|
Post by Stephen on Mar 17, 2010 15:54:00 GMT -5
And I'd now have to warn him that my longtime friends like to visit websites that post such insightful comments as "Kill all the pigs". The article did not promote killing police. It is dishonest to attempt to portray the article in that light.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 17, 2010 15:54:59 GMT -5
The more I read this drivel at sites like Lew Rockwell's, I will reiterate that it's garbage. That is far easier than addressing and fairly researching its claims.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 26, 2010 9:37:05 GMT -5
POLICE BEAT RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS WHO PLEA FOR HELP
When the victim of a criminal assault dials 911 for help, what happens if police are the assailants?
Chicago residents Matthew Clark (a Ph.D. lecturer at the University of Chicago) and Gregory Malandrucco (who is finishing his Ph.D.) can answer that question: The cops who respond to the call will eagerly join the fray on the side of the attackers.
After finishing a meal at a Mexican restaurant last February 6, Clark and Malandrucco were suddenly shoved out of the way by a large, aggressive male. The assailant was offended that Malandrucco had taken a moment to put on his coat.
When Clark and Malandrucco exited the restaurant, they were accosted by the same ill-tempered lout and two associates — one male, one female — who cursed and threatened them. They would later learn that these three truculent people, who took inconsolable offense over a momentary delay at the cash register, were off-duty undercover police officers.
Puzzled by the hostility, Clark and Malandrucco tried to defuse the situation peacefully.
“We don’t want any trouble,” Clark told them. “Let’s just shake hands and calm down and everybody’ll go home. No problem.”
By way of reply, one of the antagonists punched Clark repeatedly in the face and threw him to the ground — an assault captured by a local security camera.
“As I was laying down and getting punched, this woman that was with them is telling me, `Quit resisting. They’re cops. They’re going to beat you,’” Clark later recalled.
This was not a demand that Clark submit to an “arrest” (which in this case would have been a simple abduction). Rather, it was a candid statement of criminal intentions, coupled with a demand that the victim simply remain still and passively absorb whatever abuse the aggressor saw fit to inflict on him.
When Malandrucco tried to intervene, he was beaten as well. This divided the assailants’ attention long enough to permit Clark to dial 911 — which, as is almost always the case, made matters considerably worse.
At least three uniformed officers arrived in marked cars. Clark, who by this time was bleeding profusely from his face, “begged” the uniformed cops to help.
They were eager to lend a hand — that is, a fist, as well as a knee and a foot — to the perpetrators: As summarized in a lawsuit filed by the victims, one of the officers “switched places with the plainclothes officer who was on top of Mr. Malandrucco, holding him down and striking him in the process.” Another kicked and kneed the prone, bleeding, and helpless man.
After Malandrucco was left unconscious, the uniformed police turned their attention to Clark.
“They took a look at me,” Clark recounted to a local CBS affiliate. “I was covered in blood. I said `Please help me. Are you going to do anything to these guys? Are you going to help us?’ They said `We’re not going to do anything to these guys. You need to go home and forget about it.’ And they left the scene.”
In a sense, Clark and Malandrucco — both of whom had been beaten unconscious — were fortunate, since neither was arrested and charged with “aggravated assault” and “resisting arrest,” which is what usually happens when an innocent citizen uses his face to assault the sanctified fists of a police officer.
Rosa Torres, manager of the restaurant where the assault took place, told both police investigators and the local CBS affiliate that “nothing happened” inside the restaurant to provoke or precipitate the incident.
