9th Circuit Court Rules that Laws Prohibiting People w/Non-Violent Convictions from Possessing Guns Violate the 2nd Amendment b/c People Have The Right to Carry Arms in Public for Self-Defense

From [HERE] Yesterday, in United States v. Duarte, No. 22-50048 (9th Cir. May 9, 2024) (available here(link is external)), a split panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that  under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society. The opinion, written by Judge Bea and joined by Judge VanDyke, begins:

       18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Steven Duarte, who has five prior non-violent state criminal convictions—all punishable for more than a year— was charged and convicted under § 922(g)(1) after police saw him toss a handgun out of the window of a moving car. Duarte now challenges the constitutionality of his conviction. He argues that, under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society. We agree.

****

      At step one of Bruen, we easily conclude that Duarte’s weapon, a handgun, is an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text and that Duarte’s “proposed course of conduct—carrying [a] handgun[] publicly for selfdefense”— falls within the Second Amendment’s plain language, two points the Government never disputes. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 32. The Government argues only that “the people” in the Second Amendment excludes felons like Duarte because they are not members of the “virtuous” citizenry. We do not share that view. Bruen and Heller foreclose that argument because both recognized the “strong presumption” that the text of the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms that belongs to “all Americans,” not an “unspecified subset.”Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70 (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581 (2008)). Our own analysis of the Second Amendment’s publicly understood meaning also confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was every citizen’s fundamental right. Because Duarte is an American citizen, he is “part of ‘the people’ whom the Second Amendment protects.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 32.

     At Bruen’s second step, we conclude that the Government has failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)’s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, “is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the” Second Amendment right. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 19. The Government put forward no “well-established and representative historical analogue” that “impose[d] a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense” that was “comparably justified” as compared to § 922(g)(1)’s sweeping, no-exception, lifelong ban. Id. at 29, 30. We therefore vacate Duarte’s conviction and reverse the district court’s judgment entering the same.

Judge Smith's dissent starts this way: 

     Whether felons have a Second Amendment right to bear arms is settled in our circuit. They do not. United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Until an intervening higher authority that is clearly irreconcilable with Vongxay is handed down, we, as a three-judge panel, are bound by that decision. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003).

    The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), did not overrule Vongxay. Instead, Bruen reiterates that the Second Amendment right belongs only to law-abiding citizens. Duarte’s Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), as applied to nonviolent offenders, is therefore foreclosed. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Due Process Only for the Wealthy: Supreme Court Says After an Arrest, Cops Can Seize Your Car Without a Hearing. Car Owners Can Challenge the Seizure in Court - If They Can Afford to Do $So

If you lend your car to a family member or friend who is stopped and arrested for drug charges while driving your car in Alabama, state law permits seizure of a car “incident to an arrest” so long as the state then “promptly” initiates a forfeiture case.  

In Culley v. Marshall, No. 22-585 (May 9, 2024)(link is external), the Court considered what test should district courts apply to determine whether a state or local government must provide a preliminary hearing to someone who has had property seized under a civil asset forfeiture law. In a 6 to 3 opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and BarrettJ. The Court held:

When police seize and then seek civil forfeiture of a car that was used to commit a drug offense, the Constitution requires a timely forfeiture hearing. The question here is whether the Constitution also requires a separate preliminary hearing to determine whether the police may retain the car pending the forfeiture hearing. This Court’s precedents establish that the answer is no: The Constitution requires a timely forfeiture hearing; the Constitution does not also require a separate preliminary hearing.

Justice Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The dissenters criticize the majority's adoption of a universal rule that due process never requires the minimal check of a retention hearing before a police officer deprives an innocent owner of her car for months or years. The majority's rule "cannot be squared with the context-specific analysis that th[e] Court's due process doctrine requires." The majority's rule ignores the reality that police often have financial incentives to seize cars, hold them indefinitely, and then rely on an owner's lack of resources to forfeit those cars to fund agency budgets, all without any initial check by a judge as to whehter there is a basis to hold the car in the first place. What's more, "officers have a financial incentive to target marginalized groups, such as low-income communities of color, who are less likely to have the resources to challenge the forfeiture in court."  Given the diverse schemes adopted by states, some with adequate safeguards and some without, the dissenters argue the Court "should have identified the applicable due process test and left lower courts the flexibility to apply the appropriate test in these myriad circumstances." [MORE]

Juror Who Sentenced Toforest Johnson to Death Now Believes He Is Innocent

From [HERE] Monique Hicks, one of the twelve people who served on the Alabama jury that convicted Toforest Johnson and sentenced him to death, said in an op-ed published on April 22, 2024 that she now believes Mr. Johnson deserves a new trial. Ms. Hicks recounts the new evidence that has come to light in the case and writes, “My role in the wrongful conviction of an innocent man keeps me awake at night.” 

Mr. Johnson’s conviction rested on the testimony of a single witness who, despite not knowing Mr. Johnson, claimed to hear his voice confessing to the crime on the phone and who was secretly paid a $5,000 reward. For two decades, local officials repeatedly denied the existence of any reward paid to their star witness.  Only after defense counsel received information from a retired state employee did the state finally admit it. Numerous Alabama legal officials support a new trial, including the current District Attorney, the original trial prosecutor, a former Chief Justice, and a former Attorney General.  

World Economic Forum White Paper Claims 98% of Central Banks are in the Process of Adopting CBDCs

From [HERE] The World Economic Forum has been fixated on central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) lately, and as usual, they’re manipulating facts to garner support for their latest attempt to control people.

This time, they’ve released a white paper making the claim that 98% of all central banks are currently pursuing their own CBDCs.

They may want people to believe this, but just two countries have officially launched CBDCs so far – Nigeria and Zimbabwe – while just a handful have made it past the “proof of concept” stage.

Moreover, a number of countries have scrapped their CBDC projects, such as Finland, Denmark, the Philippines, Ecuador and Kenya. Countries that are currently in the pilot stage, however, include India, Russia and China.

In the paper, entitled “Modernizing Financial Markets With Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency,” they sing the praises of these currencies, applauding their ability to streamline cross-border transactions.

The paper claims: “CeBM is ideal for systemically important transactions despite the emergence of alternative payment instruments…Wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC) is a form of CeBM that could unlock new economic models and integration points that are not possible today.”

However, given the World Economic Forum’s globalist agenda, their real interest in pushing these currencies and making it seem like everyone wants to adopt them is because they could pave the way for a future global currency model – and, by extension, the removal of physical securities and money known as “dematerialization” that they are so eager to implement. [MORE]

A Barbaric, White Brentwood Cop Used His Uncontrollable Authority to Allow His K-9 to Rip Open a Black Woman’s Skull and Scalp After She Surrendered. Court Denies the Government's Request for Immunity

From [HERE] Ordering a police dog to bite a person doesn't necessarily constitute excessive force, but siccing a K-9 on a person for a long time does, a federal judge in San Francisco has ruled. 

That was Monday's decision by U.S. District Court Judge Rita Lin in the case of Tamilka Bates vs. Brentwood police officer Ryan Rezentes, whose dog Marco clamped down on the young woman's scalp for roughly a minute as she hid in the bushes after allegedly shoplifting cosmetics from a nearby Ulta store. The store had insurance against theft.

Lin said it was OK that Rezentes had his dog bite Bates in February 2020. But she ruled that the officer cannot claim qualified immunity in this case, specifically citing the duration and the location of the dog bite that left Bates with traumatic brain injury.

