Civilian Oversight Report Says Deputy Gangs Continue to Operate in the LA Sheriff's Dept. Uncontrollable Cops "Valorize Violence" Against Blacks and Latinos in a City Run by White Liberals

/

From [HERE] A scathing report issued Friday by the Civilian Oversight Commission revealed there are deputy gangs and cliques still operating within the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, including at several stations such as East Los Angeles and Compton.

According to the special counsel's 70-page report, members of such deputy gangs as the Executioners, the Banditos, the Regulators, the Spartans, the Gladiators, the Cowboys and the Reapers "run'' many of the county's patrol stations, as opposed to the sergeants, lieutenants and captains ostensibly in charge.

The report also determined that new deputy cliques form as members of existing groups retire or otherwise leave the sheriff's department. There is evidence to suggest that gangs are now re-emerging in Men's Central Jail after efforts over the years to eradicate the problem of excessive force behind bars, the special counsel found.

"Contrary to the statements of the prior sheriff, deputy gangs exist and operate in the department, as they have for the last 50 years. They are a cancer," said Bert Deixler, the special counsel who led the investigation.

"Many of the people with whom we spoke expressed fears of personal or professional harm, not just for themselves, but often for spouses and children who serve in a department," he added.

Most troubling, the report said, the gangs "create rituals that valorize violence, such as recording all deputy involved shootings in an official book, celebrating with 'shooting parties,' and authorizing deputies who have shot a community member to add embellishments to their common gang tattoos.''

Hans Johnson, who is on the Civilian Oversight Commission, called the report "50 years of denial, obfuscation, foot dragging and stonewalling about the reality that is documented in this report."

The commission came up with a number of recommendations, including rotating deputies to different stations and outlawing gang-related tattoos.

Deputies sued in civil lawsuits arising from the alleged use of excessive force cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in judgments and settlements, the report said, estimating that the additional cost to the county in such cases is upwards of $55 million.

Meanwhile, past administrations such as that of disgraced former Sheriff Lee Baca have promoted tattooed deputy gang members to the highest levels of leadership in the LASD, the report contends.

"Promoting deputy gang members into leadership positions reinforces the power of deputy gangs and deputy cliques and undermines the ability of officials to implement reforms aimed at eliminating them within the department,'' the special counsel team wrote this week.

While not addressing the report directly, Sheriff Robert Luna said Friday that he was elected to "bring new leadership and accountability'' to the department, and has created an office for "constitutional policing,'' led by former U.S. Attorney Eileen Decker.

That office, Luna said in a statement, "will be staffed with attorneys, investigators, and auditors, and it will be tasked with helping to eradicate deputy gangs from this department. The vast majority of the department personnel are hardworking and dedicated professionals who are committed to humbly serving the community.''

"We look forward to working with the Civilian Oversight Commission and Inspector General on this in the future.''

Inspector General Max Huntsman said, "We're going to start moving the culture right now. It's already begun since the election. The new sheriff has a totally different approach and I've seen change within the sheriffs department in response to that."

In the hearing Friday at which Diexler presented the report, the Civilian Oversight Commission approved the document and adopted its guidance. The report's recommendations will be sent to Luna, with the commission's urging that he adopt, implement and start enforcing them immediately. The document will also be sent to the Board of Supervisors to fulfill their September 2021 directive to develop a plan to address the problem.

"We have faith that Sheriff Luna's administration understands the damage that deputy gangs cause,'' Danielle Butler Vappie, interim executive director for the commission, said in a statement. The gangs "put a stain on all the positive work that is being done by honorable deputies each day,'' she added.

Meanwhile, some people told ABC7 they're skeptical that there will be any actual changes.

"What there isn't is the testimony from family members that are faced with retaliation by these deputy gang members on a daily basis," said one speaker.

The investigation involved eight hearings that included witness testimony and public comments. The special counsel's team also interviewed nearly 80 anonymous witnesses.

Supervisors voted to implement the commission in January 2016 with the mission to oversee and improve public transparency and accountability with respect to the Sheriff's Department. The long history of documentation on deputy gangs includes the 2012 Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence Report, the Inspector General's analysis of the Banditos, Loyola Law School's study of the deputy gang issue, Knock LA's investigative series, and most recently a 2021 Rand study.

Most Murders of Black People in Oakland Go Unsolved. Authorities Have No Plan to "Fix It" [if Cops Have No Legal Duty to Protect Citizens, What's the Basis of Their Authority and Our Duty to Obey It?]

/

the SO-CALLED social contract IS SAID TO BE AN agreement whereby citizens voluntarily agree to obey government authority in exchange for police protection and other services from the government.

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 IN THE FIRST PLACE and whether people have an obligation to obey THEIR IMPLIED 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? [MORE]

From [HERE] This is the common experience for families of homicide victims in Oakland, where most homicides go unsolved — a devastating phenomenon that regularly plagues the city, according to a San Francisco Chronicle analysis.

Black men are grossly overrepresented in both homicide totals and in cases that go unsolved.

Watkins was one of 120 people killed in Oakland last year. By the end of 2022, the Oakland Police Department reported “clearing” — meaning resolving a case, either through an arrest or other means — just 32 out of those cases, or 27%. The FBI defines a clearance rate as the percentage of homicides from a given year that were resolved — as well as cases that were resolved from prior years. That gave Oakland police an official 2022 clearance rate of 36%.

Oakland’s rate is far below other large California cities, including San Francisco, and a national average that suffered during the pandemic, declining to about 50% in 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI had figures.

The Chronicle analysis found homicides in 2022 were more likely to go unsolved in East Oakland, where the majority of the city’s lower-income Black and Latino residents live, and more likely to be solved in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods closer to the city’s affluent population, like downtown and, increasingly, West Oakland.

In a city whose Police Department has churned through a dozen chiefs while under federal oversight for 20 years, the reasons for Oakland’s consistently low solve rate may be myriad.

A 2020 UC Berkeley study uncovered “stark racial disparities in arrest rates for homicides” and many complaints about the way Oakland police respond to homicides. Victims’ families, particularly Black ones, reported “disrespectful and discriminatory” treatment and that police didn’t take their safety concerns seriously enough as cases dragged on unsolved. The study found that this contributes to the difficulty police have in getting witness cooperation, and raises grave fears of retaliatory violence. [MORE]

[police only Incidentally or randomly protect Black people and aren’t really involved in ‘police work’ in Black communities] Gallup Poll Finds the Majority of Black Women Don't Feel Safe Walking Alone

/

any protection from police is incidental and random - keeping BLACKS safe is not their goal. Cops exist primarily to manage the behavior of Blacks & Latinos within a free-range prison. Their goal is to place you in greater confinement. As Dr. Blynd observes, "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." Black people need to once again protect themselves, family members and their communities with “vigor and audacity,“ grow up and stop looking for authority to solve the many problems It actually creates and maintains. FUNKTIONARY explains, “only a slave waits for someone else to free him. [more] and [MORE]

According to GALLUP Less than half of Black women in the U.S. (46%) report feeling safe walking alone at night in the area where they live, compared with about three in four Black men (75%) and U.S. adults overall (73%).