The absence of charges against the victims in this incident underscores the fact this was an undisguised act of criminal violence carried out by a wolf pack of tax-subsidized street criminals.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 1, 2010 9:35:02 GMT -5
POLICE MURDER 47 YEAR OLD WOMAN IN HER OWN HOME March 31, 2010 A Prairie Village, KS woman was shot to death by police this morning for the crime of attempting to be left alone in her own home. Police stopped by her home as a "welfare check." The victim apparently did not desire that her welfare be "checked," so she locked her door and refused entry to the gunmen. Police became more insistent, demanding that she open her home to them. She apparently declared her intent to protect herself and her property by force. With heavily armed Tactical Units on site and scores of police vehicles surrounding the home, police still felt so threatened by a 47-year old woman that they shot her to death. The officer who committed the murder has been given a paid vacation, also sometimes referred to by fellow gunmen as "administrative leave." www.kctv5.com/video/23013661/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 3, 2010 20:59:32 GMT -5
Cop Cleared By Grand Jury For Tasering Great Grandmother During Speeding Stop
An Austin cop was cleared of any wrong doing by a grand jury this week after he tased a 72 year old woman during a routine speeding stop.
The Travis County grand jury declined to indict Deputy Constable Christopher Bieze on a charge of injury to an elderly person, following the incident on May 11, 2009.
(Note that a grand jury is not a trial jury, but rather a bureaucratic panel that approves government actions or warrants in more than 95% of all cases nationally).
Bieze pulled over Kathryn Winkfein on Texas 71, west of Austin, on suspicion of driving 60mph in a 45mph zone.
When the great grandmother refused to sign the accusation, Bieze ordered her out of the car and threatened to attack her with his electrocution weapon.
The 4-foot-11 Winkfein dared the Deputy Constable to use his Taser on her, as he began pushing her away from the road when she attempted to return to her vehicle as seen in video of the incident.
Bieze then hit her with 50,000 volts from the shock gun.
In dash cam footage, Winkfein can be seen collapsing in paralysis on the ground screaming, while Bieze shouts at her to put her hands behind her back.
Despite the court’s decision, District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg criticized the actions of Bieze, noting “A more prudent use of discretion may have resulted in a different outcome.”
An "internal investigation" concluded that Bieze didn’t violate any county policies and he was not disciplined.
The Taser is designed to be used as a weapon of last resort before lethal action by police. However, in hundreds of publicized cases, police have used the Taser as soon as someone displayed a “fighting stance” or simply to get a non-violent suspect to do what they were told.
The failure to find any fault with the officer’s actions in this latest case bolsters the notion that “pain compliance,” a euphemism for torture, is acceptable in apprehending anyone even if that person poses no physical danger.
As we have seen from the number of taser related deaths in recent years, if you electrify any person, they suffer extreme pain and stand a high chance of being killed.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 1, 2010 11:01:27 GMT -5
OFFICER TROY MEADE MURDERS UNARMED MAN Troy Meade killed Niles Meservey in the parking lot of Everett, Washington's Chuckwagon Inn last June 10. Meade shot the unarmed, intoxicated man seven times in the back. These facts are not in dispute. In his recently concluded trial, Meade justified his lethal assault by describing it as self-defense: At the time of the shooting, the drunken Meservey was behind the wheel of his Corvette, and Meade was standing behind and to the left of the vehicle. The jury rejected the claim of self-defense, because Meade was never in significant physical jeopardy. Meservey had plowed his car into a chain-link fence; if he had put the car in reverse, he wouldn't have hit Meade. Trial testimony established that Meservey was not backing up when Meade pulled his gun. The wrecked Corvette was still embedded in the fence when the crime scene investigators arrived. Meade was charged with first-degree manslaughter and second-degree murder. The same jury that rejected Meade's self-defense claim acquitted him of both counts. If the killing of Niles Meservey wasn't self-defense, how could it be something other than an act of criminal homicide? Since Troy Meade is a police officer and his victim was a mere Mundane, this question typifies what Edmund Burke described as the "mysteries of policy" – those special exemptions from the moral law claimed by the exalted beings controlling the state's apparatus of coercion. Any other individual who killed a man under the circumstances recounted above would almost certainly be found guilty of criminal homicide. Because Meade was dressed in the sacerdotal vestments of the state's punitive