The head is a "uniquely vulnerable part of the body," the judge wrote. 

The judge's order also noted that Rezentes did not give any warning that he had a K-9, allowing Bates to surrender, and he had not officially given Marco any command before the dog began biting Bates, who was hiding in the bushes. 

According to the complaint:

On February 10, 2020, at approximately 12:40 p.m., off-duty Brentwood Police Officer Ryan Rezentes and his Czech Republic trained German Sheppard “Marco” responded to a call for service to help locate three suspected shoplifters. Officer Rezentes deployed his police canine, “Marco,” and searched a field near Empire Way in Brentwood, CA.

Officer Rezentes’ was directed to take Marco and search a clump of bushes in the field. Without providing any warning or a reasonable opportunity to come out the bushes, Officer Rezentes commanded Marco to go into the bushes where the German Sheppard located Ms. Bates and immediately sunk its teeth into the unarmed woman’s head. Officer Rezentes ignored Ms. Bates’ chilling screams as he stood by and watched his canine viciously maul the young victim. Finally, the Officer began commanding the canine to “heel” in German. The dog ignored the commands while Ms. Bates continued to scream and beg for her life as the dog continued its attack. Nearly one minute later, Officer Rezentes once again command his dog to heel —yet again, the dog ignored his handler’s commands. Ms. Bates continued to cry out for her mother while pleading with the Officers to make the dog stop.

Officer Rezentes eventually came to the obvious conclusion that he had lost control of his attack animal and inexplicably yelled at Ms. Bates to “do something!” The Officer finally went into the bushes and physically removed the dog’s bite from Ms. Bates’ scalp. After over a minute of being attacked by the rogue animal, Ms. Bates was left laying on the ground mangled and paralyzed with fear.

Officers Rezentes and Lou yelled at Ms. Bates to stand up, an impossible task, as leaves and twigs scraped against her open head wounds. Eventually, Officer Lou helped Ms. Bates to her feet and placed her in handcuffs. The Officers berated Ms. Bates for running from police as if getting her head bit and mauled by a vicious canine was a lawful and appropriate punishment for her crimes.

As she emerged from the bushes, the assembled Officers could see large chunks of Ms. Bates’ scalp were ripped from her head, exposing bone and tissue. 15. In an apparent effort to cover-up this shocking display of police brutality, Officer Rezentes failed to include significant facts from his official police report detailing the encounter. In his report, Officer Rezentes claims that he did not have the benefit of a cover officer which prevented him from physically removing the dog from gnawing on Ms. Bates’ head. However, Brentwood Police Officer Lou’s body worn camera (BWC) proves this is patently false. In fact, the BWC clearly showed that he was standing next to Officer Rezentes with his gun drawn while reassuring Officer Rezentes, “Don't worry, I won’t shoot your dog.” Indeed, Officer Rezentes knowingly omitted the multiple failed attempts to get his canine to release its potentially deadly grip. Officer Rezentes failed to mention that Marco was out of control. 16. Following this tragic event, Ms. Bates was transported to John Muir Medical Center Walnut Creek for emergency medical care. Fortunately, surgeons were able to reattach her scalp however, Ms. Bates continues to suffer from headaches, memory loss and depression as a result of the horrific experience.[MORE]

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent holds that excessive duration of a K-9 bite, or officers improperly encouraging a continued attack, could constitute excessive force and a constitutional violation, Lin wrote, "regardless of whether the initial dog bite was justified." 

"Viewing the facts in Bates' favor, a reasonable jury could conclude that Rezentes violated the Fourth Amendment by allowing his dog to hold its bite on Bates' head for 40 seconds after she indicated her surrender," Line wrote. "A reasonable jury could conclude that the government's intrusion was severe." 

The judge's decision was a procedural hurdle that Bates and her legal team, Lawyers for the People, were thrilled to overcome, as now a jury can decide the case on its merits.

Adante Pointer, Bates' attorney, said the ruling is also significant as it puts K-9 use "under a microscope" as police dog bites are finally undergoing more scrutiny from the public and politicians.

"It's a big deal," Pointer said Wednesday.

The city of Brentwood did not immediately respond to the ruling, though Pointer said he expected them to appeal it.

The city also did not say whether Rezentes was still employed with the department, or if any police policies had changed since the brutal attack on Bates, that exposed her bloody scalp and caused her years of physical and emotional pain.

The judge's ruling also outlined a second-by-second play of what had occurred.

After 16 seconds, Bates shouts, "Oh my God, please get your dog. I'm coming out. I'm coming out, please get your dog," according to body camera from the scene.Rezentes tells her to crawl out to him.

"But your dog's biting me," Bates cries out. 

Thirty seconds into the video, Rezentes crouches inside the bush, next to Bates, who is screaming, "My whole brain!"

Pictures from that day show her scalp has literally been ripped off her head. 

For another 30 seconds, Bates calls out for her "mama." 

Fifty-six seconds into the footage, Rezentes says, "Marco pust," which means release. 

He repeats that command five seconds later.

Just after the one-minute mark, Rezentes removes Marco.  

"Furthermore," Lin wrote, "a reasonable jury could conclude that Rezentes could see from his vantage point that the dog was biting Bates' head about 30 seconds after the bite, and thus that he needed to intervene as soon as reasonably possible, rather than waiting another 25-30 seconds to attempt a further release command." 

“Dead on Arrival”: Doctors Back from Gaza Describe Horrific Hospital Scenes, Decimated Health System

Witnesses Say IsrAlien Soldiers Murdered Newborns, Children and Women Inside School. All Shot at Point Blank Range

Too Many Murdered to Count: US Government is Funding Ongoing Genocide by Barbaric, Crazy IsrAliens in the Name of Deluded Sheeple in the US

According to FUNKTIONARY:

terrorist organizations – embryonic “governments,” the members of which who can successfully challenge the nation-state or Corporate State’s claim to a monopoly on legitimized violence, mayhem and murder. The label ‘terrorist’ or ‘freedom fighter’ depend on political orientation and the presence or lack of rootedness in the historical consciousness of a protracted struggle against oppression and exploitation. (See: Corporate State, World Bank, IMF, Gangbanking & WAR)

Israeliens – impostor (pale interloper alien) Hebrews—Eastern European stock Caucasians who adopted the philosophy, myths, fables, and traditions of the so-called “Jews” while living in Russia—masquerading as if they had any genetic or historical ancestry and cultural heritage to the Afrikan Hebrews, the Afrim people, who occupied Canaan (Palestine) from ancient times. 2) those who currently are occupying Palestine (the land of Canaan), colonizing and killing its rightful descendants, historic owners and dwellers), and are undeniably alien (foreign—not aboriginal) to that land. 3) impostor Hebrews originating from the Pale of Settlement in Kazzarian Russia currently an occupying force (militarily holed-up and propped-up by US financial support and British skullduggery) in occupied Palestine. 4) alien Jews—Pinchbeck Hebrews. Israeliens are East Europeans with no genetic or actual historic ties whatsoever to the land now called Palestine. Israeliens have brainwashed (and fooled) themselves and many others into believing this historical lie and propaganda that they are the descendents of “Jews” (a misnomer for African Hebrews, itself a misnomer for the Afrim people). Anyone with a modicum of research skills, knowledge of basic geography, philology, and an unbiased-by-religious-myth mind can easily confirm or validate this fact for his or herself. Both so-called Sephardim and Ashkenazim “Jews” are not historically tied to the Afrim. It’s not that Caucasians who have adopted the “Jewish” religion shouldn’t have a place to live—but how about suggesting relocating where they came from—the hills of Russia, and not on another peoples’ land. You don’t invade (break into) someone’s house (property) and expect them to just go away and not fight to get it back (despite how much force, murdering, deception, and propaganda that is brought to bear to justify such wrongful invasion and genocide). Psychological repression is both invisible and reflexive. (See: Zionism, USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin, Genocide, Immigrant Human, Jew, Twelve Tribes of Israel, Evolution, Caucasian, Pilgarlick, El & Judaism)

