Reports Show 3 More Teens Died After Getting Injected w/COVID Vaccines, as Reported Injuries Exceed 850,000

From [HERE] Data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 29, 2021, a total of 856,919 adverse events following COVID vaccines were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The data included a total of 18,078 reports of deaths — an increase of 459 over the previous week. There were 127,457 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 3,570 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 634,609 adverse events, including 8,284 deaths and 52,685 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 29, 2021.

Of the 8,284 U.S. deaths reported as of Oct. 29, 10% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 15% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 26% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 418.6 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Oct. 29. This includes: 246 million doses of Pfizer, 157 million doses of Moderna and 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J). [MORE]

Is the US Response to COVID an Official Government Psychological Operation? “Biocide?"

From [HERE] “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home — so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.”  — Eleanor Roosevelt

Those who have questioned the intentions behind government policy in response to the pandemic continue to observe the unreasonable intensity of supporters of mandated protocols. Declaring vehement loyalty to vaccine therapy, their minds are closed to any further input.

Vaccination proponents don’t want to see or hear anything contradicting their very confident, though most questionable position: that a benevolent government, supported by a monolithic, knowledgeable, scientific community, is successfully dealing with the crisis.

In addition to the challenges of an uncompromising public debate, some of us face a personal crisis: The compassionate principles of long-term relationships are being tested.

With entrenched devotion to vaccines, loved ones and friends who were once willing to discuss most other topics, refuse to engage. At a minimum, they express disappointment in our lack of understanding and compliance. When forthright they confess their judgment — our unwillingness to conform causes continuing affliction.

Many people have been persuaded that anyone who has doubts about the infallible words and irrefutable facts presented by somber leaders and an impartial press corps are infecting others with dangerous information.

Failures of the pandemic response are increasingly laid at the feet of the unvaccinated.

However, the furious indignation is often irrational, inordinate and out of character, suggesting it is driven by a set of external stimuli designed to create the response.

A looming crisis, initially presented with expectations of horrific consequences including widespread severe disease and millions dead, can be viewed as the beginning of a prescribed government response to the pandemic.

The intentional amplification of the threat, unjustifiable by any scientific defense, was never diminished, even as ominous predictions of suffering and mortality proved to be greatly exaggerated.

From the moment vaccines were released, anyone who doubted their importance and efficacy has been depicted as a hostile deviant entranced by fantasies or blindly following aberrant leaders.

And although so-called anti-vaxxers are belittled for their ignorance, there is no indication those rejecting enforced protocols are doing anything but defending their inalienable rights — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The extreme aggressive tactics of the government and media to promote vaccines — including a campaign to humiliate those who refuse to comply — have the earmarks of psychological warfare, with manipulation of citizens on a grander scale than any effort in recent history.

The continuing prevailing mindset of many people appears to be the reaction to a calculated induction of a mass hypnotic trance.

Of all aspects of pandemic response, this is one of the most troubling, and should cause us to consider its probability, provenance and rectification.

‘My honor is my loyalty’

The government’s use of a psychological operation — aka PSYOP — to promote immunization follows standards and practices for engendering a cult mentality to reach its objectives.

The central technique for initiating and maintaining an obedient population is developing an “us versus them” mindset. The demonization of outsiders is essential.

Demands and sacrifices are made of the members, solidifying their involvement and ensuring they see themselves as superior to those who don’t participate.

These mesmeric psychological operations can be identified in groups small and large, including mass populations.

The most dramatic example of a PSYOP engendering a cult is the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany. An elite propaganda machine entranced a nation into believing they were a superior race, arousing a blind loyalty to their cause, with a loss of moral parameters unmatched in modern history.

Hitler’s most loyal troops, the SS, closely associated with forced labor and death camps, and deemed a criminal organization by the Nuremberg tribunals, wore belt buckles and kept daggers engraved with the words, “my honor is loyalty.”

More recently, less-militarized cults have made some dramatic impact in the United States.

The religious organization, the People’s Temple, in its early days gained the support of politicians and manipulated the media to project a positive spin on its activities.

The People’s Temple devolved into darkness, eventually leading to a quintessential cult event in Jonestown, Guyana. On the cusp of being arrested for the murder of a visiting congressman, their leader, Jim Jones, demanded the highest level of loyalty: Hundreds of members committed mass suicide, including their children, by drinking a cyanide-valium cocktail.

Mass hypnosis allows transference of an individual’s attention and priorities to a singular objective or ideology, and loyalty to the cause is elevated, overshadowing self-preservation.

Another example of an influential cult based in the United States is the Unification Church. Their members, the Moonies, were staunchly loyal to Sun Myung Moon, who was famous for presiding over spectacular mass weddings of arranged marriages.

The Unification Church also funneled money to powerful politicians through grants and speaking fees. Moon founded the Washington Times, which openly supported his political agenda.

As a lead investigator in a BBC biography of the Korean Cult leader, I met and interviewed former devotees and abettors who described the process of indoctrination into a trance of blind obedience.

Moon created a sophisticated psychological framework to attract and retain members, claiming he was a messiah greater than Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed combined. Good-hearted, intelligent people succumbed to a psychotic euphoria invoked by Moon and his agents, with support from government and media.

Only later did they awaken to their profound mistake, falling for rhetoric they eventually recognized as hypnotic, deeply flawed and dangerous.

One of the interviewees spoke most eloquently about having lost his soul, and given away years of his life.

An individual whose attitude embraces the affirmation — “my honor is loyalty” — towards any leader, cult or policy, has given up his or her personal power, often to abusive forces.

Symbolically, the SS motto has been illegal to use in Germany since 1947.

Cults are often viewed as aberrations that occurred in the past, however, they continue to thrive.

The susceptibility of humans to mass hypnosis and manipulation continues to be exploited and has never been applied for the greater good.

Cult of the vaccinated

Those who resist vaccination are reacting to harsh directives and overt hostility from a heavy-handed government. Their position is neither the result of mass hypnosis nor cult-like programming, rather an exercise in freedom of speech and choice.

Psychologically, there is an indisputable, definitive metric that demonstrates the difference between the anti- and pro-vaccine groups.

A large majority of the unvaccinated have reviewed information and statistics from a range of sources, that either support or contradict government policy. They have made choices based on concerns about efficacy and risks, but are open to engaging in debate.

Most of the pro-vaccine faction stand by what they deem unassailable information from the news media. They are willing to accept a filtered version of data, and staunchly refuse to look at any material that might cause doubt about their decisions or challenge authoritative mandates.

They refuse to engage in debate.

A majority of the general public has been beguiled into feeling threatened by the virus, and roused to angrily denounce those who doubt the efficacy or risks of COVID-19 inoculants.

The pro-vaccine disciple’s lockstep, cult-like behavior is classic. The mentality includes:

• Unbending loyalty to a methodology promulgated by influential leaders who make claims that are too good to be true.

• Unquestioning adherence to and dependency on the group’s approach and procedures, with insistence that they are on the only true and worthy path.

• Unwillingness to consider any written or spoken words, or ideas that counter the messaging of leaders or the group’s intentions.

• Willingness to change lifestyle or engage in risky behavior, with blind acceptance that there are only benefits and minimal risks.

• Continuing belief in dogma, even when firmly presented concepts devolve, or prove to be deeply flawed.

• Denying any self-doubt in the name of a greater mission — critical thinking about the group is an abomination.

• Persuading or pressuring new members to join, using guilt as primary motivation. When this fails, forcing submission through ridicule, mental anguish or material punishment.

• Demeaning, isolating and penalizing anyone who defects or does not enlist.

