Not About $20. George Floyd was Murdered b/c Cops Have the Right to Initiate Unprovoked Acts of Violence on People. No Citizen Has this Right. So How Could Cops Acquire This Power from the People?

LEGAL SYSTEM BASED ON PHYSICAL COERCION. In Minnesota and nearly all states an officer can’t arrest an adult for a misdemeanor without a warrant, unless he witnesses the person committing it. In other words, the misdemeanor must occur “in the presence” of the officer. The May 25th murder episode of George Floyd began when someone called 911 to report that a man had used a counterfeit $20 bill for a purchase at Cup Foods, a restaurant on Chicago Avenue. The alleged fake bill was used to purchase a pack of cigarettes, a misdemeanor in Minnesota.

Shortly after 8 p.m., Officers Thomas Lane and J.A. Kueng arrived at the restaurant, where employees reported that the customer who had made the purchase was sitting in a car parked nearby on 38th Street. Lane and Kueng found Floyd sitting in the driver's seat and ordered him, then pulled him, out of the car. Floyd was not free to go. When they touched him he was under arrest within the meaning of the 4th Amendment. Prior to his arrest, the cops did not witness any misdemeanor counterfeiting. As explained, they arrived after the alleged crime occurred and they had no warrant. Thus, the arrest for counterfeting was unlawful.

The criminal complaint says Lane asked for Floyd's name and identification, asked if he was "on anything," and informed him that he was under arrest for passing a counterfeit bill. Although the arrest was unlawful, Minnesota law does not recognize a defendant's right to resist an unlawful arrest or search - Floyd was legally obliged to obey their commands and powerless to do anything about it.

When Lane and Kueng stood Floyd up and tried to walk him toward their squad car, the complaint says, he "stiffened up, fell to the ground, and told the officers he was claustrophobic."

At this point Chauvin and Officer Tou Thoa arrived at the scene in a separate squad car.

According to the complaint, the officers repeatedly tried to get Floyd into Lane and Kueng's car. The complaint says Floyd "did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers by intentionally falling down, saying he was not going in the car, and refusing to stand still." While standing outside the car, Floyd "began saying and repeating that he could not breathe." About five minutes after Lane and Kueng intially tried to put Floyd in their car, Chauvin pulled Floyd "out of the passenger side of the squad car." Floyd "went to the ground face down and still handcuffed." As Kueng held Floyd's back and Lane held his legs, Chauvin "placed his left knee in the area of Mr. Floyd's head and neck." And we know what happened next.

We are told that governmental power comes from the people. That is, we delegate our individual power to the government for it to act on our behalf through its representatives. In their representative capacity politicians and judges have delegated or granted to police and other governmental workers the power to act. No different than the way an owner of a business delegates powers to his/her employees to act as his/her agents to get business done. However, it goes without saying that people cannot delegate powers or rights that they do not individually possess.

Clearly, citizens have the right to defend themselves and to come to the defense of others but citizens have no right to commit unprovoked acts of violence on other people. So if we have delegated our individual powers to lawmakers and lawmakers have empowered police officers to act on our behalf, how could police acquire the right to commit acts of unprovoked violence on people? That is, initiate the use physical force on people. Can you delegate a right to someone that you don’t have? where does authority, the right to rule others [or the power to give commands that citizens have a moral & legal duty to obey] come from? Asked differently, you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of force against other people - so how can you delegate or authorize a government representative to do such things? How did police acquire such super-human powers?

All modern statism or belief in “authority” is based entirely on the assumption that people can delegate rights they don’t have.” Larken Rose explains, “the belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.”

Our “justice” system is entirely based on physical coercion - violence. The false choice generally presented is either obey authority or go to jail. Michael Huemer explains, “The system as a whole must be anchored by a non-voluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices.” [MORE] Commands by authorities are often enforced with threats to issue further commands and then force is applied.

As the George Floyd episode indicates he had no legal right to resist authority even though his arrest was unlawful. The law being enforced was counterfeit misdemeanor law. Like all other criminal laws it is a command backed by the threat of violence against those who not obey. When he allegedly violated the law he was subjected to arrest. When he resisted initial commands cops gave more commands and threats to use violence and then when he allegedly resisted those commands and efforts they applied more physical force to en-force the law - in this system it makes no difference what the law is. The US legal system is based entirely on “intentional harmful coercion” - there is nothing voluntary about it. Such coercion ‘involves actual or threatened bodily injury, or at a minimum, physical pushing or pulling of the individual’s body to the location of imprisonment. This is the final intervention that the individual cannot choose to defy.’ ‘One can choose not to comply with an order, one can choose to use counterfeit bills, 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.’ [MORE]

Said system based on authority or the right to rule over others is violence manifested, it cannot be reformed. As stated by Larken Rose,

“The problem is not just that “authority” can be used for evil; the problem is that, at its most basic essence, it is evil. In everything it does, it defeats the free will of human being controlling them through coercion and fear. It supersedes and destroys moral consciences, replacing them with unthinking blind obedience. It cannot be used for good, any more than a bomb can be used to heal a body. It is always aggression, always the enemy of peace, always the enemy of justice. The moment it ceases to be an attacker, it ceases to fit the definition of “government.” It is, by its very nature, a murderer and a thief, the enemy of mankind, a poison to humanity. As dominator and controller, ruler and oppressor, it can be nothing else.

The alleged right to rule, in any degree and in any form, is the opposite of humanity. The initiation of violence is the opposite of harmonious coexistence. The desire for dominion is the opposite of love for mankind. Hiding the violence under layers of complex rituals and self-contradictory rationalizations, and labeling brute thuggery as virtue and compassion, does not change that fact. Claiming noble goals, saying that the violence is “the will of the people,” or that it is being committed “for the common good” or “for the children,” cannot change evil into good. “Legalizing” wrong does not make it right. One man forcibly subjugating another, no matter how it is described or how it is carried out, is uncivilized and immoral. The destruction it causes, the injustice it creates, the damage it does to every soul that it touches – perpetrators, victims, and spectators alike-cannot be undone by calling it “law,” or by claiming that it was necessary. Evil, by any name, is still evil. The ultimate message here is very simple. All of recorded history screams it, yet few have, until now, allowed themselves to hear it. That message is this:

If you love death and destruction, oppression and suffering, injustice and violence, repression and torture, helplessness and despair, perpetual conflict and bloodshed, then teach your children to respect “authority:’ and teach them that obedience is a virtue. If, on the other hand, you value peaceful coexistence, compassion and cooperation, freedom and justice, then teach your children the principles of self-ownership, teach them to respect the rights of every human being, and teach them to recognize and reject the belief in “authority” for what it is: the most irrational, self-contradictory, anti-human, evil, destructive and dangerous superstition the world has ever known.” [MORE]

As defined in FUNKTIONARY

Copitalism - police-state authoritarian force, usurped power and repression over men and women wielded in furthering the interests of commerce and the protection of commercial property; any benefit whatsoever accruing to people exists in spite of this corporate police state monster.

"authority" - (so-called)—a cartoon, an alleged image of the Law. 2) a cartoon clothed in flesh and blood. 3) the notion of an implied right and application of that "right" of individuals or groups of same to control or exercise external power over others, which has no meaning in reality. 4) power over...which is thoroughly institutionalized. 5) ruling through coercion. So-called "authority" is the justification for remaining impotent. 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.

"Authority-" is not a force but a farce! "Every great advancement in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority." —Aldous Huxley. Government is the hefty price we pay for our lack of being further evolved as humans. "The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority." —Stanley Milgram Regarding obedience to authority and carrying out "orders" Milgram states, "Thus there is a fragmentation of the totai human act; no one man decides to carry out the evil act and is confronted with consequences. The person who assumes full responsibility for the act has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society." At its root, government is based on violence and coercion. Without violent authority, studies show that violent behavior will all but disappear in its wake. Authority breeds the violence that it combats and perpetuates. Violence perpetrated by individuals is learned through noxious social experiences typically suffered under some assumed "authority." "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government." —Dr. Martin L. King. Jr.. 1967. Read "Obedience to Authority" by Stanley Milgram, and "Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner. (See: Violence, Government. Yurugu, BOG. "The Law," Hierarchy. Obedience, Duty, Defiance, Disobedience, Compliance Priests, Preachers, Citizens, States, Involuntary Taxation, Tax Invasion, Behavior, Orders, Allegiance. Internal Revenue Service, Corporate State, Anarchy. Taxtortion, Power, Experts, Doggy & Neuropeans)

Defund cops = community hired & fired, trained security workers w/a contractual duty to aid people in peril & a right to defend others & No Right to Initiate Unprovoked Acts of Violence

Non-authoritarian Security. Rather than reducing tax dollars budgeted to cops as a remedy to somehow stop police brutality, “Defund cops” could simply mean community hired and fired trained security workers who have a contractual duty to aid people in peril and a natural right to come to the defense of others but who have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on people. Therefore, there would be no need for a police department.

Security workers have the same rights that people have because all persons have the natural right to defend themselves and come to the defense of others if they believe the other person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. However, in the US legal system people have no general legal duty to rescue or aid other people in danger. Thus, security workers can be contractually obliged to aid folks in peril and could be held accountable directly to the people who hire and fire them.

An essential difference between private security workers and police officers is that security workers possess no government authority or right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on other people. FUNKTIONARY explains that unprovoked violence against others or the use of “force” is the basis of all social evils and can only be used in the sense of attack not defense. It states “Unfortunately, governments only function by force. Once established, they put laws into effect by threatening persecution, imprisonment, fine, or death against all who don't comply with those laws--including the use of the force continuum.” [MORE] Murray Rothbard explains government is that ‘organization which maintains a monopoly on the use of force and violence; it is the only organization that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.’

If a “public servant," such as a police officer, is uncontrollable, unaccountable, can’t be hired or fired by you, has irresponsible power over you and provides a compulsory “service” then he is actually your Master. Lysander Spooner, stated “It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?” Private security workers are a step toward solving this problem. Consider the following:

Allegedly governmental power comes from the people. That is, we delegate our individual power to the government for it to act on our behalf. However, it goes without saying that people cannot delegate powers or rights that they do not possess. So if people have delegated their powers to lawmakers and lawmakers have empowered police officers to act on our behalf, how did police acquire the moral right to commit acts of unprovoked violence on people? Asked differently, if you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then how can you delegate or authorize police officers or anyone else acting on your behalf to do so? How did government representatives and police acquire such super-human powers? Spooner explained,

“it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess. They could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals.”

