where guards placed him in solitary confinement.

In 2014, S.A. Thomas, a mentally ill man, was arrested and taken to LA County Jail. During his month-long stint there, according to his lawsuit, Thomas requested psychotropic drugs each day, and informed jail staff that he was mentally ill. He alleged that he was denied medication daily, causing him to suffer hallucinations and live in a state of fear. Even on a day that he was scheduled to be in court, he claimed, he was not given medication, rendering him less able to competently testify in a federal civil rights lawsuit against the department.

Now, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors is leading a coalition to pass the “Reform L.A. Jails” ballot initiative, which would give the Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission subpoena power to investigate allegations of law enforcement misconduct and redirect resources toward increasing alternatives to incarceration, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment programs.

Abuse caused permanent injury and came with racial slurs

Since the early 1990s, there have been numerous oversight reports from independent monitors and advocacy groups on prisoner abuse and deputy-on-prisoner violence in LA County jails. In 2012, ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit in federal court against then-LA County Sheriff Lee Baca alleging that deputies in his jails regularly used excessive force against prisoners who were not resisting, and sometimes already unconscious, and it was facilitated by a violent, racist deputy gang culture that included the 3000 Boys and the 2000 Boys in the Men’s Central Jail. The lawsuit, Rosas v. Baca, details several accounts of deputy-on-prisoner violence during which deputies shouted racial slurs against Black people, including the N-word and “monkey.” Plaintiffs alleged that guards used force such as “slamming the inmates’ heads into walls, punching them in the face with their fists, kicking them with their boots, and shooting them multiple times with their tasers.” Injuries from beatings included fractured eye sockets and blindness, broken legs, shattered jaws, collapsed lungs, and nerve damage.

In July 2009, more than six LASD officers, three of whom were members of the 3000 Boys, shouted racial slurs while beating Evans Tutt in Men’s Central Jail. Tutt sustained multiple injuries from the beating including a broken nose, a chipped tooth, and injuries to his ribs, head, face, knee, and leg.  

In 2014, the department reached a settlement with the ACLU, agreeing to create an independent panel to monitor the department’s compliance with an “action plan” to reduce violence in LA County jails. The plan required the department to implement a new use of force policy that prohibited corporal punishment and required that deputies use “the minimal amount of force that is necessary and objectively reasonable to overcome the resistance.” [MORE]

Video Shows White Indianapolis Cop Throwing Black Woman Down to Ground & Punching Her in the Head in Front of Small Kids - Images Blurred by White Media to Protect the Identity of the Race Soldier

From [HERE]

Court says White Wichita Cops Probably Used Excessive Force when they Shot Black Man Lying Face Down on the Ground with his Arms Out but Immunity [law of the jungle] Shields them from Liability

Immunity = ''Government" applying the law of the jungle to its relationship to the people. [MORE] Wichita Cops Protect the Identity of its Public Rulers When They Murder a Subject. White Media Supports Their Request. No photo available of the white cops.

From [HERE] and [HERE] Wichita police killed a 23-year-old man running away from a club in the city’s Old Town entertainment district six years ago after someone fired a gun into a crowd at closing time.

The officers who chased Marquez Smart on March 10, 2012, believed he was the shooter, followed him and shot at him, hitting him five times from behind.

Others say Smart was innocent, trying to escape bullets and chaos like everyone else when he was wrongly gunned down.

A federal judge in a recent ruling dismissing a 2014 civil lawsuit brought by Smart’s family, said that a jury could side with Smart’s family and find that the Wichita officers used excessive force.

But, the judge ruled, the officers can’t be sued for the shooting because of a legal doctrine called qualified immunity, which often shields government workers from liability.

In recent years, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made it increasingly difficult for victims of police shootings to win civil lawsuits against officers accused of using excessive force.

Chief Magistrate Judge James O’Hara in Kansas City, Kan., noted in his Aug. 7 decision that he had a duty to follow high court rulings.

But he was bothered that officers aren’t being taken to trial, writing “the court is troubled by the continued march toward fully insulating police officers from trial — and thereby denying any relief to victims of excessive force — in contradiction to the plain language of the Fourth Amendment.”

The Fourth Amendment allegedly protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure including the use of excessive force by law enforcement.

Smart’s parents, Randall Smart and Brenda Bryant, are “disappointed and upset” by O’Hara’s dismissal, one of the Kansas City attorneys representing them said.

But they’re hopeful he’ll change his mind. Last month, they filed a motion asking him to reconsider his ruling.

“We think that the court was wrong about certain issues of the law,” the attorney said. “... It shouldn’t be that difficult to get your case in front of a jury when you have evidence that supports your version of the facts.”

Smart’s parents are represented by Benjamin A. Stelter-Embry, Andrew B. Protzman and Bradley Kuhlman.

Steven Pigg, an attorney representing the city, told The Eagle he wouldn’t talk about O’Hara’s decision. But the city in court documents is urging the judge to refuse to alter his ruling.

An investigation by the Sedgwick County District Attorney’s Office cleared the officers of any crime six months after Smart’s shooting. The district attorney was Attorney Nola Tedesco Foulston, racist suspect in photo. [MORE]

After the DA’s Office said the officers wouldn’t be charged, Smart’s parents filed the federal lawsuit, which seeks monetary damages, against the City of Wichita, the Wichita Police Department and the two officers who chased and shot at Smart. They filed the suit on March 7, 2014, nearly two years to the day after their son’s death.

