More ‘Teddy Bear Code Politics’ from the NAACP as it Files Suit Over Restored Confederate School names in VA while Black Kids Can Barely Read, Talk or Think

/

From [HERE] The Virginia chapter of the NAACP and a group of five students plan to file a lawsuit against the Shenandoah County School Board after it approved a proposal to rename two public schools after Confederate military leaders.

The lawsuit, first reported by NBC News, is the latest development in an ongoing battle over Mountain View High and Honey Run Elementary, originally named Stonewall Jackson High School and Ashby Lee Elementary School.

“My belief is the Shenandoah County School Board reaffirmed their commitment to White supremacy and the celebration of a race-based rebellion against the United States of America with their vote to name public schools after military leaders of the Confederate States of America,” Rev. Cozy Bailey, president of the chapter, said in a statement.

“When students walk through the halls of renamed Stonewall Jackson High School and Ashby Lee Elementary School, they will do so with inescapable reminders of Confederate legacies that enslaved and discriminated against African-descended people. This community deserves better,” he added.

The two schools were renamed in 2020 after racial justice advocates around the nation urged institutions to change building names and remove statues that honored Confederate figures.

But critics of the schools’ name changes argued the renaming was hasty and undemocratic. Attempts to restore the schools’ Confederate names have persisted since. [MORE]

“THE TEDDY BEAR CODE.” Chancellor Williams and Dr. Frances Cress Welsing both explained that Black sheeple 'continue to live in a dream world where they believe that singing, marching, dancing, chanting, having cookouts, releasing balloons into the air, making fantastic speeches, being ‘great hopers’ and ‘staying prayed up’ will solve problems plaguing Black lives and their communities. Neely Fuller calls such activity “the Teddy Bear Code” or "protest" that is actually in cooperation with and submission to white supremacy/racism and government authority - whether or not the advocates are aware of it.

Another form of Teddy Bear Code activity is the symbolic politics engaged in by so-called “Black leaders” such as advocacy for; the removal of statues, federal holidays, policing the words used by white people, demanding apologies for bigotry, unorganized (individual consumer choice) “boycotts” and travel advisories. In this category we can also put meeting, thoughting and arguing about reparations, a futile quest for an elusive pot of gold possessed by elite racists or “a strategic diversionary tactic in the rebellion toward liberation.” All the above is a cowardly way for Black people to avoid dealing with their present reality. The “Niggerati” would rather in engage in fantasy discussions, than deal with the nuts and bolts work of economic development, the creation of sustainable independent communities and institutions and providing a real “education” to Black children that teaches them how to solve their communities problems and defend their group interests, not mere training to serve elite whites, dominate their own people and enhance the system of authority.

The presence of confederate statutes at a school is a relatively minor concern when you consider that nationwide 80% of African-American fourth-graders can barely read and understand mathematics and only 19% scored proficient in math. [MORE] According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) just 18% of Black eighth-graders reach reading “proficiency.” [MORE] And NAEP recently found that only 17% of Black 12th graders were proficient at reading. [MORE] Please read that again. It means an overwhelming amount of Black youth are functionally illiterate or unable to articulate thoughts or speak in complete sentences. A recent study found that many graduating 12th graders in Washington, D.C. couldn’t read and write. A recently settled lawsuit in Detroit claimed authorities “deliberately" denied black children “the right of access to literacy" and provided “education” in its ‘chaotic and under-resourced schools’ where “illiteracy is the norm." According to the complaint,

‘Black children sit in classrooms where not even the pretense of education takes place, in schools that are functionally incapable of delivering access to literacy. This abject failure makes it nearly impossible for young people to attain the level of literacy necessary to function—much less thrive—in higher education, the workforce, and the activities of democratic citizenship.’

Similar educational disparities are found in nearly all urban areas where substantially more Black people reside (than Virginia or Florida) such as, Newark, NYC, Chicago, St. Louis, Atlanta, Philadelphia, DC, Baltimore, Boston, etc. Another ‘failure to educate Black kids’ lawsuit in Baltimore (home of the NAACP headquarters) claims, ‘schools performed abysmally on State tests for reading, writing, geometry, and mathematics; dropout rates and absenteeism were unacceptably high; over a fifth of the schools’ performance was so deficient that the State could take over if the schools they did not improve; and a substantial proportion of the system’s physical facilities were in poor condition.’ Clearly NAACP is aware of the above.

