Texas Ct Exonerates Kerry Max Cook after 20 yr Death Sentence in Prison. Prosecutors who Hid and Fabricated Evidence and Testimony, "Have Absolute Immunity" [where is the outrage from PropaGandhi?]

/

IN the US, prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity against lawsuits for abuses they commit in the course of carrying out their prosecutorial or judicial functions.

According to FUNKTIONARY:

PropaGandhi – passive social non-resistance propaganda. 2) obedience-based servitude to the enforcers of granfalloons uncommonly known as Corporate States and any other group-entities. Mahatma Gandhi mostly walked barefoot which produced calluses on his feet. He also had a very weird diet sprinkled with bouts of fasting which made him rather frail and suffer intermittently from halitosis—this made him… “A super callused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.” (See: Poser, Class, Mass, Racism White Supremacy, Gun Control & Caste)

From [HERE] Texas’s highest criminal court last week formally exonerated Kerry Max Cook, now 68, finding him actually innocent of the 1977 murder for which he wrongly spent 20 years on death row. He is the 198th person exonerated after being sentenced to death, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

“This case is riddled with allegations of State misconduct that warrant setting aside Applicant’s conviction,” Judge Bert Richardson wrote in the majority opinion. “And when it comes to solid support for actual innocence, this case contains it all—uncontroverted Brady violations, proof of false testimony, admissions of perjury and new scientific evidence.”

Calling this “one of the most notable murder cases of the last half-century,” the court in a 106-page opiniontraced a “winding odyssey” from 1977, when Smith County prosecutors charged Mr. Cook in the rape, murder, and mutilation of a 21-year-old woman.

The State won a conviction and death sentence in 1978 by illegally withholding favorable evidence from the defense and presenting what was later proven to be false evidence, including totally fabricated testimony from a jailhouse snitch who said Mr. Cook confessed to the murder. Prosecutors not only concealed they had given their star witness a plea deal (for two years instead of life), but orchestrated his entire testimony, showing him pictures of the crime scene and giving him details about the investigation. “I lied on [Cook] to save myself,” he later admitted in court.

Prosecutors also deceived the jury about their only physical evidence against Mr. Cook, the court found. The State presented testimony that fingerprint evidence placed Mr. Cook in the victim’s apartment at the time of the crime. But the fingerprint expert later admitted there was no way to scientifically estimate when the fingerprints had been left and he deliberately created a false impression for the jury after the district attorney pressured him.

Since this first “bookend of deception,” the court wrote, “the case has been plagued with mistrials, withheld evidence, and misconduct.” The conviction was overturned in 1991, and at the second trial in 1992, the State presented testimony that body parts removed from the victim were placed in her missing stocking and taken as a souvenir by Mr. Cook. Then jurors found the “missing” stocking in the leg of the victim’s jeans when they examined the physical evidence during deliberations. A mistrial was declared after the jury could not reach a verdict.

The State nonetheless tried Mr. Cook a third time, and won another conviction and death sentence in 1994 that was thrown out on appeal because it was so tainted by misconduct.

In 1999, after they submitted the victim’s underwear for DNA testing but before they got the results excluding Mr. Cook, prosecutors persuaded Mr. Cook to accept a “no contest” plea that would leave his conviction intact but allow his release after two decades on death row that the court explained were nothing short of torturous.

Cook spent close to a decade and half on death row from the very beginning based on a web of fabricated testimony and misrepresentations. Even if Cook had been made aware of the deception, Cook was left with little-to-no legal recourse because it was outside the record on appeal. During that time, the record documents that Cook was subjected to extreme physical abuse and psychological trauma by other inmates. This included several emasculating tattoos forcibly carved into Cook’s back and side—which led him to attempt suicide in 1990. In a handwritten suicide note, he continued to proclaim his innocence in what he intended to be his last words…And nothing in the record shows that the State—completely aware of the deception because they initiated it—took any steps to halt Cook’s then-pending execution. [MORE]

'The most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are “Arms” protected by 2nd Amendment.' Court Decision Upholding Law Making it a Felony to Possess AR-15 Violates the Constitution' - Judge Clarence Thomas

/

unalienable rights –You can't surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can't under any circumstances be surrendered or taken- FUNKTIONARY

CLARENCE THOMAS AS UNCLE TOM? FUNKTIONARY REMINDS US,  Uncle Tom was killed for withholding information and emancipating others. Sambo is the hanky-head $nigger on which we should look to pull the trigger and drop.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas showed his hand on Tuesday on the issue of whether AR-15-style rifles are legal. His Second Amendment analysis: They are.

In a brief dissent related to an Illinois ban on the “assault weapon,” Thomas said that the overwhelming popularity of the firearm, coupled with its non-military operation, makes it a clear fit under the Second Amendment. [MORE] Thomas wrote:

Statement of JUSTICE THOMAS.

