Black Man Says Gentrifying White Liberals in Chicago Use Government Authority to Shut Down Successful, Lawful Black Businesses Like His ("Dinner and a Movie") because They are Black Owned

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY

"authority" - (so-called)—a cartoon, an alleged image of the Law. 2) a cartoon clothed in flesh and blood. 3) the notion of an implied right and application of that "right" of individuals or groups of same to control or exercise external power over others, which has no meaning in reality. 4) power over...which is thoroughly institutionalized. 5) ruling through coercion. So-called "authority" is the justification for remaining impotent. The real threat to "authority" is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property. [MORE]

From [HERE] A Chicago restaurant owner is speaking out after the city yanked his license amid a battle over whether the place was an eatery or a nightclub.

Fox Chicago reports Rashad Bailey opened Dinner and a Movie last year in Chicago’s Lincoln Park. The establishment served waffles, alcohol, movies and music catering to class reunions and birthday parties in a celebration of Black love and gatherings according to Bailey.

However, the location has been littered with complaints from neighbors about the noise and the restaurant has been the scene of several fights and a shooting that took place in June 2021.

The Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection revoked Dinner and a Movie’s business license last Friday after a months-long battle saying the restaurant acted more like a tavern and failed to take steps to correct nuisance complaints.

Bailey however says his business was targeted by police as soon as he opened.

“This year (during hearings with the city), I found out I had about 10 undercover officers in my restaurant within a week’s time of me opening with no incidents happening,” Bailey told Fox.

The Dinner and a Movie owner added the Chicago police have harassed his business by frequently showing up in large numbers unannounced. A video a month after the shooting took place shows police breaking into Dinner and a Movie after a shooting took place across the street. The restaurant, however, was closed when the shooting took place.

‘Bailey told Block Club Chicago the city’s business department began investigating the restaurant shortly after it opened for selling liquor beyond its license. At the time the department revoked Dinner and a Movie’s privileges to serve lunch and operate past midnight. Additionally, Bailey blamed the restaurant’s closing on neighbors who made fake complaints due to the restaurant’s large Black customer base.

Yelp reviews for the establishment say the restaurant had a small menu, security pat-downs at the entrance and a cover charge. Bailey said he is done fighting city hall and instead will leave the Windy City calling the situation racism.

“This is racism,” Bailey told Chicago Block Club. “They’re putting crime and the problems of the city on me. … They see Black music, Black people, and they think that’s the problem.”

Chicago Police Continually Fail to Protect Black People: At Least 50 Shot, 6 Fatally, So Far This Weekend

[MORE] How does a reasonable, law-abiding non-white citizen living in a city run by elite white liberals measure the effectiveness of police? it seems logical to conclude that if a high number of crimes took place in Black neighborhoods then it means that police failed a high number of times to do their job of preventing crimes or protecting people in Black neighborhoods. If it occurs frequently it would seem then that police in general fail to do fulfill their perceived role of protecting Black people. Nevertheless, the Dependent media, which functions as “government media” in The Spectacle, always upholding authority, parroting police rationalizations no matter how ridiculous or factually unsupported and parroting facts from police perspective while assigning less credibility to civilian witnesses and perspectives, report crime numbers as if the police are helpless to do anything about crime. Often times the dependent media portrays cops as victims. We are made to believe that police are primarily engaged in actual police work and are aggressive crime fighters acting on behalf of people to fulfill their legal duty to Black citizens pursuant to the social contract, an agreement whereby citizens voluntarily agree to obey government authority in exchange for police protection and other services from the government.

Yet, in reality, crime data demonstrates that police don’t protect Black and Latino people and are not really involved in ‘police work’ in our communities. Rather, authorities use the perception and reality of crime to stalk, surveil, manage, control and kill Black and Latino people. Any beneficial “public service” provided by cops is random, incidental or done only under the most egregious or convenient circumstances and even then, it is done primarily to maintain manufactured public relations and provided on a compulsory, involuntary basis. Professor Alex Vitale states, “It is largely a liberal fantasy that the police exist to protect us from the bad guys. As the veteran police scholar David Bayley argues,

“The police do not prevent crime. This is one of the best kept secrets of modern life. Experts know it, the police know it, but the public does not know it. Yet the police pretend that they are society’s best defense against crime and continually argue that if they are given more resources, especially personnel, they will be able to protect communities against crime. This is a myth.”

Bayley goes on to point out that there is no correlation between the number of police and crime rates.” Vitale states, ‘the police have never really been about public safety or crime control.’ FUNKTIONARY states, “People who are awake see cops are mercenary security guards that remind us daily, through acts of force, that we are simultaneously both enemies and slaves of the Corporate state - colonized, surveilled and patrolled by the desensitized and lobotomized drones of the colonizers.” [MORE]

The Rewards and Punishments of White Supremacy: Black Cop Once Charged in Freddie Gray Case Gets Promoted

BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. Don’t Black Cops Realize that the Black People who they surveil, torture and murder on behalf of racism white supremacy & Government look just like their mother or father?

Anon explains, ‘it is rare for a black police officer to use excessive force against a white person. In fact, in the history of modern law enforcement there have been only a handful of instances of a black police officer shooting or killing an unarmed white person. 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." [MORE] 

Scholar Alex Vitale explains, “there is now a large body of evidence measuring whether the race of the individual officers affects their use of force. Most studies show no effect. More distressingly, a few indicate that black officers are more likely to use force or make arrests, especially of Black civilians.”

Black cops are obedient black rolebots plugged into doggy's operating system. they worship rules, government and logic within the parameters of the lex-icon. Not all, but many Black cops probably possess what Dr. Blynd calls “double consciousness”

From [HERE] One of the six police officers who faced charges in the 2015 deadly arrest of Freddie Gray has been promoted from lieutenant to captain.

The Baltimore Sun reports that Alicia White will serve as captain of the department’s Performance Standards Section, which conducts audits and inspections to make sure the agency is properly following its policies. She served in a similar role before her promotion Friday. 

Gray, who was Black, died after suffering a severe spinal cord injury inside a police van. His death prompted days of unrest.

White was among six officers charged in the Gray case by Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby. Three of the officers were acquitted, and Mosby dropped the charges against the remaining three, including White. 

Federal prosecutors declined to bring charges following an independent Justice Department investigation.

In a 2016 interview with the Sun, after her state charges were dropped, White defended her actions.

“I still believe that, when I went to work that day, I did everything that I was trained to do,” she said. “Unfortunately, that day someone lost their life. But I feel like everything I was trained to do, I did.”