• Willingness to dishonor family or destroy long-term relationships in the name of the cult’s objectives.

• Self-destructive behavior — as in all of the above — that eventually leads to dissolution of the cult and irreparable harm to the members.

Designing a PSYOP for a pandemic

A strong circumstantial case can be made that there is an imposed PSYOP in place in the United States. The vehement public support and willingness to obey without question are the precise results a government would seek in response to the perceived threat of a deadly pandemic.

The tactics used to generate this kind of outcome are not hidden from those willing to consider how the U.S. government applies its knowledge.

This excerpt from the opening chapter of the “U.S. Army Field Manual on PSYOP” makes intentions of a campaign very clear: [MORE]

Snitchcraft: Does Enes Kanter Also Ride the Bench for the CIA? Mediocre, Not Particularly Popular NBA Player is Frequently Showcased by The Dependent Media when He Parrots Uncle Brother's Messaging

From [HERE] Despite not even leaving the bench, Boston Celtics center Enes Kanter was the one drawing the headlines in their season opener at New York City’s Madison Square Garden. The 6’10” Turk sported shoes emblazoned with the words “free Tibet.” “Under the Chinese government’s brutal rule, Tibetan people’s basic rights and freedoms are non-existent,” Kanter said in a video posted on social media, explaining the move.

Two days later, he accused “heartless dictator of China” Xi Jinping of running slave-labor camps in Xinjiang, demanding he “free the Uyghur people” and “stop the genocide now!” Kanter went even further on October 26, directly calling for the overthrow of the Chinese government and sharing his new “freedom shoes,” which show him playing basketball with a cartoon version of Jinping’s severed head.

“Change is coming and no one can stop it” he wrote, sharing the hashtags #FreeHongKong and #StandWithTaiwan. He also challenged Nike founder Phil Knight, as well as basketball greats Michael Jordan and LeBron James, to visit with him the “slave labor camps” in Xinjiang, where he implied Nike shoes are made.

While Chinese media have dropped Celtics games as a result, Kanter’s political stands have been met largely with rapturous applause in official circles closer to home. “His only crime is having the courage to speak out against oppression,” reacted Florida Senator and Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio. Meanwhile, conservative media outlets like The National Review and hosts such as Glenn Beck have described him as a “hero.”

On social media, however, the response was more mixed. While many praised his actions, others pointed to his troubling history of working with many of the world’s worst human rights abusing nations, and questioned whether the whole thing was a national security state PR stunt. “Enes Kanter is CIA” became a meme around the net, with many speculating about his links to Washington.

MintPress spoke with Danny Haiphong, contributing editor to the Black Agenda Report, a journalist who specializes in covering U.S.-China relations. Haiphong, a passionate Celtics fan, said that he was not surprised by the mixed response to Kanter’s statements:

Enes Kanter deserves all the scrutiny he has received. Kanter’s mentor Fathullah Gulen has protected CIA agents and his anti-China operation comes just weeks after the CIA announced a renewed focus on China. Kanter has rapidly become the face of the U.S.’s propaganda campaign against the Beijing 2022 Olympics alongside NED-backed forces.

“Speaking truth to power”

While there is no evidence that the 29-year-old star is a CIA employee, Kanter does have a great many troubling relationships with some of America’s most powerful state officials. In July, for instance, he traveled to Washington to meet senior war planner John Bolton, a key figure in the Iraq War deception and former President Donald Trump’s most hawkish National Security Advisor. The two met in the Russell Senate Office Building, Kanter announcing that he had had a great discussion on “human rights” with his “friend.”

The Turkish star also met with Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner. Sharing a video of himself with Kushner and Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Gilad Erdan, he claimed that “good things are ahead.” He also has a close relationship with Rubio, whom he described as a champion of freedom around the world. “Huge thanks to Senator Marco Rubio for standing up for Human Rights,‬ Freedom,‬ ‪Democracy,” Kanter wrote on his Facebook page, alongside a video of their meeting in the Capitol Building.

The professional basketball player is, however, far from partisan. In 2019, he met with Bill and Hillary Clinton, talked about President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Turkey and presented the Clintons with two Boston Celtics jerseys with his number and “Clinton” on the back. He also publicly campaigned for Democratic Representative Eliot Engel’s reelection against progressive challenger Jamaal Bowman. A former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Engel has taken a number of hawkish positions on the Middle East and been vocally critical of Erdoğan. Kanter has also worked with his home-state senator, Ed Markey (D-MA), on Turkish affairs.

It is further known that Kanter has some sort of relationship and communication with the FBI, the agency even installing a panic button in his house.

New Ronald Greene Autopsy Offers More Proof LA Cops Lied. Minor Car Crash Had Nothing to do w/His Death. White Cops Brutally Murdered and Tortured Restrained Black Man as He Begged for His Life

From [HERE] A reexamined autopsy ordered by the FBI in the deadly 2019 arrest of Ronald Greene has rejected the Louisiana State Police claim that a car crash caused his fatal injuries, narrowing prosecutors’ focus on the troopers seen on body camera video beating, stunning and dragging the Black motorist.

The unusual second look at what killed Greene confirmed what his family suspected the moment they saw his bruised and battered corpse and his car with only slight damage: A minor crash at the end of a high-speed chase had nothing to do with his death.

The FBI this week received the new forensic review it commissioned in light of the long-buried body camera footage, vehicle black box data and other evidence the state police withheld from Greene’s original autopsy. The review, which did not involve another examination of the body, attributes Greene's death to a series of factors, including troopers striking the 49-year-old in the head, restraining him at length and his use of cocaine.

The new review notably removes the crash and “agitated delirium” from the list of causes in Greene’s original autopsy, according to a person familiar with the findings who wasn’t authorized to discuss the federal inquiry and spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.

It also addresses a key unanswered question from the original autopsy, whether the crash that didn't deploy the air bag in Greene's car was severe enough to cause a fractured breastbone and ruptured aorta. The new review determined those injuries were most likely the result of CPR and other life-saving efforts by first responders, the person familiar with the findings said.

Still unclear was whether the new autopsy would prompt the Union Parish coroner to change the manner of Greene's death from accidental to homicide, which could affect the charges available to state and federal prosecutors.

Greene’s mother, Mona Hardin, said she hopes the new report brings the case closer to justice “so I can put my son to rest,” adding that she has yet to bury his cremated remains. “This thing has been so crazy. No one has properly grieved.”

The new autopsy report comes as federal prosecutors are in the final stages of a two-year civil rights investigation that began looking into Greene’s death but has since expanded to examine the beatings of several other Black motorists, and whether top brass obstructed justice to shield troopers from possible prosecution.

Rafael Goyeneche, a former prosecutor who heads the Metropolitan Crime Commission, a New Orleans-based watchdog group, said the new cause of death makes it even more likely prosecutors will bring serious charges. “This yanks the rug from under the defense claim that the accident caused his death and that the beatings weren’t that severe,” he said.

A Louisiana State Police spokesman said the agency “has been provided no further information on the ongoing federal investigation” but continues to cooperate. A U.S. Justice Department spokesperson declined to speak about an ongoing investigation but added that if the evidence reveals violations of the law, the department will “take all appropriate action.”

Greene’s May 10, 2019, death came after he failed to stop for a traffic violation and led troopers on a midnight chase across northern Louisiana at speeds topping 115 mph (185 km/h), ending along a rural roadside near Monroe. State police initially told Greene’s family he died after crashing into a tree, an account the Union Parish coroner committed to writing in an official report, which describes Greene’s death as a motor vehicle accident and makes no mention of a confrontation with troopers.