The State of Illinois enacted a law that makes it a felony to possess what Illinois branded “assault weapons,” a term defined to include AR–15s. See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §5/24–1.9(a)(1)(J)(ii)(II) (West 2023). “The AR–15 is the most popular semi-automatic rifle” in America and is there- fore undeniably “in common use today.” Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1287 (CADC 2011) (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting); see also Garland v. Cargill, 602 U. S. 406, 430–431 (2024) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (describing “semiautomatic rifles” such as the AR–15 as “commonly available”). Petitioners sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law, arguing that the law violates their Second Amendment right to “keep and bear Arms.” The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir- cuit rejected petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunc- tion, concluding “that the AR–15 . . . is not protected by the Second Amendment.” Bevis v. Naperville, 85 F. 4th 1175, 1197 (2023). According to the Seventh Circuit, the rifle se- lected by millions of Americans for self-defense and other lawful purposes does not even fall within the scope of the Arms referred to by the Second Amendment. Ibid. This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory pos- ture. But, I hope we will consider the important issues pre- sented by these petitions after the cases reach final judg- ment.

We have never squarely addressed what types of weapons are “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment. To be sure, we explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), that the Second Amendment’s protection “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Id., at 582. And, we noted that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typ- ically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful pur- poses,” id., at 625, recognizing “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weap- ons,” id., at 627 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. 411, 417–419 (2016) (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment). But, this minimal guidance is far from a comprehensive framework for evalu- ating restrictions on types of weapons, and it leaves open essential questions such as what makes a weapon “beara- ble,” “dangerous,” or “unusual.”

The Seventh Circuit’s decision illustrates why this Court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers. By contorting what little guidance our precedents provide, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect “militaristic” weapons. See 85 F. 4th, at 1199. It then tautologically defined “mili- taristic” weapons as those “that may be reserved for mili- tary use.” Id., at 1194. The Seventh Circuit’s contrived “non-militaristic” limitation on the Arms protected by the Second Amendment seems unmoored from both text and history. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. 1039, 1041 (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certio- rari). And, even on its own terms, the Seventh Circuit’s ap- plication of its definition is nonsensical. See 85 F. 4th, at 1222 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (“The AR–15 is a civilian, not military, weapon. No army in the world uses a service rifle that is only semiautomatic”). In my view, Illinois’ ban is “highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common sem- iautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.” Friedman, 577 U. S., at 1042 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

These petitions arise from a preliminary injunction, and the Seventh Circuit stressed that its merits analysis was merely “a preliminary look at the subject.” 85 F. 4th, at 1197. But, if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit “the Seventh Circuit [to] relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Friedman, 577 U. S., at 1043 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).

Gary D. Barnett: There Is No Such Thing As Legitimate or Moral Government, Rule, Or Authority, And There Has Never Been

/

From [HERE] “The way people speak of those in power, calling their commands “laws,” referring to disobedience to them as a “crime,” and so on, implies the right of “government” to rule, and a corresponding obligation on the part of its subjects to obey. Without the right to “rule,” (“authority”) there is no need to call the entity “government,” and all the politicians and their mercenaries become utterly indistinguishable from a giant organized crime syndicate, their “laws” no more valid than the threats of muggers and carjackers.”
Larken Rose, “The Most Dangerous Superstition”

All rule and any assumed ‘authority’ of one man or any group of men over another is completely evil, immoral and illegitimate. It matters not whether there is some pretense of “representation” by any group claiming to be the arbiters of the people, for each and every individual is sovereign for and unto himself alone. No one has any right to act or demand compliance on behalf of another, and no one has any right to delegate any power to afford one the right to rule another, period. Unless a voluntarily signed, personal, and individual contract is accepted by distinct and willing participants, where that contract can be found null and void immediately upon any failure to act in the manner prescribed, there is no right of one to act on the behalf of another concerning rule. This does not mean that any worthless piece of political garbage, such as any “constitution,” or any arbitrary “laws” or mandates, can ever be held as “legal;” a term immorally used by the State for the sole purpose of tyranny, in order that rule and control over other individuals can falsely be seen as justifiable. The essence of natural law, real justice, and freedom are never compatible with rule and authority.

Therefore, all government is not only criminal, it is pure evil. The entire basis of government is to lord over others by the use of violent force. Any assumption of a right to do so is ludicrous on its face, but sold to the seemingly ignorant and pathetic masses as supported by the State’s version of the insane and bastardized ‘definition’ of “law.” This bogus modern definition, one hammered into the populace from birth, as supplied by Websters, is this ridiculous rendition:

“Law is a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power of the State, commanding what its subjects are to do, and prohibiting what they are to forebear.”

