Dennis Behreandt: Depopulation by Design
/From [HERE] Here is a bit of bad news: We are in the end stage of a multi-pronged, multi-front, multi- decadal war against life itself. It gets worse: Most people have only a vague idea, at best, that this war is raging around them and that they and their families and their nations are the target. The enemy’s objective is to destroy the family, the nation that inevitably has its roots in the family, the religion that supports and breathes life into this superstructure, and even a majority of the individual people who live within this “vital framework.” The goal is simply the complete revolution of life, resulting in a globally managed state run through the United Nations and its affiliate NGOs and peopled by a carefully “curated” and “managed” population of humans “who own nothing and are happy.”
One of the most significant battles in this war that is now in its “kinetic” phase in Ukraine and Israel is biowarfare — specifically the Covid pandemic and the seemingly insane response to it. The global “insane” response to the pandemic, in fact, was the “skeleton key” that unlocked the pathway to the truth about what was happening. From a public-health standpoint, none of the policies instituted did a single thing to help human health and well-being. From standing six feet apart, following arrows on the floor in grocery stores, wearing masks, and telling people that for the most part they were “non- essential workers,” pandemic response policies had zero to do with actually helping people stay healthy, but everything to do with controlling and managing a population through fear and peer pressure. And this was pandemic policy at its best.
At its worst, the most extreme pandemic responses were and remain outright deadly attacks on human life. The virus itself almost certainly was bioengineered. Many public policies directly intermingled the sick with the weak and elderly, in a barely concealed attempt to do in the old and infirm. Globally, life- saving medications such as ivermectin were ridiculed and removed from the market, while dangerous concoctions were prescribed to the sick and hospital “protocols” including “ventilation” turned healthcare facilities into killing fields and medical practitioners, mostly unknowingly, into executioners. Finally, the vax with a raft of deadly side effects was unleashed on billions who believed with starry- eyed faith that everything being done to them was for the their own good.
Worldwide, this was a globally managed operation to lead billions of good and trusting people to injury, sickness, and, in far too many cases, death. But Covid was just the most recent, and perhaps most egregious, event in the biowarfare front of the Deep State global war on everyone else. The triple aims sought by the Deep State on this front are population transformation, control, and reduction. As this special report of The New American will demonstrate, the Deep State death cult has made significant advances, to the bloody detriment of millions around the globe, just since 2019. [MORE]
Study: COVID Shots Possibly Fueled Millions of Deaths in 47 Countries Since Beginning of the Pandemic Due to “Adverse Events”
/From [HERE] A recently released significant study has confirmed the suspicions of so-called COVID “conspiracy theorists” by suggesting a link between the COVID-19 shot and millions of excess deaths worldwide.
As GB News reported on Tuesday, scientists from the Netherlands’ Vrije Universiteit discovered despite the rollout of 13.5 billion COVID vaccines across the globe, excess mortality remained shockingly high. These findings were published in BMJ Public Health.
The scientists wrote that this “new” information raised “serious concerns.” They then elaborated on adverse events that have been reported following the introduction of the Fauci ouchie, including severe injuries and deaths.
“Although COVID-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the COVID-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well,” the authors wrote. “Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”
“During the pandemic, it was emphasized by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every Covid-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and Covid-19 vaccines,” they continued. “In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply.”
The scientists went on to cite numerous studies which revealed that COVID-19 vaccination may induce myocarditis, pericarditis, and autoimmune diseases.
“This commonality hinders clinical suspicion and consequently its detection as adverse vaccine reactions,” the authors wrote. [MORE]
Most Studies Show COVID Vaccine Affects Menstrual Cycles, BMJ Review Finds
/From [HERE] Women experienced menstrual cycle disruption following COVID-19 vaccination, including changes in cycle length, flow and menstrual pain, according to a new “state of the science” review published Monday in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health.
Although women comprised about half of the participants in the original COVID-19 vaccine trials, no data were collected on how the shots affected their menstrual cycles.
Soon after the shots were rolled out, many women started reporting longer periods and heavier-than-normal bleeding, and many women who did not normally menstruate — including women on long-acting contraceptives and post-menopausal women — also reported unusual bleeding.
Tens of thousands of women reported symptoms to researchers and medical regulators in the U.S. and the United Kingdom respectively by mid-2021.
At the time, women’s concerns were often “blown off” and they felt “gaslighted,” Dr. Alison Edelman, one of the review article authors, told NBC.