Similarly, undeceiver Larken Rose observes,

“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.‘

Government “authority” can be summed up as the right to rule over people. It is the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have the moral obligation to obey.’ [MORE] FUNKTIONARY defines authority as ‘a cartoon, an alleged image of the Law or the notion of an implied right and application of that "right" of individuals or groups of same to control or exercise external power over others, which has no meaning in reality.’ FUNKTIONARY further states, authority is rule through coercion. 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.”

Authority is a “cartoon” or an “image of law” because “people cannot delegate rights they do not have, which makes it impossible for anyone to acquire the right to rule (”authority”). People cannot alter morality, which makes the “laws” of “government” devoid of any inherent “authority.” Ergo, “authority”-the right to rule-cannot logically exist. The concept itself is self-contradictory, like the concept of a “militant pacifist.” A human being cannot have superhuman rights, and therefore no one can have the inherent right to rule.’

Authority and freedom cannot co-exist. FUNKTIONARY explains that authority is a farce. It explains, “There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority, i.e. outside of one's Self and Self-Nature.) Jeremy Locke states:

There is no authority on earth that can rightfully govern your life. Born to this world, you and you alone control your eyes, your ears, your tongue, your hands and your mind. All authority which claims to be able to dispose of you and your abilities is deceit.

You were born to this world so that you might have the free agency of life. Life is liberty. With liberty and faith in this world, you can learn and do anything. Anyone who tells you that you must yield your mind, your body, or your possessions to authority is evil.

He further explains, “The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain the freedom of life by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death“ Rose explains, “the belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.” 

Liberal reforms may better conceal the system of RSW but our status as “enemies and slaves” will remain so long as we are subjected to governmental authority in a white over Black system. Accountability for cops purposefully remains incidental, random, accidental or symbolic by design in a system of injustice. Indeed, through the doctrine of sovereign immunity court’s apply the law of the jungle to cops and their relationship to people. We are bound by the written law but those who wrote the law are bound by the law of the jungle. [MORE] Yet unaccountability is merely a symptom of the root problem of governmental authority.

With regard to non-authoritarian security, Rose explains:

“Some of what is now classified as “police work”- in fact, all of what the “police” do that is actually legitimate, noble, righteous, and helpful to society-would exist without the “authority” myth. Investigating wrongdoing and apprehending actual criminals-meaning people who harm others, not merely people who disobey politicians-would continue without the “authority” myth, as something that almost everyone would want, and would be willing to pay for. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are already private detectives and private security companies, in addition to the “protection” services of “government” that everyone is forced to fund.

There would be only one difference, though it is a major difference: those doing the job of investigating and protecting, in the absence of the “authority” superstition, would always be viewed as having exactly the same rights as everyone else. While presumably they would be better equipped and better qualified to do their jobs than the average citizen, their actions would be judged by the same standards that the actions of anyone else would be judged, which is not at all the case with so-called “law enforcers.” Private protection providers would also judge their own actions, not by whether some “authority” had told them to do something, or whether their actions were deemed “legal” by “government,” but by whether those actions, in their own personal view, were inherently justified. Not only would an excuse of “just following orders” not convince the general public, but the agents themselves could not, even in their own minds, use such an excuse to evade responsibility for their actions, because no one would be claiming to be an “authority” over them.

Non-authoritarian “police”-if they would even be called that-would be viewed very differently than “government” agents are now. They would not be seen to have the right to do anything that any other person did not have the right to do. They could only go places, question people, use force, or do anything else, in situations where anyone else would be justified in doing the same thing. As a result, the average person would have no reason to feel any nervousness or self-consciousness in their presence, as most people now do when in the presence of “law enforcers.” People would feel no more obligation to submit to questioning, or searches, or anything else requested by private protectors, than they would if some stranger on the street made such requests. And if a private protector became abusive, or even violent, his victim would have the right to respond the same way he would if anyone else was behaving that way. More importantly, the individual who resisted aggression from a private protector would have the support of his neighbors if he did so, because his neighbors would not be imagining any obligation to bow to someone because of any badge or any “law.”

The best check against a defense organization becoming corrupt or “out of control” is the ability of customers to simply stop paying. Obviously, no one wants to pay for some gang to oppress him, but most people also do not want to pay a gang to oppress someone else either. As much as the average person wants to see thieves and murderers caught and stopped, he also wants to see to it that the innocent are not harmed. If the customers of some private protection company discovered that their “protectors” were harassing and assaulting innocent people-the type of behavior they were hired to prevent-the customer base would instantly disappear, and the thugs would be out of business. And if, in the absence of any claimed “authority,” the thugs decided to try to force their former customers to keep paying, the backlash from the people would be swift and severe, as no one would feel any “legal” obligation to allow themselves to be oppressed. [MORE]

6 Million Ways to Die and New York Legislators Choose to Ban One [the Use of Chokeholds by Cops - Not the Use of the “Force Continuum" or Authority, “the arch enemy of humanity"]

From [HERE] Inspired by the protests sweeping the state and nation, New York legislative leaders on Monday began to approve an expansive package of bills targeting police misconduct, defying longstanding opposition from law enforcement groups, including police unions.

The measures range from a ban on the use of chokeholds to the repeal of an obscure decades-old statute that has effectively hidden the disciplinary records of police officers from public view, making it virtually impossible for victims to know whether a particular officer has a history of abuse.

The legislation marks one of the most substantial policy changes to result from the nearly two weeks of national unrest that followed George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis, including in New York City, where tens of thousands of protesters participated in mostly peaceful marches to demand more police accountability.

The proposals signify a turning-point in Albany. Many of the policy changes being voted on this week languished for years because of opposition from influential police and corrections unions that contribute generously to the campaigns of elected officials — a tactic that had great effect in the State Senate, which has traditionally been under Republican control.

But Democrats assumed control of the full Legislature last year for the first time in nearly a decade, clearing the way for lawmakers to pass some of the law enforcement bills on Monday. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a third-term Democrat, said on Monday he supported the bills and intended to sign them into law. [MORE]

FUNKTIONARY defines as follows:

reform - superficial change in form and formalities (fictitious change) which only further lubricates the status quo by renovating and painting old society in new colors. 2) appearance of change sans the change. Reform is always in the service of the status quo and the politician: it serves the privilege of the past not the promise of the future. Reform creates hypocrisy as a matter of course. Reform is the first stage in the three "P,'s" in hue-man evolution; the other two being revolution and rebellion. There are two basic types of reformists: those who are preparing the ground for Third Eye revolution and those who are trying to prevent the conscious revolution. (See: Revolution, Status Quo, Barbarian, Meme & Change)

reformers - naive politicians. They came to do good and stayed to do well. Reformers themselves get reformed into the structure, consciousness and content of the dominant exploitative system--and thus become the system. (See: Revolution)

Force - the source or sources of all possible actions of the particles or materials of the universe(s). 2) the manipulation of a man or woman in disregard of its own volition or nature. 3) the use of an outside physical coercion of any kind by one or more humanoids against another or others in order to make him/her or them obedient and compliant to Ms/her or their will. 4) the basis of all social evils and can only be used in the sense of attack not defense. 5) You must! In the way I say! 6) the social disease. "Force (coercion) and fraud are the foundation of all social systems and the source of the aroma which they exhale." --Max Nomad. "Force" operates to remove personal volition from opportunity to act or not act. Someone "makes" you behave in a certain way by threatening to injure or enslave you, someone you love, or something you prize, if you do not behave in that way. Force operates to obtain an intended behavior when the forced party would otherwise have exhibited a different behavior. Punishment, pain, suffering, and discomfort characterize force. Unfortunately, governments only function by force. Once established, they put laws into effect by threatening persecution, imprisonment, fine, or death against all who don't comply with those laws--including the use of the force continuum (See: Autonomy, Fiction, Fraud, Corporate State, Freedom, Forgery, Authority, Violence, Coercion, Deception, Language, Punishment, Capital Punishment, Gerp & Government)

Compelled Video Shows Austin Police Murdering Javier Ambler: White Cops Force Black Man Lying on His Stomach into Cuffs by Pushing His Head Down w/a Knee in His Back as He Begs for Air Until He Dies

From [HERE] and [HERE] Javier Ambler was driving home from a friendly poker game in the early hours of March 28, 2019, when a Williamson County sheriff’s deputy noticed that he failed to dim the headlights of his SUV to oncoming traffic.

Twenty-eight minutes later, the black father of two sons lay dying on a North Austin street after deputies held him down and used Tasers on him four times while a crew from A&E’s reality show “Live PD” filmed.

Ambler, a 40-year-old former postal worker, repeatedly pleaded for mercy, telling deputies he had congestive heart failure and couldn’t breathe. He cried, “Save me,” before deputies deployed a final shock. He was unarmed.

His death never made headlines. His death was ruled a homicide. A death-in-custody report filed with the Texas attorney general’s office — a procedure required anytime a person dies in police custody — said Ambler did not attempt to, nor did he assault deputies; he did not verbally threaten others nor attempt to get control of any officers’ weapons.

Now, after months of questioning and requests for information from the Austin American-Statesman and KVUE-TV, recently released documents and police video shed light on that fatal night at a time when the nation confronts decades of injustice against minorities by law enforcement.

In the body camera footage, at least 4 white officers restrain Ambler on his stomach and attempt to handcuff him. He does not appear to be actively resisting. The white cops are hyped up, excited and treat him violently as their enemy. Deputies yell at Ambler to lay on his stomach and put his hands behind his back. One presses a Taser into his upper back. As they threaten to tase him, Amblers struggles to breathe and repeats, “I have congestive heart failure,” and, “I can’t breathe.” Ambler refers to the officers as “sir” throughout and tells them, “I am not resisting.” Ambler cries. “Sir, I can’t breathe. ... Please. ... Please.” The deputies, who are on top of Ambler, continue yelling at him to put his arms behind his back. He pleads “save me” and gasps for air before officers tase him in the back.

“I’m pretty sure I just broke his finger,” an officer says, pulling Ambler’s arm behind him. After being cuffed, Ambler falls limp.

The deputies’ decisions to chase and repeatedly use their Tasers on a man who simply failed to dim his lights prompts questions about the agency’s practice of pursuing drivers for minor crimes. The officer who initially pulled him was Black. Protocols that Chody put in place on Feb. 28, 2020, say a car chase is justified only when a deputy believes that a person has committed a crime “for which there is an immediate need for apprehension.” Driving with high beams on is a minor traffic violation.

