Bella Vista Police hit on minor(s) who have been placed under arrest, specifically (17 yr old, F). Officer **ng along with a partnering officer harassed and insinuated sexual situations while a minor was being held to her face. When minor presented visibly uncomfortable, the 2 officers continued. #harassment #police #bellavista
Eugene Police officer Malcolm McAlpine was arrested for drunk driving, assault, menacing, reckless driving, and reckless endangerment after crashing head on into another vehicle before blowing nearly three times the legal limit (.22) on Christmas Eve. He was booked into the Lane County Jail and later released. The Eugene Police Department has placed him on administrative leave. We do not know if he will be getting paid while on leave or not. One of the victims was quick to speak out McAlpine saying, "He'd better not ever be on the force again." According to public records, Malcolm Gonzalez McAlpine is a 43 year old resident of Springfield, Oregon. Springfield is basically the dysfunctional sibling of Eugene known for being full of tweakers. #malcolmmcalpine #drunkdriving #assault #recklessendangermenthis paisas trust him due to his near perfect spanish linguistics, and yet for reasons unknown helped hunt them down one by one including any friends who happened tostartup a gig of their own due to his unbeatable prices. toldeveryone he was going to mexico to spend time with his dad, this is not true because his dad is in Utah working the mines.He is in prescott. #snitch #cartel #thief
He set up a friend to get busted by the police in Pasco County, around Tampa Bay!!!! he's working for the DEA watch out PSA!!!!! 620 CLEARWATER LARGO RD 219 LARGO, FL. 3377033770 #bigratpsapasco
Officer Kimberly Ann Potter was found guilty of manslaughter today for killing Daunte Wright earlier this year. The verdict is merely a consolation prize for the Wright family whose son in our opinion was murdered, but prosecutors did not charge Potter with murder even though she was caught on camera removing her gun from her holster voluntarily and of her own free will before shooting Wright voluntarily and of her own free will. She saved herself from a murder charge by yelling "taser taser taser" before shooting Wright and claiming afterwards to have mistaking her gun for her taser. An acquittal would have set a dangerous precedent capable of allowing cops to get away with killing anyone simply by yelling "taser" and calling it an accident. You can see Potter's stone cold emotionless reaction to the verdict in the video below. That reaction is a far cry from the river of tears she secreted on the stand last week when she obviously thought good acting might keep her out of prison (https://ift.tt/3e5rRvk). The Minnesota sentencing guidelines recommend a little over 7 years in prison for Potter. Potter has no prior criminal history, but the law considers killing people serious enough to almost always require some type of prison term even if the court holds that the killing was "accidental." We hope that Potter is punished to the fullest extent of the law. The court will no doubt consider her history as a law enforcement officer when imposing her sentence. The court will likely view every day of her career leading up to the crime favorably and be inclined to grant her leniency for it. That leniency is due in part to knowledge of how cops are treated in prison by their fellow convicts even though the law does not permit using that as the basis for a departure. Judge Regina Chu will likely consider the fact that prison will be a lonely and dangerous place for Potter. Female convicts hate cops just as much as men do. Since Potter was convicted of a violent offense she should be sent to at least a medium security prison. Medium security prisons consist primarily of younger violent offenders that are in for stuff like robbery, assault, and manslaughter. Those inmates will target Potter. Depending on the politics of the yard she could be killed, stabbed, beat up, run off, or made to pay rent. That last one involves paying a gang money for protection so that she can walk in general population without being killed, stabbed, beat up, or run off. The latter would involve telling Potter to request protective custody (PC) status from the staff to avoid getting attacked. If she doesn't "check in" to PC as directed she will be attacked by 2 or more convicts in plain view of the staff to make it clear that she is not welcome. When an inmate is smashed off the yard in plain view of staff like that they are automatically placed in PC. The staff will know who Potter is when they get there and would likely consider it negligent to put her in general population in the first place, so she will probably be put in PC by the staff until they can think of a place to send her where she might be safe. If Minnesota has PC yards they will probably send her to one of those. PC yards are full of sex offenders, gang drop outs, dope debtors, snitches, and sometimes even cops. However, even PC cases hate cops for the most part and there is a good chance of her getting stabbed by a lifer in PC. There is a good chance that Potter will be placed in solitary confinement with a keep separate on all other inmates. That will require that she be housed in a segregation unit known as a "hole" which is