Google Search

Showing posts with label Never. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Never. Show all posts

Friday, May 23, 2014

NEVER Let Your Kids Talk to the Police

William Norman Grigg

Pictured: Don Joughin comforts his eleven-month-old son after the infant was doused in pepper spray by one of Portland?s ?Finest.?

?When they put the handcuffs on I thought, `Wait a minute, this has got to be a joke,?? recalled Latoya Harris, describing the arrest of her 9-year-old daughter last May. ?The look on my daughter?s face went from humiliation and fear, to a look of sheer panic.?

At the time, the girl was wearing a bathing suit and a towel, still damp from running through a neighborhood sprinkler. She was taken away in handcuffs by officers David McCarthy and Matthew Huspek, fingerprinted, photographed, but never charged with a crime. She was held at police headquarters for an hour before her frantic mother ? who didn?t have a car ? could retrieve the girl from her captors.

The stated purpose of the visit was to investigate a playground fight that had taken place a few days earlier. The actual purpose of the arrest was probably to serve some depraved impulse on the part of the officers to assert their supposed authority over an intimidated but uncooperative child.

According to the Oregonian newspaper, Officer McCarthy ? who, like others in his disreputable profession, fancies himself a mentalist of sorts ? believed that the child wasn?t telling the truth in her account of the scuffle. His report characterized her statements as ?vague,? and recalled that he observed her ?breathing speed up,? an entirely appropriate response to the unwelcome presence of an armed and bellicose stranger.

?They repeatedly asked her, `Why don?t you tell me what really happened?? recalls the mother. The officers hauled her away on suspicion of fourth-degree assault. They refused to allow the mother to accompany the daughter in the back of the police car.

?In my opinion, they were trying to scare and humiliate her,? Harris said in testimony before the independent Citizens Review Committee. ?All they had to do was give her a talking to. We?re talking about two grown men in uniform with guns.?

This act of gratuitous official sadism was ? let?s recite it together ? done in accordance with policy, according to department spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson. Handcuffing a nine-year-old is ?justified? as a ?safeguard,? Simpson asserted.

The Portland PD, which is under scrutiny by the Justice Department (for whatever good that would do), is notable for the tender solicitude its officers display toward vulnerable children. During a presidential visit by George W. Bush in 2002, police assigned to keep protesters caged in ?free speech zones? unleashed a pepper spray fusillade against demonstrators who wandered beyond their pens. Among the victims was Don Joughin, who had brought his wife and three children to the event.

After the Jackboots had subjected the protesters to a caustic shower, Joughin turned to a Portland PD officer obstructing an exit and asked how he and his family could leave.

?He pointed and said to exit to the [northeast], into the spraying police opposite him,? Joughin recalled. Trapped between a panicked crowd and pepper spray-wielding assailants, Joughin pleaded with the officer to allow his family to pass.

?He looked at me, and drew out his can from his hip and sprayed directly at me,? testifies Joughin. His three-year-old son caught most of the blast. The Berserker then turned on Joughin?s wife and newborn son ?and doused both of their heads entirely from a distance of less than three feet,? he recounts.

Reeling from the fumes and frantic to get help for his screaming child, Joughin tried to leave ? only to find his family?s escape blocked at every turn by armored bullies who closed ranks and cut them off. The victims weren?t allowed to leave until someone in ?authority? issued an order.

As Joughin and his family fled, one of the cops hurled a ?Collateral Murder?-style taunt at their back: ?That?s why you shouldn?t bring kids to protests.?

Actually, that episode, like the vicious abduction of Latoya Harris?s daughter, demonstrates why parents should cultivate within their children an incurable distrust of the state?s Punitive Priesthood ? and must never, under any circumstances, allow such people to have access to their children.


View the original article here

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Never Trust a Costumed Stranger

by William Norman Grigg

Within the space of seventy-two hours last weekend, three women were detained and sexually assaulted by armed strangers in official-looking costumes. Two of those incidents occurred in Texas, the other happened in Minnesota.

The first attack took place on a highway near Carrollton, Texas on Thursday, November 21. An unidentified man wearing what appeared to be a police uniform stopped a woman, handcuffed her, and assaulted her in the back seat of his car.