“It is of very serious concern to any of us who are in law enforcement that the decision to engage in that chase was driven by more of a need to provide entertainment than to keep Williamson County citizens safe,” said Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore.

Some 15 months after Ambler’s death, Moore’s civil rights division is still investigating the incident. After questioning from an American-Statesman reporter, she said her office plans to present the case to a grand jury.

Investigators say Chody and “Live PD” producers have repeatedly stonewalled their efforts to obtain evidence or interviews with the officers involved.

Protests have roiled the country since the Memorial Day death of George Floyd, a black man pinned under the knee of a white Minneapolis police officer for nearly nine minutes as he lost consciousness and never regained it.

Communities throughout Central Texas have called for police reforms and transparency amid the racial unrest and the recent death of Michael Ramos, an unarmed black Hispanic man killed by Austin police. The details of Ambler’s deadly encounter with Williamson County deputies, which came to light only because of ongoing media pressure, bring intensified focus on the need for accountability among law enforcement agencies.

Ambler’s death also renews scrutiny on a suburban agency that has been under fire for more than a year, largely because of its relationship with the reality TV show.

[False Social Relations b/tw Police & the Public are Mediated by False Images in the Spectacle] Austin Cops Caught Promoting Image of Themselves Receiving Fake Thank You Cards from the Public.‘

FTP writes: In the past several weeks, the Austin police department has been captured on video murdering an unarmed man, shooting a child in the head with a rubber bullet, shooting an innocent student in the head with a projectile, and firing on the citizens attempting to render aid to that student. These acts of police violence have all gone unpunished. Tensions, as one might expect, are high between the community and their police force. According to the Austin police department, however, there is an outpouring of support in the form of “Thank you” cards. But the Twitter-verse has found that something smells fishy.

On Saturday, the Austin police department took to Twitter to essentially put out a piece of propaganda to claim how much their community loves them. A black and a white officer were conveniently chosen to be photographed reading from a pile of thank you cards.

“We can’t express enough how grateful we are to serve you, Austin,” the APD account tweeted on Saturday. “Our officers have been working around the clock during these unprecedented times and thank everyone who took the time to write and make our day a little brighter. #OneAustinSaferTogether #Thankful”.

But when their Twitter followers looked at the picture closely, they began to spot something strange. Most of the cards in the photo had the same handwriting. Weird, right? That’s what we thought too.

“Weird how all of those letters have precisely the same handwriting and were all hand-delivered without postage,” one Twitter user wrote.

Others called out the ‘coincidence’ of the dynamic races of the officers chosen in the photo as well.

After receiving so much backlash online, the Austin police department released a ridiculous statement to Gizmodo about why the cards had the same handwriting. That hilarious statement is below.

“Many of you have inquired about the cards that were posted on our social media pages,” Austin PD wrote to Gizmodo. “The cards were from several community members to include kindergartners and Austin families, who wanted to show support for APD officers. Two people, who organized delivering the cards in person, addressed the envelopes with a “Thank you,” so our officers would open the notes to receive encouragement during these difficult times. That is why the front of the envelopes appear to have the same handwriting.” All the letters were, APD stated, delivered at the same time this past Thursday.

As Gizmodo points out, however, the inclusion of “kindergartners” is suspect because Texas schools were ordered to close for the remainder of the 2020 academic year by state governor Greg Abbott in mid-April. There are no kindergarten classrooms open in Texas, or most of the country for that matter.

In a phone call after Gizmodo requested clarification, a public information officer declined to identify the two people who delivered these letters. The officer claimed that APD are not aware of what community group (if any) was responsible for organizing the letter-writing campaign, and that the information concerning kindergarteners was provided by the two individuals who delivered the letters. “We don’t know what school or what kindergarteners” the officer admitted, later walking the claim back to state that calling some of the writers “kindergarten-aged” would be more accurate.

In the same call in which the PIO admitted “we don’t know who they are,” they also staunchly denied that the letter-writers are themselves officers or relatives of officers. APD deny that the purpose of posting these photos was in any way related to recent events. [MORE]

Trump Presidency is Now On “Lie-Support:" The Brookings Institute says the Unemployment Rate Didn’t Really Drop in May. The New Jobs Report is Based on Falsehood

From [HERE] The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) surprised the markets and most economists Friday with an announcement that the unemployment rate fell from 14.7 percent in April to 13.3 percent in May. President Donald Trump had the temerity to boast that George Floyd, the unarmed black man killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis, was “looking down from heaven” to admire those numbers. “This is a great day for him,” Trump said in the Rose Garden. “This is a great day for everybody.”

Beyond the president’s remarkable and offensive invocation of Floyd, there is good reason to be skeptical of his administration’s latest report.

BLS asserts that 20,935,000 Americans were unemployed in May, attributing the decline to employers adding 2,509,000 jobs in May as states allowed “a limited resumption of economic activity.” But it’s not that simple. The unexpected decline in the jobless rate is based on a survey of businesses and households conducted over the week of May 16th, and BLS has also reported that 29,965,415 Americans received unemployment insurance benefits in the same week. That’s a gap of 8,980,415 people, enough to raise the May jobless rate 5.7 percentage points to 19.0 percent and much closer to economists’ expectations.

How did the Labor Department come up with such a low figure? Part of it is the Payroll Protection Program: The BLS counted anyone who employers say were still being paid as employed “even if they were not actually at their jobs.” Part of it involves how the BLS treats the many millions of people now on furlough and not being paid. They are considered “unemployed on temporary layoff.” But if BLS expects them to return to their old jobs, based on the survey, they do not count among the unemployed.

Those judgments are left to the BLS’s discretion, and the agency does not issue any data on those decisions. Yet a recent analysis from the Becker Friedman Institute at the University of Chicago estimated that 42 percent of people furloughed by the COVID-19 crisis will never get their old jobs back, and only 30 percent of those laid off will land new jobs later this year. With 30 million people receiving unemployment benefits, that analysis is more consistent with unemployment at 19.0 percent today than 13.3 percent. BLS itself acknowledges in its May report that counting those on furlough as unemployed would raise its official rate to 16.3 percent.

Finally, part of the 9 million-person discrepancy may involve how BLS decides whether a person who is not working is still part of the labor force. If you are out of work but didn’t look for a job over the previous four weeks, or couldn’t work for family reasons such as caring for children who are no longer in school, BLS says you are out of the labor force. If you’re not in the labor force, you’re not unemployed.

Again, it is BLS’s judgment call—and BLS clearly has decided that millions of people who lost their jobs because of COVID-19 shutdowns do not count as unemployed. In May 2019, BLS reported that 96,207,000 working-age Americans were not in the labor force; today, BLS reported that a year later, that number had jumped by 5,865,000 to 102,072,000. For reference, the BLS found that 95,636,000 working-age Americans were not in the labor force in 2019, down 80,000 from 2018. Those 5,865,000 people could explain nearly two-thirds of the 9 million-person gap between those receiving unemployment benefits and those counted as unemployed. [MORE]

The Beasthood’s puppetician stole the 2016 election with fabrications - statistically valid lies. Figures lie and liars figure. (See: Statistics, Fabulist & A Lie). Greg Palast predicts that he will steal it again in November.

FUNKTIONARY further defines as follows:

falsehood - the truth that lies  before you (do). 2) static truth that poses as if it were dynamic reality or as if it comports to the nature and attributes of reality. 3) the excrement of truth. 4) a truth to which the facts are deliberately loosely adjusted to meet an imperfect conformity. 5) intentionally misconfigured truths designed to mislead and misinform. Truth is unintentional incomplete information or non-deliberate misinformation. Falsehood is intentional disinformation (absolute truth or outright lies). Truth and falsehood sit on the same polaric frequency--i.e., they are not different in nature, only in perspective--to the level of consciousness that serves it  or consumes it. The lie has landed and the truth has risen, and people are about to lose their minds. (See: Truth, Lies, Facts, Jesus Christ, Manipulation, The Jesus Seminar, If, Apostasy & Absolute Truth)

Fabricated Truth - incomplete and inaccurate descriptions of reality sewn together into a garment worn (held and defended) as if it were (or could be) true other than what it may mean specifically and only to you. To fit truth, you will have to change; to fit reality, truth has to change. Truth and lies are kissin' cousins because you need not change---you simply change the fabric of the truth or the pattern of the lie, and it fits you. The lies truth tells you cling to you like a cheap suit. It never forces you to change or modify your look or view--you can remain static, stagnant and oblivious. If you can invent your own lies, you also can invent your own truth to be better aligned with the shifting sands of reality which knows no resting spot on which to pontificate or be etch-a-sketched in stone. Lies protect you from the truth; the truth protects you from reality. Reality teaches you the illusions of protection. If we disallow another's truth to shatter our lies, why do we allow another's truth to override our own without testing it against reality? Lo! Observe the type of lies you live in and the kind (or brand) of truth to which you hold dear. Look around you--are you on lie-support? Look within you--what truths are you harboring and which ones are holding you hostage? Look into life and see the uncertainty, imperfection and constant change reality brings to everything. We create our own lies and our own private truths. Our masks we wear complement to fabricated truths through which we live. We live by public truths but we live in private lies we create for ourselves instead of living in reality where the truth lies naked for all to see in its natural habitat saving us from our higher selves and preempting our possibilities for elevated consciousness and ascension. Why cling to the view when even the view is filtered through seeing things the way you do? (See: Final Truth)

Correction: The Minn Announcement to Defund Cops was Fabricated Truth [‘they will review the issue for about 1 yr’], a Placebo to Help People Tolerate the Present & be Obedient; hope is anesthesia

In the refinement of the Lex-icon [law as image], puppeticians try to look like they’re keeping it real while they bullshit. All the legal system produces is the appearance of justice. Councilman Jeremiah Ellison apparently comes from a family of deceivers: his brother, Minnesota AG Keith Ellison, failed to correct the media’s fabricated truth that Ofc Derek Chauvin is charged with 2nd degree intentional murder. Said white cop is charged with 2nd degree Unintentional Murder. Ellison has alleged that George Floyd’s death occurred accidentally during the commission of a felony assault. A truth that does not reflect reality. The relevant portion of the video is at about 4:45. FUNKTIONARY defines:

Fabricated truth: incomplete and inaccurate descriptions of reality sewn together into a garment worn (held and defended) as if it were (or could be) true other than what it may mean specifically and only to you. To fit truth, you will have to change; to fit reality, truth has to change. Truth and lies are kissin' cousins because you need not change---you simply change the fabric of the truth or the pattern of the lie, and it fits you. [MORE]

[DEFUND LATER!] The Time is Never Here-Now with “Hope” & Politicians. Yesterday on Democracy Now Amy Goodman interviewed Minn council member Jeremiah Ellison about their reported announcement to defund the police department. Said announcement was “fabricated truth” within the meaning of FUNKTIONARY as it was an incomplete and inaccurate description of reality. The council plans to take ‘about one year to have conversations about defunding the police - but no official timeline or date to vote on it has been considered - they’ll take it up perhaps “at some point” in the future Ellison stated. See video above, transcript in relevant part below on the page.