This so-called definition is the exact opposite of natural law, and is totally devoid of any aspect or mention of justice. In addition, no state is ‘supreme,’ nor does it possess any justifiable ‘supreme’ power to “command its subjects” (slaves) as to what they may do or not do outside of natural law. The very idea that some group of common criminal humans called government, are ‘supreme’ rulers with power over all others, is the antithesis of freedom of the individual, and therefore it should never be allowed to exist in any form. [MORE]

Elites Attack Court Over Mundane Decision: Trump Can’t Be Prosecuted for His Interactions w/the AG b/c President has Sole Authority to Direct AG. His Immunity Can be Rebutted for All Other Allegations

/

AUTHORITIES AREN’T ABOVE THE LAW? THAT IS 100% BULLSHIT. [the belief in] “Authority” is granting certain people (authorities) permission to do things that other people (citizens) can’t do. The things that people can’t do are things that are unlawful and or immoral. When authority does them [in their official capacity] they are not CONSIDERED immoral and or unlawful TO STATISTS – rather the same activity when done by those who possess authority is considered good and or lawful. Within said system it would be illogical to punish an authority for doing something they have been specifically authorized to do. It is theater to pretend otherwise. Such is the nature of authority in the system of power supremacy, a system based entirely on physical coercion. In said system law prevails over humanity and humans are worth less than law. “ Wherever you find form over reality and law over humanity you will find injustice“ - Dr. Blynd

The Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated decision in the presidential immunity case, Trump v. United States, arising out of the Jan. 6 criminal prosecution brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Trump.

The 119-page decision affords the executive absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” in two layers—Constitutional acts and acts derived from an act of Congress or other source. 1)Where the president’s authority for official acts comes directly from the Constitution he has absolute immunity that cannot be reviewed by a court or Congress due to the separation of powers. 2) Where the presidents authority for official acts comes from Congress the president has presumptive absolute immunity which can be rebutted if the prosecution can show that applying a criminal prohibition on that act wouldn’t encroach on the functions of the executive branch. It was already undisputed that unofficial acts done by the executive are not protected [MORE] and where a president acts beyond the scope of his authority then he is not immune from prosecution.

Please try to read the Court’s opinion yourself.

Contrary to complaints by the dependent media and dumbocrats, the ruling simply said that Trump has absolute immunity from any allegations concerning his interactions with the Attorney General and the Justice Department. All the remaining counts are still viable and were remanded to the trial court.

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

The Court explained that Article II of the Constitution provides that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President’s duties are of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” The President’s authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” When the president has been granted the exclusive Constitutional power to act in a particular area it means that Congress cannot act on the subject and the courts have “no power to control [the President’s] discretion.” That is, where the Constitution has explicitly stated that the president has power to act, the other branches of government, which are separate but equal to the executive, may not interfere or review the act. It stated,

Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. 

PRESUMPTIVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

However, where the president’s authority comes from an express or implied authorization from Congress or where he shares power with Congress, the president only has presumptive absolute immunity. The Court explained that “Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.” The Court reasoned that Framers did not provide the president with such vast powers if he could not use them effectively or use them while having to be concerned about being charged with crimes in the future. The President “occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme, as person who alone composes a branch of government.” Unlike other branches of government, the President has the power to act swiftly and decisively. The Court stated, “The Framers “sought to encourage energetic, vigorous, decisive, and speedy execution of the laws by placing in the hands of a single, constitutionally indispensable, individual the ultimate authority that, in respect to the other branches, the Constitution divides among many.” It further explained,

The Framers accordingly vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” He must make “the most sensitive and far-reaching decisions entrusted to any official under our constitutional system.” There accordingly “exists the greatest public interest” in providing the President with “‘the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with’ the duties of his office.” Appreciating the “unique risks to the effective functioning of government” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him“unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” we have recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.”  

LEGALLY BLIND BY DOGMA. IF THIS CASE IS A HOOK-UP FOR SOMEONE, DON’T START WITH TRUMP. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BIDEN DIDN’T KNOW THAT EXPERIMENTAL COVID INJECTIONS COULD KILL AND HARM PEOPLE THEN YOU ARE A PLAYTHING IN THE HANDS OF OTHERS. HIS LIES TO THE PUBLIC AND MANDATES THAT FORCED PEOPLE TO INJECT THEMSELVES WITH POISON ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS AND INJURIES OF COUNTLESS AMERICANS. ADDITIONALLY, OBAMA COULD STILL BE CHARGED FOR HIS AUTHORIZED EXTRA-JUDICIAL and undisputed MURDER OF Anwar al-Awlaki - an american INTENTIONALLY killed by drone STRIKE in Yemen

According to the Court, while making decisions on behalf of the country the executive should not be bogged down with personal legal questions concerning his future potential criminal liability. Such a stance would inhibit action and possibly compromise decision making that should be solely focused on the interests of the country. Also, a president is not an ordinary criminal defendant - he is a separate branch of government by himself. According to the Court, any criminal charges, prosecution or court proceeding cannot prevent or interfere with the executive’s Constitutionally assigned functions - as courts (and Congress) should not be in the position to review decisions that are exclusively reserved for the president.

The Court explained, “At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for such an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” That is, with regard to official acts that are not Constitutionally mandated, the president has presumptive absolute immunity unless the Government can show that prosecuting him would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. If the prosecution would not pose such a danger then the presumption of absolute immunity would be rebutted and the president could be charged with a crime.