The shooting in 2012

The Wichita Police Department has shot and killed at least 48 people since 1980, Wichita Eagle records show. At least 15 of those happened between 2010 and 2015.

Smart was fatally shot by police chasing him at around 2 a.m. on March 10, 2012. Police would later say they saw a man wearing yellow hold a gun in front of him while he was in a crowd of a few hundred people gathered outside of an Old Town club called Doc Howard’s Lounge. One of the officers who shot at Smart saw the man fire and then dart off; the other only heard the gunfire before he pursued the suspect, according to court records.

The officers, Lee Froese and Aaron Chaffee, both fired their guns, according to court records. Smart, who was wearing a yellow shirt, was hit five times, in his back, arm and hip.

Evidence suggests three of the bullets hit him after he was lying face down on the ground with his arms out, court records say; those shots were fired by Chaffee. Smart died around 2:30 a.m. at a Wichita hospital.

Police found an empty .45-caliber handgun missing its magazine several feet away from Smart’s body. A magazine and bullet casings were found along the path Smart ran, but there wasn’t a weapon on him.

Police have said that one of the reasons they focused on Smart was because he ran to the north when much of the crowd scattered to the south. Neither officer saw anyone other than the man in yellow with a gun, according to court documents, and they didn’t focus on anyone else during the chaos.

But Smart didn’t point a gun at the officers or anyone else while he was being chased, according to the court order dismissing the case. Several people denied seeing a gun on him.

Smart’s parents allege in the lawsuit that Smart never had a gun and was checked for weapons at the door of the club. They say he was running away from the gunfire like everyone else and was shot without any warning from police.

The federal judge’s ruling

In his ruling, the judge, O’Hara, wrote that, when considering evidence in a light most favorable to Smart, he thought a reasonable jury could find that:

▪ The officers didn’t order Smart to drop the gun they thought he had — and if they did, that there wasn’t enough time for Smart to comply before he was shot

▪ Police fired a volley of three shots into Smart’s back after he was lying on the ground

▪ Smart didn’t pose a threat to the officers or bystanders

▪ A reasonable officer could have concluded that Smart was running away from the gunfire like the rest of the crowd and wasn’t resisting capture or arrest

▪ Police had time to see that Smart was unarmed and was not a threat when he was shot in the back

▪ Police used excessive force when they shot Smart, violating his Constitutional rights

What is qualified immunity, [FUNKTIONARY makes it plain:

Sovereign immunity  - ''government" so-called, applying the law of the jungle to its relationship to the people. We are bound by the written law but those who wrote the law are bound by the law of the jungle. Makes you feel like a fool, doesn't it? Minority rule majority fooled? Surely, on earth as it is in heaven. Why would we ever allow "government" to assert the position that it is not bound by the same law that binds us? The answer is that we are fools sweet-talked by judges into believing that the "natural state of affairs" is to bind the people by law, and the "'government" by fiat. "Government" has replaced religion as the opiate of the masses using the Media as its subduing gasses (fumes of subterfuge). (See: CHAOS, Overrulers, Judicial System, Constitution, Law, Domestication, Justice, Economics, Civilization, Weitiko Disease & "Government")] 

The lawsuit has played out at a time when police have been under scrutiny for shooting people, and the nation’s high court has made it increasingly difficult for victims to get their civil lawsuits in front of a jury.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a lawsuit by an Arizona woman shot by police outside of her home after she was seen carrying a knife, saying that officers “are entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent squarely governs the specific facts at issue.”

That means unless there’s a nearly identical case with nearly identical circumstances where a court has already decided that police actions violated a person’s Constitutional rights, an officer can’t be sued in civil court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor in dissent said the majority decision was wrong and “sends an alarming signal” that officers “can shoot first and think later.”

Qualified immunity is designed to protect government workers like police officers from frivolous lawsuits and ensure they aren’t fearful of doing their jobs, University of Kansas School of Law professor Lumen Mulligan said.

It “is a very robust defense,” he said.

But it also makes it difficult for someone with a legitimate Constitutional complaint to win a lawsuit because the standards for overcoming an immunity claim are high.

What that means in practice, Mulligan said, is that sometimes no one is held accountable.

“It really is (that) a first constitutional violation comes without liability,” he said, which can be problematic from a civil rights perspective.

“This is a body of law designed to make it hard for plaintiffs to win. On the one hand it makes perfect sense. We want our police officers to be on the beat” and not tied up in court, he said.

“The question is just, to what degree? Where exactly do we turn the control knob? Right now, it’s a very high hurdle.”

No identical case, judge said 

In his ruling, O’Hara said that the Wichita police officers were entitled to immunity because there was no nearly identical case that made it “sufficiently clear” that the officers’ actions may have been unconstitutional.

Without that, O’Hara said he could not find the officers’ actions “plainly incompetent” or “in knowing violation of the law” when they are viewed “from the perspective of an officer on the scene forced to make split-second judgments in an indisputably chaotic situation.

Yet, he said he worried that such an approach to qualified immunity creates “an absolute shield for law enforcement officers, gutting the deterrent effect of the Fourth Amendment.”

“There is no case ‘close enough on point’ to render it ‘beyond debate’ that Officer Chaffee’s shooting of Smart, in the four-to-five seconds after Smart fell, was unconstitutional. ... No precedent suggests a reasonable officer in this situation necessarily would have perceived Smart to have dropped his gun, mentally registered that fact, concluded Smart was no longer a threat ... and reacted by ceasing fire, all within that four-to-five second period.”