primarily used for disciplinary reasons, but is also used for PC cases that are not safe in general population at that prison. Life as a PC case in the hole is pretty much the same as being in disciplinary segregation the entire time with the added benefit of a small amount of commissary. That commissary is much less than general population inmates enjoy and only slightly more than inmates on disciplinary status enjoy. The main difference being that she might be able to order about $20 worth of candy a week. She will not be able to have contact visits with anyone other than lawyers while housed in segregation, but she will be able to have video visits on the weekends and make a phone call once per month. She might also be able to access the law library once a week if the staff feel like doing their jobs and actually taking her there. The rest of her time will be spent under 23 hour lockdown with one hour out of her cell each day. While in her cell she might have a radio if she is lucky. Normally, segregation inmates also have access to coffee, tobacco, and drugs, but that requires someone in general population to send it back there and hook people up. PC cases are not hooked up under any circumstances and are forced to do their time sober. The previous analysis of what life will be like in prison for Kim Potter was based primarily on personal experience. This author is a former federal convict. I am basing my predictions on time I spent at the United States Penitentiary in Victorville, California (USP Victorville), the Federal Correctional Institution in Sheridan, Oregon (FCI Sheridan), and local county jails where I heard stories of what state prisons are like while I was in pre-trial detention. It sounds like the politics of state prisons are similar to the feds with the exception of "rent" which federal inmates do not allow. In the feds someone is either good or no good and if they're no good they're not allowed in general population period with no option to pay protection money. This author spent a great deal of time in the hole for disciplinary reasons and witnessed first hand how someone like Potter will be treated. There is a good chance that if Potter is not placed in PC that someone doing 20 to life will take it upon themselves to seek true justice for Daunte Wright. #kimpotter #dauntewright #manslaughter #murderMisogynistic POS. Will snitch/ call cops. Simultaneously breaks laws themselves and will break laws to screw over other people. Also, racist. Do Not Trust! #snitch #rat #snake #copcaller
We have yet to hear of a police officer that is not a professional stalker and today it appeared that one of them might finally be held accountable for his actions, but prosecutors later decided not to file charges against officer Joseph Spicuglia. Not much is known about the case other than it is said to be the result of multiple incidents that took place earlier this year, was the result of a domestic violence investigation, and that Officer Spicuglia was already no longer actively working for the Wichita Police Department (WPD) because he is preparing for retirement after 25 years of service. Despite working with the WPD for over 25 years his last assignment as a mere lowly patrol officers. According to public records, Joseph S. Spicuglia is a 61 year old resident of Wichita, Kansas. He is a registered Democrat with no prior criminal record. #josephspicuglia #stalking #domesticviolenceTommy black a snitch a rat a Informant a cop caller well get hi with you and get your trust then he will drop a fat dime on you he is a Informant for the DEA #ttellsonmethsellersinformantforthedeaJack Hart told on jerry webb to get out of a 3 strikes case told on his family his friend he got less time and did his time out of state he runs a round in oildale and no one knows #jackhartarattoldtogetoutoftroubletoldonjerrywebbJoe Dale Mann snitch for the BPD in Bakersfield Ca has help put a way 71 people from 1999 to 2021 he blends in with any group #joemanntellonallJoe Dale Mann snitch for the BPD in Bakersfield Ca has help put a way 71 people from 1999 to 2021 he blends in with any group #joemanntellonallMark A Gibson aka magrat. Cop caller and rat on someone when he is mad at them has told on a lot in his life #magratofbakersfieldcaWas pulled over with heroin and methamphetamine made a deal to take 3 offenders down in exchange for amunity officer whatkins. Exchanged numbers with Mr Bourdeau and made the deal to call the next day he did as promised took 3 drug users off the street for his charges to be dropped. #vernalpoliceinformantworkingtogetchargesdroppedTelling on people for doing what they do no one should deal with either of these rats. Seen by many people talking to cops #vernalutahciratsWorking with task force as a confidential informant just because he has roid rage so run if you see him #confidentialinformantGet joan stones and she will tell get joan hi and she will not lie she has told in her family and her friends #kcimformentsJoan Sanders Informant for the Kern County Sheriff's Office and the Bakersfield Police Department #ratsofbakersfieldca
Uses women that are users so he can find out who they get from so he can pop them. He has setup over 20 people and is doing it for the money acting like he is a user. He uses his looks to manipulate the women into believing whatever he says and introducing him to their plug #snitch#informatnt
