RSS

Tag Archives: law

Chumph Lackey Alex Jones Looking at Felony Time

Supporting the Chumph won’t keep your ass out of jail. The Chumph’s source of conspiracy theories (by way of Russian spies) is Alex Jones “Infowars” site.

Alex is currently in deep soul searching conversations with the Secret Service over threatening to kill a Congressman.

Suggest the GSA convert the Chumph Hotel in DC into a jail, and keep the gaudy trinkets next to the bars.

Then again, 6 years in GenPop…Does have its “re-education” possibilities.

 

Alex Jones’s threat to Congressman may be a felony

Law enforcement officials are not saying whether they will charge broadcaster Alex Jones, the right-wing conspiracy theorist ally of President Donald Trump, for publicly threatening to “beat” Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and telling Schiff to “fill your hand”—a reference to taking up a pistol.

But, says an attorney with expertise in federal law, Jones’s threats appear to break a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 115, which states “whoever threatens to assault any a Member of Congress, when s/he is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official duties, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, the threat shall be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment of up to 6 years.”  

“I do think that the combination of Jones’s comments would amount to a threat,” says Amanda Berman, director of legal affairs with Lawfare, a consortium of experts on national security law. “It seems to be a clear provocation. Ultimately the question would have to be put to a judge or jury, but I think there is a legal basis for a conviction based on Jones’s threat which was made ‘with intent to impede, intimidate or interfere’ with Congressman Schiff’s exercise of his duties as the ranking member of the committee investigating the connection between the Trump campaign/administration and the Russians.”

Schiff likely became a Jones target because he is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Schiff has said there is “ more than circumstantial” evidence of collusion between Trump associates and Russia.

Jones is based in Austin, Texas, and Texas state law also forbids threats against public officials.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas did not return calls and emailed requests for comment.

Uploaded March 30 under the headline Watch Live Now! Plan to Assassinate Trump Leaked, the video involved an interview with Republican operative Roger Stone, a sometime Trump adviser. Jones launched into his rant against Schiff while talking with Stone, but the canny operative—who has been accused of having Russia ties himself—did not take the bait, remarking: “I’m not going to go there.”

It’s not clear whether the video was broadcast on the air before being posted to YouTube: If so, that would bring it under the purview of the Federal Communication Commission. Jones’s Infowars program is carried by Genesis Communications Network, which produces 75 shows aired on 830 radio stations.

In addition to threatening to “beat” Schiff, the rant was also explicitly anti-gay. Neither Schiff’s office nor the FCC have returned calls for comment. The CEO and founder of Genesis Communications, Ted Anderson, also has not responded to messages.

The video was brought to Newsweek’ s attention by Media Matters, a progressive PAC that monitors Jones’s shows.

Jones’s broadcast style serves up class resentment and paranoia, and he sometimes literally growls with rage about “globalists.” The Southern Poverty Law Center has called him “the most prolific conspiracy theorist in America.” Among the outlandish ideas he frequently discusses are that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job and that the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre was a faked false flag operation aimed at taking away Americans’ gun rights. Until he publicly recanted recently, he was also a purveyor of “Pizzagate,” the claim that Hillary Clinton and other Democrats engaged in child abuse in the basement of a popular Washington, D.C. pizza parlor. Acting on that theory, a North Carolina man shot up the restaurant with an assault rifle in December after driving to the nation’s capital to “self-investigate.”  

The rise of Trump has not soothed Jones’s excitable tendencies. On the contrary: He has dialed it up a few notches, going so far as urging Trump to use violence against his opponents.

In February the online advertiser AdRoll suspended its relationship with Infowars. Kellogg has also stopped its advertising, citing hate speech. Jones is still supported by Google via its Youtube Partners Program, which helps users connect with advertisers, and other advertisers include Playstation and Trivago.

The full transcript of Jones’s rant against Schiff is below, and the video clip is here.

Warning: persistent profanity.

“I’m not against gay people. OK. I love them, they’re great folks. But Schiff looks like the archetypal cocksucker with those little deer-in-the-headlight eyes and all his stuff. And there’s something about this fairy, hopping around, bossing everybody around, trying to intimidate people like me and you, I want to tell Congressman Schiff and all the rest of them, “Hey listen asshole, quit saying Roger and I’—and I’ve never used cussing in 22 years but the gloves are off—’listen you son of a bitch, what the fuck’s your problem? You want to sit here and say that I’m a goddamn, fucking Russian. You get in my face with that I’ll beat your goddamn ass, you son of a bitch. You piece of shit. You fucking goddamn fucker. Listen fuckhead, you have fucking crossed a line. Get that through your goddamn fucking head. Stop pushing your shit. You’re the people that have fucked this country over and gangraped the shit out of it and lost an election. So stop shooting your mouth off claiming I’m the enemy. You got that you goddamn son of a bitch? Fill your hand.’ I’m sorry, but I’m done. You start calling me a foreign agent, those are fucking fighting words. Excuse me.”