Police Killings Set Record in 2023: Blacks Made up 26% of All those Killed [Initiating Unprovoked Acts of Violence on Others is Immoral whether its done by citizens or by people wearing Blue Costumes]

US police brutality hit a new record in 2023 breaking last year’s record as police officers killed at least 1,232 people in 2023 according to Mapping Police Violence. In 2022 cops killed 1,183 people. [MORE]

Black people disproportionately made up 26% of all those killed by police despite being only 13% of the US population. Killings of Black people also rose - as least year Blacks accounted for slightly less deaths at 25%. [MORE] In fact in 2023 Black people were the most likely people to be killed by cops. Blacks are 3X more likely to be killed than whites and 1.3X as likely as white people to be unarmed.

Born into this arrangement we have been miseducated to believe that “political authority” is part of the natural order of organizing human relations. Yet this is actually nonsense. The source of the police brutality problem and many many others is so-called “authority”- the implied right to rule over people. It is the belief that some people [authorities] have the moral and legal right to forcibly control others [citizens], and that, consequently, those citizens have the moral obligation to obey.’ [more] Here in this context, we are discussing the authorities known as police officers, who as representatives of authority, have somehow been empowered to use force offensively against citizens.

Contrary to lofty legal pronouncements and pretenses of civility, authority is evil and there is no legitimate or rational way to account for belief in its existence.

All force used offensively (not in self-defense) is excessive and immoral. Acts that would be considered unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by people are just as unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by government agents. Putting your hands on another human being, not in self-defense but offensively, without their consent and ‘manipulating their body in disregard of their volition is evil’, whether its done by citizens or representatives of “authority” wearing blue costumes. Laws cannot alter morality. Larken Rose explains, “authority is permission to commit evil – to do things that would be recognized as immoral and unjustified if anyone else did them.” subconsciously we know that ruling over others by force is barbaric.

There is no rational basis for the belief in authority. All governmental power purportedly is derived solely from the people. However, the government has somehow granted itself the power to do things that no individual citizen could ever do. While citizens have the inalienable right to act in self-defense or come to the defense of others, citizens have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on other people and have no right to forcibly control other people. As such, it is impossible for citizens to delegate the power to forcibly control others to the government - because citizens cannot possibly delegate powers to the government that they don’t have. Other explanations for authority such as the “social contract” theory have been thoroughly debunked. [more] Although we assume there is some valid explanation for why the government should be entitled to engage in behavior that would be deemed to violate individual rights if performed by anyone other than the government, there is none. [more] And [more] Authority, the basis for all governments and rulership, is a farce. [more] As explained by Funktionary, freedom cannot exist in the presence of so-called authority.

Attorney Says a Black Man “Schooled” a WVA Cop After an Unlawful Stop. In Reality, the Black Man Had to Obey Authority b/c There are No Real Choices in the Free Range Prison. "Rights" Protect Nobody

RIGHTS and LEFTS. In the video above The Civil Rights Lawyer claims that the Black man schooled the white cop about his rights. Here, the attorney has confused “freedom” with an authority giving you permission to do something – master’s favors best described as adherent rights.

adherent rights – privileges disguised as so-called “rights” created by men via deceptive word-manipulation in written form called “symbolaeography,” and legal documents. 2) privileges granted by an apparent or putative authority at the expense of one's inherent or unalienable ‘rights.’ (See: Inherent Rights & Rights) - FUNKTIONARY

The Civil Rights Lawyer writes “February 13, 2023, Jacob Jackson is walking down a public sidewalk in Beckley, West Virginia. A uniformed sheriff’s deputy pulls up in a marked police cruiser and activates his emergency lights. The reason? He has civil service papers to serve related to an eviction proceeding. Jacob asserts his rights. The deputy asserts what he believes to be his rights as a police officer. Can a police officer forcibly detain you, ID you, search you, put his hands on you, just because he has civil paperwork to serve on someone? Even if you’ve done nothing illegal?” The attorney goes on to explain that the initial stop was absolutely unlawful because it violated Mr. Jackson’s 4th Amendment Rights - he was not engaged in a crime and the white cop had no rational reason to believe he was. The cop also had no reason to touch him, interrogate him, demand his name and continue to detain the Black man against his volition.

But he did though. His imaginary rights didn’t protect him, nor did they stop the cop. At some point during their forced interaction the Black man realizes that he’s not actually having an arms length conversation with an equal member of society. He’s talking to his public master. The cop will let him go if he so desires and the cop will be the decider of all things decided during their argument and the black man will be required to obey. Mr. Jackson seems aware that he has no meaningful choices and no independent opportunity to secure a different outcome by continuing to talk to the cop. He can either 1) obey authority or 2) go to jail or face physical violence. Within 10 minutes Mr. Jackson is coerced into complying with the cop to avoid the fuckery; he tells the cop his name and accepts service of the court papers.

The Civil Rights Lawyer is correct about Constitutional legal truths inside law books. But all truths must give way to reality. Brazen cops so frequently abuse their power that no Black shopper, pedestrian, motorist, juvenile, adult or Black professional of any kind—could make a rational argument that so-called constitutional rights provide any real protection from cops or the government in general. The only thing upholding the 4th Amendment is your belief in it. You only have rights if an authority says that you do or agrees that you do. Your possession of "rights” given to you by a magical government, which functions as your master, is cult belief. In reality, as explained by Dr. Blynd, “There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.” Authority is force. Jeremy Locke explains, “There is no authority on earth that can rightfully govern your life. Born to this world, you and you alone control your eyes, your ears, your tongue, your hands and your mind. All authority which claims to be able to dispose of you and your abilities is deceit. . . Anyone who tells you that you must yield your mind, your body, or your possessions to authority is evil.”

Rights are myths or a device to conceal the true nature of relations between the government and its citizens.

The legal system is based entirely on physical coercion. In general, all laws or commands are backed by the threat of violence against those who do not comply – here, violence means forced confiscation of property [payment of fines] or arrest or prison. Said threat of violence includes the ability and willingness of authorities to use deadly force against those who disobey. Michael Huemer spells out the mechanics of it,

‘force and violence are the final intervention that the individual cannot choose to defy. One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it.” [MORE]

Citizens can either obey authority or go to jail. The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain your freedom by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.“ [MORE] Government and it’s “services” are not voluntary and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government – rather, we are born into this involuntary arrangement.

In the video Mr. Jackson knew he couldn’t walk away from the police. He had no choice but to comply with authority and he did. FUNKTIONARY calls this a “Hobson’s Choice – you can either get with this or nothing at all.” Obey or go to jail or die. In fact, The Civil Rights Lawyer would make the same legal arguments about Mr. Jackson’s so-called 4th Amendment rights if he had been paralyzed or shot to death by the cop while resisting the unlawful stop. Said “constitutional rights” protect no one.