The elite white liberals who control the NAACP would prefer Black people to misperceive their actual reality and to make believe confederate statues in VA or ‘the Florida AP curriculum,’ which triggered the NAACP’s unorganized “travel ban,” are high priorities among a range of less serious problems facing Black people. Within this delusion “the state of Black America” is somehow believed to be progressing and not in a continuous state of checkmate.

Vermont Cops Terrorize Kids w/Surprise Mass Shooting Practice: 2 women ran into a Classroom, followed by a man wearing a ski mask holding a gun [false flaggots]. Then [fake] gunshot sounds rang out

/

From [HERE] Police in Burlington, Vermont, subjected a group of high school students to a mock shooting without warning, traumatizing teenagers who have been programmed to hide from — and even fend off — school shooters.

In a statement, the Burlington Police Department apologized Thursday for the “presentation” that it staged the day before at the police station.

“The roll-playing scenario only involved three department personnel simulating a robbery scenario and was not directed at any students or faculty,” the department wrote.

Local news outlet Seven Days reported that the simulation involved police personnel bursting into a room and pretending to open fire:

Two students who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the class was facing the front of the room listening to a detective speak when they heard screams from behind them. Two women ran in, the students said, followed by a man wearing a ski mask who was holding a gun. Then [fake] gunshot sounds rang out.

According to local NBC affiliate WPTZ, officials with the school district said teachers were aware that a firearm-related demonstration would take place to show how witness statements can be unreliable, but had not realized that it would happen “without warning.”

Choosing to perform a simulated shooting to teach students a lesson about eyewitness testimony is a baffling choice in itself, considering the very real threat of gun violence that Americans live with. In a time of loosening gun laws and too-frequent mass shootings, active shooter drills are commonplace in schools across the U.S., including in preschool.

Research has shown that such drills can have lasting mental health effects on children, even when there’s ample notice. Gun safety advocates say other school safety measures can be more effective in preventing gun violence — and far less traumatizing to students.

The Free Range Prison in US becoming More Like the Free Range Prison in China: DoGooders Beg Court to Liquidate InfoWars. Media Pretends Alex Jones Default Judgement is Proof that Sandy Hook Occurred

/

A bankruptcy judge approved the liquidation of the personal assets of Alex Jones on Friday, with proceeds expected to go toward the families of the so-called Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims.

At the same time, Judge Christopher Lopez with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston dismissed the chapter 11 case of Free Speech Systems, the owner of Infowars, siding with Jones, who said the dismissal would better serve the creditors and FSS employees.

The ruling punctuated a lengthy legal saga stemming from Jones’s alleged false statements that the 2012 school shooting was a government hoax. Courts in Texas and Connecticut found him liable by default for defaming the families of shooting victims who were subject to harassment and threats after his remarks. He owes more than $1 billion in defamation damages to the families of the alleged victims. [MORE]

The dependent media has mislead the public to believe that an actual trial took place and a jury made a factual finding that Jones made a false statements about Sandy Hook after examining evidence during a contested court case. Specifically, the media has mislead the public to believe that the families demonstrated with evidence that Sandy Hook actually took place and thereafter a court found Jones liable for defamation for stating otherwise. However, contrary to constant media mischaracterization, there were no actual contested trials. Rather, default judgements were made against Jones for his lawyers’ failure to provide documents and meet filing deadlines. No trial ever took place. Once a default judgment was made by the court the only thing left for the jury to do was to determine the amount of damages for the alleged defamation. Jones participated in that part of the proceeding. The court proceedings only pertained to how much should be awarded in damages.

A default judgment transforms a defending party’s admissions (which occur upon entry of the default) into a final judgment; it usually terminates the litigation by producing an enforceable, final award in favor of the pleader. When the damages amount is not a sum certain, the court may convene an evidentiary hearing- simply to determine damages, not the underlying claim which is deemed to have occurred through the default. Although the entry of default deprives the defaulting party of the right to contest most of the complaint’s factual allegations, that party may contest the amount of damages. The Dependent media has mischaracterized the hearing on damages as a “jury trial” in order to confuse the proceeding with an actual jury trial on the merits. [MORE]

[Sleeping Toms Believe They are Free b/c They Get to Choose Their Own Master] Billy Porter Kisses Biden’s Hand in Ritual to Celebrate Juneteenth. Will Elites Reward Him w/Trinkets, Prestige or Both?