APPLICATION TO TRUMP’S CASE

The Court could not apply its new test to most of the allegations in Trump’s case because the courts below failed to analyze any of the facts with regard to whether they involved official or unofficial acts. Contrary to media spin, the Court only ruled on one set of allegations that involved Trump’s conversations and ineractions with his Attorney General and Justice Department. The Supreme Court is an appellate court of the last resort that usually sits in review of factual and legal determinations made by lower courts. Additionally, as a federal court it usually only indulges the facts presented in the instant case - not hypothetical factual situations. Specifically, the courts below failed to first analyze any of the alleged facts with regard to whether they involved official or unofficial acts and second it failed to analyze whether absolute immunity applied to the factual situations presented. The Court explained that the bulk of the allegations must be reviewed by the trial court first - thus it remanded most of the case back to the trial court. The rest of the case, which is the bulk of the case, concerned Trump’s interactions with the vice president, state authorities and private parties and his public statements.

The only allegations the Court said it could review and decide on were those that clearly implicated the executive’s power derived directly from the Constitution. As such, all the allegations concerning Trump’s interactions and communications with the Attorney General and Justice Department were reviewed because said facts directly implicated Constitutional executive power over the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

Concerning said charges, the Court stated, “The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. “[I]nvestigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function.” And the Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. It stated, “The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Therefore, any allegations concerning Trump’s interactions and discussions with his Attorney General in his official capacity are off limits because the president has absolute immunity. Also, the Attorney General is exclusively controlled by the president and he can hire or fire him for any reason, at any time he desires and said decision is not reviewable by the court or Congress. Thus, the allegation that Trump threatened to fire the Attorney General if he didn’t investigate election fraud is also a non-starter because his Constitutional authority as a separate branch of government may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. The court explained,

It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.

The rest of the allegations were remanded to the trial court.

Due to the fact that the Presidents interactions and communications with the vice president are partially derived from the Constitution and partially derived from an act of Congress (with regard to the vice presidents role in the election certification proceeding), absolute immunity might apply to some of the allegations but presumptive absolute immunity would apply to most of the allegations involving the vice president. As such, the Court said the president’s immunity could be rebutted where the prosecution can show that prosecuting him would not pose a danger or intrude on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

Along with allegations involving the vice president, the bulk of the remaining allegations (involving Trump’s interactions with state officials and private parties and involving public statements made by Trump) were remanded to the trial court to determine 1) whether such acts were official or non-official and 2) if they were official, whether absolute immunity could be rebutted or sustained. Where absolute immunity for an allegation can be rebutted the government could then proceed with its prosecution.

Consent Decrees Have No Effect on “Authority,” the Uncontrollable Power to Use Force Offensively on Citizens. So Aurora Cops Continue Murdering People like Kily Lewis (Shot Holding Phone w/Hands Up)

/

From [HERE] About 70 demonstrators rallied at the Aurora City Council meeting last week to protest the police shooting of another unarmed Black man, 37-year-old Kilyn Lewis— who police shot and killed last month in Aurora. Lewis’s death comes two years after Colorado Attorney Phil Weiser imposed a consent decree on the city of Aurora mandating the city fix “patterns of racially biased policing and excessive use of force in the Aurora Police Department.”

The Consent Decree came in the aftermath of the 2019 murder of Elijah McClain, and a report showing Black people were more than 250 percent more likely to be arrested in the city of Aurora than white people.

Despite the decree, in 2022, only about five months later, Aurora’s City Council fired Vanessa Wilson, the interim Chief of Police who had begun to reform the APD by creating DEI trainings and removing many of the so-called “bad apples” involved in Elijah McClain’s death. In Wilson’s place, the Council appointed a new interim chief who rehired the officers and ended many of Wilson’s programs for reform.

Meanwhile, police violence in Aurora has continued. So far this year, out of the 348 reported uses of force by Aurora PD, about 40 percent of those were against Black residents – that’s despite Black residents only making up about 16 percent of the population.

Lewis was the second unarmed Black man Aurora Police officers killed since June of last year. The incident happened at around midday, on a Tuesday in May. Footage shows Aurora PD confronting Lewis and Officer Michael Dieck shooting and killing Lewis within eight seconds of arrival.

Lewis, who had a 16-year-old son, can be heard shouting that he is unarmed. As he begins to fall to his knees with his hands in the air, Dieck fires. Dieck, who is on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation, reported that he thought the cellphone in Lewis’ right hand was a weapon. KGNU’s Alexis Kenyon reports. [MORE]

Nothing can ever change with regard to police brutality so long as police have the power to use force offensively on “citizens.” In fact, despite the falling violent crime rates since 1993, police killings have increased. According to Mapping Police Violence, “Police killed more people in 2023 than any year in more than a decade. Police have continued to kill at a similar rate in 2024.“ Police killed at least 1,247 people in 2023. Black people were 27% of those killed by police in 2023 despite being only 13% of the population. Thus far, there have been only 9 days in 2024 where police did not kill someone. Black people are most likely to be killed by police and are three times more likely than whites to be killed by police. 33% of Black people killed by police were running away, driving away or otherwise trying to flee. Regardless of race, there is no accountability: 98.1% of killings by police from 2013-2023 did not result with officers even being charged with a crime. [MORE]

Petitioning puppeticians for reforms, or begging them to enforce the status quo by punishing police for conduct that is already illegal or begging them to defund or lower police department budgets can have no effect on the extraordinary police power to use force offensively on citizens. Said non-reformable and uncontrollable power to initiate the use of unprovoked violence on people is called “authority.”

