[Its Not About Good/Bad Cops. “Authority" itself is Abuse] Joliet Police Union Fires Latino Sgt Who Revealed Video of Cops Sticking a Baton into a Handcuffed Black Man's Mouth in Custodial Death

As TheFreeThoughtProject reports on a regular basis, cops who point out corruption in their department and attempt to prevent violence, often times find themselves on the receiving end of this justice system — persecuted for doing the right thing. This retaliation against cops for exposing corruption within their departments, completely destroys the “one bad apple” theory. If the entire department moves to snub out a cop for doing the right thing, is this “one bad apple”?

Joliet police Sgt. Javier Esqueda refused to stay silent about the alleged criminal acts of his fellow cops and risked his career and now his freedom to shine light into darkness. He watched a video of his fellow officers appear to suffocate a man who later died and decided that enough was enough. His fellow officers held down Eric Lurry as he was handcuffed, cut off his breath, hit him, and shoved a baton in his mouth just before Lurry died.

Lurry, a 37 yr old Black man, was taken into custody during a drug arrest in January 2020. The county coroner's office called his death an accidental drug overdose, and local prosecutors said his death wasn't the result of officers' actions.

In video footage from a squad car camera obtained by WBBM-TV, a Joliet police sergeant, identified by the station as Doug May, is seen slapping Lurry's face while he was handcuffed in the back seat of the car. "Wake up, bitch," May says.

May then appears to pinch Lurry's nose closed for a minute and 38 seconds, WBBM-TV reports. Joliet police Sergeant Javier Esqueda, a training officer, told the station Lurry may have been chewing on a bag of drugs earlier in the video footage and officers wanted him to open his mouth.

"That's been written in the law for a couple years you can't do that anymore to try to get him to cough up any kind of drugs in their system," Esqueda told WBBM-TV in an interview broadcast last July.

Later, another officer is seen on the squad car video inserting a baton into Lurry's open mouth. Lurry is eventually taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead hours after his arrival. [MORE]

For exposing the crimes of his fellow cops, Esqueda was arrested and subsequently indicted and charged on four counts of official misconduct for accessing a video of alleged criminal activity within his own department. He now faces the possibility of 20 years behind bars for doing the right thing.

Surely, no one in Esqueda’s department or union would go along with such an atrocity, right? Wrong. According to a report in USA Today this week, members of the Joliet Police Officer’s Association on Wednesday voted 35-1 to expel Esqueda.

As TFTP reports on a regular basis, cops who point out corruption in their department and attempt to prevent violence, often times find themselves on the receiving end of this justice system — persecuted for doing the right thing. This retaliation against cops for exposing corruption within their departments, completely destroys the “one bad apple” theory. If the entire department moves to snub out a cop for doing the right thing, is this “one bad apple”?

Joliet police Sgt. Javier Esqueda is a good cop. We can say this with certainty because he proved it by refusing to stay silent about the alleged criminal acts of his fellow cops and risked his career and now his freedom to shine light into darkness. He watched a video of his fellow officers appear to suffocate a man who later died and decided that enough was enough. His fellow officers held down Eric Lurry as he was handcuffed, cut off his breath, hit him, and shoved a baton in his mouth just before Lurry died.

For exposing the crimes of his fellow cops, Esqueda was arrested and subsequently indicted and charged on four counts of official misconduct for accessing a video of alleged criminal activity within his own department. He now faces the possibility of 20 years behind bars for doing the right thing.

Surely, no one in Esqueda’s department or union would go along with such an atrocity, right? Wrong. According to a report in USA Today this week, members of the Joliet Police Officer’s Association on Wednesday voted 35-1 to expel Esqueda.

ACLU Details California’s War on [mostly Black] Homeless People as City Governments Impose Excessive Fines for things like Sitting in a Park for a Few Minutes and Forcibly Banish Them to Remote Areas

WASHINGTON DC 10/21. Photo is © courtesy of the undeceiver vincent brown.

From [IndyBay] The plight of people who are unhoused has reached horrific proportions in California, but instead of embarking on a resurgence of affordable housing, communities have instead instituted policies and regulations that target unhoused people by harassing, citing, segregating, banishing, and even imprisoning them.

Today, the ACLU Foundations of Northern California, Southern California, and San Diego & Imperial Counties released a comprehensive new report, “Outside the Law: The Legal War Against Unhoused People.”

The report spotlights the discriminatory tactics that cities throughout California have instituted to target unhoused people, ignoring the bedrock principle of equal treatment under the law. It calls upon communities to amend anti-discrimination laws to include unhoused people and acknowledge their fundamental human rights.

“Until California unequivocally prohibits discrimination against unhoused people as unlawful,” said Eve Garrow, senior policy analyst and advocate at the ACLU SoCal, “civil rights advocates will never be able to fully protect their rights and will expend considerable resources fighting never-ending battles.”

The report finds that:

* Discrimination against unhoused people is spreading and becoming more commonplace, especially due to local governments exploiting legal loopholes and sharing their tactics with one another.
* Municipalities are increasingly imposing fines and fees — even for sitting in a public park for only a few minutes — far beyond an unhoused person’s ability to pay.
* Cities are targeting not just unhoused people, but also the humanitarian organizations that provide critical aid such as food, water, clothing, and blankets.
* Unhoused people are being forcibly banished to remote areas, including harsh desert landscapes, outside city borders, and far from lifesaving resources such as water, food, and health care.

“I feel targeted by the sheriff deputies,” said Gary Foss, who was forced out of Lancaster and into the Mojave Desert. “We’re not bad people. Being homeless means you’re poor. It doesn’t mean that you’re out here because that’s what you want to do.”

The report notes that discrimination against unhoused people intersects with other forms of discrimination. A September 2020 report by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area shows that, across California, Black adults are far more likely than their white counterparts to be cited for local anti-homeless infractions.

The ordinances and regulations adopted by cities are often purposely vague as to allow for harassment. An example cited in the report is from the city of Novato where camping was banned in city parks, open spaces, within 50 feet of “critical infrastructure,” etc. When asked where unhoused people could exist, the city manager answered, “Anywhere it’s not illegal would be legal.”

Other California cities whose policies and practices against unhoused people are cited in the report include Chico, Laguna Beach, Lancaster, Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Ana, and Santa Cruz.

“Our state is at an inflection point where years of disinvestment, as well as racialized wealth stratification and policing, are forming the perfect storm to perpetuate ongoing harm to our most vulnerable populations,” said Brandon Greene, racial and economic justice director at the ACLU NorCal. “The state must step in to ensure that animus towards the unhoused does not continue to be fodder for thinly veiled banishment from city centers.”

Read the report here: https://aclusocal.org/outside-the-law

They Don’t Really Want You. Authorities Seek Living Human Resources, Walking Fodder: Black Man who Once Served in the Air Force, Now Sleeps on a DC Park Bench

Tomás Banks tells me this on a recent afternoon as we sit outside a restaurant next to McPherson Square. On the table between us, he has placed proof of his service: a sheet of paper that lists when he joined the military, Oct. 7, 1985, and what he accomplished while actively serving for four years before receiving an honorable discharge. It describes him as working as a dental assistant specialist and earning an outstanding unit award and Good Conduct Medal.

“I loved the military,” says Banks, who was born in D.C. and grew up in Hawaii. He talks excitedly about the dental work he did while in the Air Force and the jobs he held after his service ended. He describes working in retail, climbing his way up to managerial positions for several companies, and traveling to work in stores in California, Nevada, New York and eventually the D.C. region. [MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Soldiers - tools (living human resources—walking fodder); corporate mercenaries used by the legistraitors, wordsymthologists, journalists, and politicians to impose the will of their corporate masters and imperialistic soothsayers (i.e., crimethinc). [more]

Duty - a dirty four letter word. 2) a concept of slaves; a tool of doggy. 3) external motivations and sanctions from an alleged or purported “authority.” 4) a word used to excuse our unqualified delight in hurting others. when duty calls the sheet falls. (see: doggy, humanslaves, orderlies, authorities & draft).

Is $5M Enough for Muhammad Muhaymin's Fam? Phoenix Cops Murdered Black Man in Public, Snapped his Handcuffed Arms Over his Head, Tore Ligaments and Sat on his Head/Held Him Down, Suffocating Him

From [HERE] The Phoenix City Council could soon approve a multimillion-dollar settlement of a wrongful death and disability lawsuit against the city and a group of police officers. 

The 2017 case of a Black man who died after being arrested on an old warrant outside the Maryvale Community Center is scheduled to go to trial in April.

On January 4th, 2017, Muhammad Muhaymin Jr. was stopped by police for attempting to use a public restroom accompanied by his service dog, a chihuahua named Chiquita. Muhammad was non-violent and non-confrontational, yet at least four officers from the Phoenix Police Department ripped his dog from his arms, got on top of him, seriously injured him, and finally choked him to death as he cried out “I can’t breathe!”.

Video evidence of the incident shows the officers torturing Muhammad. They snapped his handcuffed arms over his head—tearing ligaments and causing extraordinary pain. They suffocated him, sitting on his head and holding him down while he begged them to stop until his body grew limp and he died pressed into the concrete. [MORE]

The Phoenix Police Department officers’ own body cam footage clearly shows their use of excessive and deadly force on Mohammad. Two medical examiners, including a Maricopa County Medical Examiner, ruled Muhammad’s death a homicide.

Court records say Muhammad Muhaymin died after multiple police officers allegedly twice put their weight on his body, including after Muhaymin was restrained.

On Nov. 17, the Phoenix City Council will weigh whether to pay $5 million to settle a lawsuit by Muhaymin’s sister.

COPS SEIZED UPON THE HOMELESS BLACK MAN B/C HE WAS TRYING TO USE THE BATHROOM AT A COMMUNITY CENTER AND HE HAD HIS SMALL DOG W/HIM. AFTER GRANTING HIM PERMISSION TO USE THE TOILET THEY ARRESTED HIM FOR HAVING AN OUTSTANDING MISDEMEANOR WARRANT FOR MARIJUANA PIPE POSSESSION (they discovered the warrant while waiting for him to urinate). Said arrest may seem petty and therefore avoidable but it is a most necessary consequence of having a legal system based on physical coercion (yes meaning violence) and obedience to authority. Every law or order from authorities is a command backed by the threat of violence against those who do not comply. As explained by Huemer, “without the threat of violence, lawbreakers could simply choose not to suffer punishment. . . Commands are often enforced with threats to issue further commands, yet that cannot be all there is to it. At the end of the chain must come a threat that the violator literally cannot defy. 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.”

That anchor is provided by physical force. Even the threat of imprisonment requires enforcement: how can the state ensure that the criminal goes to the prison? The answer lies in coercion, involving 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 pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it.

Thus, the legal system is founded on intentional, harmful coercion. “ [MORE] SAID SYSTEM CAN BE DESCRIBED AS FREE RANGE SLAVERY OR A FREE RANGE PRISON OR A SYSTEM OF FALSE CHOICES AND COERCION WHEREIN INDIVIDUALS MUST EITHER OBEY AUTHORITY OR GO TO JAIL. Such is the nature of a system of “political authority” - perhaps the most dangerous superstition or form of evil that has ever existed. ENJOY YOUR ILLUSIONS UNTIL YOU END UP LIKE Muhammad Muhaymin.

Lawyer David Chami represents Muhaymin’s estate. He said how Phoenix police treat homeless and disabled people is under review by the U.S. Justice Department.

“Mr. Muhaymin had both. He was transient and he also had mental health issues,” said Chami.

Court records say Muhaymin had PTSD, claustrophobia and schizophrenia. A payout by the city would benefit Muhaymin’s children, said Chami.

“One of them is now 15 years old. She was 10 years old when her father died,” he said.

The Arizona Council on American-Islamic Relations released a statement on the potential settlement.

“Muhammad Muhaymin’s murder is a painful reminder that police brutality, anti Blackness and Islamophobia leaves no city untouched. The settlement sounds just, but there’s no amount of money that will ever bring Mr. Muhaymin back to his family. People don’t just want the money, people want to see the system change,” wrote Azza Abuseif, executive director.

Isiah Brown files $26 Million Lawsuit Against Spotsylvania County (VA) Cops: Unarmed Black Man Posing No Threat Shot 8 times by a Liar White Cop who Claimed he Mistook a Phone for a Gun

From [HERE] Isiah Brown, who was shot eight times by police earlier this year in Virginia, is filing a lawsuit for $26.35 million against two officers involved in the shooting.

On April 21, Brown was on the street near his mother's home, speaking to a 911 dispatcher on the phone when Spotsylvania County Sheriff’s Deputy David Turbyfill drove up, exited his car and shot Brown several times, according to the lawsuit.

Earlier that night, at the home, a disagreement ensued, 911 was called and Turbyfill was dispatched to address the dispute, the lawsuit states.

In a portion of the 911 call released by police, Turbyfill seems to have thought that Brown had a gun. The officer is heard yelling at Brown to drop a gun on the recording. Brown was unarmed, according to the Virginia State Police, which investigated the incident.

Brown's attorney states that his client was holding a phone at the time of the shooting and obeyed all police and dispatcher commands. In a statement, Sheriff Roger Harris said that he then ordered the deputy to begin providing first aid, and later contacted the Virginia State Police Bureau of Criminal to investigate the incident.

"Today we filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Isiah Brown against Spotsylvania County Police Chief Roger Harris and Deputy David Turbyfill for their roles in the totally unnecessary shooting incident involving Mr. Brown that occurred April 21," said Brown's attorney David Haynes of The Cochran Firm in a statement to ABC News.

The lawsuit states that Turbyfill was negligent, committed battery and used excessive force during the incident. Turbyfill's lawyer, Mark Bong, declined ABC News' request for comment on the lawsuit.

Turbyfill was also charged with felony reckless handling of a firearm, according to a special grand jury indictment in July. Turbyfill had been placed on administrative duties since the shooting, according to a past statement from the Spotsylvania Sheriff’s office.

The county sheriff is also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, and is stated to have responsibility for the actions by directing and supervising Turbyfill's deputies.

Haynes said that the shooting caused life-altering injuries for Brown, which will "leave him with permanent damage for the rest of his life."

"Isiah Brown's life will never be the same after his tragic encounter with David Turbyfill," Haynes said. "Our hope is that this lawsuit will provide a measure of justice for Mr. Brown and force the Spotsylvania Police Department to enhance their training and update their policies and procedures so that this never happens to another person."

The Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Amended Complaint in Andrew Brown’s Suit Seeking $31M Alleges Deputy ‘Altered’ Service Weapon after Pasquotank County Cops Shot Him to Death

From [HERE] The administrator of the estate of Andrew Brown Jr. — the man shot and killed by authorities in April as he attempted to drive away from a house where a search warrant was being served — has amended a lawsuit against the Pasquotank County deputies who killed Brown.

The amended complaint about the wrongful death suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina Northern Division, contains a new allegation that one of the deputies who shot at Brown “altered” his gun” after the shooting.

The lawsuit seeks $31 million in damages.

The lawsuit alleges excessive force by personnel from the Pasquotank County Sheriff’s Office. Authorities tried to serve search and arrest warrants at a home on Perry Street in Elizabeth City on April 21. As Brown was driving away, they fired fatally shot him. No one was criminally charged in Brown’s death, as the county district attorney said the deputies had a reasonable belief they could be in danger due to Brown’s moving car.

According to the amended complaint, after the fatal shooting, authorities searched Brown’s home on Perry Street.

During the search, the lawsuit alleges that one of the deputies that fired his weapon asked a Kitty Hawk police detective — who was also at the scene — to shine his flashlight on him while in a dark room inside Brown’s house. The document says the deputy wanted to count the remaining rounds in the magazine of his firearm.

In May, the lawsuit says the detective said the deputy was stressed about how many times he shot at Brown’s vehicle.

Days before the detective made that statement, the deputy told the State Bureau of Investigation that he removed the magazine from his gun to check the number of bullets while at the house, they also removed all the bullets from his magazine while on the way back to the sheriff’s office. The weapon was then turned over to investigators as evidence in the fatal shooting probe.

The lawsuit alleges the deputy only mentioned this information after it was shown on another person’s body camera footage that he removed the magazine while inside the house.

The deputy said he only wanted to count the number of rounds left, the lawsuit says.

In May, District Attorney Andrew Womble cleared the officers involved in shooting Brown on April 21. But now that it’s a federal case, the attorneys for his family will have the power of discovery and subpoena.

A copy of body camera footage has not been released to the public, however, attorneys and Brown’s family were able to see about 19 minutes of footage.

Seven deputies were initially put on leave after the fatal shooting, with four returning back to work shortly after. The three deputies who shot at Brown were not fired but were disciplined and retrained. One of them resigned at the end of June.

The amended complaint drops four defendants — sheriff’s office employees also involved in the incident, and also the Dare County sheriff — from the lawsuit, as well.

The defendants named in the updated complaint are Sheriff Tommy Wooten II, Investigator Daniel Meads, Deputy Robert Morgan, Cpl. Aaron Lewellyn, and Western Surety Bonding Company. The final defendant is the company that issued a $15,000 bond that covered damages resulting from the incident on April 21.

In addition to the amended complaint, on Nov. 5, a judge denied motions made by the defendants to dismiss the lawsuit.

There's a big disparity in how law enforcement treats BLM protesters and far-right gangs: Former FBI agent

From [HERE] New details have emerged regarding a list of people law enforcement believed to be involved in Black Lives Matter protests last year. Documents recently obtained by the Wisconsin Examiner show that, despite earlier statements, the list was indeed shared with members of the Kenosha Police Department (KPD). The revelations raise questions about the extensive surveillance which targeted 2020's anti-police-brutality movement.

Although its creation date remains unclear, the list was used as early as mid-July last year. Protests in Milwaukee began around May 29, following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police on May 25. Wauwatosa's protests didn't begin until early June. Originally created by Dominick Ratkowski, a crime analyst for the Wauwatosa Police Department (WPD), the list was shared with numerous local and federal agencies throughout southeastern Wisconsin. Officially, WPD acknowledges that it was shared with the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

However, internal emails gleaned through ongoing lawsuits show Ratkowski's sharing of the list was prolific. A day prior to Wauwatosa's curfew last October, Ratkowski referred to the document as a "target list" in an email. The FBI was also actively gathering information from agencies and residents in Wisconsin all summer.

Since the list was released earlier this year, WPD has shied from calling it a protester list. WPD spokespeople stated the list includes potential witnesses, victims, or suspects "that were involved with protesting or the activities surrounding the protests last summer."

However, it also includes attorneys Kimberley Motley and Deja Vishny. The pair have represented the families of people killed by former Wauwatosa officer Joseph Mensah in officer-involved shootings, as well as many protesters. The list also includes a Wisconsin Examiner journalist, vast swaths of the Milwaukee area's activist community across numerous organizations and elected officials. The earliest known emails discussing the list pre-date Mensah being suspended with pay following public pressure on the suburb. This was one of the first results of Wauwatosa's protests, which were motivated by a trio of shootings involving Mensah from 2015 to 2020. Mensah resigned from WPD in late 2020, and now works as a detective at Waukesha County Sheriff's Department.

Intel on over 200 people is documented in the list. From names to notes about criminal records and places protesters used for meetings to social media accounts, car make and model details, addresses, phone numbers, and pictures. Motley's entry labeled her as an attorney, and the Wisconsin Examiner's main Facebook page was also cataloged.

A report by TMJ4 found that 74.3% of those on the list have never been charged with a misdemeanor or felony. A 2020 University of Connecticut study found that at least 96% of Black Lives Matter protests nationwide last year were peaceful.

Fed Appeals CT Halts Biden’s Irrational Vaccine Mandate [Vax Doesn’t Prevent COVID from Spreading and it Subjects Healthy People to Unnecessary Medical Treatment Solely to Assuage Manufactured Fears]

From [HERE] A federal appeals court in New Orleans has halted the Biden administration’s vaccine or testing requirement for private businesses, delivering another political setback to one of the White House’s signature public health policies.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, issued the ruling Friday, after temporarily halting the mandate last weekend in response to lawsuits filed by Republican-aligned businesses and legal groups.

Calling the requirement a “mandate,” the court said the rule, instituted through the Labor Department, “grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority,” according to the opinion, written by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt and joined by Judges Edith H. Jones and Stuart Kyle Duncan.

“Rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-size fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly ‘grave danger’ the Mandate purports to address,” they wrote.

They said they believed that the ruling imposed a financial burden on businesses and potentially violated the commerce clause of the Constitution.

“The Mandate imposes a financial burden upon them by deputizing their participation in OSHA’s regulatory scheme, exposes them to severe financial risk if they refuse or fail to comply, and threatens to decimate their workforces (and business prospects) by forcing unwilling employees to take their shots, take their tests, or hit the road,” they wrote.

The vaccine mandate was released by the Biden administration last week after weeks of deliberation. It says private employers with more than 100 employees must require staff to get vaccinated — or face weekly testing and mandatory masking. Workers who don’t work on-site or with others are able to be exempted.

Even though the testing option makes it softer than many of the requirements instituted by private companies and state and municipal governments, it has faced strong blowback.

The court halted the policy, scheduled to take effect Jan. 4, and ordered the Occupational Safety and Health Administration not to take further steps to implement or enforce the mandate. It is not clear whether the 5th Circuit will determine the fate of the mandate. The Biden administration had asked the 5th Circuit to hold off on ruling until a judicial lottery can take place next week to consolidate several challenges to the mandate before a single appeals court. [MORE]

Judge OKs $626 Million Settlement to Mostly Black Flint Residents After Government Authorities Intentionally Poisoned its Water

From [HERE] A judge on Wednesday approved a $626 million deal to settle lawsuits filed by Flint residents who found their tap water contaminated by lead following disastrous decisions to switch the city’s water source and a failure to swiftly acknowledge the problem.

Most of the money — $600 million — is coming from the state of Michigan, which was accused of repeatedly overlooking the risks of using the Flint River without properly treating the water.

“The settlement reached here is a remarkable achievement for many reasons, not the least of which is that it sets forth a comprehensive compensation program and timeline that is consistent for every qualifying participant,” U.S. District Judge Judith Levy said in a 178-page opinion.

Attorneys are seeking as much as $200 million in legal fees from the overall settlement. Levy left that issue for another day.

The deal makes money available to Flint children who were exposed to the water, adults who can show an injury, certain business owners and anyone who paid water bills. About 80 percent of what’s left after legal fees is earmarked for children.

“This is a historic and momentous day for the residents of Flint, who will finally begin to see justice served,” said Ted Leopold, one of the lead attorneys in the litigation.

Corey Stern, another key lawyer in the case, said he represented “many brave kids who did not deserve the tragedy put on them.”

In a money-saving move, Flint managers appointed by then-Gov. Rick Snyder and regulators in his administration allowed the city to use the Flint River in 2014-15 while another pipeline was being built from Lake Huron. But the river water wasn’t treated to reduce corrosion. Lead in old pipes broke off and flowed to homes as a result.

There is no safe level of lead. It can harm a child’s brain development and cause attention and behavior problems.

Flint switched back to a Detroit regional water agency in fall 2015 after Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha publicly reported elevated lead levels in children.

Some critics said the disaster in the predominantly Black city was an example of environmental racism.

Flint is paying $20 million toward the settlement, while McLaren Health is paying $5 million and an engineering firm, Rowe Professional Services, is paying $1.25 million. Lawsuits still are pending against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, McLaren and other engineering firms.

The deal was announced in August 2020 by Attorney General Dana Nessel and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, both Democrats, who were elected in 2018 while the litigation was in state and federal courts.

The judge said it was “remarkable” that more than half of Flint’s 81,000 residents have signed up for a share of the settlement. It’s not clear just how much each child will receive. A claims process is next with families required to show records, such as blood tests or neurological results, and other evidence of injury.

Flint resident Melissa Mays, a 43-year-old social worker, said her three sons have had medical problems and learning challenges due to lead.

“Hopefully it’ll be enough to help kids with tutors and getting the medical care they need to help them recover from this,” Mays said. “A lot of this isn’t covered by insurance. These additional needs, they cost money.”

She considers the settlement a “win.”

“We’ve made history,” Mays said, “and hopefully it sets a precedent to maybe don’t poison people. It costs more in the long run.”

The Flint saga isn’t over. Nine people, including Snyder, have been charged with crimes. They’ve pleaded not guilty and their cases are pending.

The state last week agreed to pay $300,000 to the former head of the drinking water division. An arbitrator said Liane Shekter Smith was wrongly fired for what happened in Flint.

NC Gov Pardons Montoyae Dontae Sharpe, a Black Man Wrongfully Imprisoned 24 Years for the Murder of a White Man Based on a Key Witness who “entirely made up” her testimony

From [HERE] North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper on Friday pardoned a man who spent 24 years behind bars for a murder he has long said he did not commit.

Cooper's pardon of innocence allows Dontae Sharpe to apply for compensation up to $750,000 for his wrongful conviction.

"Mr. Sharpe and others who have been wrongly convicted deserve to have that injustice fully and publicly acknowledged," the governor said in a statement announcing he had pardoned the man after a careful review of the case.

In 1995, Sharpe was given a life sentence at age 19 for the first-degree murder of 33-year-old George Radcliffe, whom he was accused of killing a year earlier during a drug deal. Sharpe had maintained his innocence throughout and said in a 2019 interview that his faith and knowledge he was innocent guided his refusal to accept offers of a lighter sentence in exchange for a guilty plea.

At a virtual news conference Friday just an hour after Cooper's announcement, Sharpe said he was in disbelief when his lawyer called him with the news. He said he was still processing it and also was thinking of those who had taken to the streets and held vigils on his behalf.

"I'm still in a haze kind of," Sharpe said. "When you're dealing with us human beings, it can go any way, yes and no. I didn't know what to expect. I was believing for a pardon."

The government's case against Sharpe relied in part on testimony from a 15-year-old girl at the time who claimed she saw Sharpe kill Radcliffe but later recanted and said she wasn't present at the time of the shooting. She later said her claims were made up, based on what investigators told her.

Sharpe was unsuccessful in his repeated efforts for a new trial until a former state medical examiner testified that the state's theory of the shooting was not medically or scientifically possible. A judge subsequently ordered more evidence to be heard. Sharpe was released from prison in August 2019 after the prosecutor said the state wouldn't pursue a retrial.

The NAACP had long pushed for Sharpe's release over the years and urged Cooper to issue a pardon of innocence. In recent months, racial justice groups have demanded the governor grant Sharpe the clemency needed in order to apply for compensation for his wrongful conviction. They held vigils in front of Cooper's state residence in downtown Raleigh for several weeks.

The Rev. Anthony Spearman, a longtime North Carolina NAACP leader who was among those who participated in a vigil outside the Governor's Mansion pushing for a pardon, said, "This should have happened a long time ago."

Sharpe thanked Cooper but called out a criminal justice system he considers "corrupt." He said he planned to celebrate Friday evening with his family and will continue to press for other inmates to receive justice.

"My freedom is still incomplete as long as there's still people going to prison wrongfully, if there's still people in prison wrongfully and there's still people that are waiting on pardons," he said.

Back Peddling Prosecutors Learn the Hard Way that Most White People Choose the Charade of White Supremacy Over a System of Justice, So They Will Ask to Add Some Lesser Charges Against Kyle Rittenhouse

A MORAL ILLUSION WITH STUPID COSTUMES. RACIST SUSPECT FUDDY DUDDY JUDGE READING A COOKIE MAGAZINE FROM THE BENCH LETS THE WORLD KNOW WHOSE TEAMS HE’S ON.

From [HERE] and [HERE] A prosecutor in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse angered the judge Wednesday when he referred to the teenager’s silence after his arrest and then asked questions related to a video in which Rittenhouse discussed wanting to shoot shoplifters.

Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed jurors before criticizing Kenosha Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger for the remarks, telling him at one point, “Don’t get brazen with me.”

The Washington Post, the Associated Press and Slate are among the publications with coverage.

The Washington Post described Schroeder’s scolding as a “dramatic rebuke” of the assistant district attorney during the trial of Rittenhouse for shooting three people, two of them fatally, at racial justice demonstrations in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020.

According to the Washington Post, some experts viewed the trial “as a rocky prosecution for Binger, who was undercut by his own witnesses, made strategic missteps, and has struggled with inconvenient facts and a high legal bar to prove Rittenhouse’s guilt.”

Slate has details on the line of questioning that spurred the defense to request a mistrial with no opportunity for retrial.

In the remarks about Rittenhouse’s silence, Binger said on cross-examination of Rittenhouse, “Since Aug. 25, 2020, this is the first time that you have told your story.” That prompted an objection, which was sustained.

Later, Binger asked a similar question. After other versions of the story unfolded after the incident, Binger asked Rittenhouse, “Now, you are telling us your side of the story, correct?”

After jurors left the courtroom, Schroeder warned Binger that his questioning was “right on the borderline” and said it is “a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence.”

The other incident concerned a video in which Rittenhouse talked about wanting to shoot shoplifters. Schroeder had said before the trial he was inclined to ban the video as inadmissible propensity evidence, but he could reassess that decision at trial.

Binger appeared to reference the video when he asked Rittenhouse, “You have previously indicated that you wished you had your AR-15 to protect someone’s property, correct?”

After jurors left the courtroom, Schroeder again scolded Binger, who responded that Schroeder had “left the door open” for reconsideration.

“For me, not for you!” Schroeder said. “You should have come and asked for reconsideration!” As Binger kept arguing, Schroeder then told him, “Don’t get brazen with me.”

Dan Adams, a defense attorney and former prosecutor in Milwaukee, told the Washington Post that the incident was part of a difficult case for the prosecution, whose shooting witnesses sometimes bolstered Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim. Among them was Gaige Grosskreutz, the man shot and wounded by Rittenhouse.

Grosskreutz testified that he approached Rittenhouse with a gun and pointed it at him before Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz in the arm.

“That was the most explosive testimony in the whole trial,” Adams told the Washington Post. “Binger introduced … witnesses that could have easily been introduced in the defense’s case. It was unclear what the strategic value of those witnesses were.”

Paul Bucher, a defense attorney and former district attorney in Wisconsin, told the Washington Post that the prosecution also erred by overcharging the case.

Rittenhouse was charged with several offenses, including intentional, reckless and attempted homicide; reckless endangerment; a curfew violation; and possession of a firearm as a minor. Schroeder dismissed the curfew violation charge Tuesday.

Rittenhouse’s self-defense argument is another challenge for the prosecution. After the issue is raised, Wisconsin law switches the burden to the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the Washington Post.

Rittenhouse had testified that the first man he shot had put his hand on Rittenhouse’s rifle and the second hit him with a skateboard, according to prior coverage by the Associated Press. Grosskreutz was the third man shot by Rittenhouse. As Rittenhouse began to testify about the shootings, he broke down on the stand and started sobbing.

Prosecutors plan to seek lesser versions on some charges, NPR reports. A Wisconsin defense lawyer, Julius Kim, told NPR why he thinks the prosecution will take that step.

“I think the request for lesser included charges reflects an acknowledgement that their case might not be as strong with regard to the original charges, and that at this point, they’re willing to give up the prospect of life imprisonment for the defendant in exchange for obtaining convictions on something,” Kim told NPR.

Closing arguments in the case are scheduled for Monday.

White Attorney in Arbery Case Objects to the Presence of Too Many Black Pastors in a Courtroom w/All White: Jury, Judge, Attorneys, Clerks, Staff, Cops in a Trial for Whites who Murdered a Black Man

WHITE AS A KKK PICNIC [all by coincidence, all the time]. From [HERE] A defense attorney in the trial for the killing of Ahmaud Arbery took issue Thursday with the courtroom presence of the Rev. Al Sharpton, a nationally known civil rights leader, saying it was “intimidating” to bring in “high-profile members of the African American community.”

“We don’t want any more Black pastors coming in here” to sit with Arbery’s family, Kevin Gough said, saying it amounted to an attempt to influence the jury. He later seemed to launch into a comparison, saying, “If a bunch of folks came in here dressed like Colonel Sanders with white masks sitting in the back, that would be — "

The judge cut him off.

Judge Timothy Walmsley dismissed Gough’s complaint, saying that Sharpton did not cause a disruption and that he would not exclude respectful members of the public.

“Let’s not overstate what’s going on here, Mr. Gough,” Walmsley said.

Race has been at the center of public discussion about the case, in which three White men have been charged with murder for the February 2020 death of Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man. Defense attorneys have pushed back on characterizations of their clients as racist vigilantes who hunted down Arbery, saying they were concerned citizens who wanted to help neighbors rattled by break-ins and thefts. They are seeking to show that the defendants had grounds to conduct a “citizen’s arrest.”

Concerns about race were further amplified during jury selection for the trial, which resulted in one Black man and 11 White people selected to hear the case.

Appearing in court Friday after his “Black pastor” objection drew criticism, Gough offered his “apologies to anyone who might have inadvertently been offended.” He said that if his statements earlier were “overly broad," he would follow up with a more specific request putting his concerns into “proper context.”

Sharpton said he attended the trial on Wednesday at the invitation of Arbery’s parents and conducted a prayer vigil with them outside of the courthouse in Brunswick, Ga.

“The arrogant insensitivity of attorney Kevin Gough in asking a judge to bar me or any minister of the family’s choice underscores the disregard for the value of the human life lost and the grieving of a family in need [of]spiritual and community support,” Sharpton said in the statement. “This is pouring salt into their wounds.”

In a further rebuke Friday, Sharpton called for “clergy across ecumenical lines” to meet him next Thursday outside Glynn County courthouse, along with Arbery’s parents and their lawyers.

Wanda Cooper-Jones, Arbery’s mother, called Gough’s objections “disturbing” in an interview with The Post. “When I heard defense attorney Gough say that, it was unreal,” she said. “But sitting in the courtroom day after day, the things that I hear are just unreal as well. So nothing surprises me.” [MORE]

The Predominantly White Jan 6 Defendants Force the 'Do-Nothing-for-Blacks' DC Mayor To Address the Filthy, Inhumane Conditions @ DC Jail that the Predominantly Black Inmates Complained About For Years

From [HERE] A grim federal inspection of Washington, D.C.’s central jail has left hundreds of inmates, including about three dozen detained Jan. 6 defendants, in limbo this week, as city officials confront allegations of filthy conditions and inhumane treatment.

Officials are racing to transfer hundreds of inmates in the central jail to other facilities, including nearly 400 to a Pennsylvania prison, following the U.S. Marshals Service report that described rampant abuses by guards, retaliation against prisoners, substandard food and unsanitary plumbing problems throughout the central jail.

The Jan. 6 inmates detained in Washington do not reside in the central jail, but are being held in a nearby annex called the Correctional Treatment Facility. Federal inspectors found that facility to be adequate. But it was these defendants’ complaints of mistreatment that prompted the U.S. Marshals to investigate conditions, resulting in last week’s report about the central jail.

Members of the D.C. City Council demanded immediate steps on Wednesday to address the failures at the central jail, but they also expressed outrage that long-standing problems raised by Washington’s largely Black prison population had gone ignored, while the complaints of the predominantly white Jan. 6 defendants drew quick action from the feds.

“I am deeply disturbed that we only have attention now that the January 6 insurrectionists drove it,” Councilmember Trayon White said at a meeting of the council’s Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

“As many have noted, concerns about conditions in the jail received little attention until they were raised, of course, by mostly white defendants accused of perpetrating the January 6 insurrection,” said D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, who attended the remote hearing. “That’s not because people weren’t complaining.”

Federal judges presiding over hundreds of Jan. 6 cases have expressed increasing alarm about conditions in the D.C. jail. 

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth last month held the city in contempt for refusing to provide key details about its handling of some defendants. And last week, he released to home confinement Christopher Worrell, a Proud Boy and Capitol Riot defendant who is preparing to begin chemotherapy for cancer treatment, contending that he has no confidence the D.C. Department of Corrections would provide adequate medical care.

Lamberth revealed in court last week that the U.S. Marshals Service had discovered squalid conditions inside the central jail and encountered staff who threatened retaliation against inmates who cooperated with inspectors. 

One inmate said he had been sprayed with pepper spray and prevented from showering, which caused an infection, Lamberth said as he read findings of the inspection. Inspectors also described a water shutoff intended as a punitive measure that led to plumbing problems throughout the jail. The marshals also found a burning smell in many parts of the facility, including the distinct smell of marijuana.

Deputy Mayor Chris Geldart, who oversees the city’s public safety agencies, said at Wednesday’s council hearing that he disagreed with some of the U.S. Marshals Service’s findings, and said he believed that problems at the D.C. central jail were “not so pervasive that [the jail] has become uninhabitable.” 

Geldart acknowledged some of the issues, but generally downplayed the concerns raised by federal inspectors. He said Mayor Muriel Bowser’s administration had been working diligently to improve living conditions at the decaying building, including by retaining a new food service vendor that was ushering in “innovative experiences with food.”

His comments drew sharp rebukes from council members who described receiving nearly daily calls from constituents concerned about conditions at the jail.

Councilmember Charles Allen also expressed concern that when Marshals Service representatives returned to the jail after the initial six-day inspection last month, they were denied entry. Geldart confirmed that and said the warden declined to allow what was deemed a “tour” of the facility on the weekend.

For now, there’s significant confusion among defendants, judges and attorneys about the status of the defendants housed in D.C.’s facilities. 

An attorney for David Dempsey, another Jan. 6 defendant, urged Lamberth in a court filing on Tuesday to prevent D.C. officials from moving her client out of the District, after she was informed he was going to be transferred. Hours later the attorney, Sabrina Shroff, said Dempsey had already been moved before the judge could act and prosecutors viewed the matter as moot.

But Shroff checked in with the judge yet again on Wednesday to say that, in fact, Dempsey hadn’t been moved and remained housed in the Central Treatment Facility.

The U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement last week that it planned to transfer 400 pretrial detainees from the central D.C. jail to a federal penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pa., but that federal detainees housed at the nearby Central Treatment Facility — including the Jan. 6 prisoners — would be kept there.

Officials said on Wednesday they were not aware of any plans to move the small fraction of the Capitol Riot defendants who are detained. Most of the more than 700 charged in connection with Jan. 6 are on pretrial release.

Geldart said that 90 federal prisoners were moved out of the main jail on Tuesday and that almost 50 were scheduled to be moved on Wednesday.

D.C. council members said that simply moving prisoners to new jails or prisons would do little to solve the decades-old issues in D.C.’s central jail.

“Moving people out is a Band-Aid,” White said. [MORE]

For Some Crazy Reason BLM Thought Having a Black Democrat Mayor in NYC Might Be Different than Having a White One. NYPD Will Remain Uncontrollable and Target All Blacks in the Name of Reducing Crime

IS DEMOCRAT POWER BLACK POWER? FUCK NO. From [HERE] Mayor-elect Eric Adams downplayed the significance of a recent disagreement with Black Lives Matter activists and doubled down on his campaign pledge to create a new plainclothes police unit Thursday. 

"I made it clear on the campaign trail. I'm going to put in place — not the anti-crime unit — I'm going to put in place a plainclothes gun unit," Adams said Thursday on CNN, referring to a much-criticized unit nixed by NYPD brass over a problematic history of shootings. "We must zero in on gun violence in our city."

Adams' successful mayoral campaign made public safety a top priority. The former NYPD captain argued he was the candidate best suited to both tamp down crime and protect Black and brown communities from aggressive and abusive policing. On Wednesday, Adams had sat down with leaders from Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, who criticized his plans to create the new unit and threatened riots and bloodshed if the Brooklyn borough president made good on his word. 

“If he thinks that they’re going to go back to the old ways of policing, then we are going to take to the streets again," said Hawk Newsome, the group's co-founder, according to a report in the Daily News. "There will be riots, there will be fire and there will be bloodshed because we believe in defending our people." 

In multiple appearances Thursday, Adams vowed to move forward with his plans, and said the activists were not speaking for a majority of New Yorkers and suggested group leaders were mischaracterizing the substance of the meeting. 

"You had 13 people who did a march from Manhattan to Borough Hall. There are different levels of people who are involved in the Black Lives Matter movement," Adams said on CNN. "Let's not make believe those 13 people have really consumed all the oxygen in the room." 

Later in the day, Adams appeared with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, after visiting the Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System, and said the reinstatement of the plainclothes unit didn't come up in his meeting with the BLM leaders. 

“If it would have come up in the meeting, I would have stayed in the same position I’ve always had, and they knew that," he told reporters, adding, "people tell different stories when they go outside.”

In a follow-up interview, Newsome disputed that account. 

“We’ve been advocates for Black people. We have been a revolutionary voice for Black people," Newsome said Thursday. "It’s disgusting that a man is knowingly trying to discredit us because he’s embarrassed.” 

Newsome said the unit that was disbanded was responsible for the deaths of Black New Yorkers, and re-creating it would lead to more violence. 

"Am I crazy to believe that these individuals are going to kill someone and there will be riots? Is that not a logical assessment?” Newsome said, adding, “He’s a man with no plan. And that’s going to prove scary for New York.”

Still, Adams said he plans to continue to engage with BLM and a variety of protesters as mayor. 

“Good ideas come out of these conversations, a great idea came out of that conversation about safe hubs, creating safe spaces," he said. "You don’t get these good ideas from people if you don’t talk to people.”

Adams formally announced a transition team this week ahead of his Jan. 1 inauguration. He has said he will select a woman for NYPD commissioner, and has been consulting with a number of experts on public safety in the interim, including former NYPD chief Philip Banks.

Citing Race Discrimination [removing Black Jurors], Nashville Judge Reverses Death-Row Conviction of Prisoner Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman, Approves Plea Deal for Life Sentence

From [DPIC] A Nashville judge has for a second time approved a plea deal that would remove Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman from Tennessee’s death row and resentence him to life without possibility of parole. On November 9, 2021, Davidson County Criminal Court Judge Monte Watkins entered an order overturning Abdur’Rahman’s 1987 conviction based on former Davidson County Assistant District Attorney General John Zimmerman’s unconstitutional use of discretionary strikes to remove African Americans from the jury. The court then accepted a negotiated plea agreement between local prosecutors and the defense that withdrew the death penalty from Abdur’Rahman’s case. 

Davidson County District Attorney General Glenn Funk told the court that newly discovered prosecution notes from jury selection in the case and comments Zimmerman made during a jury selection training session in which he advocated race-based use of jury strikes amounted to a “smoking gun of racial bias” in Abdur’Rahman’s case. The state’s “interest in the finality of convictions and sentences,” Funk said, asking the court to overturn Abdur’Rahman’s conviction, “is outweighed by the interests of justice, and in some situations by recognition of the sanctity of human life.”

Under the plea deal, which had the support of the victims’ family members, Abdur’Rahman admitted guilt on three charges — murder, attempted murder, and armed robbery — and waived his right to future appeals. In exchange, he was sentenced to three consecutive life terms. Watkins had vacated Abdur’Rahman’s death sentence and approved a similar deal in 2019, while a death warrant for Abdur’Rahman’s execution was pending. However, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery III intervened in the case, claiming that Funk and the trial court had no authority to vacate Abdur’Rahman’s sentence in the absence of a proven constitutional violation. Abdur’Rahman was procedurally barred from claiming jury discrimination in his case, Slatery said. 

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals struck down the first plea deal and returned the case to Judge Watkins with directions on how to proceed. Counsel for Abdur’Rahman argued that new evidence of jury discrimination permitted him to challenge his conviction. In his ruling, Watkins agreed that a constitutional violation had occurred and overturned Abdur’Rahman’s convictions. The plea agreement then obviated the need for conducting a new trial.

The Tennessee Attorney General’s Office has 30 days to determine whether to appeal. Slatery issued a statement through an office spokesperson that state prosecutors were reviewing the order and “we are considering next steps.”

'Very little has been done to acknowledge the thousands of Black veterans who were Abused, Attacked, or Murdered by Racists in this Country b/c of their Status as Military Veterans'

From [EJI] Very little has been done to acknowledge the thousands of Black veterans in the United States who were abused, attacked, or killed in this country because of their status as military veterans. Inspired to defend their country and pursue greater opportunity, African Americans have served in the U.S. military for generations. But for over a century, instead of being treated as honored members of society upon their return from military service, Black veterans were accosted, attacked, or lynched.

EJI has documented at least 35 military veterans who were victims of racial terror lynching from 1865 to 1950.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, white supremacy and racial hierarchy remained law and custom throughout the nation. Many white people feared that Black soldiers who had experienced the pride of military service would resist the disenfranchisement, segregation, and second-class citizenship that still characterized the African American experience.

In August 1917, U.S. Senator James Vardaman of Mississippi warned that, once a Black soldier was allowed to see himself as an American hero, it would be “but a short step to the conclusion that his political rights must be respected.” Bringing Black soldiers home to the South with expectations of equality, he predicted, would “inevitably lead to disaster.”

For Senator Vardaman, Black soldiers’ potential as community leaders was terrifying, and the “disaster” would be a mass movement for African American rights. Indeed, many African American veterans were determined to fight for their own freedom and equality, and veterans like Hosea Williams and Medgar Evers played central roles in what became the civil rights movement.

The effort to suppress that potential leadership made Black veterans targets, and many suffered brutal violence for protesting mistreatment or simply wearing their military uniforms. In August 1898, a Black Army private named James Neely was shot to death by a mob of white men in Hampton, Georgia, for protesting a white storekeeper’s refusal to serve him at the soda counter. [MORE]

Coin-Operated Massa'Baitors Feel the Most Free When They Speak On Behalf of White Authority: CNN Showcases Halfrocentric Corpse Kareem and Sambo Don Lemon to Censor Aaron Rogers About Master's Vaccine

[MORE] and [MORE] and [MORE]

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi: 'COVID Vaccines are Killing People Not Protecting Them. Governments, Dependent Media and Pharmaceutical Companies are Complicit in Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity'

'Feel Free to Say Nothing Bad About the Vaccines.' Sen Elizabeth Warren Sued for Pressuring Amazon to Stop Selling Book, ‘The Truth About COVID-19.’ Violent Do-Gooder Seeks to Control Speech/Thought

From [HERE] In early September 2021, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to Andy Jassy, chief executive officer of Amazon.com, demanding an “immediate review” of Amazon’s algorithms to weed out books peddling “COVID misinformation,” stressing that Amazon’s sale of such books was “potentially unlawful.”

• Warren specifically singled out the book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” co-written with Ronnie Cummins, founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as a prime example of “highly-ranked and favorably-tagged books based on falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures” that she wants banned.

• As a government official, it is illegal for Warren to violate the U.S. Constitution, and pressuring private businesses to do it for her is not a legal workaround.

• Cummins and I, along with our publisher, Chelsea Green Publishing, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who wrote our foreword, are now suing Warren, both in her official and personal capacities, for violating our First Amendment rights and scaring book sellers into pulling and/or suppressing sales of our book.

• Ironically, Warren’s claims of misinformation are themselves misinformation that puts lives at risk.

In early September 2021, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to Andy Jassy, chief executive officer of Amazon.com, demanding an “immediate review” of Amazon’s algorithms to weed out books peddling “COVID misinformation,” stressing that Amazon’s sale of such books was “potentially unlawful.”

Warren specifically singled out my book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” co-written with Ronnie Cummins, founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as a prime example of “highly-ranked and favorably-tagged books based on falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures” that she wanted banned.

“Dr. Mercola has been described as ‘the most influential spreader of coronavirus misinformation online,” Warren wrote, adding:

“Not only was this book the top result when searching either ‘COVID-19’ or ‘vaccine’ in the categories of ‘All Departments’ and ‘Books’; it was tagged as a ‘Best Seller’ by Amazon and the ‘#1 Best Seller’ in the ‘Political Freedom’ category.

“The book perpetuates dangerous conspiracies about COVID-19 and false and misleading information about vaccines. It asserts that vitamin C, vitamin D and quercetin … can prevent COVID-19 infection … And the book contends that vaccines cannot be trusted …”

Warren fancies herself above the law

Warren should know that as a government official, it is illegal for her to violate the U.S. Constitution, and pressuring private businesses to do it for her is not a legal workaround.

Since she willfully ignores the law, Cummins and I, along with our publisher, Chelsea Green Publishing, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who wrote our foreword, are suing Warren, both in her official and personal capacities, for violating our First Amendment rights.

The federal lawsuit, in which Warren is listed as the sole defendant, was filed in the state of Washington. As noted in our complaint:

“Once upon a time, the First Amendment was understood to guarantee that books challenging governmental orthodoxy could be sold without fear of governmental intimidation or reprisal.

“Almost sixty years ago, in Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963), the Supreme Court held that state officials violated the First Amendment by sending letters to booksellers warning that the sale of certain named books was potentially unlawful.