If the judge decides not to reverse his ruling like Smart’s family is asking, they plan to appeal, their attorney said.

With Chicago Murder Rate Projected Lowest Since 2015, Criminal Trump, ‘Ruler of the Earth,’ Encourages Cops to Stop, Frisk & Search Black People in Chicago

A new Brennan Center report analyzes available crime data from police departments in the 30 largest U.S. cities. It finds that across the cities where data is available, the overall murder and crime rates are projected to decline in 2018, continuing similar decreases from the previous year. This report is based on preliminary data and is intended to provide an early snapshot of crime in 2018 in the 30 largest cities. This data will be updated in later reports.

This report’s main findings are explained below:

• Murder: The 2018 murder rate in these cities is projected to be 7.6 percent lower than last year. This estimate is based on data from 29 of the nation’s 30 largest cities. This murder rate is expected to be approximately equal to 2015’s rate, near the bottom of the historic post-1990 decline. Especially sharp declines appear in San Francisco (-35.0 percent), Chicago (-23.2 percent), and Baltimore (-20.9 percent). These estimates are based on preliminary data, but if they hold, the number of murders in Chicago could fall by year’s end to the lowest since 2015. In Baltimore, homicides could drop to the lowest since 2014. While the city’s murder rate remains high, this would mark a significant reversal of the past two years’ increases. [MORE] and [MORE]

From [ACLU] and [HERE] On Monday, President Trump gave a speech to the nation’s police chiefs. Like so many of his “law and order” speeches, it was fueled by bravado and falsehoods.  

In the speech, Trump defended stop-and-frisk policies that have been ruled unconstitutional and rejected by communities in numerous cities. He also urged the city of Chicago to “try to change the terrible deal the city of Chicago entered into with ACLU” on tracking the use of stop and frisk. Trump railed against “efforts from politicians to shackle local police departments” by limiting their cooperation with ICE, and he touted his record of providing surplus military equipment to local police departments.

Trump’s distortions must be called out one by one. Here is a breakdown of the most dangerous falsehoods in his speech:

Trump claim: “Before I took office less than two years ago, our nation was experiencing a historic surge in violent crime.”

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the U.S. violent crime rate peaked in 1991 and has remained stable at about half that rate for the past several years. In 2016 and 2017, the violent crime rate remained essentially stable at near the bottom of this three-decade downward trend, and preliminary indications are that these low crime rates are continuing to remain stable and low.

In other words, there was no historic surge in violent crime because crime was stable at historically low levels when Trump first took office.

Trump claim: Indiscriminate stop-and-frisk “works, and it was meant for problems like Chicago,” which is why he is asking Attorney General Sessions to “work with local authorities to try to change the terrible deal the city of Chicago entered into with ACLU, which ties law enforcement’s hands.”

Indiscriminate stop-and-frisk does not stop violent crime. Indeed, after New York City ended its stop-and-frisk policies under court supervision, the number of street stops by police fell dramatically — the number of stops in 2015 was less than 5 percent of the number of stops in 2011 — and as those stops fell, the homicide rate also continued to fall to record lows.

Aside from being ineffective in limiting crime, indiscriminate stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional, results in enormous racial disparities, erodes community trust in the police, and makes people of color less likely to report crimes. A 2013 study by the Vera Institute of Justice found that each time a young person is stopped and frisked by police, it makes them 8 percent less likely to report a future violent crime against them to police. Nearly 60 percent of the young people surveyed by the Vera Institute stated that they would not feel comfortable asking a police officer for help if they were in trouble.

That’s why the ACLU has repeatedly sued to end indiscriminate stop-and-frisk policies. We’ve reached settlements that require police to abide by constitutional limits in their stop-and-frisk activities in Milwaukee, New York City, and Philadelphia. Meanwhile, our 2015 settlement in Chicago required data collection and oversight of stop and frisk, and we are pushing for adoption of a broader consent decree there.

Notably, none of these lawsuits seek to prohibit all police stops and frisks. They simply require that these actions be supported by the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment and prohibit racially biased patterns of enforcement that are patently unconstitutional.

Trump claim: “[S]anctuary city policies force the release of criminal aliens and gang members right back onto our streets, putting innocent civilians at grave risk — many people being killed.”

So-called “sanctuary city” policies are not targeted at people who have committed crimes, quite the contrary. They are intended to safeguard immigrant victims of crime — particularly survivors of sexual assault, trafficking survivors, and domestic violence survivors — by ensuring that they trust police enough to report these crimes to local authorities without being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This claim is not a one-off, but, in fact, part of Trump’s long-running campaign to bully local communities to become extensions of the federal deportation system. While the Trump administration claims that its continued harassment of these jurisdictions is driven by public safety concerns, we know that’s just an excuse. In fact, pro-immigrant jurisdictions have lower rates of crime than jurisdictions that actively assist federal immigration agents.

Trump claim: His administration’s new policies providing surplus military equipment to local police departments is just “making sure you have the equipment you need to do the job.”

Trump is referring here to the 1033 program, which came under heavy criticism from the ACLU and others for providing weapons of war — including bayonets, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles — to local police departments. After the nation expressed horror at these weapons of war being turned on protesters at Ferguson, President Obama imposed much-needed controls on the 1033 program, including prohibiting certain military-grade weapons altogether and requiring police departments to account for how armored vehicles and other war gear were being used.