After officials refused for more than two years to release the troopers’ body camera video, the AP obtained and published it this spring, showing white troopers converging on Greene before he can even get out of his car, repeatedly stunning and punching him as he appears to surrender and repeatedly wails, “I’m your brother! I’m scared! I’m scared!” A trooper can later be seen dragging the heavyset Greene by his ankle shackles and he is left prone and face down in the dirt for more than nine minutes before he eventually goes limp.

Yet even after AP published video of Greene’s violent arrest, state officials and advocates for the troopers repeated the crash theory, with Gov. John Bel Edwards floating it as recently as September.

“The issue would be did he die from injuries sustained in the accident?” Edwards, a Democrat, said on a radio program. “Obviously, he didn’t die in the accident itself because he was still alive when the troopers were engaging with him. But what was the cause of death? I don’t know that that was falsely portrayed.”

Edwards went on to say troopers' actions were “criminal” but that whether they caused Greene’s death was the subject of an investigation and “I’m not going to get in front of that.”

A lawyer for the troopers involved in Greene’s arrest told a court in July that the crash killed him.

“At trial, defendants will present scientific evidence that Mr. Greene’s death was caused by a crash-related blunt force chest trauma resulting in a fractured sternum and ruptured aorta,” P. Scott Wolleson wrote in a filing in a civil lawsuit brought by Greene’s family.

Greene’s was among a dozen cases over the past decade in which an AP investigation found troopers or their bosses ignored or concealed evidence of beatings, deflected blame and impeded efforts to root out misconduct. Dozens of current and former troopers said they occurred in an agency with a culture of impunity, nepotism and in some cases outright racism.

Federal investigators are also examining the actions of police commanders, which included pressuring their own detectives to hold off on arresting the trooper who acknowledged hitting Greene in the head with a flashlight and was overheard on his body camera video boasting to a colleague that he “beat the ever-living f--- out of him.”

That trooper, Chris Hollingsworth, died last year in a single-vehicle crash hours after he learned he would be fired for his role in the Greene case.

Speaking to investigators shortly before his death, Hollingsworth sought to justify his flashlight strikes on Greene in part because the man “didn't have any apparent injuries” after the crash and "could have done anything once my hold was broke off him.”

DA Charges San Francisco Cop w/Manslaughter in 2017 Shooting Of Unarmed Black Man at His Doorstep. Sarcastic, Provocative Cops Escalated Situation w/Mentally Ill Black Man and Shot Him in the Groin

From [HERE] and [MORE] A San Francisco police officer was charged with manslaughter Tuesday for a 2017 shooting of Sean Moore, an unarmed Black man shot during a confrontation with officers outside his home and who died in 2020 from complications resulting from his injuries.

Police officer Kenneth Cha shot Moore on January 6, 2017 on the steps of his home on the 500 block of Capitol Ave in the city’s Oceanview neighborhood after officers has responded to a 4 a.m. noise complaint from a neighbor who had a noise restraining order against Moore.

Police said Moore, who family members described as mentally ill, was combative with officers. Police said during the confrontation he kicked an officer in the face, retreated back into the house, then came back out and punched another officer who was wielding a baton before advancing on Cha who opened fire, hitting Moore twice.

However, body cam video from the officers showed Moore was trying to avoid baton strikes and retreat back into his house at the time he was shot.

On Tuesday, San Francisco District Attorney Boudin said after a review of the case, his office presented an affidavit and supporting evidence to a judge, who reviewed it and issued a warrant for Cha’s arrest. He is charged with voluntary manslaughter, assault with a semi-automatic firearm, enhancements for personal use of a firearm, and infliction of great bodily injury.

The case is the second homicide prosecution against an on-duty law enforcement officer in San Francisco history.

“We rely on officers to follow their training and to deescalate situations; instead, in just eight minutes, Officer Cha elevated a nonviolent encounter to one that took Sean Moore’s life. Sean Moore was unarmed and at his own home when Officer Cha shot him twice,” said Boudin in a prepared statement. “After a thorough investigation, my office is holding Officer Cha accountable for the death of Sean Moore, whom he lacked a lawful basis to even arrest. When officers inflict unwarranted violence in flagrant disregard of their training, it denigrates the hard work of other police officers and shatters the trust our community places in law enforcement. Rebuilding that trust requires us to hold those officers who inflict unlawful violence accountable.”

Officer body cam video showed Moore repeatedly telling officers to get off his property and that he didn’t want to speak with them. Moore said he knew about the restraining order, denied harassing his neighbor and said he had been sweeping his stairs and removing his trash. However, officers ordered Moore to come outside of his house, telling him he was under arrest, and Cha threatened to kick in his front door gate if Moore did not come outside on his own.

The shooting lacerated Moore’s liver and struck his right colon, scarring internal organs and causing severe abdominal adhesions. Moore died in January 2020; the coroner’s office indicated the cause of death was homicide and that he died from acute intestinal obstruction as a result of the bullet wounds.

Moore was initially charged with a number of felonies and misdemeanors, but charges were dismissed after the judge said officers were acting outside the scope of their duties when they remained on Moore’s property after he declined to be questioned. An appeals court reaffirmed the finding in 2018.

“This was a very minor event. If the police officer had de-escalated, it wouldn’t have happened. He created the confrontation, created a conflict and shot his way out of it,” said civil rights attorney John Burris, who represented Moore’s family. “I think it’s important for the community to know that the DA’s office, wherever, they will look at the cases more closely than not. You can improve the relationship between the police and community if the community knows that the police are going to be held accountable.”

Earlier this year, the city of San Francisco settled a lawsuit filed by Moore’s family for $3.25 million—the largest settlement of its kind in recent history, the DA’s office said.

“The shooting of Sean Moore, an unarmed Black man, by San Francisco police is yet another example of unlawful use of deadly force that, according to the Marin County’s coroner’s office, led to Mr. Moore’s untimely death. Police officers in San Francisco and throughout the nation continue to escalate situations that call for de-escalation and the intervention of mental health clinicians,” said a prepared statement from Yoel Y. Haile, Director Criminal Justice Program, ACLU of Northern California.

Cha was involved in a second shooting in San Francisco four months after the Moore shooting. In May 2020, Cha shot and killed a knife-wielding man at a Market St. Subway restaurant who had attacked and stabbed an employee.

San Francisco Police Officers Association President Tony Montoya responded to the charges against Cha in the shooting of Moore with the following statement: “Officers responded to a call for service and encountered the very hostile Sean Moore who was accused of violating a restraining order. We support Officer Cha’s constitutionally protected right to present his defense against these charges that stemmed from this extremely volatile incident that an autopsy concluded took Mr. Moore’s life while he was serving time in prison on another matter.”

Murder Trial Delayed for White TX Cop Who Shot Atatiana Jefferson to Death in Her Own Home b/c He Saw Her Inside and the Front Door was Open

From [HERE] The trial is delayed for a former Fort Worth police officer who was charged with murder after shooting a Black woman through a back window of her home while responding to a call about an open front door in 2019.

Aaron Dean’s trial had been set to begin Nov. 16, more than two years after he shot 28-year-old Atatiana Jefferson during a late-night wellness check at her mother’s house. But Tarrant County court officials now say that date will only be a scheduling hearing and that Dean's case will not go to trial before Nov. 29, although it could be set for a later date.

His case was among many that were delayed when the coronavirus pandemic caused courts across the country to postpone jury trials.

Dean, who recently turned 37, resigned from the city police force two days after shooting Jefferson. He was charged with murder and released on a $200,000 bond.

