Massive Spike in Unexpected Deaths In England & Wales, Many Thousands Dying In Excess of Baseline - deaths are not from COVID, a mild virus

Uninformed Consent (full documentary): Voluntary Consent to Take Experimental Medical Treatment is Essential and Requires Full Disclosure of All Potential Dangers and Risks - Except During a Genocide

Vax Kills Doctor. $1B Suit Filed Against India Govt, Bill Gates, Serum Inst. Got COVID Injection Under False Claims about Safety and Treatment of Side Effects [Vax Not Immune from Liability in India]

[NOT] Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion (Full Documentary)

CDC Vaccine Safety Director: 'We are aware of these reports of people experiencing long-lasting health problems and Debilitating Illnesses following COVID Injections'

From [HERE] CDC Immunization Safety Office Director Tom Shimabukuro admitted during an FDA advisory panel on Covid vaccines this week that his agency is aware of citizens suffering “debilitating illnesses” after taking the jabs.

“We take vaccine safety very seriously,” he said. “With respect to reports of people experiencing debilitating illnesses, we are aware of these reports of people experiencing long-lasting health problems following Covid vaccination.”

Shimabukuro continued, “In some cases the clinical presentation of people suffering these health problems is variable and no specific medical cause for the symptoms has been found. We understand illness is disruptive and stressful, especially under those circumstances, and we acknowledge these health problems have substantially impacted the quality of life for people and have also affected those around them.”

“We hope for improvement and recovery and we will continue to monitor the safety of these vaccines and work with partners to better understand these types of adverse events,” he added. [MORE]

FDA Probes Higher Risk of Stroke When Covid Booster, Flu Jab Taken on Same Day –as Recommended by the Blight House

From [HERE] The FDA is looking into whether there’s an increased risk of stroke after taking a flu jab and Covid booster vaccine on the same day, advice that was promoted by the White House.

The federal agency revealed the investigation after an analysis found “seniors who received both the Pfizer omicron booster and a high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine on the same day may have a higher risk of stroke,” CNBC reported Thursday.

“Although the FDA has not identified a stroke risk, the agency is launching a study to examine potential safety concerns that may arise from administering the Covid omicron shots at the same time as the high-dose or adjuvant flu shots,” reported CNBC citing FDA biostatistics deputy director Richard Forshee.

The investigation comes as “Millions of Americans got both shots at the same time this winter following a major public health push by the White House,” according to the Daily Mail.

Heading into winter, Biden’s White House Covid response coordinator Ashish Jha urged Americans on at least two occasions to inject both jabs simultaneously.

“The good news is you can get both your flu shot and Covid shot at the same time. It’s actually a good idea. I really believe this is why God gave us two arms; one for the flu shot and the other one for the Covid shot,” Jha told Americans during a Covid-19 Response Team press conference in September. [MORE]

Damar Hamlin Pops Up to Make Public Statement but Provides No Medical Explanation for What Caused Heart Attack During the 5 Minute Video

Cardiologist Dr Thomas Levy: Over 7M Americans may have some form of Heart Injury Due to COVID Injections

 From [HERE] Board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Thomas Levy told Steve Kirsch in an interview on Jan. 17 that over seven million Americans may be suffering from some degree of heart damage because of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines.

Levy came up with these startling figures based on the assumption that at least 2.8 percent of people who get the COVID-19 vaccines eventually developed some form of heart injury detectable with a troponin test. (Related: EVERYONE who gets mRNA jabbed for covid suffers some degree of heart injury, study finds.)

Official data released on August 21, 2022, showed a total of 263 million Americans, or 79 percent of the U.S. population, have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Given those figures, the projected number of Americans with vaccine-induced heart damage would be around 7.4 million.

A prolific book author, Levy recently published an essay titled “Myocarditis: Once Rare, Now Common,” which formed the basis of his discussion with Kirsch on the excess deaths occurring in the United States that could be attributed to the mRNA injections.

Among the salient points covered by the essay was the relationship between COVID-19 and myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle. According to Levy, “scientific literature indicates that myocarditis is occurring quite frequently in patients harboring the chronic presence of the spike protein.”

According to Levy, an elevated troponin level on blood testing is extremely sensitive in picking up any ongoing heart muscle cell damage. “Some elevation of this test will always be seen if any significant inflammation is present in those muscle cells.”

Levy mentioned a recent Swiss study yet to be published, which measured troponin levels on 777 hospital employees who got boosted after two injections. On the third day after the booster, troponin levels above the upper limits of normal were seen in 2.8 percent of those subjects. By the next day, however, half of the elevated troponin levels had returned to normal.

As expected, the study authors dismissed the probability that some myocardial damage was done by the vaccine. However, Levy thinks incidents like death on the playing field by physically fit European football players in the last two years indicate that something unusual is going on among vaccinated individuals.

These sudden deaths should pose serious concerns, but are largely ignored by the government and the mainstream media because they contradict the COVID narrative they are trying to espouse.

COVID-19 vaccine rollouts trigger spike in excess deaths everywhere

Recent studies in various countries like Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Israel and the Netherlands have shown similar patterns of increased excess deaths following rollouts of COVID-19 vaccines.

Levy also cited a study in mice showing that the mRNA vaccines, which produce spike proteins, can induce myopericarditis – a complication of acute pericarditis. “Regardless of the initial source of exposure to spike protein, it appears to be the reason for the pathology and symptoms seen in chronic COVID.”

Worse, Levy believes mRNA vaccine shedding is possible.

“Once transmitted, the mRNA directly leads to spike protein production. Such mRNA shedding means that the spike protein is indirectly, if not directly as well, transmissible from one individual to another via inhalation or various forms of skin contact,” he noted.

Another topic discussed during the Kirsh interview was the heart damage in vaccinated pilots caused by the vaccines. This surfaced after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made some adjustments in its guidelines, possibly because of the huge number of pilots failing routine health screenings.

In October 2022, the FAA widened the ECG parameters beyond the normal range – from a PR max of 0.2 to unlimited. Levy said this is a “tacit admission from the U.S. government that the COVID vaccine has damaged the hearts of American pilots.”

“The cardiac harm, of course, is not limited to pilots. My best guess right now is that over 50 million Americans sustained some amount of heart damage from the shot,” Kirsch remarked. [MORE]

Judge Halts California’s So-Called COVID Misinformation Law that Punishes Doctors who Inform Patients About the Dangers of COVID Injections

From [HERE] A federal judge on Wednesday halted enforcement of a recently enacted California law that would allow state regulators to discipline physicians who spread misinformation about Covid-19.

In a 30-page opinion, U.S. District Judge William Shubb granted a preliminary injunction to physicians who sued Governor Gavin Newsom and the state's medical board over Assembly Bill 2098, a law that allows the medical board to discipline doctors who share information about Covid that is not a part of the "contemporary scientific consensus."

Shubb said the language of the law was "unconstitutionally vague" and ordered the state to stop enforcement of it. The lawsuit was filed in November.

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, one of the plaintiffs, took to Twitter Wednesday evening to talk about the ruling.

"The ruling bodes well for our case," Kheriaty wrote. "It indicates that our arguments that this law is unconstitutional have strong pre-trial facial plausibility. Not to get ahead of ourselves, of course, or try to predict the final outcome of the case, but this is a very positive development."

The plaintiffs said the law violated their First Amendment rights and impaired their ability to treat patients.