Early Sunday morning, a female student at the University of Minnesota was sexually assaulted by a man dressed like a police officer. The assailant, who was driving a black SUV, approached the woman and admonished her that she shouldn?t be walking alone late at night. Beguiled by what appeared to be the stranger?s official attire, the woman got into the vehicle. The driver locked the doors and conveyed the victim to a remote location, where he raped her.

Sandwiched between these episodes of sexual predation by ersatz police officers was one involving an actual cop. During a routine patrol on Friday, November 22, San Antonio Police Officer Jackie Len Neal allegedly stopped a 19-year-old girl, handcuffed her, and raped her in the back seat of his police cruiser. This was not the first time he has been accused of assaulting women during traffic stops.

Neal was arrested a few hours later, but released after making bail. He was immediately put on paid ?administrative leave,? and allowed to keep his firearms ? professional courtesies that would not be extended to either of the other two accused roadside rapists if they were captured.

Following the attack by the police impersonator near Carrollton, police officials warned female drivers that if they are suspicious of the individual pulling them over, they should call 911 and then drive to a well-lit area before stopping.

This course of action might defeat the evil designs of a police impersonator. However, if the suspicious stranger is a police officer, a female driver who acts on that safety advice will probably find herself involved in a dangerous pursuit that could lead to criminal charges ? assuming that she survives the encounter.

This is demonstrated by the cast of Arizona resident Dibor Roberts, who was attacked by a sheriff?s deputy during a late-night traffic stop after she tried to find a safe and well-lit area to conduct unwanted business with the uniformed extortionist.

At roughly 10:45 PM on the evening of July 29, 2007, Mrs. Roberts, a 48-year-old nurse and naturalized U.S. citizen from Senegal, was returning from work when she noticed a car driving erratically in front of her.

After passing the dangerous driver, Roberts noticed police lights in her rear-view mirror. Her initial reaction was relief, since she believed the officer was going to pull over what she suspected was an impaired motorist. Her relief turned to puzzlement and then alarmed suspicion when she realized that she was the target.

Just a few days earlier, Dibor and her husband had discussed local incidents involving police impersonators. They were aware of advice given by police agencies to people being pulled over in dangerous circumstances: Drive carefully to a well-lit, preferably public area, and call 911 if possible to verify that it is a police officer. That was the official recommendation offered by the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office. That department?s employees included Sgt. Jeff Newnum ? who, ignoring another driver who was operating his vehicle erratically at unsafe speeds, had targeted Roberts for a revenue collection encounter on that dark July evening.

Roberts did nothing wrong. She acted in strict compliance with the Sheriff?s official advice, slowing down and proceeding in the direction of a well-lit area. Her behavior was not that of someone trying to flee from the police.

Deputy Newnum, on the other hand, had already lost his composure, informing the dispatcher that he was in pursuit of a ?black driver? who refused to stop. He pulled alongside Roberts and attempted a ?pit maneuver? to force her off the road, which did nothing to allay the innocent woman?s entirely proper suspicions. After Roberts came to a stop, Newnum erupted from his vehicle with a drawn gun because, he later testified, ?I knew I had an angry driver.?

Roberts, who by this time was terrified, frantically tried to explain that she was looking for a safe place to stop. Ignoring her desperate pleas, and no doubt eager to exploit an opportunity to inflict property damage, Newnum took out a baton and shattered the driver's side window, bellowing at her to "Open the f*****g door!" He then seized the terrified woman and dragging her out of the car. As he did so, Dibor's foot came off the brake and her car -- which was still in gear -- rolled forward over Newnum's foot.

Through her window, Dibor had repeatedly yelled "It's too dark; I'm afraid." She was dragged from her vehicle yelling "No, no, no, no," as Newnum threw her to the ground. Her cellphone was taken from her and thrown away as well.

"He pulled me out and the car jerked because I had my foot on the brakes," Dibor explained after the incident.

"She took it too far when she ran over my foot," insisted Newnum later under oath. This is a petulant lie of the kind that comes readily to the lips of tax-eaters of Newnum?s ilk. He had needlessly escalated the encounter by threatening to use deadly force. Roberts made no effort to escape after supposedly assaulting Newnum.