White responded to the scene after Gray was already in police custody, to investigate complaints about the arrest, officials have said. Mosby said White was responsible for investigating the arrest but only “spoke to the back of Mr. Gray’s head.” Mosby said White failed to summon a medic or properly assess his injuries. [MORE]

According to the FUNKTIONARY,

lex-icon - “law as image - the appearance of justice (the form) over the substance of justice via truth and law over humanity.”

probot - a propagandizing programmed robot. (An official  representative from an organization, agency or institution whose assignment is to make prepared statements and answer "cooked"  (prepared)  questions at news conferences, briefings and the like. A probot is a proxymoron who conveys programmed disinformation in computerized language and bureaucratese jargon. A probot is one who disseminates lies, distortions and convenient mass truths composed by a superior overruling elite.

double consciousness - the sense of looking at one's Self through the eye's (axiology) and distorted mirrors of others. 2) the psycho-mismanagement of one's neurosis. 3) intimately involved with what you hate, and torn apart from who you (think you) are. You cannot learn to use that which you refuse to acknowledge, i.e., one's heritage, roots, or asili. (See: Matah, Inauthentic, "Wille-Chip," Power, Anxiety, Anguish, LEARN & Asili.) 

Will a White Man Lose His Right to Sleep Well at Night? Racist who Murdered Ahmaud Arbery Fears He’ll be Killed in State Prison, Attorney Files Motion to Remain with Feds

From [HERE] The white man who fatally shot Ahmaud Arbery after chasing the running Black man in a Georgia neighborhood says he fears he will be killed by fellow inmates if he's sent to a state prison to serve a life sentence for murder.

Travis McMichael, 36, faces sentencing Monday in U.S. District Court after his conviction on federal hate crime charges in February. His defense attorney filed a legal motion Thursday asking the judge to keep McMichael in federal custody.

Attorney Amy Lee Copeland argued McMichael has received “hundreds of threats” and won't be safe in a Georgia state prison system that is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department amid concerns about violence between inmates.

On Feb. 23, 2020, McMichael and his father, Greg McMichael, armed themselves with guns and jumped in a pickup truck to chase Arbery after he ran past their home just outside the port city of Brunswick. A neighbor, William “Roddie” Bryan, joined the chase in his own truck and recorded cellphone video of Travis McMichael blasting Arbery with a shotgun.

The killing of Arbery became part of a larger national reckoning over racial injustice amid other high-profile killings of unarmed Black people including George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Kentucky.

In Georgia, the McMichaels and Bryan were sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of Arbery's murder in a state court last fall. They have remained in a county jail in custody of U.S. marshals since standing trial in February in federal court, where a jury convicted them of hate crimes. Each defendant now faces a potential second life sentence.

Once the men are sentenced Monday by U.S. District Court Judge Lisa Godbey Wood, protocol would be to turn them over the Georgia Department of Corrections to serve their prison terms for murder. That's because they were first arrested and tried by state authorities.

For Travis McMichael, “his concern is that he will promptly be killed upon delivery to the state prison system for service of that sentence,” Copeland wrote in her sentencing request. “He has received numerous threats of death that are credible in light of all circumstances.”

Copeland said she has alerted Georgia's corrections agency, “which has replied that these threats are unverified and that it can securely house McMichael in state custody.”

Greg McMichael, 66, has also asked the judge to put him in federal rather than state prison, citing safety concerns and health problems.

Arbery's family has insisted the McMichaels and Bryan should serve their sentences in a state prison, arguing a federal penitentiary wouldn’t be as tough. His parents objected forcefully before the federal trial when both McMichaels sought a plea deal that would have included a request to transfer them to federal prison. The judge ended up rejecting the plea agreement.

“Granting these men their preferred choice of confinement would defeat me,” Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, told the judge at a hearing Jan. 31. “It gives them one last chance to spit in my face.”

A federal judge doesn't have the authority to order a state to relinquish its lawful custody of inmates to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, said Ed Tarver, an Augusta lawyer and former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Georgia.

“She can certainly make that request," Tarver said of the judge, "and it would be up to the state Department of Corrections whether or not they agree to do that.”

Copeland's court filing refers to a prior agreement between the judge, prosecutors and defense attorneys to keep the McMichaels and Bryan in federal custody "through the completion of the federal trial and any post-trial proceedings.” She argued that means Travis McMichael should at least remain in federal custody through appeals of his hate crime conviction.

Supreme Court to Hear College Admission Affirmative Action Case in October [the ultimate affirmative action is the System of Racism/White Supremacy]

From [HERE] The nation’s highest court will hear arguments on whether current admission practices’ at some of the most elite universities in the country are unconstitutional.

If and after the plaintiff is successful, and the Supreme Court endorses its position, millions of incoming college students may find that their race and ethnicity are no longer a part of the credentials that they use to compete with their peers to get into their dream schools.

Current admission practices at universities like Harvard University treat White and Asian-American students with stricter admission standards—a practice some call reverse discrimination—Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) alleges in its case against Harvard, currently before the Supreme Court.

The plaintiff is also seeking to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court decision that ruled the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit American colleges from using race as a factor in admitting students.

An impressive list of supporters has stood behind Harvard University, including legal institutes, U.S. lawmakers, and even the United States Department of Justice’s top lawyer who’s a Harvard Law graduate herself, Solicitor-General Elizabeth Prelogar. Non-profit organizations and state attorney generals have backed SFFA by submitting amicus briefs.

The Supreme Court will hear the arguments for the case starting Oct. 31, according to a case calendar the court released on Wednesday.

The Supreme Court consolidated the Harvard case with a separate case in which SFFA sued the University of North Carolina.

Race in Admissions

The plaintiff argues that Grutter was “grievously wrong,” in that it “departs from the Constitution’s original meaning, contradicts other precedents, has eroded over time, and has no true defenders.”

“The Amendment, according to its framers, enshrines the principle that ‘free government demands the abolition of all distinctions founded on color and race,’” the plaintiff said, citing the Fourteenth Amendment. “That principle was not new: the self-evident truth that ‘all men are created equal’ was a cornerstone of the American founding.”

Yet, according to the SFFA, “Harvard uses race at every stage of the admissions process.”

“To begin, Harvard recruits high-school students differently based on race,” the plaintiff wrote. “African-American and Hispanic students with PSAT scores of 1100 and up are invited to apply to Harvard, but white and Asian-American students must score a 1350.”

“As admissions decisions are made, Harvard monitors the racial makeup of each class through ‘onepagers,’” the plaintiffs added, alleging that Harvard monitors its racial makeup with “meticulous attention” and has kept it “remarkably stable” across incoming classes.

The plaintiff further claims that Harvard gives “substantial” preferences for African-American and Hispanic applicants in its admissions.