The announcement was intended as a device to calm & appease protestors without really giving them anything material. A placebo to create hope and maintain obedience. While there are positive meanings of the word “hope,” in this context as Dr. Blynd explains, it is ‘hope to keep you focused on the illusory future (the disease of “tomorrow”) and this persistent focus perpetuates your denial of the Now (present moment) resulting in unhappiness. It is a subtle way of postponing life (the herenow).’ Osho explained,

“Discontent becomes hope; this is the disguise. Because here and now you are in so much discontent, in so much misery, that you need some hope in the future. That hope will help you to move. You can somehow tolerate the present; through hoping, you can tolerate the present... hope is anesthesia. The present is miserable, painful; hope is alcoholic, it is a drug, it makes you unconscious enough so you can tolerate the present.

Hope means here and now there is discontent. But have you ever looked at the whole phenomenon? Why are you discontented here and now in the first place? Why? – because you hoped in the past, that’s why here and now you are in discontent. This today was tomorrow yesterday. Yesterday you hoped for today, because it was tomorrow then. Now that hope is not fulfilled, so you are in misery, frustrated. And to hide this misery, to somehow pass today, you are again hoping for the tomorrow.

You are in a rut, and in such a rut that it will be very difficult to come out of it. Tomorrow the same will happen: you will be frustrated, because mind can promise but can never fulfill.“ [MORE]

AMY GOODMAN: So, explain exactly what this would mean. You made the announcement. You haven’t had a vote in the City Council. So what happens today?

JEREMIAH ELLISON: Right. So, per the commitment that we made yesterday, we’re going to take the next year to engage the people of Minneapolis. You know, obviously, council members have ideas, but I think that if the nine of us sat in a room for a couple days and cooked up a plan without any public engagement, I think that the community would reject that. And so, I think we’re going to commit to a year’s worth of conversations. I think in some ways it’s going to require every single resident in Minneapolis to give their input. But the groundwork is there. Some of the groundwork has been laid for what we can do to keep communities safe, other than have a police force.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, what exactly do you mean, though, you’re going to wait a year? So there will not be a vote taken in the City Council?

JEREMIAH ELLISON: No, we’re not going to wait a — sorry — we’re not going to wait a year. We’re going to engage the community for a year to develop a new system of public safety. You’ve got to understand, the police department has been around for 150 years. At least the Minneapolis — sorry — the Minneapolis Police Department has been around for over 150 years. And police departments all around the country have been around a lot longer than that. I think that we owe it to the city of Minneapolis, to our residents, to develop a plan that moves forward intelligently, that moves forward in a way that works. You know, we’re not going to hit the eject button on the police department today, for instance, because we do not have that new system in place. But we have to start the conversation somewhere. Yesterday was the start of that conversation.

AMY GOODMAN: So, will there be a vote? And what will that vote be on in the City Council now?

JEREMIAH ELLISON: At some point there will have to be a vote about what our new system of public safety looks like. You know, just to give you an example, one of the most effective programs that we’ve been able to fund, really on a shoestring budget, is our group violence prevention program. It’s a program that helps young men get out of gang activity and remove themselves from gang life. It’s a program that’s been more successful in getting gang members to choose a different path forward for themselves than sending them to jail or anything else that we’ve tried in the past. That’s just one program, for example, that I think that we need to actually put our investment in to get fully operational so that we can keep our city safe.

You know, we’re going to have to figure out how to address things like active shooter situations. And we’re aware of the fact that some situations are extremely difficult to deescalate. But most of what police do — you know, we did a study last year of 911 calls, and we realized that one of the top calls that police make are for what we call emotionally disturbed persons or mental health calls. Do we need use of force — someone with a use-of-force background to answer that call? Do we need a gun present at a call like that? Do we need a gun present at a call for a forged $20 bill? I think that the answer to that is no. And we’ve got to — but we’ve never, as a country, leaned into figuring out how do we address issues like this without force. And I think that my colleagues and I are committed to figuring that out.

EVER HEARD OF SECURITY GUARDS? The reality is that statist politicians can never really conceive of being without authority and police. Notice councilman Ellison simply cannot answer any question about how having no cops would actually work. Ever heard of security guards? Trained persons hired and fired by the community or citizens are called “private security.” Such persons have the right to defend people and a contractual duty to come to their aid. However, they would have no additional or superhuman right to rule over anybody (authority) or to initiate unprovoked violence against other people. That is, they would have the same rights that we do. Undeceiver Larken Rose discusses “non-authoritarian” security:

Defense Without “Authority”

Those who insist that “government” is necessary often raise the issue of defense and protection, claiming that society without “government” would mean that anyone could do anything, there would be no standards of behavior, no rules, no consequences for those who choose to commit theft or murder, and that society would therefore collapse into

constant violence and mayhem. Such concerns, however, are based on a profound misunderstanding of human nature, and of what “government” is, and what it is not.

Defending against aggressors requires no special “authority,” no “legislation,” no “law,” and no “law enforcers.” Defensive force is inherently justified, regardless of who does it, and regardless of what any “law” says. And having a formal, organized means of providing such defensive force for a community also does not require “government” or “law.” Each individual has the right to defend himself, or defend someone else. He may choose to hire someone else to provide defense services, either because he is physically unable to defend himself, or just because he would rather pay someone else to do it. And if a number of people choose to pay to have an organization of trained fighters, with the weapons, vehicles, buildings, and other resources they need to defend an entire town, the people have that right, as well.

At this point, most believers in “government” will protest, saying, “That’s all government is.” But that is not the case. And this is where the difference becomes apparent. What an individual does not have the right to do-what no group of people, no matter how large, has any right to do-is to hire someone else (individual or group) to do something which any average individual does not have the right to do. They cannot rightfully hire someone to commit robbery, even if they call it “taxation,” because the average individual has no right to steal. They cannot rightfully hire someone to spy on and forcibly control the choices and behaviors of their neighbors, even if they call it “regulation.” Those in a stateless society would feel justified in hiring someone to use force only in the very limited ways, and in the very limited situations, in which every individual has the right to use force: to defend against aggressors. In contrast, most of what the so-called “protectors” in “government” do is commit acts of aggression, not defend against them.

Some of what is now classified as “police work”-in fact, all of what the “police” do that is actually legitimate, noble, righteous, and helpful to society-would exist without the “authority” myth. Investigating wrongdoing and apprehending actual criminals-meaning people who harm others, not merely people who disobey politicians-would continue without the “authority” myth, as something that almost everyone would want, and would be willing to pay for. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are already private detectives and private security companies, in addition to the “protection” services of “government” that everyone is forced to fund.

There would be only one difference, though it is a major difference: those doing the job of investigating and protecting, in the absence of the “authority” superstition, would always be viewed as having exactly the same rights as everyone else. While presumably they would be better equipped and better qualified to do their jobs than the average citizen, their actions would be judged by the same standards that the actions of anyone else would be judged, which is not at all the case with so-called “law enforcers.” Private protection providers would also judge their own actions, not by whether some “authority” had told them to do something, or whether their actions were deemed “legal” by “government,” but by whether those actions, in their own personal view, were inherently justified. Not only would an excuse of “just following orders” not convince the general public, but the agents themselves could not, even in their own minds, use such an excuse to evade responsibility for their actions, because no one would be claiming to be an “authority” over them.

Non-authoritarian “police”-if they would even be called that-would be viewed very differently than “government” agents are now. They would not be seen to have the right to do anything that any other person did not have the right to do. They could only go places, question people, use force, or do anything else, in situations where anyone else would be justified in doing the same thing. As a result, the average person would have no reason to feel any nervousness or self-consciousness in their presence, as most people now do when in the presence of “law enforcers.” People would feel no more obligation to submit to questioning, or searches, or anything else requested by private protectors, than they would if some stranger on the street made such requests. And if a private protector became abusive, or even violent, his victim would have the right to respond the same way he would if anyone else was behaving that way. More importantly, the individual who resisted aggression from a private protector would have the support of his neighbors if he did so, because his neighbors would not be imagining any obligation to bow to someone because of any badge or any “law.”

The best check against a defense organization becoming corrupt or “out of control” is the ability of customers to simply stop paying. Obviously, no one wants to pay for some gang to oppress him, but most people also do not want to pay a gang to oppress someone else either. As much as the average person wants to see thieves and murderers caught and stopped, he also wants to see to it that the innocent are not harmed. If the customers of some private protection company discovered that their “protectors” were harassing and assaulting innocent people-the type of behavior they were hired to prevent-the customer base would instantly disappear, and the thugs would be out of business. And if, in the absence of any claimed “authority,” the thugs decided to try to force their former customers to keep paying, the backlash from the people would be swift and severe, as no one would feel any “legal” obligation to allow themselves to be oppressed. [MORE]

Minn City Council Announces It will Phase Out Police Dept [if a “public servant" is uncontrollable, unaccountable, can’t be fired by you & has irresponsible power over you, then he is your Master]

From [HERE] A majority of Minneapolis City Council members favor phasing out the city’s police department and creating a new way to ensure public safety, officials said, a sign that protests over the police killing of George Floyd are having an impact. 

“We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department,” Council Member Jeremiah Ellis said on Twitter. “And when we’re done, we’re not simply gonna glue it back together. We are going to dramatically rethink how we approach public safety and emergency response.”

The movement to “defund the police” predates the current protests but has won new support since a video of Floyd, an unarmed black man, pinned to the ground with a knee to the neck by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, horrified viewers around the world last month. 