As you will see, if you indulge BW here, due to the fact that "authority" is immoral and unjust and there is no legitimate or rational way to account for belief in its existence, the legal system is entirely based on physical coercion or violence. In other words, we are not free.

Political “authority” can be summed up as the implied right to rule over people. It is the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have the moral and legal obligation to obey.’ [MORE] Authority is the basis and operating system for all governments throughout the world, regardless of type, function or characterization. As so-called representatives of authority, police officers (among other authorities) are empowered to use force offensively against citizens who are legally and morally obliged to obey authority. [MORE]

White Liberal Media Deceives: The Supreme Ct Didn’t “Allow” Cities to Ban Homeless Encampments. It Just said Laws that Do So Don’t Violate the 8th Amendment - but Can Still be Challenged Other Ways

/

Photo Above "Georgetown Blues" taken by Vincent R Brown. 

although African Americans make up just 12.5% of the general population, Some 40.4% of the national homeless population is black, according to the University of Maryland School of Public Health, [MORE] FUNKTIONARY EXPLAINS

HOMELESS – THE INFORMATIONALLY DISENFRANCHISED AND IN MANY CASES ALSO THE PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISENGAGED. THE STREETS MAY BELONG TO THE PEOPLE, BUT THEY MAKE LESS THAN IDEAL PLACES TO LIVE. IN THE COLD, THE HOMELESS LOOK FOR THE “GRATE” OUTDOORS.

In City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of the homeless population living in Grants Pass, alleging that the city’s ordinances against public camping violated the Eighth Amendment.

They claimed that the law punished the mere status of being homeless and compared it to a punishment that made it a crime to be a drug addict, or punishment for simply being a drug addict.

An injunction was originally entered, prohibiting the city from enforcing its laws against homeless individuals. The US Supreme Court overruled this injunction holding that enforcement of the city’s laws did not constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment prohibited by the Eight Amendment.

The Court explained that the 8th Amendment’s “The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on the question what “method or kind of punishment” a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place or how it may go about securing a conviction for that offense.” One rare exception to the court’s focus on the punishment after a defendant has been found guilty is that a State may not enact laws that criminalize the mere status of being a drug addict (Robinson case). The Court stated,

“Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson. Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.” Grants Pass Municipal Code §§5.61.030, 5.61.010; App. to Pet. for Cert. 221a–222a. Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building. In that respect, the city’s laws parallel those found in countless jurisdictions across the country. And because laws like these do not criminalize mere status, Robinson is not implicated.”

In other words, the law at issue did not just punish the mere status of being homeless. Rather, it punished particular activity, such as sleeping or occupying prohibited places. It explained, although homelessness, like being a drug addict, might be an involuntary act, the 8th Amendment does not cover conduct that flows from any “condition [the defendant] is powerless to change.”

Contrary to the Dependent media coverage of this case, the court did not allow cities to enforce homeless encampment bans. States have broad authority to criminalize conduct. This decision did not allow cities to do anything - it simply says that laws prohibiting homeless encampments don’t violate the 8th Amendment. Persons charged with a crime can still raise other defenses such as a necessity defense or plaintiffs can raise other legal challenges to such laws.

ABOVE BALTIMORE MD Is it MAGA Republicans or Mostly White Liberal Landlords Evicting Mostly Black Tenants Into the Streets? Evictions Soar in CA, Elsewhere. Media Pretends Unknown Forces Cause Black/Latino Homelessness

LIBERALS LOVE TO DECEIVE BLACK PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING THEY LIVE IN RACIST FREE ENVIRONMENTS IN THEIR LIBERAL CITIES (SUCH AS SEATTLE, PORTLAND, SF, DC, NYC, CHICAGO, ATLANTA, ST. LOUIS, LA, ETC.). THEY ALSO PURPOSEFULLY CONFUSE RACISM WITH BIGOTRY AND OTHER FORMS OF BAD SPEECH/DISRESPECT. WHITE LIBERAL CITIES ARE PLACES OVERWHELMINGLY “RUN AND CONTROLLED BY ELITE WHITE LIBERALS” -WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF ELECTED BLACK PUPPETICIANS OR APPOINTED BLACK ROLEBOTS IN A GIVEN JURISDICTION. RATHER, IN ALL LIBERAL JURISDICTIONS WHERE BLACKS RESIDE, ELITE WHITES CONTROL AND OWN ALL MAJOR RESOURCES (SUCH AS BANKS, LOCAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA, MAJOR REAL ESTATE, UTILITIES, LARGE CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESSES, MAJOR INDUSTRY, MAJOR NON-PROFITS, UNIONS, HOSPITALS, ETC) AND ANYTHING ELSE OF SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL VALUE. IN SUCH PLACES WEALTHY RACIST SUSPECTS FUNCTION AS THE MAJOR DECISION MAKERS IN REGARDS TO WHAT HAPPENS OR DOES NOT HAPPEN TO NON-WHITE PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY BLACKS AND LATINOS. [MORE]