Furthermore, Newnum?s courtroom testimony that Roberts clearly intended to run over his foot contradicted his official report from six months earlier, in which he said it wasn?t clear whether this was a mishap or an act of malicious intent. He likewise equivocated on the witness stand as to whether or not he was injured in that ?attack.?

Another key contradiction in Newnum?s testimony dealt with his concerns over Robert?s ?threat? to his safety. The deputy claimed that he was worried that he couldn?t see Roberts?s hands, which supposedly justified his decision to approach the car with a drawn gun at the ?low ready? position. However, he also testified that when he reached Roberts?s vehicle he saw her hands plainly, and that they were gripping her steering wheel "firmly" ? which he said justified suspicions that she might have been impaired.

In his closing arguments during the trial, Yavapai County Prosecutor Glen Hammond insisted that the driver?s crime was that "she did not stop" --

which would mean that Sheriff Waugh had abetted the crime by instructing motorists uncertain of the identity of their pursuer not to stop until they reached a well-lit area. Hammond's position was that Roberts was a criminal because she had obeyed the instructions offered by the Sheriff, and that it was not necessary to prove that she had willfully tried to flee or injure Newnum.

The jury, which apparently was populated entirely by punitive populists, ratified that claim after less than two hours? deliberation, finding Roberts guilty of two felonies ? resisting arrest (which isn?t a crime) and unlawful flight. (Significantly, the initial traffic violation was dismissed outright, as was a charge of ?assaulting? Newnum for supposedly running over his foot.) The trial judge, in what he probably thought was an act of tremendous generosity, dismissed the first conviction and sentenced Roberts to six months' supervised probation. This left an undeserved felony conviction on her record, which meant an end to her nursing career.

Not content to ruin Roberts?s professional life and inflict substantial financial and emotional hardship on this innocent woman and her family, Hammond ? offering the last full measure of prosecutorial malice ? tried to depict the terrified nurse as the bully in this encounter.

"All he [Newnum] wanted from the very beginning was an apology and [he] left it up to the County Attorney what to do with this case," whined Hammond. "It was a misunderstanding. It has been really tough on him and his family due to a lot of press, a lot of hate mail. He has been called a racist.... He just wants everyone to move forward and" ? at this point, dear reader, you may want to find a receptacle for your rebellious gorge -- "let the healing begin."

Bobbing in this slurry of insipid clich?s is an unintended confession by Hammond that he had committed malfeasance of office: If this incident was a "misunderstanding," then it wasn't a crime, and shouldn't have been prosecuted as such. In addition, if Newnum really wanted nothing more than an apology "from the very beginning," he should have complied with Dibor's reasonable and lawful request to find a well-lit area to conduct the traffic stop.

An actual peace officer (who wouldn?t be involved in roadside shake-downs in the first place) would have cleared up that ?misunderstanding,? rather than escalating it. Jeff Newnum, like practically everybody else in his profession, is a law enforcer who impersonates a peace officer. Such people are immeasurably more dangerous than their imitators.
_
William Norman Grigg publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.


View the original article here

Monday, August 27, 2012

Monsanto Awarded ONE BILLION Dollars Due To Patent Infringement For A Product That Was Never On The Market