The video speaks for itself when it’s viewed through the lens of reality not the abstraction of “authority.” It shows a white man approach and stop a Black man who was minding his own business. The white man wore a blue costume and the Black man did not. The Black man posed no threat to the costumed man. The costumed man was not acting in self-defense of himself or another person or in defense of property when he stopped, non-consensually touched and forcibly controlled the Black man’s freedom of movement. Nor was the interaction voluntary and consensual as the Black man was not free to leave without being subjected to violence. It is obvious that if a non-costumed person had walked up to the Black man and done the same thing -demand identification or face violence- then he would be considered a deranged criminal. Here however, both parties are actually engaged in role play: both pretended that the costumed man, a so-called ‘police officer’ had the power to control and direct the Black man who acted as a ‘citizen,’ a person who voluntarily consented to this “optional” arrangement. Both play out their respective roles no differently than children playing “house” or any other make believe games. Both roles are acted out according to their common agreement about reality or what FUNKTIONARY describes as a “consensus reality” in which; the costumed man had power over the Black man because as a police officer he was a representative of a fiction called government, and thus imagined to have powers to do things that citizens cannot do (such as order you to stop on the street) and are exempt from morality, laws and the normal rules of accountability when they do so. Within this consensus reality the costumed man believes he has the power to stop the Black citizen in the street to give him a document (a summons) and the Black citizen believes that although he has the right to be free from unlawful seizures, he still must comply with police orders. The cop believes there are legal or constitutional boundaries to what he can do, but on the street he is the sole decider of his discretionary power. Legal questions only arise out of these roles as set forth in their consensus reality (the constitution, laws). We already know that if the interaction was between two citizens, Mr. Jackson could simply ignore the white man and/or defend himself if the white man tried to stop or threaten him.

The officer’s implied right to rule over and forcibly control the citizen acted out in the video is called “authority.” All people play out the above roles in their daily relations with government agents or representatives of authority in different contexts. Like Mr. Jackson, citizens dutifully fulfill their roles because they believe there is some substantive, actual and valid unarticulated basis for their belief in authority. That is, they believe there is some solid legitimate reason the government is in charge of citizens and some legitimate reason for them to obey government authorities.

However, what if there is no rational basis for authority? What if there is no legitimate basis for the government to make and enforce rules for the rest of society and no legitimate basis for citizens to obey authority?

If there is no valid basis for authority then when the costumed man interfered with the Black man’s freedom of movement and then detained him against his own volition he was engaged in thuggery, not just bad police work. When the costumed man forcefully touched the Black man he committed a criminal assault and when he prevented him from leaving he committed felony threats to do significant bodily harm. If there is no valid basis for authority then the consensus reality that the costumed man can forcibly control the Black man’s movement within certain bounds is actually a form of slavery. Like a prisoner claiming to be the warden of a prison or a child claiming to be the parent, simply asserting that you are a higher authority cannot somehow legitimately endow you with superior power to rule over others. Nor can putting on a blue costume give an individual an exemption from morality or transform a person’s conduct from unlawful to lawful.

FUNKTIONARY describes this role play as delusional and a “deadly theatrical (tragicomedy) game” because in reality no one has legitimately acquired the right to rule over them. Authority, which is the basis for all governments throughout the world, is a complete farce, make believe. In reality there is no rational basis for the existence of authority,” it is based on brute force and nothing else.

The belief in authority is a farce because people cannot delegate powers to the government that they do not possess.

All persons have the natural right to defend themselves and come to the defense of others if they believe another person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. Private security workers and guards also work under said natural law. In contrast, police officers and other representatives of authority have the extra or added “power” to act offensively as aggressors; they have been granted the power to use force offensively on people or initiate unprovoked acts of violence against people whenever they deem it necessary. As such, police are permitted to do things “citizens” cannot do, such as, stop individuals, touch them against their will, attack (make arrests) people, interfere with their freedoms in many ways, kidnap people (detain and transport) or imprison them all because higher authorities have empowered them to do so. In turn, “citizens” are said to have a moral and legal obligation to obey all government orders, laws and have no right to even resist an unlawful arrest in most states. Authority must be obeyed on a content-neutral basis (regardless of whether citizens agree or not.) [MORE] This hypothesized moral property (authority) is said to make government the supreme authority over human affairs.

However, “authority” does not come from people nor is it derived from any natural source. All governmental power allegedly is said to come exclusively from the people. Citizens delegate their individual power to government and it’s representatives for them to represent citizens and act on their behalf. Such representation works much in the same way agents represent principals in all kinds of business or other contractual relationships. For instance, a manager at McDonalds represents the franchise owner when she carries out his everyday business requests, like ordering inventory and hiring workers, etc. She is the agent, the owner is the principal who empowers and directs her work and is responsible for her conduct. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her. For instance, the Manager does not have the authority to sell the store unless the owner granted her such power. Similarly, the McDonalds manager could not have the power to do things that the franchise owner has no power to do - such as change the McDonalds logo to a black panther or use another business’ parking lot for storage. Additionally, numbers don’t change anything – a group of McDonald’s owners still don’t have the power to grant an agent the power to use another business’ parking lot either. An agent cannot have more power than the principal because all his/her power necessarily originated exclusively from the principal. Additionally

In the case of government however, the government has somehow granted itself the power to do things that no individual citizen could ever do. While citizens have the inalienable right to act in self-defense or come to the defense of others, citizens have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence (use force offensively) on other people and no right to forcibly control other people. As such, it is logically impossible for citizens to delegate the power to forcibly control others to the government - because citizens cannot possibly delegate rights that they don’t have.

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

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

Rose further explains if

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

The point here is not a theoretical discussion about the purpose of government or how it should run. Rather, it is the fact that there is no valid justification for one man (or government) to have supreme authority over another. Although we all assume that there is some valid explanation for why the government should be entitled to engage in behavior that would be deemed to violate individual rights if performed by anyone other than the government, there is none.

Other explanations for authority have been thoroughly debunked.

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY. How about the social contract theory - the idea that there is a contract between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws, in exchange for citizens obedience and taxes? That is, individuals have contractually agreed to obey the government and must do so and the government is obliged to provide services and protection. However, if such an agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? We were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet we are bound to obey authority. Therefore, there is no contract and no social contract exists.

At any rate, the so called “public duty” doctrine renders the “social contract theory” meaningless. Decades ago the Supreme Court ruled that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. It means for instance that police have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence by other private parties unless the victim was in police custody. [MORE] and [MORE] This means that police cannot be sued for any federal constitutional claim for a failure to protect citizens. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect from harm from private parties. [MORE] and [MORE].

Pursuant to the social contract, citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and commands and when they fail to do so the government punishes the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it?” There is no contract between the individual and the state. It is device or trick to control the populace.

IMPLICIT AGREEMENT. What about an implicit agreement to obey authority - where we are deemed from birth to have agreed to obey authority until we decline, opt out or reject it? This proposition is also an illusion because whether you reject or object to authority you must obey authority regardless. You have no real choice in the matter. Like a plantation system, there is no way to opt out and avoid being a slave subject to another (authority) plantation owner.

AGREEMENT BY ACCEPTING BENEFITS. Perhaps authority is made legitimate when citizens agree to accept the benefits provided by government, such as public schools or police “service?” For the same reasons no one has an implicit contract with the government. Government authority is not made legitimate through acceptance of benefits. Whether a person accepts the benefits of government or not, all persons are still subject to the laws and required to obey authority.