Researchers called for studies into the issue, in part because they said disrupted menstrual cycles were driving “misinformation” that the vaccines were dangerous and fueling “vaccine hesitancy.”
Since then, dozens of studies have been published on the issue.
For the BMJ review, researchers from Harvard, Boston University, Michigan State University and Oregon Health & Science University surveyed and summarized the existing published literature in the PubMed database — which contains peer-reviewed research in the biomedical and life sciences literature — on the COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation. [MORE]
CNN's Enten: We're Watching Historic Numbers Of Black Voters Under 50 Giving Up On Democratic Party
/CNN's Harry Enten takes a look at polls showing black voters under 50 defecting from the Democratic Party.
"Look at Black voters under the age of 50. Holy cow, folks," he said. "Joe Biden was up by 80 points among this group back at this point in 2020. Look at where that margin has careened down towards. It's just -- get this -- 37 points. That lead has dropped by more than half."
"I've just never seen anything like this. I'm, like, speechless... We are looking at a historic moment right now where Black voters under the age of 50, who have historically been such a big part of the Democratic coalition, are leaving it in droves." [MORE]
Contrary to Gas Lighting by The Dependent Media about the Economy BP Research Finds that Over half of Latinos are concerned about not being able to pay next month's rent or mortgage
/
From [HERE] Over half of Latinos in Arizona, Texas and California say they are worried about not being able to pay next month's rent or mortgage, according to a new survey conducted by BSP Research on behalf of the Latino civil rights and advocacy organization UnidosUS.
The study, "titled Latino Banking and Financial Health Survey," sought to better understand the financial situation of the 62 million Latinos living in the United States.
Researchers surveyed 1,200 Latinos on economic issues such as their use of bank accounts, junk fees, and access to credit, as well as other financial health measures, including their saving levels, retirement savings, health care spending, and debt.
Among the most pressing concerns, 54 percent of respondents in Arizona and California said they were afraid of not being able to make their rent or mortgage payments, while 49 percent of respondents in Texas felt that way, UnidosUS specified during a briefing on the study on Tuesday.
These rates are higher among young Latinos. The findings show that about two-thirds (66 percent) of young Latinos aged 25-39 are concerned about next month's rent or mortgage payment, compared to 44 percent of those aged 40 and over.
Debt is also higher among younger Latinos. 59 percent of all respondents have $100,000 or more in mortgage debt, but that figure is 53 percent for those 40 and older and 81 percent for those between 25 and 39.
Ohio Legislative Black Caucus Identifies Death Penalty as a Legislative Priority Due to Legacy of Racial Violence and Bias
/From [HERE] On June 11, 2024, the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus (OLBC) held a press conference highlighting the group’s legislative priorities, which included the death penalty as a key concern. Noting “the racial cycle of injustice perpetrated by the death penalty,” State Representative Terrence Upchurch, who is also the president of the OLBC, insisted that legislative leadership move toward “dismantling this flawed system and establishing a new legacy of equality and justice in Ohio.”
Rep. Upchurch and other members of the OLBC espoused many of the key takeaways from the Death Penalty Information Center’s latest report, Broken Promises: How a History of Racial Violence and Bias Shaped Ohio’s Death Penalty. Chief among their concerns were the race of victim effect and the potential for innocent people to be sentenced to death due to bias among prosecutors, judges, and juries. As noted in Broken Promises, homicides involving white female victims are six times more likely to result in an execution than homicides involving Black victims. The report also revealed that innocent Black Ohioans collectively spent nearly 200 years on death row for crimes they did not commit. The stories included in the report underscore the OLBC’s concerns about racial bias tainting capital proceedings. Jurors, expert witnesses, and attorneys who made overtly racist statements participated in sentencing multiple Black Ohioans to death.
“Ohio’s death penalty system reflects a legacy of racial violence and bias,” said Rep. Upchurch. “Black defendants face a prejudiced process, making a fair trial nearly impossible.” Senate Bill 101 and House Bill 259, both advocating for death penalty abolition, have bipartisan support in both chambers. Neither bill has progressed since being referred to committee in 2023.