“For example, an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%),” the plaintiff’s petition reads.

Harvard, in its response (pdf), says SFFA’s petition offers a “thoroughly distorted presentation of the record” from lower courts. Harvard rejects the SFFA’s contention that the college “‘automatically’ awards ‘enormous’ preferences to all African and Hispanic applications,” and says that it factors in the race of an applicant in the admissions process “only in a flexible and nonmechanical way.”

The plaintiff further called for the overturning of Grutter, saying the case’s holding “that universities can use race in admissions to pursue student-body diversity” satisfies all the criteria that this Court considers when overruling precedents.”

“Despite reaffirming that ‘all’ racial classifications must satisfy strict scrutiny, Grutter held that ‘student body diversity’ can ‘justify the use of race in university admissions,’” the plaintiffs wrote. “That holding departs from the Constitution’s original meaning, contradicts other precedents, has eroded over time, and has no true defenders.”

“Grutter’s diversity rationale is not only uncompelling; it flouts basic equal-protection principles,” the plaintiff added. “Although Grutter praised the ‘educational benefits’ of student body diversity writ large, its assumption that a university can predict, based solely on race, an applicant’s ‘views’ or ‘experience[s]’ is little more than racial stereotyping.” [MORE]

Federal Court Rules a Landlord in Jackson (MS) Discriminated Against Prospective Black Tenants after Black Testers were Denied Property Tours while White Testers were Invited to Apply for an Apartment

From [HERE] A federal judge ruled a Jackson, Mississippi, landlord discriminated against prospective Black tenants in a suit brought by the federal government after Black testers for the Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center were denied property tours while white testers were invited to apply for an apartment. The ruling is [HERE]

Michigan Supreme Court Restricts Excessive Sentences for Youth

From [EJI] In four decisions last week, the Michigan Supreme Court held that sentencing courts must consider how youth up to age 19 are constitutionally different from adult offenders for purposes of sentencing—and not just when they are subject to a life-without-parole sentence. Because of their “diminished culpability and increased prospects for reform,” the court explained, children are ineligible for the most severe punishment unless the prosecution proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.

Life Without Parole Is Presumptively Disproportionate for Children

A decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for children under 18, holding that life without parole is an unconstitutionally excessive sentence for children whose crimes reflect “transient immaturity.”

The Court in 2016 reiterated that life without parole “is a disproportionate sentence for all but the rarest of children” and must be reserved only for those “whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption.”

In response, Michigan lawmakers enacted a new statute that eliminates mandatory life-without-parole sentences for children. Under that law, if a child is convicted of certain offenses, the prosecutor may file a motion seeking to have them sentenced to life without parole.

Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Taylor held that this law established “a rebuttable presumption against the imposition of juvenile LWOP sentences in Michigan.”

So when a sentencing court considers a prosecutor’s motion to sentence a child to die in prison, the court held, it must “start from the premise that the juvenile defendant before them, like most juveniles, has engaged in criminality because of transient immaturity, not irreparable corruption” and cannot, therefore, be sentenced to die in prison.

It is the “prosecutor’s burden to overcome the presumption that LWOP is disproportionate” by “demonstrating facts that support their extraordinary request” to sentence a child to life without parole. The prosecutor “must prove facts and circumstances that rebut the presumption against LWOP by the well-known standard of clear and convincing evidence.”

If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, the court must impose a statutory term of years. [MORE]

At Sentencing in Parkland Case [there was no trial], Judge Makes Videos/Photos of “Massacre” Unavailable to Public. With False Flags Its Always About Reaction and Belief, Actual Evidence Rarely Exists

SEEING IS NOT BELIEVING, IT IS KNOWING. A media hoaxed NYT reporter writes, “To shield heartsick families from the most macabre details of how their loved ones were murdered in a mass school shooting in Parkland, Fla., the court handling the gunman’s sentencing trial has taken an extraordinary step: Graphic videos and photographs are shown only to the jury, so that victims’ relatives and others in the courtroom gallery do not have to endure them." Such is the nature of public, criminal trials- enduring through actual evidence, weighing its value and discarding lies. Here, Like most mass shooting episodes no trial took place - a guilty plea was accepted by the court after facts were read from a document out loud in the courtroom. Nikolas Cruz, plead guilty to 17 murders and 17 attempted murders. Now the case has entered into the sentencing phase where it will be determined whether he gets life or the death penalty. [MORE]

Due to the contrived nature of the Parkland narrative, voluntary confession, many fake looking/sounding media interviews with in-credible witnesses providing inconsistent facts, a lack of corroborating forensic evidence, a lack of cell-phone video from high school students, miraculously quick medical recoveries by kids shot in the chest, books that deflected bullets and more, many consider Parkland a false flag operation or cover story. Belief isn’t needed to come to such a conclusion- go watch the many videos online about it. On the other hand however, belief is needed to conclude that an actual massacre occurred because the evidence has never been seen. We must believe cops and whatever emotional words the media put before our eyes. It takes absolutely no intelligence to believe.

The fact that there was no trial only strengthens the doubt of persons who don’t blindly believe whatever the media says. In all microwave terror episodes the media simply parrot whatever police say from a crime scene closed to the public in an instantly open and shut case. To be clear here, no criminal trial means no contested, adversarial proceeding in which the government would have to establish facts beyond a reasonable doubt with actual, admissible, authenticated evidence and credible witness testimony that is subjected to rigorous cross -examination, rules of evidence, discovery, Brady disclosures and the defendant’s right to face to face confrontation with his accusers. What better way could there be to drop any doubt as to whether this fake looking bullshit ever took place?

instead of a real trial the public continues to get, ‘but wait there’s more’ emotional reaction from the media and probotic authorities. If authorities made all this shit up would they be truthful about it? They make it up because sheeple believe whatever authorities and their media tell them to believe. Let’s be clear about the meaning of “belief” here: According to FUNKTIONARY:

Belief- the psychological calm of imagined certitude safely beyond de-stabilizing doubt and troublesome reality-entanglement. 2) a construction of approximate truths, absolute truths, mass truths and primary myths, based on genetic predisposition, and environmental and socio-psychological conditioning. 3) the institutionalization of the unknowable, i.e., a conviction that is not necessarily based upon any empirical, direct-mind or experiential knowledge. 4) a non-physical surviving thought-form. 5) any conclusion based on a fundamental assumption; the evidence of things not seen, no longer actively sought. 6) an intellectual rationalization surrounded by (based on) "'proofs," reasons and arguments. 7) that which springs out of cultural ideology. 8) the greatest fiction. 9) a trick of the mind to repress doubt. 10) a mental doubt-suppression tactic. A suppressed doubt is neither faith nor even trust. 11) repressed doubt. 12) an explicit or implicit assent to dogmatic propositions (with or without overgrown religious foliage) on someone else's authority. 13) reverential blindness that thwarts fresh perception and intuitive apperception. 14) a prejudice without any experience to support it. 15) a peculiar blend of fatiloquent assertion on one hand and adamant denial on the other. 16) a manic flirtation with the terminally unprovable. 17) certainty based in the unknown. 18) having another "see" it for you while seeing him see it (for you)—in effect being for another. 19) a conclusion without the verification of direct experience—make-believe made real. 20) the inability or unwillingness to master the requisite logic or reason to counterbalance (or overcome) the willingness to be misled. 21) the abnegation of internal authenticity for outside authority. 22) ego-consoling faith. 23) acceptance of a statement, tenet or creed with available verification and substantive evidence to its contrary. [MORE]

Like folks selling invisible hairpins, the NYT reporter explained that actual photos, videos and forensic evidence aren’t available to the public but stories about it are, “But the horrifying particulars, conveyed in emotional witness testimony, chilling audio recordings and dispassionate forensic accounts, are impossible to avoid altogether. How a teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School tied a baby blanket around a wounded student’s arm as a tourniquet. How the gunfire from a semiautomatic rifle boomed inside a classroom under attack. How the high-powered bullets ravaged children’s bodies and so on…” Exactly there was no trial, so we must just believe what we are told.

Sheeple: ‘But I don’t see any hairpins in the box’

Authority/Media: ‘Of course not, they are invisible’

Sheeple: ‘Really?’

Authority/Media: Yes, out of stock for 7 days but we are still selling them. They are absolutely invisible.’

As explained by Osho Rajineesh, “When things are invisible, you can go on selling, promising. There is no need to deliver the goods, because in the first place they are invisible, so nobody can ever detect them.” [MORE]

The Media Overstates Alex Jones' Case to Chill Speech: There Was No Trial On the Merits. Default Judgements Don't Make Sandy Hoax Real (e.g. A Default Judgement Also Wouldn’t Prove Santa is Real)

From [HERE] and [HERE] Alex Jones was ordered by a jury to pay $45.2 million in punitive damages to the parents of a 6-year-old boy killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting.

The order follows a separate $4.1 million award granted by the same jury on Thursday for actual damages, or the harm suffered directly by the parents of the alleged murdered child. The case in Mr. Jones’s hometown is the first of several seeking damages for statements made after the shooting.

Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of six-year-old Jesse Heslin who died in the 2012 shooting, sued Jones for defamation. A reporter on  Jones’ Infowars radio show claimed that Neil Heslin lied about holding his dead son in his arms to trick people into thinking the shooting happened. Heslin and Lewis originally asked for $150 million in damages.

There was no actual contested trial. The court proceedings only pertained to how much Heslin and Lewis should be awarded in damages. Heslin and Lewis were given a default judgment against Jones in 2021 after Jones’ legal team did not supply the necessary documents for the lawsuit to proceed. [MORE]. The defaulting process results in an abrupt end and final end to litigation with the claimant declared the winner in the dispute and with a conclusive, enforceable judgment against the delinquent party, the loser. Sort of like the Bengals being declared champs at this year’s Super Bowl if the Rams failed to show up and play the game for some reason or if Andre Ward failed to make weight before fighting Kovalev; Kovalev would surely be declared winner by default. But don’t make it more than what it is; a win by default doesn’t mean that Kovalev/Bengals demonstrated anything substantive in reality.

Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis cited his "willful noncompliance" with the discovery process as the reasoning behind the default judgment ruling. [MORE] Default judgments are a drastic action because they confront the judicial preference for disposition on the merits. Default judgments don’t prove that something happened - they just mean someone lost a lawsuit where something was alleged. If an actual, contested trial defamation trial had taken place Heslin and Lewis would have had the burden to actually prove that Jones made false statements; not vice-versa. That is, the plaintiffs would have had to show that Sandy Hook was real - with actual authenticated, admissible evidence and testimony subject to cross-examination, credibility determinations and inspection in an adversarial process before a jury who would decide on the merits. But that never happened. In other words, if plaintiffs brought suit because Jones said Santa was fake and thereafter Jones failed to respond to the lawsuit, a default judgment would eventually be entered. Such a judgment wouldn’t make Santy real though. In The Spectacle The Dependent Media goes on pretending otherwise.

Once a default judgment was made by the court the only thing left for the jury to do was to determine the amount of damages for the alleged defamation. Jones participated in that part of the proceeding.

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:

Sandy Hook – a staged CAPSTONE false flag media psy-ops event. Medical personnel and first responders turned away from the crime scene where 26 people allegedly were murdered. Sandy Hook never happened. Sandy Hoax did.

cover-stories – headlines that provide cover (hiding and distraction) for the real untold and undiscussed stories behind the one’s they are really (deliberately) not covering, undressing or addressing at all. 2) planted actors and/or provocateurs providing misinformation immediately after a false flag operation—like 9-11, Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing. The methodology: Sell the lie with authority, then change the subject to something emotional. [MORE]

During the proceedings for damages, Jones admitted that the shooting was “100% real” after initially suspecting that the shooting was staged. Jones said during his non-trial testimony that he changed his position after meeting the parents of Sandy Hook victims and that “the media still ran with lies that I said it wasn’t real on air yesterday… They won’t let me take it back. They just want to keep me in the position of Sandy Hook man.”

Nevertheless, it is inaccurate to imply or claim that his post-default “admission” (during the damages portion of the case) was anything other than an effort by Jones to mitigate the amount of the damages. After all, if he did not make such a statement the damages could have been substantially higher. The media misleads the public making it appear that during an actual trial he was made to admit that he was a liar. As stated, there never was a trial because a default judgment was entered; only the penalty phase occurred. (here, it should be observed that this is the pattern with false flag episodes such as Dylann Roof’s trial (not a real trial because he fired his attorneys before trial started and was appointed attorneys for his sentencing. The trial was “fake” because he represented himself and did not raise a single objection to inadmissible statements and unautheticated evidence or properly cross examine any witnesses or conduct any discovery or investigation ) and Parkland (the alleged shooter already plead guilty. The hearing presently going on in the Parkland case is to determine whether defendant will get the death penalty). In said cases and in Jones’ case, the facts are not established during a contested, adversarial trial. Thus, the public will never know what actually occurred through such proceedings.)