After reviewing the transcript, attorney Berman said it’s clear Jones indicated an intent to harm, under the law. “Regardless of the qualifying language ‘get in my face with that,’ Jones challenges the congressman to arm himself for a physical altercation (‘fill your hand’), and suggests that if the two ever ‘faced off’—which could mean that they were simply in the same room together—the congressman would be assaulted. Jones says that ‘the gloves are off’ and that he [Jones] was the victim of the congressman’s ‘fighting words.’”

Jones has not responded to a request for comment.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Republican Reich Legalizes Murder of Native Americans in North Dakota

If you have any question as to what the racist right stands for…Here is a proposed bill by a Republican scumbag legalizing murder of minorities.

Image result for North Dakota Pipeline Protests

North Dakota Bill Would Protect Drivers Who ‘Accidentally’ Hit And Kill Protesters

It’s aimed at Dakota Access protesters, and it doesn’t bode well.

Republican lawmakers in North Dakota are taking aim at protesters with a handful of bills that would make another pipeline protest far more dangerous.

The oil-friendly legislature argues that its constituents are frustrated over the protests, which led federal authorities to halt construction of the $3.8-billion Dakota Access Pipeline as thousands of protesters braved cold weather and violence for months.

A bill that state GOP Rep. Keith Kempenich introduced would exempt drivers from liability if they accidentally hit a pedestrian, according to the Bismarck Tribune. House Bill 1203 was written up in direct response to groups of protesters blocking roadways, Kempenich told the paper. He claims protesters were seen jumping out in front of vehicles.

“It’s shifting the burden of proof from the motor vehicle driver to the pedestrian,” Kempenich said. “They’re intentionally putting themselves in danger.”

He admits that the law might be used in cases that don’t involve protests. But a few casualties of justice are apparently worth it; his bill would mitigate instances when panicked drivers might have accidentally “punched the accelerator rather than the brakes” as protesters blocked the roads.

Other new bills would be a thorn in the side of protesters and the federal government. One measure would make it a crime for adults to wear masks nearly across the board, while another would allow the state to sue the federal government over millions in extra police costs, according to ABC News.

At this point, it’s unclear whether any of these measures stand a chance, and there’s no committee hearing set for HB1203. It might be crazy to think they’re anything more than posturing, dissenters say.

“Knee-jerk legislation often is poor legislation,” Democratic state Rep. Marvin Nelson told ABC News.

The Dakota Access protests have cost the state more than $22 million and locals are reportedly upset over the rise in crime in the area ― police have arrested nearly 600 people in the region since August.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

California Hires Eric Holder to Fight Trump

Good move California! Pretty soon the few states opposing the TrumPutin will be the only safe places to live in America.

With the Chumph able to pack the courts with sycophants and white supremacists, the Blue States will need to de-legitimize the authority of the new Xterme Court due to Obama’s dithering and cowardice in appointing Judges.

Perhaps a good way to start is to deny seating of any Trumputin Judge in any courtroom in the state – including the Federal Courts.

Anticipating Clashes With Trump, California Puts Eric Holder On Retainer

“Having the former attorney general of the United States brings us a lot of firepower.”

Democratic lawmakers in the California legislature have retained former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to help in any legal battles with President-elect Donald Trump’s administration, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The move is an indication that lawmakers in the nation’s most populous state, where Democrats hold two-thirds majorities in both houses of the legislature, are girding for possible court battles after Trump takes office on Jan. 20.

Last month, leaders of both houses introduced bills to protect undocumented immigrants from anticipated efforts by a Trump administration to increase deportations . In addition, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown has made combating climate change a priority for the state.

“Having the former attorney general of the United States brings us a lot of firepower in order to prepare to safeguard the values of the people of California,” Kevin de León, the Democratic leader of the state Senate, told the Times. “This means we are very, very serious.”

A representative from de León’s office could not immediately be reached for comment early on Wednesday.