New Accusations of Prosecutorial Misconduct in Virginia Capital Case Emerge Three Years After State Abolishes Death Penalty
/From [HERE] A June 2024 petition filed in the Prince William County, Virginia Circuit Court, accuses former Commonwealth Attorney (CA) Paul Ebert of withholding exculpatory evidence during the trial of Louis Jefferson Dukes Jr., who, along with his nephew Lonnie Weeks Jr., was convicted of murdering a state trooper in 1994 during a traffic stop. Mr. Dukes was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, while Mr. Weeks was found guilty, received the death penalty, and was executed in 2000. In the petition filed with the circuit court, Mr. Dukes’ attorney alleges that CA Ebert made “material misrepresentations” in court when the prosecution claimed that serology reports established Mr. Dukes’ proximity to the state trooper when he was killed. The petition states that “the commonwealth’s attorney knew this was not the victim’s blood on [Mr. Dukes’] jacket,” despite his arguments regarding proximity. Richard MacDowell, an attorney for Mr. Dukes, alleges that CA Ebert also made a deal with Mr. Dukes’ cellmate that included a promise to seek a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony in Mr. Dukes’ case.
Throughout his more than 50 years in office, CA Ebert secured 13 death sentences, placing Prince William County, Virginia, on the list of top death penalty jurisdictions. Despite his success securing death sentences, courts have found several other instances in which CA Ebert and his office withheld exculpatory material in capital cases. In 2009, CA Ebert was criticized for withholding evidence in the case of John Allen Muhammad, but the Court decided the evidence would not have altered the trial’s outcome. Just two years later, citing evidence that CA Ebert’s office once again withheld evidence, U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson overturned the capital conviction of Justin Wolfe, holding that crucial impeachment evidence was withheld from the defense. Upholding Jude Jackson’s ruling, the appeals court wrote that because of the earlier ruling in Mr. Muhammad’s case, CA Ebert’s office should “err on the side of disclosure, especially when a defendant is facing the specter of execution.”
Supreme Court Ruling Weakens Protections for Poor Defendants Sentenced to Death
/From [HERE] In a 6-3 decision on May 30, the Supreme Court deviated from its own precedent and practice to uphold an Arizona man’s death sentence despite a federal appellate court ruling that his trial lawyer was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Danny Jones was accused of killing three people during an attempted theft in 1992. Arizona prosecutors sought the death penalty. Mr. Jones, who said his drug use led to the offense, could not afford to hire an attorney. A public defender who had been an attorney for only about three years and had never been a lead attorney on a capital case was assigned to represent him.
A long line of precedent flowing from the Court’s 1986 decision in Strickland v. Washington establishes that defense attorneys have a constitutional duty to investigate and present evidence of mitigating circumstances to the sentencer in a capital case.
But Mr. Jones’s lawyer did not investigate potential mitigation evidence until after the jury had already convicted him of capital murder. He never hired a mental health expert and failed to request neurological or neuropsychological testing until the day of the sentencing hearing, even though he knew that Mr. Jones was “oxygen-deprived at birth and had a lithium deficiency—a condition linked to serious psychiatric disorders” and that “he was medicated for mood disorders, had attempted suicide and had been admitted to a mental hospital,” Courthouse News reports.
Mr. Jones was sentenced to death. On appeal, he argued that he had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed and reversed his death sentence, finding that the public defender’s performance was deficient and there was a reasonable probability that Mr. Jones would not have been sentenced to death if his lawyer had presented available evidence about his mental health. [MORE]
Justice for the Rich and White: Pennsylvania Public Defense System is Unconstitutional, Underfunded by at Least $100M, New ACLU Suit Says
/From [HERE] Pennsylvania has failed to live up to its constitutional responsibility to provide an effective defense to people who can’t afford attorneys and will need to spend at least $100 million to fulfill this obligation, the ACLU of Pennsylvania said in a lawsuit filed Thursday.
The group brought the suit on behalf of 17 people facing issues including little to no contact with the public defenders they are entitled to, according to the lawsuit.
It was also filed on behalf of all current and future indigent people, those accused of a crime and unable to pay for a private defense attorney. If the court approves this group as a class, any outcome will extend to all of those affected.
The suit blames the state, not the counties, for failing to properly fund these constitutionally mandated services and names Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, state Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward (R., Westmoreland) and state House Speaker Joanna McClinton (D., Philadelphia) as defendants.
At the moment, Pennsylvania only provides $7.5 million to support indigent defense. Counties must make up the rest with limited local funds, and public defenders’ offices are often shut out from funding opportunities available to prosecutors, the suit asserts citing Spotlight PA reporting.
The suit asks Commonwealth Court to rule the current public defense system unconstitutional and retain oversight until the state fully complies with the constitutional right to counsel.
Rather than seeking damages for specific plaintiffs, the suit is pursuing holistic reform, said ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Vic Walczak.
