LAPD says a Cop Violated Policy by Kneeling on Jaxson Hayes' Neck [but No laws were Broken b/c Cops can Commit Crimes for the Good of Society and are Exempt from Morality while Wearing a Costume]

From [HERE] There is no doubt that we usually hear about Jaxson Hayes in a basketball context. In 2021, though, Jaxson Hayes was in the news due to him getting arrested in Los Angeles, with one police officer kneeling on Hayes' neck and another officer tasing him.

The Los Angeles Police Commission has recently revealed that the LAPD sergeant who kneeled on Jaxson Hayes' neck violated policy by doing so. However, it was also mentioned that the use of the taser was "justified" in that scenario. An article by Libor Jany of The Los Angeles Times relayed the news.

An LAPD sergeant violated department policy by kneeling on the neck of NBA player Jaxson Hayes while arresting him in response to a call about a domestic dispute last July, the Los Angeles Police Commission ruled Tuesday.

After Hayes, a 6-foot-11 center for the New Orleans Pelicans, was taken to the ground by police outside a Woodland Hills home, Sgt. Darren Holst began kneeling on his neck.

Hayes shouted, “I can’t breathe,” and another officer used a Taser on him twice, hitting him once in the chest, LAPD Chief Michel Moore wrote in a report released after the Police Commission’s weekly meeting Tuesday. Commissioners agreed with the chief’s findings that the knee-on-the-neck maneuver went against department protocols but that the use of the Taser was justified.

In reaching his conclusion, Moore cited a use-of-force review board investigation, which found that Holst twice put his knee on the basketball player’s neck, first for four seconds, and then for 11 seconds. Moore wrote that the sergeant’s tactic “resulted in unintentional but direct pressure to Hayes’ trachea or windpipe” — though not with enough force to render Hayes unconscious.

Intentional or not, Moore said that he agreed with the board’s finding that “an officer with similar training and experience as Sergeant Holst, in the same situation, would not reasonably believe that the applying direct pressure to the trachea or windpipe was proportional, objectively reasonable, or necessary.”

The Police Commission’s votes Tuesday were unanimous, with one commissioner absent.

While Jaxson Hayes is alright currently, there's no doubt that continuous pressure on someone's neck could have very serious repercussions for that person.

It remains to be seen what happens further in this situation, and what the response from the LAPD will be in regards to their police officer using excessive force. Hopefully, the use of excessive force by the LAPD won't happen again in the future.

Lawsuit Claims a Beaumont Cop (TX) Body-Slammed a Handcuffed Black Man Head-First Onto a Concrete Floor, Now He is Paralyzed and Bed Ridden. 1 Year Later Police Refuse to Release Public Video

From [HERE] A man filed a lawsuit Thursday accusing a Texas police officer of using excessive force while restraining him in jail and inflicting injuries that left him paralyzed from the chest down.

The lawsuit on behalf of Christopher Shaw seeks unspecified damages from Beaumont police Officer James Thomas Gillen, the city, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and the jail's medical contractor.

The lawsuit centers on events from Shaw’s June 12, 2021, arrest on a misdemeanor public intoxication charge.

According to the lawsuit, after a trip to a local hospital to exclude other reasons for Shaw's slurred speech, Gillen took him to the Jefferson County Correctional Facility. At one point when Shaw refused to comply with commands, jailers restrained him against a wall. Gillen grabbed Shaw, flipped him into the air and body-slammed him head-first on the concrete floor, leaving him paralyzed.

A hospital examination showed that Shaw suffered several spinal fractures that have left him paralyzed from the chest down, the lawsuit alleges.

“Mr. Shaw’s life has been greatly impacted in the worst way,” said his attorney, Harry Daniels of Atlanta. “He was once an able-bodied young man before he was assaulted. He can no longer stand or walk. He is a prisoner of his own body. He spends the majority of his day in bed due to the fact he doesn’t have the resources to hire a full-time caregiver.

“Additionally, he cannot afford the much-needed physical therapy and treatment that he needs that could give him a chance to make a full recovery,” Daniels said.

Federal Judge says Lafayette Cops "Acted Reasonably" When They Directed a Police Dog to Attack a Naked Latino Man Lying Unconscious in a Fetal position in a Closet

From [HERE] Lafayette police officers acted reasonably by directing a dog to bite an unarmed, unconscious man for 20 seconds, a federal judge decided last month in rejecting the excessive force claims of plaintiff Adrian Martinez.

Although law enforcement knew Martinez had walked away from his hospital bed in February 2018, it was unclear whether he was in custody at the time. They subsequently learned Martinez had outstanding warrants for nonviolent offenses, and believed he had locked himself in the closet of a residential complex. 

Despite being prepared to use a taser, a less-lethal shotgun and a firearm against Martinez once they opened the door, police immediately ordered Kenzi, a dog, to "get him." They quickly saw Martinez was lying down, nearly naked in the closet and had no weapons.

U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore acknowledged other courts have found bites from police dogs constitute excessive force against non-resisting suspects, but he believed Lafayette officers reacted in a lawful manner given what they knew about Martinez's situation.

Martinez "was concealed from the police and nonresponsive to them. Those facts are significant when considering the situation from the point of view of a reasonable police officer," Moore wrote in his June 17 order. "If officers are unable to see or communicate with an individual, then it is reasonable that they would have greater concern for their safety when initiating an encounter."

Martinez ended up in the hospital on Feb. 18, 2018 after bounty hunters looking for his girlfriend attacked Martinez. Police in Erie had an ambulance transport Martinez to a hospital in Lafayette for treatment. The defendant officers later alleged Martinez was in custody at the time, but Martinez insisted he was not.

When he awoke, Martinez was reportedly confused and suffering from a concussion. He decided to leave the hospital on his own. Hospital security notified police, while also relaying that Martinez had four outstanding warrants, all of which were for his failures to appear in court.

Police crossed paths with Martinez beginning around 9:50 a.m. Officer Lauryn Macdonald saw him near the Luna Bella Apartments. Minutes later, a witness called police dispatch to report Martinez "looked confused" and tried to enter people's cars. Martinez went to the third floor landing of the apartment complex and entered a small closet, alleging he "fell unconscious" inside. It was unclear if he locked the door himself or whether the door locked automatically.

Macdonald, Sgt. Peter Voris and Cpl. Sean Jenneiahn — along with his dog, Kenzi — located Martinez in the closet more than an hour later. Other officers were present to provide cover and assistance when opening the closet door, as Martinez did not communicate to police while inside.

Witnesses allegedly heard officers warn Martinez they would send in a dog if he did not comply, while Martinez disputed those accounts. Ultimately, Voris forced open the closet door. 

At the time, The Daily Camera reported the Lafayette police's account – that Martinez "continued to be unresponsive" after Voris opened the door, after which Kenzi "was used to help subdue Martinez."

Body-worn camera video contradicted those claims. Moore, after viewing the footage, found it was "clear that what happened next took less than one second," in that Jenneianh immediately ordered Kenzi to bite Martinez, who was lying in the fetal position.

In total, Kenzi latched onto Martinez for 15 to 20 seconds, while Jenneianh encouraged the dog to "get him." Martinez reportedly suffered puncture wounds, scarring and continued pain. 

He filed suit against Jenneiahn, Macdonald and Voris alleging excessive force and the officers' failure to intervene in the attack.

"None of the defendant officers had any objective information suggesting that plaintiff Martinez was an imminent threat; in fact, after the door was opened but before releasing the dog, the defendant officers readily observed plaintiff wearing only his underwear in a non-threatening prone position," wrote attorney Ramond K. Bryant.

In June of last year, the officers asked Moore to grant them qualified immunity, which shields government employees from civil lawsuits unless they violate a person's clearly-established legal rights.

The defendants argued it was reasonable for them to perceive Martinez as a legitimate threat and to employ Kenzi instead of other tactics.

"By utilizing Kenzi, Corporal Jenneiahn could better ensure that plaintiff would be effectively subdued without the need for multiple officers to attempt to enter the closet," wrote the officers' attorneys, calling Kenzi "the most reasonable tool."

They also noted the duration of the dog's bite was "significantly less than one minute" and argued that was a reasonable length of time.

Moore evaluated Martinez's claims by noting what police knew prior to their encounter. They understood Martinez was acting strangely, trying to get into other vehicles and had active arrest warrants. He was locked inside a storage closet, did not communicate with officers and did not immediately show his hands.

"Martinez suggests a number of different tactics which the officers could have used that would not have resulted in him receiving a four-centimeter wound in his arm. The defendants concede that they could have used some of those suggested techniques," Moore wrote. "The reasonableness of a particular police action, however, does not necessarily turn on the existence of other, less intrusive tactics."