Quite Obviously, 'Biden Had Way Too Much to Think’ but He's Not Mentally Impaired, according to the Chorus Spun by Cult of Dumbocrats, Led by $pinfidel James Clyburn, Designated Corpse Defender

/

According to FUNKTIONARY:

$pinfidels – those well-paid profligates in the print and visual Hypnomedia who twist issues, facts, events, statements, contexts, and predicaments of outspoken people from all walks of life into ready-made labels that demonize and/or marginalize anyone who questions the actions, policies, jurisdiction, positions, legitimacy, accuracy, enforcement, or authority of the Twin-Towering $tatus Quo—Corporate State and Corporate Religion. $pinfidels are those who believe in the doctrine of Original Spin. “Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul.” ~Mark Twain (Samuel Clements). (See: Richcraft, Hypnomedia, Whore Nation, MEDIA, NEWS, Coin-Operated & Corporate Religion)

Top Us Law Schools Present Undeniable Evidence of Israel’s Gaza Genocide

/

From [HERE] On May 15, the University Network for Human Rights (UNHR), a U.S.-based advocacy group training undergraduates in human rights law at colleges and universities worldwide to counter abusive state, corporate, or private conduct, published a 105-page analysis of international law and its application to Israel’s military actions since October 7, 2023. Drawing on extensive evidence and historical legal precedents, the findings leave no doubt that Israel has committed horrific breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention in Gaza.

A collaborative effort by some of the West’s most prestigious law schools, the report has now been submitted to the United Nations. The institution has yet to comment on the UNHR investigation’s irrefutable, bombshell contents. The mainstream media has also remained silent. Given the complicity of Western journalists in whitewashing and justifying unconscionable crimes in Gaza, this is not surprising. However, the silence has been so pervasive that the report may have even gone unnoticed by committed Palestine solidarity activists.

This silence is itself an injustice, as the UNHR has produced a singular, indispensable resource for factually, legally, and morally refuting the arguments and assertions of Zionists and their allies, old and new. The report details, in devastating forensic detail, the variety of deplorable, murderous ways in which the Israeli state and its operatives at every level are culpable for committing genocide in Gaza, from public expressions of “blatant and unequivocal dehumanization and cruelty” to military actions explicitly designed to maximize Palestinian slaughter.

As defined in the Genocide Convention of 1948 and interpreted by international courts and tribunals, the crime of genocide requires that a perpetrator kill, seriously harm, or inflict conditions of life calculated to destroy a group, in whole or in part, with the intent to destroy that group. Thomas Becker, UNHR’s legal director, tells MintPress News: “What’s happening now is both unprecedented and, in many ways, a textbook case of genocide.”

Five days after the publication of the UNHR’s landmark investigation, International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Karim Khan announced his intent to indict Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for numerous crimes against humanity and atrocities committed since October 7, 2023. While it remains uncertain whether they will ever face justice, the Network’s report should inspire governments and citizens worldwide to work relentlessly towards achieving that righteous goal.

‘DESTROY AND EXTERMINATE’

In 1925, German writer and satirist Kurt Tucholsky reportedly remarked, “The death of one man is a catastrophe; a hundred thousand deaths is a statistic.” This quote has since become entrenched in Western political consciousness and is often attributed to various figures, most prominently Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. However, the casualty and death figures emerging from Gaza, especially when accompanied by gruesome photographic and video evidence of Tel Aviv’s numerous crimes, are far from mere statistics.

“Israel’s attack on Palestinians in Gaza has been one of superlatives,” Becker told MintPress News. “More children have died in four months in Gaza than in four years of the world’s conflicts combined. The starvation rate in Gaza is the fastest the world has seen, and this is the deadliest conflict ever recorded for journalists and aid workers,” he continued.

In just half a year, Israel has killed two percent of Gaza’s children and either killed or injured five percent of its total population. It has displaced 75 percent of the population, destroying 70 percent of Gaza’s homes. Additionally, it has destroyed every university and 80 percent of Gaza’s schools.” [MORE]

Alan Eugene Miller Asks Federal Court to Stop Alabama Authorities From Murdering Him with Nitrogen Gas. Witnesses Described the Previous “Execution” as Horrific, Cruel and Unusual Punishment

/

From [HERE] Alabama inmate Alan Eugene Miller on Friday requested the US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama block his scheduled nitrogen gas execution, which would be the second of its kind in US history.

In 2000, Miller was sentenced to death for the murder of three people. Alabama law lets death row inmates choose the method of death either by lethal injection or by nitrogen gas. In September 2022, Miller requested the nitrogen gas, but Alabama stated they never got the request and therefore determined he would receive lethal injection as the default. Miller lost his suit against the state of Alabama to be executed by nitrogen gas, and he then had his execution rescheduled after his lethal injection did not work.