Holder served as attorney general under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2015. He is a partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling, which represents companies and helps them navigate government regulations.

“I am honored that the Legislature chose Covington to serve as its legal adviser as it considers how to respond to potential changes in federal law that could impact California’s residents and policy priorities,” Holder said in a statement, according to the Times.

California voted decisively for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election, choosing the former first lady over Trump by 28 percentage points.

 
 

Tags: , , , , ,

One More Thing For the CBC

Image result for black marine

If the CBC is serious about opposing the Chumph – then I have one more suggestion – Play the Lee Atwater Republican game against them.

Pass a Law which allows anyone convicted of a minor drug or other crime to have the choice of joining the military for 4 years, or going to prison to serve their sentence. Make it applicable at the State and Federal Court level, which I think you can do because of a tweak in the law concerning the Military. Should such such prisoner serve their Military term and receive an Honorable Discharge then the should receive all the benefits accrued by their service, as well as a full restoral of any Voting Rights they may have lost, both while doing their service, and after. Their criminal record should be expunged.

Should the commit a crime while serving, then they are subject to any Military Justice that applies and penalties, as well as after serving those penalties, the will have to serve whatever time they were original sentenced to minus time thy have served in the active Military.

Politically this should be easy to defend. And very difficult for Republicans to defeat.

What it accomplishes is a couple of things which are important.

  1. It short circuits the school to jail pipeline.
  2. It kneecaps the private prison system
  3. It opens up training a job opportunities for youth
  4. The Military experience will definitely install some discipline
  5. It provides a pipeline for education where none existed before

And even better from my view in fighting the Chump Reich

  1. It increases the number of minorities in the Military, which…Prevents the Chumph from using the Military against Minorities
  2. Trains young folks in self-defense methods and how to use guns to defend their neighborhoods from Trump racist thugs
  3. It gets some of the hardheads off the street an into something productive

Now – the Rethugs are going to use every dirty trick in the book to fuck over minorities, You – the CBC, need to be their Achilles heel.

Related image

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 3, 2017 in Second American Revolution

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The New Jim Crow – Louisiana Makes It Illegal for Immigrants to Marry

If you are wondering about the sort of America the alt-right and Trumpazoids would put in place – look no further than Louisiana’s new Jim Crow Marriage law.

Louisiana isn’t letting immigrants get married

For an illustration of how cruel the country’s latest wave of nativism has grown, look to Louisiana.

Here, a little-noticed new state law has effectively made it illegal for thousands of refugees to get married.

It all started last year. Having lost the fight over gay marriage, the state’s religious right decided that the sacred institution of wedlock was once again under attack — this time, by devious immigrants. Undocumented workers and even terrorists had newly discovered they could exploit Louisiana’s marriage laws to gain citizenship, legislators claimed, leading to a supposed epidemic of “marriage fraud.”

The response? Make it more difficult for immigrants to get married, of course.

So, as of this year, any foreign-born person wanting to get married in Louisiana must produce both an unexpired visa (even though a federal court has ruled that marriage licenses cannot be denied based on immigration status), as well as, somewhat inexplicably, a birth certificate.

No birth certificate, no marriage, no excuses.

The law has indeed placed marriage off-limits to immigrants in the country illegally, as intended. But it’s hurt plenty of legal immigrants, too. Louisiana is home to thousands of refugees, predominantly Vietnamese and Laotians who received asylum in the 1970s and 1980s after fleeing war and communism in their homelands.

Today these Louisianans often have green cards and even U.S. citizenship, but no access to their original birth documents, if such documents even exist.

The law received little attention when it went into effect in January. Which means people such as Out Xanamane often learn about it only when they get turned away at the courthouse.

Xanamane was born in a village near Savannakhet, Laos, in 1975, the year the country fell to communism. Born at home, he never received a birth certificate.

He remembers little of his early childhood, except that there were bombs and land mines everywhere. In the decade before his birth, the U.S. military dropped 2 million tons of explosives on the tiny nation, making the country one of the most heavily bombed per capita in history.

Xanamane’s family arrived in Louisiana in 1986, after spending time in refugee camps in Thailand and the Philippines. He has lived in the United States ever since and is now a U.S. permanent resident in the process of applying for citizenship.

It wasn’t until he got sick this summer that his lack of birth certificate was ever an issue.

In July, he was diagnosed with liver cancer, the same illness that claimed his brother’s life two years ago. The diagnosis meant a lot of changes for his family, the most pressing of which was he really, really needed the state to recognize his marriage.