Overall, he was "hard-pressed" to conclude the use of Kenzi to bite Martinez was legally problematic, given the potential danger police would have faced if Martinez were armed with a weapon. Even if the officers had behaved unreasonably, Moore added, it was not clearly established that using force on an out-of-sight, uncommunicative suspect was unreasonable, even if he was lying prone.

"Martinez was not under police control at the point that they opened the door even if, as a practical matter, and from his point of view he could not have escaped or posed a danger," the judge concluded.

Moore's decision vacated the jury trial scheduled to begin on July 18. This week, Martinez filed an appeal of the judge's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

White Fed Judge Hooks Up White Cop who Helped Murder George Floyd by Holding His Legs Down w/2 yr Sentence. White Prosecutors Only Charged Failure to Provide Med Care/Intervene. State Case pending

From [HERE] Thomas Lane, a white Minneapolis police officer who held down George Floyd’s legs as he gasped for air while dying under the knee of another white officer, was sentenced by a white judge to two and a half years in prison on Thursday.

The federal judge in St. Paul handed down the sentence to Mr. Lane several months after a jury found him guilty of violating Mr. Floyd’s rights by not providing him with medical care after Derek Chauvin, the other officer, knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes. Mr. Lane, who is also waiting to be sentenced over a state manslaughter charge, will be the second officer imprisoned over Mr. Floyd’s death, which set off a summer of protests across the United States in 2020.

Mr. Lane’s sentence was less than half as long as what prosecutors had sought. Mr. Floyd’s relatives had asked the judge to impose the maximum prison term possible and said afterward that they were upset by the sentence.

“It’s insulting that he didn’t get the maximum amount of time,” said Philonise Floyd, one of Mr. Floyd’s brothers, adding: “If it was me and that was accessory to murder, they would’ve gave me the maximum amount of time. And you’re a police officer who was sworn to protect, who took an oath, and you didn’t get the maximum amount of time.”

Mr. Lane and his lawyer declined to comment as they left the courthouse. The judge’s sentence was three months longer than what they had requested. Judge Magnuson called the crime a “very serious offense” but also called Mr. Lane a person of “outstanding character” and said he had received a flood of letters supporting him. The judge ordered Mr. Lane to surrender in October after he is sentenced in the state manslaughter case.

Kristen Clarke, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said Mr. Floyd would still be alive had Mr. Lane and other officers intervened.

“This sentence should send a message that protecting people in custody is the affirmative duty and obligation of every law enforcement officer, regardless of one’s rank or seniority,” Ms. Clarke said. [MORE]

ANON explains, There are NO black individuals or black organizations that have the power to strip whites of their collective right to live where they want, work where they want, get an education wherever they want, or control what white people do collectively in ANY area of human activity. There are NO black institutions that are more powerful than white institutions. Therefore, blacks do not have the COLLECTIVE POWER to diminish the quality of life for the white collective.

Q: What is collective power?

A: Collective power is the institutions and systems that benefit one group at the expense of another group, and allow one group to dominate another group in all areas of human activity.

For example, when a white policeman shoots an unarmed black man (50 times), his fellow officers, the police chief, internal affairs, the union, the media, the prosecutor, thejudge, and thejury will support, defend, and finance that white police officer’s “right” to shoot (murder) an unarmed black person. That is white collective power.

It is rare for a white police officer to be punished for using excessive force against a black man, woman, or child. It is just as rare for a black police officer to use excessive force against a white person.

In fact, the authors were unable to find a single instance of a black police officer shooting or killing an unarmed white person in the history of modern law enforcement. This is not surprising but it is absolute proof that the black individual operating within a system of white supremacy cannot mistreat whites even if he or she is wearing a uniform, a badge, and carrying a gun.

Another example of white collective power is the mortgage and real estate industry, which systematically discriminates against black (and non-white) renters, homebuyers, and homeowners by: 

* Red-lining - denying home loans to minority geographical areas.

* Reverse red-lining -- targeting minority areas for fraudulent sub-prime home loans that are designed to self-destruct.

* Inflating home appraisals in racially changing neighborhoods to defraud (overcharge) minority homebuyers.

* Low-balling appraisals in minority areas to reduce home equity.

* Refusing to rent or sell to minorities in certain geographical areas.

* Raising property taxes in minority areas to drive minority residents out of desirable inner-city neighborhoods. (gentrification)

* Exclusion from special financing deals that are not generally known to the public, and are only offered to a select group of white buyers. 

Banks, real estate brokers, appraisers, and mortgage lenders represent INSTITUTIONAL RACISM (power) that is reinforced by the courts, banking, and government (systems).

This does not mean blacks are less likely to abuse power than whites if given the opportunity. It means blacks cannot abuse power that does not exist. The proof: there is no place in America where blacks are collectively practicing racism against whites collectively. [MORE]

Video Shows Large Tennessee Cops Batter a Black Man with a Police Bat and Step On His Head. Cops Broke Into His House After He Didn't Pull Over for Alleged Stop Sign Violation

From [HERE] Police in Oakland, Tennessee are being accused of deploying excessive force in their efforts to arrest 25-year-old Black man, Brandon Calloway.

Local news station WREG reports that police say they began pursuing Calloway after he allegedly ran a stop sign while driving in his car, and then refused to pull over for them.

Calloway eventually led the officers to his house, where he defiantly walked away while insisting that he did not run the stop sign.

After he went inside his house, officers kicked the door in and deployed tasers against him in an attempt to subdue him. When this failed to work, they then hit him repeatedly with batons.

He was then arrested and charged with evading arrest, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and speeding.

Attorney Andre Wharton, who is representing Calloway, said his client had to get multiple stitches in the wake of the beating, and that he now has limited visibility as a result of multiple blows to the face.

"Brandon was assaulted in a brutal fashion," he told WREG. "I describe it as animalistic. The pictures are horrific. He’s fortunate to be here to stand up and express through his presence here he wants to see some accountability."

Shelby County Commissioner and NAACP President Van Truner similarly said there was no justification for the level of force police used in making the arrest.

“Take our young black men into custody like you take other folks into custody, without one scratch, without harm and let them have their day in court,” he said.

White Sylvia (NC) Cop Only Charged with Misdemeanors over his Felonious Assault that inflicted serious injuries on Latino Man During a "Welfare Check" after a Car Accident

From [HERE] A former Sylva Police officer faces criminal charges related to his alleged treatment of a detainee in 2021.

Patrick Elijah “Eli” Trantham, 23, of Waynesville was indicted earlier this month by the Jackson County Grand Jury on two counts of assault inflicting serious injury.

The charges stem from a Feb. 14, 2021 incident where Trantham was the responding officer and allegedly used excessive force against Hugo Fabia Pinacho Vazquez after taking him into custody.

“This was absolutely an isolated incident,” Chief Chris Hatton said. “This is not who we are as a department, and any mistreatment of others is considered unacceptable by our officers. As the leader of Sylva PD, I have a heavy heart about this, but I can say that our leadership dealt with this accusation as soon as it came to light.”

That Sunday at 3:57 a.m., SPD responded to a call about a car over an embankment. On scene officers found the car but could not find a driver or passengers.

Shortly afterward they received a call about a person, who was later identified at Vazquez, sitting on the shoulder of U.S. 74.

“Former officer Trantham responded to this location to check the welfare of the person and try and determine if he was involved in the accident,” Hatton said. “Trantham found the individual sitting beside the roadway to be very intoxicated and uncooperative.”

Trantham took Vazquez into custody on a “hold until sober” meaning that under typical circumstances Vazquez would have been held until he was sober enough to take care of himself.

At some point, Trantham is believed to have assaulted Vazquez leaving him with “hematomas on his head, chin, right eye and cheek; (a) mildly deviated septum, sprain of the lumbar spine and left radiocarpal joint (wrist) and carpal ligaments,” according to court documents.

On Monday, Feb. 15, Hatton was alerted to the possibility of Trantham’s excessive use of force by other members of the department.

Two hours after learning of the incident SPD began a departmental investigation and reached out to the N.C. State Bureau of Investigation to initiate a criminal investigation, Hatton said.

The internal investigation was performed by SPD leadership to examine whether Trantham violated department policy, Hatton said.

On Feb. 16 Trantham was suspended. The internal investigation was completed the same day, and Trantham was scheduled for a disciplinary meeting with Hatton for the following day.

“On Feb. 17, 2021, Trantham resigned his employment in the morning hours before the scheduled meeting,” Hatton said. “This scheduled meeting would have resulted in the termination of Trantham’s employment with the Town of Sylva. Trantham’s employment with the Town of Sylva ended on this date. Trantham did not work any shifts after Sylva Police leadership were notified of the situation.”