priesthood, his lawless act of lethal violence was transmuted into an act of policy. To borrow the expression used by the government ruling us when it audits the shortcomings of other officially established criminal syndicates, this was an "extra-judicial killing" – a term found in descriptions of murder rampages carried out by police in such places as Nigeria, Pakistan, and Latin American dictatorships of yore. Meade's extra-judicial killing of Meservey was a form of "street justice" by way of summary execution. "Time to end this – enough is enough!" According to Officer Stephen Klocker, who was on the scene at the Chuckwagon on June 10 and on the stand as a prosecution witness at Meade's trial, this was what his fellow officer exclaimed as he drew his gun and killed Meservey. Klocker, a 21-year police veteran, offered his testimony against his own professional interest – and, as police whistleblowers elsewhere would attest, at some risk to his physical safety. During the trial Everett's municipal government – which faces a lawsuit by Meservey's family, and thus had an interest in seeing Meade acquitted – took the remarkable step of providing the defense with documents intended to undermine Klocker's reliability as a witness. It is ironic, but hardly inexplicable, that the city government didn't make an issue of Klocker's credibility until he testified that another cop had killed a citizen without legal cause or justification. According to the jury, this purely discretionary killing was not a criminal act. Apparently the lethal fusillade was just an unusually assertive way to bring "closure" to an encounter between an obstreperous drunk and a stressed-out police officer. That encounter lasted less than a half hour. There were no exigent circumstances involved. By exercising minimal force and exposing himself to an all-but-undetectably small amount of personal peril, Meade could have deprived Meservey of his car keys, immobilizing him until he was either unconscious or cooperative. Nah. Too risky. The only safe option here, obviously, was open gunplay. The reasoning behind the verdict seems to be roughly this: "Sure, the circumstances didn't legally justify the use of lethal force, but we have no right to second-guess a decision reflecting the inscrutable wisdom of an agent of state authority." Somewhere (eternal judgment not being my prerogative, I don't claim to know where) Joseph de Maistre, the 18th-century apostle of absolutism, is smiling with approval over the verdict in the Meade trial. In Meade's acquittal, Maistre would find vindication of his foundational authoritarian maxim: " ll greatness, all power, all social order depends on the executioner; he is the terror of human society and tie that holds it together. Take away this incontrovertible force from the world, and at that very moment order is superseded by chaos, thrones fall, society disappears."
In Maistre's vision of the world, terror is the foundation of "society." His contemporary, Edmund Burke, drew a crucial distinction between "artificial" or "policed" societies, on the one hand, and "natural" societies, on the other.
The latter are rooted in tradition and cooperation; the former are controlled through "sanguinary measures, and instruments of violence" – institutionalized terror and officially sanctioned homicide.
Cheerfully oblivious to besetting reality, many still believe that our society is governed by laws, rather than the arbitrary will of individuals.
The morally contorted verdict in Troy Meade's trial offers a useful corrective by starkly illustrating that sanctified official violence is the foundation of the "policed society" in which we live.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 1, 2010 11:11:14 GMT -5
May 1, 2010
Tonya Craft Case: Time for Disbarment of Prosecutors
by Bill Anderson
I will admit that the Tonya Craft trial which I have been covering from my blog is the most unbelievable trial I ever have seen. In fact, it is not a trial at all, but rather is something akin out of Kafka, and it got worse yesterday. A very well-known clinical psychologist from Atlanta who had examined the children of Ms. Craft (after she was being accused by the State of Georgia of molesting them) on orders from a judge in Tennessee, who was dealing with a custody battle.
The psychologist, Dr. Ann Hazzard, reported that she found no signs of sexual abuse at all. Soon afterward, prosecutors Len Gregor and Chris Arnt got a warrant and the state sent a SWAT team to Hazzard’s office, where they began to bully her and her clients and trashed the office until Hazzard gave them the file on Tonya Craft’s children. It gets better.
Dr. Hazzard came to the trial yesterday as a witness for the defense. Even though she has testified in hundreds of trials and is considered a highly-qualified witness, the prosecution objected to her testifying at all and tried to block it. The judge, going against all settled law, agreed that she could take the stand, but that she would not be permitted to say anything regarding her own examination of Ms. Craft’s children, saying that it would be inadmissible hearsay.