/

mmwuhh. Billy Porter kisses corpse Biden's hand at Juneteenth celebration. [MORE] FUNKTIONARY explains,

Statism - the belief "citizens"' and "states" exist and the memetic thought patterns supporting such beliefs. 2) the religion of oppression and domination coupled with the science of exploitation and sociopathic control. 3) the opiate of the so-called Elites. 4) a philosophy that idealizes majority rule gang force (authority) over individual authenticity (autonomy). 5) servitude over liberty and statutes over humanity. [MORE]

Undeceiver Larken Rose explains, “There is a big difference between striving for a new, wiser, nobler master, and striving for a world of equals, where there are no masters and no slaves. Likewise, there is a big difference between a slave who believes in the principle of freedom, and a slave whose ultimate goal is to become the new master. And this is true, even if that slave truly intends to be a kind and generous master . . . As long as the people believe in the myth of “authority,” every downfall of one tyrant will be followed by the creation and growth of a new tyrant.“ [MORE]

The Black Caucus Claims it Functions to Provide Opportunities to Students and Businesses but Records Show it Spends Most of its Money on Salaries and Fundraising [BOHICANS Serve Elite White Liberals]

/

From [HERE] Like-minded members of Congress have created hundreds of caucuses to help them work on specific issues – including the Arthritis Caucus, the Freedom Caucus, the U.S.-Japan Caucus, the Special Operations Forces, and the Bipartisan Candy Caucus.

But two of them – the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus – stand out for the unparalleled fundraising they do through independent but closely aligned nonprofit arms. Filled with current members of Congress and representatives from some of America’s largest corporations, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute operate outside of normal campaign finance laws to raise millions of dollars each year.

Websites and tax returns for the two nonprofits say they are designed to provide scholarships and opportunities to minority students and promising businesses. But records show they spend a much smaller percentage of their revenue on those programs than they do on salaries, fundraising, and hosting conferences.

“What you have is a very cozy relationship that complies with the law, yet it’s elected officials and corporations working together and there’s lots of money involved,” said Joe Postell, a professor of politics at Hillsdale College. “It claims to be philanthropic but it’s obvious it’s just another avenue for special interest money.”

And it’s a lot of money. 

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation raked in more than $45 million between 2020 and 2022, the last full year for which figures are available, and that includes the down year in which the COVID pandemic shutdowns crippled the U.S. economy. During that stretch, Foundation revenues increased nearly 89%.

But only a fraction of that appears to be spent on the programs it trumpets. For example, in 2022, the foundation brought in $18.4 million, and of that total, it spent more than $16 million, or 86%, on staff salaries and benefits, management fees, fundraising, and conferences, records show. Its fundraising cost in 2022 – $5.4 million – was more than double the $2.5 million it reported spending on scholarships.

In April, the foundation received a $4 million donation that it says is earmarked for college scholarships.

Still, that amount is less than the foundation spends on salaries. In the COVID year of 2020, when fundraising reached $9.8 million, the foundation spent nearly $3 million on compensation and benefits for staff and just $525,000 on scholarships, according to tax returns. In 2022, it spent close to $5 million on salaries, records show.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute also raises large sums. Between 2020 and 2022,  it took in $30.5 million, tax records show, in many cases from the same Fortune 500 players that give to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

Of its $12.5 million raised in 2022, the institute spent $7 million, or 56% of its revenue, paying staffers, holding an annual conference, and for travel, records show. The $4.4 million the institute paid its staff that year was more than it spent on fellowships and interns combined.

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute aren’t the only nonprofits linked to congressional caucuses, but others, like the Republican Main Street Partnership which raised less than $2 million in 2022, are nowhere near as big financially. [MORE]

Is BLM Getting Reformed Into the System? BLM’s Leaders Used Charitable Funds To Enrich Themselves And Their Families, New Documents Show

/

From [HERE] Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) has paid out millions in contracts to insiders, newly released tax documents show.