No other officers were investigated in relation to the incident.

Trantham joined SPD on Oct. 29, 2019.

Hatton does not believe racial bias contributed to the incident and does not know if there was a language barrier.

“I am not aware of any facts or reasons to believe that this incident had anything to do with this person’s ethnicity,” he said.

Trantham’s next court date is scheduled for Sept. 9.

6 Yrs Ago NYPD Cop Murdered Delrawn Small; Shot Black Man in the Street in Front of His 2 Kids and Then Lied About it. After Begging Liberals Year After Year for “Justice” Will the Cop Lose His Job?

From [HERE] It’s been six years since a Black, off-duty New York City police officer killed Delrawn Small, and the Black man’s family is still hoping for justice.

On July 4, 2016, NYPD Officer Wayne Isaacs shot Small during a late-night road rage incident in Brooklyn. The 37-year-old approached the officer’s car, and the officer claimed he fired his gun in self-defense. Small, who was unarmed, was killed in front of his girlfriend, his teenage stepdaughter and his 4-month-old son, who watched from inside the car.

The shooting launched a series of investigations by prosecutors, law enforcement and the city’s police watchdog agency, each with their own findings and interpretations of the case. Years later, the shooting is now approaching the last stages of review – an administrative trial by the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). The incident provides a window into the lengthy, complex process that follows killings by police and sheds light on why it takes so long for these types of cases to reach a final resolution.

“It’s been rough, to be honest,” Small’s brother, Victor Dempsey, told Gothamist shortly after the six-year anniversary of the shooting. “I don’t think any family should have to fight year after year after year after year just to get a sense or some measure of accountability.”

Dempsey has spent the past six years watching the security camera footage of the shooting in slow motion. He has pored over freeze frames of his brother’s every move and dissected the footage each way he could think of to make sense of that moment. The silent, grainy, black-and-white clip is still saved on his phone.

“I know that some folks think that it would drive me crazy, but I’ve watched that video well over, well over 100,000 times. Easily,” Dempsey said.

The officer claimed that Small approached his car, yelled at him for cutting him off, threatened him and punched him through his car window, according to court records and past coverage of the case.

Isaacs was on his way home from work when Small approached his car, court records show. The officer said he thought Small was going to carjack him or recognized him from a past arrest and was angry. So, he pulled out his gun. Within moments, he fired three shots at Small, killing him.

But security footage that came out a few days later showed Small falling over and running away almost immediately after approaching the officer’s vehicle. The footage cast doubt on the police narrative. Dempsey has spent the past six years trying to prove the video contradicts the officer’s version of the events – and that his brother shouldn’t have been killed.

“My grief was in the lie,” he said. “My grief was proving everybody wrong. And I wasn’t grieving for my brother’s loss, because I had to show everybody, to even get the attention or to get people to understand that this was murder. I had to prove that they lied.”

The details were murky from the start. Dempsey remembers the confusion of the night his brother was killed. He was living in the suburbs at the time, and family in the city flooded him with calls and text messages, sharing piecemeal bits of information and urging him to get to Brooklyn. He raced to the scene with so many questions running through his mind.

When Dempsey arrived, he said, he crossed the yellow police tape lining the street and walked right past his brother’s body on the ground without even realizing he was there. He thought Small was still alive, getting treated at a hospital. But eventually, he understood why his cousins were crying and hugging. Someone told him that his brother had been killed. And then, he learned it had been a member of law enforcement who had pulled the trigger.

The officer was charged with second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter through a special unit in the state attorney general’s office that had recently been created to prosecute killings by police. A jury found him not guilty on all counts. Small’s family and his girlfriend have each settled lawsuits with the city. But the officer’s disciplinary case has been stuck in limbo ever since.

Few killings by police result in charges, convictions

It’s rare for law enforcement to face criminal consequences for killing someone, according to Bowling Green State University’s Police Crime Database.

Between 2005 and 2016, Bowling Green researchers have found that just 190 off-duty and 216 on-duty killings by police resulted in criminal charges, ranging from driving under the influence to murder. For comparison, police gunfire alone kills approximately 1,000 people in the U.S. each year, according to the Washington Post’s Fatal Force project. Only 250 of the killings tracked by Bowling Green’s database – about 60% – ended with a conviction. Some of those convictions were for less serious crimes than the original charge.

“If you or I went out tonight and shot and killed somebody and said it was a road rage incident or something like that, the police would start with a set of assumptions. They would start with: ‘This is a criminal homicide investigation,’” said Philip Stinson, who runs the database and is a leading researcher on the topic. “If they knew we were the shooter, we might be arrested right away.”

But that’s not how the investigation typically goes when an officer kills someone, Stinson said. The assumption from the start is that the killing was justified and that the officer did it to save their life, or someone else’s.

That makes prosecutors hesitant to take cases to court, Stinson said. In the few instances when they do, he added, juries can be tough to convince.

When New York City officers are acquitted in court and cleared by the department, there can be one more test of culpability through the CCRB. The watchdog agency investigates complaints against NYPD officers. But the process can be slow – especially when police kill someone.

Prosecutors get to make their case first, and typically ask other entities to put their investigations on hold in the meantime, according to Daniel Bodah, who spent about seven years as an investigator at the CCRB in the early 2000s and now researches police misconduct for a criminal justice reform think tank. Next, the police department does its own review. Then, the CCRB can take one last look – not to find evidence of a crime, but to see if the officer violated any policies.

“It’s a different question than whether the officer committed a crime,” Bodah said.

“Isaacs was acquitted at trial. That does not bar the CCRB from making a finding of administrative misconduct, excessive force in violation of the patrol guide,” he said. “It’s just a different question with a different standard of proof.”

The CCRB launched an investigation into Isaacs’s actions in 2018 and recommended disciplinary charges against Isaacs in 2020. But for years, the process was stuck. The agency was essentially waiting for approval from the police department to move forward, until a couple months ago, when Keechant Sewell and Eric Adams, the new police commissioner and mayor, agreed to let the case move forward.

The next step would be an administrative trial, which the officer’s union tried to block. A judge sided with the CCRB earlier this year. Now, the agency is waiting to find out if it can access the criminal file for its case. The agency said it expects to take the case to trial once it has prepared the strongest case possible.

“CCRB has nothing new to add to this case, which has already been fully investigated and adjudicated by the NYPD,” Police Benevolent Association President Patrick J. Lynch said in a statement. “The police officer was also acquitted by a Brooklyn jury. CCRB is simply looking for a third bite at the apple in order to justify their bloated budget and advance their anticop agenda.”

It’s still possible that, after six years, Isaacs could stay on the force without any discipline. But he could be fired following a CCRB trial, like the officer who killed Eric Garner.

“We all heard him say, ‘I don’t have anything,’ and he started to run,” then Cops Shot Him 3X in the Back.' LAPD Try to Murder a Black Man Holding a Car Part, Cops say They Thought It Was a Gun

From [HERE] Days after Los Angeles police shot a 39-year-old man in Leimert Park, neighbors and others demanded answers about why officers opened fire in a residential neighborhood on someone who officials now say was unarmed.

Authorities have so far released few details about the shooting Monday evening of Jermaine Petit in the area of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and South Bronson Avenue. 

At a news conference the night of the incident, an LAPD spokesman said the man was carrying a “weapon” when police came across him walking on King but offered no further clarification. The department later retracted that statement in a news release, saying a “black metal latch actuator” was recovered from the scene. 

Petit, who was taken to a hospital in serious condition, is expected to survive, police said.

It was the LAPD’s 20th shooting of the year, a quarter of which have occurred this month.

Deshonay Howard said she was parked in front of her house across the street when she saw Petit walk past a bus stop near King and Degnan Boulevard, and noticed that he was being tailed by several police vehicles with their lights and sirens off.

“We all heard him say, ‘I don’t have anything,’ and he started to run,” she said, adding that she saw police shoot him three times when his back was turned.

In its news release Tuesday, the Los Angeles Police Department said patrol officers from the Southwest Division and a uniformed supervisor believed they were dealing with someone armed with a handgun after responding to an “assault with a deadly weapon” call.

A man who matched the suspect’s description, later identified as Petit, did not respond to officers’ commands, police said.

“As the suspect walked away from the officers, he turned multiple times in their direction and pointed a black metallic object believed to be a firearm” before officers opened fire, according to the LAPD release.

After the shooting, Howard said, officers gathered behind a shield with guns still drawn and inched toward Petit, whom she didn’t know by name but recognized from having seen him around the neighborhood.

In the days since, she has tried to keep her mind off what happened but has worried about her daughters’ well-being.

Both little girls were playing outside their home on King; her older daughter was riding her scooter but stopped when she heard officers yelling at Petit, Howard said.