Among all race and gender subgroups, Black women are the only group in which less than half say they feel safe walking alone.

These measures, as well as others, are updated on a quarterly basis as part of the ongoing research from the Gallup Center on Black Voices. [MORE]

Racist Man Sentenced for Federal Hate Crime for Cross Burning with the Intent to Intimidate a Black Family in Mississippi

/

From [HERE] A white man was sentenced today before U.S. District Judge Halil S. Ozerden to 42 months* in prison followed by three years supervised release and restitution in the amount of $7,810 for burning a cross in his front yard with the intent to intimidate a Black family.

According to court documents, in Gulfport, Mississippi, on Dec. 3, 2020, Axel Cox, 24, violated the Fair Housing Act when he used threatening and racially derogatory language toward his Black neighbors and burned a cross to intimidate them. After a dispute with the Black family victims, Cox wedged two pieces of wood together to form a cross, placed it in clear view of the victims’ residence, doused it in oil and set it alight. During this incident, Cox yelled threats and racial slurs toward the occupants of the house. Cox admitted that he lit the cross on fire because the victims were Black and that he intended to scare them into moving out of the neighborhood.

“This cross burning was an abhorrent act that used a traditional symbol of hatred and violence to stoke fear and drive a Black family out of their home,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “While one might think cross-burnings and white supremacist threats and violence are things of the past, the unfortunate reality is that these incidents continue today. This sentence demonstrates the importance of holding people accountable for threatening the safety and security of Black people in their homes because of the color of their skin or where they are from.”

“No one should endure such hatred and intimidation because of the color of his skin,” said U.S. Attorney Darren LaMarca for the Southern District of Mississippi. “This defendant has been held accountable. His sentence should permeate among his kind and declare that Mississippi and the Department of Justice will not tolerate this hateful behavior.”

“Mr. Axel Cox sought to intimidate members of the community through his intimidating threats," said FBI Special Agent in Charge Jermicha Fomby of the FBI Jackson Field Office. “The FBI prioritizes the protection of civil rights to ensure citizens remain safe without fear of any harm. We remain committed to tirelessly thwarting the nefarious actions of those, like Mr. Cox, who intended to impact fear upon citizens based on biases.”

A federal grand jury indicted Cox on Sept. 20, 2022. Cox faced a maximum penalty of up to 10 years in prison for interfering with the victims’ housing rights and a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison, consecutive to any other sentence, for using fire to commit a federal felony. Cox also faced a fine of up to $250,000 with respect to each charge.

Assistant Attorney General Clarke, U.S. Attorney LaMarca and Special Agent in Charge Fomby made the announcement.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrea Cabell Jones for the Southern District of Mississippi and former Trial Attorney Noah Coakley II of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section prosecuted the case.

For more information and resources on the department’s efforts to combat hate crimes, visit www.justice.gov/hatecrimes.

* This has been corrected to reflect the correct sentencing time of 42 months

Park National Bank Agrees to Pay $9 Million to Resolve DOJ Suit. (white liberal) Bank Officials Engaged in Redlining Practices by Not Providing Mortgage Services to Black and Latino Areas in Columbus

/

What is a “White Supremacist?” A white person (a racist) who practices racism against non-whites. A RACIST IS ANY WHITE PERSON ENGAGED IN MASTER-SERVANT RELATIONS WITH NON-WHITE PEOPLE. [MORE]

Being a white supremacist has nothing to do with income, title, status or POLITICAL PARTY. Notice that liberal and conservative whites rarely attempt to define the highly observable phenomenon of racism. Nevertheless, said racist suspects constantly chatter about racism in terms of mean words, DISRESPECT and affiliation with clown groups, such as KKK, nazis, proud boys, MAGA etc. Racism is not primarily about bigotry - minor inconveniences such as name calling, stereotypes or other mean words OR PERSONALIZED CONDUCT. Also, there are differENT ways to practice white supremacy. Rather, racism/white supremacy is about the superior, dominate position of whites and vast unequal power and opportunities and maintaining the imbalance of power through Black people’s cooperative control. A white supremacist can be a soccer mom, a businessman, or a US Senator if they are practicing racism against non-whites. [MORE] Belief that racism is bigotry is a vital part of false programming sold by elite whites - white publishers, professionals, professors and government representatives, ETC and promoted by showcase Blacks who parrot such programming in various styles. [MORE]

Amos Wilson explained that defining racism in terms of attitude or bigotry will absolutely lead to solving the wrong problems. ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:

Racism White Supremacy - psychopathic degeneracy. 2) "The local and global power system and dynamic, structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined, which consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of people activity (economics, education, entertainment, labour, law, politics, religion, sex and war); for the ultimate purpose of white genetic survival and to prevent white genetic annihilation on planet earth—a planet upon which the vast majority of people are classified as non-white (Black, Brown, Red and Yellow) by white skinned people, and all of the nonwhite people are genetically dominant (in terms of skin coloration) compared to the genetic recessive white skin people." -Dr. Francis Cress Welsing, MD.

From [HERE] Park National Bank (“Park National”), based in Ohio, has agreed to pay $9 million to settle allegations brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that it engaged in unlawful redlining practices in the Columbus metropolitan area by not providing mortgage lending services to majority-Black and Hispanic communities from 2015 to 2021.  

According to the DOJ’s complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Park National concentrated all of its branches and mortgage lenders in majority-White neighborhoods and did not take any significant steps to make up for its absence in majority-Black and Hispanic communities.  Further, the DOJ alleges that peer lenders generated mortgage applications at a rate between five and ten times higher than that of Park National in the majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and that peer lenders extended mortgage loans in such neighborhoods at a rate between 4.5 and 12.5 times higher than that of Park National.

Park National and the DOJ memorialized their agreement to settle all of the DOJ’s claims through a consent order filed with the federal court on February 28, 2023.  Under the consent order, Park National agreed to invest at least $7.75 million in a loan subsidy fund to provide subsidies for home mortgage loans, home improvement loans, home refinance loans, and home equity loans for applicants in majority-Black and Hispanic communities in the Columbus area.  Park National also pledged to allocate at least $750,000 towards advertising, outreach, consumer financial education, and credit counseling in the Columbus area.  Further, Park National agreed to invest a minimum of $500,000 developing partnerships with community-based or governmental organizations to provide services related to credit, financial education, homeownership, and foreclosure prevention to residents of majority-Black and Hispanic census tracts in the Columbus Area.  Additionally, Park National will open a new full service branch and a mortgage loan production office in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Columbus area, and assign at least four mortgage lenders, including a Spanish-speaking lender, to serve such neighborhoods.