Former Brooklyn Center Police officer Kimberly Ann Potter proved that she doesn't have what it takes to work in Hollywood today by taking the stand in her own defense attempting to gain sympathy from the jury by turning on the water works. Hopefully they didn't buy it, but you never know because shows like Days of Our Lives are still popular despite employing poor quality actors that are still far more talented than Potter. An acquittal in this case would be a testament to the stupidity of jurors in general who are all too often dimwitted individuals incapable of getting out of doing jury duty or simply so incapable of thinking outside the box that the thought of trying to get out of jury duty never occurred to them. If she is acquitted at least people can take comfort in the fact that she has exposed herself as a horrible actress incapable of converting her new found fame into an acting career. If she really is as clumsy as she claims then Dancing with the Stars wouldn't be a good fit for her either, so that would leave reality gigs like celebrity Big Brother, documentary films, and talk shows her only options. Also, Oh... My... God! Gasp! What is she wearing? It looks like she raided grandma's closet. There is a reason why public defenders keep closets full of suites not their size, so that they can make sure that their client at least has a suit to wear during their trial. She should have at least gotten herself a cheap pants suit like Hillary Clinton. We have not been coving this trial much because we've felt that we saw all we needed to know long ago when we watched the footage from her body camera. That footage clearly shows her grab her gun voluntarily and of her own freewill before shooting Daunte Wright while yelling "taser taser taser." Despite being caught on camera murdering somebody she is only charged with manslaughter because prosecutors are going easy on her by supporting her claim that it was an accident. You can watch that video at https://ift.tt/3e78mSs #kimpotter #dauntewright #oitnb #manslaughter #murder
David Pearson Kern County Sheriff Informant Was a Gang member in the NLR Drop Out And Debriefed Told on his Gang friends And He is currently an Informant for the Kern County Sheriff's Department He has help with over 40 cases Up to 11/22/2021 #kccountyratssnitchesandinformantRobin stubbs ci 2456345 Made a deal with vernal police to become an informant. In exchange for amunity. although she only told on 4 people a rat is a rat.... Working with Blake Horton Jarod and Brittney Holmes. chase Bordeaux #vernalpoliceinformant
Twitter has started locking accounts that advocate for capital punishment in criminal cases. We found this out today when we receive a notice from Twitter stating that our account had been locked for violating their rules. The alleged violation was a reply to a Tweet from NBC News about Derek Chauvin pleading guilty to federal civil rights charges in the death of George Floyd. Our reply said simply "they should fry him." The initial notice from Twitter read, "You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm." From that we inferred that by saying "they should fry him" that we were accused of wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm." Whoever reported the comment to Twitter concluded correctly that we wish Derek Chauvin physical harm in the form of electricity being pumped through his body by an electric chair until he dies. Doing that would send a strong message to police officers all over the county that when you execute defenseless detainees you too could be executed. We appealed the lock to Twitter arguing that under 18 U.S.C. 242 (https://ift.tt/1GpwJlY) Chauvin faces a statutory maximum penalty of death. We argued that we were merely voicing our opinion that Chauvin should be punished to the fullest extent allowed by law. Twitter responded by saying that a violation did in fact take place, but we could still use Twitter by logging into our account and following their instructions. Those instructions were directions to click a button which would delete the comment. After we clicked the button we were allowed to use Twitter again. We feel that Twitter's own rules against abusive behavior should not apply to comments such as ours. The policy says "We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else's voice." It is true that we want the feds to silence Derek Chauvin's voice forever, but our position should be "viewed in the context of a larger conversation." That conversation being what should happen to police officers that murder unarmed compliant subjects by kneeling on their necks for 9 1/2 minutes. We believe that an officer who does that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. In the case of 18 U.S.C. 242 the fullest extent of the law means "sentenced to death." This is one of the most high profile cases in the country. Derek Chauvin is not likely to ever know what we said about him let alone be intimidated into not speaking up, so a policy which claims to have been created to keep people from being harassed, shamed, or intimated into silence should not apply. In any case for which capital punishment is on the table any comment in favor of the death penalty should be viewed in the context of