The nation’s largest BLM organization approved lucrative contracts to firms owned by members of the organization’s leadership and their family members between July 2022 and June 2023, tax filings show. The shuffling of charitable funds to private companies owned by interested parties raises considerable ethical concerns given the lack of oversight and the possible conflicts of interest, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Whether a person loves this charity’s mission or hates it, they should be angry that significant amounts of charitable dollars are being channeled to interested parties without adequate oversight in place,” Charity Watch Executive Director Laurie Styron told the DCNF. “Charities are expected to avoid both real and perceived conflicts of interest to maintain public trust. This charity is doing the opposite. The optics here are really, really bad.”

BLMGNF “has no independent oversight” as the charity’s board is too small to effectively guard against the misuse of funds from those in charge of the organization, Styron said.

The organization paid the consulting firm BOWERS* nearly $2.6 million during the time frame for “staffing and management services,” according to tax filings. Shalomyah Bowers, the secretary of the charity’s board, owns at least 35% of that firm. [MORE]

DOJ says Phoenix Cops Routinely Unlawfully Stop, Detain and Arrest Black, Latino and Homeless People and DA Disproportionately Charge and Over Charge Them w/Crimes, Violating Their Imaginary "Rights"

/

QUICK QUIZ FOR LEGAL SCHOLARS: DO SO CALLED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EXIST A) ON THE STREET B) ONLY IN LAW BOOKS C) ONLY IN THE COURT HOUSE OR D) ONLY IN YOUR MIND? [MORE]

Thanks for Your Vote NGHR but Keep the Change: Treadmilling Black Puppeticians Run Their Mouths About Police Brutality But Cops are Murdering Black People in Cities Where White Liberals are in Control

From [HERE] The U.S. Department of Justice found on Thursday that the Phoenix Police Department uses excessive force, violates constitutional rights, particularly those of homeless people, and discriminates against Black, Hispanic and Native American people.

The results came after a lengthy investigation, which found a "pattern" of violations by the police department, saying they frequently stop, detain and arrest homeless people without reasonable suspicion that they've committed any crime. The city and its police department also seize and destroy the property of homeless people without providing adequate notice of fair opportunity to collect their belongings, the DOJ said.

The DOJ also said certain laws, which include drug-related crimes and certain misdemeanors, have been applied with greater severity to Hispanic, Black and Native American people, also finding that the Police Department used "dangerous tactics that lead to unnecessary and unreasonable use of force."

The behavior violated the First, Fourth and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, which protect free speech, prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantee equal protection under the law, according to Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. She recapped the Department's finding in the 126-page report.

"This finding is historic," Clarke said. "This marks the first time that the Justice Department has found violations of the civil and constitutional rights of people who are homeless." [what a clown! homeless people’s so-called “rights” have been destroyed by authorities for decades. the real question is where do these MF rolebots come from?]

She also highlighted that about 37% of the department's misdemeanor offenses were against unhoused individuals.

At the same time, she noted, officers are disproportionately targeting communities of color. For instance, Black drivers in Phoenix are 144 times more likely than white drivers to be arrested or cited for low-level moving violations, while Hispanic drivers are 40% more likely to be arrested or cited for the same thing.

Similarly, DOJ data shows that Phoenix cites and arrests Black people for marijuana possession at nearly seven times the rate of white people and Hispanic people more than three times the rate. Black, Hispanic and Native American people are disproportionately charged with pedestrian traffic violations and loitering, the Justice Department said.

These behaviors are applied to children of color as well, who are often treated the same as adults, according to the DOJ.

"Not only does such conduct harm children but it can contribute to fear and distrust of law enforcement by the next generation of Phoenix residents," Clarke said.

The police department referred requests for comment about the findings to the city. Then, Mayor Kate Gallego said the city had received the report at the same time as the public.

"The City Council will meet this month— in Executive Session on June 25— to receive legal advice, better understand the report, and discuss next steps," Gallego said in a statement. "I will carefully and thoroughly review the findings before making further comments."

Clarke said the DOJ will work with the city to find solutions. She stopped short of saying the department would be out under a consent decree, which typically is used to create and enforce changes within a local or state governmental agency when evidence of misconduct is found, according to NBC News.

DOJ Probes Trenton Cops Use of Excessive Force, Violating Civil Rights of Black People, Racism Not Alleged [enforcing "Rights" After they are violated means rights only Exist if an Authority says so]

/

From [HERE] The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a federal civil rights investigation into New Jersey's capital city and its police department's use of force, stops, searches and arrests.