Plandemic for Genocide: Africa, where Less than 6% are Jabbed, Fared Far Better than Countries w/High Injection Rates. Large Survey Demonstrates COVID is No Longer An Issue on Most of the Continent

Story at a glance:

• There are clear contradictions between the World Health Organization’s (WHO) directives regarding the need for COVID-19 shots in Africa and the actual situation on the ground.

• The WHO is still calling on all countries to get the COVID-19 jab into at least 70% of their populations and warns that developing countries are at grave risk due to low jab rates. Meanwhile, Africa, where less than 6% of the population is jabbed, has fared far better than countries with high injection rates. A large-scale survey in Uganda also shows COVID-19 is no longer a clinical issue.

• Variants have also gotten milder (less pathogenic) with each iteration, yet the WHO warns that new variants may create “large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low vaccination coverage.”

• The explanation for the disconnect between the WHO’s priorities and what’s happening in Africa can be explained when you look at the focus of the WHO’s Catastrophic Contagion exercise. It focused on getting African leadership trained in following the pandemic script. The WHO needs additional pandemics in order to justify its pandemic treaty, which will give it sole power to dictate countermeasures, and it needs to eliminate the African control group, which shows the COVID-19 “vaccines” do more harm than good.

• The WHO also has every intention of implementing climate lockdowns once it has the power to do so. To that aim, the WHO’s director of Environment and Health has suggested combining health and climate issues into one.

From [HERE] In the video below, John Campbell, Ph.D., a retired nurse educator, compares the contradictions between the World Health Organization’s directives regarding the need for COVID-19 shots in Africa and the actual situation on the ground.

As of Dec. 12, 2022, the WHO was still calling on all countries to get the COVID-19 jab into at least 70% of their populations.

Its original deadline for meeting this 70% threshold was mid-2022, but by June 2022, only 58 of 194 member states had reached this target.

According to the WHO, jab supplies, technical support and financial support were lacking during the early days of the injection campaign but, now, those obstacles have been resolved.

As a result, all countries now have the ability to meet the global target of 70%.

The “overarching challenge” right now is the administration of the shots, actually “getting shots into arms.”

To address that, the WHO suggests integrating COVID-19 injection services “with other immunization services and alongside other health and social interventions.” This, they say, will maximize impact and “build long-term capacity.”

The WHO also stresses that “As people’s risk perception of the virus wanes, careful risk communication and community engagement plans need to be adapted to enhance demand for vaccination.”

To ensure low-income countries get onboard to meet the 70% target, the WHO also launched The COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery Partnership in January 2022.

This is an international effort “to intensify country readiness and delivery support” in 34 countries with low COVID-19 jab uptake. Partners include UNICEF, Gavi and the World Bank.

According to the WHO:

“Despite incremental success since its launch in January 2022, low and lower-middle income countries are facing difficulties to get a step change in vaccination rates.

“This represents a serious threat to the fragile economic recovery, including due to the risk of new variants creating large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low vaccination coverage.

“It also means accelerating the delivery of other COVID-19 tools and treatments is a crucial priority to help the world build up multiple layers of protection against the virus.

“Concerted and urgent action from countries, international partners and agencies, along with G20 Finance Ministers is required to increase vaccination levels and expedite access.”

In short, the WHO is really concerned that countries with low COVID-19 jab rates will suffer lest they meet or exceed the target goal of jabbing 70% of their populations. But what is that concern based on? Certainly not the real world.

WHO’s statements contradict real-world situations

The statements made by the WHO contradict a number of real-world situations. For starters, while developed nations with high jab rates struggled with COVID-19 throughout much of 2021 and 2022, Africa avoided this fate, despite its single-digit jab rate.

Scientists are said to be “mystified” as to how Africa fared so well, completely ignoring data showing that the more COVID-19 shots you get, the higher your risk of contracting COVID-19 and ending up in the hospital.

Over the past year, researchers have been warning that the COVID-19 jabs appear to be dysregulating and actually destroying people’s immune systems, leaving them vulnerable not only to COVID-19 but also other infections.

It stands to reason, then, that Africa with its low injection rate would not be burdened with COVID-19 cases brought on by dysfunctional immune systems.

Secondly, variants have gotten milder (less pathogenic) with each iteration, albeit more infectious (i.e., they spread easier).

So why is the WHO worried about “the risk of new variants creating large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low vaccination coverage”? What is that “risk” based on?

And, since COVID-19 infection keeps getting milder, and has had a lethality on par with or lower than influenza ever since mid-2020 at the latest, why is it still a “crucial priority” to accelerate delivery of COVID-19 treatments?

As a reminder, according to a Sept. 2, 2020 study in Annals of Internal Medicine, the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio for COVID-19 was a mere 0.26%.

Below 40 years of age, the infection fatality ratio was just 0.01%. Meanwhile, the estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.8%.

Report from Uganda

Campbell goes on to cite a large-scale survey by a community health partner in Uganda, which surveyed doctors, nurses and medical officers across the country and “basically, they don’t see any COVID-19 anymore,” he says.

They’re not getting the jab and they’re not getting tested for COVID-19 either. There’s no need because no one is getting sick with COVID-19 — at least not to the point they need medical attention.

The Ugandan government has even stopped publishing COVID-19 guidelines. From their perspective, the pandemic is over. The same sentiment appears common in other African countries as well.

Given the situation on the ground, is it really a pressing need to jab 30 million people in Uganda against a disease they’re not getting sick from?

What Uganda does need is malaria treatments, mosquito nets, clean drinking water and antibiotics. “That is what the priorities on the ground seem to be,” Campbell says.

So, what’s with the apparent disconnect between the WHO’s priorities and what’s actually happening in areas with low COVID-19 jab rates? The WHO’s Catastrophic Contagion exerciseclues us in.

The disconnect reveals the WHO’s true intentions

Oct. 23, 2022, the WHO, Bill Gates and Johns Hopkins cohosted a global challenge exercisedubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,” involving the outbreak of a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25).

Tellingly, this tabletop exercise was focused on getting African leadership involved and trained in following the pandemic script.

Participants included 10 current and former health ministers and senior public health officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola and Liberia. (Representatives from Singapore, India and Germany, as well as Gates himself, were also in attendance.)

African nations just so happened to go “off script” more often than others during the COVID-19 pandemic and didn’t follow in the footsteps of developed nations when it came to pushing the jabs.

As a result, vaccine makers now face the problem of having a huge control group, as the COVID-19 jab uptake on the African continent was only 6%.

They cannot reasonably explain how or why Africa ended up faring so better than developed nations with high COVID-19 jab rates in terms of COVID-19 infections and related deaths.

“The WHO’s pandemic treaty is the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarian regime. But to secure that power, they will need more pandemics.”

The WHO desperately needs to get rid of this control group, so they’re enlisting and training African leaders how to push for widespread vaccination using the WHO’s talking points.

This, I believe, is the only reason the WHO is still speaking about COVID-19 in catastrophic terms.

The WHO needs additional pandemics to secure its power grab

At this point, it’s quite clear that “biosecurity” is the chosen means by which the globalist cabal intends to usher in its one-world government.

The WHO is working on securing sole power over pandemic response globally through its international pandemic treaty which, if implemented, will eradicate the sovereignty of member nations.

The WHO’s pandemic treaty is basically the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarian regime. But to secure that power, they will need more pandemics.

COVID-19 alone was not enough to get everyone on board with a centralized pandemic response unit, and they probably knew that from the start.

So, the reason we can be sure there will be additional pandemics, whether manufactured using fear and hype alone or an actual bioweapon created for this very purpose, is because the takeover plan, aka The Great Reset, is based on the premise that we need global biosecurity surveillance and a centralized response.