Xanamane and his significant other, U.S.-born citizen Marilyn Cheng, were married in a Buddhist temple in 1997. But like many in the local Laotian community, they never sought an official marriage license, and never felt they needed to. They have called each other “husband” and “wife” for two decades, have four children and assumed they probably had a common-law marriage at the very least.

They didn’t; Louisiana doesn’t recognize common-law marriage.

The couple discovered this when Cheng’s employer, under whose health-insurance plan Xanamane was covered for the past two years, abruptly asked for a copy of their marriage license after bills for his cancer treatments came in. Suddenly all the marriage-related legal protections they’d taken for granted — health coverage, hospital visitation rights, Social Security survivor benefits — vanished.

Within days they went to the courthouse, armed with Xanamane’s green card, refugee documents and driver’s license. Twice they were turned away.

“They told me I have to go back to Laos and get my birth certificate,” said Xanamane, who has never returned to his country of birth. “But there isn’t any birth certificate there, either.”… Read the rest Here

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 11, 2016 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Scamming the System – Police Turn Off Body Cameras

Body cameras were supposed to be a big help in determining how situations between the Police and the public actually happened.

They would be – if the Cops didn’t turn them off.

Here is my solution –

  1. Any officer who doesn’t have his body camera turned on during a arrest or other citizen action unless there is a really good excuse…Should be immediately terminated from the force, and strongly considered for prosecution.
  2. Any video/sound, collected on a body camera, must be made Public within 90 days, if requested by an involved Citizen, his legal representative though a FOIA request.

Body Cameras Are Betraying Their Promise

They’re not transparent. They’re not independent. They’re not even turned on when they should be.

When they were introduced to the American public two years ago, police body-cameras seemed like they might help everyone. Police departments liked that body cams reduced the number of public complaints about officer behavior. Communities and protesters liked that they would introduce some transparency and accountability to an officer’s actions.

Today, research suggests that body cameras significantly reduce the number of public complaints about police. But recent events subvert the idea that the devices help or increase the power of regular people—that is, the policed. Instead of making officers more accountable and transparent to the public, body cameras may be making officers and departments more powerful than they were before.

This is happening across the country. And there are three trends that are repeating themselves over and over.

First, many officers are (either earnestly or conveniently) forgetting to activate their cameras when they’re supposed to. Take the case of Terrence Sterling, an unarmed 31-year-old black man who was fatally shot this month by local police officers in Washington, D.C., after his motorcycle crashed into their car. Contrary to District of Columbia policy, no officer at the scene activated their body camera until after the shooting. The city released footage of Sterling’s final moments this week—but that video begins more than a minute after shots were fired.

Also this week, The Washington Post revealed that an officer present at the shooting of Keith Scott, in Charlotte, North Carolina, did not activate his body camera when he should have. The officer only turned it on immediately after another officer at the scene shot Scott. Due to a feature of the camera that saves the 30 seconds of video prior to its activation, this meant that while the shots werecaptured on camera, the footage had no sound. (Dashboard-camera video released over the weekend seemed to show that Scott, a 43-year-old black man, had his hands by his side when another officer shot him four times and killed him.)

Or consult the case of Paul O’Neal, an unarmed 18-year-old black teenager who was shot and killed by a Chicago Police Department officer in late July. The officer’s body camera was also turned off during the shooting.

In case after case, police departments say officers did not have their body cameras activated when it counted. It can seem as though incidents where body-cam footage helped secure an indictment—such as in Marksville, Louisiana, last November, or as in Cincinnati last July—are more rare than the cases where they don’t.

These are breaches of protocol—incidents where events didn’t happen as the law would require. Often, these violations are never significantly punished. This is the second major threat to body-camera accountability: If there’s not significant discipline for officers who fail to follow local policies—as the officers failed in D.C., Chicago, and Charlotte—then it doesn’t matter what’s in the policy.

“Even if a department like Chicago has a great, green-check-mark policy, there are still lapses by officers,” said Harlan Yu, a technologist at Upturn, a civil-rights consulting firm. “In the Paul O’Neal shooting, cameras were on before, they appear to be on after, but then—oh well!—something happened” during the shooting itself.

“We see this in Chicago over and over in other areas—there are all sorts of stories about Chicago cops purposefully deactivating their dash cams, even though they’re required to use them and the city pays for them. But who is disciplining officers when they fail to follow the policies? If taxpayers are spending money on these cameras, they sure as hell better be working when a shooting happens,” he added.