The "pattern or practice investigation" will determine whether the Trenton Police Department has systemically violated federal law or the Constitution. It will include a comprehensive review of the department's policies, training, supervision, internal investigation protocols, disciplinary decisions and other protocols regarding complaints, the Department of Justice said in a statement Tuesday.

"Unfortunately, we have reviewed numerous reports that Trenton police officers may have used force inappropriately and conducted stops, searches, and arrests with no good reason in violation of individuals’ constitutional rights," U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger said Tuesday. "Today’s announcement reflects our office’s commitment to ensuring effective, constitutional policing in Trenton and throughout New Jersey."

The investigation was welcomed by Mount Laurel attorney Gregg Zeff, who represents a former Burlington City resident who was shot and paralyzed by Trenton police in February 2022.

"I'm also frustrated that it took the paralysis of Jajuan Henderson to bring this to the attention of the federal government, but it did not wake up Trenton," Zeff said.

Henderson's lawsuit contends police officers approached his parked car shortly after midnight, smashed the driver's side window and shot him as he tried to call for help on his cellphone.

But police said Henderson, then 29, was unable to produce an ID or driver's license, and that he refused to leave the vehicle after being told he was under arrest. Police also alleged Henderson reached around the vehicle's interior, "including below seats."

Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, who oversees the Justice Department's civil rights division, said the investigation was not prompted by a specific incident and the department is not alleging racial discrimination.

Video Catches Seattle Police Bang On Black Man Like a Drum w/Metal Batons in Secluded Area. White Cops Grab Hair, Put a Knee on His Neck to Force Obedience to Authority During Arrest for Unknown Crime

/

Deeanthony Marcell, who recorded the video, also uploaded it to his Instagram, where it had been viewed nearly 15,000 times as of Thursday afternoon. Marcell, a musician, said he was on a bus headed to a rehearsal when he came upon the incident in South Seattle.

He said that he did not know what preceded the beating but that he believed he was witnessing an injustice. The officers were likely unaware they were being recorded, he said, because the area was inaccessible by foot. Marcell said the man was screaming for help as he was beaten. [MORE]

A White Bluffton Cop Pulled a Handcuffed Black Man's legs out from Under him Causing Him to Fall Face First Into the Pavement. Govt Settles Case for $750k [the power to Use Force Offensively is Evil]

/

From [HERE] Almost seven years have passed since Bluffton Police Officer Cody Kirkman flipped Ted Ellis face first onto the May River Road pavement, kneeling on the handcuffed man's back while blood leaked from his chin.

Since that humid August afternoon in 2017, Ellis pursued a lawsuit that slowly wound its way through the courts. Attorneys, allegations and defendants came and went as he pressed his claim, challenging the officer's actions during the traffic stop that day. But in March, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dispatched Kirkman's final challenge. Ellis accepted a $750,000 settlement offer after his excessive force claim prevailed. The money was paid out by the agency overseeing the state insurance reserve fund, according to his attorney.

Kirkman fought wrongdoing appearances and allegations from the arrest to the appellate court, but evidence in the case challenges the officer's narrative. 

Kirkman's attorneys argued that Ellis could pose a danger without a thorough search. A magistrate who reviewed the case found that argument unconvincing. 

Kirkman leaned down, grabbed the handcuffed Ellis below the knee, and pulled his legs out from under him. Nothing broke Ellis' fall. His face hit the pavement. Kirkman said in the incident report he reached around Ellis' waist to control his center of gravity, a claim refuted by video, reports from both of the other officers at the scene, and, eventually, his own deposition.

Kirkman knelt on Ellis' back. Ellis was shocked, "Oh, no," he repeated before the shock resided. He threatened that he would "find" Kirkman.

On top of the man prone on the pavement, Kirkman yelled at Ellis to "stop moving." In the reflection of the car's sheen, Kirkman's hand appeared on top of his leg, pressed onto Ellis' back, his black wedding ring stark against Ellis' white tank top and the officer's pale skin. Ellis' blood dribbled from his chin under the car toward the side of the road. Gibson held Ellis' feet.

Kirkman knelt on Ellis' back for almost nine minutes, a detail omitted in his incident report description.