“You’re trying to change how an institution works — here we’re actually talking about how 67 institutions work,” he told Spotlight PA.
FBI Violated Hundreds of Americans' Constitutional Rights & Lied About It
/In 2021, FBI agents lied to a judge, got permission to raid safe-deposit boxes owned by people suspected of no crime, and then sent hundreds of forfeiture notices never saying what the box owners did wrong. Then they lost the contents of many of the boxes, including retirees' entire life savings. But don't take our word for it. Head over to The Los Angeles Times(link is external) and see the FBI agents admit as much under oath.
Suit Claims a Columbus Cop Misidentified and Shot a Black Man in the Back and Testicles. Says Police Fail to Properly Investigate Cop Violence and Shootings of Blacks in White, Liberal City
/
From [HERE] A 20-year-old Black man is suing Columbus police, accusing an officer of “sadistic and malicious use of excessive force” for shooting him after mistaking him for a suspect in a shooting.
Jaylen Fisher was pursued and shot in the back while he was attempting to get away from a live shooter at a gas station on South High Street. Officers misidentified Jaylen Fisher as the suspect and pursued him in a car and on foot, according to the lawsuit filed in February in U.S. District Court in Columbus.
Fisher was not charged with any crime related to the initial shooting, which prompted the police response and resulted in no other injuries.
According to the complaint:
‘On March 1, 2022, at approximately 4:22 pm police responded to a shots-fired call at 3377 East Livingston Ave Columbus, Ohio. Without justification, Defendant Kissee escalated the situation with the use of hostile commands. Ultimately without justification, Defendant Kissee shot Jaylen Fisher in the back while Jaylen Fisher was attempting to surrender to police.
It was clear to an average observer that Jaylen Fisher was suffering from an injury requiring immediate emergent medical treatment.
Jaylen Fisher was rushed by ambulance to the hospital. It was discovered that he suffered a gunshot wound to the left mid-thigh and a gunshot wound to his testicles.’
It further states that “Columbus Police Department had interrelated de facto policies, practices, and customs which included
a) The failure to properly hire, train, supervise, discipline, transfer, monitor, counsel, and/or otherwise control Columbus Police Department Officers who engage in unjustified use of excessive and unreasonable force, including unjustified shootings;
b) a code of silence
c) The failure to properly investigate the use of excessive and unreasonable force
against civilians, particularly African Americans, by Columbus Police Officers and/or
d) The failure to properly train and supervise Columbus Police Department
Officers with regard to discharging their weapons at civilians, particularly at
African Americans.
The Columbus Police Department has engaged in little or no meaningful disciplinary actions in response to Mr. Kissee’s own misconduct, thereby creating a culture or climate that members of the Coumbus Police Department can escape accountability with impunity.”
Fisher accused Columbus Black strawboss police Chief Elaine Bryant and the city in the lawsuit of a prolonged practice of using excessive force, which was the “moving force” behind Kissee’s “excessive, malicious and sadistic” use of force.
In February, the city filed a motion to have two legal claims made in the lawsuit dismissed and to remove Bryant as a defendant. Fisher’s attorneys said in a separate filing that they do not oppose dismissing Bryant or the legal claims.
Columbus Cops Continue to Terrorize Blacks While Providing UnDeclinable Public Service: White Cop Fired but Not Charged w/a Crime for Slamming Black Teens Face to the Ground, Dragging Him by His Hair
/
From [HERE] A white Columbus police officer is out of a job thanks to his actions caught on bodycam during a 14-year-old Black boy’s arrest. However, the oofficer has yet to be charged with any crime after his aggravated assault on the child.
In a document dated for Tuesday, the Columbus police chief and director of public safety decided to terminate Officer Donovan Bever. They charged him with violating the division’s rule of conduct, noting abusive or violent behavior and violating its policy on use of force.
The document details multiple examples of Bever’s conduct during a Feb. 19 arrest of a 14-year-old boy as the reasoning behind his termination:
While arresting the teen, Bever grabbed him by his dreadlocks and “forcefully caused his head/face to strike a concrete walkway.” The facts of the case did not justify the use of force as “objectively reasonable,” according to the document.
Bever “forcefully pushed” the teen’s face into the concrete walkway.
Bever removed a phone charger and another unidentified object from the teen’s pockets during a search, then threw them at him and struck him in the face.
After placing the teen in handcuffs, Bever told the teen “you move, I will break your face.”
