CHD Survey Finds that After Getting a COVID Shot 15% of US Adults Have Been Diagnosed with a New Health Condition - 21% of Blacks and 32% of Latinos

From [CHD] More than two years after Operation Warp Speed began, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) commissioned John Zogby Strategies to conduct two surveys (see here and here) about attitudes and the overall health of American adults.

Key highlights from the survey of 1,038 adults

The survey found that 67% of respondents received one or more COVID-19 vaccines, while 33% are unvaccinated. Furthermore, among those vaccinated, 6% received one dose, 28% received two doses, 21% received three doses, and 12% took four or more.

Of those receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, 15% say they’ve been diagnosed by a medical practitioner with a new condition within a matter of weeks to several months after taking the vaccine.

“The fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports more than 232 million Americans ages 18-65 have taken at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and 15% of those surveyed report a newly diagnosed condition is concerning and needs further study,” said Children’s Health Defense (CHD) executive director Laura Bono. “The mRNA vaccine technology is new and clinical trials naturally have no long-term data. CHD believes this survey points to the need for further study.”

Other key demographics of newly diagnosed medical conditions after COVID-19 vaccines show:

• 17% of those receiving two doses

• 13% of respondents had three shots

• 30% of those ages 18-29

• 23% of those ages 30-49

• 6% of those ages 50-64

• 4% of those older than 65

• 7% of whites

• 21% of African-Americans

• 32% of Hispanics

• 15% of liberals

• 14% of moderates

• 8% of conservatives

A follow-up question provided a list of medical conditions and asked diagnosed respondents to “select all that apply.” Among those who were medically diagnosed with a new condition within a matter of weeks to several months, the top five cited conditions were:

• 21% blood clots

• 19% heart attack

• 18% liver damage

• 17% leg clots/lung clots

• 15% stroke

Overall, 67% reported that getting the vaccine was a good decision, 24% were neutral and 10% regret it.

Survey participants were then asked if someone they personally know had been medically diagnosed with a new medical condition within the same time frame. Overall, 26% reported yes, while 63% reported no.

Looking at age cohorts:

• 34% of those ages 18-29 say they know someone who was diagnosed, as did

• 30% of those ages 30-49,

• 21% of those ages 50-64,

• and 18% of those older than 65

Again, respondents were offered the same list of conditions and asked to “select all that apply.” The top five cited conditions were:****

• 28 % blood clots

• 20% stroke

• 19% autoimmune

• 16% lung clots

• 15% heart attack

Key highlights from the survey of 829 adults ages 18-49

Among those under age 50 – 62% report receiving a COVID-19 vaccine vs. 38% who have had none.

Among those receiving any COVID-19 vaccine, almost one quarter — 22% — report being medically diagnosed within a matter of weeks to several months after taking a shot.

The top five cited new conditions include:

• 21% autoimmune

• 20% blood clots

• 19% stroke/lung clots

• 17% liver damage/leg clots/heart attack

• 15% disrupted menstrual cycle/Guillain-Barré/Bell’s palsy

Regarding describing the conditions, 47% report mild, 43% report serious and 10% report severe/still recovering.

Describing their experience with taking one or more COVID-19 vaccines, 58% report it was a good decision, 28% are neutral and 14% regret it.

Finally, 30% of those ages 18-49 report knowing someone else who has been medically diagnosed within a matter of weeks to several months after taking a COVID-19 vaccine.

The top five cited medically diagnosed conditions of the person known by those under age 50 are:

• 30% blood clots

• 23% stroke

• 20% autoimmune

• 18% leg clots/lung clots

• 17% heart attack

In other findings:

Regarding trust in the government to handle future pandemics among the all-adults survey — 23% say it has increased, 34% say it has decreased, 32% say it has remained the same, the rest were unsure.

The surveys included 1,038 American adults of all ages (MOE +/- 3.1) and 829 18-49-year-olds (MOE +/- 3.5) Both polls were fielded July 22-24, and data sets were pre-stratified and weighted to be representative of their respective populations. Error margins are higher for subgroups.

For questions, wording and full results, see ALL ADULTS and 18-49.

Reckless Indifference to Life by Govt: Video Shows the Moments After Brianna Grier Fell Out of Moving Cop Car. GA Cops Push and Pull On Black Womans Lifeless, Handcuffed Body. Reason for Arrest Secret

From [HERE] Newly released police body camera footage raised questions about the death of a young Georgia mother who fell out of a moving police car after a back door wasn't closed, and her family demanded answers.

Brianna Grier, 28, fell out of the patrol car July 15. She was pronounced dead about a week later at an Atlanta hospital, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. 

Grier, a Black woman, was arrested after the Hancock County Sheriff’s Office responded to a home in Sparta, Georgia, a city about 70 miles east of Atlanta. The GBI did not say why deputies were called to the home or why Grier was arrested.

Grier was in a coma for six days before she died, civil rights attorney Ben Crump said Friday at a news conference. 

Crump, who represents her family, questioned why Grier was arrested, saying the incident was "not a criminal matter but a mental health issue." He said Grier had a history of mental health crises and her family had called police several times regarding mental health concerns. Grier's mother said her daughter was having a crisis before the incident last month, Crump said.

"Just because you're Black and having a mental health crisis does not mean that should equate to a death sentence," Crump said.

Grier's father, Marvin, demanded justice for his daughter alongside other family members Friday.

"We ain't here trying to start no problem," he said with tears in his eyes, "but we're going to start a problem because we want to know what happened. ... That was my child."