“The fact that police didn’t take the [time] to look back and see that there were kids playing,” Howard said, frustration creeping into her voice. “My neighbor was out trimming her hedges.”

Taiyyeba Skomra was playing a word game with her husband and 8-year-old daughter when they heard three gunshots outside. Her daughter immediately hid under the couch, while Skomra and her husband peeked outside to see Petit lying on the ground, surrounded by officers.

“There was nothing in his hands and they were shouting at him to turn over,” she said. “There were many police amassing, and then finally somebody with a shield, they approached him.”

After a few minutes, officers turned Petit over and handcuffed him, she said. They removed a backpack that he was carrying, spilling its contents onto the street.

She said she spent the next few hours trying to remain calm for her young daughter, who was crying uncontrollably.

“She wouldn’t even come out from under the couch,” Skomra said. “I don’t know what comes from this other than terrorizing the neighborhood.”

Skomra said a cousin of Petit’s who lives nearby told her that Petit was a military vet who was fearful of officers after previous run-ins with law enforcement.

Speaking at the weekly Police Commission meeting Tuesday, LAPD Chief Michel Moore said officers recovered an auto part known as a “latch actuator” but did not clarify why officers stopped Petit in the first place or how they mistook the part for a weapon.

The names of the officers involved are expected to be released in the coming days.

The incident will be reviewed by LAPD investigators and the findings presented to the Police Commission. Such investigations typically take several months and can last up to a year. Under department policy, video that investigators collect should be released within 45 days.

White Gastonia Cops Get Revenge on Jason Lipscomb by Murdering Him. After He Hit an Officer w/His Car Video Shows Cops Execute Black Man as He Backed Away from Them, Trying to Flee From Slave Catchers

From [HERE] and [HERE] A Black man was shot and killed by a white police officer Wednesday afternoon after authorities first responded to a home for a kidnapping call, according to the Gastonia Police Department.

Officers said they were called to a home just after 12:30 p.m. on North Edgemont Avenue off of Highway 74.

Gastonia Police Public Information Officer Rick Goodale said officers got a call saying two kids had been taken by a man who was not supposed to have them. Goodale said they arrived at the home on North Edgemont Avenue but found the two children safe and unharmed inside.

Goodale said that was when they also found the man who was suspected of taking the children nearby. He said the man had “some sort of encounter” on the street with police, and that was when he hit one of the officers with the car he was backing away.

“During the course of the investigation, the suspect was operating a vehicle and struck one of our officers,” Goodale said. The officer is expected to be ok. The car was not going that fast as it backed up into him while the officer was back-peddling. The SBI is investigating the case.

According to Goodale, multiple officers fired their guns, hitting the suspect. It’s too early to know which officer did, he said.

Police said the suspect, who family identified as 21-year-old Jason Lipscomb, died at the scene. Investigators said the officer who was hit had a police escort to the hospital with serious injuries.

Goodale said though the relationship is unclear, everyone involved in the situation knew each other.

Police said they are not looking for any additional suspects in connection to the shooting.

Channel 9′s Ken Lemon spoke to a stepfather at the scene who said he saw police shot and kill his stepson.

“When I started praying, all I hear is gunshots. Nothing but gun shots,” Robert Hamlett said.

Hamlett said he didn’t know what was happening outside his home, and that when he stepped out on the porch, he saw Lipscomb with police around him. 

Other family members heard about the shooting minutes after it happened and also rushed to the scene. One uncle had to be held back because he wanted to cross the police line and see everything for himself. Lipscomb’s mother also came to the police line hoping someone would tell her the news wasn’t true. 

Family members said Lipscomb didn’t have a weapon at the time of the shooting. Goodale said that’s part of the investigation.

As standard procedure for all officer-involved shootings, the State Bureau of Investigation is responding to investigate along with GPD internal affairs.

Panic-Hype Man, Masterful Liar and Biocide Architect Anthony Fauci to Retire at the End of Biden's Term. Will He be Alive for His Nuremberg Trial?

Anthony Fauci, the psychopathic infectious-diseases fake expert who has helped steer the nation’s response to Covid-19 through two administrations, said he is likely to retire by the end of President Biden’s term. His work undoubtedly will kill millions of people.

Dr. Fauci, 81 years old, has become one of the most well-known public-health leaders during the pandemic, appearing often at White House Covid-19 press briefings and on national TV and other outlets. He delivered unvarnished views in his characteristic Brooklyn accent about the dangers of the virus and a need to take precautions, drawing criticism from some Republicans.

Dr. Fauci is the chief medical adviser to President Biden, while also leading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NIAID. He has directed the institute since 1984, serving under seven presidents.

Dr. Fauci said Monday he hadn’t decided on a date but planned to step down by the end of Mr. Biden’s term in January 2025. “Sometime between now and then, I will step down from my current position and pursue other directions in my professional career,” he said. [MORE]

Scientist says the Experiments Used to Establish COVID are a Fraud. ‘There is No Real Evidence that SARS-CoV2 “virus” Causes Anything More Serious than a Short, Common Cold or that It Actually Exists'

From [EXPOSE] Infecting mice with the deadly SARS-CoV-2 virus should be lethal right? Wrong. In an experiment that used mice the researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the supposed human disease called Covid 19.

But maybe mice are too different to humans to be relevant models for human disease. Maybe if our fellow primates (monkeys) were infected with this deadly virus they would get seriously ill and die right? Wrong.

We are told that the SARS-CoV-2 “coronavirus” causes serious and lethal disease in humans. Three research papers presented by Facebook “fact checkers” in support of this contention prove nothing of the sort. This is called a citation bluff and is a common tactic used by scientific fraudsters. The fraudsters depend on people not reading or understanding the research that is cited but instead just blindly trusting that there is evidence to support the claims made by the fraudsters. I have read and understood the monkey studies for you…

The first is a “Comparative pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a nonhuman primate model.” that was published in the prestigious scientific journal “Science”.

This is one of the papers used by Facebook “fact checkers” to justify the official Covid 19 narrative and to prove that Covid 19 is a serious and life-threatening disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It proves nothing of the sort…

They infected some monkeys with the “deadly” SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. This is what happened:

“No overt clinical signs were observed in any of the infected animals, except for a serous nasal discharge in one aged animal on day 14 post inoculation (p.i.). No significant weight loss was observed in any of the animals during the study.”

In other words, one of them got a snotty nose or a “serous nasal discharge” if you prefer to be more polite but nothing more serious than that.

Surely, they must be shedding high levels of this “deadly” and rapidly replicating virus for a long-time post infection, right? Wrong:

“Low levels of infectious virus were cultured from throat and nasal swabs up to day 2 and 4, respectively.”

After 4 days of most monkeys being absolutely fine ( except for the one with a snotty nose) the monkeys were unlikely to be infectious to other monkeys. In spite of this lack of viral shedding the whole world was locked down to prevent spread and to “flatten the curve”.

Sadly, the monkeys had to be killed and their tissues had to be examined under a microscope to detect anything wrong with them at all:

“The main histological lesion in the consolidated pulmonary tissues of both the young and aged animals involved the alveoli and bronchioles and consisted of areas with acute or more advanced DAD.”

DAD is Diffuse Alveola Damage. This is how a pathologist would describe your lungs if you had a cold or lived in a polluted city and they sliced up your lungs to have a look at them down a microscope. They aren’t doing this to humans just yet (except in China) but who knows what they will do in the future when they invent a new new variant.

We are told that SARS-CoV-2 enters the body via the lungs, spreads via the bloodstream, and goes on to ravage all of our internal organs. But:

“The other organs in these two macaques, as well as the respiratory tract and other organs of the other two animals, were normal.”

What no seriously deadly pneumonia? No renal failure? No liver damage? No brain damage? No blood clots? No cytokine storm? No multi-organ failure? Doesn’t sound like the deadly COVID 19 human plague to me:

“Virus replication was primarily restricted to the respiratory tract (nasal cavity, trachea, bronchi, and lung lobes) with highest levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in lungs.”

Sounds like a common cold affecting only the airways then:

“The other aged macaque, without virological or pathological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the lungs, did have SARS-CoV-2 antigen expression in ciliated epithelial cells of nasal septum, nasal concha, and palatum molle, in the absence of associated histopathological changes. No SARS-CoV antigen expression was detected in other sampled tissues, including brain and intestine.”

This monkey evidently had a great immune system. Do you? Lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing, chronic stress and the shots will adversely affect your immune system.

The researchers summarised their findings:

“In summary, we inoculated young and aged cynomolgus macaques with a low-passage clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2, which resulted in productive infection in the absence of overt clin- ical signs.”