The allegations made by the DOJ in the complaint, and the remedies provided for in the consent order, reflect the types of allegations and remedies in recent redlining settlements resulting from the DOJ’s Combating Redlining Initiative that was launched by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in October 2021.  The initiative is a nationwide effort to address lending discrimination against communities of color and, the settlement with Park National is part of the initiative.  Since the initiative’s launch, the DOJ has announced six redlining cases and settlements, including settlements with Trustmark National Bank and Lakeland Bank, securing $84 million in relief for communities of color affected by lending discrimination across the United States.

In October 2021, in connection with announcing the initiative to combat redlining, the DOJ also announced the settlement with Trustmark National Bank regarding allegations of redlining in Memphis, Tennessee.  Further, in October 2022, the DOJ settled with Lakeland Bank regarding allegations of redlining in Newark, New Jersey.

COVID Fraud and Battery: Suit Says a Racist Suspect Georgetown Doctor Forced 2 Black Kids to Get Vaxxed w/o Mom's Consent, Prevented Kids from Leaving Clinic and Consulting w/Mom who Was Outside Door

/

From [HERE] The mother of two children who were given COVID-19 vaccines without the mother’s consent is suing the doctor who administered the vaccines.

An attorney representing NaTonya McNeil last week filed a lawsuit in Superior Court for the District of Columbia against Janine A. Rethy, M.D., M.P.H.

According to the complaint, on Sept. 2, 2022, McNeil took her two older children, ages 15 and 17, to the KIDS Mobile Medical Clinic/Ronald McDonald Care Mobile clinic, operated by Georgetown Hospital, to complete their required annual physical exam for the 2022-2023 school year.

The lawsuit alleges Rethy, director of the mobile clinic, held the children in the examination room longer than necessary for a regular check-up and vaccinated them against COVID-19 over their objections and without consulting their mother

In order to attempt to obtain the children’s consent — which they are not legally able to provide without a parent or guardian — the doctor falsely informed the children the COVID-19 vaccine was mandatory for school attendance and told them they could not lawfully decline it if they wanted to attend school.

The suit, filed by D.C. attorney Matthew Hardin, seeks damages for false imprisonment, battery and fraud.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is financing the lawsuit because, according to CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland, “CHD couldn’t just sit still and not allow this wrong to go unpunished and not bring this to the public’s attention.”

In an exclusive conversation with The Defender, McNeil explained why she is suing the the doctor:

“I just feel like people shouldn’t be able to do whatever they want to do to other people and especially not to children. As a mother, I feel like, ‘You all just took all my rights away from me to do what you wanted to do to my kids.’

“I do want justice to be done in this case. I feel like something needs to be done. This can’t just continue to happen.”

‘I feel violated’

According to the complaint, Rethy’s stated goal is to vaccinate all children against COVID-19. The complaint quotes her statement to the press:

“Our goal is to increase vaccination rates in children here in D.C. … For more than 30 years our role has been to be in the community to help address the problem of health disparities, bringing families care where they are.

“For this particular effort, we are glad to be partnering with DC Health to provide both regular childhood vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines to all children.”

In addition to her role as director of the mobile clinic, Rethy is chief of MedStar Georgetown University Hospital’s Division of Community Pediatrics and assistant professor of pediatrics at Georgetown University School of Medicine.

McNeil said that when she took her older children to the clinic, she stayed outside the examination room to care for her infant. As soon as the children entered the doctor’s office, she called her daughter’s cellphone to let Rethy know she was just outside the door if the doctor needed to consult her for anything.

According to McNeil, the doctor did not ask or inform her about any vaccinations, and did not ask her to sign anything. At the end of the physical, Rethy came out to talk to her.

McNeil said the doctor explained her son’s asthma treatment plan, but that’s all they discussed.

As they were heading home, McNeil said she was shocked when her daughter complained that her arm hurt “pretty bad.” When McNeil asked her why it hurt, her daughter said she was given the COVID-19 shot, even though she told the doctor she didn’t want it.

When McNeil asked her why she allowed the doctor to administer the shot, her daughter said:

“When she had the needle in her hand and she was coming towards me, I backed up and I asked her what is that needle, and she said it was the COVID shot and I … told her I didn’t want it and she said, ‘Well it is mandatory, you have to get it in order to go to school.’”

Rethy allegedly administered the shot to her daughter, and then to her son. McNeil said:

“He’s 14 and he said they didn’t even ask him if he wanted it or not, but when they gave it to him, he said he thought he had to get it because his sister got it.”

According to the complaint, both children received the  Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, authorized for emergency use, and the meningococcal vaccine. Her son was also injected with TDaP.

Both children were upset and angry they had been coerced into vaccination, the complaint says.

No school mandate, despite what clinic and doctor alleged

When she got home, McNeil said she called the doctor’s office, and asked them why they vaccinated her children without her consent.

“I would have never consented to you all vaccinating my children,” she said. “I’m not vaccinated and I’m not getting vaccinated and my kids were never supposed to be vaccinated for COVID period, under no circumstances.”

She said the person on the phone said they were supposed to get them for school.

After hanging up, McNeil said she was “so irritated I even started crying” because she couldn’t believe “they put this poison” into her children’s bodies.

In July 2022, D.C. public schools imposed a vaccine mandate for schoolchildren ages 12 and up for the 2022-2023 school year. But on Aug. 26, just weeks after imposing the mandate, officials walked it back, postponing it until 2023.

That means when McNeil’s children saw the doctor, there was no school vaccine mandate in place, despite what the Rethy allegedly told the children.

The age of consent

The District of Columbia in March 2021 enacted the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccination Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Minor Consent Act), allowing children 11 and older to consent to the administration of any vaccine — including COVID-19 shots — recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — without parental knowledge or consent if the medical provider believed “the minor is capable of meeting the informed consent standard.”

The law also required healthcare personnel to provide accurate immunization records to the Department of Health and to the student’s school, but not to parents with religious exemptions.

CHD and Parental Rights Foundation filed a lawsuit seeking a court order to declare the D.C. Act unconstitutional.

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 18, 2022, granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the D.C. mayor, Department of Health and public schools from enforcing the law.

That means at the time McNeil’s children visited the clinic, they could not legally provide consent to be vaccinated without their mother’s consent.

McNeil said:

“To do that to my little children, my innocent children. They took her rights. When she backed away from you [the doctor] and said she didn’t want it, that should have been the end of it.