Making the teen stand up, Bever then escorted him by his dreadlocks to a police van.
While conducting another search of the teen, Bever “aggressively struck him in the groin” with his hand.
The officer was one of two to be fired within a week. In a separate case, Chief Elaine Bryant decided to terminate Officer Robert Spann after saying he engaged in “excessive” sex acts with a store employee while working special duty at an area Kroger.
The video from the same Feb. 19 arrest showed Bever was conducting a traffic stop with another officer for a pedestrian in the roadway while patrolling in Linden. At about 4 p.m., they rolled up on two 14-year-old boys they had seen earlier. When the officers approached the pair of teens, they took off running.
The second officer got out of the police car within the apartment complex and ran toward the boys, while Bever drove the car around to a different area. When the second officer spotted the two teens across the lawn, he pulled out and aimed his firearm in the boys’ direction and shouted “Drop to the ground right now.”
Continuing to advance on the pair, the second officer yelled “Get on the f***ing ground or I’ll shoot you.” He then strained his voice to shout “On the ground” several times. The teens followed the officer’s instructions. He then approached and began to place one of the boys into handcuffs while he was face down on the ground.
While the second officer began to arrest the first teen, Bever caught up to the group. Bever’s bodycam recorded him running over to the other teen, grabbing the boy’s dreadlocks and shoving him face down into the sidewalk. Bever continued to pull on the teen’s dreadlocks to steer him, as Bever used his other hand to place the boy into handcuffs.
The footage showed Bever continuously pushing the boy’s face into the ground, while the teen is heard repeating “I’m sorry” several times. One of the teens can also be heard repeating “I’m complying, I’m complying.”
When Bever then rolled the teen onto his back, he could be heard saying, “You move, I will break your face.” While searching the teen’s pockets, he pulled out a phone charger and another unidentified object and threw them in the 14-year-old’s face. After forcefully rolling the teen around to his other side, the teen was visibly bleeding from his mouth.
Bever then took the teen to a police van for another search, holding him by his dreadlocks. Once there, Bever could be heard asking the teen “you got AIDS?”
Unless You’re Black, Open carry and concealed carry are legal without a permit in Indiana: Ring Video Shows a Provocative White Indy Cop Murder a Black Man Calmly Siting on a Porch w/a Gun in His Hand
/
From [HERE] Indy police have released additional video from a May incident where officers shot and killed an armed Black man on the front porch of a stranger’s home. Bodycam footage of the initial responding officer wasn’t included as the officer’s camera wasn’t activated.
Although the dependent media has emphasized in its “reporting” (here that means parroting whatever police say) that the Black man was armed, in Indiana open carry and concealed carry are legal without a permit. That is, at least in regard to white citizens. Individuals 18 years old or older not prohibited from carrying or possessing a handgun are no longer required to obtain a license to carry a handgun as of July 1, 2022. Open carry and concealed carry are legal without a permit. Individuals 18 years old or older not prohibited from carrying or possessing a handgun are no longer required to obtain a license to carry a handgun as of July 1, 2022. [MORE] In other words the black man had not committed a crime but merely possessing a gun in Indiana - if you believe in the existence of “rights.”
The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department published a critical incident video Thursday with details on a May 2 incident where two IMPD officers shot and killed Brandon Qualls while responding to reports of an armed man waving a gun.
The shooting
IMPD previously said officers were called shortly after 2 p.m. to the 600 block of 38th Street on Indy’s north side after receiving multiple calls about Qualls, 35, waving and pointing a gun at strangers in the area. He was also reportedly threatening to shoot people.
FOX59/CBS4 previously obtained three-minute-long doorbell camera footage that showed the moments before, during and after the shooting that left Qualls dead.
The beginning of the video shows an unknown man reclined on the porch calmly talking with Qualls about how carrying a gun is common in Indiana. Soon after, an IMPD officer is shown walking up on the porch toward Qualls, who is holding a handgun in his right hand.
“You’re fine, you know me,” Qualls can be heard saying. “I wouldn’t do this if it wasn’t what it is. If I’m wrong, tell me, please.”
While pointing his gun at Qualls the officer can be heard telling Qualls to put his hands up before Qualls who is startled by the cop’s quick appearance, reflexively raises his right hand while holding the gun. The cop was not under any imminent threat before he pointed the gun at the black man.