CONSENT BY PRESENCE. How about consent to authority by simply remaining in a particular location - consent by presence on the land? In other words, in order to remain on your own land then you must pay a government and obey laws to do so. Said theory means governments own all land and property everywhere government exists. According to such clogic as stated by Huemer, “Those seeking to avoid all governmental jurisdiction have three options: they may live in the ocean, move to Antarctica, or commit suicide.” [MORE]

Larken Rose explains, “To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.”

It is also obviously circular thinking to say ‘the government has authority over everything and everybody because it has authority over everything and everybody’ - such statement may indeed be the case but it cannot be a justification for the legitimacy of authority in the first place.

CONSENT THRU PARTICIPATION. Finally, does consent through participation make government authority legitimate or valid? Not at all. “If you didn’t vote in the election, would you then not have to obey the laws made by whoever wins? Of course not. You will be subject to the same laws whether you vote or not.” [MORE]

MAGIC WORDS, CAPES & CEREMONIES. It should also go without saying but there is no magic ceremony, special costumes to put on, voting process or magic statements (oaths) which can grant certain people extra-human powers to rule over other people, exempt them from morality, accountability and do things which no individual or group of individuals can do.

—-

Therefore, in summary there is no rational basis for authority, the implied right to forcibly control others. No person(s) or entity has the right to rule over other human beings. No one is obliged to obey a command merely because it comes from their government.

FUNKTIONARY explains that government means “control of the mind” and “authority is the means by which society uses to control its population.” Trent Goodbaudy describes this is as a “statist delusion.” Statist, within the meaning of FUNKTIONARY means “the belief “citizens” and “states” exist and the memetic thought patterns supporting such beliefs.” Goodbaudy states, “We are stuck in an illusory construct that only exists in a diseased psyche. There really are no rulers and no masters anyway; just claims of authority, and acceptance of these claims by the brainwashed. There really is no government other than what you choose to be governed by: they only have the authority that you grant them.”

In reality, persons do not actually live under “democracies” or “republics” or monarchies or dictatorships. Said descriptions or characterizations are designed to conceal the reality of an elite ruling class and the master/servant relations it has with its citizens. In the United States and everywhere else government exists, Rose states “there is a ruling class and a subject class, and the differences between them are many and obvious. One group commands, the other obeys. One group demands huge sums of money, the other group pays. One group tells the other group where they can live, where they can work, what they can eat, what they can drink, what they can drive, who they can work for, what work they can do, and so on. One group takes and spends trillions of dollars of what the other group earns. One group consists entirely of economic parasites, while the efforts of the other group produce all the wealth. It is patently obvious who commands and who obeys. The people are not the “government,” by any stretch of the imagination, and it requires profound denial to believe otherwise. For example, it is also claimed that “the government works for us; it is our servant.” Again, such statements does not even remotely match the obvious reality of the situation; it is little more than a cult mantra, a delusion intentionally programmed into the populace in order to twist their view of reality.”

Within the “consensus reality” (a consensus manufactured through programming and the social conditioning of the masses) various other fictions and devices are used to disguise the reality of the master-servant relationship. Devices such as “consent of the governed,” “we are the government,” “democracy,” “representative government,” “majority rule,” and “constitutional rights” etc. According to FUNKTIONARY these ‘fictions lead only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality.’ Dr. Blynd states, “discussion and debates about fictions such as “rights” merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any “right” and who will benefit from the pretense?”

As explained by FUNKTIONARY,“Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. “While there are varying degrees, “government” very simply is “one man violently controlling the life and property of another man.” Governmental rule based on authority cannot be voluntary or consensual.

The legal discussion of whether Mr. Jackson had any “rights” in his relations on the street with his public master will be ultimately decided by higher authorities (judges, police chief, prosecutors) who are in control of us because they said so. In fact, the head of the state police was forced to resign over the incident and now the Governor and the feds are involved and may take action (to maintain our belief in the existence of rights) as said higher authorities see fit. If you still have doubt about your status as ‘a citizen’ ask yourself the following question: If another person, such as a police officer, is uncontrollable by you, unaccountable to you, can’t be hired or fired by you, has irresponsible power over you and provides a compulsory “service” to you that cannot ever decline, isn’t he your Master? Dr. Blynd states, "The child who is taught to believe the law will be his protection is the child who will become the victim of its own beliefs."  "Unquestioned beliefs own you."

FUNKTIONARY explains that although there are different brands and flavors of “government” across the ideological spectrum, it is more accurate to describe such systems as “free range plantations” or “free range prisons.” The inhabitants of such “jurisdictions” are “free range slaves” or “free range prisoners.” Some prisons or plantations are more restrictive than others but all “citizens” within them are subject to an implied authority. Slaves or prisoners in the Free Range Prison may face greater or lesser restrictions depending upon their income, status or race but none are free.

Whether individuals choose to be willing slaves (citizens) or unwilling slaves (denizens) depends upon how aware they are of their true reality and their response to it.

Nevertheless, there is no need to revolt against authority. Authority is only a belief that must be dropped. FUNKTIONARY states, ‘there are no tyrants only tyranny exists. How can one man or woman rule a multitude against their will except through mind-control and word-conditioning control?’

“The real threat to "authority" is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property.” FUNKTIONARY explains, “We don’t violently overthrow government, rather we silently and organically outgrow it in its current form as we know it. Where there is no energy for conflict upon which to feed, it starves itself into oblivion or becomes malnourished to the point of ineffectual irrelevance.”

Where a critical mass of individuals see authority for what it is – an irrational, self-contradictory, evil, granfalloon, contrary to civilization and morality that “constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed”- they will drop it like a wooden coin or unwanted vaccine.

According to Dr. Blynd:

"rights" - useful fictions declared in order to make agents of another type of fiction ("government") have to play along in their deadly theatrical (tragicomedy) game. 2) mere fictions, the contemplation of which leads only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality. Discussion and debates about "rights" merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any "right" and who will benefit from the pretense. "Rights" are separated into two categories—those flowing from "negative liberties" and those flowing from "positive liberties." In law, rights are remedies and if a person is without a remedy (as is with citizens of the United States) he is without a right, and only a 'thing' is without rights. (See: Negative Liberties, Positive Liberties, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Ma'at & Justice)

rights - fantasmatic or fictitious objects having no reality in actuality by those imagining as an identity being in possession of them. Rights are cultural gratuities perceived through various fantasy frames, recognized, and sometimes even created, by man's system of law to provide a modicum or pretense of civility under a system whereby their very undermining and violation is vouchsafed. Rights are merely rites unless you know how to assert and defend them in order to enjoy them. 2) things people are free to do whether they are able to or not. 3) conditions of existence required by hue-man's nature for their potential survival (primarily against the cartoon that kills, i.e., the wholly unconscionable entity called the "State"). It is a mistaken notion that rights are enjoyed by one at the expense of the many—that is the realm of privilege. Enjoyment of rights in a neo-imperialistic world controlled by Yurugu through the Greater System (Symbolic Order), paradoxically, entails not only a recognition of their inevitability but, equally, their impossibility. How can we be endowed with rights, or even know what rights are when they are based on binary considerations? Rights, as ontological ephemera, cannot be universally observed, recognized, realized or, enforced—and paradoxically, act also as its own eternal source for its assertion and vessel for its fulfillment in our imaginary enjoyment of them. While the law reads rights referentially, what is universally needed in the praxis of rights discourse today is a particular re-inscription, demystification or reontologising of rights (revivified and convivial) by the pan-gendered subject-citizen-decoder—taken symptomatically rather than seriously. Most people rarely experience the cognizance of being property of corporate fictions because as long as you don't violate the rules of society your real status as feudal-property-slave is no: involved or revealed. [MORE]