Investigators conclude patrol car door wasn't closed

After reviewing body camera footage and conducting interviews, GBI investigators concluded that the patrol car's rear passenger-side door, where Grier was sitting, wasn't closed, according to a statement released Saturday. Agents found that Grier was handcuffed and placed in the car with no seatbelt.

Automotive experts helped determine whether there were mechanical malfunctions with the door, the GBI said.

Authorities release body camera footage

Body camera footage shows Grier repeatedly telling police officers that she was not drunk and asking deputies to give her a breathalyzer test.

Officers placed Grier in handcuffs and attempted to put her in a squad car. The video shows Grier crying on the ground, asking officers to "get off me."

The GBI said Grier refused to get in the patrol car. According to the agency, she said she was going to harm herself.

The footage shows a deputy taking out his taser as Grier yelled, "You can tase me. I don't care." The deputy told Grier he was not going to tase her before he put it away and walked out of view.

Another deputy lifted Grier off the ground and put her in the back seat of the patrol car.

The body camera footage does not show officers opening or closing the rear passenger-side door. The GBI said the deputy thought he had closed the door.

Grier's family demands justice

Grier's family chanted, "Justice for Brianna Grier" Friday at the news conference. They remembered the mother of 3-year-old twin daughters as a loving, caring person.

"We loved her regardless, unconditionally," Marvin Grier said. "Now we (have) to raise these kids and tell them a story, and I'm not planning on telling no lie(s). I want to tell them the truth."

Crump said Grier's daughters have asked every day where their mother is.

"Shame on us if we don't get answers for those babies," Crump said.

"Yet again we have another African American citizen killed in just an unbelievable way while in the custody of the police," he said.

Gerald Griggs, president of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, called on local and state authorities to address Georgia's "police accountability and police brutality problem."

"To the Hancock County sheriff, it’s time to be transparent," he said. "It’s time to be accountable. To the GBI, it’s time for y’all to meet with this family. To the governor, it’s time for you to recognize, again, that Georgia has a police accountability problem."

Despite Strong Evidence of Innocence, Racist Suspect Judges and Authorities 'Pass the Buck' Keeping Toforest Johnson on Alabama's Death Row

From [DPIC] The innocence case of Alabama death-row prisoner Toforest Johnson (pictured, center) has drawn substantial support from former judges, jurors, prosecutors, and state bar presidents, but disinterest by current Alabama officials has left Johnson languishing on death row. So argues journalist Radley Balko in his Washington Post column on July 28, 2022.

Balko’s column revisits Johnson’s case and details the evidence that strongly points towards his innocence. Advocating for a new trial, Balko argues that Johnson remains on death row because the responsible parties who could do justice in his case have instead abdicated their responsibility. “[T]he courts pass the buck to the politicians,” Balko writes, ”while politicians … claim that if prisoners like Johnson were really innocent, the courts would have freed them.”

Balko first wrote about Johnson’s possible innocence in 2019, and since that time, judges, prosecutors, and state bar presidents, including the former lead prosecutor on his case, have taken up his cause. Three of the jurors who voted to convict and condemn Johnson have urged the state to grant him a new trial. In his July 2022 article, Balko notes that Alabama officials who can help Johnson, like Governor Kay Ivey and Attorney General Steve Marshall, have shown no interest in doing so.

In May 2022, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied Johnson’s post-conviction petition, which alleged that prosecutors violated his constitutional rights. Based on this decision, Attorney General Marshall asserted that “[m]uch of the narrative that we see those that are advocating on behalf of this defendant were disproven in court.” Balko exposed this statement as false, explaining that the court’s decision did not decide the facts of Johnson’s innocence claim but addressed only one “narrow question” relating to whether the state’s failure to turn over evidence that a prosecution witness had been paid reward money for her testimony against Johnson violated his constitutional rights.

Balko argues that strict court post-conviction standards are premised on the idea that most post-conviction claims of miscarriage of justice “are better handled by the political process — by appealing to attorneys general to drop charges, or to governors to grant clemency.” However, state officials can act as they have in Johnson’s case, using court decisions as “cover to brush aside the very real possibility that the state is preparing to execute an innocent man.”

Johnson was sentenced to death in 1998 in Jefferson County, Alabama for the murder of off-duty Sheriff’s deputy William Hardy, despite there being no physical evidence pointing to Johnson. Ten alibi witnesses placed Johnson at a night club on the other side of Birmingham at the time of the murder. Johnson was appointed an attorney who expressed reservations about taking on a capital case. The attorney had limited funds and could only afford to hire an unlicensed investigator, who Johnson’s current attorneys say was an “alcoholic, racist, suicidal” man who had been recently fired from a capital case due to incompetence.

Further, Johnson’s conviction rested on the testimony of a single witness, Violet Ellison, who claimed to have overheard a man who identified himself as “Toforest” confess to the crime, while she eavesdropped on a three-way prison phone call. Ellison, who was a friend of Hardy’s, had never met Johnson and had never heard his voice before. She came forward to police the day after the state announced a $10,000 reward for information in the case. Records revealed that she was later paid $5,000 in reward money for her testimony. Johnson’s post-conviction attorneys argued that this violated Johnson’s constitutional rights because prosecutors withheld information about the reward payment from the defense. However, in May 2022, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied Johnson a new trial based on the trial court’s findings that no constitutional violation occurred because the payment was made after trial and the witness did not expect to be rewarded for her testimony. The court did not address the substance of Johnson’s claim of innocence.