Following the shooting, Fort Worth police released body camera footage that showed Dean walked around the side of the house, pushed through a gate into the fenced-off backyard and fired through a window a split-second after shouting at Jefferson to show her hands. Police went to the house after a neighbor called a non-emergency line to report that the front door was ajar.Dean, who is white, was not heard identifying himself as police on the video. The city’s police chief at the time, Ed Kraus, said Dean acted without justification and that there was no sign he or the other officer who responded even knocked on the front door. Kraus said Dean would have been fired if he had not quit without giving a statement to investigators.

A judge has issued a gag order in Dean’s case and his lawyers did not respond to calls and emails seeking comment.

Black North Carolina Police Detective Fired [but not charged] After Planting Fake Drugs On Several Black Men

From [HERE] A North Carolina police detective has been fired following accusations that he planted fake drugs on several Black men, leading to their wrongful arrests on drug trafficking charges.

The Raleigh Police Department confirmed that it fired Omar Abdullah on Oct. 28, a month after the city of Raleigh reached a $2 million settlement in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by the men after charges against them were dropped.

Abdullah, who has not been criminally charged, had been on administrative leave for a little more than a year after he was accused of staging heroin drug busts on at least 15 people using packets of brown sugar between December 2019 and May 2020.

According to the lawsuit filed against Abdullah and the city back in April, the detective allegedly paid a drug informant to meet with the men and then falsely claim to recover drugs from them. The men were consequently arrested by Abdullah for trafficking heroin, even though field tests on the sugar failed to detect drugs.

“Abdullah and other officers often failed to submit the alleged heroin for lab testing until weeks or months after Plaintiffs’ incarceration,” the lawsuit says.

Even after laboratory tests came back negative for drugs, Abdullah and other officers either failed to inform the district attorney about the test results or severely delayed supplying this information. The district attorney was also not told about the negative field tests, the suit claims.

The suit alleges that seven police officers were aware of Abdullah’s scheme but did not intervene.

“Plaintiffs served a combined approximately 2.5 years in jail before the charges against each of them were dismissed,” the lawsuit says, adding that they each faced more than seven years in prison if convicted of the falsified charges.

Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman held an emotional meeting with community members in late September in which she said she would not be filing criminal charges against Abdullah due to a lack of evidence. Her office did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment on Tuesday. [MORE]

San Diego DA asked to Prosecute the Shadow Border Patrol Unit that Blocked Investigation into the Beating Death of Anastasio Hernandez Rojas

From [HERE] Immigrant rights advocates called on San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan to file charges against Border Patrol agents involved in the 2010 beating death of Anastasio Hernandez Rojas based on bombshell evidence a shadow police unit within the federal agency impeded the investigation of his death.

Attorneys representing Maria Puga, Hernandez's widow, said at a press conference outside the Hall of Justice Thursday Critical Incident Investigative Teams within U.S. Border Patrol sectors along the U.S.-Mexico border illegally investigate incidents of agent-involved use of force and work to mitigate agents’ culpability by withholding, destroying or tampering with evidence.

The units have no congressional authority to engage in such investigations, according to Puga’s attorneys, who are calling for state criminal charges to be filed.

Because Stephan has the authority to ensure the integrity of local law enforcement investigations, Puga’s attorneys say she can file criminal charges against CIIT agents for obstructing justice. They suggested felony charges should be filed for preparing false evidence, offering false evidence, destroying or concealing evidence and tampering with witnesses.

A spokesman for the DA's office said they had not received a case for review.

“The district attorney’s office stands ready to pursue justice when the evidence supports it and where we have jurisdiction. We can’t comment on the Department of Justice’s review of this matter,” the spokesman added.

If Stephan files charges, she could set precedent for other prosecutions across the borderlands where advocates Thursday said 100 people have been killed by Border Patrol agents without any charges filed.

Pedro Rios, director of American Friends Service Committee U.S./Mexico Border Program said it’s “correct” for Stephan to investigate the alleged obstruction of justice.

“The hope is that if the district attorney does take this case up that it gets replicated in every county along the border so that justice does not remain denied and the families that have been injured and the communities that have been hurt by such trauma are able to finally have justice in their cases,” Rios said.

Last week, border organizations with the Southern Border Communities Coalition sent a letter to congressional leaders asking for an oversight hearing of the investigatory units based on revelations in Hernandez's case.

The units have existed since at least 1987, with the first CIIT unit established in San Diego, according to a PowerPoint presentation obtained by journalist John Carlos Frey and cited by Puga’s attorneys.

Attorney Michelle Celleri, Human Rights counsel for Alliance San Diego, said new evidence revealed agents working for CIIT impeded the San Diego Police Department’s investigation into Hernandez's death.

“The CIIT team showed up at the scene and never notified the San Diego Police Department. They were there for 15 hours before SDPD ever found out about it — by a news source,” Celleri said in an interview.

Hernandez, a father of five U.S. citizen children, was beaten, kicked, punched and tasered by Border Patrol agents May 28, 2010. His death was investigated as a homicide by SDPD but the Department of Justice declined to prosecute the case.

Celleri said while his children were paid a $1 million civil settlement in 2017, attorneys for his family were still investigating the case “for criminal charges to be brought forth or some type of reprimand for the agents involved in his death.”

In preparing for arguments before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Puga's attorneys learned high-ranking CIIT agents were present during the SDPD investigation into her husband’s death. [MORE]

Wrongfully Convicted Black Man (Michael Austin) who spent 27 Years in Prison for a Murder he didn’t Commit to Get Only $1 Million Payment from MD

From [HERE] Maryland's Board of Public Works on Wednesday approved a payment of nearly $1 million to a Baltimore man who spent 27 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. It is the second payment that the man, 73-year-old Michael Austin, has received for the time he spent behind bars. {MORE]

According to Centurion, Michael Austin spent 27 years in prison, falsely convicted of killing Roy Kellam in a Baltimore City grocery store robbery on April 29, 1974. Michael had nothing to do with the murder or the robbery. Michael’s family hired an attorney to represent him but the attorney was confused by the trial calendar and was not prepared for the trial. He explained that to the Judge, but the trial began as scheduled, and to Michael’s detriment.  His attorney did not subpoena witnesses to support Michael’s alibi, or question another eye witness. He made other errors as well.

Michael was convicted on two pieces of evidence: false testimony from the State’s key eye witness, and a business card from Michael’s wallet linking him to an alleged accomplice. The eye witness described the shooter to police on the day of the crime as much shorter than Michael but he selected Michael from a photo array over a month later and identified him in the court room during the trial. Another eye witness who never selected Michael from photos or a lineup was not called to testify. The alleged accomplice was found not guilty at his own, later trial, making the card that linked them irrelevant.

The errors and injustices at his trial sent Michael to prison. The complicated appeals system wherein multiple courts reviewed separate aspects of Michael’s case without examining the overall fairness of the trial kept him in prison despite his innocence. Michael gained the support of many unlikely and influential people, as he struggled to regain his freedom including the Mayor, the prosecutor in his case, Joseph Wase, and the Prison Warden who noticed and supported Michael’s interest in music.

Centurion’s investigation discovered new evidence that led to a March 23, 2001 Motion to Reopen Post Conviction. In ruling on the motion, Baltimore Circuit Judge John Carroll Byrnes reversed the conviction of Michael Austin calling it “plagued by errors” and writing that, “Our capacity to right a wrong is a measurement of our true commitment to due process and justice as a State.” On January 3, 2002, the Baltimore States Attorney decided not to retry him and dismissed all charges. On November 17, 2004, in a further attempt to correct the wrongs against him, the Maryland Board of Public Works approved a $1.4 million compensation package for Michael.

Today, Michael is a successful jazz and blues musician who has released multiple albums and performs for audiences throughout the country. He also offers music programs to Baltimore City middle school students living in underfunded communities.

White Judge Disregards Rodney Reed’s Innocence Claim that White DA Used False Testimony and Withheld Evidence to Frame Him for the Murder of a White Woman, who was Actually Killed by a White Cop

From [HERE] A white Texas district court judge has recommended that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) deny death-row prisoner Rodney Reed’s innocence claim and allow his conviction and death sentence to stand for the 1996 murder of Stacey Stites. In a November 1, 2021 decision after ten days of testimony in July and closing statements in October, Bastrop County District Court Judge J.D. Langley issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations that Reed’s conviction should be upheld. In so doing, Langley credited every prosecution witness over every witness presented by Reed’s defense counsel. 

The TCCA had stayed Reed’s execution on November 15, 2019, less than one week before he was scheduled to be put to death and returned his case to the Bastrop County district court to review Reed’s claims that prosecutors presented false testimony and suppressed exculpatory evidence and that Reed is actually innocent. The appeals court retained jurisdiction over the case and directed the trial court to make recommendations on how it should rule in the case.

At the hearing, Reed’s lawyers presented evidence that Reed, who is Black, was having an affair with Stites, who is white; that Stites was actually murdered by her abusive fiancé, Jimmy Fennell; and that Fennell, who at that time was a police officer in Giddings, Texas, had framed Reed for the murder. Numerous witnesses testified that they had seen Stites together with Reed on prior occasions, heard Fennell threaten to kill her if she cheated on him, and heard Fennell admit to the killing. Two forensics experts testified that Stites died hours earlier than the prosecution had claimed, at a time that Fennell had said she was with him. Fennell took the stand and denied that he had committed the killing.

Langley accepted Fennell’s testimony on every disputed issue over the contrary testimony of a dozen separate defense witnesses. The court also rejected Reed’s challenges that prosecutors presented false forensic testimony, crediting the trial testimony of the prosecution’s local forensic examiners over that of Reed’s nationally known forensic experts.

The county court transmitted its findings and recommendations to the TCCA, which will consider Judge Langley’s recommendation, but make its own final ruling.

Reed’s hearing began July 19, with his defense team presenting a week of testimony and evidence in support of his innocence claims, while the state continued to assert Reed’s guilt. Langley repeatedly found testimony supporting Reed’s innocence to be “uncredible,” asserting that many of the witnesses who testified had “waited decades to bring forth [their] ‘recollection.’” During the hearing, Andrew MacRae, one of Reed’s pro bono lawyers, argued “[t]hese people didn’t come forward, we found them.” Reed’s prior court-appointed counsel had never investigated the issues to look for the witnesses, MacRae said. 

Langley credited Fennell’s explanations about why he cleaned out his bank account the morning of the murder, why he failed a polygraph test about the murder, the nature of his relationship with Stites, and whether he had killed her. Langley also accepted Fennell’s version of events each time his testimony conflicted with that of other witnesses. While Reed’s lawyers presented evidence that Fennell had abused Stites and threatened to kill her if she cheated on him, Langley credited Fennell’s testimony that he and Stites had a happy relationship. Langley discounted the multiple witnesses who testified to having seen or heard evidence that Fennell was abusive toward Stites, dismissing it as hearsay or saying that the passage of time between the events and the witnesses’ decisions to come forward made it uncredible. Langley also rejected the testimony of two men who said Fennell had confessed to Stites’ murder while serving time in prison for an unrelated crime, saying each was “not a credible or reliable witness, and his assertion that Fennell confessed to the murder of Stites is not credible or reliable.”

Ultimately, Langley found that Reed “has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him of capital murder” and “has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that he is actually innocent.”

Reacting to the trial court’s recommendation, Reed’s counsel from the Innocence Project, Jane Pucher, said, “We look forward to presenting Mr. Reed’s case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. If a new jury heard the overwhelming evidence of Rodney Reed’s innocence, it would have reasonable doubts.” 

Puchar noted the racial bias in the case, as well as the unreliability of the evidence against Reed. “Convicted by an all-white jury, Mr. Reed has spent 23 years on death row for a crime he did not commit. Many highly credible witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing that Mr. Reed and Stacey Stites knew each other and were intimately involved. Many credible witnesses also testified that Ms. Stites’s fiancé, Jimmy Fennell, was violent and controlling and had threatened to hurt her if he discovered she was unfaithful. Nationally recognized experts have completely debunked the forensic case against Mr. Reed and even the State’s pathology expert has agreed that central points at trial were false. We hope the Court of Criminal Appeals recognizes that he should be given a new trial.”

Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board Again Recommends that Racist Suspect Governor Commute Julius Jones’ Death Sentence, Black Man Falsely Convicted of Murdering a White Man

From [HERE] The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board has for a second time recommended that Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt grant clemency to death-row prisoner Julius Jones (pictured below during the clemency hearing). 

Following a hearing on November 1, 2021, the board, citing doubts about Jones’ guilt, voted 3-1 to ask Stitt to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Jones, who is Black, is scheduled to be executed November 18 on charges that he murdered Paul Howell, a white businessman, in 1999. His case has garnered worldwide attention amidst evidence of racial bias, incompetent representation, and possible innocence.

Testifying by video conference, Jones told the board: “First, I feel for the Howell family, for the tragic loss of Mr. Paul Howell, who I’ve heard was a caring and all-around good person. … Second, I am not the person responsible for taking Mr. Howell’s life. … Truth is,” Jones said, “I didn’t shoot that man. I didn’t kill Mr. Paul Howell. I wasn’t involved in it in any way.” 

Board members Adam Luck, Larry Morris, and Kelly Doyle voted in favor of recommending commutation, while Richard Smothermon voted against clemency. Board member Scott Williams recused himself from the decision to avoid any appearance of conflict arising out of a professional relationship with one of Jones’ lawyers in an unrelated matter.

The governor’s office issued a short statement saying that “Governor Stitt is aware of the Pardon and Parole Board’s vote.” The statement did not address the substance of the board’s recommendation, adding only “Our office will not offer further comment until the governor has made a final decision.”

Attempts to Undermine the Clemency Process

Oklahoma officials have come under fire for what critics have called attempts to manipulate the clemency process and intimidate parole board members. In June 2020, according to news reports by The Frontier, board member Allen McCall threatened to pursue criminal charges against the board’s executive director, Steven Bickley, unless Bickley took steps to prevent Jones from obtaining a commutation hearing before he was the subject of a death warrant. In response, Bickley sought an official opinion from then-Attorney General Mike Hunter on whether such hearings could be scheduled. Hunter approved the pre-warrant hearings, but Bickley took a leave of absence and ultimately resigned, saying he had been “threatened for doing his job.” 

After the board scheduled Jones’ commutation hearing, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater filed an emergency motion in the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking to recuse Luck and Doyle from participating. Prater claimed in his suit that the board members would be biased in favor of commutation because of professional ties to organizations that seek to reduce incarceration rates. The court denied the motion on September 10, 2021, three days ahead of the scheduled hearing, writing that Prater was “asking this Court to provide for a remedy that simply does not exist under Oklahoma law.” 

After the September 30 hearing, the board voted 3-1, in the same alignment as in the clemency hearing, to recommend that Gov. Stitt commute Jones’ sentence to a parole-eligible life sentence. 

One week after the commutation recommendation, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals scheduled Jones’ execution. Gov. Stitt took no action on the commutation recommendation, saying he would wait for the results of the clemency hearing. 