consensus – the hypnotic communal cultural trance—the collective psychosis. 2) a common agreement about reality. 3) an artificial overlay or semantic screen (filter) that obfuscates the clarity of our subjective reality. 4) a search for an acceptable myth. 5) an opinion or position no one really likes, but everyone is seemingly able to live with it or through it. It is impossible to ever find (or experience) reality by consensus. Consensus is the art of conning the group—Con-Sense-Us— you con. Consensus has nothing to do with census, but with common sense, albeit mostly manufactured through programming and social conditioning of the masses. In consensus, the participants take part in the decision-making process on an ongoing basis and exercise real control over their daily lives. Consensus fosters and upholds freedom and accountability while allowing each participant to retain his or her own autonomy. Autonomous individuals can cooperate without agreeing on a shared agenda, so long as everyone benefits from everyone else’s participation without constraint, coercion, conformity, fear or submission. Consensus can be as repressive as democracy unless the participants retain and exercise their own respective autonomy. (See: Consensus Reality, Symbiocracy, Freedom, Split-Mind, Mirrorealization, Predictive Programming, Conformity, Autonomy, Anarchy, Self-Ownership, Aggression & Funnel Vision)

Using City Cameras NOPD Falsely Arrested a Black Man Minding His Own Business. Initially Police said Cameras Existed to Get Evidence After a Crime Occurs But Now Are Used to Track Residents Movements

MESSAGE TO SLEEPING TOMS AKA THE BLACK VOTARY: YOUR GREAT WHITE LIBERAL FRIENDS ARE SURVEILLING YOU, STOPPING YOU AND TRYING TO LOCK YOU UP EVERYDAY IN PRISONS THEY CONTROL IN CITIES SUCH AS NEW ORLEANS, DC, NEW YORK, CHICAGO ETC.

A MAIN PURPOSE OF POLICE IS TO SURVEIL BLACK PEOPLE ON BEHALF OF ELITE RACISTS. From [HERE] Twenty-five year old Michael Celestine [above] walked outside his friend’s 7th Ward home to take a phone call and smoke a cigarette. Wearing a Tommy Hillfiger puffer jacket on a brisk day in January 2020, he chatted with a friend, walked across the street and then went back inside.

What Celestine didn’t know that is that for the full 15 minutes he was outside, he was being watched by a New Orleans police officer on a monitor about a mile away at the city’s surveillance hub, the Real Time Crime Center, which has access to more than 1,200 live feeds from cameras across the city.

Celestine was the subject of live video surveillance that landed him in jail for more than a year — in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which hit New Orleans early and hard just two months after he was arrested —  even though all the charges against him were eventually dropped. In 2021, Celestine sued the NOPD with the help of the ACLU of Louisiana for a litany of alleged abuses, including an unlawful stop, false arrest and excessive force. Celestine and the NOPD agreed to a $10,000 settlement last year.

“It’s very egregious,” ACLU of Louisiana staff attorney Meghan Matt told Verite. “It’s a man literally minding his own business outside … and subsequently spends a year in jail on false charges during the height of COVID when hundreds of people in that jail were infected, and people were literally dropping dead.”

When the city’s camera network was first introduced in 2017, officials assured the public that the system was primarily there to gather evidence after a crime occurs, rather than proactively surveil the public for suspicious activity.

But in recent years, the NOPD has increased its use of live surveillance to justify stops and searches, according to local defense attorneys and advocates.

“We’ve seen over the years the increased use of the real-time crime cameras to lead to stop and frisks,” New Orleans Chief Public Defender Danny Engelberg told Verite.

Civil rights advocates say that trend is concerning, escalates the privacy implications of the city’s ever expanding surveillance apparatus and threatens to amplify the worst tendencies of the criminal justice system.

On the day of Celestine’s arrest, NOPD officers on the street were conducting what the police report described as a “proactive patrol in high crime areas” while another, Daniel Grijalva, was monitoring a surveillance feed from a nearby camera in the neighborhood.  The camera shifted  to follow Celestine’s  movements, zooming in to provide a close visual inspection of his clothing and cellphone. Grijalva saw a “bulge” in the puffer jacket, and notified nearby patrols that he believed Celestine had a gun, according to the police report and the lawsuit. Officers did not initially respond while Celestine was in the home.

Grijalva was still watching when Celestine left the house again two hours later, and again called for nearby officers to respond. Justified only by a perceived “bulge” in video surveillance, two NOPD squad cars approached Celestine. He ran away before the officers could say a word. Officer Bryan Bissell chased him on foot into a backyard and pulled out his gun.

“I will f—ing shoot you,” the officer said, body camera footage obtained by Verite shows.

Celestine then hoisted himself halfway over a fence before Bissell shot him with a stun gun. Celestine fell to the ground wailing in pain. As he was being arrested, he told the officers “I can’t breathe.”

“Shut up,” Bissell responded.

After briefly being admitted to the hospital, Celestine was taken to jail on Jan. 13, 2020 on several charges, including possession of a stolen weapon, which officers said they found in his pant leg. The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office later dropped all charges against him, but not until January 2021. Celestine was kept in jail for the entire year because he was on parole from a previous conviction and was put on a “parole hold” that prevented him from posting bail.

A portion police body camera footage shows Officer Bryan Bissell chase, stun and arrest Michael Celestine on Jan. 13, 2020. Credit: New Orleans Police Department (/customCaption]

“The damage that can happen to a person’s life and livelihood by spending a year in jail without conviction is almost indescribable,” Chris Kaiser, advocacy director of the ACLU of Louisiana, told Verite. Verite was unable to reach Celestine for comment.

Matt, who previously worked as a staff attorney for the Orleans Public Defenders office, said all of the abuses suffered by Celestine stemmed from an initial live video surveillance stakeout — a practice she said is becoming more prevalent in New Orleans.

“As a former public defender, I can tell you this was all the time,” Matt said. “It’s happening multiple times a day, every single day.”

Neither the NOPD nor Mayor LaToya Cantrell’s office responded to requests for comment.

Like “Attaching an Ankle Monitor to Every [Black] Person" Baltimore Cops Continuously Recorded and Kept Track of All Residents Movements, Violating Their Rights. CT Grounds Aerial Surveillance Program

From ‘complaint-based’ system to proactive surveillance

Since the city’s crime camera network launched in 2017 under then-Mayor Mitch Landrieu, city officials have told the public that the system would be largely “complaint-based,” meaning that the footage would primarily be used to gather evidence after an alleged crime was called in.

But it quickly became clear that the cameras were also being used to proactively search live footage for potential suspicious activity.

In 2018, The Lens reported on the case of Clint Carter, who was arrested during a drug bust coordinated through live video surveillance. The cameras caught an interaction that an NOPD officer interpreted to be a drug deal. Carter was swarmed by NOPD squad cars and arrested.

No drugs were recovered from the scene, but the police said they found brass knuckles on him. And one officer claimed that Carter, who was taken for medical treatment after his arrest, tried to take a swing at him from his hospital bed. (The officer later admitted that Carter was shackled to the bed more than five feet away from him.)

Carter was booked with illegally carrying a weapon, simple assault and trespassing — the last charge allegedly stemming from a neighbor’s complaint, though, according to a report by The Lens, video footage did not show Carter entering the property in question.

In November 2018, about four months after the arrest, a judge found Carter not guilty of all charges. But Carter still ended up in prison because the arrest was considered a violation of his parole.