The Minneapolis council has not yet formally discussed defunding or reimagining its police force. But council president Lisa Bender told CNN that a majority were in support. “We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe,” Bender said.

Larken Rose describes various mythology surrounding the concept of “authority.” He explains;

One of the most bizarre and delusional (but very common) claims is that “We, the people, are the government.” Schoolchildren are taught to repeat this absurdity, even though everyone is fully aware that the politicians issue commands and demands, and everyone else either complies or is punished. In the United 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.

In this system, 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. But other myths are also used to try to make that lie sound rational.

For example, it is also claimed that “the government works for us; it is our servant.” Again, such a statement 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. And most people never even question it. Most never wonder, if “government” works for us, if it is our employee, why does it decide how much we pay it? Why does our “employee” decide what it will do for us? Why does our “employee” tell us how to live our lives? Why does our “employee” demand our obedience for whatever arbitrary commands it issues, sending armed enforcers after us if we disobey? It is impossible for “government” to ever be the servant, because of what “government” is, To put it in simple, personal terms, if someone can boss you around and take your money, he is not your servant; and if he cannot do those things, he is not “government.” However limited, “government” is the organization thought to have the right to forcibly control the behavior of its subjects via “laws,” rendering the popularly accepted rhetoric about “public servants” completely ridiculous. To imagine that a ruler could ever be the servant of those over whom he rules is patently absurd. Yet that impossibility is spouted as indisputable gospel in “civics” classes.“

San Leandro Cops Dragged a Visibly Pregnant Black Woman Out of the Passenger Seat, Piled on Top of her & Stomped on her Stomach Causing Miscarriage -Suit Filed

San Leandro Police Chief Jeff Tudor

From {HERE] and [FTP] Police officers with the San Leandro, California police department “stomped” a pregnant black woman’s stomach and caused a miscarriage, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the city and multiple officers.

When an unidentified number of officers pulled her fiancé over, Emerald Black — who was “visibly pregnant” and still wearing hospital clothes from a visit earlier in the day — requested to stay in the car, according to court documents filed Monday with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. But officers allegedly “yanked pregnant Ms. Black from the car, taunted her, piled on top of her and stomped on her stomach leaving a shoe mark.”

“Days later,” according to the lawsuit, Black experienced a miscarriage, which ended her pregnancy. No criminal charges were ever filed against her, the lawsuit said.

Early in the morning of June 7, 2019, Black and her fiancé were pulled over for “bad registration tags,” according to the lawsuit. Black told officers that earlier in the day, she had been to the hospital for an exam; there, she found out that she was at a “high risk” for a miscarriage. She was still wearing the clothes when the incident occurred, the lawsuit said.

After the alleged beating, the officers refused to allow Black to put on shoes, according to the filing.

In the lawsuit, Black alleges that her pregnancy ended “as a result of the officers’ excessive force.” The complaint also said that Black had “suffered other physical injuries, embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress both from the incident and loss of her child.”

Without cause or provocation, according to the lawsuit, police allegedly yanked Black from the car, “taunted her, piled on top of her and stomped on her stomach leaving a shoe mark,” according to the court filing.

Black is seeking general and punitive damages “in a sum to be proven at trial,” as well as punitive damages for loss of wages and income as well as medical expenses. The city of San Leandro has so far not responded to the lawsuit in federal court. Emails requesting comment from San Leandro mayor Pauline Cutter and chief of police Jeff Tudor were not immediately returned.

“It is important to note that Ms. Black had committed absolutely no crimes, nor was she even suspected of any. She was simply a passenger in the car being pulled over for a minor vehicle infraction,” Black's lawyer Patrick Buelna told VICE News.

“Ms. Black, a pregnant African-American female, was torn from the car even after informing officers that she was pregnant and had just left the hospital,” Buelna continued. “Ms. Black simply asked to remain in the car because she was pregnant and had just left the hospital earlier that day and learned she was at risk for a miscarriage. If officers were adamant about her exiting the car, they should have simply, and gently, assisted Ms. Black getting out of the car. Instead they treated her like she had just committed a violent felony.”

Black’s lawsuit isn’t the first of its kind. Last November, a North Carolina woman sued the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina police department claiming that she was “violently thrown” to the floor and suffered a miscarriage. And in 2016, a woman from Staten Island alleged that officers from the New York Police Department “battered” her, causing her to miscarry. (A jury dismissed the lawsuit in December 2019, according to court documents.)

Suit says CA Cops Unlawfully Pulled Over an 84 Yr Old Black Woman, Ordered her Out the Car, Made Her Kneel on the Ground & Pull Up Her Shirt in Public View at Gunpoint to Degrade & Niggerize

Above is racist suspect San Bernardino Police Chief Eric McBride.

From [HERE] On May 29th attorneys filed a lawsuit against San Bernadino that claims police officers unlawfully pulled over Elise Brown, an 84 year old Black woman, and ordered her to get out the car, kneel on the ground and to raise up her shirt in front of people on the street at gunpoint. The suit alleges that at least 10 officers were involved. She claims the officers were motivated by “racial animus.” The complaint states:

On July 7, 2019, Plaintiff, an 84 year-old Black woman, was driving her car complying with all applicable laws and committing no crime, when she was unlawfully pulled over by Defendant DOES 1-10 (“DOES”), who were employed as police officers of the Defendant City of Chino and/or deputies of Defendant COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, without reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that Plaintiff had committed any crime, unreasonably and unlawfully detained Plaintiff requiring her to get out of her car, kneel on the ground and raise her shirt up, humiliating her before the public and causing her severe, ongoing physical, mental and emotional distress.

Further, multiple DOES excessively and unreasonably held her at gunpoint during the entirety of the incident unreasonably long after it was or should have been apparent that Plaintiff was an 84-year-old woman and not a suspect in any crime, also causing her severe, ongoing physical, mental and emotional distress.

At no time was Plaintiff armed with any weapon, nor did DOES have any reasonable or lawful basis to believe that Plaintiff was armed with any weapon or a reasonable threat of death or bodily harm to anyone.

At no time during the course of these events did PLAINTIFF pose any reasonable or credible threat of death or serious bodily injury to Defendant DOES, nor did he do anything to justify the force used against her, and the same was deadly, excessive, unnecessary, and unlawful. PLAINTIFF made no aggressive movements, no furtive gestures, and no physical movements which would suggest to a reasonable sheriff’s deputy or police office that she had the will, or the ability to inflict substantial bodily harm against any individual.

Despite the aforementioned conduct, Defendant CITY and/or COUNTY ratified, acquiesced, or otherwise turned a blind eye to Defendant DOES’ misconduct, and allowed Defendant DOES’ to remain a police officer and/or sheriff’s deputy with Defendant City or County, which was a substantial and proximate cause of this incident and Plaintiff’s damages. Upon information and belief, Defendant DOES displayed and acted with racial animus against Plaintiff in retaliation for and/or to prevent them from exercising their rights to be free from excessive force and/or verbally protest police misconduct in violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

Upon information and belief, Defendant DOES displayed and acted with racial animus against Plaintiff in retaliation for and/or to prevent them from exercising their rights to be free from excessive force and/or verbally protest police misconduct in violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. [MORE]

No Right to Shoot Back? After Witnessing Unidentifiable Race Soldiers Attack Protestors as The Enemy will Liberals Re-think Gun-bans? [the 2nd Amendment is for Use when All Other Rights Fail]

Undeceiver Larken Rose explains, The “lawmakers” give the commands, but it is their faithful enforcers who carry them out. Millions upon millions of otherwise decent, civilized people spend day after day harassing, threatening, extorting, controlling, bullying and otherwise oppressing others who have not harmed or threatened anyone. But because the actions of such “law enforcers” are deemed “legal,” and because they believe they ARE acting on behalf of “authority,” they imagine themselves to bear no responsibility for their actions. Worse yet, they do not even view their own actions as being their own actions. They speak and act as if their minds and bodies have somehow been taken over by some invisible entity called “the law” or “government.” They say things like “Hey, I don’t make the laws, I just enforce them; it’s not up to me.” They speak and act as if it is impossible for them to do anything other than helplessly carry out the will of a power called “authority,” and that they are therefore no more personally responsible for their actions than a puppet is responsible for what the puppeteer makes it do. [MORE]

No meaningful right to possess firearms in liberal DC. Would race soldiers act so care free in an open carry state?

IMBALANCE OF POWER. The WSJ states, “The Trump administration’s deployment of hundreds of officers in military-style riot gear, sometimes without identifying insignia, has stirred tensions with demonstrators and concerns among watchdog groups and lawmakers about accountability.

Attorney General William Barr has sent hundreds of agents from the Justice Department’s law-enforcement units—the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the federal Bureau of Prisons, in particular—to conduct crowd control and investigate crimes. Adding in thousands of National Guard troops from 10 states, plus local police, makes for a confusing combination.

Who are the unidentified officers?

Many of the officers whose agencies aren’t identifiable by markings on their uniforms are from federal Bureau of Prisons tactical teams. They normally respond to riots behind bars, where, officials said, the agency they work for is understood and such markings are generally unnecessary. As the violence escalated, Mr. Barr temporarily empowered the bureau to make arrests in the continuing protests, according to a law-enforcement official. The bureau said in a statement that its officers are highly trained and capable in such scenarios.“ [MORE]

6/6/20 in DC

6/6/20 London

FUNKTIONARY explains:

Sovereign Force - an abstract body of legal lawlessness unto itself administered by territorial gangsters.