Obviously, contrary to Dependent Media “analysis” his so-called admission during damages does not prove that Sandy Hook occurred. To the contrary, substantial amount of evidence shows that Sandy Hook was indeed a false flag or staged “cover story.” Don’t let massa’ media also do your thinking for you. For starters check out the video above. (the real question is why didn’t Jones participate and force the plaintiffs to prove their case? There is a substantial amount of material to use in defense of whether Sandy Hoax happened. What did he have to lose? or gain?)

This case was one of many related to Alex Jones’ claims about Sandy Hook. Jones lost another lawsuit by default in September 2021 which accused him of calling another Sandy Hook parent a liar. One more dealt with claims that Alex Jones falsely portrayed a man named Marcel Fontaine as the shooter. Fontaine later died in a fire while litigation was pending. 

More proceedings are occurring to determine whether Alex Jones and Infowars are liable for any punitive damages.

Despite the Fact that 70% of All Australians are "Fully Boosted,” Deaths from COVID Have Reached a Record High. Contrary to Media Lies the COVID Injected are Dying at an Ever-Increasing Rate

From [HERE] The latest figures are in, and things are not looking good for “fully vaccinated” Australia.

Even though more than 96 percent of the native population there took the first two mRNA (messenger RNA) jabs for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), and more than 70 percent are fully “boosted,” Chinese Virus deaths throughout the country have reached a record high.

The following data chart clearly shows that ever since the launch of Operation Warp Speed, injection-related deaths Down Under have been soaring. As of this writing, a peak has formed to suggest that with the passage of time, the fully injected are dropping dead at an ever-increasing rate.

Had Australia opted for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) instead of Fauci Flu shots, the plandemic would have ended ages ago. Instead, Australia is now seeing mass death rather than a recovery. (Related: Australian officials want Aussies to get injected a bi-annual intervals for the rest of time.)

In fact, there were almost no covid-related deaths at all in Australia prior to the launch of the “vaccines.” There was a small peak in the fall of 2020 followed by a precipitous drop back to baselines levels, followed by a massive peak once people started getting injected.

Interestingly, the booster shot campaign was followed by another massive spike and peak, which will more than likely be followed by continued increases in the death count as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and other jab-induced health conditions take their toll.

“We were warned, but only intelligent people listened,” wrote a commenter in response to the news. “Antibody-dependent enhancement is happening, it is real, and it destroys the immune system.”

“No one mistreated their citizens more than Australia during the crisis,” added another. “The people that did that should be in jail.”

This is now a plandemic of the fully vaccinated

New South Wales (NSW) is reportedly seeing the most new “cases” of the Wuhan Flu, followed by Queensland and Victoria.

Each of these areas, as you may recall, imposed heavy restrictions throughout the plandemic – restrictions that area residents were told would put an end to the virus.

“Quarantine” concentration camps were set up; people were forced to mask everywhere they went; and public movement was restricted – but to no avail. The Chinese Virus is here to stay, thanks to the injections.

The media would have us all believe that people are “catching” and “re-catching” covid over and over again, but the reality is that what we are now seeing is a plandemic of the fully vaccinated whose immune systems are shot.

“They’re exhibiting symptoms of poisoning,” wrote another commenter about what the fully jabbed are experiencing, which is not “covid.” “Coughing and fever are mild symptoms. Neurological damage, spasms, and paralysis are serious symptoms, not unlike what happens to a cockroach that is sprayed with RAID.”

“Clots are a sign of internal bleeding. Severe clotting leads to amputation and heart attacks. The most severe symptom? Death.”

Another pointed out that nobody who is unvaccinated is experiencing any of this, which further proves that what sick people are suffering from is vaccine damage, not covid infection.

“Fake immunity designed to kill you never beats natural immunity,” wrote someone else about how the so-called vaccines do not in any way produce real or lasting immunity, but instead provoke vaccine-induced AIDS (VAIDS).

“The unvaxxed are not getting sick not because they have natural immunity to a non-existent pathogen, but because they haven’t been poisoned,” added someone else. “The mRNA drug causes epithelial cells to manufacture the toxic spike protein 24/7, 365. There’s no off switch.”

BP profits highest in 14 years, raking in $8.5 billion

From [HERE] BP reported a profit of $8.5 billion for its second quarter on Tuesday, its biggest windfall in 14 years, making it the latest oil giant to cash in on higher crude prices as Russia’s war in Ukraine disrupts global energy markets.

Just days earlier, the two largest U.S. oil companies — ExxonMobil and Chevron — reported that their profits had roughly tripled in the second quarter, while London-based Shell and France’s TotalEnergies also reported blockbuster results. Second-quarter profits for those five companies now total more than $55 billion, marking a stunning turnaround from the early months of the coronavirus pandemic.

The windfall comes as consumers around the world are feeling the sting of the highest inflation in decades and a cost-of-living crisis that is particularly painful at the gas pump. The price of crude oil surged above $120 per barrel in March and again in June before falling back, and it remains up 34 percent compared to a year ago. The national average gas price in the United States jumped in tandem, to over $5 a gallon for the first time, AAA reported, although prices are now dropping. [MORE]

Novel Lawsuit Claims COVID 'Shelter in Place' or Shut Down Orders Interfered with the Inalienable Right to Earn a Living and Arbitrarily Denied Fruits of Labor Under NC Law

Shelter in place orders were unnecessary Government seizures of people’s livelihoods and businesses that forced indefinite closures and widespread layoffs. Said conduct was not narrowly tailored because other ‘precautionary measures to manage contact tracing of [customers]; install plexiglass, touchless thermometers, six-feet distance markers, and screening booths; and to initiate vigilant cleaning procedures—all in consult with local health officials—would have been sufficient to combat the ALLEGED spread of COVID-19.’ (At any rate, asymptomatic transmission of COVID is epidemiologically irrelevant and shelter in place orders had no detectable impact on epidemic spreading, cases, hospitalisations, or deaths. Said governmental conduct was “among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a democracy.”) [MORE] The government’s actions may be described as “uncompensated takings” that violate the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. That is, the government is legally obligated to properly compensate citizens for their tangible losses. [MORE] If you believe such things as “rights” exist in the first place. The interesting lawsuit below is not a takings clause suit but invokes the NC Constitution.

From [HERE] Owners of an Alamance County speedway can move forward with a lawsuit against the state's top health official. The suit stems from a COVID-19 shutdown order.

• Ace Speedway owners argue the shutdown deprived them of the right "to the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor." They also contend the shutdown amounted to selective enforcement of a COVID-19 emergency order.

• A unanimous decision from the N.C. Court of Appeals means the state Supreme Court faces no obligation to take the case.