Readers need to understand that almost the ENTIRE prosecutorial case is built from hearsay, and at least some of it clearly has been perjured and, moreover, the prosecution has been adding things that never were in discovery, as witnesses on the stand are claiming (I am not making this up) that “I JUST remembered.” For example, Suzi Thorne, a “forensic interviewer” who does not have a college degree and has almost no formal training at all in the techniques of interviewing children, was interviewing one of the children, asking leading questions over a long period of time.
The child on the video clearly does not allege any sexual abuse, not even close. Thorne then testified that after she turned off the video camera and went to her desk, the child then came to her and said, “I just remembered, Miss Tonya did…(a sexual act to her).” However, despite this deus ex machina that supposedly had fallen in her lap, Thorne did not turn on the video camera to record this stunning “disclosure,” nor did she even write any notes. She did NOTHING to memorialize this alleged event, nothing.
This testimony absolutely reeks of perjury, yet Judge Brian House, who has been taking all of his cues from prosecutors Chris Arnt and Len Gregor, permitted Thorne’s testimony to be entered as evidence. This was pure hearsay, and obvious perjury, yet that was OK with House. If you want proof of a rigged trial, it does not get better than this.
Thus, because of this incident and because of their general awful and disruptive behavior during the entire trial, I have announced in a post put up Friday that I will be seeking to have Gregor and Arnt (whom I call the Dishonest Duo) disbarred under Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 of the Rules of Conduct for Advocates of the Georgia State Bar. I’m in the process of having people who have attended this trial prepare sworn, notarized statements, and because the actual proceedings have been recorded by the local media, we have hours and hours of evidence of actions by these prosecutors that the rules say can result in disbarment. I’m in the process of sending in some material regarding Arnt’s obvious breaking of Rules 3.6 and 3.8 (outside statements regarding the defendant and defense counsel), although the penalty for this only is reprimand from the bar.
House threw down a gag order in this case (although he only has applied it in reality to the defense) at the urging of Gregor and Arnt, who have engaged in reprehensible conduct that you have to see to believe. Most readers simply cannot fathom what is going on every day in this trial, and if you want to see the utter nihilistic power of the state in action, I can find no better example. To give you an idea of what is happening, a woman who attended the trial Thursday gave me this account (which is backed up by the trial record and the videos):
(THIS PORTION HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE OF THE DISGUSTING, PORNOGRAPHIC LANGUAGE AND PORTRAYALS MADE BY THE PROSECUTION).
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on May 21, 2010 9:12:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 25, 2010 23:10:29 GMT -5
Want to Leave the USA? Good Luck!This from Aurelia Masterson of the Panama Legal law firm (they assist people who are moving from the US to other countries): The USA has become a police state superb since 9/11.
There is an international no-fly list. It was originally meant for people coming into the USA from abroad. Now it includes those leaving the USA going abroad. It also includes those entering or leaving by ship. As of late it includes those traveling from one state to another. Now a passport is needed to leave (and of course return from) the USA. To get on a plane one needs acceptable ID. Apparently not all state driver licenses are acceptable any longer. So they have effectually readied the country for a closing of the borders in and out at a moments notice. We are also told that smuggling people out of the USA is a bigger business than smuggling people into the USA.
The point here is you might not be able to leave much longer. A few short years ago you could just walk out of the USA without showing any ID. That is no longer the case. If they start to require exit visas you may find yourself ineligible. If you owe state or federal taxes, have open judgments, owe child support, have pending court cases, etc., you may not be allowed to leave the country. When the government decides to tighten the screws they will make it very difficult to leave. You are their property, as they see it.
Patrick Henry is long gone. The safest bet is to watch the show from the sidelines outside the country. Get out without delay. Those who leave first, leave with the most. There are millions of people thinking of leaving but they do not make any firm plans and execute them. We know only too well how this can end. Police states always leave the door open for the dissidents to leave. They do not want them there since they will cause trouble later. They want those who are going to resist to leave. So go.
|
|