The third threat is that many states have introduced or passed new laws that restrict public access to footage while preserving police access.

In October, North Carolina will enforce a new law that only allows courts, and not politicians, to release any body-camera footage. The law asks state judges to weigh various factors before releasing a video, including whether it is “necessary to advance a compelling public interest” and whether it would “create a serious threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice.”

North Carolina is not the only state to restrict access to body-camera footage. The Urban Institute says that Illinois, Texas, South Carolina, and other states have all blocked the public’s access to it….Read the rest here

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 5, 2016 in BlackLivesMatter

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

BLM Activist Convicted of “Lynching”

Using a law to protect minorities against them…Not a single black person on the “jury”…Again.

What activist Jasmine Richards’s “lynching” conviction means for the Black Lives Matter movement

A court ruling in Pasadena, California, last week just set an unsettling precedent in the movement for black lives’ fight against police brutality.

Activist Jasmine Richards, a 28-year-old black woman and founder of Pasadena’s Black Lives Matter chapter, was convicted of felony lynching, a technical term in California penal code referring to “the taking by means of a riot of another person from the lawful custody of a peace officer.” Her sentencing is June 7.

On August 29, 2015, police responded to a 911 call after an altercation at a local park. The owner of a restaurant near the park told police an unidentified young black woman allegedly did not pay for her meal. Black Lives Matter supporters, including Richards, were already at the park after a peaceful protest earlier that day for Kendrec McDade, a 19-year-old unarmed black teenager who was killed by Pasadena police in 2012.

Video of the incident shows Black Lives Matter supporters, including Richards, run to the woman’s side as police attempt to arrest her. Richards was arrested two days later for trying to physically pull the woman away from police.

Richards was initially charged with inciting a riot, child endangerment, delaying and obstructing peace officers, and felony lynching. When the court announced the June 1 trial date, only the lynching charge remained.

Richards is not the first modern protester to be charged with lynching. Maile Hampton, a 20-year-old black woman, was arrested for “lynching” during a rally against police brutality in Sacramento in April 2015. Occupy Oakland activists Tiffany Tran and Alex Brown were charged in 2011, and Los Angeles Occupy activist Sergio Ballesteros was charged in 2012 for lynching while intervening in an arrest at the local Artwalk.

But in other cases, the charges were later dropped. Richards is the first African American convicted of “lynching” in the United States.

“Clearly this is a political prosecution,” Richards’s attorney, Nana Gyamfi, told Vox. “Its intention is to stop people from organizing, and from speaking out and challenging the system. There’s a political message that’s been sent by both the prosecutor and the police and, by conviction, the jury.”

The history behind California’s “lynching” law

Lynching typically refers to a violent Jim Crow–era tactic used to terrorize black communities. However, the language of California’s penal code does not speak to this history of racial violence specifically. It’s one of the reasons Gov. Jerry Brown removed the term from the state’s criminal code in July 2015 following Hampton’s arrest.

California’s anti-lynching law was enacted in 1933. That year, a vigilante mob of 10,000 people stormed a San Jose jail to seize Thomas Thurmond and John Holmes, two white men, who confessed to kidnapping and murdering of 22-year-old Brooke Hart, the son of a local storeowner. Tear gas did not stop the mob, and police guards were attacked.

After plucking them from the jail, the mob hung Thurmond and Holmes from trees in a nearby park. According to a 1933 report, Thurmond was “yanked to his doom in less time than it takes to tell it.”

No one was charged for Thurmond and Holmes’s deaths. Gov. James Rolph Jr. wasnationally criticized for condoning the vigilante violence. Still, Rolph signed an anti-lynching law, which was one of several passed by state lawmakers during that time.

The law was passed at a time when people were pressuring the federal government to intervene to stop vigilante lynchings of African Americans. In July 1922, the NAACP lobbied for a federal anti-lynching bill that was ultimately filibustered by the Senate. This would continue throughout the 1920s and ’30s. The last thorough national anti-lynching bill was introduced in 1937, and was similarly squashed. In fact, the Senate record was so bad that it approved a resolution in 2005 apologizing for its willful failure to act.

In the 1930s, California’s anti-lynching law was a sign of progress at a moment when the federal governmental failed to intervene.

Today, when activists like Richards are charged with “lynching,” this progressive law appears to be exploited to quell, not encourage, social change as it was originally intended….Read the Rest Here

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 6, 2016 in BlackLivesMatter

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: