New Documentary “Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda,” Exposes WHO Program Resulting in Sterilization of African Women Without Their Consent

/

From [CHD] From award-winning filmmaker Dr. Andy Wakefield, in collaboration with executive producer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), and CHD Films, comes the documentary “Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda.”

The film exposes a World Health Organization (WHO) population control experiment carried out under the guise of a vaccination program, that resulted in the sterilization of women in Africa without their knowledge or consent.

The film premieres tomorrow, Friday, June 10 at 2 p.m. ET on CHD.TV. Immediately following the 30-minute film, a special edition of CHD.TV’s “Friday Roundtable” will feature Wakefield, Dr. Christiane Northrup, Dr. Jim Thorp, Brian Hooker, Ph.D. and Dr. Liz Mumper to discuss the dramatic rise in infertility issues across the globe.

“It is with timely irony that the World Health Organization reveals its true colors as it makes a desperate grab for control of global health,” said Wakefield, who directed the film. “This story is a true ‘WHO’ dunnit.”

“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda” pulls back the curtain to reveal the truth behind WHO’s nefarious collaboration with the Kenyan government in which an experimental tetanus vaccination — later found to be laced with the pregnancy hormone βhCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) — was given to millions of unknowing African women of childbearing age in the 1990s and early 2000s. Consequently, their right to carry children was stolen.

Wakefield chronicles this tragic story and brings shocking new evidence to light. As the late Dr. Stephen Karanja warns in the film, “When they’re through with Africa, they’re coming for you.”

“The truths exposed in this film cast a long shadow from a tetanus trial in Africa to the symptoms of infertility that are happening all over the world, including reports after the Gardasil vaccine and the COVID-19 shots,” said CHD Chief Science Director Dr. Brian Hooker.

Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel and author of “The HPV Vaccine on Trial: Seeking Justice for a Generation Betrayed,” had this to say about the film:

“This film documents evidence that strongly supports the idea that the WHO was conducting an experiment on women of childbearing age to make them infertile without informed consent.

“The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, signed by most countries of the world, specifies that enforced sterilization is a war crime. This film highlights that rendering human beings infertile without their consent, as was done to the most vulnerable people during the eugenics era in the U.S., is truly diabolical.

“The film asks whether the global community should vastly empower the WHO to regulate and enforce global health policy.”

CHD.TV will air the film with special programming featuring leading experts discussing their concerns about the rise in infertility rates and how other vaccines, including the COVID-19 shot, are linked to infertility.

The line-up includes the following highlights:

  • Friday, June 10 at 2:30 p.m. ET: “Friday Roundtable” featuring Dr. Andy Wakefield, Dr. Christiane Northrup, Dr. Jim Thorp, Brian Hooker, Ph.D. and Dr. Liz Mumper.

  • Monday, June 13 at Noon ET: “Tea Time” featuring women’s health expert Dr. Christiane Northrup who will answer questions from the public regarding infertility.

  • Tuesday, June 14 through Friday, June 17 at 10 a.m. ET: “Good Morning CHD” will feature Dr. Patrick Flynn, Dr. Lawrence Palevsky and a representative from CHD Africa.

  • Thursday, June 16 at 1:30 p.m. ET: “Doctors and Scientists” with Brian Hooker, Ph.D. will be joined by obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Jim Thorp.

  • Wednesday, June 22 at 1:30 p.m. ET: “Against the Wind” with Dr. Paul Thomas will be joined by Dr. Andy Wakefield.

  • Watch on-demand “The Solution” with Dr. Tony O’Donnell interviewing Dr. Andy Wakefield.

“An abiding principle of ethical medical practice is that every patient has the right to fully informed, voluntary consent,” said Kennedy.

“We expose the WHO’s gross violation of this principle in its surreptitious campaign to prevent and abort pregnancies in millions of unsuspecting African women. WHO led these women to believe that they were part of a public health program to protect their newborn babies. This is a timely message that the WHO is not fit, on any level, to dictate global health policy.”

[MF can't even ride a bike but Still Wants to Run Your Life] "Mind Tricks the Body, Body Thinks the Mind is Crazy." Corpse Joe Losing His Fucking Mind and Body Falls Off Bicycle. Fuck the Government

/

AUTHORITARIAN BLOOPERS. President Biden took a tumble off his bike Saturday morning after he stopped by a group of reporters and members of the public while out for a ride in Delaware with first lady Jill Biden.

The president, who has frequently been seen on a bicycle since taking up his post in the Oval Office, said he got his foot caught in the pedal when trying to take it out to stop. [MORE]

As defined in FUNKTIONARY:

authorities – those who (acting pre-programmed as “orderlies” of human resources, i.e., feudal wards of the Corporate State) under the ‘color of law’ in the protection of privilege, status quo, and overt force seek to criminalize the natural and naturalize the criminal. The ‘authorities’ most often become (or more precisely we allow them to become) jailers of the mind. 2) those who are eternally predisposed to attempt to capture the free—free-minded, and free-spirit. All so-called “authority” is based in unilateral coercion. The “authorities” most often become (or more precisely we allow them to become) jailers of the mind. “Pay keen attention if you want to be more than what authorities would have you be—unfree.” ~The Holey Psyble. Stand up and be the powerful presence they are required to address, i.e., free-standing and ready to rise above any ruse or imposition. (See: Orderlies, Repeaters, Obedience, Reality Box, Cultural Conditioning, Gerps, Free- Range Slavery, Deliar, Orphan Truth, Conformity, Tricksand, Paradoxysm, Duty, “Authority” & Question)

CDC Recommends Shots for Babies. Emergency Rule with NO EMERGENCY Maintains Immunity For Harm Caused. Children w/no comorbidities have virtually no risk of; death/serious complications from COVID

/

FUK WHAT U HEARD. The federal government has given complete immunity to Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J for any injury caused by their Covid-19 vaccines. That’s right: you cannot sue them if you are injured by their Covid-19 vaccine. (See Note 1 to read the law yourself.) So, while their product may not give you immunity, Pfizer and Moderna are guaranteed immunity. [MORE]

Note 1. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d the federal government “Declaration pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to provide liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19” provides that “manufacturers” of “any vaccine, used to treat, … prevent or mitigate COVID-19” shall enjoy “[l]iablity immunity ,” including, “from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a [COVID-19 vaccine].”

Note 2.  Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(5) “If an act or omission by a manufacturer or distributor with respect to a covered countermeasure, which act or omission is alleged under subsection (e)(3)(A) to constitute willful misconduct, … such act or omission shall not constitute ‘willful misconduct’ … if—(i)neither the Secretary nor the Attorney General has initiated an enforcement action with respect to such act or omission; or (ii)such an enforcement action has been initiated and the action has been terminated or finally resolved without a covered remedy.”

All COVID Shots Remain Experimental: The Moderna Vax was Granted FDA Approval but Remains UNAVAILABLE and “Legally Distinct" from Their Emergency Use Vax, which is the Only One Offered, same w/Pfizer

The Following List of Vaccine Makers, Providers and Hospitals Stand-behind Their COVID Shots and Have Waived Government Granted Immunity from Liability for Injuries or Death Caused: EXACTLY NONE

FOLLOWING THE BULLSHIT NOT THE SCIENCE. NPR reports, Providers across the country can start vaccinating kids ages 6 months to 5 years as early as this coming week after regulators cleared the final authorization steps on Saturday.

An independent panel of advisers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted on Saturday to recommend vaccinating all children in the age group with one of two separate COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech.

Emergency status enables companies to be completely free of all legal liability for any harms caused by the deadly vaccine.

Children have virtually zero risk of serious complications from COVID. From [HERE] A large study conducted in Germany posted on medRxiv showed zero deaths for children ages 5-11 and a case fatality rate of three per million in all children without comorbidities.

A Johns Hopkins study monitoring 48,000 children diagnosed with COVID showed a zero mortality rate in children under 18 without comorbidities.

A study in Nature Medicine demonstrated that children under 18 with no comorbidities had virtually no risk of death.

Data from England and Wales, published by the UK Office of National Statistics on January 17, 2022, revealed that throughout 2020 and 2021, only one child under the age of five, without comorbidities, had died from COVID in the two countries, whose total population is 60 million.

According to The Lancet, the infection fatality rate (IFR) from coronavirus in all children age seven and younger is 0.0023%. Nearly all fatalities in this age group had one or more underlying health conditions. With the emergence of the Omicron variant, the IFR is even lower.

The medical literature also shows that healthy children are more easily able to heal from this virus than adults and therefore do not need this vaccine.

A study in Nature Communications from April suggests children’s bodies clear the virus more easily than adults.

A study in Nature Immunology, published in December, demonstrated how children efficiently mount effective, robust and sustained immune responses.

In addition, most children already have had COVID and have fully recovered. Recent studies show waning effectiveness of the COVID vaccine in children 5–11 years old after the first few weeks.

A few weeks ago Congress members pressed the FDA to address unanswered questions regarding the risks and benefits of administering COVID-19 vaccines to children.

They ask the FDA to explain, among many other things:

  • What the cardiac risk factor is for children who receive EUA COVID-19 vaccines.

  • Why the FDA recently lowered the efficacy bar for COVID-19 vaccines for the youngest children.

  • When the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will provide the public with more details on children’s serious adverse outcomes from COVID-19 infections.

  • If it is possible that administering the vaccines in young children could predispose them to increased risk from future novel COVID-19 variants.

  • How many children ages 5 and under with and without pre-existing medical conditions have died from COVID-19 or its variants.

Finally, the letter asks Commissioner Califf to “please list the medical emergencies [among] children 0 to 4 years old that enables the FDA to approve the COVID vaccine for children using its EUA.” [MORE]

Dems Relieved as Another Honkey Kong Jan 6th Revolutionary is Guilty. Neuropeon Acted to Overthrow the Government by Breaking into the Capitol, Loitering, Taking Selfies and Possessing Objects Therein

/

From [HERE] A Delaware man who flew the Confederate flag inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 was found guilty along with his son of the felony charge of obstruction during the storming of the building, the Justice Department said on Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden also found the father, Kevin Seefried, and son Hunter Seefried guilty of four misdemeanor offenses including entering and remaining in a restricted building and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.

"Their actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the presidential election," the Justice Department said in a statement.

McFadden acquitted Hunter Seefried of three other related charges.

The Seefrieds had pleaded not guilty to all charges. [MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

government hoax – next to money, the biggest hoax of them all. “The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It’s the belief in non-existent “states” and “nations” and that “government” is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the “United States,” it’s claimed only “government” can provide the service of protecting “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This is nonsense if only for the reason “government” has no duty to protect anyone and their property. Another reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It’s that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then “government” is not “necessary” to “protect” what doesn’t exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don’t “protect” them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don’t acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn’t.” ~Marc Stevens. “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” ~Senate Resolution #62, April 1933. (See: Rights, Money, Property, Idea, Allegiance, Statism, Duty, Citizens, States, Ownership, Government, Corporate State, Authority, Freedom, Voluntiered Slavery, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Free-Range Slavery, Notion, Courts & Slavery)

Would a Democratic Government Ever Stage a Series of Psychological Operations or Real Attacks On Its Own Citizens? Video Shows Israel's Pioneering Efforts at False-Flag Terror Events

/

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:

false flag – staged psychological operations by government operatives and shadow elite orchestrated and perpetrated against the civilian population. False flag operations does not necessarily mean that oftentimes real people don’t die.

democracy – a commercial form of “government” (exploitation and theft via force, deception and involuntary participation)of the mob, by the mob, and for the mob, i.e., Mob-Rule. 2) a guise rubber stamping of an alternative royalty into overruling power. 3) the worst possible form of government because the majority rules whether they be good, evil, or misled by a minority. 4) slavery of the people, by the people, for the people. 5) equality achieved through force. 6) a system where only the majority need to be fooled. 7) advertised equality. 8) a parody of a free society that only ethical anarchism or voluntaryism can usher into existence. “Democracy has always been seen (and is still seen today) as equality of rights (granted privileges), not conditions. To the hypothetical equality of rights there has always corresponded a substantial inequality of conditions. And instead of being related to the nature of their individuality, differences between people have always been those marked by the different basic conditions they live in as they struggle against the suffocating artificial divisions imposed on them by power.” ~ Alfred M. Bonanno. Democracy is a euphonious term created mainly to serve as sheepskin for Leviathan, Doggy and the CrimethInc. All-Stars. 9) Dictatorship camouflaged as freedom. 10) a whitewashed plutocracy with a pastel eggshell finish. Democracy, next to “monetized debt,” and direct taxation (on labor) is the biggest con-game perpetrated on a population. Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain and sustain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that lie, they make wonderfully submissive and self-maintained slaves. “There are those who maintain that at bottom what is called democracy, (whenever and wherever it is supposed to have existed), is merely the mask for the rule of capitalist and/or bureaucratic minorities over an ignorant and deceived majority whose franchise signifies only the right to choose or to change its masters.” ~Max Nomad. As long as mob rule is allowed through secret ballots, operational and organizational transparency will evade us and vice (vested interests controlling economies) will continue to forsake us and break us. [MORE]

Black Man Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for Visiting a Barbershop Too Often: Lacking Proof, Court Relies on Algorithm to Assume Scope of Crime

/

 From [HERE] Despite a lack of direct evidence that a suspect was engaged in ongoing illegal activities, a court sentenced the man to five years in prison based in part on the frequency of his visits to a barbershop where drugs were being sold.

Weighing in before the U.S. Supreme Court in Tucker v. U.S., The Rutherford Institute warns that convictions based on government conspiracy theories and speculative calculations rather than clear-cut proof will render every American a criminal who has the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Moreover, attorneys warn, with the increase in precrime programs, threat assessments, AI algorithms and surveillance programs such as SpotShotter which attempt to calculate where illegal activity might occur by triangulating sounds and images, the burden of proof has been essentially reversed to such an extent that individuals are assumed guilty and must then prove their innocence.

“It’s not enough for the government to think that illegal activity is happening. The Constitution requires the government to provide solid proof of criminal activity before it can deprive a citizen of life or liberty,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “The ends do not justify the means, especially if it allows the government to rely on assumptions rather than evidence in order to fight crime. The ramifications of empowering the government to sidestep fundamental due process safeguards are so chilling and so far-reaching as to put a target on the back of anyone who happens to be in the same place where a crime takes place.”

In 2018, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives (ATF) uncovered narcotics and drug paraphernalia at a Washington, D.C. barbershop and in the homes of those who ran the operation and acted as the gatekeeper. Although Lonnell Tucker was caught in the act of selling a small quantity of drugs to a government informant one time at the barbershop (a “controlled buy”), ATF agents lacked any direct proof that he was part of the drug trafficking operation. Nevertheless, a jury convicted Tucker of conspiring to sell drugs, basing its findings on circumstantial evidence (a drug dealer’s claim that Tucker was frequently at the barbershop “acting like [he] had a license to sell drugs”) and a single drug sale to a confidential informant. The court was supposed to base Tucker’s sentence in part on the amount of drugs attributed to him, which was the small amount of drugs sold in the controlled buy. However, despite any direct evidence to support its claims, the court reasoned that since Tucker was a frequent visitor to the barbershop, he had been selling drugs five times a week over the course of thirty weeks. Based on that speculative calculation (the small quantity of drugs involved in a single controlled buy multiplied by the possibility of five visits a week over the course of a 30-week investigation), the court sentenced Tucker to five years in prison. Tucker appealed and asked the D.C. Circuit Court to recalculate his sentence. However, the Court affirmed the prison term, relying on the trial court’s speculative calculation and disturbingly claiming that “drug quantity calculations are an art, not a science.” Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, The Rutherford Institute joined a number of leading criminal law scholars and organizations to denounce such speculative sentencing practices.

Dawinder S. Sidhu, Shon R. Hopwood, and Kyle Singhal of Hopwood & Singhal PLLC advanced the arguments in the Tucker v. U.S. amicus brief.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Judge Caproni Recuses Herself from NYC Vaccine Mandate Lawsuit because she owns Pfizer stock

/

From [HERE] Today Federal Judge Valerie Caproni recused herself from the cases Kane v. de Blasio and Keil v. NYC, according to Sujata Gibson, the lead attorney on the Kane case. These lawsuits allege NYC educators were illegally fired when forced to go through an unconstitutional religious exemption process.

After presiding over both cases for the past 8 months, owning $50,000 to $100,000 in Pfizer stock the entire time, Judge Valerie Caproni finally recused herself from the case due to a clear conflict of interest. The only reason Caproni recused herself is because our attorneys filed a brief on Thursday June 9th demanding she do so. The new judge hearing the case is Edgardo Ramos.

In October of 2021, Caproni ruled against teachers and educators who sued NYC. The very next month Caproni’s ruling was overturned on appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court.

This is not the first blight on the professional record of Valerie Caproni. As general counsel to the FBI she has been accused of aiding the mass surveillance of innocent Americans, misleading the public about the clandestine use of the Patriot Act, and supporting illegal torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Read more about Caproni’s questionable past here.

While the documents have not yet been published by the court affirming her recusal, the attached pdf is a screenshot from PACER showing Caproni was removed from Kane and Keil today being replaced by Ramos.

Supreme Court shields border agents from lawsuits over excessive force

/

From [HERE] and [HERE] The Supreme Court on Wednesday shielded federal border patrol agents from being sued over allegations of unreasonable searches and the use of excessive force.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservatives said that in nearly all instances federal agents may be not held liable for violating constitutional rights unless Congress has authorized such lawsuits for damages.

“Our cases have made clear that, in all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas for the court in the majority opinion.

While the Constitution sets out the rights of individuals against the government — including protection “against unreasonable searches and seizures” — it did not say how those rights were to be enforced.

After the Civil War, Congress authorized lawsuits against state and local officials, including the police, who violate the rights of people that are “secured by the Constitution.” But no such broad measure authorizes lawsuits against federal agents.

The case before the court arose from a bed-and-breakfast named the Smuggler’s Inn in Blaine, Wash.. Part of the property abuts the U.S. border with Canada, and border patrol agents watched it constantly. They said they had seen people who walked across the border to the inn.

In 2014, inn owner Robert Boule clashed with border patrol agent Erik Egbert over a guest from Turkey who had raised suspicions. The inn owner said the agent pushed him and gathered papers involving the guest, and Boule later sued Egbert for violating the 4th Amendment.

The 9th Circuit Court allowed the suit to proceed, but the high court reversed that ruling in Egbert vs. Boule.

The three liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan — dissented.

The decision “contravenes precedent and will strip many more individuals who suffer injuries at the hands of other federal officers,” Sotomayor wrote.

Hidden Pfizer trial data shows that ALL “vaccinated” women in pregnancy lost their unborn babies

/

From (Natural News) A lawsuit filed by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency produced documents from Pfizer showing that its Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” caused all of the pregnant mothers on whom it was tested to miscarry.

Entitled, “Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports,” a report from Pfizer describing events reported up to February 2021 – you can download that report – shows that not a single pregnant woman who took the Pfizer jabs delivered a live baby.

Table 6 of the report, titled “Missing Information,” reveals under the first topic of “Use in pregnancy and lactation” the following statement:

“Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were reported for each twin, and both were counted).”

Taken at face value, this would suggest that of 270 pregnancies, there were 23 spontaneous abortions, five “outcomes pending,” two premature births with neonatal death, two spontaneous abortions with intrauterine death, one spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and one normal outcome. However, there is also that tricky statement: “no outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.”

“So really we have no idea what happened with 243 (5 + 238) of the pregnancies of these injected women; they have just not been included in the report,” reported Principia Scientific International.

“What we do know is that of 27 reported pregnancies (270 subtract 243), there are 28 dead babies! This appears to mean that someone was pregnant with twins and that 100 percent of the unborn babies died.”

Pfizer’s covid shots are ending human life

It is possible that the five “outcomes pending” may have resulted in a normal delivery. This means that, at best, only 87.5 percent of babies living inside “fully vaccinated” wombs died as opposed to 100 percent.

Either way, this is still a horrific outcome. No babies should be dying as a result of these injections if they are really “safe and effective” as claimed, and yet they appear to kill most or all unborn babies.

It turns out that Pfizer tried to cover this all up with an article called “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine,” which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on Dec. 31, 2020.

This paper tries to cover up the fact that in the first trimester of pregnancy, the Pfizer injection caused 82 percent of those who received it to miscarry. The Canadian Covid Care Alliance reported on this study the following month, exposing it as a total sham.

“The Pfizer-friendly study is a complete sham,” reported Principia Scientific International. “[I]t is replete with misrepresentation and deceptive methods.”

“These injections are criminal; period,” the group added, emphasizing the fact that nobodyshould be taking them.

The World Council for Health has put together a Cease and Desist Declaration that is being served to all governments, clinics, hospitals, medical regulatory bodies, doctors, nurses, politicians and “anyone participating in any way in the manufacture, shipping, distribution, promotion, or administration of these injections.”

“The message to anyone involved in these injection campaigns is ‘Stop now. This is a crime. You will be criminally and civilly responsible. The cat is out of the bag. Justice is coming,'” PSI explains about the initiative.

“Please keep photos and notes of to whom, when and where the declaration and notice is served. We are finalizing more resources on the World Council for Health web site to upload these photos and details.”

Lawmakers Call for Probe Into Deadly Federal Prison in Thomson, Ill. Authorities purposefully housed prisoners w/people they knew would be violent, subjected them to painful restraints for hours/days

/

From [HERE] On Thursday, three members of Congress called for an immediate federal investigation into violence and abuse at the U.S. penitentiary in Thomson, Ill., prompted by reporting by The Marshall Project and NPR. 

Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth and Rep. Cheri Bustos, all Democrats from Illinois, wrote in a letter to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz that it was "imperative" he look into allegations that staff purposefully housed prisoners with people they knew would be violent, and subjected them to painful restraints for hours or sometimes days. 

"If these reports prove accurate, they describe conduct that would almost certainly contravene numerous [Bureau of Prisons] policies, as well as infringing the civil rights of individuals in BOP custody and possibly violating federal criminal statutes," wrote the lawmakers, who called the report "disturbing." Lawmakers also asked Horowitz to look into the role staffing shortages have played in conditions at Thomson, which have been a serious problem since its opening.

Five men have been killed at Thomson since 2019, making the facility one of the deadliest federal prisons in the country. On top of the threat from other prisoners, dozens of incarcerated people at Thomson said they faced frequent abuse at the hands of guards. Many said in letters, lawsuits and interviews that they were shackled in cuffs so tight they left scars, and often went without food, water or a toilet. 

A spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons said in an emailed statement that he could not comment on individual cases or pending lawsuits, but that allegations of misconduct were "taken seriously" and referred to the Inspector General for investigation.

Sen. Durbin will also soon lead a congressional hearing on "the continued overuse of solitary confinement and restricted housing in BOP, including at USP Thomson," according to an email from his spokesperson. Data provided by his office shows 7.8% of federal prisoners are currently in restricted housing. 

The Thomson facility was built by the Illinois state prison system but later bought by the Justice Department at the urging of Durbin, Duckworth, Bustos and other lawmakers. They said the new penitentiary would ease dangerous overcrowding in other federal prisons and be an economic boon for the region. Those members of Congress later raised concerns about persistent understaffing at the facility and pushed for retention bonuses for staff. 

Thomson is home to the Special Management Unit, a notorious prison program meant to house some of the system's most dangerous and volatile people — though many have ended up there who don't fit that description. The unit was previously housed at the penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pa. A 2016 investigation by The Marshall Project and NPR found the unit was plagued by frequent assaults, sparked by locking two people in a small cell for nearly 24 hours a day, a practice known as double-celled solitary confinement. When prisoners tried to reject a dangerous cellmate, many said they were locked in painful shackles until they relented.

In response to the 2016 stories, 37 civil rights groups called on the Justice Department to launch a federal investigation. Then in 2018, the Bureau of Prisons closed the unit at Lewisburg, and moved it to Thomson. Dozens of men incarcerated at Thomson report that the same problems and abuses followed to the new facility.

The Bureau of Prisons has been under heightened pressure and scrutiny after reports of sexual abuse, violence and other corruption. In January, agency director Michael Carvajal announced his resignation, after Sen. Durbin and others called for his firing. The Senate has also launched a new group focused on increasing oversight of federal prisons. 

The Justice Department Inspector General is an independent entity tasked with providing oversight of department programs, including federal prisons, and investigating allegations against department employees. 

In an email, a Justice Department spokesperson said the department was committed to investigating allegations of staff misconduct. "We will not hesitate to impose appropriate consequences for misconduct at all levels, including through criminal prosecution, as well through the Equal Employment Opportunity Office and the Office of the Inspector General," they wrote.

The Bureau of Prisons responded in an email that it "is fully cooperating on active investigations. As specific allegations of staff misconduct arise, they are referred for investigation."

Haiti’s Forced Payments to Enslavers Cost Economy $21 Billion, The New York Times Found

/

From [EJI] It was big news in the U.S. when enslaved people in Haiti rose up and wrested their freedom from France in 1791. Haiti was founded as an independent nation in 1804, striking such fear in the hearts of American enslavers that the U.S. did not officially recognize Haiti until 1862, after the start of the Civil War.

What happened next is less well known in the U.S. today. Two decades after declaring independence, the French forced formerly enslaved Haitians at gunpoint to pay reparations to the people who had enslaved them.

Reporters for The New York Times tracked each payment Haiti made over the course of the 64 years that followed and calculated that the nation paid about $560 million in today’s dollars to satisfy this ransom and the loans they were forced to take to pay it.

For generations, Haiti’s revenues went to service its “double debt,” depriving its people of schools, hospitals, and basic infrastructure and pushing the country into a cycle of debt, poverty, and underdevelopment that persists today.

Had that money stayed in the Haitian economy over the last 200 years, The Times details in The Ransom and its accompanying bibliography, it would have added at least $21 billion over time.

And that’s the conservative estimate. Modeling based on the growth rate of Haiti’s Latin American neighbors suggests the payments diverted to France cost Haiti as much as $115 billion. If Haiti had not been forced to pay the people who had enslaved its citizens, The Times reported, its per capita income in 2018 could have been almost six times as large.

Building on more than a century of research by historians, economists, and others, The Times also made new connections about how the wealth stolen from Haiti was used to fuel the nascent French banking system—and to build the Eiffel Tower.

The bank that made the most money off the loan Haiti was forced to take in 1875 was Crédit Industriel et Commercial, which took millions of dollars in fees and interest from Haiti’s treasury at a time when it was helping finance Paris’s iconic monument to liberty. C.I.C.’s “executives and investors made so much money off Haiti that their profits sometimes exceeded Haiti’s entire public works budget,” The Times reported.

The head of Crédit Mutuel, a European financial conglomerate that bought C.I.C. in 1998, told The Times days after it published “The Ransom” that he will finance a team to investigate and expose the bank’s full history. “This is a very sad illustration of the meaning of colonization and financial colonization,” Nicolas Théry said.

The Times also reported that, although the payments were supposed to go to individual property owners and their descendants, the French government took $8.5 million in today’s currency from Haiti.

U.S. banks likewise extracted great wealth from Haiti. After National City Bank, Citigroup’s predecessor, and other Wall Street banks pushed hard for the U.S. to take over Haiti, the U.S. invaded in 1915, took over the national bank, and, as The Times wrote, “installed a puppet government, dissolved parliament at gunpoint, entrenched segregation, forced Haitians to build roads for no pay, killed protesters and rewrote the nation’s Constitution, enabling foreigners to own property for the first time since independence.”

The 19-year-long military occupation—one of the longest in U.S. history—was justified by Secretary of State Robert Lansing as a civilizing mission to end the “anarchy, savagery and oppression” in Haiti. The U.S. had to take over the impoverished nation because, as Mr. Lansing wrote, “the African race are devoid of any capacity for political organization.” [MORE]

Black Man on Tennessee Death-Row Appeals Ruling Denying Him Relief Despite Agreement by District Attorney that He is Intellectually Disabled

/

From [DPIC] A Tennessee death-row prisoner who county prosecutors agree is intellectually disabled is appealing a trial judge’s refusal to vacate his death sentence under a law designed to provide condemned prisoners a mechanism to enforce the constitutional prohibition against executing individuals with intellectual disability.

On June 1, 2022, lawyers for Byron Black filed an appeal with the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals challenging Senior Judge Walter Kurtz’s ruling that Black could not take advantage of an April 2021 state law that closed a procedural loophole that had prevented prisoners from presenting evidence that they are ineligible for the death penalty because of intellectually disability. 

In a statement issued in conjunction with the filing, Black’s lead counsel, assistant federal defender Kelley Henry, criticized the lower court’s ruling. “[T]he trial court’s refusal to let [Black] prove [his intellectual disability] under current law, if allowed to stand, would permit the State to knowingly and willfully violate the law by executing someone who is intellectually disabled,” she said.

Black’s lawyers and the Davidson County District Attorney’s Office agree that Black is intellectually disabled. However, when Black filed his unopposed petition to vacate his death sentence, Kurtz dismissed it on procedural grounds not raised by prosecutors, ruling that Black could not seek relief under the new law because his prior claim of intellectual disability had been denied in 2004. Black argued — and county prosecutors agreed — that this prior claim was not properly adjudicated because it was reviewed on an inadequate evidentiary record and decided under standards for determining intellectual disability that the U.S. Supreme Court later struck down as unconstitutionally restrictive.

Black’s brief argues that the Tennessee legislature never intended for courts to deny death-row prisoners constitutionally appropriate review of their intellectual disability claims on the grounds that they had previously been provided constitutionally inappropriate review. “[T]he legislature created the new cause of action to place all death row defendants on the same legal playing field as those defendants currently facing capital charges,” the brief says. “Everyone gets one fair bite at the apple – one that complies with constitutional mandates. It cannot be that the legislature intended to punish diligent death row defendants who were denied a constitutional adjudication of their claim because they acted too early. Such would be the very definition of arbitrary and capricious.”

Further, Black argues, county prosecutors have acknowledged that Black’s intellectual disability claim was litigated in 2004 on a materially deficient evidentiary record. Henry noted that prosecution expert witness, Dr. Susan Vaught, who previously testified that Black did not meet the criteria for intellectual disability, changed her opinion and now agreed that Black is intellectually disabled “based on new information in his record, the ability to review his performance at multiple points in time across multiple practitioners, changes in scientific knowledge and standards of practice, and changes in diagnostic criteria.”

Black notes that Davidson County prosecutors stipulated that he “would be found intellectually disabled were a hearing to be conducted” and conceded that his death sentence should be reformed to life imprisonment, even after the trial court raised the issue of whether the prior court ruling on intellectual disability barred Black from seeking relief under the new law. The prosecution “knowingly and intelligently waived” any procedural defenses, Black argues, and the trial court’s independent assertion of a defense that was explicitly waived violated due process.

Although Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk does not oppose Black’s intellectual disability claim, the state attorney general’s office and not local prosecutors will handle the appeal.Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery has repeatedly butted heads with Funk in the past, and Slatery called for legislation, since adopted, that would allow the attorney general to seek to replace a district attorney in a case if he believes that the locally elected district attorney is refusing to enforce the law.

On September 20, 2019, Slatery asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to set execution dates for an unprecedented nine death-row prisoners, including Black and three others from Davidson County. That same day, he filed a motion in the appeals court to invalidate a court-approved plea deal between Funk and former death-row prisoner Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman and to reactivate a warrant for Abdur’Rahman’s execution. 

Black’s execution was scheduled for October 8, 2020, but was stayed by the Tennessee Supreme Courton June 12, 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and rescheduled for April 8, 2021. On December 3, 2020, the court again stayed Black’s execution because of the pandemic. He was again scheduled to be executed on August 18, 2022 but Governor Bill Lee halted all executions in Tennesseein May 2022 after learning of irregularities in the state’s lethal injection procedures. 

It is not clear what position Slatery will take on Black’s appeal.

Supreme Ct Deny Death Penalty Review: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel During a Murder Trial Not a Good Enough Reason to Stop Texas Authoritarians from Murdering a Black Man

/

From [HERE] and [HERE] Terence Andrus’ childhood was horrific. From an early age, he faced heinous physical abuse and neglect at home; as a teenager, he was tormented by both peers and guards in juvenile detention. Andrus had a right to present this evidence to the jury at his capital trial, but his lawyer declined, ensuring that his client would be condemned to death. In 2020, the Supreme Court held that this failure, among others, violated the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel. Then, in an extraordinary act of defiance, five Republican judges on a lower court rejected SCOTUS’ finding, insisting that the higher court got it wrong. These judges all but dared the Supreme Court to bring them into line.

On Monday, the court refused. Instead, it rewarded this insubordination by allowing the lower court’s ruling to stand. This decision is devastating for Andrus, who will likely be put to death without vindicating the constitutional rights that were so egregiously violated at trial. It is also a disturbing signal to the lower courts that disobedience of binding precedent is permissible when it aligns with the majority’s hard-right ideology. There can be no “settled law” when SCOTUS lets rogue judges flout its own rulings and get away with it.

The story of Andrus’ case is tragic. His mother engaged in sex work and drug use when he was a child, selling and abusing drugs in front of her kids. She also beat her children with a board. At times, she disappeared for extended periods and left her kids without supervision or food. Her boyfriends were often violent, beating her and her children. In addition, one boyfriend raped Andrus’ younger half-sister. As a preteen, Andrus was diagnosed with affective psychosis. Sent into Texas’ notorious juvenile corrections system at age 16, Andrus was dosed with massive quantities of psychotropic drugs that were inappropriate for his condition and locked up in solitary confinement nearly 80 times. At the age of 20, during a carjacking he attempted while high on PCP, Andrus killed two people. Prosecutors charged him with capital murder.

In Texas, defendants can only be sentenced to death if the jury unanimously agrees that prosecutors have proved they pose a future danger to society. The state puts forth “aggravating evidence” showing why the defendant deserves to be killed; the defendants, in turn, have a constitutional right to present “mitigating evidence” showing why they deserve to live. Andrus’ attorney, James Crowley, had a duty to investigate and present mitigating evidence to the jury, and if he had looked, he would’ve found a mountain of it.

But he didn’t look. Rather, Crowley called Andrus’ mother to the stand, who lied about her son’s allegedly peaceful upbringing. Crowley then failed to rebut prosecutors’ aggravating evidence—even though they accused Andrus of committing a different violent crime of which he was probably innocent. Predictably, the jury interpreted this one-sided presentation as evidence that Andrus posed a threat of future violence and recommended the death penalty

Over the following years, Andrus obtained new lawyers who gathered ample mitigating evidence that never made it to the jury. They secured a hearing before a trial court, which ordered a new sentencing proceeding, finding that Crowley provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is made up of elected Republicans, overruled the trial court, declaring that Crowley did not fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness.”

This decision was too much for the Supreme Court, which threw out the Texas court’s ruling in 2020 by a 6–3 vote. (The majority opinion was not signed; Justices Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.) “There is no squaring that conduct, certainly when examined alongside counsel’s other shortfalls, with objectively reasonable judgment,” the majority concluded. The Sixth Amendment was violated here.

But that wasn’t the end of the case: To get relief for ineffective counsel, a defendant must show that their ineffective counsel “prejudiced” them—meaning there’s a “reasonable probability” that it affected the outcome. SCOTUS suggested that Andrus was “prejudiced,” since this mitigating evidence probably would have convinced at least one juror to spare his life. It then sent the case back down so the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals could apply its decision.

That’s not what the Texas court did. Instead, Judge Sharon Keller penned a belligerent 5–4 decision criticizing SCOTUS for questioning her own court’s work. Keller, who opposes freeing or compensating innocent people who are wrongly convicted, told the majority it was incorrect: The mitigating evidence that SCOTUS found “compelling,” she wrote, was actually “not particularly compelling.” Meanwhile, the aggravating evidence that SCOTUS found so weak and threadbare was, in her view, “strong” and “extensive.”

Keller would not even accept the justices’ bottom-line holding that, as a matter of law, Andrus received ineffective counsel: She pointedly referred to “alleged” failures of counsel that SCOTUS “believed” it had identified, then explained why she believed the higher court was mistaken. Based on this rejection of precedent, Keller found that Andrus faced no prejudice and upheld his capital sentence. Four judges dissented, writing that while they also thought SCOTUS got it wrong, they had no power to overrule it from below.

Mallory Nicholson’s Wrongful Conviction Vacated. Black Man Locked Up 21yrs after Getting the Niggarmarole; Misidentified by White Victims, White Prosecutors Withheld Evidence, White Jury Ignored Alibi

/

From [IP] District Court Judge Chika Anyiam granted the Dallas County district attorney’s motion to dismiss Mallory Nicholson’s 1982 burglary and sexual assault charges based on newly discovered evidence of his innocence that the State had withheld at his original trial. Today’s action by the court officially exonerates Mr. Nicholson of this crime after 40 years. 

Just over a year ago, Judge Anyiam recommended that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals grant Mr. Nicholson’s habeas corpus petition and vacate his conviction. Five months later, in November 2021, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Mr. Nicholson’s petition based on newly discovered exculpatory evidence that had never been disclosed to Mr. Nicholson’s lawyers during his original trial.

Mr. Nicholson had spent 21 years in prison for crimes he did not commit and had been forced to register as a sex offender since 2003, when he was released on parole. In 2019, at the Innocence Project’s request, Cynthia Garza, chief of the Dallas County District Attorney’s Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU), and Holly Dozier agreed to review Mr. Nicholson’s case. During their reinvestigation, they discovered that the State had withheld key evidence at trial that pointed to an alternative suspect and demonstrated inconsistencies in the victims’ identifications of Mr. Nicholson. Under the United States Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, the State must disclose such favorable evidence to the defense and vacate convictions, like Mr. Nicholson’s, that involve Brady violations.

Mr. Nicholson was arrested for burglary and the sexual assault of two children in June 1982. No physical evidence connected him to the crime and he has steadfastly maintained his innocence for decades. At trial, he presented strong alibi evidence to support the fact that he had been with family at his wife’s funeral, which took place 45 minutes outside of Dallas at the time of the crimes.

Based on the discovery of the undisclosed exculpatory evidence, the CIU agreed that Mr. Nicholson was entitled to a new trial. In addition to the Brady violations, the case was also marred by eyewitness misidentification and racial bias. 

“Today, the criminal legal system acknowledges what Mr. Nicholson has known and maintained for the last 40 years — he had nothing to do with this crime. Mr. Nicholson has spent the last 40 years enduring the horror of a wrongful conviction. He spent 21 years locked in prison and for the last 20 years, has been forced to register as a sex offender, which led to him being ostracized by his community — all for a crime he did not commit,” said Innocence Project Attorney Adnan Sultan, who represents Mr. Nicholson. “Today, Mr. Nicholson has finally received justice thanks to the Dallas County district attorney, the CIU, and their work uncovering this Brady evidence and recognizing the misconduct of the trial prosecutors in this case.” 

Mr. Nicholson is also represented by Gary Udashen of Udashen Anton. “D.A. Creuzot’s actions in this case represent significant progress over the last 40 years in how prosecutions are handled in Dallas,”  said Mr. Udashen. “Today, we would hope that Mallory Nicholson would not be arrested, prosecuted, or convicted — and that any prosecutor handling this case would ensure that evidence showing someone other than Mr. Nicholson committed this offense would be fully disclosed to his attorneys.”

Mr. Nicholson is now officially eligible for compensation for the years he lost to his wrongful conviction.

The Background: Witness Misidentification 

On June 12, 1982, two boys, 7- and 9-year-old cousins, were approached by a young man who offered them $5 to help him enter an apartment through a window. Once inside, the man stole several items and sexually assaulted both children. The boys told their aunt, who called the police, and the cousins were taken to Parkland Hospital for sexual assault examinations.

Both boys initially told police and the examining doctor that they had been assaulted by a Black 14-year-old. They also provided the attacker’s nickname to police, who later learned that the attacker lived near the crime scene.  

Two days after the assault, police drove one of the victims to the crime scene. On the way, the boy saw 35-year-old Mallory Nicholson standing in front of an apartment building with friends and claimed he was the person who had committed the crime. 

The following day, police showed the other victim a photo lineup, which included Mr. Nicholson. While the victim did not identify Mr. Nicholson at the time, his mother later called detectives and claimed her son had recognized the person who had committed the crime but had been afraid to point him out. Police put Mr. Nicholson in a live lineup the next day, and both victims identified him. Even though Mr. Nicholson had been at his wife’s funeral on the day of the crime, police arrested him and charged him with burglary and sexual assault. Eyewitness misidentification, as in this case, has contributed to approximately 63% of the 232 wrongful convictions that the Innocence Project has helped overturn. 

At trial, the boys claimed for the first time that the attacker had told them he had been in a hurry because he had had to attend his wife’s funeral. The State argued that this was a distinct fact, unique to Mr. Nicholson, which proved guilt.

Throughout the trial, the defense maintained that the boys had misidentified Mr. Nicholson as the person who committed the crime. It also presented numerous alibi witnesses who confirmed Mr. Nicholson had been at his wife’s funeral with friends and family in the hours after the crime occurred. Despite the strength of this evidence, Mr. Nicholson was convicted and sentenced to 55 years for the assaults and eight years for burglary.

Brady Evidence

In this case, the favorable evidence which the State failed to disclose to Mr. Nicholson’s defense counsel included:

  • Five police reports documenting conversations the victims had had with police in which they identified their attacker by name as someone other than Mr. Nicholson. The reports were written by a police officer who was never called by the State as a witness despite his role in the investigation.

  • The sexual assault report written by the doctor who examined the victims, which documented their descriptions of the attacker as a 14-year-old Black male.

  • Handwritten interview notes from prosecuting attorneys listing physical characteristics of the attacker which were inconsistent with Mr. Nicholson’s appearance at the time of the crime in critical ways.

  • Grand jury testimony from one of the victims in which he failed to say anything about the attacker being in a hurry because he had to attend his wife’s funeral. This was a critical omission, which defense attorneys could have used to discredit the victim at trial.

  • Handwritten interview notes from the prosecuting attorneys that stated multiple times that the mother and grandmother of one of the victims knew Mr. Nicholson’s wife, and had been aware of her death and funeral date. Had the defense been privy to this information, they could have challenged the State’s argument that the victims’ statements about the attacker’s need to attend his wife’s funeral had been “the most telling factor” of Mr. Nicholson’s guilt.

Racial Bias 

Mr. Nicholson was tried before an all-white jury, who rejected his five alibi witnesses, all of whom were Black. All-white juries have historically convicted Black defendants at a higher rate than white defendants and have been shown to disregard the testimony of truthful Black defense witnesses in favor of weak circumstantial evidence.

Additionally, the prosecutor relied heavily on negative racial stereotypes at trial, focusing on Mr. Nicholson’s recent unemployment and implying that his alibi witnesses were not reliable because they “hung out” and drank every night. 

Officers were apparently satisfied by the simplest similarity between Mr. Nicholson and the original description of the attacker — the only commonality was that both were “Black males” — and therefore made no efforts to follow up on the alternative suspect. Such tunnel vision is a known function of implicit racial bias. The resulting wrongful conviction of Mr. Nicholson robbed him of nearly four decades of his life.

Federal Judge Upholds Oklahoma Lethal-Injection Protocol, Rejecting Evidence of Torturous Executions

/

From [DPIC] Judge Stephen Friot of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has ruled that Oklahoma’s lethal-injection protocol is constitutional. After holding a week-long hearing on the state’s three-drug protocol in February and March 2022, Judge Friot credited the testimony of state experts over the prisoners’ expert testimony on the likelihood that the protocol would result in severe pain. While attorneys for the 28 prisoners who brought the suit can appeal the ruling, Oklahoma’s Attorney General plans to seek execution warrants immediately.

Judge Friot ruled on June 6, 2022 that Oklahoma’s protocol of midazolam (a sedative), vecuronium bromide (a paralytic), and potassium chloride (a drug that stops the heart) does not violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In particular, he addressed the argument that midazolam is not sufficient to render a prisoner insensate to pain, writing, “The evidence persuades the court, and not by a small margin, that even though midazolam is not the drug of choice for maintaining prolonged deep anesthesia, it can be relied upon, as used in the Oklahoma execution protocol, to render the inmate insensate to pain for the few minutes required to complete the execution.” By contrast, medical experts testifying in support of the prisoners described pulmonary edema found in autopsies of executed prisoners, and said it was a “virtual medical certainty” that the four prisoners executed in 2021 and 2022 under Oklahoma’s current protocol “experienced extreme pain and suffering.”

Jennifer Moreno, an attorney for the prisoners, said in a statement, “The district court’s decision ignores the overwhelming evidence presented at trial that Oklahoma’s execution protocol, both as written and as implemented, creates an unacceptable risk that prisoners will experience severe pain and suffering.” She said her team is “assessing our options for an appeal.”

Attorney General John O’Connor called the ruling “definitive” and said it brought the cases “one step closer to justice.” He indicated that his office will immediately request that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals set execution dates for prisoners who have completed their appeals.

During the federal trial on the execution protocol, the prisoners presented graphic photographic evidence from the botched execution of John Grant, autopsy results showing that Grant and fellow death-row prisoner Bigler Stouffer suffered fluid build-ups in their lungs as they were put to death, and autopsy evidence that Grant aspirated vomit during his execution. They also presented documentary evidence that members of Oklahoma’s execution team filled out paperwork indicating the state had used an unauthorized chemical in place of the paralytic drug required in the state’s execution protocol.

Judge Friot acknowledged the contradictory facts presented by the state and the defense. He wrote, “Rarely, in any field of litigation, does a court see and hear well-qualified expert witnesses giving expert testimony as squarely—and emphatically— contradictory, on the issues at the heart of the matter, as this case.” Ultimately, he relied primarily on the testimony of Dr. Ervin Yen, an anesthesiologist, former Republican state senator, and independent candidate for Oklahoma governor, who Friot referred to as “a fresh face,” in contrast to other experts who had previously testified on midazolam in other states. In his testimony, Dr. Yen called the protocol “adequate to carry out an execution in as humane a way as possible.” 

In ruling against the prisoners, Judge Friot referenced U.S. Supreme Court rulings on lethal injection, explaining that, in order for an execution method to be found unconstitutional, the Court requires prisoners to prove that it “is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering.” “The plaintiff inmates have fallen well short of clearing the bar set by the Supreme Court,” he wrote.

Oklahoma AG Requests 25 Execution Dates Despite Independent Investigation and Claims of Innocence, Serious Mental Illness, and Brain Damage

/

From [DPIC] Oklahoma state prosecutors are pushing to schedule 25 executions over approximately two years, after a federal judge denied death-row prisoners’ challenge to the state’s controversial lethal-injection protocol.

On June 10, 2022, Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to set execution dates for 25 of the 28 prisoners who were parties to the execution-protocol challenge. The request came just four days after Judge Stephen Friot’s ruling that the state’s three-drug procedure is constitutional. Attorneys for the prisoners have said they plan to appeal Friot’s decision.

If granted, the request would result in the largest mass scheduling of executions since Ohio set 27 execution dates in 2017. Only three of those executions were actually carried out before Ohio Governor Mike DeWine halted executions as a result of concerns about the same lethal injection protocol employed by Oklahoma. If Oklahoma proceeds with the 25 executions, it would conduct more executions over the next two years than have been carried out by all U.S. states combined since 2020.

Lawyers for the 25 prisoners expressed concern that the volume of executions will make it impossible for the prisoners to adequately present significant issues in their cases. At least eleven of the prisoners included in the state’s request for execution dates have claims of innocence, serious mental illness, and/or brain damage. 

Under O’Connor’s proposed execution order, Richard Glossip would be the second person scheduled to be put to death. Glossip has consistently maintained his innocence, and his innocence claims are currently the subject of an independent investigation commissioned by the Oklahoma legislature. Glossip’s attorney, Don Knight, said in a statement, “Oklahoma should not execute an innocent man considering 29 Republican legislators, including staunch conservatives who commissioned an independent investigation into Richard Glossip’s case, are still awaiting that report. Those findings could reveal exculpatory information previously unknown until this point. Until everyone has the opportunity to examine the final report, the Attorney General has a moral duty to delay the execution of Richard Glossip. No matter where people stand on the death penalty, no one should want to kill an innocent man. The stakes are too high to rush this process. A man's life is on the line.”