“The ‘vice’ in such letters and in the ‘veiled threat’ of legal repercussions they communicated, explained the Court, is that they allow government to achieve censorship while doing an end-run around the judiciary, ‘provid[ing] no safeguards whatever against the suppression of … constitutionally protected’ speech, thus effecting an unconstitutional ‘prior restraint.’

“It made no difference that the officials who sent the letter lacked the ‘power to apply formal legal sanctions’ — i.e., that the officials did not themselves have the power to sanction or prosecute the booksellers in any way. Indeed this fact made the unconstitutionality more apparent.

“The officials ‘are not law enforcement officers; they do not pretend that they are qualified to give or that they attempt to give distributors only fair legal advice … [T]hey acted … not to advise but to suppress.’

“It also made no difference, the Court expressly found, that the letters were framed as mere ‘exhort[ation]’ or that the booksellers were in theory ‘free’ to ignore the letters, because the officials had ‘deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed ‘objectionable’,’ and ‘people do not lightly disregard public officers’ veiled threats.’

“Today, certain members of the United States Congress have apparently forgotten, or think they are above, the law set forth in Bantam Books.”

Warren’s Attack on Constitutionally Protected Speech

There’s no doubt our book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” is constitutionally protected speech, and that Warren’s letter is calling on Amazon to suppress protected speech.

In our book, we share viewpoints, ideas, opinions, verifiable facts and factual hypotheses that our federal government just so happens to disfavor, as it counters their chosen narrative that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally, cannot be prevented by any means other than experimental gene therapy, and cannot be treated by any other means than certain experimental and exorbitantly costly drugs.

Since the start of the pandemic, government has systematically sought to suppress the kind of information shared in our book, using the same tactic as Warren used against us here — warning internet-based companies that if they don’t censor these views, the full weight of the government’s wrath will be turned against them. As explained in our complaint:

“The term ‘vaccine misinformation’ as Warren uses it is propagandistic and false. As she uses it, ‘vaccine misinformation’ refers to any speech challenging the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines, even when that speech consists of factually accurate information or protected opinion …

“On September 10, 2021, as a direct result of Warren’s letter, a major national bookseller chain, Barnes and Noble, notified the publisher of The Truth About COVID-19 by email that it would no longer sell the work as an e-book. Barnes and Noble has — for now — reversed that decision.

“It is impossible for Plaintiffs to know with certainty whether, as a result of Warren’s letter, Amazon is now covertly demoting, downgrading, or otherwise suppressing The Truth About COVID-19 in numerous ways that would be hidden from view, but Plaintiffs believe that Amazon is in fact covertly taking such action.

“Even if no bookseller in the country had yielded to Warren’s threats, her letter would still be actionable as a clear violation of the First Amendment.

“In Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) (Posner, J.), relying on Bantam Books, the Court held that a governmental official ‘violates a plaintiff’s First Amendment rights’ if by ‘threat’ or ‘intimidation’ the official attempts to induce ‘a third party’ to stop ‘publishing or otherwise disseminating the plaintiff’s message,’ and emphasized that ‘such a threat is actionable and thus can be enjoined even if it turns out to be empty — the victim ignores it, and the threatener folds his tent.’

“Such threats go ‘by the name of ‘prior restraint,’ and a prior restraint is the quintessential first-amendment violation.’ Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask this Court to vindicate clearly established law, to vindicate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, to vindicate the First Amendment itself, by declaring Warren’s conduct unconstitutional and by enjoining her from repeating such conduct in future.”

Warren calls out ‘misinformation’ with misinformation

In our complaint, we also emphasize the fact that Warren’s claims of misinformation are themselves misinformation. For example, Warren claims our book falsely “asserts that … vitamin D … can prevent COVID-19 infection.” According to Warren, this claim has no scientific basis. This is clearly and verifiably false as there are many studies, published in 2020 and 2021, supporting this claim.

For example, in May 2021, the National Institutes of Health’s website, PubMed.gov, published a Journal of Medical Virology article titled “Vitamin D Deficiency Is Associated With COVID-19 Positivity and Severity of the Disease.” Many other scientific articles have also linked vitamin D deficiency with a higher risk of COVID infection, more severe outcomes and increased rates of death.

Indeed, a recent systematic review of the literature, posted on the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which is another National Institutes of Health website, concluded that “blood vitamin D status can determine the risk of being infected with COVID-19, seriousness of COVID-19, and mortality from COVID-19.

Therefore, maintaining appropriate levels of Vitamin D through supplementation or natural methods … is recommended for the public to be able to cope with the pandemic.” As noted in our complaint:

“Thus while Warren professes to champion true COVID information to save lives, she is purveying false information that could lead to COVID deaths. Warren is telling people that vitamin D levels don’t matter for COVID, when in fact — as readers would learn from The Truth About COVID-19 — correcting vitamin D deficiencies could save their lives.

“By her own logic and according to her own demands, every major social media platform should have banned Warren’s letter as ‘COVID misinformation.’ But officials like Warren only denounce ‘COVID misinformation,’ demand its censorship, and threaten legal repercussions when the statements in question challenge the COVID narrative they support — not when they themselves are misrepresenting the truth about COVID-19.

“Warren’s letter further accuses The Truth About COVID-19 of disseminating ‘false and misleading information about vaccines,’ including by (in Warren’s words) ‘contend[ing] that vaccines cannot be trusted.’

“The book’s stated thesis about the COVID vaccines is that their effectiveness ‘has been wildly exaggerated and major safety questions have gone unanswered.’ This statement is accurate and well within the bounds of constitutionally protected opinion …

“Warren’s letter further cites a June, 2021, review of The Truth About COVID-19 that purports to list examples of the book’s ‘misinformation,’ the first of which is the following: ‘the authors argue that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus was engineered in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.’ It is true that The Truth About COVID-19 argues that that ‘the preponderance of evidence’ supports the lab-leak theory of the origins of the COVID virus.

“But the claim that this position is ‘misinformation’ is, once again, itself misinformation. The lab-leak theory — long denounced as a ‘conspiracy theory’ by federal actors and suppressed on social media — is in fact supported by substantial and growing evidence.

“See, e.g., Wall St. Journal, ‘Science Closes In on Covid’s Origins: Four studies — including two from WHO — provide powerful evidence favoring the lab-leak theory,’ Oct. 5, 2021.

“The review’s next example of the supposed ‘misinformation’ in the The Truth About COVID-19 is this: the book ‘insists multiple times that the public health measures and restrictions will be permanent. Not true. The CDC announced that fully vaccinated Americans could resume activities without wearing masks or physically distancing, resume domestic travel, and refrain from quarantine even when following a known exposure to the virus if they remain symptom-free.’

“This CDC announcement obviously proved to be false, while the prediction made in The Truth About COVID-19 that health restrictions would continue after vaccination has proved more accurate.

“Moreover, it is not the case that the Truth About COVID-19 ‘insists’ that these restrictions will be permanent — it says that certain restrictions on our liberty, beginning in the pandemic, will ‘probably’ be permanent, reflecting a humility about the certainty of one’s assertions that Warren might have profited from.” [MORE]