Prior to the clemency hearing, Attorney General John O’Connor — who replaced Hunter after he resigned for personal reasons — also tried to remove Luck and Doyle from the case. O’Connor’s reasons for recusing the pair was indistinguishable from those previously advanced by Prater and already rejected by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The court denied O’Connor’s motion.

The Black Wall Street Times accused the prosecutors of interfering in the clemency process and seeking “to silence and remove” Luck and Doyle from the case. The Times noted “while DA Prater considers their participation a conflict of interest, he said nothing about Board member Richard Smothermon,” a 16-year Oklahoma District Attorney “who has former ties to DA Prater [and] … has collaborated with DA Prater in the past as members of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council.” [MORE]

Shelter in Place Orders and COVID Job Loss are Not Legal Defenses for Failure to Pay Yurugu's Rent in Yurugu's Courts. Evictions Mount as MD, Other States Fail to Distribute 30% of Rent Assistance

From [HERE] Maryland missed a federal bench mark for distributing millions of dollars in emergency assistance to help tenants pay their rent, the Treasury Department told a U.S. senator, drawing a warning from the agency.

The department said in an Oct. 26 email to Sen. Chris Van Hollen that Maryland is among the states that could lose some of the funding because it failed to spend 30% of the money by Sept. 30.

“As you know, Maryland is one of the states that may be subject to reallocation because it is below the 30% expenditure ratio,” said the email, which was obtained by The Baltimore Sun.

Van Hollen and fellow Democratic Maryland senator Ben Cardin sent a letter on Friday to Kenneth Holt, secretary of the state Department of Housing & Community Development, urging the agency to speed up the disbursement of the money, which is intended to help renters avoid eviction during the pandemic.

The state needs to act quickly “to avoid having these funds revoked by the Treasury Department beginning on November 15th, leaving tens of thousands of vulnerable Marylanders needlessly at risk of losing their homes,” the letter said.

Many other states or territories have also not moved as quickly as Treasury had hoped. According to Treasury data, about three-fifths of the states joined Maryland in not meeting the initial timeline.

The Treasury Department has told states that they needed to have spent 30% — Maryland’s figure was between 25% and 30% — or have allocated at least 65% of the funds by the end of September. It said it would begin reallocating states’ unspent money in mid-November unless remedial action was taken.

Mike Ricci, a spokesman for Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, told The Sun: “The state is not at any risk of reallocation of funds, and it is false to claim otherwise.” He accused Van Hollen of not doing his “homework.”

The Treasury Department recently told states there are a few ways for states to avoid or mitigate losing funds, including submitting “program improvement” plans detailing their approaches. A Treasury spokesperson declined to respond Friday to questions from The Sun specifically about Maryland’s situation.

Ricci cited forecasts from the Department of Housing & Community Development to demonstrate the state’s progress.

“Based on the department’s projections, the October report will reflect that the state has more than exceeded Treasury’s targets,” Ricci said. “We have said all along that we are well on track to exceed those targets.”

Maryland launched its Emergency Rental Assistance Program in May 2020 with the help of $401 million in federal money approved for pandemic relief. About $143 million of that pot was divided among the state’s eight largest jurisdictions, including Baltimore City, while the remaining money was allocated to the Department of Housing & Community Development for statewide distribution.

The money was intended to help state residents at risk of losing their homes. State eviction protections expired on Aug. 15 and a federal eviction moratorium expired at the end of that same month.

In their letter, Van Hollen and Cardin noted that several surrounding jurisdictions, including Virginia, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., have spent larger portions of their funding than Maryland, “as have all local government grantees.”

The senators cited Anne Arundel County (74%), Baltimore City (85%), Frederick County (71%), and Prince George’s County (88%).

In August, Ricci chided local government officials, particularly Baltimore City, for their slow pace in distributing money.

The Lex-icon Undermines its Own Propaganda by Assembling White Juries for White Men who Murdered Blacks; Destroying Illusions of Fairness and Revealing the True Status of Blacks in a Free Range Prison

LEX-ICON = LAW AS IMAGE. From [HERE] A Black man jogging through the streets near Brunswick, Ga., was shot and killed after three White men chased him. A 17-year-old White vigilante traveled to Kenosha, Wis., where Black Lives Matter-inspired protests had turned violent, and shot three people, killing two. Those racially tinged, politically charged shootings last year rocked the country; now, high-profile murder trials are underway.

Whatever the verdicts, it was important that the public have confidence that the process was fair. Unfortunately, rulings by the judges presiding over the cases threaten to undermine citizen trust about justice being done.

In the case of the three men charged with murder in February 2020’s killing of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, Superior Court Judge Timothy R. Walmsley approved the selection of a nearly all-White jury. Defense attorneys used peremptory challenges to eliminate all but one Black person from the final jury pool, prompting a challenge from prosecutors citing the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Batson v. Kentucky, that lawyers cannot discriminate on the basis of race in jury selection. Judge Walmsley acknowledged an appearance of “intentional discrimination” but said defense lawyers had been able to cite “race neutral” reasons. But, as Post contributing columnist Paul Butler wrote, the judge already had certified that everyone in the final pool, including 12 Black people, could evaluate the evidence fairly.

In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois man who drove to Kenosha with an assault weapon and — like the Georgia defendants — is claiming self-defense, at issue is what some observers see as rulings biased in favor of the defense. Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder overruled the objection of prosecutors and will allow the jury to see a video of police thanking and giving bottles of water to a group of vigilantes, but he won’t permit a video of Mr. Rittenhouse declaring 15 days before the shooting “Bro, I wish I had my [expletive] AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them” about people he suspected of shoplifting. Most glaring was the judge’s decision that the people who were killed could be called “arsonists,” “looters” or “rioters” if they took part in these activities but could not be called “victims.” All of the parties in the case are White, but there is a racial element: The protests were in response to the police shooting of a Black man. The Kenosha jury is also nearly all White, with one person of color among the primary jurors. [MORE]

On a daily basis African Americans are denied one of the most basic fundamental rights inherent in American democracy; the right to sit on a jury.

There are only a few ways that Americans can meaningfully exercise their citizenship; enlisting in the military, running for national office, voting and serving on a jury. Jury service is a basic right of citizenship . With the exception of voting, "for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process." Whether "jury service be deemed a right, a privilege, or a duty, the State may no more extend it to some of its citizens and deny it to others on racial grounds than it may invidiously discriminate in the offering and withholding of the elective franchise." The "exclusion of jurors is like the exclusion of voters: the exclusion of voters by reason of race does violence to constitutional ideals, whether or not the exclusion affects the outcome of any particular election."

Despite clear commands from the Supreme Court, since 1880 the right of African Americans to serve as jurors has been elusive. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits African Americans from being excluded from a jury because of their race or "on the false assumption that members of [the] race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors." The Court has held that the 14th Amendment prohibits a State from resorting to discrimination at all stages of the jury selection process . Even though the principles of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause guaranteeing the right of African Americans to be free from jury discrimination "have been consistently and repeatedly reaffirmed in numerous decisions" , these Constitutional guidelines are regularly violated through the use of peremptory challenges.
All people have biases and prejudices. When citizens are asked to serve on a jury, it is their civic duty to be impartial, to put aside their biases in the interests of justice. When African Americans are removed from a jury because of their race, it amounts to a judgement of unfitness for citizenship . As Justice Thurgood Marshall explained, "no one can be expected to perceive himself to be a full participant in our society as a whole, when he is told by a representative of the government that, because of his race, he is too stupid or too biased to serve on a particular jury."

A peremptory challenge is a method of removing jurors from a jury pool. A juror may be removed for any reason; so long as it is a race or gender "neutral" reason. Black jurors are excluded by challenges that are disguised as race neutral but in fact are pretext or surrogates for race.