The first nitrogen gas execution occurred less than six months ago on Kenneth Smith. The procedure did not go as planned, according to Miller’s lawyers. The team called the execution a “disaster” in Friday’s motion, stating, “Multiple eyewitnesses reported a horrific scene, where Mr. Smith writhed on the gurney and foamed at the mouth.” Based on Smith’s reaction to the nitrogen gas execution, Miller’s team argued that his “right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments” under the Eighth Amendment would be violated if Alabama does not execute under the following conditions:

(1) [U]sing a mask that fits Mr. Miller’s larger-than-average face and head, and creates an airtight seal; (2) using a qualified medical or scientific professional, rather than correctional officers, to place the mask on Mr. Miller’s face, and hold it in place if it becomes dislodged in any way; (3) using a qualified medical or scientific professional … to supervise the nitrogen flow rate during the execution; (4) having a medical professional present in the execution chamber during the execution attempt, who can respond if the execution goes awry as Mr. Smith’s did; (5) using medical grade nitrogen; and (6) using a sedative or tranquilizing medication in pill form before administering the nitrogen gas …

The motion therefore sought to block Miller’s execution until the state decides to follow those conditions by preliminary injunction.

Miller’s preliminary injunction can be granted only if Miller will “suffer irreparable harm” without it and if it will not “substantially harm” Alabama or harm the “public interest.” His team argued that the pain suffered from the execution would be irreparable and the “minimal delay” caused by the injunction would be an unsubstantial harm for Alabama. The motion also added that the public has an interest in ensuring that constitutional rights are not violated.

The nitrogen gas method of execution has been widely criticized by the UN and Amnesty International for being experimental and inherently cruel.

Supreme Ct says Law Used to Charge Jan 6th Protestors Only Criminalizes the Destruction of Evidence and Is Not Applicable to Obstructing Events or Attempt ‘Honkey Kong Unlawful Entry Revolutions'

/

From [HERE] In a closely watched decision stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government must prove a defendant impaired or attempted to impair the availability or integrity of evidence to be convicted under a key obstruction statute. The statute has nothing to do with obstructing an event at the capitol.

On January 6, 2021, a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered outside the US Capitol while Congress convened in a joint session to certify the 2020 Presidential election results in favor of Joe Biden. Amid escalating tensions, some protesters breached the Capitol, breaking windows and clashing with law enforcement, which resulted in a significant delay in the certification process.

The complaint alleges that Fischer was one of those who invaded the building.

According to the complaint, about an hour after the Houses recessed, Fischer trespassed into the Capitol and was involved in a physical confrontation with law enforcement. Fischer claimed in Facebook posts that he “pushed police back about 25 feet,” and that he “was inside the [Cap- itol] talking to police.” Id., at 193–194. Body camera foot- age shows Fischer near a scrum between the crowd and police who were trying to eject trespassers from the building.

A grand jury returned a seven-count superseding indict- ment against Fischer. Six of those counts allege that Fischer forcibly assaulted a federal officer, entered and re- mained in a restricted building, and engaged in disorderly and disruptive conduct in the Capitol, among other crimes. See id., at 181–185; 18 U. S. C. §§111(a), 231(a)(3), 1752(a)(1), (a)(2); 40 U. S. C. §§5104(e)(2)(D), (G). Those six counts carry maximum penalties ranging from six months’ to eight years’ imprisonment.

In Count Three, the only count before the court, the Government charged Fischer with violating 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(2). Fischer moved to dismiss that count, arguing that the provision criminalizes only attempts to impair the availability or integrity of evidence. The District Court granted his motion in relevant part. It concluded that the scope of Section 1512(c)(2) is limited by subsection (c)(1) and therefore requires the defendant to “‘have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object.’

A divided panel of the D. C. Circuit reversed and re- manded for further proceedings. Judge Pan, writing for the court, held that the word “otherwise” in Section 1512(c)(2) means that the provision unambiguously covers “all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, other than the conduct that is already covered by §1512(c)(1).” 64 F. 4th 329, 336 (2023). Judge Walker concurred in part and concurred in the judgment because he read the mens rea element of the statute—“corruptly”—as requiring a defend- ant to act with “an intent to procure an unlawful benefit.” Id., at 361 (internal quotation marks omitted). The preceding section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 1512(c)(1) establishes criminal liability for specific actions such as altering, destroying, or concealing records intending to obstruct official proceedings. Subsection 1512(c)(2) broadens this prohibition to anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”The Supreme Court was asked to weigh in on whether the expansive language of 1512(c)(2) should be tempered by the specific acts listed in 1512(c)(2).