President Trump rescinded all of these rules last year, leaving no controls or limits in place. Trump’s policies are not providing necessary equipment. Instead, they are ensuring that local law enforcement agencies will have a free hand to treat their communities like war zones, with zero oversight or accountability.

Once again President Trump has the facts wrong. And along with his Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Trump is attempting to roll back recent reforms and promote the kind of race-based, unconstitutional police abuse that recently gave rise to the Black Lives Matter movement. Indiscriminate stop and frisk is just one of those practices, and it needs to end across the country, not get an endorsement from the White House.

According to FUNKTIONARY

crime - as we are programmed to perceive it involves drugs, theft, murder, etc., most of which is an outward expression or release of energy by the victims from the circumstances conjured up by Doggy and the criminals which make up the majority of what passes as criminality, but in reality, the victimization of the masses by the means in which they are left to live by.  Crime is so-called ""government's"' biggest industry, followed closely by propaganda.  Corporate State derives revenue on both sides of the law (licenses and fees) so you can avoid having to pay (penalties, violations, fees, citations, peonage, and jail time) for ""breaking" the law- (i.e.. Roman civil law). (See: Corporate State. "•Government/' Citizenship & Servitude).

Black-on-Black Crime - a psycho-political euphemism, unwittingly used and abused by African-Americans and deliberately by Caucasians, describing demographic criminal activity in general, as people commit violent crimes on people who live in closest proximity to them, and the violence mostly occurs by those and to those who are held hostage under chronic and cyclical economically disadvantaged circumstances and environments. Do you ever hear of the slogan "White-on-White" crime? Most violent crimes (by number and by percentage of population) take place by Caucasians against Caucasians. Where's the associated terminology? (See Gangbanking & Racism." [MORE] 

Crimeth Inc. - an elite class of intergenerational financiers and psychopathic human parasites. Crimethlnc. is a faction of men and their legal fictions created in this Matrix by those who make them rob widows and orphans, who take your sons and daughters into pre-emptive corporate invasions and occupations of foreign lands, who kill the innocent, jail the just, mine the womb of your daughters, devour the weak, terrorize and falsely imprison political activists, traumatize the oppressed, and covet the wealth of all. 2) Back-on-Track crime. 3) the twisted empty-souls of humanity's invisible oligarchy. Crimethlnc. is a geo­political agreement among territorial gangsters to share power over looted differential wealth of people's labor, minds, lands and natural resources. The objective pay-off is still empire no matter the condition of the ecology or many people expire. (See: Doggy. "Credit" & Reificarion)

Racist Trump Trying to Insult Blacks & Treat Black Issues with Frivolity by Meeting with Massa’bator Kanye West, a SNiggering Clown Rapper Suffering from Negrosis

BOHICAN - Bend Over Here It Comes Again Negro. "The value of a dollar, will never, ever drop as low as the standards of some miseducated self-hating Negroes to obtain it." [FUNKTIONARY]

From [HERE] Kim Kardashian got her Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump. Now it’s husband Kanye West’s turn to engage with the president on important policy matters at the White House.

The rapper — who recently voiced his ongoing support for Trump during a rant on “Saturday Night Live” — is scheduled to have lunch Thursday at the White House with Trump and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior advisor, according to the New York Times. 

West is expected to talk to the men about increasing job opportunities for former convicts and boosting the number of manufacturing jobs in his home town of Chicago, the Times reported. [MORE]

Part of white supremacy is the annihilation of Black self respect. As explained by Amos Wilson, "the most powerful obstacle against the liberation of Afrikan peoples from White domination and exploitation is not the ability of Whites to use superior military or police firepower or their threat to use it against Afrikan insurgency, but is their ability to engage in unrelenting psychopolitical violence against the collective Afrikan psyche." [MORE] 'Their devastatingly ingenious use of it against the minds of Afrikan peoples which represent the greatest threat to Afrikan survival.' [MORE]  To this end, proxymoronic Blacks, showcase Blacks, Black probots, SNiggers, Sambos and many other black on black ________ work in service of white domination for their masters.  

Coin-operated SNAG and "showcase Blacks" like Kanye West are high-profile blacks that are constantly paraded before the public by elite whites who control the media and all other areas of people activity. They may be political dignitaries, pro athletes, entertainers, educators, business people, judges or elected officials. They are rewarded handsomely for their activities and their created personas are a career investment. But they are disposable [see Cosby]. Their real purpose is to mask the REALITY of being black in America. [MORE] Showcase Blacks are a necessary illusion of the racism/white supremacy system.

AINT THE DEVIL HAPPY. According to visionary Dr. Varius Blynd in FUNKTIONARY

Self-hatred - absence of knowledge of Self. 2) a projected walking corpse that appears as one's rejected sense of self, culture and ancestral heritage—acting as a mirror and a constant reminder of what one despises in his or her own colonized mind. Self-hatred is a feeling that should be dead—though un-tombed as an apparition—still haunts both our imagined selves as well as the imaagined selves of "others." Self-hatred is a mental disease—a falsification of cultural consciousness. Whoever loves his disease must be cured of love to be cured. (See: Black-on-Black Crime & Narcissistic Projection).