Johnson’s pursuit of a new trial has garnered broad support. In a March 2021 Washington Post op-ed, former Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley wrote, “[a]s a lifelong defender of the death penalty, I do not lightly say what follows: An innocent man is trapped on Alabama’s death row. … Johnson’s murder trial was so deeply flawed, the evidence presented against him so thin, that no Alabamian should tolerate his incarceration, let alone his execution.” Current Jefferson County District Attorney Danny Carr also supported Johnson’s request for a new trial. One of the jurors in Johnson’s trial, Monique Hicks said: “When you look back at all the stuff the jury did not know, I feel like we were used like pawns in a chess game, not even knowing we were being used. It is very disturbing to read all this now.” Juror Jay Crane said, “This is supposed to be an honest system. It’s supposed to work, and they (prosecutors) misled us. I am very disappointed. And I feel sad for the victim’s family because they haven’t gotten any justice. They don’t have the right person in prison.”

California City Paying $1.5M to Fired Police Chief After Verdict

From [HERE] The Oakland City Council approved a $1.5 million payout for a former police chief who won her whistleblower claim against the city after she alleged she was fired for calling out unethical behavior by the civilian commission that oversees the police department.

The payout to Anne Kirkpatrick includes roughly $337,000 a federal jury awarded her, which is equivalent to a year’s salary and the severance she was entitled to as part of her employment contract. The remainder consists of legal costs, said Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker in a memo prepared for the council.

Kirkpatrick had sought more than $3 million in damages in her lawsuit. She said that members of the civilian oversight commission wanted special treatment, abused police staff and meddled in daily operations.

“I hope that the agreement in my favor is a signal to all who are witnesses to misconduct, especially those in law enforcement: do not stay silent,” Kirkpatrick said in a statement. “Our system depends on people who will do the right thing, even when it is the hard thing.”

Kirkpatrick was hired in 2017, the first woman to lead the police department for the city of 400,000. At the time, the department was reeling from a sex exploitation scandal involving a young woman.

But her relationship with the civilian oversight commission soured and in 2020, the commission and Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf voted to terminate her employment without cause. At the time, they said Kirkpatrick was keeping information from the oversight commission and failing to meet federally mandated court reforms.

The city does not admit to any wrongdoing and denies her allegations, according to the memo.

The vote was unanimous although several council members voiced their displeasure.

“It’s just a waste of money,” said Dan Kalb, a councilmember.

Fed Ct Says Walgreens is Immune from Liability Under the Prep Act: Woman Fell in the Parking Lot after Getting COVID Shot. All who Administer Shots are Immune Unless there was Willful Misconduct

From [HERE] Walgreen Co. is immune from a customer’s suit seeking damages for injuries she suffered in a fall after receiving her Covid-19 vaccine, a federal court in New Mexico said.

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act provides an exclusive, administrative remedy for “any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure” such as a vaccine, the US District Court for the District of New Mexico said.

Suzanne Storment’s injuries directly related to Walgreens’ administration of the vaccine, and therefore weren’t actionable, the court said.

Storment received her first Covid-19 vaccination at a Walgreens store in Albuquerque in February 2021. There were no chairs to sit on while waiting to see if there were any untoward effects, so Storment went out to the parking lot to sit in her car.

Once in the parking lot, Storment felt dizzy and fell to the pavement, fracturing her elbow in multiple places. She sued Walgreens for damages.

Congress, in the PREP Act, “plainly provided immunity under both federal and state law with respect to all claims for loss” arising from the administration of the vaccine, the court said.

The PREP Act's cause of action permits suits only for “willful misconduct.” 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(d)(1). The Act defines “willful misconduct” as “an act or omission that is taken-(i) intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; (ii) knowingly without legal or factual justification; and (iii) in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.” Id. § 247d-6d(c)(1)(A). The Act further specifies that willful misconduct “shall be construed as establishing a standard for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.” Id. § 247d-6d(c)(1)(B).

Storment’s injury “is unfortunate and certainly deserving of a remedy,” the court said. But it can’t be divorced from the administration of the vaccine. The PREP Act therefore applies and provides Walgreens with immunity, Judge Margaret I. Strickland said in Wednesday’s opinion.

Branch Law Firm represents Storment. Modrall Sperling represents Walgreens.

The case is Storment v. Walgreen Co., 2022 BL 261083, D.N.M., No. 1:21-cv-898, 7/27/22.

Destroying People: Movie “mRNA ‘Vaccine’ Genocide” Interviews Victims of COVID Injections. Media Keeps Concealing Reality that COVID Shots are The Most Dangerous Drug in History of Modern Medicine

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: NONE

Dr Fleming says 'There is No Benefit to COVID Shots. Vax is a Bioweapon Making the Vaccinated Susceptible to Disease and Death. Companies Must Be Held Accountable, Gain of Function Research Stopped'

From [HERE] Dr Richard Fleming is an American Medical Doctor, specialising in cardiology and has a law degree. He is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians and a Fellow of the American Society of Internal Medicine, he is a medical patent expert, has authored between 400 and 500 medical papers, and has sat on review boards of medical journals.

In March this year, he testified that:

1. SARS-CoV-2 is a lab-engineered bio-weapon, funded by the US government, the result of gain-of-function research on the spike protein, making it more infectious.