“These data show that cynomolgus macaques are permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection, shed virus for a prolonged period of time, and display COVID-19–like disease.”

In summary, they gave some monkeys a mild mostly asymtomatic cold. Not the deadly plague that has been invoked to terrify the human population into compliance.

What these data really show is that a mild self-limiting common cold can be induced in some monkeys (but not all) when their airways are inoculated with an un purified soup of biological material and toxins which they choose to call “SARS-CoV-2”.

These data do not show serious or fatal respiratory or systemic disease caused by this strain of “coronavirus”. These data do not justify lockdowns, social isolation, the destruction of small businesses, tracking and tracing people’s movements, the taking of our freedoms, rights and democracy.

The second paper is titled “Infection with novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causes pneumonia in Rhesus macaques.” and was published in the journal “Cell Research”.

This is another one of the papers used by Facebook “fact checkers” to justify the official Covid 19 narrative and to prove that this disease is real. It once again proves nothing of the sort…

They infected some more poor monkeys with the “deadly” SARS-CoV-2 “coronavirus”. This is what happened:

“No obvious clinical signs were observed during the study course except that one animal showed reduced appetite. All animals investigated did not show body weight changes from 1 to 6 days post infection…Body temperatures were monitored from day1 to day14 and no obvious changes were found.”

One animal went off its food a bit but none of them lost weight and none of them developed a fever. Doesn’t sound too serious, does it? They went on:

“No viral RNA could be detected in blood from day 1 to day 14”

We are led to believe that Covid 19 causes multi-organ systemic serious and fatal disease but it doesn’t even get into the bloodstream? Hmmm:

“No specific viral RNA could be detected in heart, liver, spleen, kidney, intestine, stomach and reproductive tract on day 3 and 6 post infection”

The virus doesn’t infect these internal organs? Hmmm…

“We presume that the respiratory tract is the preliminary target of SARS-CoV-2 infection, while other organs might not be the direct targets.”

So, it’s what we used to call a common cold then…

“After 6 days of infection, the lung lesions of RMs were alleviated, with decrease of monocyte and lymphocyte infiltrations, increase of macrophages, and reduction of edema and hyaline membrane.”

“On day 6 post infection, the mucosal lesions of trachea and bronchus were significantly alleviated and the epithelial cell structure was basically restored, but a small number of monocytes, lymphocytes and eosinophils were still seen in the submucosa.”

So, they have demonstrated a mostly asymptomatic self-limiting common cold that the monkeys recovered from in less than a week. So, what has actually been killing people then? The authors explained:

“A retrospective study in China showed that compared to the recovered group, more patients in the death group exhibited pre-existing comorbidities, dyspnea and decrease of oxygen saturation, characteristics of advanced age.”

They died from old age and pre-existing comorbidities. The elderly and those with pre-existing comorbidities are routinely poisoned to death by their doctors. It’s very profitable. They get cash bonuses for doing it. The elderly and infirm are considered by some to be a burden on society. The Nazis were of the same opinion.

“In another study investigated in China, 1099 COVID-19 cases showed that majority of the cases (84.3%) were non-severe, ~5% of confirmed cases required ICU attendance after severe pneumonia occurred, 2.3% needed mechanical ventilation support, and 1.4% died.”

Prolonged mask wearing is a great way to give yourself “severe pneumonia” and inappropriate mechanical ventilation together with toxic drugs can be lethal. Draconian societal measures don’t seem proportionate to a disease which in 84.3% of cases is non-severe. But I’m not a Chinese Communist so what would I know…

“This animal model has confirmed the causal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and respiratory disease in RM reminiscent of the mild respiratory symptom or non-symptomatic cases in COVID-19 already reported in humans.”

They have proven once again that a “coronavirus” can cause a mild common cold, something which has been known for many decades. Where is the proof of serious and life-threatening disease? It doesn’t exist.

What about immunity to this “deadly virus”?

“The neutralizing antibody generated by infection could prevent secondary infection by SARS-CoV-2, which suggested that humoral immunity could play a role in protection, although T cell and innate immune could be further investigated in the future to examine their role in the protection.”

So, they admit that natural immunity is a thing then? Weird how the media don’t think it’s a thing and everyone should get the shots instead. The shots are causing a type of immunodeficiency similar to AIDS but affecting a different cell type. Vaccine induced antibodies to “coronaviruses” are often not protective but due to Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) cause more serious disease.

The third study is another Chinese Communist Party paper that Facebook “fact checkers” love: “Age-related Rhesus Macaque Models of COVID-19.” which was published in the journal “Animal Models and Experimental Medicine.”

They infected some more poor monkeys and…

“Clinical signs were transient and lasted for a few days.”

None of the monkeys developed a fever or died from the infection. Get the picture? See the pattern here?

There is no real evidence that the SARS-CoV2 “virus” causes anything more serious than a mild mostly asymptomatic short-lasting common cold. In fact, there is no real evidence that the virus actually exists except in-silico (on a computer). All of the above studies used a complex mixture of biological and toxic material that has not been properly purified but the researchers refer to this as the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” nevertheless.

Do you really believe that multi-million amounts of money were spent on “gain of function” research to develop such a pathetic damp squib “bioweapon”?

The fatalities and serious illness in humans are due to other causes (often old age) and Covid 19 is a misdiagnosis used to create a pseudo pandemic. The sick globalist psychopaths running the show don’t care whether you believe the gain of function bioweapon narrative or the naturally occurring deadly virus narrative. They only care that you believe in the deadly virus on the loose hoax narrative.

References

1) Shi-Hui Sun et al (2020) “A Mouse Model of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Pathogenesis.” Cell Host Microbe. 2020 Jul 8; 28(1): 124–133.

2) Rockx Barry et al (2020) “Comparative pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a nonhuman primate model.” Science 368, 1012–1015 29 May 2020.

3) Shan Chao et al (2020) “Infection with novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causes pneumonia in Rhesus macaques.” Cell Research 30:670–677; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41422-020-0364-z.

4) Yu Pin et al (2020) “Age-related rhesus macaque models of COVID-19.” Animal Model Exp Med. 2020;3:93–97.

Is COVID a Real Virus Created in a Lab or a Mind Virus Created to Control People? David Icke says COVID is a ‘Meaningless New Name for an Old Familiar Cluster of Seasonal Flu-Like Symptoms’

Like “authority,” “government,” “race,” and “money” (monetized debt), the mind virus COVID-19 is a granfalloon enslaving and ensnaring mankind.

FUNKTIONARY explains;

mind viruses – memes with both the anchor and carrier embedded into its payload. Mind viruses are stealth psychopathogens in that they can mutate to penetrate our natural defenses undetected, pretend to be part of us, and compel us to spread them further.(See: Memes, Memetics, Evolution, Religion, Government, Corporate State & Taxation)

Granfalloon – an empty representation, of which one cannot even positively aver that it is even a concept. All Corporate State fictions (stationary bandits) are “created” by its creators as a psychological retro-virus in people’s minds as if it were a real (existential and volitional) entity, the sole purpose of which is to command, mediate, control and subdue the natural inclinations of a sleeping people who do not understand (know) themselves in order that they may silently rob them of their property and mind—under the Great Brain Robbery. The Constitution is a putative agreement or covenant to which you were neither a signatory nor interested party. The Constitution made provisions for the establishment of a Congress. Congress never formally created the so-called Internal Revenue Service as a duly formed agency of the United States of America. The Secretary of the Treasury never created revenue districts in the States of the Union. Internal Revenue Service was never granted authority to tax income of American citizens (or citizens of the United States of America, not U.S. citizens or subjects of Congress) earning money within the 50 States of the Union. The word “income” is not explicitly defined in the Internal Revenue Code (although it is implicitly defined by the most basic of accounting principles, i.e., cost. The income (“money”) that you earn is simply hypothecated “credit” created as iconic numbers within yet another fictitious corporate entity known as a bank. When every foundation is imaginary, alienation becomes desirable but impossible. You can elude the “authorities” but you cannot escape that which simply isn’t real or has no reality to begin with—so just what are any so-called “authorities” agents of anyway? Where are the office and the oath of office? Never fight (oppose) things that are not or ‘what is not’—as you will stratify your energy and dissipate your life-force while paradoxically strengthening what-is-not. Determine whether something has a real existence or whether it is just an absence. If it is an absence—a granfalloon—then don’t fight with “it,” seek the thing of which it is the absence (for), find it and handle your business accordingly. (See: Reification, Stationary Bandits, Territorial Gangsters, Voting, Doggy, Somnamnesiac, Sleepwalking, Corporate State, Income, “Government,” President, SimCult, Authority, Grand Juries, Tax Invasion, “Credit,” Hegelian Banking, Holodeck Court, Judicial Victimization, Statutory Oppression & The Flag)

DC Forces Genocidal COVID Shots on Kids Ages 12+. Law Destroys Rights to Refuse Medical Treatment and Refuse Emergency Use Vaccines. Falsely Claims Vax Slows Spread, Disproportionately Affects Blacks

COVID Injections Don't Immunize or Stop Spread. They're Treatments (Not Vaccines) that feed the Virus and Facilitate its Development into More Variants. The Government IS TRYING TO KILL YOU.

From [HERE] and [HERE] D.C. schools have a new mandate requiring all students 12 and up to receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccine before returning to school this fall.  

In a July 19 press release, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education directed that all students eligible for COVID-19 vaccines according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must receive their vaccines for the 2022-2023 school year.  

The mandate extends to all schools, including private, parochial, and independent. Students must verify their vaccine status as part of enrollment and attendance requirements.  

According to the mandate, all students 12 and up, unless exempted, must have received a series of COVID-19 shots or begun the process of vaccination before the start of the school year. Pursuant to implementing regulations, “School authorities may exclude from regular instruction a student who is not immunized and provide for special instruction for the student.” DCMR 5- 5300.13

With regard to exemptions the new law states, § 38–506. Exemption from certification.

“No certification of immunization shall be required for the admission to a school of a student:

(1) For whom the responsible person objects in good faith and in writing, to the chief official of the school, that immunization would violate his or her religious beliefs; or

(2) For whom the school has written certification by a private physician, his or her representative, or the public health authorities that immunization is medically inadvisable.” D.C. Code § 38–506.

It makes no exception for children with natural immunity.

The legislative record indicates that DC lawmakers were explicitly warned that COVID injections are dangerous to all people. The liberal puppeticians were also aware that the mandate will disproportionately impact Black people. The record states, “In a school system made up of mainly Black students, this Council is determined to override the decision‐making of Black parents about the medical care of their own children. This is pure white supremacy.“ [MORE]

The mandate is part of the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination law passed in D.C. last year. The law required all eligible teachers and students to receive the experimental vaccines.  

NO FULLY APPROVED COVID SHOTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE US. Despite evidence showing the vaccine is more dangerous to children than the virus on July 7th the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control Prevention (CDC) recently approved the experimental shots for children as young as six months old.  

However, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S for any age group and is not the same formula as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine currently authorized under EUA and being distributed as a “fully approved” vaccine.

That is, all all the shots are Emergency Use, which are legally distinct, not interchangeable w/comirnaty. As such, the only way to comply with the D.C.’s mandate will be children are injected with a shot under an EUA. This is especially important because EUA vaccines bypass the FDA and PHS Act's requirements for safety and efficacy.

Pfizer’s information hotline says it has no specific information on when Comirnaty will be available. The FDA said earlier this month that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be, authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.” The CDC’s website states that Comirnaty is “not orderable.”

According to FDA documents, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S. and nobody has received a fully approved and licensed COVID-19 vaccine.

“Comirnaty has not been made available under EUA,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, physician and senior science editor for The Defender. “The FDA and Pfizer have already stated very quietly, that they have no intent of manufacturing Comirnaty for distribution. Everyone is getting the non-licensed formulation that carries no liability for pharmaceutical companies.” [MORE]

Apparently in the recent case NFIB v. OSHA before the US Supreme Court, it was undisputed by the government that “Comirnaty is not available at all in the United States.”

The distinction between an EUA and an FDA-approved product matters. In particular, the FDA's grant of EUA requires little, if any, demonstration that the EUA product is safe and effective. Nor does the EUA include FDA review or approval of manufacturing processes, facilities, storage, distribution, or quality control procedures. This is why the FDA has acknowledged the products are "legally distinct.'' [MORE] and [MORE]

An amicus brief filed by Defending The Republic (DTR) in NFIB v. OSHA importantly pointed out the following;

Important Differences Between EUA and FDA-Approved Vaccines

“There are significant differences between the FDA's approval standards and the EUA standards. EUA vaccines require little to no proof of safety or efficacy. FDA vaccine approvals do.

The FDA may grant an EUA where: (1) the HHS Secretary has declared a public health emergency that justifies the use of an EUA, see 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(b)(1); and (2) the FDA finds that "there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating" the disease in question. 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c)(3).

The differences between licensed vaccines and those subject to an EUA render them "legally distinct." First, the requirements for efficacy are much lower for EUA products than for licensed products. EUAs require only a showing that, based on scientific evidence "if available," "it is reasonable to believe," the product "may be effective" in treating or preventing the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(A).

Second, the safety requirements are minimal, requiring only that the FDA conclude that the "known and potential benefits ... outweigh the known and potential risks" of the product, considering the risks of the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(B). There is no requirement that the FDA know the potential risks of the product.

In comparison, vaccines that go through traditional FDA review typically take 10 years or more to reach approval. And the approval process compiles more information on the risks of the vaccine, gathered through lab testing and clinical trials, "to assess the safety and effectiveness of each vaccine.''

The Right to Refuse an EUA Vaccine

The FDA's grant of an EUA is subject to informed consent requirements to "ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed" that they have "the option to accept or refuse administration of the product." 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III).

For the three COVID-19 vaccines, FDA implemented the "option to accept or refuse" condition described in Section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) in each letter granting the EUA by requiring that FDA's "Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers" be made available to every potential vaccine recipient. These include the statement that the recipient "has the option to accept or refuse" the vaccine. Moreover, the EUA label itself must expressly state that the recipient has a "right to refuse" administration of the EUA product.

Informed Consent Rights

The norm of informed consent has been "firmly embedded" in U.S. law and FDA regulations for nearly 60 years. Adullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 182 (2d Cir. 2009). Congress first enacted this requirement in 1962 drawing on the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration, "which suggests the government conceived of these sources' articulation of the norm as a binding legal obligation." Adullahi, 562 F.3d at 182. Informed consent requirements are a cornerstone of FDA rules governing human medical experimentation. See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. §§ 50.20, 50.23-.25, 50.27, 312.20, 312.120 (2008); 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.111, 46.116-117.

EUA and FDA Licensed Products do not have the "Same Formulation" and are not "Interchangeable"

The EUA and licensed versions of Pfizer- BioNTech do not have the "same formulation" as revealed by a simple inspection of the Pfizer Vaccine EUA letters and the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action (SBRA) for Comirnaty. Thus, they cannot be treated as "interchangeable," because there is no legal basis to administer an EUA product as if it were the FDA-licensed product. By definition, they are different.

There is no evidence in the public record for finding that the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and FDA-licensed Comirnaty have the "same formulation." There is, however, ample evidence for finding that they do not. The most detailed information on Comirnaty's composition, manufacturing process, manufacturing locations and other matters approved by the FDA is included in the FDA Comirnaty SBRA, nearly all of which is redacted, while most of this information was never made available in the Pfizer- BioNTech EUA applications or authorizations. To the extent such information is available, it reveals differences in the composition of the EUA and the licensed product. There is also no dispute that the FDA EUA does not address manufacturing processes or locations, which are addressed in the Comirnaty license.

For the same reasons, the public record does not support any argument that the two admittedly "legally distinct" products are "interchangeable." "Interchangeable" and "interchangeability" are specifically defined terms in Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act ("PHS Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 262, in relation to a "reference product," which is a biological product licensed under Section 351(a) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. § 262(a). For the purposes of determining "interchangeability," the "reference product" must be an FDA-licensed product; in this case, the FDA- licensed Comirnaty Vaccine. But the "interchangeable" product, the EUA BioNTech Vaccine, must be the subject of a later filed "abbreviated" application under 42 U.S.C. § 262(k), and there is no indication that any such application was ever filed by BioNTech, much less reviewed or approved by the FDA.

Any "interchangeability" determination would therefore reverse the temporal order of the COVID-19 licensed product and the interchangeable product. The reference product under 42 U.S.C. § 262(a) is the first licensed product, and therefore the basis for determining the interchangeability of the later product (i.e., the generic or EUA product). Here, however, the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine is the earlier product, while the licensed Comirnaty is the latter product; the earlier EUA product cannot rely on the FDA's safety and efficacy determinations for Comirnaty. Thus, an "interchangeability" determination would be a transparent attempt to retroactively license the earlier EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine, solely for the purpose of enabling the unlawful vaccine mandate.

Moreover, "FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before [FDA] approval." Austin, 2021 WL 5816632, at *6. Any EUA-labeled vaccines manufactured before licensure and "vaccines produced after August 23 in unapproved facilities--remain 'product[s] authorized for emergency use,"' i.e., EUA rather than licensed products. Id. In any case, such a post hoc interchangeability determination should not even be considered by the Court. "An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted." DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1909 (2020). [MORE]

COVID Shots Don't Prevent Infection or Transmission. As such, they are Treatments Not Vaccines; and People Have a Right to Refuse Medical Treatment. Mandates Violate Rights/Equal Protection.