Biosecurity, in turn, is the justification for an international vaccine passport, which the G20 just signed on to, and that passport will also be your digital identification.

That digital ID, then, will be tied to your social credit score, personal carbon footprint tracker, medical records, educational records, work records, social media presence, purchase records, your bank accounts and a programmable central bank digital currency.

Once all these pieces are fully connected, you’ll be in a digital prison, and the ruling cabal — whether officially a one-world government by then or not — will have total control over your life from cradle to grave.

The WHO’s pandemic treaty is what sets this chain of events off, as it will have the power to implement vaccine passports globally once the treaty is signed.

The WHO will also have the power to mandate vaccines, standardize medical care and issue travel restrictions.

This treaty will likely pass this year, which means the WHO will either need to ramp up the COVID-19 narrative again or switch to another pandemic in order to justify these kinds of actions.

The pandemic treaty Is the death knell to freedom worldwide

It’s important to realize that the WHO’s pandemic treaty will radically alter the global power structure and strip you of some of your most basic rights and freedoms.

It’s a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.

Once signed, all member nations will be subject to the WHO’s dictates. If the WHO says every person on the planet needs to have a vaccine passport and digital identity to ensure vaccination compliance, then that’s what every country will be forced to implement, even if the people have rejected such plans using local democratic processes.

There’s also reason to suspect the WHO intends to extend its sovereign leadership into the healthcare systems of every nation, eventually implementing a universal or “socialist-like” healthcare system as part of The Great Reset.

WHO Director-General Tedros has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general of the WHO is to push the world toward universal health coverage.

Prediction: climate lockdowns are next

Considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,” without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity, just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion.

This means that once they’re in power, they won’t need to rely exclusively on pathogenic threats.

They could also declare a global pandemic for a noninfectious threat, like global warming, for example.

Such a declaration would then allow the WHO to circumvent laws that are in place to preserve our freedom and allow for the implementation of tyrannical measures such as lockdowns and travel restrictions.

Indeed, the notion of “climate lockdowns” has already been publicly flouted on multiple occasions.

As reported by The Pulse:

“Climate lockdowns and other restrictions will be framed as saving the people of the world from themselves. Who would ever disagree with such measures when it is framed under the guise of goodwill?

“Like we saw with COVID mandates, if climate mandates ever take place they will be promoted as an extremely noble and necessary action. Those who disagree and present evidence that such actions are not useful or impactful, and instead cause more harm, will most likely be silenced, censored and ridiculed …

“What would a climate lockdown look like? Well, if such an initiative were to take place, governments would limit or ban the consumption of many foods. They would ban or limit private-vehicle use, or limit the distance one can travel in a gas-powered car or perhaps even by plane.

“Working from home could eventually become the permanent norm if special carbon taxes are put in place. Such taxes could be imposed on companies, limiting driving or air miles and extend to individual employees …

“Schools, especially those heavily influenced by teachers’ unions, could impose permanent online-only days.”

Officials around the world have suggested climate lockdowns

As noted by The Pulse, a number of officials around the world have voiced support for climate lockdowns, completely ignoring the devastating effects the COVID-19 lockdowns have already had.

This just goes to show lockdowns were never about public health and never will be.

Among the climate lockdown enthusiasts we have Germany’s health minister Karl Lauterbach, who in December 2020 proclaimed that addressing climate change would require restrictions on personal freedom, similar to those implemented to “flatten the curve” of COVID-19.

British economics professor Mariana Mazzucato is another advocate for climate lockdowns, who in September 2020 warned that “In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again — this time to tackle a climate emergency.”

We also have the statements of Bill Gates and the Red Cross, both of which in 2020 claimed that climate change poses a greater threat to mankind than COVID-19, and must be confronted with the same urgency and resolve.

The World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations and the WHO have also published articles stating their intent to “fight climate change” by shutting down society.

Notably, in “How to Fight the Next Threat to Our World: Air Pollution,” published by the WEF and co-written by the director of WHO’s Environment and Health Department, it’s suggested that health and climate issues be combined into one.

As noted in that article:

“We can confront these crises more effectively and fairly if we address them as one — and foster support across all sectors of the economy …

“COVID-19 has proven humanity’s inbuilt ability to rise up and act to protect the health of our most vulnerable people. We need to do the same with air pollution.”

Recall, as I mentioned above, if the WHO has sole power over global health, combining health and climate issues will automatically give the WHO the de facto power to issue climate lockdowns.

Some claim climate lockdowns have already begun, with the random shutting off of people’s power even though there’s no actual outage — sort of slow-walking people into accepting that the lights won’t always turn on.

That the WHO will jump at the opportunity to implement climate lockdowns can also be seen in the WHO Manifesto for a Healthy Recovery From COVID-19, which states:

“The ‘lockdown’ measures that have been necessary to control the spread of COVID-19 have slowed economic activity and disrupted lives — but have also given some glimpses of a possible brighter future.

“In some places, pollution levels have dropped to such an extent that people have breathed clean air, or have seen blue skies and clear waters, or have been able to walk and cycle safely with their children — for the first times in their lives.

“The use of digital technology has accelerated new ways of working and connecting with each other, from reducing time spent commuting, to more flexible ways of studying, to carrying out medical consultations remotely, to spending more time with our families.

“Opinion polls from around the world show that people want to protect the environment, and preserve the positives that have emerged from the crisis, as we recover …

“Decisions made in the coming months can either “lock in” economic development patterns that will do permanent and escalating damage to the ecological systems that sustain all human health and livelihoods, or, if wisely taken, can promote a healthier, fairer and greener world.”

This manifesto also lays out many other aspects of The Great Reset agenda, including smart cities, travel restrictions, new food systems, a complete transition to green energy and more.

But again, the thing that will really facilitate all of these changes is to have a centralized power base, and that is the WHO.

What can you do?

Stopping the WHO pandemic treaty will be difficult, as the World Health Assembly may or may not even accept public comment before making a decision. Your best bet right now is to sign up for the World Council for Health’s (WCH) newsletter.

The last time the World Health Assembly met to discuss the treaty, the WCH issued links and instructions on how to submit your comment. You can subscribe at the bottom of this page, or on the WCH’s home page.

I and the Children’s Health Defense will also share details if they become available, so subscribing to our newsletters can give you a heads-up as well.

In the absence of instructions, you could reach out to your respective delegation and request that they oppose the treaty.

A list of U.S. delegates can be found in James Roguski’s Substack article, “Speaking Truth to Power.”

For contact information for other nations’ delegates, I would suggest contacting the regional office and ask for a list (see “Regions” in the blue section at the bottom of the World Health Assembly’s webpage).

As you Can Clearly See That’s Definitely Damar Hamlin Hiding His Face from the Camera with his Hoody Up, Shades On and a Mask Over his Mouth and Nose. Media Liars Continue to Think and See for Sheeple

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Sheople – economic prey. 2) those who are both sheep and asleep. 3) people who mindlessly let others do their thinking for them. 4) people who are not in control of what they allow themselves to come to believe in. 5) people who have not taken personal responsibility to question their belief, faith, the content of truth, the nature of subjective reality. 6) those who watch major misinformation and propaganda television networks presumably for news that is factual. Sheople blindly follow a path where reality is excluded from the process. Are you the shepherd, or the flock? Are you the prisoner, or are you the lock? Sheople line up to get fleeced at the Baa Baa Shop. Scientific studies have found that it takes a minority of just 5 per cent of what they called “informed individuals” to influence the direction of a crowd of a minimum of 200 people. The remaining herd of 95 per cent follow without even realising it. The coziness of millions of others just like you give you a false sense of safety, but there is no life worth living where reality isn’t the glue. Sheople are those whose eyes the shepherd has pulled the wool over. Will the sheople ever wake up and see the light? Na aa aa. (See: Internal Revenue Service, Authority, Regalia, Obedience, Judicial Victimization, Mind Viruses, Jury, Psychological Reversal, Memes, Shephard, Eugenics, Danger, Intellectual Incest, Faith Paradox, Cultural Induction, Belief, Conditioning, Fear, Gun Control, Holodeck Court, Slavery, Property & Predatory Economics)

After He Collapsed Why Was Damar Hamlin Put In an Unmarked “Ambulance” with No Lettering or Insignia Identifying the Name or Number of the Provider and No Special Use Tags?