2. Safe and Effective treatments for the virus were suppressed by the US health regulatory agencies.

3. Quarantining of healthy people is completely ineffective.

4. The mRNA/RNA “vaccines” produced by Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen are bio-weapons delivering the same toxic spike protein as the virus but in loads up to 5 million times higher.

5. The vaccinated are responsible for pressure-selecting variants (alpha, delta, omicron, etc.), prolonging the epidemic.

6. The “vaccine” disrupts the natural immune system, making the vaccinated more susceptible to infection and disease.

7. The “vaccine” damages red-blood cells and causes hyper-inflammatory and clotting that cause disease and death in its own right.

CDC Official Used Purposefully Flawed Data to Justify COVID Shots for Infants and Children Analysis Shows

From [CHD] An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used data from a flawed preprint study that exaggerated the risk of death for children from COVID-19 in her presentations to CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisors who were responsible for recommending Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines for infants and young children.

The study, first published May 25 on the medRxiv preprint server, was authored by a group of U.K. researchers. On June 28, the authors published a revised version of the study, after critics questioned some of their original findings.

“It’s really disturbing that data this poor made its way into the meetings to discuss childhood COVID and that it took me less than a few minutes to find a major flaw (and then I found many more as I looked deeper),” said Kelley K, who was the first to point out some of the study’s flaws on her website COVID-Georgia.com.

After learning of Kelley’s analysis, The Defender reviewed the original preprint, confirmed Kelley’s findings and uncovered additional flaws in the original preprint and also in the June 28 revised version.

Study falsely claimed COVID was leading cause of death in U.S. children

During a June 17 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss pediatric COVID-19 vaccines in children under 5, Dr. Katherine Fleming-Dutra, a pediatrician and pediatric emergency medicine physician with the CDC, presented a table that falsely claimed COVID-19 was a leading cause of death in U.S. children.

Fleming-Dutra earlier that week presented the same table during the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee meeting, along with other slides from the original U.K. study that also falsely claimedCOVID-19 as a “top 5 cause of death” in children.

The table, which was sourced from the U.K. study, was disseminated widely by physicians on Twitter who claimed the data “made the case” for vaccinating children under 5.

Under the Guise of Transparency Sharon Hill (PA) Releases Heavily Redacted Report in Police Murder of Fanta Bility. 8 Yr Old Black Girl Shot Dead by Cops who Fired Wildly Into a Crowd Exiting a Game

From [HERE] Sharon Hill Borough Council released its report Friday on the policies and procedures surrounding the police shooting death of 8-year-old Fanta Bility. The report was made by a law firm hired by the Council.

The new report is heavily redacted, with many of its findings and recommendations not visible to the public.

Borough Solicitor Courtney Richardson said the redactions are to protect the purist of justice as cases are still pending.

She said the Borough wants to create policies and procedures so that this never happens again. Bruce Castor, the attorney representing Bility's family called the report "unacceptable."

"The undated and redacted report made public today by Sharon Hill Borough is an insult to the memory of Fanta and completely unacceptable in any society that values the truth and the Rule of Law. The heavily edited report raises more questions in the minds of the family and the public than it answers," he said in a statement.

On Friday night, members of the Delaware County Black Caucus and other community members express similar concerns.

"We need to know what it is that Sharon Hill Borough Council and the police department are hiding," said Arnold Jones, chair of the Judicial and Law Enforcement Committee.

Richardson said she does not have a time frame on if and when officials will be able to release an unredacted version of the report.

"The borough is not hiding anything. I want to be very clear the borough did not have to release this report at all. And it did because it said listen we want to share as much as we can given the circumstances because the community has a right to know something," said Richardson.

Bility was shot in August 2021 as she walked with her mother following a football game at Academy Park High School.

Three officers, identified as Brian Devaney, Sean Dolan, and Devon Smith, fired their weapons as the game was letting out in response to gunfire they heard in the vicinity that was unrelated to the football game.

They fired 25 shots at a black Chevy Impala, which they believed was where the shots were coming from.

That vehicle was passing the exiting crowd, which included Bility. Each officer was charged with 10 counts of reckless endangerment and one count of manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, according the to the charging documents.

Last week, the defense filed a motion to drop voluntary and involuntary manslaughter charges against Devaney, Dolan, and Smith.

Liberals in Philly Talk About 'A Return to Stop and Frisk' as if Black People's 4th Amendment Rights Can Be Turned On and Off or Are Just Favors Given and Taken Away by Master in a Free Range Prison

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board says, The rise in gun violence has prompted some City Council members to call for the Police Department to reexamine its stop-and-frisk policy. While the idea is well intended, it should be a nonstarter.

The Philadelphia Police Department has a long history of racial discrimination and brutality aimed at the Black and Latino communities.

…..In other words, stop-and-frisk doesn’t work, and only fosters the illegal practice of racial profiling. We need new ideas to address crime in Philadelphia.

The city’s recent $5.8 billion budget includes $155 million for violence prevention programs. While better than nothing, it is beyond underwhelming given the stakes. [MORE]

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the people against unjustified detentions by the government. The Amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In order for the police to stop you the Supreme Court has ruled that police must have reasonable articulable suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot and that you are involved in the activity. Police may not act on on the basis of an inchoate or unclear and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion.

In order to frisk you the Supreme Court has ruled that the police must have independent reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous before they may touch you or put their hands on you (a cursory patdown for weapons). Police may not act on on the basis of an unclear and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific, actual & articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion.