Through statutory interpretation of the language of the statute and its legislative history and context, the Court ruled that 1512(c)(2)n had nothing to do with obstructing an official proceeding. Rather, 1512(c)(2) “was enacted simply to address the Enron accounting scandal disaster which dealt with the destruction of documents and other forms of evidence. [MORE]

New Study Debunks Propaganda: Concealed Carry Laws Don’t Increase Crime, Say Experts

/

From [HERE] The debate over concealed carry weapon (CCW) laws is as heated as ever. With out-of-control crime and a flood of illegal alien criminals, citizen concealed carry is needed now more than ever, as recent self-defense events illustrate. Well-funded Gun control advocates tirelessly argue that these laws lead to more crime, but a new research paper “How Does Concealed Carrying of Weapons Affect Violent Crime?” by John R. Lott and Carlisle E. Moody is making waves by challenging these claims head-on. Here’s what you need to know about their findings, especially if you support gun rights.

The Claims: More Concealed Carry Holders, More Crime?

Anti-gun activists often say that right-to-carry laws, which allow citizens to carry concealed firearms, lead to two main problems:

  1. More Stolen Guns: They argue that more people carrying permitted guns means more chances for those guns to be stolen and end up in the hands of criminals.

  2. Interference with Police: They claim that armed citizens make it harder for police to do their jobs, reducing their effectiveness and potentially increasing crime.

The Research: Setting the Record Straight

Lott and Moody set out to test these claims using solid data. Their research doesn’t just lump all CCW laws together. Instead, they look at specific factors, like the percentage of the adult population with a permit and the number of stolen guns in each state. Here’s what they found:

  1. Stolen Guns: Using data Lott and Moody obtained with help from Congressman Thomas Massie, the study shows that CCW permit holders are NOT a significant source of stolen guns. The research found that the coefficients on CCW permits per capita were approximately ZERO, meaning there was no significant relationship between the number of permits and the number of stolen guns. This slam closed the argument that more CCW permits equal more guns for criminals.

  2. Police Effectiveness: The study also found NO evidence that CCW permit holders reduce police effectiveness. The clearance rates (arrest rates) for violent crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault, showed no significant difference related to the number of CCW permits. In fact, many law enforcement officers believe that armed citizens can help reduce crime. This directly counters the claim that more people carrying guns make it harder for the police to do their jobs.

Supporting Data

  • Revocation Rates: In the 19 states with comprehensive data, the average revocation rate of CCW permits for any reason is one-tenth of 1%. This indicates that permit holders are highly law-abiding.

  • Driving Violations: Data from Michigan shows that non-permit holders are 2.4 times more likely to drive drunk, 34.1 times more likely to drive under the influence of a controlled substance, and 10.6 times more likely to drive recklessly compared to permit holders.

  • Police Opinion: A 2013 survey by PoliceOne found that 76% of law enforcement officers believe legally armed citizens are very or extremely important in reducing crime. Additionally, 91.3% support civilians carrying firearms if they haven’t been convicted of a felony or deemed psychologically incapable.

Why This Matters

For gun rights supporters, this research is a big deal. It provides strong evidence that right-to-carry laws don’t lead to the negative outcomes that anti-gun activists claim. Instead, it supports the idea that law-abiding citizens carrying firearms can coexist with effective policing without increasing crime rates. [MORE]

To Make the Uvalde False Flag More Real, Govt Indicts Police Chief Over Response to "School Massacre" [under the "the public duty doctrine" Cops Have No Legal Duty to Protect Any Particular Citizen]

/

THERE WILL PROBABLY BE NO CONTESTED TRIAL. JUST A GUILTY PLEA. According to the Supreme Court 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]

 From [HERE] The former Uvalde schools police chief was indicted over his role in the slow police response to the 2022 massacre at a Texas elementary school that left 19 children and two teachers dead, the local sheriff said Thursday.

Pete Arredondo was indicted by a grand jury on 10 counts of felony child endangerment/abandonment and briefly booked into the county jail before he was released on bond, Uvalde Sheriff Ruben Nolasco told The Associated Press in a text message Thursday night.

The Uvalde Leader-News and the San Antonio Express-News reported that former school officer Adrian Gonzales also was indicted on multiple similar charges. The Uvalde Leader-News reported that District Attorney Christina Mitchell confirmed the indictment.

The indictments make Arredondo, who was the on-site commander during the attack, and Gonzales the first officers to face criminal charges in one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. A scathing report by Texas lawmakers that examined the police response described Gonzales as one of the first officers to enter the building after the shooting began.

Arredondo lost his job three months after the shooting. Several officers involved were eventually fired, and separate investigations by the Department of Justice and state lawmakers faulted law enforcement with botching their response to the massacre.

Whether any officers would face criminal charges over their actions in Uvalde has been a question hanging over the city of 15,000 since the Texas Rangers completed their investigation and turned their findings over to prosecutors.

Mitchell’s office has also come under scrutiny. Uvalde city officials filed a lawsuit in 2022 that accused prosecutors of not being transparent and withholding records related to the shooting. Media outlets, including the AP, also sued Uvalde officials for withholding records requested under public information laws.

But body camera footage, investigations by journalists and damning government reports have laid bare how over the course of over an hour, a mass of officers went in and out of the school with weapons drawn but did not go inside the classroom where the shooting was taking place. The hundreds of officers at the scene included state police, Uvalde police, school officers and U.S. Border Patrol agents. [MORE]