Multiple Witnesses Said 13 yr Old Tyre King Never Reached or Brandished a Gun and Ran from Cop. But White Jurors Believe Accused White Cop Feared a “Gun Fight” so Shooting Him to Death was Justified

From [HERE] A white Columbus police officer has been acquitted in a federal case in the shooting death of a 13-year-old Black boy in 2016.

In a verdict delivered Wednesday, a jury ruled that Columbus police officer Bryan Mason did not violate Tyre King’s constitutional right to be free from unjustified deadly force. Due to the fact that the dependent media intentionally conceals the make-up of the jury, BW presumes the jury was overwhelmingly white until proven otherwise.

King’s grandmother, Dearrea King, filed the lawsuit on behalf of King’s estate in September 2018.

The lawsuit claimed Mason used excessive force when he shot King as he was running away. It also claimed Mason used a racial slur after the shooting.

Tyre King was a 13-year-old African-American child who attended Linden-McKinley STEM Academy and had just began the eighth grade. Tyre was killed on September 14, 2016 after being stopped at gunpoint by Officer Mason.

According to the complaint, ‘At the time of this stop, it is alleged that Tyre was in possession of a toy gun. Witnesses say the toy gun was not visible at the time that Tyre was stopped by Officer Mason at gunpoint.

Confronted with Officer Mason’s firearm and fearing for his life, Tyre attempted to run away from the officer.

Officer Mason alleges that he saw the grip of a handgun tucked into Tyre’s front waistband. He alleges that while he shouted, “Get down!” Tyre instead began to run away before stopping “with a quick stutter step.”

He alleges that while he shouted, “Get down!” Tyre instead began to run away before stopping “with a quick stutter step.”

Officer Mason alleges Tyre then looked directly at him before grabbing the grip of the handgun in his waistband and tugging on it. He alleges that he then shouted, “Get down!” while quickly taking one or two steps closer to the passenger side of a parked car.

Officer Mason alleges that while pointing his firearm at Tyre, Tyre “forcefully tugged on the grip of his gun at least one or two more times as if it were snagged on something.” He contends that in that instance Tyre’s alleged “refusal to comply with his commands” and “his continued attempts to pull the gun out” caused Officer Mason to believe that Tyre was going to “engage him in a gun fight.”

Officer Mason alleges that Tyre then pulled the gun out of his waistband and raised it up in front of his torso, and that Officer Mason could see it had a laser sight or light attached to the bottom of the barrel.

Officer Mason alleges that he believed Tyre was going to shoot him, and Officer Mason fired his gun at him.’ [MORE]

But according to an eyewitness on the scene, William Scott, King was turning away from Mason when Mason fired the shots. Scott testified that King “was not reaching for no weapon. He was turning to run.” (Scott Dep., R. 130-1, Page ID #2244.) Another eyewitness, Anna Skora, said that she never saw King with a gun and that King was trying to run away from Mason. And Braxton, who witnessed the shooting after complying with Mason’s order to get on the ground, said that Mason shot King while King was trying to run away.

Mason shot King three times. King died shortly thereafter. King’s expert witness reviewed the autopsy and photos from the scene and concluded that King was facing and looking away from Mason when Mason first shot King in the head. The expert also opined that there was “no physical evidence to demonstrate that [King] was holding a gun when he was shot by Officer Mason.”

Police recovered a BB gun under the front bumper of a nearby parked car after the shooting.

Immediately after shooting King, Mason began mumbling and cursing. Braxton, who was still on the ground, heard Mason rambling about how Braxton and King should have stopped. According to Braxton, Mason said: “Ya’ll dumb. Ya’ll should have stopped. You should have got down. Ya’ll so stupid. Just a bunch of dumb [n***rs].” [MORE]

According to the complaint, “Shortly after the fatal shooting, the family of Tyre King commissioned an independent examination of his body. The forensic pathologist that performed that examination determined that “based on the location and direction of the wound paths, it is more likely than not that Tyre King was in the process of running away from the shooter or shooters when he suffered all three gunshot wounds.”

The pathologist determined that Tyre suffered a gunshot wound to the left temple, amongst other gunshot wounds.

The only witness that corroborates Officer Mason’s version of events is his partner at the time of the fatal shooting, Officer Robert Reffitt.

Officer Mason’s first statement to the Columbus Division of Police investigators regarding the incident came via a written statement prepared with the assistance of his attorney on September 21, 2016 – seven days after the fatal shooting.

Officer Mason stated that it was not until he began placing Tyre in handcuffs that he noticed that Tyre appeared to be a young teenager.

Tyre was approximately 5’1” and 100 lbs. at the time of his death, described by the pathologist as a “small-framed, adolescent boy.”

In a statement to detectives, Mason said he feared a “gun fight” with King and that Mason fired when he saw a laser sight on the BB gun. Mason also claimed that King refused Mason’s commands to “get down” and pulled at the BB gun in his waistband a few times as if it was stuck on something. Mason also denied using a racial slur.

Officer Mason fatally shot Tyre while pursuing suspects in an armed robbery. The suspects listed on the police report related to the robbery were described as being between 5’8” and 5’9” tall.

The fatal shooting of Tyre King was Officer Mason’s fourth police-involved shooting incident.Officer Mason has been the subject of at least 47 reports involving force as a Columbus Division of Police Officer. Of those cases, Columbus Police have determined all but one of those cases to be “within policy” or “unfounded,” with the other determination still pending.

Between 2001 and 2017, the Columbus Division of Police determined officers were justified in using force in 99% percent of use of force reports.

The Columbus Division of Police’s chain of command, including Chief Kim Jacobs, endorsed the excessive, unreasonable and unjustifiable force that is connected to this fatal shooting and that placed Tyre and continues to place the public at unnecessary risk of death and/or injury from not only Officer Mason, but from others in the department who have a similar proclivity to use force unreasonably and inappropriately.

A grand jury declined to indicate Mason on criminal charges in May 2017 based on the prosecutors intentionally weak presentation of the case.

According to Wednesday’s ruling, Mason was found not to have “violated Tyre King’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force,” and Mason did not act “recklessly and battered Tyre King.”

Atlanta Cop who Murdered Jimmy Atchison Wants Trial Moved to Federal Court. Shot Unarmed Black Man in the Head After He Surrendered, Claimed He Saw a Non-Existent Gun

From [HERE] An Atlanta Police Department officer indicted for a 2019 shooting during an FBI raid has requested his case be moved to federal court. 

Sung Kim, a 26-year veteran of the Atlanta Police Department, shot and killed 21-year-old Jimmy Atchison in 2019 during a federal raid of a northwest Atlanta apartment complex, according to an indictment charging him with felony murder and involuntary manslaughter. Atchison's family said he was unarmed and surrendering inside a closet when he was fatally shot. After the shooting he was forced to retire.

Authorities say Atchison ran from officers through one apartment complex, then entered another. In his legal motion, Samuel said after Kim found Atchison hiding in a closet, Kim instructed Atchison not to move.

Family members say Atchison was raising his hands to surrender when Kim shot Atchison in the face. Kim says Atchison made a threatening move as if he had a weapon. Investigators determined Atchison was unarmed.

“Disobeying this lawful command, Atchison raised his right arm in a fast motion,” Samuel wrote. "Reasonably fearing for his safety and the safety of his colleagues who were present in the room, Kim shot and killed Atchison.”

A report by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation determined Atchison was given conflicting commands, Atchison family attorney Tanya Miller has said. She said one task force member told Atchison to come out with his hands up, while another told him not to move.

Kim was not wearing a body camera because, at the time, FBI policy prohibited their use by agents and task force members. Kim retired from the Atlanta Police Department several months after the shooting.

Kim’s attorney, Don Samuel, said in court documents that Kim was working with the FBI’s Atlanta Metropolitan Major Offender Task Force.

"At all relevant times, Kim was acting under color of federal law, pursuant to his deputation as a member of the FBI AMMO Task Force," Samuel wrote in a motion.

Atchison died on Jan. 22, 2019, when task force members were trying to arrest him on robbery charges. He ran away through one apartment complex and into another, according to law enforcement. In his motion, Samuel wrote after Kim instructed Atchison not to move after finding him hiding in the closet.

"Disobeying this lawful command, Atchison raised his right arm in a fast motion," Samuel wrote. "Reasonably fearing for his safety and the safety of his colleagues who were present in the room, Kim shot and killed Atchison."

Barbaric White CT Cop Unleashes Police Dog Onto Latino Man Seeking Help after Crashing His Truck. Posed No Threat of Bodily Harm to Cop, Wasn’t Under Arrest and Was Defenseless to Use of Deadly Force

FANTASTIC PUBLIC SERVICE FROM RACIST SUSPECTS THAT IS UN-DECLINABLE AND UNCONTROLLABLE BY THE PUBLIC. From [HERE] Moments after crashing his truck one November 2019 night on Interstate 95 in Old Saybrook, Edward Riccio walked toward a police cruiser pulled over a short distance away alongside the busy highway.

A white officer spotted Riccio, jogged toward him and immediately gave a warning: “Get on the ground [or] you’ll be bit,” the officer shouted as he approached with a barking police dog, body camera footage recently obtained by Hearst Connecticut Media Group shows.

“Get on the ground! Get on the ground you’ll be bit,” the excited white cop yells at the Latino Man, who is on the cement shoulder of the interstate. “Get on the ground! Get on the ground! Turn around, turn around. You’re gonna get bit.” The Latino man stops walking and calming talks to the cop with his arms out stretched, nothing in his hands. He repeatedly says “You know me,” “I need help”. (later in the video he reminds Schulz he is a local business owner and he knows him from interacting with him - but all NGHRS are the same to racist cops and journalists).

Schulz again commands and yells at Riccio to turn around, again warns him he will otherwise be bitten. (under arrest for no reason charged with vapor charges). He clearly faced no imminent threat of harm or danger - no rational reason to use deadly force.

“I’m trying to get help,” Riccio says, repeatedly.

After Schulz once more commands him to get on the ground, Riccio asks ”will you help me.” The cop says yes if you turn around. The Latino man then tries to explain to the race soldier, “my truck is . .” but he is interrupted, ‘GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND.” The Latino man turns around and slowly walks away. Then the cop states “GET HIM” and unleashes his police dog on the defenseless man.

The dog seizes upon Riccio, sinking its teeth into his upper thigh. 

The incident left him hospitalized with bite wounds to his left leg, according to the department’s resulting use of force report.

(false) Police reports and legal filings indicate responding officers may have believed Riccio was intoxicated and had “fled” from the single-vehicle crash site after talking with paramedics. (the cop actually sounds like he slurring his speech).

It is now also the subject of a lawsuit, the second one filed against Old Saybrook involving ex-officer Tyler Schulz’s use of his dog.

In the first case, the town agreed to a $145,000 settlement to resolve a lawsuit by a woman who alleged she was bitten by Schulz’s police dog while another officer already had her pinned to the ground in an incident just two months prior to Riccio’s. The woman suffered puncture wounds to her left thigh and scarring, according to the lawsuit. 

In both cases, Old Saybrook denied wrongdoing in legal filings.

In Riccio’s case, which was filed in federal court in June 2021 and remains pending, the town claimed in court records he was intoxicated during his encounter with Schulz.

Schulz justified the use of force in an agency report, writing that Riccio spoke with slurred speech, was unsteady on his feet and ran toward the vehicular travel lane of I-95, putting himself and others at risk.

But a report by state police, which also responded to the crash, says Riccio was not tested for drugs or alcohol. He did not face charges pertaining to alcohol use or leaving the scene of a crash, and his lawyers vehemently deny he was intoxicated.

Kalfani Ture, a law enforcement expert who reviewed materials from the encounter at Hearst Connecticut Media’s request, said Riccio did not show signs of inebriation in the video, nor did he appear to run into traffic.

Given inconsistencies between the body camera footage and Schulz's report, Ture said he believed Schulz was not accurate in his account. 

Yet records show department supervisors ultimately cleared Schulz of wrongdoing in connection with the incident, called his actions justified and said his account of the event was consistent with video evidence.

Ture called the incident and the department’s handling of it “disturbing.” 

He noted the consequences could have been far worse for Riccio. The police dog “could have easily took a bite out of the femoral artery, and he could have bled out on the road,” Ture said. 

While the department deemed Schulz's use of force justified, it brought criminal charges against Riccio, including interfering with an officer, breach of peace, reckless use of a highway by a pedestrian and assault on a police canine because Riccio allegedly punched the dog’s head while being bit. All charges were eventually dismissed, Riccio’s attorney said.

As for Schulz, he no longer works for the Old Saybrook police department.

In March, state police arrested him following an off-duty fight at a restaurant. He was disciplined but continued to work for Old Saybrook police on a so-called “last-chance agreement” that made it easier for the department to fire him if he violated agency rules.

The state ultimately decided not to prosecute Schulz, who had faced one count of second-degree breach of peace. 

Then, in early August, Schulz resigned after an internal investigation found evidence he “participated in sexual acts while on duty” and was “untruthful under oath” during the probe, according to a letter police chief Michael Spera sent the police commission. The department also found evidence Schulz had been “tampering with Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) equipment to conceal his whereabouts while on duty,” the letter said. 

Spera at the time told the commission he would ask the state’s Police Officer Standards and Training Council to revoke Schulz’s certification to work in law enforcement in Connecticut. But as of Jan. 12, Schulz has not been decertified, a council official said.

The town signed a deal with Schulz to keep additional details of that investigation a secret in exchange for his resignation.

The deal also gave Schulz custody of his police dog, the same one involved in the two incidents.

Repeated requests for comment on this story were sent to Schulz. In December, he told a reporter in a text message he would have her arrested if she contacted him again.

Spera, who was originally named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit but had the count against him dismissed, hung up when contacted by a reporter to discuss this case and did not respond to subsequent requests for comment.

The Use of Force Offensively to Attack Another Person is Immoral Whether Its Done by Citizens or People Wearing Blue Costumes: Video Shows White Tenn Cop Slam and Drag Black Teen by His Hair at School

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Force – the source or sources of all possible actions of the particles or materials of the universe(s). 2) the manipulation of a man or woman in disregard of its own volition or nature. 3) the use of an outside physical coercion of any kind by one or more humanoids against another or others in order to make him/her or them obedient and compliant to his/her or their will. 4) the basis of all social evils and can only be used in the sense of attack not defense. 5) You must! In the way I say! 6) the social disease. “Force (coercion) and fraud are the foundation of all social systems and the source of the aroma which they exhale.” ~Max Nomad. “Force” operates to remove personal volition from opportunity to act or not act. Someone “makes” you behave in a certain way by threatening to injure or enslave you, someone you love, or something you prize, if you do not behave in that way. Force operates to obtain an intended behavior when the forced party would otherwise have exhibited a different behavior. Punishment, pain, suffering, and discomfort characterize force. Unfortunately, governments only function by misuse of force—mistreatment, duress and coercion. Once established, they put laws into effect by threatening persecution, imprisonment, fine, or death against all who don’t comply with those laws—including the use of the force continuum. “That which is imposed by force is sooner or later deposed by force.” ~ Mikhail Naimy. In reality, force is neutral, it is how it is applied that colors its action. The greatest and highest force in the universe is love unfolding in each moment. (See: Government, Autonomy, Justice, Fiction, Fraud, Corporate State, Freedom, Forgery, Racism White Supremacy, Religion, Authority, Violence, Coercion, Deception, Language, Force Continuum, Capital Punishment & Gerp)

Black Borg Memphis Cops Enslave and Beat Defenseless Black Man to Death on Behalf of Their White Liberal Masters. Video Leads to Charges but Authority, the Cop Right to Attack People Isn't Reformable

From [HERE] Authorities released video footage of the Jan. 7 police incident with Tyre Nichols that led to his death.

Mr. Nichols, a Black 29-year-old Black man, died in a Memphis hospital Jan. 10, three days after officers pulled over his car, according to local police and Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for his family. His family said Mr. Nichols was fatally beaten beyond recognition. The FedEx worker left behind a 4-year-old child.

Five Memphis police officers were fired and later charged with second-degree murder.

Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn Davis called the incident "heinous, reckless, and inhumane," in a statement released Wednesday.

Memphis is a city dominated by white liberals.

IF 8 COPS WERE INVOLVED WHERE IS THE REST OF THE BODYCAM FOOTAGE?

Black police officers help to disguise and maintain the system of racism white supremacy. As with Black judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, the presence of Black cops is intended only to create the appearance of justice in a system of injustice. Black cops exist primarily to arrest, surveil and control Black people and provide a veneer of civility, inclusion, protection and service in a free range prison. They are mentacidal rolebots, SNAGS (Snitch Ass Negroes Aiding Government) and Human Resources who are traitors to Black people who are plugged into Uncle Brother’s operating system. Any benefit or service provided to Black people is incidental, random and accidental in a system of injustice.

Although do-gooders often claim diverse police forces are a cure for reform and police brutality, Black cops brutalize and harm Black people at a rate nearly equal to white cops. Yale legal historian James Foreman explains that Black people have been calling for the hiring of Black police officers since the 1860’s. Scholar Alex Vitale states, “Reformers often call for recruiting more officers of color in the hopes that they will treat communities with greater dignity, respect, and fairness. Unfortunately, there is little evidence to back up this hope. Even the most diverse forces have major problems with racial profiling and bias, and individual black and Latino officers appear to perform very much like their white counterparts.” He states, “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.” [MORE]

[the social contract is bullshit] Chicago Cops Don’t Prevent Violence or Protect NonWhite People: 30 shot, 7 fatally Last Weekend in City Run by White Liberals Where Only Criminals and Cops Have Guns

[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 then it would seem then that police in general frequently fail to do fulfill their perceived role of protecting Black people. Nevertheless, the Dependent media, which functions as “government media” report crime numbers as if the police are helpless to do anything about crime. Often the dependent media portrays cops as victims. On a daily basis (through various forms of indoctrination in The Spectacle) we are made to believe that police are primarily engaged in actual police work and are aggressive crime fighters sacrificing themselves to act on behalf of people. Such conduct is perceived as fulfilling their legal obligation to all 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. He further states, ‘the police have never really been about public safety or crime control.’ 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.” Police in Chicago and elsewhere don’t primarily protect or serve Black or Latino people. In fact, last month a Chicago Tribune analysis found that its easier for Black residents to get pizza delivery than for them to get cops to respond to their 911 calls.

Rather, police exist primarily to manage the behavior of Blacks & Latinos within a free-range prison controlled by Government. Their goal is to place Blacks and Latinos in greater confinement.  Any protection or help from police to Blacks or Latinos is random or incidental. As FUNKTIONARY states, "people who are awake see cops as mercenary 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."

Despite said practical reality it is an undisputed legal truth that police have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence from other private parties, unless the victim was in governmental custody. [MORE] and [MORE]. The Supreme Court has explained that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. Among other things, this means for instance that police departments and their officers have no legal duty to protect any particular person and police cannot be sued for any failure to protect citizens under the Constitution or any federal statute. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect them from harm from crimes. Courts throughout the nation have upheld and expanded on what is known as the “public duty doctrine.” Said “well established” rule from the Supreme Court that has been expanded upon by courts nationwide is known as the “public duty doctrine.” The DC Court of Appeals explained,

“the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.

This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. Riss v. City of New York, supra. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”

Most recently in the so-called Parkland “mass shooting” a lawsuit alleging a failure to protect children was dismissed without controversy. A federal court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims concerning a failure to protect by police while children were allegedly killed and injured.

Both the failure of police to provide protection services to Blacks and Latinos and the public duty doctrine are simply more proof the social contract between government and citizens is bullshit. Specifically, the theory is that there is a “social contract” between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws, in exchange for citizens’ obedience and taxes. That is, people have agreed to obey the government and do so voluntarily in exchange for government services. Mutual obligations, a promise for a promise, are a necessary element of all contracts. Where persons mistakenly believe they have a contract and one party fails to fulfill an obligation, the other is necessarily excused from performing her obligation. A contract places both parties under an obligation to each other, and one party’s rejection of his contractual obligation releases the other party from her obligation.

With regard to the social contract undeceiver Michael Huemer states,

‘individuals are supposed to be obligated to obey the laws promulgated by the state. Sometimes citizens violate those laws, in which case the state’s agents will punish the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. Given the wide and indefinite range of laws that might be created by the state and the range of punishments to which one might be subjected for violating them, an individual’s concessions to the state under the social contract are quite large. The state, in turn, is supposed to assume an obligation to the citizen, to enforce the citizen’s rights, including protecting the citizen from criminals and hostile foreign governments.’

Citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and commands and when they fail to do so the government punishes the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, pursuant to the public duty doctrine, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it? ”

Obviously, there is no actual contract between the individual and the state. If such an agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? “Citizens” were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet individuals are legally and morally bound to obey authority. Also, the public duty doctrine (among other things) renders the social contract theory meaningless. Thus, the social contract is a device or trick that is parcel to a paradigm in the citizen’s mind that enables the coercive system (government).

Why does any of this matter? If there is no social contract then there is no rational basis for the belief in political authority - the basis for all governments, everywhere. Here, BW is not talking about the purpose of government or how government can be improved. Rather, the problem is whether the government has a right to rule over people and whether people have an obligation to obey authority. What is the basis of the government’s implied right to rule over people in the first place? Is there a rational basis to account for authority or a logical way to account for its existence?

Authority is the belief that some people have the legal and moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have a legal and moral obligation to obey.’ The most cited basis for authority is the social contract. However, as stated, the social contract is an illusion. Other commonly asserted basis for authority have been thoroughly debunked as mythology and are discussed elsewhere.

No person(s) or entity calling itself a government has the right to rule over other human beings. Authority is a granfalloon, an empty representation. FUNKTIONARY explains Authority “has no meaning in reality,” it “is the means by which society uses to control its population.”

Authority doesn’t need to be overthrown because it is simply a belief in people’s minds. The great rebel, Larken Rose explains, “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.”

FUNKTIONARY explains that governmental authority at its essence is one man ruling over another by force - not through consensual agreement. The right to forcibly control another means that representatives of authority are legally and morally entitled to attack people offensively; put their hands on people and their property without their consent in order to en-force obedience with a law, rule or command of authority (enforce the law). To be clear, all persons have the natural right to defend themselves or come to the defense of others if they believe another person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. However, authorities have the extra or superhuman entitlement to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on citizens to obtain compliance with their orders. Authority is the moral property that legitimizes the government’s use of force offensively; things that would be recognized as immoral and unjustified if any citizen did them are instead perceived as moral and justified. This means for instance when government agents take a person against her will to a police station it is called an arrest and incarceration, not kidnapping and false imprisonment, or when state officials administer a lethal injection to a man strapped to a gurney it is called an execution not murder, or when persons wearing blue costumes command you to stop walking and stand on the grass or suffer physical harm it is called an investigatory stop not an assault or threat to do bodily harm, etc. Larken Rose explains, “In short, “authority” is permission to commit evil – to do things that would be recognized as immoral and unjustified if anyone else did them.” Pursuant to the belief in authority only government representatives are entitled to impose and enforce rules on the rest of society (the right to rule). Additionally, citizens are believed to have a corresponding legal and moral obligation to obey authority at all times, without regard as to whether they agree with the law, rule or command. This moral property possessed by government is superhuman or extra because it has no natural source (all government power is said to come directly from the people, yet people have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence). However, because there is no rational basis to account for authority, no logical or lawful way to account for its existence then said moral property is void, a granfalloon or an empty representation. Thus, there can be no legitimate right to rule over people and no one is obliged to obey a command merely because it comes from their government.”

FUNKTIONARY, explains that the unprovoked initiation of violence or force ‘is the basis of all social evils and can only be used in the sense of attack not defense, it is the force continuum.’ No persons calling themselves a government can exempt themselves from morality or can be specially entitled to harm other people. Acts that would be considered unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by people are just as unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by representatives of authority.

Contrary to lofty legal truths, in reality the legal system is entirely anchored in physical force/violence and government is non-consensual. Nearly every law or regulation is a command backed by the threat of violence against those who do not comply – here, violence means forced confiscation of property [payment of fines] or arrest or prison. Said threat of violence includes the ability and willingness of authorities to use deadly force against those who disobey. As explained by Dr. Blynd, nearly all “choices” presented to citizens by government are false; you can either comply with authority or go to jail or die. Huemer explains ‘force and violence are the final intervention that the individual cannot choose to defy. One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it.’

It is unfortunate to realize that we are slaves in a system of authority. Elites have indoctrinated people into a false understanding of slavery as a total system in which persons subjected to it have little to no freedoms. If I’m legally entitled to force you to work against your will for 2 hours per day, are you still free? If an agent is entitled to put his hands on another man without his consent to involuntarily control his movements or entitled to attack him, is the man still free? Jeremy Locke explains, “Slavery is not a concept of totality. Slavery exists wherever the freedom of man is destroyed. The ultimate slavery is murder. Slavery stops people from being able to make choices for their own lives. Everything that restricts your mind, your movements and your speech is evil. Slavery is found in both the partial and complete destruction of freedom.” As explained, there is no rational basis to account for governmental authority – the rulership in the US is as illegitimate as the rulership by the Taliban in Afghanistan – there is no substantive distinction for the basis of rulership amongst any known governments in the world; all are mob-like, territorial gangsters governing based on the belief in authority and all are illegitimate.

Clearly, governments are not all the same - some allow more freedom or grant people more privileges (called “rights” by authorities) to do things in “their territory” than others. Nevertheless, all citizens are subject to the force continuum simply by being physically present in the government’s “jurisdiction” or land believed to be under the complete control of authorities (because they said so). Moreover, there is no way to opt out or decline participation in systems of authority in any country; we are born into this non-consensual arrangement of physical coercion and compulsory, un-declinable public “service.” FUNKTIONARY describes this phenomenon as a “Free Range Prison” or “Free Range Slavery.”

FUNKTIONARY explains, ‘There can be no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.’ An external authority who has a legal and moral entitlement to control your body, property, labor and currency against your volition whenever it deems it necessary is your master. Governing people is evil. You may delude yourself into thinking that ‘you want to comply with authority’ but you really have no choice in the matter. You might be hallucinating that you believe you have other options – but options only exist if a higher government authority says they do. Similarly, you may disagree with authority in some manner but you must petition a higher authority to change the situation to agree with you.

In the free range prison whether you reject or object to a law and whether you vote or don’t vote or whether you accepts the benefits of government or not, all persons are still subject to the laws and required to obey authority. Like a plantation system, there is no way to opt out and avoid being subject to another authority. Can a government be free if a person cannot voluntarily opt out of it? If a government is non-voluntary then what is it? Locke explains, “The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain the freedom of life by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.”

It is also obviously circular thinking to say ‘the government has authority over everything and everybody because it has authority over everything and everybody’ - such statement may indeed be the case but it cannot be a justification for the legitimacy of authority in the first place. Again, the point here is not to have a philosophical discussion about the purpose of government or history of government or how it should run. Rather, the question is - for what reasons does one man (or government) have supreme authority over another? Although explanation and justification for the right to rule is necessary, none exists. As such, you are a slave.

Where a critical mass of unwilling, disobedient slaves see authority for what it is change will occur. These rebels will stop playing along in their fake citizen role and pretending they have a master who tells them what to do and solves their problems. FUNKTIONARY states, “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.”

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. “Authority” is not a force but a farce! “Every great advancement in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.” ~ Aldous Huxley. Government is the hefty price we pay for our lack of being further evolved as humans. “The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.” - Stanley Milgram. Regarding obedience to authority and carrying out “orders” Milgram states, “Thus there is a fragmentation of the total human act; no one man decides to carry out the evil act and is confronted with consequences. The person who assumes full responsibility for the act has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society.” At its root, government is based on violence and coercion. Without violent authority, studies show that violent behavior will all but disappear in its wake. Authority breeds the violence that it combats and perpetuates. Violence perpetrated by individuals is learned through noxious social experiences typically suffered under some assumed “authority.” “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government.” - Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., 1967. [MORE]

Trial Begins for White Temple Cop Who Murdered Michael Dean by Shooting the Unarmed Black Man During Traffic Stop. Same Cop Murdered a Black Teen by Running Him Over and Leaving the Car On Top of Him

From [HERE] The trial for Temple Police officer Carmen DeCruz began Monday, after a motion was denied to have the trial pushed back, again. DeCruz was a white cop at the time of the murder.

Twelve will serve as jurors who ultimately decide DeCruz’s fate while the other two serve as alternates.DeCruz is charged with second degree manslaughter for the shooting death of Michael Dean, 28, in Temple in 2019. Dean was Black.

The jury is apparently overwhelmingly white. The media has been describing it as “made up of 1 Black man, 1 mixed-race woman and 12 other people who are white and/or other races.” BW takes this to mean 2 non-white people and 12 whites. Only racists get finicky like that about classifications they created in the first place when they are attempting to conceal or deceive. What “other races?”

DeCruz is accused of shooting Dean during a traffic stop. A police affidavit states DeCruz shot Dean in the head while reaching in Dean's vehicle to grab his keys. Dean was unarmed - no weapon was in the car.

DeCruz was seen on body camera video walking in front of his patrol vehicle during a traffic stop with his handgun drawn. DeCruz made contact with Dean on the passenger side of the car and ordered Dean to turn off the vehicle and give him the keys, according to the affidavit.

DeCruz is seen reaching into the vehicle in an attempt to gain control of the keys with his left hand while holding his firearm in his right hand. DeCruz had the gun pointed at Dean with his finger on the trigger, according to the affidavit.

While DeCruz pulled the keys with his left hand, his right hand also pulled backward and caused the handgun to fire, striking Michael dean in the head, the affidavit said.

Dean was pronounced dead at the scene.

This footage has not been released to the public, and it's something the community closest to the Dean family wishes would be available.

Further complicating matters is DeCruz’s violent past as a police officer. He was named in an excessive force lawsuit for his actions surrounding the apprehension of a teenage suspect in 2017. DeCruz and his partner at the time were accused of intentionally running over a 15-year-old boy and leaving him under their squad car while it idled for 10 minutes and burned the 15-year-old boy’s body. The teenager’s mother filed the lawsuit that specifically named DeCruz and blamed him and his partner for third-degree burns to her son’s “torso, thighs and pelvis while pinned beneath the running vehicle.” [MORE]

"We want to take this delicately to figure out how the city got in this position in the first place," Gary Smith, a member of the Temple NAACP, said.

Smith added that they (NAACP) feel not everything has been made public for the reason of hiding certain facts about the case.

"You see these other instances in America where Black men are shot and the footage from the body camera is shared allover social media," he added.

Six News legal analyst, Liz Mitchell, said because this is an ongoing trial, the footage cannot be shared with the public.

She added that sharing the footage outside of the court room could mess with jury selection.

"It would be even more difficult to find 12 and impartial jurors if the key piece of evidence has already been released to the public," she said.

Mitchell said "key piece of evidence" because she believes the body cam footage is what will prove DeCruz committed manslaughter and not murder.

According to Mitchell, if DeCruz had the intent to murder and cause bodily harm, then he committed murder. But if the state can prove he was reckless in some way, then it's manslaughter.

All the community is asking for now is that justice be brought to the Dean family and all those impacted by this tragedy.

"It could have been anyone's brother, anyone's father, anyone's son and that is why we want accountability," Alexxis McBride, a member of the Temple NAACP said.

Police Killings Set New Record in 2022: Black People Made up 25% of All Persons Killed by Cops [the police officer's right to attack people (initiate violence) is Not Reformable and Immoral

From [HERE] US police brutality hit a new record in 2022 as it killed 1,183 people, with data showing that there were killings on 353 days last year. However, weirdly enough, reports about police brutality and inhumane treatment don't seem to flood the internet and news channels.

STATIST DELUSION. Here is where all statist’s [republicans and democrats] get lost, asking shit like ‘was the use of force appropriate?’ and/or ‘it was way too much force for a tail light!’

In reality, the so-called “right” to attack people is evil regardless of whether it is done lawfully by persons having “authority” or done unlawfully by criminals. Acts that would be considered unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by people are just as unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by government agents.

To be clear, all persons have the natural right to defend themselves and come to the defense of others if they believe another person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. Private security workers and guards also work under said natural law.

In contrast police officers also have the extra or additional “power” to act as offensively as aggressors; the right to attack people or initiate unprovoked acts of violence against people whenever they deem it necessary. Police are said to have such powers when they are acting on behalf of “authority.” As such, police are permitted to lawfully attack (make arrests) people, touch them against their will, assault them, interfere with freedoms in many ways, kidnap people (detain and transport) or imprison them because higher authorities have empowered them to do so. In turn, people are said to have a moral and legal obligation to obey police commands and have no right to even resist an unlawful arrest in most states.

The problem is that there is no rational basis for authority. Authority, the basis for all governments and rulership, is a farce. Government “authority” can be summed up as the implied right to rule over people. It is the government’s ability and moral right to forcibly control citizens, its right to be obeyed and the citizen’s corresponding moral and legal obligation to obey.’ Authority requires that government’s laws, commands and orders to be obeyed on a content-neutral basis (regardless of whether they agree or not.) [MORE] Michael Huemer defines political authority as “the hypothesized moral property in virtue of which governments may coerce people in certain ways not permitted to anyone else and in virtue of which citizens must obey governments in situations in which they would not be obligated to obey anyone else.” Said hypothesized moral property makes government the supreme authority over human affairs.

Authority has no meaning in reality because it does not come from people nor is it derived from any natural source. All governmental power allegedly comes exclusively from the people. Citizens delegate their individual power to government and it’s representatives for them to represent citizens. Such representation works much in the same way agents represent their principals in all kinds of business or other contractual relationships. For instance, a manager at McDonalds represents the owner of McDonalds when she carries out the owners business everyday ordering inventory and hiring workers, etc. She is the agent, the owners are the principals. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her. For instance, you grant the babysitter access and power to use your living room but not the basement. And it goes without saying that an agent cannot have more power than the principal because all said power originated exclusively from the principal.

Inexplicably, the government has granted itself the authority to do things that no individual could do. While citizens have the inalienable right to act in self-defense or come to the defense of others, citizens have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on other people and no right to forcibly control other people. As such, it is logically impossible for citizens to delegate the right to forcibly control others to the government - because citizens cannot possibly delegate rights that they don’t have. In other words, if you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then you cannot delegate or authorize anyone else acting on your behalf to do so. Clearly for example, your neighbor has no right to stop, search and detain you and put you into handcuffs, kidnap you and lock you in a basement for failing to comply with one his commands. So, how could your neighbor delegate a government representative the power to do so?

Larken Rose explains, ‘in the case of “government,” the people whom the politicians claim to represent have no right to do anything that politicians do: impose “taxes,” enact “laws,” etc. Average citizens have no right to forcibly control the choices of their neighbors, tell them how to live their lives, and punish them if they disobey, So when a “government” does such things, it is not representing anyone or anything but itself.’ As stated, it is a logical and legal impossibility for a representative to have more power than the person he is representing. Larken Rose explains, “you can’t give someone something you don’t have.” There is nothing complicated about this. Rose states;

“Despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations, all modern belief in “government” rests on the notion that mere mortals can, through certain political procedures, bestow upon some people various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with. The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. There is no ritual or document through which any group of people can delegate to someone else a right which no one in the group possesses. And that self-evident truth, all by itself, demolishes any possibility of legitimate “government.”

Rose explains if those in “government” have only those rights possessed by those who elected them, then “government” loses the one ingredient that makes it “government”: the right to rule over others (”authority”). If it has the same rights and powers as everyone else, there is no reason to call it “government.” If the politicians have no more rights than you have, all of their demands and commands, all of their political rituals, “law” books, courts, and so on, amount to nothing more than the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis. Nothing they do can have any legitimacy, any more than if you did the same thing on your own, unless they somehow acquired rights that you do not have. And that is impossible, since no one on earth, and no group of people on earth, could possibly have given them such superhuman rights.”

The point here is not a theoretical discussion about the purpose of government or history of government or how it should run. Rather, the question is - for what reasons does one man (or government) have supreme authority over another? Although explanation and justification for the right to rule is necessary, none exists.