At any rate COVID injections are not actually vaccines because they do not create immunity. The injections are treatments. As such, individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment.

Prosecute Now explains, The uncontroverted medical consensus is that existing Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission of the coronavirus; i.e., they do not create immunity in the recipients. This is admitted openly today, including by U.S. Health Agencies, which is why the CDC Director stated on CNN, "What the vaccines can't do anymore is prevent transmission.'

The CDC has acknowledged that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread the virus.

The Injections do not confer immunity but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2. They are, therefore, treatments and not vaccines as that term has always been defined in the law. [MORE]

in August of 2021, the CDC changed the definition of "vaccination" from "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease" to "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection to a specific disease.’'

However, this newly created CDC definition conflicts with the statutory criteria for a vaccine, which focuses solely upon immunity. In 1986, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1, which established "a National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization " (emphasis added). Clearly, from both a public health standpoint as well as from a legal standpoint, immunization is the intended sine qua non of vaccination.

That is, the CDC eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” The CDC apparently did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19. Since they do not create immunity, but are claimed to merely reduce the symptoms of the disease, the so called Covid-19 vaccines are treatments, not vaccines.

Even the FDA has classified them as "CBER-Regulated Biologics" otherwise known as "therapeutics" which fall under the "Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program.’'

The medical community, the relevant agencies, and both Pfizer and Moderna -- the manufacturers of the dominant injections -- recognize that the so-called vaccines are therapeutics, or medical treatments. Since they do not achieve immunization, this conclusion is also consistent with Congress' definition of vaccines in establishing the National Vaccine Program in 1986: the "prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization.''

This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which individuals have a fundamental human right to refuse. [MORE]

As explained by Dr. Devan Griner’s complaint against the CMS mandate,

“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).

It further explained,

As mandated medical treatments are a substantial burden, Defendants must prove that the CMS Mandate is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.

No such compelling interest exists because, as alleged above, the Injections are not effective against the now dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in that they do not prevent the recipient from becoming infected, getting reinfected, or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. Indeed, evidence shows that vaccinated individuals have more SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal passages than unvaccinated people do.

The Injections may have been somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV- 2 strain, but that strain has come and gone, and the Injections—designed to fight yesterday’s threat—are simply ineffective against the current variant.

Since the Injections are ineffective against the Delta and Omicron viral variants, and the original variant has been supplanted, there can be no compelling interest to mandate their use at this time.”

But even if there were a compelling interest in mandating the Injections, the CMS Mandate is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest.

The blanket mandate ignores individual factors increasing or decreasing the risks that the plaintiff—indeed, all healthcare workers—pose to themselves or to others.

Defendants entirely disregard whether employees have already obtained natural immunity despite the fact that natural immunity does actually provide immunity whereas the Injections do not.

Treating all employees the same, regardless of their individual medical status, risk factors, and natural immunity status is not narrowly tailored.

Moreover, the CMS Mandate fails entirely to consider other existing treatment options beyond the Injections as part of a more narrowly tailored approach. 97. Given these facts, as more fully set forth above, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Alternatively, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law as to Plaintiff, who already has natural immunity.” [MORE]

Eight-year-old Boy Dies after Receiving COVID Injection in Mexico

From [HERE] An eight-year-old boy reportedly died on Sunday July 10, after receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine five days earlier in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca.

The family of the eight-year-old boy reported the child died after receiving the COVID vaccine on July 5, resulting in symptoms such as a fever, that got progressively worse.

Due to his deteriorating health, an ambulance was called, which took him to a nearby hospital, where hours later, his death was announced.

Family members claim that the child died as a result of the vaccine and the symptoms he had suffered.

The death was confirmed by the Secretary of Health of the state of Oaxaca, Virginia Sanchez, and reported that “there is already an investigation to find out the causes of the child’s death”.

“It is several days after the child received the vaccine, so there will be a thorough investigation into what really caused his death,” she added.

The epidemiology unit will carry out a full autopsy as well as an investigation in to the death of the young child.

The news follows the FDA granting Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine full approval for use in adolescents, on Sunday, July 10.

The FDA said the approval followed a rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data conducted. [MORE]

'We See People with Bad Colds. None with Severe COVID Disease.’ LA Hospital Officials say Media Reports About a Rising Threat and Hospitalizations are Inaccurate; 90% of COVID Positive Not Admitted

From [HERE] Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center (LAC+USC) officials Thursday slammed claims that COVID hospitalizations are rising, a claim being used by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to likely return to mask mandates by the end of the month. 

“With the coronavirus resurgent and cases and hospitalizations on the rise, Los Angeles is poised to become the first Southern California county to reinstate mandatory public indoor masking,” reported the Los Angeles Times Friday. 

But LAC+USC Chief Medical Officer Brad Spielberg says that as far as hospitalizations go, everything is pretty much the same at the 600-bed hospital. 

“It’s just the same,” he said in a video alongside LAC+USC CEO Jorge Orozco and epidemiologist Paul Holtom. “It’s been the same. It’s been like two months of the same.” Spielberg shared graphs showing how hospitalizations have largely plateaued, even though cases are going up. 

“The numbers at LAC: COVID-positive tests continue to go up, but this isn’t because we’re seeing a ton of people with symptomatic disease getting admitted.” 

In fact, said Spielberg, not only are very few patients being admitted due to COVID, but even those few are not being put on ventilators.  

“We’re seeing a lot of people with mild disease in urgent care or ED who do not get admitted, and of those who are admitted, they’re 90% of the time not admitted due to COVID,” he continued. “Only 10% of our COVID-positive admissions are admitted due to COVID. Virtually none of them go to the ICU, and when they do go to the ICU, it is not for pneumonia. They’re not intubated . . . we haven’t seen one of those since February. It’s been months." 

“It is just not the same pandemic as it was, despite all the media hype to the contrary,” he confirmed. “A lot of people have bad colds is what we’re seeing.” 

“I’m going to really have to work to burst that soothiness bubble,” Holtom then chimed in. “Maybe we can turn to the media which is trying to burst that bubble by talking about a new variant in India that is sweeping the country.” 

Holtom echoed Spielberg’s statement that cases are going up due to more people testing positive, but cautioned against taking the numbers too seriously. 

“Although, we have to understand that first of all, most of that data is completely incomprehensible because at the moment many, many people are testing at home and most people are not reporting those tests in. So no one has any idea actually how many people are testing positive at any point.” 

“We’re just seeing nobody with severe COVID disease,” he continued. "As of this morning, we have no one in the hospital who had pulmonary disease due to COVID. Nobody in the hospital. We have 24 people who have tested positive for COVID but nobody, nobody who had COVID-19 disease as we would see in the past." 

Rule Thru Fabricated Emergency: Without Public Input, Review or Vote an Unelected Health Director in LA Uses Her Unilateral Authority to Declare a Useless Mask Mandate Using Science-Free Metrics

From [HERE] Los Angeles County health director Barbara Ferrer just declared that the county was in a “high” level of Covid transmission. She is an unelected administrative official who was appointed to her position. Apparently, she has the unilateral authority to declare “an emergency” and then issue orders to the public without any public input or review. As with all laws, the public has a moral and legal duty to obey or face some form of punishment for non-compliance. Apparently, “the emergency rule” will last as long as she deems fit.

While health officers nationwide are largely shying away from new restrictions Los Angeles County health officials hope that forcing people to mask up will curb the virus’s spread as well as growing hospitalization and death rates.

Ferrer has declared that the mask mandate will take effect July 29 absent a sudden turnaround in Covid tracking metrics. It would apply to indoor shops, offices, events, schools and more. The order would be rescinded once case levels begin to drop again.

At a recent press conference, Brad Spellberg, chief medical officer of Los Angeles County and epidemiologist Paul Holtom rebuked the corporate media and took a swipe at the government’s terror tactics.

“It is just not the same pandemic that it was, despite all the media hype to the contrary… Spellberg said. “I mean – a lot of people have bad colds is what we’re seeing.

one day after Barbara Ferrer tried to con Los Angeles into further oppression, epidemiologist Paul Holtom spoke at a press conference, rebuking the narrative. “As of this morning, we have no one in the hospital who had pulmonary disease due to Covid. Nobody in the hospital….NOBODY.”

Chief Medical Officer Brad Spellberg presented the actual case data and hospital admission data. “The numbers at [LAC+USC] Covid-positive tests have continued to go up, but this isn’t because we’re seeing a ton of people with symptomatic disease being admitted,” Spellberg said. “We’re seeing a lot of people with mild disease in urgent care and [emergency department] who go home and do not get admitted.”