However, legal truths must give way to reality. In real life, Brazen cops so frequently abuse their power that no Black shopper, pedestrian, motorist, juvenile, adult or Black professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that so-called constitutional rights provide Black people any real protection from cops or the government in general.

The only thing upholding the 4th Amendment is your belief in it. You only have rights if an authority says that you do. Your possession of "rights” given to you by a magical government, which functions as your master, is cult belief. Rights are myths. As stated by Dr. Blynd, “There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.” The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.” [MORE]

FUNKTIONARY explains,

adherent rights – privileges disguised as so-called “rights” created by men via deceptive word-manipulation in written form called “symbolaeography,” and legal documents. 2) privileges granted by an apparent or putative authority at the expense of one's inherent or unalienable ‘rights.’ (See: Inherent Rights & Rights)

inherent rights – unalienable and unassailable rights. Inherent rights have never been codified into law, so if you’re from a phfree family, you’ll know how to assert and defend them), and if not, you won’t. (See: Adherent Rights)

“rights” – useful fictions declared in order to make agents of another type of fiction (“government”) have to play along in their deadly theatrical (tragicomedy) game. 2) mere fictions, the contemplation of which leads only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality. Discussion and debates about “rights” merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any “right” and who will benefit from the pretense. “Rights” are separated into two categories—those flowing from “negative liberties” and those flowing from “positive liberties.” In law, rights are remedies and if a person is without a remedy (as is with citizens of the United States) he is without a right, and only a ‘thing’ is without rights. (See: Negative Liberties, Positive Liberties, Bill of Rights, Liberty, Freedom, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Ma’at & Justice) [MORE]

A White BSO Cop Told a Jury of Sheeple that ‘He Had to Knock a Black Teen Down, Mount Him and Slam His Face Into the Ground to Protect Himself’ and They Believed It b/c They Believe Anything Cops Say

From [HERE] "The defendant is not guilty," a courtroom clerk read. After a three-year legal battle, former BSO Deputy Chris Krickovich is relieved with the not guilty verdict after getting caught committing crimes on camera.

With tears in his eyes, he hugged family and friends in the courtroom.  The jury found him not guilty of battery.

Video shows him slamming a Blcak teenage boy's head into the ground and then punching the teen in the head. one Florida deputy spraying pepper spray in the face of a teen boy. As the teen appears to walk away with his hands on his face, the deputy follows him, grabs him and slams him to the ground.

Another deputy then jumps onto the boy's back, slams his face into the pavement more than once and punches the teen in the head.

In the background, bystanders can be heard yelling "What are you doing?" and "He's bleeding." Such statements are not threats.

Prosecutors say Rolle was in an "give up position" and not resisting, so the head slam and punch showed excessive force.  The jury didn't see it that way.

"It's up the province of the jury.  I put forth a good case, so it's ultimately up to them," said prosecutor Chris Killoran.

In the hallway, retired BSO Capt. Neal Glassman confronted the prosecutor. 

"They have 10 times the courage you'll ever have," said Glassman, regarding the three deputies who were originally charged in this case. 

Killoran is the head of the Public Corruption Unit. He called the confrontation disgusting and unprofessional.

"I'm just doing my job, but apparently captains like to get up in my face and try to intimidate prosecutors.  They should know nobody is above the law and we will continue to prosecute these cases to the fullest of our ability," he said.

Krickovich plans to push to get his job back, along with back pay. 

But Broward Sheriff Gregory was quick to release a statement saying Krickovich won't be wearing a BSO uniform under his watch.

"The Broward Sheriff's Office maintains an unwavering commitment to holding all employees accountable. Under my administration we will never be an organization that finds excessive force tolerable. That standard has been set at the Broward Sheriff's Office and will not change. Independent criminal investigations or convictions of former employees do not supersede BSO's administrative policies, standards, or expectations."

Jury Finds White Euclid Cop Guilty of Misdemeanor Assault for Repeatedly Punching a Black Man and Hitting his Head on the Pavement after a Traffic Stop, Never Had a Chance to Comply

From [HERE] A jury found Euclid police officer Michael Amiott guilty of assaulting a Black motorist during a violent 2017 traffic stop that garnered international attention and thrusted Euclid into the national conversation about police brutality.

Amiott was convicted Friday night in Euclid Municipal Court of one count each of assault and interfering with civil rights of Richard Hubbard III during the Aug. 12, 2017 traffic stop that was captured on cellphone video that went viral, Euclid Municipal Court Clerk Keith Hurley confirmed. He was acquitted of one count of assault.

Amiott faces a potential sentence of up to 360 days in jail on the two first-degree misdemeanors. He is also eligible for probation.

He will be sentenced at a later date. Retired Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Guy Reece presided over the trial after Euclid Municipal Court Judge Patrick Gallagher recused himself from the case.

The jury reached its verdict Friday after deliberating for nearly five hours.

The trial began Monday and included testimony from both Amiott and Hubbard, as well as several other police officers.

25-year-old Richard Hubbard III was pulled over on E 228th St. just before 10:30 a.m. for "a moving/traffic violation." The video showed the white cop repeatedly punching the black man and hitting his head on pavement appears to show a different sequence of events than police had originally described.

The initial statement from police in the Cleveland suburb of Euclid said Richard Hubbard III, had refused Officer Michael Amiott's orders to "face away" after getting out of his car Aug. 12 and then began resisting. But the video shows Amiott not giving Hubbard a chance to comply.

The video of the incident showed Amiott kneed Hubbard, tackled him to the ground and punched him in the face and body several times. Hubbard was handcuffed and taken to a police cruiser, while his girlfriend screamed at Amiott to stop.