The following explanations for striking African Americans were found to be race neutral: style of dress and demeanor(1), participation in church activities (2) , lack of education (3) , unemployment and wearing a beard (4) , residence in a high crime neighborhood and unemployment (5) , residence in same neighborhood as defendant (6) , lack of education and business experience (7), being young or being a social worker (8) , membership in Operation PUSH (9) , membership in the NAACP (10), affiliation with Alabama State University(11) , having a relative that was a felon (12) , having a criminal record,poor body language, eye contact, having incarcerated relative (13) , being a social worker and agreeing with the O.J. Simpson verdict (14) , having low intelligence or marginal literacy(15) , being unemployed, 22 years old and wearing an earring (16), living in same the neighborhood as defendant and exhibited a lack of intellectual capacity (17) . [MORE]

After Investigating Itself Biden's Pentagon Says No Crimes were Committed when a US Drone Strike Murdered 7 Children and 3 Adults (all non-white, unarmed)

From [HERE] A U.S. drone strike in Kabul that killed 10 civilians as the Afghanistan war came to its chaotic end was not the result of criminal negligence among military personnel who conducted the operation, senior defense officials said Wednesday, and no punishment has been recommended following a classified investigation into the incident.

The Aug. 29 attack in Kabul, initially defended by the Defense Department as a “righteous strike,” was carried out after commanders mistakenly believed they had identified an Islamic State operative driving a white sedan packed with explosives. In fact, as military leaders subsequently acknowledged, he was a longtime aid worker for a U.S.-based group hauling water cans for his family. Seven children and three adults died in the strike.

Lt. Gen. Sami D. Said (in photo), the Air Force inspector general tapped to lead an independent probe of how the disastrous strike unfolded, said the strike did not violate rules of international warfare. It did, however, expose what Said called confirmation bias among commanders and analysts who misread drone surveillance of the driver’s movements as threatening to U.S. troops racing to evacuate Afghan allies from Kabul’s airport.

“When you go, ‘That is a suspicious person,’ every activity they take thereafter, you start seeing it through that lens,” Said said.

Days before the botched drone strike, 13 U.S. troops and more than 170 Afghans were killed in an Islamic State suicide bombing. In the aftermath, intelligence suggested another attack on U.S. forces was possible.

“Individuals involved in this strike interviewed during this investigation truly believed at the time that they were targeting an imminent threat to U.S. forces on HKIA,” the general said, referring to Hamid Karzai International Airport.

Said said the rules of engagement used to carry out the drone strike were understandable given the “perceived very high threat to U.S. forces,” but poor communication among those involved meant the intelligence they were interpreting was not subject to the necessary skepticism.

While the report ruled out criminal violations, it left any accountability decisions to commanders, according to Said. “They could read it and go, ‘This is subpar performance’ … and decide to take adverse action,” he said.

U.S. Central Command, which oversaw the operation, did not address questions about what accountability actions may be taken. Navy Capt. Bill Urban, a spokesman for the command, said officials are reviewing the investigation’s findings and recommendations.

The Defense Department initially said no civilians appeared to be killed in the attack. Upon further review of drone video feeds, children could be seen in the area two minutes before the missile was fired, Said said.

Said’s report recommended the military change how it conducts time-sensitive strikes in urban environments. It calls specifically for a review of pre-strike procedures used to determine the risk to civilians, which in this case failed to detect the presence of children. [MORE]

Like Vaccines, Black Skin is a Major Cause of Coincidences; Like the Rittenhouse Trial, a White Judge Seats an Overwhelmingly White Jury for White Men Accused of Murdering a Black Man [Ahmaud Arbery]

From [HERE] A white Georgia judge has acknowledged there appeared to be “intentional discrimination” after a nearly all-white jury was selected for the trial of three white men accused of murdering Ahmaud Arbery, but has seated the jury nonetheless.

A jury comprising 11 white members and one Black member was seated on Wednesday after defense attorneys struck almost all Black jurors from the pool. Opening arguments in the high-profile case are set to begin on Friday.

Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, was killed while out jogging in the coastal town of Satilla Shores, Georgia. None of the men involved were charged until eyewitness footage was made public months later, shortly before the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, prompting widespread protests.

Jury selection for the case has lasted for 11 days, and lawyers were initially given a pool of 48 potential jurors, 12 of whom were Black. But defense lawyers for the accused murderers, Gregory McMichael, 67, his 35-year-old son Travis McMichael and their neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan, 52, struck all but one of them from the final jury.

Prosecutors had urged Judge Timothy Walmsley, a white judge who is overseeing the trial in south Georgia, to reverse the strikes of eight Black potential jurors, whom they said had been intentionally targeted over race. A landmark 1986 US supreme court decision in Batson v Kentucky ruled it unconstitutional for potential jurors to be struck solely based on race or ethnicity.

But Walmsley, while acknowledging the apparent “intentional discrimination”, cited limitations spelled out in the supreme court precedent and pointed to defense lawyers’ justifications, which did not mention race or ethnicity. [MORE]

In FREE RANGE PRISON Disguised as Democracy Black People are Routinely Denied Basic “Rights” of “Citizenship” (like Jury service). FUNKTIONARY explains:

Racism White Supremacy - psychopathic degeneracy. 2) "The local and global power system and dynamic, structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined, which consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of people activity (economics, education, entertainment, labour, law, politics, religion, sex and war); for the ultimate purpose of white genetic survival and to prevent white genetic annihilation on planet earth—a planet upon which the vast majority of people are classified as non-white (Black, Brown, Red and Yellow) by white skinned people, and all of the nonwhite people are genetically dominant (in terms of skin coloration) compared to the genetic recessive white skin people." -Dr. Francis Cress Welsing, MD. Hate and oppression can never reign. Only love is supreme.

Offered a False Choice to be Forcibly Controlled by an Old or Brand New Police Authority, Minn Voters Granted Uncontrollable Agents Irresponsible Power Over Them to Provide a Compulsory Public Service

The NYT reported “In an election season that played out amid a national rise in homicides, Americans across racial and geographic lines rejected the most far-reaching calls for reinventing law enforcement and, in many cases, elected candidates who backed the current policing structure.”

After a white Minneapolis police officer murdered George Floyd in the street last year, protesters marched across the country demanding sweeping change to law enforcement. They demanded change but were offered false choices. So-called “radical” proposals, such as the one in Minneapolis, don’t eliminate police departments and actually replace them with private security. They just create another law enforcement agency with different costumed agents also having government authority who provide mandatory public service.

In reality “Defund the Police” was nothing ever more than a message on a sign, let alone being an actual crafted policy proposed to “legistraitors.” At best it is an ill conceived plan to somehow stop police brutality by giving the police smaller budgets. But having less money can have no effect on the granfalloon of “authority” or the right to forcibly control others. Police with small budgets in poor countries have no problem brutalizing citizens when they deem it necessary to do so. As such, “defund the police” was a reactionary slogan on sign that reflects real anger in the street about police authority and master servant relations between citizens and police.

The Movement for Black Lives’ is no threat to the status quo. In sum, the BLM platform wants;

1) cops to be held liable in civll courts when they harm or execute Blacks and Latinos and

2) the Government to hold cops accountable for crimes committed against Blacks and Latinos and be subjected to discipline or termination in a process they can participate in and

3) to stop cops from interfering with their “rights” and harming and killing them.

No radical stuff here. What could be radical about protesting against conduct that is already illegal and unconstitutional? Pushing back about public servants unlawfully stopping, detaining, harming and murdering people is not extreme or hate speech. It is normal speech. It is stupid clogic for puppeticians, dependent media, so-called counter protesters or even the protesters themselves to label BLM protest or its tame platform as radical.