At one point, Kirkman dismounted and Ellis requested he return. During other moments, Ellis asked to be helped off the ground, with Kirkman remaining on top.

Eventually, officers helped Ellis sit up.

"Officer, you had no business doing that," Ellis said.

Kirkman stammered. What ensued was a brief argument that mirrored litigation each side's attorneys would make in the simplest terms.

Ellis repeated his position: Kirkman was in the wrong.

Ellis' attorneys said he had a fractured jaw, was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome and lost a number of teeth, which they argued stemmed from the incident.

In the waning moments of the video, a firefighter hosed Ellis' blood off the street.

Bluffton's excessive use of force report found that Kirkman used a "reasonable amount of force necessary to conduct a proper search of Ellis." It also said that the three officers at the scene "did not prevent Ted Ellis from hurting himself."

Kenney said the case was about "the proposition that a police officer cannot use potentially deadly force against a handcuffed suspect who is not attempting to fight or flee."

Kirkman was promoted in 2018. He ultimately resigned from the department in 2021. His LinkedIn page shows he works for a Beaufort-based tree care organization and owns a personal training company. Gibson resigned in October 2017. Swinehamer quit in March 2019.

Jefferson Parish Cops Claim They Had to Shoot Calvin Cain to Death b/c He Started to Drive Toward Them but a Witness says the Car Never Moved. 1 Year Later Cops Refuse to Release Body Cam, Suit Filed

/

From [HERE] A Black family in New Orleans has announced they're filing a lawsuit against Jefferson Parish Sheriff Joe Lopinto and some of his deputies accusing them of using excessive force. Last summer a deputy shot and killed a man they say was trying to escape and then drove towards a deputy. 

WWL Louisiana's Eleanor Tabone sat down with Calvin Cain's mother and his best friend days after the shooting, now the family is suing the sheriff's office.

At the time of the shooting, Lopinto said NOPD asked for help in locating the man suspected in a shooting in New Orleans. Armed with the information that the suspect lived in The Lumiere apartment complex in the 3300 block of West Esplanade, Lopinto said officers found a car identified in the New Orleans shooting and waited for the suspect."

At a press conference after the shooting, the sheriff said, "They attempted to block that vehicle in which he tried to make his escape from it. Running into the back of the fence, turning the vehicle wheels forward, where I had one of my deputies approaching him at that time. My deputy ended up firing shots into the windshield."

Mallory Woodfork, Calvin's mother told Eleanor Tabone last year she watched her child die, saying, "My son Calvin, walked out the building...  I'm watching my son, I could tell he was on FaceTime because of how he was holding the phone. I saw when he turned where the car was at, and as soon he got in the car, I saw a white F-150, whatever pickup truck, when boom, bam, and I heard shots instantly."

The family maintains Calvin never started the car and drove towards a deputy. Woodfork said last year, "He didn't move, he didn't have the opportunity to move. And I was there. His mama witnessed his murder. I was just 15 feet away."

Martin said on that fatal day she was on Facetime with him as he was walking to his car, saying, "He put the phone up, he sit down. As soon as gets ready to start the car, I just heard a car crash, the phone just dropped to the floor. So I am like 'Calvin, Calvin, Calvin,' he's not saying nothing. So I hung up the phone. I call back he doesn't answer. I call back again, he doesn't answer. I call back, he doesn't answer."

Now the family is calling for justice. Lawyer Bobby DiCello said, "She needs to know that her community is safe and this lawsuit is about exploring the problems in Jefferson Parish." 

The family's legal team is pushing for JPSO to release the body camera video.

DiCello said, "It's a chance to get to the bottom of the story, a story the Jefferson Parish sheriff will not allow to be told. If Calvin did wrong, it would be on that video."

Woodfork said, "I want him to release the bodycam, release the camera." 

Lawyers say the suit is being filed in federal court. Calvin would have turned 20 next week.

Fed Ct Rules COVID Shots are Not Vaccines b/c They Don’t Prevent the Spread of COVID. Thus, the LA Mandate is Not Rationally Related to Preventing Disease, Violates the Right to Refuse Med Treatment

/

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the COVID mandate in LA is unlawful and violates the individual’s right to refuse medical treatment. The court held that mRNA COVID injections are not “vaccines” within the meaning of Supreme Court case precedent because they don’t prevent transmission or provide immunity from COVID. As such, COVID shots are simply medical treatments and do not the pass strict scrutiny under the Constitution because individuals have the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.