by Mike Masnick

We've had plenty of stories over the years of Monsanto's incredibly aggressive stance when it comes to its "Roundup Ready" patents. The company has now been awarded $1 billion from Dupont for infringing on one of these patents. Now, here's a case where we're talking about competing companies, so perhaps no big deal, right? Except there's one tidbit here that makes this interesting: Dupont never brought the product in question to market. So the "damages" to Monsanto would seem to be minimal... except in a court of law apparently. According to Patently-O:
The damages theory was interesting. Since the accused product was not yet on the market, Monsanto did not seek any lost profit. Rather, Monsanto demanded a reasonable royalty for the research-use made by the defendants. Monsanto argued that the use of Monsanto's invention in DuPont's labs and Pioneer's test fields gave those companies an "improper head start" in making the GM seeds. The judge and jury agreed ? if those companies wanted to build upon the invention then they should have first obtained a license. In the pharmaceutical world, 35 U.S.C. ? 271(e) offers a research exemption for this type of activity. However, that exception does not apply here because of the low level of regulation over genetically modified food-products. The patent is set to expire in 2014. The patentee's right-to-exclusive-research supported by this case means that the 2014 date offers a starting-date for follow-on competitive research. Any actual products building directly upon the patented invention will arrive on the market sometime later.
Got that? Normally, companies can build on top of others' products as patents are set to expire, so they're ready to launch once the patent has expired. But, in this case, even trying to build new offerings in a lab for use later is apparently an insane billion dollar issue. Even worse, it means that any real competition, which will create more market-reasonable prices, gets significantly delayed as no one can prepare for when the patent expires.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Economy
- Boy Whose Hot Dog Cart Was Shut Down by the City of Holland Now Homeless
- Obama's Master Plan: Bailout Everyone
- Social Security Ponzi Scheme Coming To An End
- New Hemp Bill Introduced in US Senate
- Gibson Guitar Forced to Pay $350,000 Ransom to Feds
- Submissiveness and Conformity in America's Business Leaders
- The Not So Super Hero
- Drawing back the Financial Iron Curtain to a Beautiful Anarchy w/ Jeffrey Tucker!

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Monday, August 13, 2012

Pro-Copyright Judges Never Drop Cases Over Conflicts, So Why Does Megaupload Judge Have To Step Down?



by Mike Masnick

This isn't a huge surprise, but yesterday, we wrote about some comments by Judge David Harvey in New Zealand concerning region coding on DVDs and the New Zealand/US negotiations over the TPP agreement. None of this had anything to do with Megaupload or the Dotcom case, but at one point he referred to a tweet that did a slight satire on the famous saying, and noted that "we have met the enemy and he is [the] US." The press was already blowing this out of proportion -- suggesting, totally incorrectly, that he had "called the US an enemy" when it came to copyright law. That's not true at all. Beyond the fact that he was paraphrasing a common saying in a clearly hyperbolistic manner, the issue he was talking about was very specific to anti-circumvention issues related DVD region coding, and nothing, whatsoever to do with the direct issue in the case.

That said... as many people are noting, Judge Harvey, recognizing the press furor about all this has stepped down from the case and will allow another judge to pick up the extradition issue down the road. This is unfortunate, as Judge Harvey is noted as one of New Zealand's key internet law experts, who really understood these issues at a deep level. Still, it's unclear if this change will have a huge impact on the case. The judge taking over for Harvey, Judge Nevin Dawson, has also been involved in the Megaupload case, and was the judge who released Dotcom on bail, despite pressure from the US to keep him locked up. Furthermore, Harvey and Dawson are district court judges, and it seems likely that, in the end, this will involve New Zealand's High Court, which is already engaged and has already ruled against the US.

But, here's the bigger issue: we see stories of judges in big copyright cases all the time who have strong ties to pro-copyright or copyright maximalist organizations... and people shrug and move on. Let's just say, for example, if Judge Harvey had said that he agreed with New Zealand's efforts to join the TPP because he thought that New Zealand needed stronger anti-circumvention rules to protect DVDs, would anyone even blink an eye? I doubt it.

Furthermore, travel around the globe, and you find the exact opposite situation in many cases, where the judges did not step down. Most famously, over in Sweden, the judge who heard The Pirate Bay trial had close ties to the copyright lobby, and was a member of a few organizations that worked towards promoting stronger copyright law. It seems like that would be a much more direct and obvious conflict than Judge Harvey's... yet that Swedish judge stayed on. Similarly, here in the US, Judge Beryl Howell, who bucked the trend in copyright trolling cases, by allowing cases to move forward on questionable theories, was just recently an RIAA lobbyist, and prior to that had helped write the DMCA, while a Congressional staffer. And, yet, she remained on the case.