Kilyn Lewis was Holding a Phone w/Both Hands Up when an Aurora Race Soldier Murdered Him. Cops say 'Phones Look Like Guns' in Black Peoples Hands as Cop Murders of Blacks in White Liberal City Roll On
/
BLACK MAN DIDN’T POINT A CELL PHONE AT COPS.
From [HERE] Body-worn camera video released Thursday shows that Kilyn Lewis was holding a cellphone with both hands up when an Aurora Police officer shot and killed him last month.
Three camera angles show the 37-year-old Lewis behind a red Chevy Monte Carlo with both hands visible when SWAT teams attempted to arrest him in connection to an attempted homicide that occurred earlier that month. Three officers shout multiple commands and Lewis can be seen putting his left hand into his pocket and his right hand behind his back as he turns toward two of the officers.
He then puts both hands up and is holding a black object in his right hand. That turned out to be a cell phone. He does not point it at the officers. Officer Michael Dieck, one of three surrounding Lewis, fired a single shot from his rifle.
The video released by APD is narrated by Interim Chief Heather Morris and edited to show the perspective of three officers. It shows the moment they first confront Lewis until the moment he is shot. Seven seconds pass between the time he is ordered to “get on the ground” and when the shot is fired by Dieck.
“As you will see, Lewis took several steps and placed his right hand behind his back out of view,” Interim Aurora Police Chief Heather Morris said in the video. “When his hand came back into view, he was holding an object and one of our officers fired a single shot.”
Lewis appears to be bending his knees as though he is going to comply with the command to get on the ground when Dieck fires the shot.
“I don’t have nothing! I don’t have nothing! I don’t have nothing!” he shouts as he falls to his side. He died two days later in the hospital.
At a press conference held shortly after the video was released, an attorney for Lewis’s family called the incident a “murder.” [How was this unprovoked assault not a murder? what is this deluded “journalist” talking about here??]
“Aurora police officers had a duty to enforce the law that day. They failed. They didn't arrest one of their own when he clearly committed murder. What we all saw on that video is not policing,” said attorney Edward C. Hopkins. “When he took that shot, the rest of the officers looked at him with perplexity. There was a reason why they didn't take the shot. There was no reason to take the shot.”
Lewis died at the hospital two days after he was shot. Dieck is on paid administrative leave as standard policy. A Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) led by the 18th Judicial District is leading the investigation to determine if Dieck’s actions complied with state law.
“I know that nothing I can say can ease the pain this family is feeling. What I can do is ensure that a complete and thorough investigation is conducted and share those findings with our community,” Morris said. “We are committed to transparency and we will always seek ways to improve how we serve the people of Aurora.”
Dieck is a decorated 12-year veteran of the Aurora department. He previously was cleared in a 2018 shooting of a domestic violence suspect in which he fired seven shots at a man who had first fired at officers from a taxicab. That suspect survived.
Lewis’s family is being represented by Hopkins, from the firm responsible for some of the largest police misconduct settlements and verdicts in the state, Rathod Mohamedbhai. At the press conference at the firm’s offices, Lewis’ mother, LaRonda Jones, called for accountability on the actions of Dieck. Jones did not watch the video. But, she can only visualize what happened to her son.
“He should be alive right now. Right here in this very presence amongst all of us. But he's not,” Jones said. “It just really don't feel reel right now to me. I can't even begin to process what has happened to my son… But justice will not be denied. Just as you Officer Dieck stripped my son of his rights, I demand that you too face the consequences of your actions.”
Violent Crime Drops As Gun Ownership Continues to Climb
/From [HERE] New FBI data for the first quarter of 2024 shows violent crime dropped by more than 15 percent from the same period last year, at a time when U.S. gun ownership has continued to rise, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says this is more evidence widespread gun ownership is not the cause of crime.
“More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is probably a deterrent,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Recent data shows a 6.7 percent increase in gun ownership between 2017 and 2023, and during that period, gun ownership among women went up 13.6 percent.”
According to an FBI announcement:
“A comparison of data from agencies that voluntarily submitted at least two or more common months of data for January through March 2023 and 2024 indicates reported violent crime decreased by 15.2 percent. Murder decreased by 26.4 percent, rape decreased by 25.7 percent, robbery decreased by 17.8 percent, and aggravated assault decreased by 12.5 percent. Reported property crime also decreased by 15.1 percent.”
“This is a significant report,” Gottlieb stated, “because it literally destroys a myth that has been perpetuated for years by the gun prohibition lobby, that more guns results in more violent crime. Today, 29 states have passed laws eliminating the need for permits to carry firearms for personal protection, yet crime is down. More than 21 million Americans are licensed to carry, according to the most recent available data, suggesting they aren’t a problem, but might be part of the solution.”