“Or you [the doctor] should have called me on the phone to find out what I feel about the situation. But you [the doctor] basically told my child a lie so you [she] could do what you [she] wanted to do to my kid.”

Lawsuit Claims “Remdesivir,” the primary treatment for COVID in hospitals, Has Killed at Least 100,000 People and the USDA Knows It and Still Approves It and Provides Incentives for Its Usage

/

From [HERE] and [HERE] The antiviral drug remdesivir, brand name Veklury, is approved for use against COVID-19 despite research showing it lacks effectiveness and can cause high rates of organ failure

  • John Beaudoin is calling for a criminal investigation into remdesivir, citing data that it may have killed 100,000 people in the U.S.

  • Beaudoin received all the death certificates in Massachusetts from 2015 to 2022, finding 1,840 excess deaths from acute renal failure from January 1, 2021, to November 30, 2022, which he believes may be due to remdesivir

  • A study published in The Lancet found “no clinical benefit” from the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients

  • The U.S. government pays hospitals a 20% upcharge on the entire hospital bill when remdesivir is used

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the experimental antiviral drug remdesivir, brand name Veklury, for emergency use against COVID-19 in May 2020.1 By October 2020, it had received full approval.2 It remains a primary treatment for COVID-19 in hospitals, despite research showing it lacks effectiveness3 and can cause high rates of organ failure.4

On Twitter, John Beaudoin is calling for a criminal investigation into the drug, citing data that it may have killed 100,000 people in the U.S. "They know," he says, "or they willfully refuse to know. Either way, it's homicide."5

Using drugs that cause organ failure, like remdesivir, isn't in the best interest of public health. The fact that U.S. health authorities have focused on this and similarly harmful drugs to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.

Did Remdesivir Kill Thousands in Massachusetts?

Beaudoin has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court and believes a spike in deaths from acute renal failure (ARF) in Massachusetts is due to remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences. Using a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Beaudoin received all the death certificates in Massachusetts from 2015 to 2022.

He then graphed the FOIA data, finding 1,840 excess deaths from acute renal failure from January 1, 2021 to November 30, 2022. Beaudoin also revealed an increase in deaths from acute rental failure in every age group over 15 years old, from 2015 to 2022.6 "Thousands dead in Massachusetts ARF likely due to Remdesivir. This requires CRIMINAL investigation," he tweeted.7

Deaths, Kidney Injury Common With Remdesivir

Remdesivir use didn't become widespread until 2020. From that time until October 2021, at least 7,491 adverse drug reactions were reported to the World Health Organization's (WHO) VigiAccess, including 560 deaths, 550 serious cardiac disorders and 475 acute kidney injuries.8

For comparison, only 5,674 adverse drug reactions were reported for ivermectin from 1992 to October 13, 2021.9 Despite its strong safety profile and efficacy, ivermectin was widely vilified during the pandemic. Not to mention, remdesivir costs between $2,340 and $3,120,10 while the average treatment cost for ivermectin is $58.11 Do you think this has anything to do with remdesivir's promotion and ivermectin's vilification?

While WHO updated its guidance in April 2022 to recommend the use of remdesivir in "mild or moderate COVID-19 patients who are at high risk of hospitalization,"12 a study published in The Lancet found "no clinical benefit" from the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients.13 Further, the investigators believed three deaths during the study were related to remdesivir.14

Gilead's Political Ties Questioned as Remdesivir Use Persists

Still, the question remains why remdesivir continues to be used at all. In November 2020, WHO issued a bulletin recommending against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients, stating, "There is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients."15

Is it possible that Gilead's strong political connections have influenced the government's approvals and recommendations? It's worth noting that Donald Rumsfeld was the chairman of Gilead from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001. Rumsfeld had previously served as secretary of defense under President Gerald Ford from 1975 to 1977, and again under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006.

FDA Even Approved Remdesivir for Children

In late April 2022, the FDA even approved remdesivir as the first and only COVID-19 treatment for children under 12, including babies as young as 28 days,16 an approval that boggles the mind, considering COVID-19 is rarely serious in children while remdesivir is ineffective and carries a risk of serious, and deadly, side effects.

What's worse, the drug is also approved for outpatient use in children, which is a first. Dr. Meryl Nass expressed her concerns about the FDA's approval of remdesivir for outpatient use in babies, stating:17

"The FDA just licensed Remdesivir for children as young as one month old. Both hospitalized children and outpatients may receive it. The drug might work in outpatients, but the vast majority of children have a very low risk of dying from COVID. If 7 deaths per 1,000 result from the drug, as … European investigators thought18 … it is possible it will harm or kill more children than it saves.

Shouldn't the FDA have waited longer to see what early outpatient treatment did for older ages? Or studied a much larger group of children? Very little has been published on children and remdesivir …

When we look at the press release issued by Gilead,19 we learn the approval was based on an open label, single arm trial in 53 children, 3 of whom died (6% of these children died); 72% had an adverse event, and 21% had a serious adverse event."

More Lawsuits Filed Against Remdesivir

Two women are suing Kaiser Permanente and Redlands Community Hospital in California for giving remdesivir to their husbands without consent. Both men died from kidney and organ failure after being administered remdesivir. "The day he was admitted on August 12 they started the remdesivir and on [August 17] is when they were done," Christina Briones told CBS News. "Five doses. [On] the 17th his kidneys started to fail."20

In California, lawsuits have been filed on behalf of at least 14 families against medical providers for prescribing remdesivir without providing necessary information about it, leading to the patients' deaths.21 Another wrongful death suit was filed in Nevada, after a patient died of kidney failure and respiratory failure a week after being given remdesivir.22

Safety Signal Revealed for Remdesivir and Kidney Failure

Meanwhile, a study published in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics in April 2021 detected a potential safety signal for remdesivir and acute renal failure:23

"The combination of the terms 'acute renal failure' and 'remdesivir' yielded a statistically significant disproportionality signal with 138 observed cases instead of the nine expected. ROR [reporting odds ratio] of ARF with remdesivir was 20-fold that of comparative drugs.

Based on ARF cases reported in VigiBase, and despite the caveats inherent to COVID-19 circumstances, we detected a statistically significant pharmacovigilance signal of nephrotoxicity associated with remdesivir, deserving a thorough qualitative assessment of all available data."

In May 2021, another pharmacovigilance analysis revealed red flags against remdesivir. "Compared with the use of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, sarilumab, or tocilizumab, the use of remdesivir was associated with an increased reporting of kidney disorders," the study found.24 It concluded:25

"Our findings, based on postmarketing real-life data from >5000 COVID-19 patients, support that kidney disorders, almost exclusively AKI [acute kidney injury], represent a serious, early, and potentially fatal adverse drug reaction of remdesivir. These results are consistent with findings from another group. Physicians should be aware of this potential risk and perform close kidney monitoring when prescribing remdesivir."