It seems that there's a pretty clear double standard at work here. If you're strongly pro-copyright, no one blinks an eye if you are hearing copyright cases. But, if you make an offhand joking comment that's marginally critical of US copyright policy in one specific area, totally unrelated to the case at hand... you step down.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Judge says it's OK to use your seized phone to impersonate you and entrap your friends
- Sandra Cortez's Ordeal: Once You're On The Terrorist "Watch List," You Can't Get Off
- TSA Agents Allegedly Strip-Search Woman, Fiddle with Feeding Tube
- TSA TROUBLE: Disabled Man Points Finger At TSA
- Australian Government Moves to Expand Surveillance Powers
- DOJ Tries To Explain How It Can Get Around Requirement To Serve Megaupload In The US
- FDA Spied On Emails To Try To Silence Critics
- TSA agents to staff UK airports during Olympics

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Sunday, October 2, 2011

What's 9/11? Afghans never heard of NYC terror

Images from 9/11 are still chilling, even 10 years after the attacks shook the world. They triggered the so-called war on terror. But in the country that's been at the forefront of that war, it can be hard to find people who remember why foreign troops arrived in the first place. We continue our special coverage of the 9/11 anniversary, with this report from Afghanistan.

Latest Geopolitics
- U.S. to build new massive prison in Bagram
- Somalia: The List of "Pacified" Nations Continues to Grow
- WikiLeaks: UN Peacekeepers Traded Food For Sex
- Belarus Struggles With Meat Shortage as Russians Exploit Currency Plunge
- U.S. Mideast policy in a single phrase
- 168 Children
- South Korea Fires Artillery Off Yeonpyeong After Hearing Shells From North
- Mexican Cocaine Kingpin Says U.S. Authorities Helped Protect His Drug Cartel

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Never Forget: No Plane Hit This Building


Latest Cover-Up/Deceptions
- CIA investigates whether laws broken helping NYPD
- Court Pleadings Point to CIA Role in Alleged "Cartel" Immunity Deal
- 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
- Airplane bathroom sex blamed for terror alert
- Infowars Man on the Street: Poll on WTC Building 7 Collapse
- MSNBC distorts post-debate poll results to falsely depict Ron Paul as just barely winning
- The lie that began the endless war on Iraq
- Solving the Mystery of WTC 7

remember the big lie

remember remember the 11th of september
the day when three towers fell
remember remember the 11th of september
when people were buried by a spell

the bbc trot out the party line
spinning their web of deceit
pre-emptive strikes the name of the game
that dictators' lives are replete

history is written by the victor
the bbc piles lie upon lie
for those that feast on the mourning
with crocodile tears they do cry

emotives pack the theatre
'solidarity' goes out the call
for those that dance to the piper
united in lies they fall

etonites caught publishing prehistory
conspiracy a word the media hate
they have to read the iies out loud
and hope that the truth comes late

bbc reminisce over black and white
it was easier to cast their spell
chained explosives were seen in colour
and with it the lies that they tell

truth doesn't come from hermes
for some it is too much pain
but if the lies are worshipped
more people will die in vain

for media this was top billing
memorial for new york they said
in middle east on goes the killing
as they continue to pile up the dead

no comments on 9/11, quite some turning point, psyop, occult ritiual sacrifice and no comment even when people know that perpetrators return to the scene of the crime and this happened.

i can't say what techno stuff was done on the day to people around the world, eg:

http://tinyurl.com/3dgmlyv

but one of the things that puzzled me about it was that within what was presented was an implicit 'we done it'. puzzled me, as denial is the operational mode of politics. then i realised denial, blinkers, how this psyops actually works. millions of people around the world were initiated into a secret society, to join the conspiracy.

with the human sacrifice of people, rescuers and the presentation of 'we done it', there was the combination of deep trauma and because of the occult presentation of whodunnit, fear. with bush in the school classroom he was talking to the world, talking to the eyes wide opened people, talking to the child in those people, traumatising the eyes wide opened defenseless child.

the terror, fear, the child in you traumatised it encourages a mind split, to seperate you from a situation that is unbearable and outside your control (ability to help). if that split occurs, the blinkers have been installed and you have joined the conspiracy albeit unconsciously and joined the living dead.

if people wondering what it would be like to be helpless and present in an occult ritual sacrifice (trauma based mind control), likely they have been. next up stephen nolan at the bbc was inviting you to remember the dead.

eyes wide shut the movie, 9/11 an invitation to join and to be part of the conspiracy following them by denying what you already know.

stephen nolan for bbc division 5 invited you to remember the dead, actually to by occult definition; be dead. program sealing with redirection.

remember not what you were doing on that day, remember what happened to you, how you changed if you did and the tavistock tricksaurus is revealed, extended child abuse a term of relevance.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here