2nd Amendment - 9th circuit judge Alex Kozinski summed up the importance of the right to keep and bear arms: "the prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the third reich coming until it was too late. The second amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." The right to keep and bears arms actually serves as more than an insurance policy, it also serves as a deterrent. For when would-be tyrants know that the citizenry is well-armed, they think twice about imposing tyranny. (see: gun control & militia)

gun ban - the precursor to servitude. [MORE]

gun control - using both hands. [MORE]

slaves - disarmed men and women. [MORE]

gun safety - “to be able to shoot back if someone is shooting at you.” [MORE]

In No Rush, Conflicted Black Conservative AG to Decide Whether to Charge White Cops who Broke Into Breonna Taylor’s Home & Murdered Her while She Slept or “Conserve" the System of White Supremacy

CONSERVING WHAT EXACTLY? FUNKTIONARY explains:

Black Conservative - a lost sheep in master's clothing. A black conservative typically has nothing of his own to conserve with the exception of his or her own double-consciousness. So-called "Black Conservatives" dodge the reality of their folly and posit is that what they truly are conserving is traditional "values" as if values ever had anything whatsoever to do with morality or ethics. A black conservative unknowingly preserves the differential power-relations and dynamics between those of African descent he and their bosses, the overruling overclass elite. [MORE]

Getting Shot to Death by White Cops While You Sleep May Not Be a Big Deal to a Sleeping Tom. On May 13th Attorney General Daniel Cameron was named as a Special Prosecutor in the investigation into the death of Louisville EMT Breonna Taylor. The Republican was appointed by Gov. Andy Beshear Wednesday after calls for investigations continue to grow in Kentucky and nationwide. Cameron is the first Republican elected to the office since 1944 and is the first African-American Attorney General of Kentucky. He is a “sleeping tom.” One of the first major things he did was call for halting abortions in Kentucky during the coronavirus pandemic, arguing it was an elective medical procedure that should fall under the statewide ban for the duration of the pandemic. [MORE]

No charges have been filed yet against the white cops: Sergeant Jonathan Mattingly, Detective Brett Hankison, and Detective Myles Cosgrove who murdered Breonna Taylor on March 13, 2020. Cameron does not appear to be in any rush. In an interview Friday with WDRB News, the black probot said he has begun to review the information he has received from the LMPD Public Integrity Unit. “What I've told people and continue to tell them today is that my job is to apply the law fairly and be a fair arbiter of justice here in the commonwealth and to be a fair arbiter of the truth,” he said. Cameron said he does not have a timeline for completing the investigation but promised to work “as quickly as we can.”

Cameron said he has not personally experienced the kind of racism the demonstrators are marching against. [MORE]

According to the wrongful death complaint filed on behalf of Taylor:

At 12:30 am on March 13, 2020 both Breonna Taylor and Kenneth Walker were asleep in their bedroom. While Breonna and Kenneth were sleeping peacefully, the three Defendants arrived in their neighborhood in plain clothes in unmarked vehicles. These defendants were working within the criminal interdiction unit of the Louisville Metro Police Department.

The Defendants had a knock and announce search warrant for Breonna’s apartment, where the officers were searching for Jamarcus Glover who lived in a different part of Louisville. LMPD was successful in locating Glover at his home, detaining him, executing a search, identifying drugs and firearms, and arresting Glover.

Glover was located and identified by LMPD prior to the warrant being executed at home. Despite this, the Defendants elected to proceed with executing the warrant at home.

As confirmed by multiple neighbors, the Defendant officers did not knock or identify themselves prior to entering Breonna’s home.

Knocking and announcing is critical for a warrant of this nature to be executed safely. Reasons include but are not limited to the following:

1. The officers were in plain clothes;

2. It was 12:40 in the morning;

3. The home was part of a large unit of connected homes containing children;

4. There was nothing to indicate that Breonna Taylor and Kenneth would flee or

   pose an unreasonable danger if the officers knocked and identified themselves

   as police; and

5. Individuals, under several circumstances, have a lawful right to use deadly force

   in order to defend against those who enter their home.

The Defendant officers breached the front door and entered the home without knocking and without announcing themselves.

Breonna and Kenneth were awakened by the Defendants’ unannounced entry into their home. They believed that their home had been broken into by criminals and that they were in significant, imminent danger.

Kenneth proceeded to call 911.

The Defendant officers fired their weapons into Breonna’s home repeatedly. The Defendants fired several shots into the home from outside on the patio.

The living room was obscured by curtains; the officers could not see anything inside the home (past the curtains) within their line of fire when shooting into the home through the glass. The Defendants fired several shots into the home from outside of the second bedroom window. The second bedroom window was obscured by a screen and blinds; there was no way that the officers could have had a reasonable line of sight when firing into the home from outside this window.

The Defendants did not have discretion to shoot blindly into Breonna’s home in this manner. The Defendants’ gunshots struck objects in the home’s living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, hallway and both bedrooms.

Several of the Defendants’ gunshots traveled into the adjacent home, where a five- year-old child and pregnant mother were located.

Breonna was shot several times by the Defendants. Breonna was unarmed when she was shot repeatedly. Breonna posed no threat to the officers when she was shot repeatedly.

The Defendant officers acted intentionally, knowingly, unreasonably, maliciously, negligently, recklessly, and in bad faith with deliberate indifference to the safety and rights of Breonna Taylor when they attempted to execute a warrant without the SWAT unit, proceeded with executing the warrant without probable cause, entered the home unannounced, entered the home without permission, entered the home without complying with the terms of the warrant, engaged in erratic gunfire and fired at Breonna, who was unarmed and posed no threat, in an intentional, erratic and deadly manner. These actions were objectively unreasonable.

The officers failed to use any sound reasonable judgment whatsoever when firing more than 25 blind shots into multiple homes and causing the wrongful death of Breonna.

The Defendants had absolute, certain and imperative duties to knock, announce their presence, give Breonna and Kenneth notice that they were peace officers there to serve a warrant, offer to show Breonna and Kenneth the warrant and afford the opportunity to be let into the home.

Breonna had committed no crime, posed no immediate threat to the safety of the Defendants, and did not actively resist or attempt to evade arrest prior to being repeatedly shot and killed by the Defendants.

The actions of the Defendant officers were made in bad faith, were performed with a corrupt motive, were outside the scope of the Defendants’ authority, were executed willfully and with the intent to harm, and were in violation of Breonna’s constitutional and statutory rights.

The Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the actions taken would violate Breonna’s rights.

The Defendants’ actions were made with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of Breonna’s constitutional rights. The Defendants unlawfully and forcibly entered Breonna’s home, causing Breonna and Kenneth to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm.

Any defensive force used against the Defendants was due to their forcible and unlawful entry into Breonna’s home. Breonna and Kenneth knew, or had reason to believe, that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred at the time of any defensive force. The Defendants, under the facts which were present at the time of their entry into Breonna’s home, had no lawful right to be in the home.

The Defendants did not identify themselves prior to or upon entry into the home, and neither Breonna nor Kenneth knew or reasonably should have known, prior to any use of defensive force, that the individuals in their home were peace officers.

The use of force on Breonna Taylor by the Defendants was unreasonable, excessive, and in violation of clearly established law prohibiting assault, battery, gross negligence. 77. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Breonna Taylor suffered physical injury and emotional trauma when she was shot multiple times and then left to die.
Other than a couple of speeding tickets, Breonna had no criminal history. She was and posed no threat to the community. Breonna had no drugs in her home.

Masked Protestors Only Avoid 1 of Uncle Brother’s Diseases: Cops Utilize Contact Tracing, Geoharvesting Tracking, Facial Recognition & Other Control Affliction Tools to Surveil & Arrest

From [MassPrivateI] Countless warnings about how law enforcement could use contact-tracing apps to monitor people have gone unheeded.  

As BGR.com revealed police are using contact tracing to identify protester's affiliations.

"According to Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harringon, officials there have been using what they describe, without going into much detail, as contact-tracing in order to build out a picture of protestor affiliations — a process that officials in the state say has led them to conclude that much of the protest activity there is being fueled by people from outside coming in."

A Twitter feed titled "Minnesota Contact Tracing" revealed how police are using contact tracing to identify and arrest protesters. "Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington says they've begun contact tracing arrestees." 

Recently, 100 human rights groups warned that an Apple-Google contact tracing app could be used as a cover to identify activists and minorities.

"An increase in state digital surveillance powers, such as obtaining access to mobile phone location data, threatens privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association, in ways that could violate rights and degrade trust in public authorities—undermining the effectiveness of any public health response. Such measures also pose a risk of discrimination and may disproportionately harm already marginalized communities."

So despite all assurances to the contrary, it appears that 100 human rights groups were right; law enforcement can and will use contact tracing to identify protesters.

Updated 6/3:

VoteMap used anonymous data to identify protesters phones

According to an article in The Detroit News, police can identify anonymous protesters cell phones.

"The tracking, known as geoharvesting, is when data is gathered from a smartphone app on a device connected to the internet. That data contains geolocation information that can be queried to show movement on a map."

"The cellphone users remained anonymous and their locations were instead culled from the publishers of the opt-in apps they were using, said McEwan, CEO of the Austin-based startup Datum that is the parent company under which VoteMap falls. People gauging cellphone locations the day of the April 30 protest and the day after would not be able to see to whom the phone belonged," she said. (To find out more about VoteMap click here.)

As NBC News noted, contact tracers also use geofencing to help identify protesters.

"Geofencing" captures the social media posts of people entering a specific area. The technology locates any cellphones that cross into the area by locking onto their geolocation systems, and then records social media posts and sometimes other data from the phones."

Time exposed how the military (National Guard) uses a classified system called "Secret Internet Protocol Router" or SIPR to monitor protesters. (To learn about Perspecta Inc.'s role click here & here.)

Big Tech's hands are dirty with Federal money paying for new ways to monitor Americans.

A recent Business Insider article describes how police use Big Tech to monitor activists and protesters the moment they walk out their door.

"Law enforcement agencies have made full use of high-tech surveillance tools as protests sweep the country following the death of George Floyd. A predator drone operated by Customs and Border Patrol circled above protesters in Minneapolis."

Buzzfeed News warns, "law enforcement has a wide breadth of surveillance technologies that could be used to monitor and target protesters — including controversial facial recognition software Clearview AI, license plate readers, body cameras, and video analysis tools." 

Both of these articles reveal a frightening array of Big Tech surveillance devices being used by police nationwide.

Minneapolis police and the Minnesota Fusion Center are also using Clearview AI, BriefCam, Ring doorbell cameras, Axon police body cameras, ShotSpotter and license plate readers to create an intimate view of people's lives.

BuzzFeed's article also revealed how police use Arxys "Milestone" software which uses video detection and analytics to identify people.

"The Minneapolis Police Department said in a surveillance white paper that it uses Arxys [Milestone] software — a video management tool that claims to offer "video motion detection" and "video analytics" — to analyze CCTV footage."

While both articles do a great job of revealing some of the ways law enforcement can monitor anyone, it really did not go into detail about how invasive Big Tech's surveillance devices truly are.

Let's say you use your smartphone for everything; texts, phone calls, pictures, music, etc., if you also use Alexa or a NEST thermostat or any smart device in your home, these devices collect, store and transmit all that personal data, which police can use to identify a person. Police can also identify people who use a Tablet or laptop, because like a phone they have an IP and MAC address.