In March 2022, yet another pharmacovigilance analysis warned of a significant association between remdesivir and acute kidney injury, especially in male patients and those over the age of 65 years. "Although causality was not confirmed," they noted, "the association between remdesivir and AKI should not be ignored, especially in the older, male COVID-19 inpatients."26

US Government Pays Hospitals to Use Remdesivir

Remdesivir was developed as an antiviral drug and tested during the Ebola breakout in 2014. The drug was found to have a very high death rate and was not pursued further. In the early months of 2020, however, the drug was entered into COVID trials.27 Those trials were also beyond disappointing.28,29,30

Not only was the drug ineffective against the infection but it also had significant and life-threatening side effects, including kidney failure and liver damage.31 Dr. Paul Marik, a pulmonary and critical care specialist and founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), explained that during the pandemic the only drug he was allowed to prescribe was remdesivir.

When he refused to follow the remdesivir protocol, he was subjected to a "sham review," an unofficial but well-known process in which a "troublesome" doctor is accused of wrongdoing and basically railroaded out of practice. In the end, he was fired and reported to the National Practitioner Databank and the Board of Medicine.

The financial motivations to report doctors going against the grain run deep. According to Marik, the U.S. government pays hospitals a 20% upcharge on the entire hospital bill when remdesivir is used.32 Citizens Journal also reported that the U.S. government pays hospitals a "bonus" on the entire hospital bill if they use remdesivir.33 It described this practice as a bounty placed on your life, with payouts tied to declining health instead of recovery:34

"For remdesivir, studies show that 71% to 75% of patients suffer an adverse effect, and the drug often had to be stopped after five to 10 days because of these effects, such as kidney and liver damage, and death.

Remdesivir trials during the 2018 West African Ebola outbreak had to be discontinued because death rate exceeded 50%. Yet, in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals use to treat COVID-19, even when the COVID clinical trials of remdesivir showed similar adverse effects.

… We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those 'approved' (and paid for) approaches. Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become 'bounty hunters' for your life."

Officials Push Expensive, Risky Treatments

In addition to remdesivir, Pfizer's Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021.35 The drug consists of nirmatrelvir tablets — the antiviral component — and ritonavir tablets, which are intended to slow the breakdown of nirmatrelvir.36

But like remdesivir, there are many problems with Paxlovid. In this case, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning to health care providers and public health departments about the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment.37 Further, Pfizer stopped a large trial of Paxlovid in standard-risk patients because it didn't show significant protection against hospitalization or death in this group.38

Paxlovid costs $529 per five-day treatment39 and has cost U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion,40 while safe and less expensive options exist. An investigation by Cornell University, posted on the University's preprint server January 20, 2022, found ivermectin outperformed 10 other drugs against COVID-19.41

Since the FDA and CDC cannot be trusted, and even physicians' hands are often tied by regulatory red tape, it's imperative to take responsibility for your own health. In the case of COVID-19, seek early treatment using an effective and safe protocol — not one that puts profits over patients.

 Sources and References

Restrictions in Free Range Prisons Tighten: Report Says Western Governments are Accelerating the Use of Non-Consensual Persuasion to Ensure Citizens Act and Speak in Ways Compatible w/Govt Narratives

/

From [HERE] Since the advent of the covid era in early 2020, Western liberal democracies have witnessed a marked acceleration in the systematic deployment of methods of non-consensual persuasion aimed at ensuring that people act and speak in ways that correspond to the dominant state-determined narrative. Throughout this period, everyone – politicians, academics, journalists, scientists and ordinary citizens – have been exposed to some combination of psychological manipulation, censorship, smearing and coercion (seehere for an overview). Disturbingly, two recent events suggest that the methods used by our government and other powerful actors to crush dissent are becoming more flagrant.

Last month, the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch published a document titled Ministry of Truth: the secret government unit spying on our speech. The report confirmed what many of us had long suspected: some of our day-to-day talk and behaviour is being covertly monitored by our own Government for any signs of deviation from their version of the ‘truth’. If the confirmation of such Orwellian activities was not alarming enough, what was arguably more striking was the scale of this state-funded enterprise. Dedicated clandestine units are embedded within a range of government departments, including: the Cabinet Office (‘Rapid Response Unit’); Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (‘Counter Disinformation Unit’); Foreign Office (‘Government Information Cell’); Home Office(‘Research, Intelligence & Communications Unit); and the Ministry of Defence (‘77th Brigade). Clearly, law-abiding citizens that say or do something that deviates from the official government line (on covid, climate change, or the war in Ukraine) risk being clocked and silenced.

Within this state-funded infrastructure to crush free speech, the activities of the ‘Counter Disinformation Unit’ (CDU) evoke particular concerns. Despite being based in the government department responsible for the processing of Freedom of Information requests, the CDU was, paradoxically, the least forthcoming with answers to transparency questions posed by Big Brother Watch. The primary aim of the CDU is to ‘monitor covid disinformation’ and to signal potentially problematic material to social media companies. The Government, via the CDU, holds “Trusted Flagger” status with social media companies while — somewhat disingenuously — claiming not to mandate platforms to remove content. This special relationship results in government concerns being more visible to platforms such as YouTube and therefore more likely to be actioned; an arm’s length mechanism for habitual state censorship.

The Big Brother Watch investigation found that the Department of Digital, Culture, Media & Sport had spent over £1 million pounds on outsourcing private companies to conduct this monitoring of social media outlets. Indeed, as described in a previous article, in summer 2021 HART itself was the victim of this dubious practice when – following an illegal hack – a commercial enterprise called ‘Logically AI’ attempted to undermine us by publicising out-of-context quotes from our informal chat logs. It was galling to discover that the UK Government was spending swathes of taxpayers’ money to monitor and smear a group of academics who were giving their time voluntarily to engage in the perfectly lawful activity of challenging some aspects of covid policy and questioning the dominant covid narrative.  

The second recent event that suggests that government methods for silencing dissent are becoming increasingly dictatorial concerns an interview Andrew Bridgen MP did with Dominique Samuels (a political commentator). The backbench Conservative, the only parliamentarian to openly express concerns about the safety of the covid vaccines, had already been suspended from the party andsmeared as being ‘antisemitic’ and part of an ‘anti-vax conspiracy’ for stating that a Jewish consultant cardiologist had told him that the vaccine rollout had been ‘the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust’. In the interview with Samuels, Bridgen reveals a couple of other consequences he has endured for daring to criticise the dominant narrative.