Many criminal justice and privacy advocates object to the city’s crime camera apparatus altogether, saying that it has inadequate guardrails, that the multimillion-dollar investment hasn’t actually helped reduce crime and that it violates people’s privacy. City officials have repeatedly argued that because the cameras are placed on public rights-of-way, the cameras do not present a privacy concern.

“This isn’t making us safer,” Marvin Arnold, an organizer with the privacy advocacy group Eye on Surveillance, told Verite.

But the cases of Celestine and Carter speak to another objection some advocates have to escalating police surveillance — that powerful tools that amplify the police power also amplify the misconduct, abuse and bias in the American criminal justice system.

Kaiser said that while the arrest of Celestine began with invasive surveillance, every other abuse he experienced are issues that have long plagued major police departments: excessive force, racial profiling (Celestine is a Black man), officers lying to justify use of force, unconstitutional stops and the NOPD’s failure to follow its own policies.

“This implicates surveillance technology,” Kaiser said. “But from another angle, this really does boil down to more old-fashioned police misconduct.”

Matt said that the more live surveillance is used, the more opportunity there is for misconduct.

“This happens constantly, and it’s going to be happening more and more the more surveillance is used,” she said. [MORE]

Whistleblowers Claim that FBI Facial Recognition Proves the Majority of the Initial Jan 6th Breachers were Federal Agents

FOIA Documents Reveal the FBI Paid an Informant to Disrupt 2020 BLM Denver Protests

From [HERE] An investigative podcast revealed facts that the Federal Bureau of Investigation hired a violent felon to sow discord at Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020.

A newly released podcast, Alphabet Boys, unveiled information that showed that the FBI paid Michael Adam Windecker II to infiltrate protests organized by the social justice group in Denver, Colorado in 2020. The journalist behind the podcast, Trevor Aaronson, revealed how the agency paid Windecker $20,000 to ingratiate himself with activists on the ground who were protesting police brutality after the deaths of George Floyd and Elijah McClain.

Aaronson utilized documents obtained from the FBI through Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests to detail how the former felon agreed to be an informant because he wanted to “fight terrorists” and viewed those protesting as “people who participate in violent civil unrest are terrorists.” Windecker, who is white, would stand out at those protests driving a silver hearse full of weapons.

The podcast goes on to show how Windecker tried to recruit other activists as he got more involved with them over that summer, including Zebbodios “Zebb” Hall. “How extreme do you want it to go? Do you want to learn to shoot a gun and throw someone around, or do you want to go all the way uptown? If that’s what you want to do, I can make it happen,” he was overheard saying on undercover recordings. Windecker would go on to organize demonstrations in August that would lead to assaults against police stations in the city.

The plot became sinister as he coerced Hall to purchase a firearm for him after Hall refused to go along with a plot to assassinate Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. “I had to get this guy this gun because if I don’t get this guy this gun, he’s got my information. He’s got my family’s information,” Hall said in an interview. Aaronson would relate that Windecker used intimidation on everyone: “Windecker spoke of having killed people. He had a criminal history that was violent.”

The podcast has caused reactions of outrage and demand for accountability, including a statement from Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). “If the allegations are true, the FBI’s use of an informant to spy on first amendment-protected activity and stoke violence at peaceful protests is an outrageous abuse of law-enforcement resources and authority,”  he said. “I think you’re allowing these tactics to win if ultimately you’re choosing not to exercise your First Amendment rights for fear of government infiltration,” Aaronson said of the podcast.

FBI Director Admits Agency Purchased Geolocation Data of Americans

From [HERE] Privacy advocates on Wednesday said testimony from FBI Director Christopher Wray at a U.S. Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing offers the latest evidence that Congress must take action to keep the government from performing mass surveillance on people across the United States, as Wray admitted the bureau has purchased cellphone geolocation data from companies.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Wray at a hearing about national security threats whether the FBI purchases “U.S. phone geolocation information,” showing the location of users.

Wray said the bureau does not currently make such purchases, but acknowledged for the first time that it “previously, as in the past, purchased some such information for a specific national security pilot project,” drawing on data “derived from internet advertising.”

He said the project has been inactive “for some time” but said he could only provide more information about it and the past purchase of geolocation data in a closed session with senators, adding that the FBI currently accesses “so-called ad tech location data” through “a court-authorized process.”

“I think its a very important privacy issue that [geolocation data purchases] not take place,” said Wyden, an outspoken advocate for privacy rights.

Grassroots social welfare organization Demand Progress called Wray’s admission “both shocking and further proof of the need for Congress to take immediate action to rein in mass surveillance.”

“This is a policy decision that affects the privacy of every single person in the United States,” said Sean Vitka, the group’s policy counsel. “We should have the right to decide when and how our personal information is shared, but instead intelligence agencies continue to obstruct any accountability or transparency around this surveillance.”

The revelation came as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is scheduled to expire at the end of the year and as Congress is expected to soon begin debating its reauthorization.

As written, the provision allows the U.S. government to conduct targeted surveillance of people in foreign countries, but intelligence agencies have also used the law to collect data on Americans.

“Congress must fix this before considering any reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act this year,” said Vitka of Wray’s admission.

Vitka and Fight for the Future director Evan Greer were among the critics who demanded to know “who told [Wray] buying Americans’ location info from data brokers would be legal?”

Privacy advocates have long warned that the Supreme Court ruling in the 2018 case Carpenter v. United States, in which the court decided government agencies that accessed location data without a warrant were violating the Fourth Amendment, contains a loophole allowing the government to purchase data that it can’t obtain legally.

See also  19-year-old Hooper Bay Teen Charged with Arson and Murder for Friday Fire

“The public,” Vitka told Wired, “needs to know who gave the go-ahead for this purchase, why, and what other agencies have done or are trying to do the same.”

Supreme Ct Won't Revive Challenge to NSA's Warrantless Surveillance of Americans’ International Email/Phone Calls and Texts. ACLU says Govt Targets Non-Whites for Crimes Unrelated to National Security

From [HERE] The Supreme Court last month declined to revive an ACLU lawsuit challenging a portion of the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international email and phone communications.

The justices left in place an appeals court ruling against the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia. The organization said that the National Security Agency’s “Upstream” surveillance program violates free-speech rights and protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Details of the Upstream program are classified, but it collects data from transmissions over high-speed cables that carry electronic communications into and out of the country.

The ACLU explained, “The U.S. government is engaging in the mass, warrantless surveillance of Americans' international phone calls, text messages, emails, and other digital communications using Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as justification. Under this law, the government can use the information they collect without a warrant to prosecute and imprison people - even for crimes that have nothing to do with national security. Given our nation's history of abusing its surveillance authorities, and the secrecy surrounding the program, I am concerned that Section 702 already is and will continue to be used disproportionately against already targeted groups, including communities of color, immigrants, or political activists.” It also stated

The Supreme Court let us down: They refused to hear Wikimedia v. NSA, the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the NSA's mass surveillance of Americans' online communications with anyone abroad. By declining to hear this case, the Court has slammed shut one of the only doors left to hold the government accountable for surveillance abuses first revealed in 2013 by Edward Snowden.

But we are not powerless. Congress can still fight back against these egregious violations of our privacy. Instead of reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the very law used to justify this unconstitutional spying, they can let it expire. This is our chance to begin to end this dystopian chapter of American history.