The data covers the months of January through March. Attorney General Merrick Garland noted this new data on the decline in homicide “does not represent abstract statistics.” The declines in violent and property crime have been seen in every region of the country.
“What this report shows is that blaming lawful gun ownership for violent crime is a non-starter, and it always has been,” Gottlieb said.
Supreme Ct Says the Govt Can Permanently Revoke a Persons Gun Rights Automatically w/o Due Process or a Hearing Based on a Hearsay Finding by a Civil Court that 'He Might Commit a Crime in the Future'
/
“RIGHTS” OR FAVORS FROM A MASTER? Supreme Ct Manipulates 2nd Amendment Test to Disarm People.
The US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law barring gun ownership for individuals who have been subjected to domestic violence restraining orders by a civil court. Under the contested federal law in the case, the government automatically revokes an individual’s 2nd Amendment rights as a direct consequence of a finding that a person might commit a crime in the future. Thereafter, If a person violates the court order the government again automatically revokes their gun rights permanently as a direct consequence, without a hearing. [MORE]. Under Court’s holding, the individual need not be charged or arrested for the dangerous conduct and the judicial finding that ‘a person might commit a crime’ can be made at informal hearings based on hearsay and relaxed evidentiary rules with notice to the individual as the only Due Process protection.
Elites and their media are very pleased with the result.
In 2020, Zackey Rahimi and his ex-girlfriend, C. M., entered into a qualifying civil restraining order. C. M. had requested the order and asserted that Rahimi assaulted her. Because the order found that Rahimi presented a credible threat and prohibited him from using physical force against C. M., the order automatically triggered §922(g)(8)’s firearms ban. A year later, officers discovered firearms in Rahimi’s home. Rahimi pleaded guilty to violating §922(g)(8).
In 2022 the Supreme Court held in NY v Bruen that any law which infringes on an individual’s 2nd Amendment right is presumptively invalid and must be struck unless it is consistent with the nation’s tradition of firearm regulation. A law consistent with the nation’s tradition of firearm regulation ‘is analogous to laws that existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified and is a law that was “well established and representative” at the time.’ Nevertheless, in the new case the court rationalized that because surety laws, which merely fined people for domestic violence, existed at the time of the 2nd Amendment and because laws also existed that provided minor punishment for committing public affrays (violence in public) at the time of the 2nd Amendment, it could therefore uphold the federal domestic violence law as passing Constitutional muster. That is, the Court found traditional surety laws and affrays laws to be analogous to the federal domestic violence law despite the fact that the domestic violence law revokes gun rights permanently and carries felony punishment as opposed to a mere fine provided by surety laws and despite the fact that affrays laws were concerned with public violence/terror, not interpersonal violence such as domestic violence. Despite the lack of similarity to traditional laws existing at the time of the 2nd Amendment, the court inexplicably said the domestic violence passed the Court’s test. In the lone dissent Justice Thomas warned: ‘In short, laws targeting “dangerous” persons led to the Second Amendment. It would be passing strange to permit the Government to resurrect those self-same “dangerous” person laws to chip away at that Amendment’s guarantee.” He wrote,
“This case is not about whether States can disarm people who threaten others. States have a ready mechanism for disarming anyone who uses a firearm to threaten physical violence: criminal prosecution. Most States, including Texas, classify aggravated assault as a felony, punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§22.02(b), 12.33 (West 2019 and Supp. 2023). Assuming C. M.’s allegations could be proved, Texas could have convicted and imprisoned Rahimi for every one of his alleged acts. Thus, the question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order—even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot. The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence. The Government has not borne its burden to prove that §922(g)(8) is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.“
The law at issue, 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8) makes it unlawful for an individual who is subject to a civil restraining order to possess firearms or ammunition. To trigger §922(g)(8)’s prohibition, a restraining order must bear three characteristics. First, the order issues after a hearing where the accused “received actual notice” and had “an opportunity to participate.” §922(g)(8)(A). Second, the order restrains the accused from engaging in threatening behavior against an intimate part- ner or child. §922(g)(8)(B). Third, the order has either “a finding that [the accused] represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner or child,” or an “explici[t] prohibit[ion]” on “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against [an] intimate part- ner or child.” §922(g)(8)(C). If those three characteristics are present, §922(g)(8) automatically bans the individual subject to the order from possessing “any firearm or ammunition.” §922(g).