Bridgen – the democratically elected MP for North West Leicestershire – describes how he was contacted by the ‘welfare’ office at the Houses of Parliament and told that ‘a number of people had come to us to say that you were suicidal, Andrew’. He reassures Samuels that there is absolutely no basis to these concerns. Later in the interview Bridgen also discloses that, around January 2022 (in the aftermath of him submitting a letter of ‘no confidence’ in the serving Prime Minister, Boris Johnson), an advisor from number 10 messaged him to say ‘what do you want … back off and you can have anything you want’. Bridgen says he has taken screenshots of the pertinent messages to support his conclusion that ‘they tried to buy me’. [MORE]

10 Blatant Lies Parroted by Media About COVID to Induce Public Consent to Take Deadly, Experimental COVID Injections

/

  1. Misinformation #1: Natural immunity offers little protection compared to vaccinated immunity

  2. Misinformation #2: Masks prevent Covid transmission

  3. Misinformation #3: School closures reduce Covid transmission

  4. Misinformation #5: Young people benefit from a vaccine booster

  5. Misinformation #6: Vaccine mandates increased vaccination rates

  6. Misinformation #7: Covid originating from the Wuhan Lab is a conspiracy theory

  7. Misinformation #8: It was important to get the 2nd vaccine dose 3 or 4 weeks after the 1st dose

  8. Misinformation #8: It was important to get the 2nd vaccine dose 3 or 4 weeks after the 1st dose

  9. Misinformation #9: Data on the bivalent vaccine is “crystal clear”

  10. Misinformation #10: One in five people get long Covid

https://archive.today/2023.03.03-171938/https://nypost.com/2023/02/27/10-myths-told-by-covid-experts-now-debunked/

New Emails Show Liar Fauci Commissioned Scientific Paper to Disprove that COVID Wasn’t Made in a Lab (and that He Helped Create It)

/

From [HERE] New emails uncovered by House Republicans probing the COVID-19 pandemic reveal the deceptive nature of Dr. Anthony Fauci.  

They show he “prompted” or commissioned — and had final approval on — a scientific paper written specifically in February 2020 to disprove the theory that the virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China. 

Eight weeks later, Fauci stood at a White House press conference alongside President Donald Trump and cited that paper as evidence that the lab leak theory was implausible while pretending it had nothing to do with him and he did not know the authors.

“There was a study recently,” he told reporters on April 17, 2020, when asked if the virus could have come from a Chinese lab, “where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences … in bats as they evolve and the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human. 

“So, the paper will be available. I don’t have the authors right now, but we can make it available to you.” [MORE]

“Media is the Virus:” Government Building in Canada Plastered with Photos of People Killed and Injured by COVID Injections. Induced to Take Deadly Injections by Govt and Media Lies (genthanasia)

/

From [HERE] Watch our exclusive report of the activists plastering the CBC building on Front St. with stickers of people suspected of suffering Covid “vaccine” injuries and deaths.

Inspired by the UK’s “Media Is the Virus” protests that targeted the BBC in similar fashion, the activists hoped to share a voice for those affected while holding the CBC and other mainstream media to account for their complicity in promoting an unscientific and dangerous “safe and effective” narrative. (Bright Light News/Rumble)

Court Tosses Israel Lobby’s Lawsuit that Targeted US Scholars with “Law Fare” to Silence Their Political Conduct and Speech Calling for a Boycott of Racist Country Run by Terrocrats

/

From [HERE] A court in Washington, DC has entirely dismissed a lawsuit against the American Studies Association over its support of an academic boycott of Israel.

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2016 by Israel advocates, has now failed three separate times in court – a significant defeat for the Israel lobby’s attempt to punish scholars who back Palestinian rights.

“The court found that the claims primarily arose from advocacy on an issue of public interest and were not likely to succeed,” stated the Center for Constitutional Rights.

In a 2013 referendum, members of the American Studies Association overwhelmingly endorsed an academic boycott of Israel.

The vote followed an endorsement of the boycott by the association’s governing body.

Declaring the boycott an ethical stance, the ASA said that it “represents a principle of solidarity with scholars and students deprived of their academic freedom and an aspiration to enlarge that freedom for all, including Palestinians.”

Israel advocates within the association, however, jumped into action to persecute colleagues who dared to criticize Israel.

Using a tactic known as lawfare, in which Israel lobby groups use legal means to harass and silence supporters of Palestinian rights, the plaintiffs claimed that the boycott resolution was brought by “insurgents” within the association who attempted to “subvert and change the ASA’s purpose” into a political advocacy organization.

The plaintiffs alleged that a “cabal” of leaders from the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) surreptitiously took over the ASA and used their positions on its executive committee and national council to foist the boycott resolution on the association’s unsuspecting membership, misspending ASA money in the process.

A federal court threw out a key claim in the lawsuit in 2017, ruling that the ASA’s endorsement of the boycott was not contrary to the association’s charter.

After the lawsuit was initially dismissed in 2019, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and opened a second case in the Washington, DC Superior Court.

Later that year, the Superior Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss in part, but denied their anti-SLAPP motion.

SLAPP suits are intended to suppress free speech and force people or organizations into spending money defending themselves in court.

But defendants appealed the denial of that anti-SLAPP motion.

The DC Court of Appeals ordered the court to reanalyze the case, resulting in the most recent ruling, notes the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The force behind the lawsuit was the Louis D. Brandeis Center, an Israel advocacy organization that has for years worked to smear Palestine solidarity activism as anti-Semitism, and attempts to suppress it with frivolous lawsuits and bogus civil rights complaints.

The organization’s former president, attorney Kenneth Marcus, represented the plaintiffs until February 2018 – when he was appointed as the Trump administration’s top civil rights enforcer at the US Department of Education.

After resigning from his position in 2020, Marcus returned to lead the Louis D. Brandeis Center.

“The purpose of lawsuits like these are really to harass and intimidate activists who support rights anywhere, but freedom and justice in Palestine in particular,” Astha Sharma Pokharel, staff lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, told The Electronic Intifada.

Along with the anti-SLAPP laws that are designed to deter these kinds of attacks, the court’s dismissal “sends a message to Palestinian rights advocates that they are supported and that the law is on their side,” Sharma Pokharel added.

“A losing strategy”

The Center for Constitutional Rights represented Steven Salaita, one of the defendants targeted by this lawsuit.

In 2014, Salaita was fired by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for social media comments criticizing Israel’s assault on Gaza that year.

He sued the university for breach of contract, alleging administrators acted under pressure from pro-Israel donors, later settling the case.

Salaita then found himself targeted by the lawsuit against the American Studies Association.

He told The Electronic Intifada this week that he was relieved that the DC court dismissed the lawsuit against the American Studies Association.

“It was something hanging over my head and I dislike being obliged to deal with people who deny my humanity,” Salaita said.

“I don’t know what message [Israel lawfare groups] will hear – probably nothing – but it should send them the message that it’s a losing strategy,” he said.