“Of those who are admitted, they’re 90% of the time not admitted due to Covid. Only 10% of our Covid-positive admissions are admitted due to Covid. Virtually none of them go to the ICU, and when they do go to the ICU, it is not for pneumonia. They are not intubated.”

Spellberg iterated that it has been “months” since the hospital has seen a COVID cases that requires ICU admission. He said the COVID ICU admissions usually present with an “auto-immune attack of the nerves that may or may not be Covid-driven.”

Hospital administrators have complied with a fraudulent narrative for far too long

When covid-19 propaganda and medical tyranny first swept the nation, hospital CEOs and administrators largely kept their mouths shut. Lock downs ensued, and people across the nation did not receive critical health care services in their time of need. Patients were unduly isolated from their families and subjected to deadly remdesivir, sedation and ventilator protocols. These issues are still taking place in hospitals nationwide.

A “national state of emergency” allowed hospitals to enjoy financial incentives every time a fraudulently-calibrated PCR test presented false evidence for a covid-19 diagnosis. Under this medical tyranny, a patient’s true cause of death does not matter. If covid-19 is “suspected” or “could not be ruled out,” it is codified as the cause of death. Worse, this ongoing “national emergency” allows hospital staff to enjoy indemnity from medical error and iatrogenic death — which is one of the top causes of death in the US.

The PREP Act enabled the Department of Health and Human Services to issue broad immunity protections to health care professionals who administer or use countermeasures during the national state of emergency. The CARES Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, provided federal liability protections for volunteer health care professionals. The Biden regime renewed the medical tyranny and signed a new decree in February of 2022, allowing the national state of emergency and all of its liability protections to persist. [MORE]

MASKS ARE USELESS AND MAY HARM YOU

The evidence that masking healthy people in community settings reduces viral transmission is – at best – weak and contradictory. Face masks do not reduce covid cases. [MORE] and [MORE] and [MORE] At least 400 studies show face masks don’t work, meaning they are useless [MORE] and [MORE] New studies show masks may harm people by making COVID worse [MORE]

It is intriguing that a sphere of society where one might reasonably expect a reliance upon evidence-based practice is now the outlier in persisting with the unscientific and pervasively damaging mass-masking phenomenon. After all, a piece of ill-fitting cloth or plastic does not transform into an impermeable viral barrier, or shed its associated harms, by virtue of crossing the threshold of a hospital or health centre. It seems that doctors, nurses and allied-health professionals are becoming culturally wedded to masks, a symbolic gesture to demonstrate a united team – patient and staff – fighting against a virus. It is hugely concerning that this ideological trend ignores a fundamental tenet: a positive relationship between professional and patient is a necessary ingredient of a healing environment, and such a therapeutic alliance is much more difficult to achieve when access to facial expressions is denied.[MORE]

Prior to facemask mandates as an alleged preventive for Covid infection and transmission, such masks were infrequently worn in hospitals and other medical facilities. They were only used in operating theatres or for visiting seriously ill patients in order to prevent infection from spit or droplets into open wounds or to partially protect visitors from acquiring and transmitting pathogens more dangerous than Covid.

No studies were needed to justify this practice since most understood viruses were far too small to be stopped by the wearing of most masks, other than sophisticated ones designed for that task and which were too costly and complicated for the general public to properly wear and keep changing or cleaning. It was also understood that long mask wearing was unhealthy for wearers for common sense and basic science reasons.

There has been an international flood of lies about mask wearing in order to justify the bizarre and disturbing situation we have today of almost everyone wearing masks in many regions, inside and outside healthcare facilities, in schools with children of all ages, during sports events, in churches, in grocery stores and all commercial facilities, while driving and walking, and long after peak infection has passed. [MORE]

Dr. Michael Yeardon explains, masks are “mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others' masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you're told, even if the measure is useless.

We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.

Cloth masks definitely don't stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.

Some people speak of "source control" catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?

It's not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don't do anything.

Many don't know that blue medical masks aren't filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that's all. [MORE]

Comply or Die in Copitalist System: Video Shows White San Bernardino Cops Emerge from Unmarked Car to Fatally Shoot Robert Adams Multiple Times in the Back. He Had a Gun but Posed No Threat as He Fled

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY: COPITALISM – POLICE-STATE AUTHORITARIAN FORCE, USURPED POWER AND REPRESSION OVER MEN AND WOMEN WIELDED IN FURTHERING THE INTERESTS OF COMMERCE AND THE PROTECTION COMMERCIAL PROPERTY; ANY BENEFIT WHATSOEVER ACCRUING TO CITIZENS EXISTS IN SPITE OF THIS CORPORATE POLICE STATE MONSTER. ANY PAUSE IS PROBABLE CAUSE—SO DON’T STOP, ‘GET IT-GET IT’ AND BRING THE NOISE.

LIKE THEIR CONSTITUTION SAYS, ‘IF YOU LOOK BACK AT COPS WHILE THEY CHASE YOU THEN YOU CAN BE EXECUTED, BECAUSE AUTHORITY SAYS’

From [HERE] The family of a Black man gunned down by San Bernardino police are demanding the officers involved be charged for shooting him in the back as he ran away.

San Bernardino cops have asked their community to withhold judgment after security footage circulated of officers fatally shooting 23-year-old Robert Adams, claiming the video “fails to provide any details or context as to what occurred in the incident.”

For Adams’ family, however, the video tells the whole story: An officer opened fire on Adams as he ran the opposite direction, never firing a shot of his own.

“It is unbelievable that another Black family has to bury their child due to police shooting first and asking questions later,” Ben Crump, the family’s attorney, said in an emailed statement Tuesday.

Crump later tweeted that Adams didn’t realize the unmarked car had police inside, calling his death a “horrific execution.”

The shocking video, which began circulating this week despite the shooting happening on Saturday, shows an unmarked car driving slowly through a parking lot. Adams—who was working as a security guard and pacing around the lot—saunters toward the car with a handgun in his right hand. About 15 seconds later, two officers jump out of the vehicle with guns drawn.

Adams is seen immediately running off in the opposite direction. The video never shows him point his handgun at the pursuing officers, but he appears to be shot less than five seconds after the cops hopped out of the vehicle—his arms flailing in the air before he collapses onto the asphalt between two cars.

San Bernardino police have since claimed the nearly two-minute clip doesn’t paint the whole picture of what happened, despite confirming an officer fired at Adams without the 23-year-old pulling the trigger of his gun.

“We are aware of a surveillance video clip circulating online that fails to provide any details or context as to what occurred during the incident,” the department said in a statement.

San Bernardino police have not said whether the cops involved have been suspended or placed on administrative leave. The department did not immediately respond to The Daily Beast’s request Tuesday for further details on the shooting.

The cops involved were fully uniformed during the incident, authorities said, and were sent to the parking lot to investigate an illegal gambling business at the property around 8 p.m. Saturday.

Authorities say the officers involved gave Adams first aid until first responders rushed him to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Adams’ family confirmed he was working at the gambling site as a security guard and had been carrying a gun after a string of robberies, CBS News and KTLA reported.

“I could understand if he was a threat to them,” Adams’ mother Tamika Deavila King told CBS. “But he was not a threat to them. He was running for his life.”

Adams’ stepfather Audwin King told CBS he wants to see the officer who fired the fatal shots charged with murder.

“The boy ran,” said King. “[The officer] hunted him down like a dog. If [Adams] still had some life in him, the [the officer] probably would've finished the clip. So, when do we have justice for that?”

Police say they plan on releasing further details and video from the incident. The department has already released a photo with Adams carrying a handgun, which it says had a “bullet in the chamber.”

That explanation isn’t good enough for King, however.

“We want justice. We want his badge. We want his job,” the grieving stepfather said. “We want murder charges.”

Researchers Find High Bacterial, Fungal Counts in Face Masks - fungi continues to grow and accumulate with usage

From [MERCOLA] and [HERE] In a first-of-its-kind study, researchers found high counts of both fungi and bacteria on face masks worn by the study subjects. On the face side, bacterial colonies were found in 99% of the samples. On the outer side, bacterial colonies were found in 94% of samples.

Researchers found fungal colonies in 79% of the face-side samples and 95% of the outer sides. While the bacteria tended to die off after the masks were removed, the fungi continued to grow and accumulate with usage.

Bacterial counts also were higher in males’ masks than females’.

Researchers said, “Since masks can be a direct source of infection to the respiratory tract, digestive tract, and skin, it is crucial to maintain their hygiene to prevent bacterial and fungal infections that can exacerbate COVID-19.” [MORE]