Just as important as §922(g)(8)’s express terms is what it leaves unsaid. Section 922(g)(8) does not require a finding that a person has ever committed a crime of domestic violence. It is not triggered by a criminal conviction or a person’s criminal history, unlike other §922(g) subsections. See §§922(g)(1), (9). And, §922(g)(8) does not distinguish contested orders from joint orders—for example, when parties voluntarily enter a no-contact agreement or when both parties seek a restraining order.
In addition, §922(g)(8) strips an individual of his ability to possess firearms and ammunition without any due process. Rather, the ban is an automatic, uncontestable consequence of certain orders. See §922(g) (“It shall be unlawful for any [qualifying] person [to] possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition”). There is no hearing or opportunity to be heard on the statute’s applicability, and a court need not decide whether a person should be dis- armed under §922(g)(8). The only process §922(g)(8) re- quires is that provided (or not) for the underlying restraining order.
Despite §922(g)(8)’s broad scope and lack of process, it carries strong penalties. Any violation of §922(g)(8) is a felony punishable by up to 15 years’ imprisonment. §924(a)(8). And, a conviction for violating §922(g)(8) itself triggers a permanent, life-long prohibition on possessing firearms and ammunition. See §922(g)(1).
Thomas stated that the law clearly violated the 2nd Amendment guarantee and the court “cobbled together” so-called “evidence” that the law was consistent with the nations tradition of firearms regulations - as the laws basis cited by the court were not relevant to the statute at issue. Specifically, laws preventing “dangerous persons” from possessing guns were historically aimed at quashing treason and rebellion - not domestic violence. Also affray laws concerned public affrays or crimes in public that terrorize the public. Such laws did not prohibit carry arms in public for self-defense or possessing arms at home. Additionally, although surety laws addressed interpersonal violence, the violation of surety laws did not permanently revoke rights and were not punishable as a felony- they only imposed a civil fine and kept gun rights intact. Thomas explained,
“Critically, a surety demand did not alter an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. After providing sureties, a person kept possession of all his firearms; could purchase additional firearms; and could carry firearms in public and private. Even if he breached the peace, the only penalty was that he and his sureties had to pay a sum of money. To disarm him, the Government would have to take some other action, such as imprisoning him for a crime.”
As such, the court’s historical comparisons used to uphold the law were nonsensical. Justice Thomas stated,
The Court’s contrary approach of mixing and matching historical laws—relying on one law’s burden and another law’s justification—defeats the purpose of a historical in- quiry altogether. Given that imprisonment (which involved disarmament) existed at the founding, the Government can always satisfy this newly minted comparable-burden re- quirement. See ante, at 14–15. That means the Govern- ment need only find a historical law with a comparable jus- tification to validate modern disarmament regimes. As a result, historical laws fining certain behavior could justify completely disarming a person for the same behavior. That is the exact sort of “regulatory blank check” that Bruen warns against and the American people ratified the Second Amendment to preclude. 597 U. S., at 30.
The federal law at issue, 922(g)(8)’s has no requirement that the accused has actually committed a crime; instead, he need only be prohibited from threatening or using force, or pose a “credible threat” to an “intimate partner or child.” §922(g)(8)(C). Section 922(g)(8) thus revokes a person’s Second Amendment right based on the suspicion that he may commit a crime in the future.
In addition, the only process required before that revocation is a hearing on the underlying court order. §922(g)(8)(A). During that civil hearing—which is not even about §922(g)(8)—a person has fewer constitutional protections compared to a criminal prosecution for affray. Gone are the Sixth Amendment’s panoply of rights, including the rights to confront witnesses and have assistance of counsel, as well as the Fifth Amend- ment’s protection against double jeopardy. See Turner v. Rogers, 564 U. S. 431, 441 (2011) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment does not govern civil cases”); Hudson v. United States, 522 U. S. 93, 99 (1997) (“The [Double Jeopardy] Clause protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense”). Civil proceedings also do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and some States even set aside the rules of evidence, allowing parties to rely on hearsay. See, e.g., Wash. Rule Evid. 1101(c)(4) (2024) (providing the state rules of evidence “need not be applied” to applications for protection orders (boldface and capitali- zation deleted)); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. §527.6(i) (West Supp. 2024) (judge “shall receive any testimony that is rel- evant” and issue order based on clear and convincing evi-dence). The differences between criminal prosecutions and civil hearings are numerous and consequential.