“More importantly, it should send them the message that even if their nonsense were to be effective according to judicial bodies in the United States, it still won’t stop anybody from agitating against the Israeli state.”

Boycotts, he added, are “designed to bypass and subvert state institutions.”

[Elite Racists Continue to Trick Black People by Confusing Bigotry w/Racism] A Tenn Lawmaker Didn't Say Mean Words About Lynching (bigotry), He Proposed Lynching Mostly Blacks (racism) to Execute Them

/

WAKE UP. NAME CALLING IS NOT RACISM WHITE SUPREMACY. From [HERE] During a debate on Tuesday about a bill that would expand the State’s options for putting people to death, a Tennessee state representative expressed support for the bill and suggested adding hanging from a tree as an execution method.

Lawmakers were discussing HB1245, which would allow electrocution as an alternative to lethal injection, and an amendment that would add execution by firing squad, when Rep. Paul Sherrell (R-Sparta) said, “I was just wondering, could I put an amendment on that that would include hanging by a tree, also.”

Racial Terror Lynching in Tennessee

EJI has documented 236 racial terror lynchings of Black people in Tennessee between 1877 and 1950, including hangings of Black journalists, business leaders, and teachers.

EJI’s report on terror lynchings in the 12 most active lynching states in America found that Tennessee’s Lake and Moore counties had the sixth and seventh highest lynching rates, respectively, and Shelby County had the 18th highest number of lynching victims.

Black people were lynched in Tennessee for minor social transgressions or for demanding basic rights and fair treatment. Richard Wilkerson, for example, was lynched in Manchester, Tennessee, in 1934 for allegedly slapping a white man who had assaulted a Black woman at an African American dance.

Businessmen Thomas Moss, Calvin McDowell, and Henry Stewart were brutally lynched in Memphis in 1892 for defending their grocery business against white attackers. The men were friends of anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells, who wrote an editorial in response to their murders urging Black residents in Memphis to “leave a town which will neither protect our lives and property, nor give us a fair trial in the courts, but takes us out and murders us in cold blood when accused by white persons.” A white mob then attacked and destroyed her newspaper office and threatened her not to return to Memphis.

Tennessee lynch mobs regularly displayed complete disregard for the legal system. In 1906, Edward Johnson, a Black man, was convicted of raping a white woman and sentenced to death by an all-white jury in Chattanooga. His attorneys appealed the case and won a rare stay of execution from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In response, a white mob seized Mr. Johnson from the jail, dragged him through the streets, hanged him from the second span of the Walnut Street Bridge, and shot him hundreds of times. The mob left a note pinned on the corpse that read: “To Justice Harlan. Come get your n—r now.” Mr. Johnson, who used his last words to declare his innocence, was cleared of the rape nearly a century later.

The Legacy of Racial Terror

Communities across Tennessee have partnered with EJI to truthfully confront this history of racial terror lynching. Ed Johnson was among four lynching victims memorialized in Chattanooga, and community members have installed two historical markers in downtown Nashville to remember four men who were lynched there during the era of racial terror.

In 2020, a historical marker was installed in front of the Madison County courthouse to memorialize John Brown, who was lynched on the courthouse lawn by a mob of 500 men, and Eliza Woods, who was dragged to the courthouse by a mob after she was accused of poisoning her white employer. Ms. Woods declared her innocence, but the mob ripped off her clothes, hanged her from a tree, and shot at her body.

On Tuesday, however, other lawmakers failed to even respond to Mr. Sherrell’s comment. He apologized only after the remark drew widespread attention and criticism, and in doing so he restated his support for the death penalty bill.

“A bill calling to expand the death penalty by firing squad, and even lynching, is deplorable, immoral and takes us back to the dark days of Jim Crow,” the Rev. Kevin Riggs, pastor of Franklin Community Church, told The Tennessean. “I’m appalled by the words of Representative Sherrell. Suggesting firing squads and lynchings is unconscionable. Tennessee should be moving in the direction of outlawing state sanctioned killings, instead of toward more killings and in more inhumane ways than already exist. There is no moral way to murder another person.”

The decline of lynching in the early 20th century relied heavily on the increased use of the death penalty, and public hangings were often racialized displays intended to appease would-be lynch mobs.

Northern states had abolished public executions by 1850, but some Southern states authorized public hangings until 1938. And even after they were legally banned, mobs often succeeded in forcing public hangings in Southern states.

Lawmakers on Tuesday advanced HB1245 to the next committee.

'blows my mind that we're still hanging brothers by a tree:' Elite Racist Suspects @ Marriott/NFL/ESPN Gas Light Michael Irvin w/BS Claim He Touched a White Woman, Witnesses say Video Shows Otherwise

/

[MeToo movement Used as a Tool of Racism White Supremacy] From [HERE] and [HERE] Former Cowboys receiver Michael Irvin held a news conference on Wednesday to address an incident involving a female hotel staffer in Arizona, which led to Irvin being sent home from Super Bowl coverage.

Irvin sued the Arizona Marriott hotel for $100 million in damages over the allegations. He has denied the allegations that he had any inappropriate physical conduct between him and the woman.

Irvin said in the press conference that this situation "sickens" him. He said it takes him "back to a time where a white woman would accuse a Black man of something and they would take a bunch of guys who were above the law, run in the ban and put a rope around his foot and drag him through the mud and hang him by the tree."

Irvin said he's been asked if he remembers the woman from the lobby, to which he replied that he meets so many people year-long staying in hotels. 

"I couldn't even tell you what she looks like," Irvin said. "I don't even know who I'm talking about it. This just blows my mind that, in 2023, we're still dragging and hanging brothers by a tree."

Irvin said he still has not seen the tape of the alleged incident and does not know what he is being accused of. He said if he did something wrong, he'll suffer the consequences. 

"But if you did something wrong, you meaning them, then they should suffer the consequences," Irvin said.

Two witnesses of the incident also spoke with reporters. 

One was an Australian man who said he did not know who Irvin was because he's not an NFL fan and the Super Bowl was his first introduction to the sport. He said he met Irvin while doing business with his colleagues in the hotel lobby. 

The other man said he did know who Irvin was, as an Eagles fan, but offered to buy Irvin a drink, which he refused.

Both men said they did not see any behavior from Irvin that was a cause for concern.

Irvin got emotional after listening to the two men give their accounts of the incident because he was thankful they were there and weren’t alone with his word versus his accuser.

ESPN said it had no comment on the legal developments in the case and the NFL Network did not respond to a request for comment.

In his lawsuit, which is filed in Collin County where he lives, Irvin's attorneys accused Marriott's employees and management of "inaccurately and inflammatorily" accusing Irvin of misconduct.

The lawsuit said Irvin had a "brief, friendly interaction with a Marriott employee lasting no longer than one minute" as he arrived back at the hotel Sunday night.