A unanimous N.C. Court of Appeals panel has ruled that owners of an Alamance County racetrack shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic can move forward with a lawsuit against the state’s top health official.

Ace Speedway’s lawsuit argues that a shutdown order from Dr. Mandy Cohen, then serving as secretary of the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, violated the speedway owners’ rights. The suit contends the shutdown infringed on speedway owners’ right to earn a living. The shutdown also represented selective enforcement of Gov. Roy Cooper’s COVID executive orders, according to the suit.

The suit is now known as Kinsley v. Ace Speedway Racing Ltd., with current DHHS Secretary Kody Kinsley replacing Cohen as the target of the speedway’s legal action.

“This case makes us consider the use of overwhelming power by the State against the individual liberties of its citizens and how that use of power may be challenged,” wrote Judge Jefferson Griffin.

“Ace’s counterclaims propose that the Governor’s orders were enforced upon them without justification and without equal protection of law,” Griffin added. “Ace’s counterclaims are constitutional claims alleging (1) executive orders issued by the Governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were an unlawful infringement on Ace’s right to earn a living as guaranteed by our Constitution’s fruits of labor clause, and (2) the Secretary’s enforcement actions against Ace under the executive order constituted unlawful selective enforcement.”

“We hold that Ace pled each of its constitutional claims sufficiently to survive the Secretary’s motion to dismiss.”

Ace held a series of auto races in May and June 2020, even after Cooper personally asked the Alamance County sheriff to urge the speedway to shut down. Cooper had issued a COVID-19 executive order blocking “mass gatherings” of more than 25 people. 

Ace’s races drew at least 1,000 spectators and as many as 2,550 people. The speedway operated with COVID abatement measures adopted in consultation with local health officials.

Jason Turner, an Ace Speedway owner, also attracted media attention for his outspoken comments against the governor’s shutdown efforts.

Cohen issued an abatement order on June 8, 2020, and secured a court order forcing Ace to shut down its operations.

The speedway filed suit and continued its legal action, even after Cohen dropped her abatement efforts in September 2020, when Cooper had loosened some mass gathering restrictions. A trial judge ruled in January 2021 against the health secretary’s motion to dismiss Ace’s constitutional claims.

Griffin’s opinion focused attention on Ace’s argument that Cohen violated Article I, Section 1 of the N.C. Constitution. That section says North Carolinians’ “inalienable rights” include “the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor.”

“[T]he addition of a right to the fruits of one’s labor to the North Carolina Constitution sought to increase the floor of protections granted by similar provisions in the United States federal constitution,” Griffin wrote. “Since then, our courts have construed North Carolina citizens’ right to the ‘fruits of their labor’ to be synonymous with their ‘right to earn a living’ in whatever occupation they desired.”

“The core principle behind the fruits of their labor clause is that government ‘“may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations,”’” Griffin wrote.

“The intended purpose of the Governor’s order was not to regulate a particular occupation or business enterprise, but the direct and intended purpose of the Abatement Order was to cease the operation of a business,” the judge added. “It cannot be denied that the scope and breadth of the Abatement Order restricted or otherwise interfered with the lawful operation of a business serving the public.”

“We hold that Ace adequately pled that the Secretary, through [the] Abatement Order, deprived Ace of its constitutional right to the fruits of one’s own labor and, therefore, sovereign immunity cannot bar Ace’s claim,” Griffin wrote.

Ace also “sufficiently pleads a constitutional challenge” that Cohen violated speedway owners’ rights under Article I, Section 19 of the N.C. Constitution. It reads that “no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

“Ace effectively pled that it was among a class of ‘many speedways’ that similarly conducted races with fans in attendance during the period where such actions were banned,” Griffin explained. “Ace further pled that Governor Cooper and the Secretary ‘singled out’ Ace for enforcement by directing the Sheriff to take action against Ace and, when that failed, by issuing the Abatement Order against Ace alone.”

“Finally, Ace’s complaint pled its belief that it was singled out for enforcement in response to Defendant Turner’s statements to the press ‘and not because a true Imminent Hazard exist[ed,]’ as the Secretary asserted in the Abatement Order,” Griffin added. “These pleadings, taken as true, sufficiently allege bad faith enforcement of [Cooper’s executive order] against Ace alone.”

Kinsley could appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court. Because Judges Jeff Carpenter and Fred Gore agreed with Griffin and ruled unanimously, the state’s highest court faces no obligation to take the case.

Without an appeal, the case would head back to Superior Court for a trial on the merits of Ace Speedway’s claims.

After Biden Failures Brittney Griner Sentenced to 9 yrs Prison by the Russia Lex-icon [law as image, the appearance of justice, the form over the substance of justice via truth and law over humanity]

From [HERE] U.S. women’s basketball star Brittney Griner on Thursday was convicted of bringing marijuana with criminal intent into Russia last February and sentenced to nine years in prison,  an outcome that is expected to clear the way for negotiations over her release between the two countries. 

Judge Anna Sotnikova found Ms. Griner guilty of deliberately bringing hashish oil into Russia in mid-February, and the nine-year sentence also included a fine of 1 million rubles, according to Ms. Griner’s legal team. 

Ms. Griner’s time served, since February, will be included in her term, the judge said. She will immediately be transferred to a penal colony, the judge said.

“The court found the defendant guilty [of] illegal acquisition, storage, transportation of drugs without the purpose of sale, and … smuggling of narcotic drugs in a significant amount,” the Russia’s state news agency, TASS, cited the judge as saying.

Russian prosecutors had sought a sentence of 9½ years in prison for Ms. Griner, close to the maximum penalty of 10 years for her charges of drug possession and smuggling. 

Ms. Griner’s defense team had asked for the court to impose a minimal sentence, and she had made her own emotional plea as well. 

“I want to apologize to my teammates, my club, the fans and the city of Ekat for my mistake that I made and the embarrassment that I brought on them,” she said, adding that she also wanted to apologize to her wife, parents, siblings, her Phoenix Mercury teammates and to the WNBA.

“I never meant to hurt anybody, to put in jeopardy the Russian population, I never meant to break any laws here,” Ms. Griner said. “I made an honest mistake and I hope that in your ruling it, that it doesn’t end my life here.”

The charges against Ms. Griner carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. Ms. Griner’s defense team asked for the court to impose a minimum sentence, taking into account her role in Russian sports, according to the Russian news agency Interfax, whose correspondent was in the courtroom Thursday.