We must act now. Send a message to your representatives in Congress urging them to vote "NO" on reauthorizing Section 702. [MORE]

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, had ruled that the lawsuit must be dismissed after the government invoked the “state secrets privilege” against the possible damage to national security that might result from a court case. [MORE]

Americans Name the Government as the Nation’s Top Problem in Gallup’s Latest Poll; Inflation Ranks Second

From [HERE] More Americans name the government as the nation’s top problem in Gallup’s latest poll, which encompassed the rocky start of the 118thCongress’ term. With high prices persisting, inflation remains the second most-cited problem (15%), and amid elevated tensions about the southern U.S. border, illegal immigration edged up three percentage points to 11%. Mentions of the economy in general fell six points, to 10%, the lowest reading in a year.  

The poll’s Jan. 2-22 field period included the four-day, 15-vote process in which Republicans, who now hold a slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, ultimately elected Kevin McCarthy to be Speaker of the House. Revelations about classified government documents from 2009 to 2017 found in President Joe Biden’s private office and home also surfaced while the poll was in the field. Although mentions of the government as the nation’s top problem rose six points this month to 21%, job approval ratings of Biden (41%) and Congress (21%) remained flat.

The government ranks as the top problem for both Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (24%) and Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (18%). Inflation and immigration are each cited by 18% of Republicans, while mentions of inflation (11%), the economy in general and race relations (9% each) trail the government among Democrats. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to view unifying the country and the environment as top problems. [MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Government – (as commonly misunderstood)—a communal exchange of autonomy for appearance of order (peace via coercion), expanded over time, with the option of exercising violence being reserved to those who define and provide an illusion of order through force and fear. 2) a coercive institution—dysfunctional force and veiled violence. 3) the compelled enforcement of involuntary society. The Corporate State)—a fictitious entity (mental aberration or abstraction) and thus a non-producer of wealth, but masquerading as the prime merchant. 4) human failure programs that stay (hold off) maximumissness and depend on the support (stealing then redistributing wealth) of its subject-victims. 5) ‘organized’ coerced support of selected monopolized services. 6) licensed, sanctioned and legalized criminal activity. 7) a sticky residue on your shoe. The whole idea of government is this: If enough people get together and act in concert, they can take some and not pay for it. Any government represents a crucial compromise with freedom and distortion of reality, and no reified abstraction (however crafted by crafty corporate cartoonists) can protect anyone from any and all danger. The feudal subject-King relationship is exactly the same as the federal citizen-Government relationship. “That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections that have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army in the U.S. is only an arm of the standing government put into action only after the economic hit men and “jackals” (wet-ops) return home unsuccessful in their missions to earn their booty off dirty intrigue commissions. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before people can act through it.” ~Henry David Thoreau (slightly adapted). Government was formed with one major and one minor purpose—the major purpose being to protect the wealth of the wealthy; and the minor purpose being to prevent the non-wealthy from becoming wealthy and subjecting them to the dictates of statutes (written laws—not common law). Government is itself an evil—an abstraction given artificial life for the ostensible purpose of preventing certain conditions from arising, these conditions being the product of injurious behavior (actual injury) on the part of other persons as well as autonomous freedom (ownership of one’s body, mind and labor) of those subjugated to force, exploitation, jurisdiction and control. Government is that group of people who hold the generally tolerated monopoly on acceptable violence. “It is a function of government to invent philosophies [and sophistries] to explain the demands of its own convenience.” ~Murray Kempson. Until people wake-the-spell up to a higher level of individual and collective consciousness, government so-called will remain an unnecessary, yet banefully suffered evil to battle the evil that itself breeds as a matter of course. The creation and imposition of government is the compelled pressure to conform to what is common, established, unoriginal, unacceptable, and ultimately inimical to all, whether reinforced by law, lethal force or acculturation. Throughout history many intelligent thinkers all around the world have tried to contemplate or design some way to have “government” and freedom too. Failing miserably and repeatedly to find one either in practice or in theory, it is time for intelligent human beings to give way to beings of higher consciousness using sagacity and sapience to finally realize that: 1) “government” itself is a deadly mental contrivance and immanent threat to their freedom; 2) there is no way to prevent “government” from constantly increasing its power and eroding freedom; 3) “government” itself being a reification (deadly cartoon) will vanish when the illusion on which it rests dissipates. This goes for all brands and flavors of “government” across the ideological spectrum. Violence (against statists) makes government appear legitimate. [MORE]

Fed Appeals Court Upholds Attorney Fees Ruling in Flint Water Case. Gov Authorities Poisoned the Water of Mostly Black City. Attorneys Will Get $200M, Citizens Get $400M

After about $200 million is deducted for attorneys fees, the fund will be split up based on the following terms:

79.5% for children who were minors when Flint pulled drinking water from the Flint River from April 2014 through December 2016. Of that, 64.5% goes to children who were age 6 or younger, 10% for children age 7 to 11 and 5% for children ages 12 to 17.

18% goes to adults for claims or personal injury or property damage. That includes 15% of the settlement fund earmarked for adults and 3% for damage claims.

2% goes toward special education services for children affected by the water crisis.

0.5% is earmarked for businesses that suffered an economic loss during the water crisis. [MORE]

From [HERE] and [MORE] and [MORE] The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Friday upheld a decision by a lower court over attorney fees in the Flint water crisis $600 million partial settlement.

The lower court previously approved the settlement and awarded attorney fees to the attorneys representing the class action participants. Although the settlement was “record-breaking” at $600 million, many Flint residents were disappointed in the total amount they are entitled to. They argued that the attorneys should receive a lesser amount of compensation.

The court rejected the residents’ arguments who suggested to lower the amount awarded to attorneys under the settlement (about 25 percent). The residents requested a more detailed billing record of the attorney fees in a 2021 appeal and the court denied this based on the plaintiffs’ “lack of standing to appeal the district court’s attorney’s fee award”—which the Sixth Circuit sided with.

However, the review claims process is still ongoing in Flint and at least $400 million will go to the victims of the water crisis who were especially vulnerable to the lead contamination.

Former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and four other officials were previously required to testify about the water crisis, and Michigan’s attorney general brought charges of criminal neglect against Snyder for his role in the water crisis.

38 Years Ago California DA’s Sought the Death Penalty for Maurice Hastings. Now the Black Man Has Been Found “factually innocent”

From [HERE] In a case that demonstrates the risks inherent in the death penalty, Maurice Hastings was found “factually innocent” in Los Angeles of the crime that could have sent him to death row and eventual execution. On March 1, 2023, Judge William Ryan dismissed all charges and freed Hastings, who was serving a sentence of life without parole.

The District Attorney’s Office had sought the death penalty for Hastings, which enables the prosecution to obtain a jury that is willing to impose a death sentence, and therefore may be more conviction prone. The jury may believe that if the death penalty is being sought, there is probably little doubt about the defendant’s guilt. During his incarceration, Hastings maintained his innocence. The DA’s Office repeatedly denied his request for DNA testing until finally in June of 2022, with the help of the Innocence Project and the DA’s Conviction Integrity Unit, a DNA test essentially excluded him from the murder.

The current DA, George Gascón, commented, “Maurice Hastings survived a nightmare. He spent nearly four decades in prison exhausting every avenue to prove his innocence while being repeatedly denied. But Mr. Hastings has remained steadfast and faithful that one day he would hear a judge proclaim his innocence.”

At a news conference, Hastings, now 69, stated, “I was really overwhelmed. It was kind of unreal. In a sense, you want it to be true, but then you don’t want to be disappointed. I’ve been disappointed. I had tears. I asked, ‘Could this be it? Could this be the end?’ I was very emotional.”