While the decision is considered a victory to many people who take their freedom seriously, it is nevertheless cowardly because it is so late. That is, most mandates are no longer in effect and the decision comes after millions have already been forced by the government to take deadly, experimental injections - which was the point. Such is the nature of the lex-icon in the free range prison.

The ruling centers on a lawsuit brought by Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) and other plaintiffs who challenged Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) adoption of a policy that required its employees to get the Covid-19 vaccine to keep their jobs. LAUSD issued the initial vaccine policy March 4, 2021.

There was no trial. The government requested the court to make a judgement on the pleadings, which is a pre-trial motion like a motion to dismiss. To make a decision the court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The district court granted the government’s motion by ruling that “mandatory vaccination laws are generally constitutional” and that “Supreme Court precedent did not require that a vaccine have the specific purpose of preventing disease.’ According to the District Court, Supreme Court precedent states that rational basis review (a low standard of review) applied to these facts and under rational basis review no case can plausibly challenge a mandatory vaccination policy. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district court misapplied Supreme Court precedent which states that “the principle of vaccination is to prevent the spread of disease and or provide immunity.” The court must balance the an individual’s liberty interest with the government’s societal interest in preventing disease. The government’s interest of preventing societal disease will generally supersede an individual’s liberty rights with regard to a vaccine mandate.

However, in this case the plaintiffs alleged that due to the fact that COVID shots do not prevent the spread of COVID or provide immunity, they were simply individual medical treatments - not vaccines. The complaint stated, “According to most official sources, the most the shot could arguably do was to reduce an infected person’s symptoms. Thus, it is a therapeutic, no different than taking an aspirin or other medicine to reduce the symptoms of illness.” Plaintiffs argued that “the Covid-19 shots do not prevent the spread of Covid-19 and thus must be considered as a private health matter - compulsory medication - not a public one.” Importantly, the government did not properly dispute those claims and argued that the shots are intended to reduce an individual’s symptoms of COVID and were “safe and effective” at doing so. As such, the court overruled the district court decision due to the fact that COVID shots do not meet “the principle of vaccination” or legal standard for vaccinations because they don’t prevent transmission or provide immunity. The court explained that ‘a government has power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing a person from spreading disease to others but it may not force medical treatment that is solely for the recipient’s benefit.’ The court explained that even under rational basis review (‘not crazy review’), which is a very low standard of review, the COVID mandate is unlawful because its purpose is not rationally related to preventing the spread of COVID. This is so because the injections don’t prevent transmission or provide immunity. Rather, COVID mandates have the purpose of reducing an individual’s symptoms - thus Supreme Court precedent concerning vaccines does not apply to the COVID mandate.

Furthermore, the concurrence from judge Collins explained that the district court applied the wrong standard of review and should have applied strict scrutiny review because the mandate invoked the plaintiff’s Constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. Collins said, ‘a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.’ The Supreme Court’s case law clarifies that compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated—as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others—implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.’ Collins explained that the plaintiff’s allegations have invoked that right.’ Accordingly, the district court erroneously applied rational basis review and should used a higher standard to review the mandate because it infringed on fundamental Constitutional rights. Nevertheless, as explained, even under the lowest legal standard of review the mandate is unlawful because COVID shots are mere individual medical treatment, not a vaccine as defined by Supreme Court case law. [MORE]

The complaint stated that individuals have a Constitutional right to refuse to inject themselves with the Covid-19 shots. It stated,

The Supreme Court has recognized the right to bodily integrity as one of the most fundamental rights known to man. Indeed, it has been called “first among equals”. As the Supreme Court has said: ‘No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.’” Guertin v. State of Michigan, 912 F.3d 907, 918 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)). Indeed, the Supreme Court has “never retreated ... from [its] recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests.” Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 159 (2013). For more than a hundred years, the Supreme Court has applied meaningful judicial review to government actions that invaded this right to bodily integrity. It did so even before creating the modern tiers of constitutional scrutiny.

[MORE HERE] and [HERE]

In a similar suit that also challenges a federal COVID mandate in the US District Court for the District of Utah (funded by Dr. David Martin) the same arguments were made. The complaint in that case explains,

“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).32

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

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