The best prospects for Ms. Griner’s release have long been thought to hinge on a prisoner exchange between U.S. and Russia, after she is convicted, despite the frosty relations between the two countries. In an unusual move, the U.S. pressed an offer to swap her and former Marine Paul Whelan for arms dealer Viktor Bout even as her trial was still underway. Ms. Griner has been detained since mid-February. [MORE]

Justice Dept Charges 4 Louisville Officers who Murdered Breonna Taylor with Civil-Rights Crimes. Charging Document says Cops Knew They Had No Probable Cause and Falsified Affidavit for Warrant

From [HERE] The Justice Department has charged four current and former Louisville police officers in connection with the death of Breonna Taylor more than two years after she was fatally shotin her home during a botched police raid.

The officers face charges including civil-rights offenses, charges of excessive force, conspiracy and obstruction, Attorney General Merrick Garland said.

Ms. Taylor, a 26-year-old emergency-medical technician in Kentucky’s largest city, was asleep with her boyfriend in March 2020 when police, who had secured a no-knock warrant to search her home in connection with a drug case, forced entry into her apartment. Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend, thinking the officers were intruders, shot at them. Three Louisville officers responded by firing more than 30 bullets, at least six of which hit Ms. Taylor, one of them fatally, officials have said.

The charges announced Thursday say the officers falsified the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant, knowing they lacked probable cause for the search, among other offenses, Mr. Garland said.

“We allege that the defendants knew their actions and falsifying the affidavit could create a dangerous situation, and we allege these unlawful acts resulted in Ms. Taylor’s death,” Mr. Garland said.

Pittsfield (MA) Residents File Suit Over Verizon Cell Tower Injuries

From [HERE] Lawyers supported by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) are representing four families in a suit in Massachusetts Superior Court seeking to reinstate the Pittsfield Board of Health’s cease and desist order against Verizon. The case is the next step in the resident’s 24-month ordeal that began when Verizon turned on a cell tower in their neighborhood known as “Shacktown.” As soon as the tower went operational, people began getting sick. Almost 20 have been definitively identified, but more may be negatively affected.

The Pittsfield Board of Health issued the cease and desist on April 11, 2022, after a long and thorough investigation into the health impacts of Verizon’s tower. It rescinded the order on June 1, 2022, after Verizon sued in federal court. W. Scott McCollough (McCollough Law Firm, PC) and Paul Revere, III (Law Offices of Paul Revere, III) are representing the Plaintiffs and argue in their suit that the interference of several city officials was improper, unlawful and tainted the entire process.

The Pittsfield Board of Health studied the relevant scientific and medical information, including more than 1,000 peer-reviewed studies. The Board interviewed scientists and medical professionals. It took evidence from those being sickened and met with Verizon Wireless. The Board discovered the cell tower was making 17 individuals ill, and their homes were so uninhabitable that many had to move away, while others moved in with relatives, and some slept in their cars. The tower had rendered sleep elusive, cognition impaired, while some children were vomiting in their beds at night. Vertigo, heart palpitations and severe headaches were part of the constellation of neurological symptoms experienced by the affected neighbors.

On April 11, 2022, the Board issued an “Emergency Order” having found health and sanitary code violations and declared that the Verizon cell tower is a public nuisance. They gave Verizon seven days to request a hearing and, if it did not, then it had to discontinue operation. Verizon then filed a lawsuit contending the Board is powerless and cannot protect Pittsfield residents from the tower’s toxic wireless emissions.

The Board has bravely tried to resolve the problem, but Verizon has refused to admit to the harms it is inflicting, or to engage in collaborative efforts to resolve these harms. Even worse, the Board and the residents are not just having to deal with Verizon. Others in the city have persistently tried to prevent the Board from providing meaningful relief. Pittsfield Mayor Linda Tyer, City Solicitor Stephen Pagnotta and former Dir. of Community Development Deanna Ruffer have done all they could to frustrate the Board’s independent authority and duty to end the toxic wireless emissions, or at least mitigate them. The residents’ suit contends that these three officials have violated the state’s nepotism laws and the ethics standards for government employees and attorneys. The lawsuit extensively documents their specific actions and details the financial and legal conflicts of interest that are driving them.

Tyer, Pagnotta and Ruffer, in cooperation with Verizon, thwarted the Board’s efforts to secure outside counsel, thereby ensuring that the Board could not defend its Emergency Order. As a result, the Board was coerced into rescinding the Emergency Order on June 1, 2022. The residents’ lawsuit challenges the Board’s decision to rescind, but its principal focus is on Tyer, Pagnotta Ruffer. The complaint seeks a court declaration that their interference was improper, unlawful and tainted the entire process. If the Superior Court grants the requested relief, these individuals will have to stop their improper interference and the Board will be allowed the flexibility it needs to remediate the harms it has already found to exist.

“Pittsfield has previously taken on companies that were hurting its citizens,” said CHD president and general counsel Mary Holland. “The residents of the Shacktown neighborhood epitomize the reality that prosperity means nothing if your citizens are sick and even dying. The only difference here is that it is Verizon, not General Electric, and the toxin is wireless radiation not PCBs. When GE left Pittsfield, it created an economic vacuum but moving the tower to address the residents’ suffering, including three homeowners with cancer, does not create a hardship for anyone. Several commercial landowners in Pittsfield have offered their property for the tower. In this picturesque city in the Berkshires with 40% open space, Verizon can put their tower where it is not a potentially lethal nuisance.”

“The Board is trying to do the right thing, but they have been prevented from carrying out their duties because of cronyism and favoritism,” continued Holland. “We hope that this suit will stop the interference and free up the Board so it can finally force Verizon to the negotiating table as the Emergency Order intended prior to its forced rescission.”

'Thanks for Your Service NGHR:' No Charges for Norfolk Cops who Gave a Niggerization Lesson to a Gullible Black US Army Lieutenant by Assaulting and Threatening His Life During a Traffic Stop

From [HERE] A white police officer in Virginia should not be criminally charged but should be investigated for potential civil rights violations after he pepper-sprayed, struck and handcuffed a Black U.S. Army lieutenant during a 2020 traffic stop, a special prosecutor has determined.

The prosecutor's findings are the latest fallout from a confrontation involving two police officers and a uniformed military officer that drew outrage and national attention to the small town of Windsor, about 70 miles (113 kilometers) southeast of Richmond.

The man who was pulled over, Caron Nazario, was not charged with committing any crimes. Video of the December 2020 traffic stop surfaced in April 2021 after Nazario sued in federal court, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated. The images sparked outrage and served as a grim reminder to many Black Americans that a military uniform doesn’t necessarily protect against mistreatment by police.

In December, then-Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring's office sued the town, alleging that it operated in a way that discriminated against Black Americans.

One of the officers, Joe Gutierrez, was fired from the department. He was the target of the special prosecutor's criminal probe.