If you use any of these devices to make online purchases, police can ask those companies to provide details of what you bought and when. Anytime you use a credit/debit or customer rewards card, someone is compiling a database of everything you purchased.

Let's say you drive or take public transit, police can track your vehicle and they can use facial recognition to identify where you work or which bus or train stops you use. [MORE]

$550M Settlement Reached: Profithoodlum Santander Caught Preying on Low Income Customers in 34 States by Issuing Unaffordable Predatory Car Loans Larger that the Purchase Price

Santander Consumer, the largest and most recognized name in subprime auto lending, is the poster child for predatory practices in the industry. [MORE] Avoid It all costs, NEVER participate in racism white supremacy or anyone else’s deception. FUNKTIONARY defines:

profithoodlum - non-producers who rob producers of either a great portion or all of their productive wealth that has exchange value or value in use. A profithoodlum is one who extorts income from others without working themselves - made possible (accessible and attainable) by and through monopoly capitalism, usury, debt-based monetary systems and the white magic of compound interest. We need to get criminals off the boardrooms and out of certain federal agencies if we want to get petty criminals off the streets. (See: Bankster, Gangbanking, Merchant, Privateers & Alchemist)

$550M Settlement Reached: Profithoodlum Santander is Caught Preying on Black & Latino Customers in 34 States by issuing Unaffordable Predatory Car Loans Larger that the Purchase Price

From [HERE] and [HERE] Santander Consumer USA Holdings, the subprime auto lending arm of the Spanish banking giant, said Tuesday that it agreed to change its underwriting practices as part of a $550 million settlement with 34 states. The settlement resolves allegations that Santander violated consumer protection laws by exposing subprime consumers to unnecessarily high levels of risk by placing them into auto loans that Santander had determined had a high probability of default. Today’s settlement stems from a multistate investigation of Santander’s subprime lending practices led by a six-state executive committee comprising Maryland, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington, and included attorneys general from a total of 34 states.

“We charged that Santander structured auto loans it knew borrowers likely could not repay,” said MD Attorney General Frosh. “Borrowers who were harmed by Santander’s practices will receive restitution with this settlement. The settlement establishes safeguards to prevent further harm to consumers in Maryland and across the country from these types of lending practices.”

Santander in particular is no stranger to regulatory and legal scrutiny – they have been charged with various violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act in recent years. [MORE] According to reports by consumer advocate organizations, dealer interest rate markups on vehicle loans have resulted in racial disparities for African American and Latino borrowers compared to similarly situated white borrowers. Jerry Robinson, a Committee for Better Banks member and retiree, described his experience at Santander: "Our job was to get people who were already upside down on their loans back in their cars by making them pay more fees." In describing his experience in another department, he told the CEO that he "saw how auto dealer inflated the costs of loans. I saw first-hand how customers paid for products that they did not know were optional. Sometimes our customers were sold GAP insurance that they did not know they could decline. Practices like these added costs to their loans and made their monthly payments too high." [MORE]

The settlement includes $65 million of restitution for consumers. It also involves some $433 million in loan forgiveness, including for customers who have had cars repossessed but still owe money to Santander. The lender also agreed to waive balances for customers who have very low credit scores and who had stopped paying their loans as of the end of last year.

Lenders have been approving consumers for auto loans that they can’t afford, including loans with larger monthly payments than borrowers’ incomes, The Wall Street Journal reported last year. Consumers are increasingly signing up for loans that are larger than their car’s purchase price, the Journal reported, increasing their chances of default.

Consumer lawyers say the practices often result in repossessed cars and damaged credit scores that make it harder for people to qualify for affordable financing.

Santander didn’t verify several numbers in consumers’ auto-loan applications that would have determined whether they could afford the financing, the states said in their complaints. It accepted stated-income loans without requiring documentation from dealers or consumers that would prove the income listed on the application, the states said.

Loan applicants’ housing costs were also rarely verified, and Santander didn’t have measures in place to catch falsified figures, the states alleged. When a loan application didn’t include housing costs, Santander would assume a lower figure than what was reasonable for the area, according to the complaints. 

The settlement highlights lenders’ reliance on dealerships to boost loan sales. There was internal tension at Santander over how to handle dealerships that were found to have falsified applications, according to the states’ complaints. The lender, the states said, tracked problematic dealers but often failed to cut ties with them if they were delivering enough profitable loans. [MORE]

The attorneys general allege that Santander, through its use of sophisticated credit scoring models to forecast default risk, knew that certain consumers were predicted to have a high likelihood of default. Santander exposed these borrowers to unnecessarily high levels of risk through high loan-to-value ratios, significant back-end fees, and high payment-to-income ratios. The attorneys general also allege that Santander’s aggressive pursuit of market share led it to underestimate the risk associated with loans by turning a blind eye to dealer abuse and failing to meaningfully monitor dealer behavior to minimize the risk of receiving falsified information, including the amounts specified for consumers’ incomes and expenses. Finally, the attorneys general allege that Santander engaged in deceptive servicing practices, including misleading consumers about their rights, and the risks of loan extensions.

Under the settlement, Santander is required to provide relief to consumers and, moving forward, is required to factor a consumer’s ability to pay the loan into its underwriting. Santander will pay $65 million for restitution for certain subprime consumers in the participating 34 states who defaulted on loans between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. More than 9,000 Maryland consumers are eligible to receive restitution payments, for a combined total of over $2.2 million. For consumers with the lowest quality loans who defaulted but have not yet had their cars repossessed, Santander is required to allow them to keep their cars and waive any deficiency balances on the loans, until such relief has a total value of $45 million in loan balances. The settlement also requires Santander to waive the deficiency balances on certain loans currently owned by Santander, totaling approximately $433 million in loan forgiveness. More than 1,000 Maryland consumers will receive these deficiency waivers, for a combined total of over $13.7 million. Santander also must try to buy back certain loans it no longer owns, in order to waive those loan deficiencies as well. Santander will pay up to $2 million for the settlement administrator who will manage restitution claims, and pay an additional $5 million to the states.

Among specific long- and short-term requirements of the settlement, Santander:

• Cannot extend financing if a consumer has zero or negative residual income after taking into account all of the consumer’s actual monthly debt obligations;

• For the next four years, test all loans that default to see if the consumer, at the time of origination, had zero or negative residual income (if consumer does have zero or negative income and the loan default occurred within a certain amount of time, Santander is required to waive the loan deficiency);

• Is barred from requiring dealers to sell ancillary products, such as vehicle service contracts and Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) products;

• Must implement steps to monitor dealers who engage in income inflation, expense inflation, power booking, and enact additional documentation requirements for those dealers;

• Must, when using a default mortgage or rent payment value, use an amount that reasonably reflects such costs for the consumer’s geographic area; and

• Must maintain policies and procedures for deferments, forbearances, modifications, and other servicing matters that all employees must follow.

Joining MD Attorney Frosh in the settlement are the attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

• Consumers with questions about this settlement may call the Consumer Protection Division at 410-528-8662 or write to: Consumer Protection Division, 200 St. Paul Place, 16th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.

‘They act like they care about us, but they don’t. They still want the money:’ Landlords Rubbing Their Hands Together, Excited to Initiate Plandemic Evictions After Govt Prevented People from Working

As explained by FUNKTIONARY: Richcraft - the sorcery of greed and the commercialization of human needs. 2) the use of violence, laws, deception, theft, secret oaths, and oppression to snatch and hoard natural and man-made resources from the vast majority of peoples in order to gain power and control over their lives and living conditions. Richcraft is simply the creed of unmitigated greed. [MORE]

From [HERE] The United States, already wrestling with an economic collapse not seen in a generation, is facing a wave of evictions as government relief payments and legal protections run out for millions of out-of-work Americans who have little financial cushion and few choices when looking for new housing.

The hardest hit are tenants who had low incomes and little savings even before the pandemic, and whose housing costs ate up more of their paychecks. They were also more likely to work in industries where job losses have been particularly severe.

Temporary government assistance has helped, as have government orders that put evictions on hold in many cities. But evictions will soon be allowed in about half of the states, according to Emily A. Benfer, a housing expert and associate professor at Columbia Law School who is tracking eviction policies.

“I think we will enter into a severe renter crisis and very quickly,” Professor Benfer said. Without a new round of government intervention, she added, “we will have an avalanche of evictions across the country.”

That means more and more families may soon experience the dreaded eviction notice on the front door, the stomach-turning knock from sheriff’s deputies, the possessions piled up on the sidewalk. They will face displacement at a time when people are still being urged to stay at home to keep themselves and their communities safe, with the death toll from the virus now having passed 100,000 in the United States.

In many places, the threat has already begun. The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that evictions could begin again in the nation’s second-largest state. In the Oklahoma City area, sheriffs apologetically announced that they planned to start enforcing eviction notices this week. And a handful of states, like Ohio, had few statewide protections in place to begin with, leaving residents particularly vulnerable as eviction cases stacked up or ticked forward during the pandemic.

Though about 90 percent of renters made full or partial rent payments by late May, down only 2 percent from last year, lawyers and landlords alike fear that the trend will not last. More than 38 million people have filed jobless claims since March, including a high proportion of people living in households making less than $40,000 a year. In a survey released this month by the Census Bureau, nearly a quarter of respondents said they missed their last rent or mortgage payment or had little to no confidence that they would be able to pay on time next month.

The devastation has drawn comparisons to the Great Recession, when millions of people lost their homes during a foreclosure crisis. But this time, renters are likely to be on the front lines.

“We sort of expect this to be more of a renter crisis than a homeownership crisis,” said Elora Lee Raymond, an assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology who focuses on affordable housing and real estate.

Even before the current joblessness crisis, eviction was troublingly common in American life. Researchers estimate that about 3.7 million eviction cases were filed in 2016, a year when the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent.

“Now we have 14.7 percent,” said Matthew Desmond, a sociologist at Princeton and the author of the book “Evicted,” who is leading an effort at the university’s Eviction Lab to track cases nationally. Without intervention, he said, “I don’t see how we wouldn’t have a wave of evictions.”

Many landlords say they are working with their tenants, waiving late fees and advocating that the government cover missed rent.  [MORE] For example, Jared Kushner Companies’ property management arm, Westminster Management, notified tenants that rent was still due on the 5th of every month, but that there would be no late fees for the time being. The company would also no longer charge an extra fee for paying rent online.