Negro - a man or woman of Afrikan descent living in pathological mental state of cultural abstinence and historical amnesia— one who wants to impress his or her oppressor while ignoring the effects and plight that his or her accommodationist posture inures. 2) a Hanky-head. 3) an indigenous-to-the-land (American) Afrikan who does everything in his or her power to suppress or pretend that he or she is other than someone of recent Afrikan descent. 4) ethnicity-denying, assimilated and confused Afrikans indigenous to America. 5) one who truly believes he or she is white American—masquerading in black face. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's a Negro after all? (See: Snigger, Rentellectual, McNegro & Negropolitan)

SNigger ---a sold-out snitching-smiling Sambo-Negro. 2) a South-Bender offender. SNiggers smile for nothing except an empty mind while selling-out their own kind. They typically have an intellectual base yet are devoid of intelligence, thus promoting the on-going smiling face. They also often giggle and have a frivolous conception of society and scant knowledge of the vestiges of the trans-Atlantic slave trade that even brought their sorry-ass selves to shore. SNiggers are traitors and pawns of the downpressors. Watch the company you keep! Sniggers like famed Civil Rights era photographer Ernest Withers, an FBI informant, who "shot" (photographed) Dr. Martin Luther King before providing the FBI with critical details about where King was staying and information on his meeting with black militants on April 3, 1968—the day before they (FBI government operatives, informants, Memphis police, and/or their unsuspecting patsy) shot him dead in Memphis. Withers provided the information that "no one but the perpetrator could have known" conclusive evidence that the government was behind and the "front" for the assassination. Don't cross-over unless you are ready to bend-over! Sniggers get stitches—and word is bond(age). We need a "Snigger Hall of Shame" established for traitors to freedom, self-determination, and justice and then include the informant who will run and snitch to the master downpressors even about this initiative as well. Never forget, every brother ain't a brother—some of them are paid undercover. "Whoever thought that hip-hop would be down and m bed with the feds? Hoover Music!" -Public Enemy. He ain't heavy—he's a SNigger! (See: Straw Boss, Sambo, Black Flask Brigade, FBI, FOIA, Coin-Operated, SNAGs, Infiltraitor, Hoover Music, Snitchcraft & Criss-Crossover)

sniggering - the modus vivendi of opportunist (sell-out) compromises. 2) the actions of SNiggers. (See: Coin-Operated) sniping - late-night covert sneak attacks on public space by outlaw cognitive nocturnal operative-activists armed with mind-liberating ideas, posters, broadsides, brushes, and buckets of wheat paste. (See: Subvertising)

massa'bating - the practice of a native Black American "coming" to terms with his or her Negrohood—or sell-out status—by mechanically stroking the pulsating ego of the massa' and then jacking into the Matrix for his sole gratification, i.e., the. continuance of global racism white supremacy. Just imagine taking off from Airstrip One flying around the world on Air Force One drinking some Victory gin with a buck-dancing massa'bator with a grimace that doubles for a grin.  A male massa'bator cannot possibly be self-respecting as long as he is self-erecting the edifice of oppression through the self-protection of historical amnesia—forgetting where he has "come" from. Massa'bators give auto-eroticism a bad reputation by word association at the angle of incidence.   Massa'bators always jump to get their Party members off—the hook that is, by taking the heat when political friction gets too hot for their masters as they vacillate back-and-forth. The one thing a massa'bator never comes to—is the conclusion that he or she is one. (See: CONDI, SNAGs, NSA Position & Coin-Operated)

Georgia Secretary of State, a Racist Suspect Running for Governor Against a Black Woman, Allegedly Purged 590,00 Mostly Black Voters Off the Voter Rolls & Provided No Meaningful Notice of Removal

Voter Purge List is HERE. Greg Palast writes “My lawyer had to threaten Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp with a federal lawsuit to force him to turn over the names of over half a million voters whose citizenship rights he quietly extinguished.

This past week, I released the name of every one of these Georgia voters Kemp flushed from voter rolls in 2017. If you’re a Georgia resident, check the list. If your name is on it, re-register right now. You only have through tomorrow (October 9).

It’s no coincidence that Georgia’s Purge’n General is also running for Governor: The Republican candidate is fighting a dead-even race against Stacey Abrams, Democratic House Minority Leader. Abrams, if she wins, would become the first Black woman governor in US history.

Suspiciously, Kemp sent no notice to these citizens after he took away their voting rights. If they show up to vote on November 6, they’re out of luck — and so is Georgia’s democracy.

I brought in one of the nation’s top mailing database experts, Mark Swedlund, and his team to go through the list, name by name. Among the voters purged are thousands who supposedly left the state but remain in Georgia. Thousands more are people who moved from one end of town to another and lost their vote — and we even found one who simply moved from one apartment to another in the same building.

These registration cancellations are therefore dead wrong and, say voting law experts, coldly break the law.

That is why Gerald Griggs, counsel for the Atlanta NAACP, and voting rights attorney Nse Ufot, executive director of the New Georgia Project (a nonpartisan voter registration initiative), are joining in my suit against Kemp.

We’ll be hauling Kemp into federal court to force him to open the records to which the public is entitled under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 — provisions meant to prevent just this type of voter roll shenanigan. In particular, we’re forcing him to disclose the complete detailed process that led to each voter’s removal.

I don’t file federal suits on a whim. Kemp has continually turned down legitimate Open Records Act requests over my five years of investigation for Al Jazeera and Rolling Stone.

Bluntly, flying teams to Georgia, hiring experts and computer teams has drained our accounts.  We need your help right now.  As you know, we don't ask often, but THIS IS IT.  We are taking legal action in TWENTY-SIX STATES.  We will be putting up the purge lists of a dozen states.  Georgia's is the first.  Please help us pay these bills.  

Griggs and Ufot made their announcement about the suit at a press conference October 2 in Atlanta at the national headquarters of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the civil rights group that traces its origins to the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

The location was meant to make a point. The racial stench from the computerized torching of the Georgia voter files has motivated prominent civil rights leaders from Georgia to add their names to the lawsuit: Axel Adams, executive editor of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition that grew out of two nonprofit organizations founded by Jesse Jackson; Joe Beasley, the former southern regional director for Rainbow PUSH; and SCLC President Dr. Charles Steele Jr., who currently holds the post held by Dr. Martin L. King Jr. until his assassination.

Steele told the gathered media and rights leaders, “Many people have died and paid the supreme sacrifice for people to have the right to vote. What is taking place here in Georgia is an insult to all these efforts and accomplishments.”

Why did I wait to release endangered voters’ names until days before the last day of registration? Because Kemp dragged his feet on my request for the purge lists until literally the last hours before of the 90-day deadline imposed by the law.

I tried to get Kemp’s answers to the NAACP’s and SCLC’s charges that the mass purge of 1 in 10 Georgia voters was aimed at decimating the Black electorate so he could steal the governorship from Abrams.

Technically, Kemp removed voters after they had skipped voting — and failed to return a postcard that, according to Morgan County Elections Board member Helen Butler, “Looks like junk mail. You’d throw it away.” Butler, who also serves as executive director of the Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, is wary of Kemp’s purge methods. Just last year, her group settled a suit against Kemp that forced him to return over 40,000 voters to the rolls.

The National Voter Registration Act specifically prohibits cancelling voter registrations for not voting. But the failure to vote, in combination with not returning a postcard or other information, can be used to justify a cancellation if there is legitimate belief this is evidence the voter has moved.

“But they have not moved,” notes Swedlund, who says not returning a postcard is an “absurd, dangerous” way to determine if voters have moved — especially if their rights are at stake. And basing cancellations on non-responses to postcards is, Swedlund notes, endemically biased against voters who move often, including the poor, students, and Black and Latino voters — in other words, Democrats.

Notably, Swedlund’s analysts found that 108,000 of the names on Kemp’s hit list were also on the notorious “Interstate Crosscheck” list, which my investigations team had obtained from an insider in Kemp’s office as part of my investigations for Rolling Stone.

The lists were created for Georgia by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, President Donald Trump’s “fraudulent voter hunter.” Kobach himself, interviewed in Kansas, told me the list was sent to Kemp and others to indicate a voter had moved out of state. In fact, we went through each and every Crosscheck-tagged voter’s name — and only 2,000 of the 108,000 Crosschecked voters who were purged have left the state. And the majority of others purged had not moved from their original registration address. In simple terms, most of those whose registrations have been cancelled are legitimate Georgia voters.

Representatives from Kemp’s office issued a statement this week denying they used the Crosscheck list, but they did not know we had obtained the list despite Kemp’s resistance. Furthermore, Kemp’s former deputy and his predecessor as Secretary of State both confirmed Georgia participated in Crosscheck.

Meanwhile, Kemp had no clear response as to why the others were removed.

So, I thought it important to get the answers about the purges from the horse’s mouth. But Kemp has weaved and ducked all my interview requests in my several trips to Georgia beginning in 2014.

So, this time, I decided to track down his campaign bus. On Tuesday, I located the candidate in the parking lot of a BBQ joint in Newnan, 38 miles outside Atlanta. You could smell the pigs roasting.

I asked Kemp, bluntly, “Mr. Kemp are you removing Black voters from the voter rolls just so you can win this election?”

Kemp’s answer was to turn his back as I was physically body-blocked, then grabbed and hauled away by Georgia “smokies,” the local county deputy sheriffs. (They claimed that Sprayberry’s Barbecue ordered me off the property, but the owner said otherwise.) It was later reported that his handlers had clocked me before the bus pulled in.

The civil rights leaders are dissatisfied with Kemp’s response and will press our litigation. “Georgia,” said the SCLC’s Steele, “needs to know that we’re not going to take it anymore.”

Note to Georgia residents: Check if your registration has been cancelled. Type in your name and zip code now — you have only today and tomorrow (Tuesday Oct 9) to re-register.

Another Federal Court Rules that Law Used by Justice Department to Cut Funding to Sanctuary Cities & States is Unconstitutional

From [HERE] and [HERE] A judge has ruled that a law used by the Department of Justice to cut funding to sanctuary cities and states is unconstitutional, dealing a blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to force California to cooperate with its immigration crackdown.

According the Associated Press, the judge in the case, William Orrick also ordered the administration to give California the $28 million it had previously withheld.

It was at least the third decision by a U.S. district court judge in recent months declaring the immigration law unconstitutional.

The AP also noted that Judge Orrick in his ruling on Friday agreed with California’s argument that being compelled to cooperate with U.S. immigration officials made it harder for local law enforcement to serve their communities was a compelling reason to strike down the law.

“California expresses the legitimate concern that entanglement with federal immigration enforcement erodes the trust that Latino and undocumented immigrant communities have in local law enforcement.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra echoed that sentiment in a statement that hailed the ruling. He said that “today’s ruling is a victory in our fight to protect the people of California,” while also vowing to continue fighting “the Trump administration’s attempts to force our law enforcement into changing its policies and practices in ways that would make us less safe.”

This practice was instituted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the early months of the Trump presidency. States and cities that were targeted have fought back in court, where they’ve won victories over the administration. Judge Orrick’s new ruling against the Department of Justice is perhaps their biggest win yet.

Bryan Stevenson Tells Court Incompetent Black Man Shouldn’t Be Executed. Demented & Brain Damaged, Vernon Madison Lacks Any Understanding of Why Alabama will Murder Him for Murder of White Cop

From [HERE] and [HERE] The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Madison v. Alabama on October 2, 2018 on whether an Alabama death-row prisoner who has vascular dementia, brain damage, cognitive deficits, and memory loss from two near-fatal strokes is competent to be executed. [Madison’s brief is [HERE]]

During oral argument, Bryan Stevenson [in photo below], the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, told the justices that, as a result of severe and progressively worsening dementia, Vernon Madison lacks a rational understanding of why Alabama intends to put him to death and is therefore incompetent to be executed.

A majority of the justices appeared sympathetic to Madison's position, including Chief Justice John Roberts who is now regarded as the swing vote in death-penalty cases. The issues before the Court narrowed significantly as a result of concessions made by both sides at the argument.

Madison's pleadings had argued that the Court's decisions in 1986 in Ford v. Wainwright and 2007 in Panetti v. Quarterman on competency to be executed applied beyond the limited circumstances of insanity and delusional mental illness at issue in those cases. "For purposes of retribution, there is no moral or constitutional distinction between a person who cannot 'recogni[ze] … the severity of the offense as a result of delusions and a person who is unable to do so as a result of dementia, cognitive decline, and memory deficits," his lawyers wrote.

Alabama Deputy Attorney General Thomas Govan conceded that incompetency caused by severe dementia could also qualify. Stevenson, on the other hand, conceded in response to questioning by Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan that merely having no memory of committing the offense does not make a prisoner incompetent to be executed. Rather, Stevenson said, the memory loss must be the product of a medical or physical condition that also affects the prisoner's understanding of why he or she is to be executed.

Stevenson said Madison's severe vascular dementia has left him with no memory of having killed a police officer who responded to a domestic disturbance in 1985. An MRI has shown that Madison has suffered substantial brain damage, and psychological testing has documented significant cognitive decline accompanied by IQ-loss that now places him in the borderline range of intellectual functioning.

Madison's dementia has also left him disoriented as to date and time and without the ability to rationally comprehend his legal situation. He is legally blind, Stevenson said, has slurred speech, cannot recite the alphabet past the letter G or retain basic information, cannot walk without assistance, and continually soils himself because he does not know how to use the toilet in his five-by-eight cell.

Madison's physical disabilities, Stevenson said, provide evidence illustrating the extent to which Madison's vascular dementia has affected all aspects of his life. Stevenson argued that Alabama's courts improperly rejected Madison's evidence of incompetency, focusing only on whether his impairments were caused by insanity, psychosis, or delusions.

Govan asserted in response that by reciting the correct legal standard from Ford and Panetti and making reference to the testimony concerning Madison's impairments, Alabama had in fact considered that evidence. He further disputed whether Madison is incompetent at all, stating that Alabama would find him competent to stand trial in his current condition.

Stevenson closed the argument by telling the Court that the "awesome power" to execute a person who no longer poses an immediate threat must "be utilized fairly, reliably, and humanely." The Court, Stevenson said, reviews facts and circumstances "through the window of the Constitution ..... But the Eighth Amendment isn't just a window. It's a mirror." Our norms and values "are implicated when we do things to really fragile, really vulnerable people," Stevenson said. "And what we've argued is that dementia in this case renders Mr. Madison frail, bewildered, vulnerable in a way that cannot be reconciled with executing him because of his incompetency."

Madison has already spent 33 years on death row. His conviction has been overturned twice, first because prosecutors unconstitutionally excluded Black jurors from serving on his case, then because prosecutors presented improper expert testimony. At Madison's third trial, his jury recommended a life sentence, but an Alabama judge overrode that recommendation and imposed a death sentence, a practice no longer allowed by any state.

John Nolley Exonerated in Texas Based on Actual Innocence - Lies Sent Black Man to Prison 19 years for the Murder of a White Woman

From [HERE] and [HERE] On October 3, 2018 Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney Sharen Wilson filed legal papers before Judge Louis Sturns to dismiss 1997 murder charges against Innocence Project client John Nolley based on actual innocence. At a court hearing attended by Nolley, his family and legal team, and representatives from the District Attorney’s Office, Judge Sturns granted the motion, and Nolley was exonerated of murder after twenty-one years.

Nolley served 19 years of a life sentence before he was released on bond in 2016 with the consent of D.A. Wilson, who had agreed to reinvestigate his case through her Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU) shortly after taking office. In May 2018, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that Nolley’s 1998 conviction should be overturned based newly discovered evidence that critical information regarding two state witnesses had not been provided to Nolley’s lawyers in 1998.   Nolley’s lawyers in 1998. But the original charges remained pending until today’s decision by prosecutors to dismiss the case against Nolley entirely.

“Today marks the end of an incredibly painful journey for John Nolley, who wrongly served 19 years for a murder he didn’t commit,” said Nina Morrison, Senior Staff Attorney with the Innocence Project. “Yet this day would have never come without the extraordinary work and dedication of District Attorney Wilson and her Conviction Integrity Unit, as well as the detectives in the Bedford Police Department, who put hundreds of hours into a joint effort to reinvestigate this case and seek the truth.”