“Although I find the video very disturbing and frankly unsettling, Gutierrez's use of force to remove Nazario did not violate state law as he had given multiple commands for Nazario to exit the vehicle,” special prosecutor Anton Bell said in his report, dated July 29 and posted online by Nazario's attorneys.

“The problematic issue, however, were Gutierrez's statements throughout the entire ordeal, which would lead a reasonable person to wonder whether underlying bias was at the root of how and why Nazario was treated in like manner,” Bell wrote.

Bell's findings were first reported Monday by The Virginian-Pilot newspaper.

The incident began when Nazario was driving home from his duty station, according to his lawsuit. Officer Daniel Crocker radioed that he was attempting to stop a vehicle with no rear license plate and tinted windows.

Crocker said the driver was “eluding police” and he considered it a “high-risk traffic stop,” according to a report that's included in the lawsuit. One of Nazario's attorneys, Jonathan Arthur, later explained that Nazario was trying to stop in a well-lit area “for officer safety and out of respect for the officers.”

The other officer, Gutierrez, was driving by and decided to join the traffic stop, the lawsuit stated. By the time the two officers reached Nazario’s SUV, the license plate was visible in the rear.

When Nazario stopped at a well-lit gas station, the two officers immediately drew their guns and pointed them at Nazario, his lawsuit alleges. The officers then attempted to pull Nazario out of the vehicle while he continued to keep his hands in the air. Gutierrez pepper-sprayed Nazario multiple times as the officers yelled for him to get out.

At one point, Gutierrez told Nazario he was “fixin’ to ride the lightning,” a reference to the electric chair that was also a line from the movie “The Green Mile,” a film about a Black man facing execution, the lawsuit said.

Nazario got out and asked for a supervisor. Gutierrez responded with “knee-strikes” to his legs, knocking him to the ground, the lawsuit says. The two officers struck him multiple times, then handcuffed and interrogated him.

The traffic stop was captured on Nazario’s cellphone as well as the officer's body-worn cameras.

Tom Roberts, another attorney representing Nazario, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that a judge or a jury, not a special prosecutor, should have determined whether Gutierrez violated the law.

“I think that there’s sufficient evidence to show that he was intentional in his actions,” Roberts said. “And I believe that he exceeded any authority to use force, and therefore he committed assault and battery.”

Roberts said that would have been a misdemeanor offense, for which the statute of limitations is one year, well before the special prosecutor released his findings.

“All too often, when it comes to law enforcement violating the laws, we see our Commonwealth’s Attorneys fail to apply the same zeal at prosecuting law enforcement as they do with other offenders,” Roberts' firm said in a statement.

Judge Orders NYPD to Release Documents Pertaining to Its Use of Facial Recognition to Surveil Black Lives Matter Protestors

From [HERE] The New York Police Department will soon have to release thousands of documents pertaining to its use of facial recognition to monitor Black Lives Matter protests, according to a legal ruling from the New York Supreme Court.

The ruling is the result of a lawsuit filed by Amnesty International and the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project last summer. Through Freedom of Information Law requests, the organizations had asked the NYPD to release over 30 million documents pertaining to biometric surveillance activities; the police agency rejected the requests as unreasonably burdensome.

Lawyers representing both sides have been negotiating since the lawsuit was filed, and brought down the total number of documents to 2,700. New York Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Love has now determined that this number does, in fact, represent a reasonable request, and has asked Amnesty International and STOP to formally re-file their Freedom of Information Law request to cover the smaller number of documents.

Police organizations’ use of facial recognition technology during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 in particular helped to link biometric technologies to police misconduct, complicating perceptions of facial recognition and how it should be used by the state.

For its part, the NYPD has not helped the reputation of biometric tech, thanks to its use of Clearview AI’s controversial face matching platform, and its deception of the public on that matter. Clearview notoriously trawls the internet, including social media accounts, to collect face images that police can use for biometric matching. The NYPD had claimed that only a select few of its officers had trialed the system, before leaked documents revealed much more extensive use of Clearview’s system by the police force.

Recent developments have further complicated the image of law enforcement’s use of facial recognition. In Russia, state authorities used the technology this year to identify pro-democracy activists when organizing mass arrests. In the United States, law enforcement agencies used facial recognition in their efforts to identify participants in the January 6 Capitol Riots.

Detroit Offers to Pay Black Lives Matter Protesters $1.3M for Violent Assaults by Police to Silence Speech

From [HERE] The city is moving to offer nearly $1.3 million to protesters in five pending lawsuits, the vast majority going to Detroit Will Breathe which has alleged Detroit officers used excessive force during the George Floyd protests in 2020.

The Detroit City Council in its last seven-hour session Tuesday before recessing through September, unanimously approved a package totaling $1,265,000.

In the proposed settlement, $1,035,000 would go to Detroit Will Breathe and 14 plaintiffs. Another $150,000 would go to Nadia Rohr, while $60,000 would be paid to Emma Howland-Bolton and four plaintiffs. Another $10,000 each would go to Marlon Frazier and Timothy Hall.

During the May 2020 protests in Detroit, one man was killed and dozens arrested as peaceful daytime protests in the city gave way to violence on a Friday night. Demonstrators displayed anger over police brutality in America, clashing with city police who fought back with tear gas. Over that summer, dozens were arrested during protests held at the sites where Detroiters had died at the hands of police-involved shootings.

Deputy Corporation Counsel Chuck Raimi told The Detroit News in a Tuesday statemen: "The overwhelming majority of Detroit Police Department officers conducted themselves with courage and honor during the George Floyd protests, despite innumerable violent attacks and other shameful conduct by protestors.”

He continued: “The City’s law department’s offers of judgment reflect the unfortunate reality that in our litigious society, and particularly in cases of this sort where plaintiffs’ lawyers (but not the City’s lawyers) have the opportunity to recover enormous attorney fees payable by the City, the City’s financial interests may be best served by seeking a settlement."

Detroit Will Breathe's offer lists 14 plaintiffs with various settlement amounts including  $45,000 each to leaders Tristan Taylor, Jazten Bass, Margaret Henige; $90,000 each to Nakia Wallace and Iman Saleh; $75,000 to Lauryn Brennan; $120,000 to Amy Nahabedian; $150,0000 to Caylee Arnold; and $250,000 to Alexander Anest.

The offers do not include attorney fees, but should the protesters accept the offers, their attorney fees would be liable by the city, according to an offer signed off on by Detroit Corporation Counsel Conrad Mallett Jr.

Taylor, co-founder of Detroit Will Breathe, told The Detroit News they are discussing the issue with their attorneys and did not comment further.