A young man regarded the promised leniency warily. “They act like they care about us so much, but they really don’t,” he said. “They still want the money.” Not that he had any particular animus against the complex’s owner. He did not even know who that was. “Who Jared Kushner?” he said. [MORE]

Buffalo & Detroit Black Strawbosses Come to the Aid of 75 Yr Old White Man Attacked by Cops During Protest & Proxymoronically Warn: ‘Everyone will be Fine If They Just Obey Authority’

Two white Buffalo police officers were suspended without pay Thursday after a video showed authorities knocking down a 75-year-old white man during a protest, Mayor Byron Brown said. After the cops knock him unconscious blood flows from his head and cops just ignore him as he laid on the ground.

In a statement, Brown said the suspension came after the city’s police commissioner launched an investigation into the incident. Brown did not identify the officers and kept the names of the public servants secret.

Brown said he was "deeply disturbed" by the video, which was published by the local National Public Radio affiliate, WBFO.

The Buffalo Police Department’s initial statement claimed “one person was injured when he tripped & fell” in a scuffle between police and protesters, but video footage of the incident undermines said statement by liar cops. [MORE]

The man, who has not been publicly identified, is in serious but stable condition at a local hospital, Brown said.

Black Strawbosses HNIC’s Craig (Detroit) and Byron Brown (Buffalo Mayor) and in video Byron C. Lockwood (Interim Commissioner of Buffalo PD)

Most Black cops are Obedient Black rolebots plugged into Doggy's operating system. They worship rules, government and logic within the parameters of the lex-icon.

Scholar Alex Vitale explains, “there is now a large body of evidence measuring whether the race of the individual officers affects their use of force. Most studies show no effect. More distressingly, a few indicate that black officers are more likely to use force or make arrests, especially of Black civilians.” Conversely, it is rare for a black police officer to use excessive force against a white person. In fact, according to Anon, in the history of modern law enforcement there have been only a handful of instances of a black police officer shooting or killing an unarmed white person. This is not surprising but it is absolute proof that the black individual operating within a system of white supremacy cannot mistreat whites even if he or she is wearing a uniform, a badge, and carrying a gun." [MORE] 

According to FUNKTIONARY:   

Straw-Boss  - a Sambo who is appointed a certain oversight role for the white power Overseer. It is the job of the Straw Boss to establish a formal organization to effectively and systematically carry out the wishes of the white supremacist power matrix while serving his own personal needs and ends through patronage power. 2) a ranking SNigger. 3) Toby. 4) "Safe Negro." 5) responsible (to the white supremacist ideology) Negro. 6) the gatekeeper for black professional positions gained through (acquiesced) to various sexual positions. 7) Pork Chop Boy. (See SNigger & McNegro). 

a proxymoron is one moron who speaks on behalf of another pluperfect moron or a whole gang of morons. (See Politician, Congressman, Moron-Majority, Delegate, Prozac, Oxymoron & TV). [MORE]

disobedience - thinking for oneself - deciding for oneself what to do and what not to do. 2) the refusal of services of those in power- to deny their alleged authority over you. The Beast allows you to be disobedient or ignorant but not both. Disobedience is the only crime - all others are offshoots. (See: Prometheus, Rights, Thinking, Though & Rebel).

Law of the Jungle Legal Standard: Study Finds that Cops Kill 3 People per Day. Since 2005 Only 35 Cops Have Been Convicted of Any Crime after Killing Someone & 3 Cops Have Been Convicted of Murder

Mint Press reports, With all the protests and anger and violence across the country, a justified discussion about policing has begun on our corporate media airwaves. (I would say the discussion is overdue, but in fact, we’ve had it roughly every three years for the past 40 years.) However, despite all the coverage, a deeper debate sits ignored – A debate about why our American police system exists at all, how it works (or doesn’t), and where it came from.

The following 19 facts about American policing will change everything you think you know. First, let’s start with the sheer amount of murder.

• Police kill roughly 1,000 Americans per year. In 2016 The Guardian found that American police murdered 1,093. That’s three lives extinguished by police every day.In the UK the average per year is three murders by police. Not 300. Just three. This means American police generally kill more citizens in a week than the UK will kill in a year. In 2018 Denmark & Switzerland’s police killed no one. Zero. They literally let everyone live. (You would think they would kill at least a few just to stay in practice.)

• The vast majority of those Americans killed are not “hardened” criminals (whatever that means). The Treatment Advocacy Center finds that one out of every four people killed by U.S. police was severely mentally ill. If you add in simply mentally unstable or cognitively impaired, the number is much higher. Probably well over 50 percent of the time police murder someone, the victim is not of a stable and sound mind.

• Last year NBC News found that since 2005, only 35 officers had been convicted of any crime after having taken someone’s life. If we assume the U.S. averaged 900 police killings per year (a very low estimate) and that only one officer was involved in each killing (an even lower estimate), this means cops are convicted .28% of the time after killing someone. Less than one percent. But it gets worse.

• NBC reports, “Only three officers have been convicted of murder during this period [2005 to 2019] and seen their convictions stand.” That’s a rate of conviction of .024% – For all intents and purposes, police officers can murder with impunity.

Now let’s take a moment to disabuse ourselves of the liberal fantasy of policing. The vast majority of what police do in America is not run around catching the evil-doers like an episode of CSI or Law & Order or Die Hard or Starsky & Hutch or all the other TV shows and movies ever made ever.

• Professor Alex Vitale notes in “The End of Policing” that most cops average less than one felony arrest per year – meaning almost the entirety of a police officer’s day-to-day consists of standing around and occasionally dealing with small or nothing crimes. These “crimes” such as loitering or “causing a disturbance” are designed to simply “put people in the system.” People of color are far more likely to be arrested for these types of crimes. Once “in the system,” the sentence for a future “crime of loitering” or “atrocity of playing loud music” can be much longer.

• Vitale continues, “Even detectives (who make up only about 15% of police forces) spend most of their time taking reports of crimes that they will never solve—and in many cases will never even investigate. …Most crimes that are investigated are not solved.”

• Rather than working harder to solve larger crimes, our government officials have created hundreds of smaller “crimes” for police to nail citizens for. In the past few decades there has been a surge of bans on things like sleeping in public, begging, giving away free food, “camping” in public, and sleeping in one’s car. Laws like these only serve to make homelessness (and helping the homeless) illegal and allow police to insert themselves, often upending lives. (Because people begging for change often have it too easy.)

• A study in New York City found that over half of those who cycle regularly through the prison system were homeless. Does anyone honestly believe that endlessly grabbing homeless people and charging them for nothing crimes does anything to help our society or the people involved? The fact that most officers spend their days doing this is equivalent to firefighters walking around spraying people’s cigarettes with water while the actual building fires are left to burn. (More on those in a moment.)

• When wealthy or even middle-class people get caught doing most of these small crimes, they are either ignored by the police or let off with a warning. If a Wall Street trader in a suit and tie takes a nap on a bench, do the police lock him up? If a doctor or a dentist or real estate agent is “caught” sleeping in their car, are they brought down to the station? No. These so-called “crimes” serve to simply enforce the class structure and give police a reason to arrest the poor and the non-white.

• Meanwhile, true crimes don’t even garner a glance. The largest crimes in the nation and the world are often legal, and even when they aren’t, they have nothing to do with police. Corporate executives endlessly decide to dump toxins in our water or keep a baby powder on the shelves when they know it contains asbestos or continue sales of an herbicide when they know it causes cancer or push opioids on troubled Americans even as the bodies pile up. Generally in such cases, no one will go to prison, no one will do a perp walk with handcuffs on. And in the incredibly rare moment that a top exec is locked up, it has nothing to do with your average police officers.

To Treat Protestors Criminally Some Cops Created Crime: Several Videos Show White Cops Destroying Property & Initiating Unprovoked Attacks on Protestors all Over the Country

Mint Press reported, ‘Since the police killing of George Floyd on May 26, millions have taken to the streets in protest, clashing with police. At least 11 people have died, and thousands have been arrested. 15 states (plus Washington, D.C.) have called in the National Guard to quash protests raging in over 100 cities. Violence has been widespread, particularly in the epicenter Minneapolis, where Floyd was killed, with buildings engulfed in flames, stores looted and vehicles destroyed.

While protestors are undoubtedly responsible for some share of the destruction, the country’s law enforcement officials have also been caught multiple times sabotaging and destroying property as well, presumably in an attempt to escalate the situation or to defame the protests.

In Seattle, police were caught on camera smashing through the door of a local Target, seemingly far away from any conflict or commotion.

In Boston, video circulated appears to show multiple police officers destroying their own car.

In San Bernardino, CA, protestors claim they held four hours of peaceful demonstrations until the police arrived, at which point the area was engulfed in flames. [MORE]

In Chicago, images show a group of police swarm a car, hitting it with clubs. Eyewitnesses say they were looking for looters but they attacked the wrong vehicle anyway.

Earlier this week there was also the suspicious case of the Minnesota vandal dubbed “Umbrella Man.” Video shows the oddly dressed individual methodically smashing the windows of an Autozone store. Umbrella Man was immediately identified as Jacob Pederson of the Minneapolis Police Department by online sleuths and real-life acquaintances, something the police have denied.

What is beyond doubt, however, is that police all over the world commonly use agent provocateurs to undermine protests. During the 2009 G20 protests in the United Kingdom, authorities used undercover agents to blend into crowds, spying on them. Police also regularly pose as members of the masked anarchist group Black Bloc, attempting to incite riots. At a 2016 anti-austerity demonstration in Montreal, officers were exposed and fled the protest.

Escalating Violence

While the level to which police themselves are destroying property is debatable, what is not is that they have escalated violence at many protests. In Houston, a mounted police officer trampled a female bystander looking the other way at an otherwise passive protest. In New York, videos of multiple cars driving through and over scores of protestors went viral.

A white NYPD cop also attacked a retreating young Black woman, shouting that she was a “fucking bitch” as he forcefully threw her to the ground. She ended up in the hospital with her injuries.

Law enforcement in Erie, PA, were caught on camera kicking a young girl lying in the street in the face. The reason she was lying in the street covering her face, according to protestors, was that she was incapacitated due to tear gas.

Regardless, it is doubtful whether there will be any legal consequences for the police involved in these situations as law enforcement operates under a culture of immunity from prosecution or even censure.