Euclid Mayor Kirsten Holzheimer-Gail fired Amiott in the months after the video went viral. An arbitrator later ruled that he should be reinstated.

Hubbard testified Monday and said Amiott slammed his head on the ground and that he didn’t know why Amiott used such force against him, WKYC reports. Hubbard also testified that he believed he was racially profiled during his arrest, WKYC reports.

Amiott took the stand on Wednesday and accused Hubbard of resisting arrest, WJW Channel 8 reports.

The city paid Hubbard $450,000 to settle a civil rights lawsuit.

The white cop has a history of assaulting Black people. Including when he was forced to resign from the Mentor Police Department in 2013 after he lied about why he stopped a driver for a suspended license. Euclid hired him shortly after. [MORE]

Amiott was also accused in 2017 of pepper-spraying a man who started recording Amiott as he searched and handcuffed juveniles. The same year he was accused of throwing a 16-year-old girl to the ground and placed his knee on the girl’s back during an incident at Euclid’s library.

A man sued Amiott in 2017, accusing the officer of kicking him in the face and pepper-spraying him. The city settled that lawsuit for $40,000.

He was also accused of pistol-whipping a driver in 2016 during a traffic stop and received a written reprimand.

Amiott’s legal troubles continued even as he was on trial. A lawsuit filed in federal court in Cleveland accused him of injuring a man he arrested by driving recklessly.

The incident happened during the July 6, 2020 arrest of Tyrez Bowden, 24, according to the lawsuit filed by attorneys Brian Scherf and Sergey Kats of Bedford.

Amiott failed to properly secure Bowden in Amiott’s police vehicle and drove recklessly on the drive to the city jail. He nearly hit a pedestrian, causing Bowden to be “thrown throughout the vehicle.”

The stop and other reckless driving caused Bowden to stuffer several physical and psychological injuries, according to the lawsuit.

Bowden had been arrested on a charge of improperly handling a gun in a car. He later pleaded guilty and was sentenced on Monday to 17 months in prison.

GA Police Claim a Black Woman "Fell from a Moving Patrol Car" and Died. Ben Crump and Parents Demand Answers

From [HERE] The parents of a Black woman who died after she fell from a moving patrol car following her arrest fought back tears on Friday as they demanded answers in their daughter’s death.

Brianna Grier, 28, suffered significant injuries on 15 July and died six days later at an Atlanta hospital. The Georgia bureau of investigation said this week that the deputies who put Grier in the back of a patrol car to take her to the Hancock county sheriff’s office failed to close the rear passenger-side door before driving away.

“We’re trying to get answers of what really happened … We ain’t trying to start no problem,” a tearful Marvin Grier, Brianna’s father, said during a news conference, his voice catching several times. He was joined by Brianna’s mother and sister, Mary and Lottie Grier.

Grier was arrested after Hancock county sheriff’s deputies were called to a home in Sparta, the GBI has said. The deputies put Grier in the back of a patrol car, but she was not wearing a seatbelt, her hands were cuffed in front of her and the rear passenger-side door was never closed, according to GBI investigators.

The GBI has not said why deputies were called to the home or why Grier was arrested. The prominent civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing her family, said Grier was taken into custody after a mental health crisis.

“Yet again we have another African American citizen killed in just an unbelievable way while in the custody of the police,” Crump said at the Friday news conference in downtown Decatur, a suburb of Atlanta.

He addressed Grier’s parents: “We won’t let them sweep your baby daughter’s death under the rug.”

Crump said his team would investigate what failures caused Grier to fall out of the car while it was moving and suffer a brain injury that put her in a coma until she died on 21 July.

The president of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, Gerald Griggs, called on state and county officials for answers.

“To the Hancock county sheriff, it’s time to be transparent,” Griggs said. “It’s time to be accountable. To the GBI, it’s time for y’all to meet with this family. To the governor, it’s time for you to recognize, again, that Georgia has a police accountability problem.”

The GBI has said agents have done interviews, reviewed multiple body camera videos and done mechanical tests on the patrol car as part of the ongoing investigation into Grier’s death.

Federal Judge Convicts 2 Minneapolis Cops of Deliberate Indifference and Failing to Intervene for Doing Nothing as White Cop Murdered George Floyd. Cops Sentenced to Only 3 Years in Prison

From [HERE] Two former Minneapolis police officers were sentenced to about three years in federal prison for violating the civil rights of George Floyd, who was killed in police custody in May 2020, setting off a summer of protests and unrest across the U.S. 

J. Alexander Kueng was sentenced Wednesday in St. Paul, Minn., to three years and Tou Thao was sentenced to 3½ years. They were convicted in February of showing deliberate indifference to Mr. Floyd’s serious medical need and willfully failing to intervene as Mr. Floyd lay handcuffed and face down in the street with former officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on his neck and back for more than nine minutes. 

A third officer, Thomas Lane, was sentenced last week to 2½ years after being convicted of the deliberate indifference charge. 

Mr. Chauvin, who was convicted of second-degree murder in state court, pleaded guilty to federal civil-rights charges and was sentenced earlier this month to more than 20 years in federal prison. 

Mr. Lane has pleaded guilty to state charges of aiding and abetting manslaughter. Mr. Kueng and Mr. Thao are expected to stand trial on aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter charges later this year.