"Witnesses have verified that Mr. Irvin, casually exchanged pleasantries with one of the hotel employees, Mr. Irvin shook her hand, and went to his room alone," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit said Irving "appreciates spending time with his fans," including taking pictures and talking with them, and that his interaction with the Marriott employee "was no different and witness testimony will prove this to be the case."

"Nonetheless, Marriott recklessly reported to the NFL that Mr. Irvin had somehow acted inappropriately even though in this brief interaction with multiple witnesses, nothing took place other than a friendly interaction that ended with a polite handshake," the lawsuit said.

In a legal response filed Wednesday, Marriott said it didn’t provide the video due to concerns it would reveal the identity of the woman and other guests if Irvin’s attorneys released it publicly.

The company’s attorneys said the order they were given didn’t require the video to be copied, but if the judge now orders a copy, they would ask that it not be shared publicly. They say they offered to allow Irvin to watch the video, but he declined.

The lawsuit also said Irvin then went upstairs to his room. After he fell asleep, he was "shockingly woken up" by security and removed from the hotel. WFAA reached out to Marriott for a comment on the lawsuit when it was filed and they did not respond.

Irvin's lawyer, Levi G. McCathern, previously told WFAA that his office had reached out to the hotel to talk about the situation but "they refused to speak to us." In the press conference, McCathern said Irvin's agent was eventually able to get a meeting with Marriott's GM and head of marketing. The head of security was not included in that meeting, McCathern said.

"They absolutely refused to give [Irvin's agent] any information about what the allegations were against Mr. Irvin," McCathern said.

Irvin and two other men, who were witnesses to the incident and part of Wednesday's press conference, were made available to Marriott for interviews and the hotel declined to speak with any of them, according to McCathern.

The press conference came one day after a judge ordered Marriott to provide Irvin “any and all video recordings, written reports, and/or witness statements gathered” that pertain to Irvin’s February visit at the Arizona hotel by March 7 at 5 p.m.

McCathern said he has seen the surveillance video, but was not allowed to have a copy of it. In a new court filing, Irvin's team filed for an emergency court order to obtain a copy of the video with a proposed deadline of the end of the day – 5 p.m. on March 8.

Since there was no copy of the video to show, McCathern gave his personal description of what the video entailed.

McCathern said the video shows Irvin being approached by the woman after taking pictures outside with some fans – the witnesses in the press conference – and the interaction between Irvin and the woman happens behind a pole in the center of the room. According to McCathern and the two witnesses, Irvin touches the woman four times: the introductory handshake, the handshake at the end of the interaction, once on the elbow and "brushes" her once on the other elbow after bowing over laughing.

McCathern said the woman is never seen in the video acting upset and doesn't back away from Irvin. The conversation between Irvin and the woman lasted about a minute and a half, McCathern said.

"This is what I'm struggling with," Irvin said. "You try to be an ambassador of the league and also understand that God has blessed me and given me a platform to try to touch people, try to raise people, try to lift people up. I've met a lot of fans. I've always tried to be good with people."

Elite Racist Media Sensationalizes Episode w/Shawn Kemp as a “Drive by Shooting.” NO CHARGES Filed Against Him, Immediately Released by Cops. No Facts About Driving by and Shooting at Anyone Confirmed

/

 From [HERE] No charges are immediately being filed against former NBA star Shawn Kemp following his arrest in a drive-by shooting in Washington, prosecutors said Thursday.

Kemp, 53, was arrested for investigation of felony drive-by shooting shortly before 6 p.m. Wednesday in Tacoma, online jail records show. No one was injured in the shooting Wednesday afternoon.

Adam Faber, a spokesman for the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office, said in an emailed statement Thursday afternoon that that no charges were immediately being filed against Kemp and that he was being released from jail pending further investigation.

Tacoma police said they arrested a 53-year-old man after a shooting in a parking lot near the Tacoma Mall on Wednesday, but a spokeswoman Thursday did not confirm whether that was Kemp. The shooting followed an altercation between people in two vehicles; one car fled and a gun was recovered, police said.

Court Rules a Policy Allowing Only “Respectful and Courteous” Comments at Town Meetings Violates Mass Constitution; Laws Allowing Lavish Praise but Disallowing Harsh Criticism of Government Unlawful

/

From [HERE] A policy allowing only “respectful and courteous” public comments at town meetings violates the state constitution, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled.

The Massachusetts town of Southborough’s comment policy violated protections for freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the top state court ruled March 7.

The policy at issue partly reads: “All remarks and dialogue in public meetings must be respectful and courteous, free of rude, personal or slanderous remarks. Inappropriate language and/or shouting will not be tolerated.”

Justice Scott L. Kafker wrote the opinion striking down the policy.

“Although civility, of course, is to be encouraged, it cannot be required regarding the content of what may be said in a public comment session of a governmental meeting,” wrote Kafker for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

“What can be required is that the public comment session be conducted in an ‘orderly and peaceable’ manner, including designating when public comment shall be allowed in the governmental meeting, the time limits for each person speaking, and rules preventing speakers from disrupting others and removing those speakers if they do.”

The plaintiff in the case, Louise Barron, was accused of violating the civility policy during a town meeting and threatened with physical removal. In her remarks, she said the town was “spending like drunken sailors” and said the town board had violated the state’s open meetings law.

Even though board members are volunteers, “breaking the law is breaking the law,” Barron said.

A town official interjected, telling Barron that if she wanted to slander town officials, the public comment session would be stopped.

“Look, you need to stop being a Hitler.” Barron said. “You’re a Hitler. I can say what I want.”

The board member called a recess. After turning off his microphone, the board member pointed in Barron’s direction. He allegedly yelled, “You’re disgusting,” and said Barron would be escorted from the meeting if she didn’t leave. Barron left.

The state constitutional provision regarding the right to assembly was drafted by John Adams, with some help from his cousin Samuel Adams, Kafker said. It provides for the right to assemble, the right to give instructions to representatives and the right to seek redress of wrongs.

The provision, Kafker said, “expressly envisions a politically active and engaged, even aggrieved and angry, populace.” It also “reflects the lessons and the spirit of the American Revolution.”

Turning to the free speech issue, Kafker said the town’s civility code is directed at government speech, and it is content based, requiring strict scrutiny of restrictions. The policy also appears to be viewpoint based, Kafker said, because it allows “lavish praise” while “disallowing harsh criticism of government officials.”

“In this country, we have never concluded that there is a compelling need to mandate that political discourse with those with whom we strongly disagree be courteous and respectful,” Kafker said.

Hat tip to Law360 and MySouthborough.com, which had coverage, and the Volokh Conspiracy, which had opinion highlights. [MORE]