The real threat to elites from “defund the police” is the fact that police services provided by the government can be summarily replaced by private security. Rather than reducing tax dollars budgeted to cops as a remedy to somehow stop police brutality, “Defund the police” or replacing police 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 people 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. 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. As explained in FUNKTIONARY, “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]

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?”

How did politicians and public servants acquire such powers?

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.” 

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]

Vaccine Injured Speak Out at US Senate Panel on COVID Vaccine Injuries and Deaths while Dependent Media Continues to Make [us] Believe Vax is Safe and it Stops the Spread and Transmission of COVID

THE ELITES AT YOUTUBE, VIMEO AND FAKEBOOK REMOVED THE VIDEO BELOW; VIDEO OF A SENATE HEARING. REAL RADICAL STUFF (please check it out for yourself). SAID ELITES ARE LIARS COMPLICIT IN GENOCIDE

From [HERE] U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Tuesday held a discussion with a panel of experts, including clinicians, scientists, lawyers and patient advocates, and with people injured by COVID vaccines, who gave powerful testimonies about their experiences.

Johnson and the expert panel discussed the importance of early treatment for COVID, healthcare freedom and natural immunity, the impacts of mandates on the American workforce and the economy, COVID vaccine safety concerns and the lack of transparency from federal health agencies in response to his COVID oversight requests.

None of the major mainstream media outlets picked up the event, but Children’s Health Defensehosted Johnson’s live panel discussion on CHD.TV.

Cody Flint [57.20], a 33-year-old airline pilot from Cleveland, Mississippi, was among those who spoke out about their injuries. Flint was healthy and had no underlying health conditions prior to receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

Within 30 minutes of getting his first dose on Feb. 1, Flint developed a severe stabbing headache that later became a burning sensation in the back of his neck.

Two days later, he got into his airplane to do a job and quickly realized something wasn’t right.

Flint explained:

“I was starting to develop tunnel vision and my headache was getting worse. Approximately two hours into my flying I pulled my airplane up to turn around and felt an extreme burst of pressure in my ears. Instantly I was nearly blacked out, dizzy, disoriented, nauseous and shaking uncontrollably. By the grace of God I was able to land my plane without incident, though I do not remember doing this.

“My initial diagnosis of vertigo and a severe panic attack — although I’ve never had a history of either of these — was later replaced with left and right perilymphatic fistula, eustachian tube dysfunction and elevated intracranial pressure due to brain swelling. My condition continued to decline and my doctors told me only an adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaccination or major head trauma could have caused this much spontaneous damage.”

Flint underwent numerous spinal taps and two surgeries to address the fistulas and intracranial pressure. He said he has more questions than answers, does not know if he will ever be able to fly a plane again, lost a year of his life and part of his children’s lives.

“This vaccine has taken my career from me, and the future I have worked so hard to build,” Flint said. “I used all my savings just to pay medical bills just to be able to survive. My family is on the verge of losing everything we have.”

Flint, who is pro-science and pro-vaccine, said the main issue rests squarely on the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIH (National Institutes of Health) refuse to acknowledge that real lives are being absolutely destroyed by this vaccine.

“The federal government has yet to help a single one of the vaccine-injured,” Flint said. “It was my understanding the federal government accepted the responsibility of helping people injured by vaccines, considering they gave pharmaceutical companies fully legal immunity from people like me.”

Flint said it is time for the government to stop silencing vaccine injuries like his, and it is unconscionable for these agencies not to help.

​​Lt. Col. Theresa Long [101:00], a U.S. Army surgeon, said she believes the COVID vaccine is a greater threat to a soldier’s health and military readiness than the virus itself.

“Over 200,000 service members have rejected the vaccine yet the military is pressing forward without regard to the damage to the morale and readiness to process these soldiers out,” Long said. “We have never lost 200,000 soldiers on the battlefield in a few months. Taking soldiers out of uniform has the same impact on readiness as losing them on the battlefield.”

Long explained she tried to get senior leadership within the military to inform military members of the risks of vaccines, as required by informed consent.

Since NYC Declared Racism a Public Health Crisis DoGooder Liberals Haven't Identified a Single Racist [knowing who is racist is necessary to eliminate Racism, which is conducted mostly thru deception]

From [HERE] The New York City Board of Health declared racism a public health crisis Monday and passed a resolution that recognizes the impact racism has had on people of color. 

The board called on the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to take steps that will ensure a “racially just recovery” from the coronavirus pandemic.

“The pandemic magnified inequities, leading to suffering disproportionately borne by communities of color,” New York City Health Commissioner Dave Chokshi said on Twitter Monday. 

Chokshi’s post also included a graphic that outlined some of the directives tied to the resolution, which includes making recommendations to the newly established mayoral Racial Justice Commission and forming a “data for equity” group, designed to ensure the department interprets health data through an “anti-racism equity lens” and teaches fellow departments how to do the same. 

Thus far apparently, none of the do-gooder and self-righteous, white liberals involved in the declaration have come forward to identify a single racist suspect (white person) afflicted by the wide spread “mind virus.” In a system of racism white supremacy, a system that most white people (liberal or conservative) participate in, “somebody’s got to be a racist.”

The Board of Health oversees the health code, which is enforced by the city’s health department. The resolution builds on a statement made by the health department in June 2020 amid nationwide protests against police brutality and systemic racism. [MORE]

According to Neely Fuller, identifying racists is an important step, toward counter-acting and eliminating Racism and making possible the establishment of justice.

White supremacy/racism is carried out through violence and/or deception. So, it is constructive when white people reveal to us who is white supremacist - as it can be difficult for non-white people to determine who is a racist, and who is not. Remember, being white supremacist has nothing to do with membership in some clownish organization and there are differing ways to practice white supremacy. Additionally, no racist is necessarily racist all the time or practices racism all the time. A “White Supremacist” is a white person (a racist) who practices racism against non-whites. Being a white supremacist has nothing to do with income, title, or status. It does not mean a white person belongs to the KKK, the Aryan Nation, or is covered with Nazi tattoos. A white supremacist can be a soccer mom, a businessman, or a US Senator if they are practicing racism against non-whites. [MORE] Racism is deception. As such, it is difficult for non-white people to "always determine who is a racist, and who is not - as it is impossible to monitor (or judge) all the individual actions and words of any white person at all times."

Accordingly, people who classify themselves as White, who wish to be taken seriously, and who are righteous and responsible, will only talk about ending White Supremacy (Racism), replacing it with Justice and engage in constructive activities such as outing racists who are on the down low. Otherwise by keeping quiet they are participants in RWS, maintaining it through deception and are our permanent enemies. According to FUNKTIONARY:

racist suspect - any white person who is capable of practicing racism against non-whites. In general, if a Caucasian is able to be a Racist (White Supremacist), he or she may be one and should be presumed to be racist. According to Neely Fuller, as long as white supremacy exists, every person classified as 'white' should be suspected of being Racist (White Supremacist). Since all whites are able to practice racism in a white supremacy system if they choose to do so, it is correct (and logical) to use the term "racist suspects" to identify whites who do not openly function as white supremacists (racists). Caucasians who do nothing to oppose white supremacy are its silent partners benefiting from this worldwide social political economic arrangement of domination. Those who do nothing about it or cooperate with it are also racist/white supremacist. Noted psychiatrist, Dr. Francis Cress Welsing, has stated, "people who classify themselves as White, who wish to be taken seriously, and who are righteous and responsible, will only talk about ending White Supremacy (Racism) and replacing it with Justice."