Mr. Lane had been a full-fledged officer for only a few days when he and Mr. Kueng, also a rookie, were called to a convenience store called Cup Foods on a report of someone using a fake $20 bill to buy cigarettes.

Vanessa Bryant Cleared to Tell Jury LA County Cops Destroyed Photos of Kobe and His Daughter's Remains at Helicopter Crash Site

From [HERE] Vanessa Bryant will be allowed to argue that LA County sheriff’s deputies destroyed evidence of photos they took and shared of her late husband and daughter’s remains at a helicopter crash site when her lawsuit goes to trial next month.

U.S. District Judge John Walter at a hearing Tuesday agreed with Bryant that the sheriff’s department had a duty to preserve the evidence once officials could reasonably foresee she was going to sue in early March 2020, but that they failed to stop deputies and other personnel from wiping their phones or replacing them.

“The plaintiffs have been deprived of direct evidence that goes to the heart of their case,” Walter said.

The widow of LA Laker great Kobe Bryant sued after media reports emerged that officers and LA County firefighters were sharing graphic, close-up photos of the remains her husband and their 13-year-old daughter taken at the site of the Jan. 26, 2020, helicopter crash on a hillside north of Los Angeles.

Bryant claims at least 11 sheriff’s personnel and a dozen firefighters shared the photos within 24 hours of the crash and that in the following weeks, one deputy showed the photos at a bar, another texted them to a group of video game buddies, and a Fire Department captain displayed them at an awards gala.

After a citizen filed a complaint with the sheriff’s department that a deputy had been flaunting photos of Kobe Bryant’s remains at a bar days after the crash, LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva instructed officers and other personnel to delete any photos they had from their phones, overriding concerns by one of his captains that doing so might amount to destruction of evidence.

“By destroying the forensic trail, defendants have prevented plaintiff from ever finding out how far the photos spread, how many other people have seen photos of her loved ones’ remains, and how many photos remain unsecured and susceptible to going viral online,” Bryant’s attorneys said in their request for sanctions. “Now, defendants seek to exploit the evidentiary void they have created by using it to downplay their misconduct at trial.”

According to Bryant, 9 out of the 11 sheriff’s department personnel lost the photos or replaced their phones, and a tenth wiped his phone of all data. The Fire Department captain who had been sharing the photos at an awards gala instructed 8 to 10 of his subordinates, friends, and acquaintances to delete all graphic photos from the crash, according to Bryant, and deleted about 45 photos from his own private and work phones.

Mira Hashmall, a lawyer for LA County, unsuccessfully tried to persuade the judge that sanctions weren’t warranted because any spoliation occurred months before litigation commenced.

“It’s been 2 1/2 years and the pictures are still not in the public domain,” Hashmall told the judge.

Walter wasn’t moved and said that allowing Bryant to introduce evidence that the defendants had destroyed evidence was the least severe sanction he could impose. The judge, however, found that the sheriff’s department didn’t have to a duty to preserve evidence when Villanueva instructed his personnel to delete illicit photos from their phones because that was before Bryant’s attorney first sent the department a letter threatening legal action.

It was “significant that Judge Walter did not find the sheriff did anything wrong when he gave the order to delete the photos so that none of them would become public,” Hashmall said after the hearing.

The county also failed to persuade the judge to hold separate trials for Bryant and Christopher Chester, whose wife and daughter died in the crash, and who filed similar allegations that the county violated his right to privacy under the 14th Amendment to control the death images of his loved ones. The trial for both plaintiffs is tentatively scheduled to start Aug. 11 or 12.

The judge denied Bryant’s bid to exclude the testimony of the county’s psychiatric expert witness who is to tell the jury that Bryant and Chester suffered no mental harm or emotional damage from the photos taken at the crash site, even though he never examined either in person. 

Walter said the testimony will give Bryant’s and Chester’s lawyers plenty of ammunition for cross-examination and hinted to the county’s lawyers that this testimony could backfire.

“But I’ll leave it up to you,” the judge said.

Walter previously had urged the parties to settle, saying there wasn’t much Bryant could expect in terms of damages or other remedies should she prevail at trial.

New Massachusetts version of CROWN Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on “Traits Historically Associated with Race,” like Hairstyle

From [HERE] On July 26, 2022, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law House Bill 4554 – commonly referred to as the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (“CROWN”) Act – which bans discrimination based on natural and protective hairstyles in all workplaces, public schools, and places of public accommodation (such as restaurants, retail shops and more) in Massachusetts. The law will go into effect on October 24, 2022.

The CROWN Act specifically prohibits discrimination based on “traits historically associated with race,” including hair texture, hair type, and “protective hairstyles.” According to the new law, the term “protective hairstyle” includes, but is not limited to, braids, locks, twists, Bantu knots, hair coverings, and other formations. Relative to the application of this law in the employment setting, the CROWN Act tasks the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) with adopting rules, regulations, and policies interpreting and enforcing it.

The enactment of the CROWN Act represents an important change in Massachusetts law: prior to the passing of this legislation, there was no Massachusetts law specifically prohibiting discrimination related to hair types or styles. By passing the CROWN Act, Massachusetts joins 17 other states in the nation that have enacted similar laws banning hairstyle discrimination in the workplace and other public settings. On the federal level, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a version of the CROWN Act, but that bill has not yet passed in the Senate.

Massachusetts employers should review their workplace policies and practices—especially those related to harassment, discrimination, personal appearance, and grooming—to ensure that they are in compliance with the Massachusetts CROWN Act. Employers should also offer training to anyone involved in hiring to ensure they appreciate the limits of the organization’s personal appearance and grooming requirements.