“Today marks the end of an incredibly painful journey for John Nolley, who wrongly served 19 years for a murder he didn’t commit.” Nina Morrison

In July 2015, just months after taking office, District Attorney Wilson agreed to reinvestigate Nolley’s case through her office’s newly formed CIU. The CIU collaborated with the Innocence Project and Fort Worth attorney Reagan Wynn in reinvestigating the 1996 murder of Sharon McLane. Since the investigation began, the District Attorney’s office has spoken to more than 70 witnesses. Together, prosecutors and the Innocence Project also conducted more than 100 forensic tests, including DNA and latent print analyses. The complete results of this testing and investigation are not yet public while law enforcement continues to pursue other suspects in McLane’s killing. But today, the District Attorney announced that her office had reached the conclusion that Nolley’s indictment should be dismissed based on actual innocence.

McLane’s body was found stabbed to death in her home on Saturday, December 14, 1996. Her body was partially clothed, indicating that she had been the victim of an actual or attempted sexual assault. The murder occurred sometime after she finished her shift at the Advantage Rent-A-Car on Wednesday, December 11.

The following day, a married couple who lived in the apartment complex, heard what they described at trial as “blood-curdling screams” of an adult female coming from the direction of McLane’s apartment at slightly after 3 pm. Approximately 15 to 30 minutes later, the husband observed an unfamiliar tall white man wearing a black cowboy hat walking out of the breezeway adjacent to McLane’s apartment. A neighbor and maintenance worker also saw a man fitting that description 15 to 20 feet from McLane’s apartment. Nolley is African American and was working at this time. After McLane didn’t show up for work on Saturday, December 14, a friend was dispatched to her apartment to look for her and her body was found, as well as three bloody knives and piece of paper with a bloody palm print.

Although police were initially convinced that the assailant was likely the male in the cowboy hat who had been observed, Nolley became a suspect after police learned discovered phone records indicating that Nolley had visited the victim in her apartment the night of December 11th.  Nolley was friends with McLane before her death: they had visited one another’s homes on several occasions, and Nolley and his girlfriend had recently hosted McLane and her young daughter for Thanksgiving dinner.  he had visited her home on the evening of December 11th.  While not initially forthcoming about having seen the victim on December 11th, Nolley eventually gave a voluntary statement acknowledging his visit with the victim, explaining that he had initially lied to police because he was afraid to admit that he had sold her marijuana that night.

“I do not have any resentment toward anyone at this point.” John Nolley

Other than two beer bottles (which Nolley had already informed police about) found in the victim’s trash containing a fingerprint matching Nolley, there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime scene at the time he was charged.  Nevertheless, he was convicted of the crime based largely on the uncorroborated testimony of a jailhouse informant. informants.  New evidence uncovered during the reinvestigation revealed that the informant in fact gave perjured testimony at Nolley’s trial.  John O’Brien, who had a long criminal record, claimed that Nolley confessed to him while they were both in the jail law library.  The alleged confession, however, did not match the crime, and the CIU discovered documents revealing that O’Brien had been a state informant in numerous other cases, and lied to the jury when he claimed that he had never “snitched” on anyone but Nolley.

Two other witnesses claimed that Nolley made inculpatory statements regarding the crime. The CIU discovered that both witnesses gave contradictory testimony before the grand jury, with one witness telling the grand jury that Nolley had never indicated he had “cut” or stabbed anyone, despite claiming at trial that he had made such a statement.

“This day would have never come without the extraordinary work and dedication of District Attorney Wilson and her Conviction Integrity Unit, as well as the detectives in the Bedford Police Department, who put hundreds of hours into a joint effort to reinvestigate this case and seek the truth.”

After his conviction, Nolley sought the help of the Innocence Project and Fort Worth attorney Reagan Wynn, who donated his time pro bono to the case. With the support of the D.A.’s office, an expert using new digital technology that wasn’t available at the time of the trial examined a bloody print on the paper found on the victim’s body and concluded that it didn’t come from Nolley.

Nolley’s case is also notable in that even before today’s exoneration, it has already led to significant legal reforms.

In 2017, the year after CDA Wilson recommended that Nolley’s conviction be vacated, the Texas legislature passed the most comprehensive legislation in the country regulating the use of jailhouse informant testimony.  The law requires county and district attorney offices to track information, including benefits provided to jailhouse informants, in exchange for testimony, previous cases in which they provided testimony and benefits provides in those cases, and their complete criminal history. This information must be disclosed to defense attorneys, which allows them to raise issues of credibility in court so that judges and juries can more accurately assess jailhouse informant testimony and ensures that prosecutors have accurate information on jailhouse informants so they can better assess whether to use them as witnesses and make all required disclosures to the defense.  The new statewide law is modeled on an informant tracking and disclosure policy that CDA Wilson and her CIU director developed for Tarrant County prosecutions in the wake of Nolley’s 2016 release from prison.

Incentivized jailhouse testimony has contributed to approximately 15 percent of the nation’s 362 DNA exonerations, and the Texas law stands as a model for other states.

Since Nolley’s 2016 release from prison, he has gotten married (to a childhood friend), and the couple has a 10-month-old baby, John Nolley III. He has worked in local factories and real estate companies, and recently started his own maintenance and janitorial business. Today’s exoneration based on “actual innocence” will finally make Nolley eligible for financial compensation from the State of Texas for the 19 years he served in prison.

Nolley was surrounded by family members and local exonerees when he was exonerated in court today.