Note that employees who can prove that their employer discriminated against them in violation of this law may recover monetary damages for economic loss as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Emails Reveal Biden, Pharma Pressured Top FDA Officials to Approve Booster Timeline

From [CHD] Judicial Watch today announced it received 112 pages from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that show top officials being pressured by “companies and for that matter the administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense.”

The records were produced to Judicial Watch in response to a February Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) that was filed after HHS failed to respond to a Sept. 3, 2021, FOIA request for records of communication from the former director and deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause, respectively (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:22-cv-00292)).

Drs. Gruber and Krause reportedly resigned during the White House’s push to approve the COVID-19 vaccine “booster shots.”

On Sept. 13, 2021, Gruber and Krause were among a group of resigning doctors who agreed that, “available evidence doesn’t yet indicate a need for COVID-19 vaccine booster shots among the general population …”

The records include an Aug. 25, 2021, email by Marion Gruber to her boss, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Director Peter Marks:

“Over the last couple of days, Janssen has bombarded us with emails regarding their booster dose studies.

“I am also very concerned that companies (such as Pfizer and Janssen) are trying to put pressure on OVRR [Office of Vaccines Research and Review] by way of PR [public relations]. We need to be given time to consider their data and cannot be pushed by these companies and for that matter the Administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense (e.g., Sep 20)…. It appears that at least Pfizer’s data will not be aligned with this approach and the ‘n’ [test numbers] they have is grossly insufficient. Obviously, we have to review the data but we have taken a peek and have serious concerns.

“Lastly, and this is my personal opinion, data we have seen so far from various companies (Pfizer, Janssen, Moderna) appear to suggest that boosters are not needed.”

In an email exchange on Aug. 27, 2021, Gruber replies to an email from Maureen Hess, a communications specialist at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research:

“Well, the message appears to be ‘total buy-in in the need for boosters,’ this is not how I am writing the BD [likely board decision], I am trying to take a more neutral approach. This piece sounds as if we already decided to approve this supplement.”

Hess responds, “Okay, I’ll make some additional edits (but JW [likely Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock] was included on this statement so our edits may be rejected above us.”

After sending more emails about edits Hess made, Gruber replies, “From my perspective, this is as good as it can get. Obviously, this statements [sic] puts us into a real bind but the damage is already done.”

In an Aug. 20, 2021, email exchange Dr. Doran Fink, the Deputy Director of the FDA’s Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications raises questions regarding new data, that Moderna was submitting to FDA about its COVID vaccine. Fink told Drs. Gruber, Krause and other colleagues:

“I had to bite my tongue when Peter [likely Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] mentioned this morning we wouldn’t be doing rushed reviews anymore so as not to ask about the booster doses that the administration promised to everyone by Sept 20!

“And then there is the question of the data that will support these booster doses — maybe I’m wrong, but my understanding is that Pfizer is proposing that their sBLA include the Phase 1 booster data from a grand total of 23 subjects. I’m not sure what Moderna will have, but the data Fauci presented in the press conference from NIAID studies, which was ~25 subjects per treatment arm.”

Gruber states in an Aug. 17, 2021, email “They [Dr. Doran’s team] fully understand that the Acting Commissioner would like to approve this product [Pfizer COVID booster vaccine] very soon and are trying their best to complete their review and assessment, while at the same time, maintaining our high standards and scientific and clinical integrity.”

Philip Krause, in an Aug. 10, 2021 email, complains: “It sounds like Peter [likely Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks] thinks he has taken over all vaccine operations, not just the Pfizer BLA [Biologics License Application] …”

On Aug. 23, 2021, Dr. Arnold Monto, professor in the Department of Epidemiology of the University of Michigan School of Public Health, emails Drs. Gruber and Krause using the subject “VRBPAC and boosters.”

The email said:

“The Surgeon General last night made a statement that the FDA and CDC advisory committees would be reviewing Hope that he misspoke about the VRBPAC (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) Doesn’t seem to be enough time to get it organized Just got asked about flu vaccination and COVID boosters being given at the same time. Gave my personal information, don’t”

Gruber then replies to Monto: “We will be discussing the ‘booster question’ and related submissions including whether VRBPAC should be held. We do not know yet and you are right that timing will be an issue once again.”

On Sept. 22, 2021, the FDA approved the use of a booster dose of the Pfizer drug.

According to the organization’s news release, the FDA, “amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for use of a single booster dose, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series” for people at “high risk” of “severe COVID-19.”

“These FDA documents confirm a politicized approval process for the controversial COVID-19 vaccine booster shots,” says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is a scandal that it took months and a federal lawsuit to these troubling facts about this unprecedented and seemingly never-ending vaccine operation.”

Through FOIA requests and lawsuits, Judicial Watch has uncovered a substantial amount of information about COVID-19 issues:

• Recently, National Institutes of Health (NIH) records revealed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The records also show National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’s lack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.

• HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.

• NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.

• HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high-level commitment from China.”

• HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appears to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone.

• HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding COVID data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials.

• University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) records show the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Dr. James W. Le Duc warned Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential investigations into the COVID issue by Congress.

• HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.

• Records from the Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) reveal safety lapses and violations at U.S. biosafety laboratories that conduct research on dangerous agents and toxins.

• HHS records include emails between NIH then-Director Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, the director of the NIAID, about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.

• HHS records show that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.

• Fauci’s emails include his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.