the larger discussion about capital punishment. Twitter's rules also include examples of exceptions to the ban on wishes of harm. Their exceptions are described as follows: "We recognize that conversations regarding certain individuals credibly accused of severe violence may prompt outrage and associated wishes of harm. In these limited cases, we will request the user to delete the Tweet without any risk of account penalty, strike, or suspension." - Twitter Twitter then includes two examples, "I wish all rapists to die" and "Child abusers should be hanged." We feel our comment differs from those examples because those examples are not outcomes permitted by law. Rape and child abuse are not capital crimes, so saying that such people should be killed could be implied as advocating for someone in society to kill them because the government won't. We did not say something that could be construed as advocating for vigilantes to kill Derek Chauvin. In our case "they" clearly meant the court and "fry" clearly meant the electric chair. We should not have been forced to delete that Tweet under this policy just because the lawful punishment we advocated for technically results in "harm" to the individual in that context under those circumstances. #twitter #georgefloyd #derekchauvin #deathpenalty #censorship
Derek Chauvin pled guilty today to federal civil rights charges for violating the civil rights of George Floyd by murdering him. By pleading guilty Chauvin admitted that kneeling on someone's neck for 9 1/2 minutes is a civil rights violation. He also admitted to violating the civil rights of a 14 year old boy in separate 2017 incident. The guilty plea appears to be a self serving effort to avoid a life sentence. Federal prosecutors said that they will seek a sentence of 20-25 years due to where Chauvin will fall on the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) table after receiving a point deduction for acceptance of responsibility. However, United States District Judge Paul Magnuson could still give Chauvin a life sentence because the USSG is discretionary. According to media reports, Chauvin's recommended sentence according to the USSG is 27-33 years after reducing his offense level for acceptance of responsibility due to his guilty plea. We talked about possible sentences before (https://ift.tt/2RuVuxX) and it looks like upward departures were agreed upon between the parties. Chauvin pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 242 (https://ift.tt/1GpwJlY) for depriving George Floyd of his rights under color of law. The statue Chauvin violated is a broad statues that covers a wide range of conduct, so usually people don't face as much time as Chauvin's facing for violating that statute and upward departures authorized by chapters 3 and 4 don't usually increase someone's guidelines sentence that much. In addition to the point adjustments in chapters 3 and 4, the USSG has policy statements recommending upward departures under certain circumstances. The USSG recommends significant upward departures in cases resulting in death (Policy Statement 5K2.1.). Policy Statement 5K2.4. encourages upward departures in cases involving unlawful restraint. Policy Statement 5K2.8. allows for upward departures in cases involving extreme conduct. Clearly the USSG has many justifications for giving Chauvin a life or death sentence should Judge Paul Magnuson choose to use his discretion. In our opinion he should fry the pig, turn him into bacon, and serve George Floyd's family BLTs. To learn more watch the video below. #derekchauvin #georgefloyd #murder #civilrights #paulmagnuson
Alan James Swinney was recently sentenced to 10 years in prison for assault and unlawful use of a firearm, but before that he was a serial snitch known for filming Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa demonstrators, calling the cops, and using his footage to get them arrested. Even after he'd been in jail for months he was still proud of what he did and bragged about it in a letter to George Floyd's murderer Derek Chauvin. We became aware of the letter recently while covering his sentencing and consider it proof beyond any possible doubt that Swinney is a snitch. Swinney's Snitch Paperwork The letter to Derek Chauvin (see PDF link above map) began by calling Chauvin "brother" before expressing his disappointment with Chauvin's conviction, said that he was in jail because he "went to Portland to deal with Antifa and Burn Loot Murder protesters", claims the protesters attacked him, that he was defending himself, and then brags about getting "96 Antifa and BLM agitators arrested." His exact statement which only a stone cold snitch would say in jail reads as follows: "I've been fighting with the left for years now. I've been to rallies from coast to coast and I've got 96 Antifa and BLM agitators arrested." - Alan Swinney Swinney then concluded his letter by calling George Floyd a "POS" and saying "our country has too many George Floyds in it. Its time to clean house." Swinney also told Chauvin that he thinks the world is a little bit safer without George Floyd before concluding with a statement saying that he thinks a civil war is coming that will free both of them. Swinney's Criminal Case We have been defending Swinney publicly recently due to the unjust nature of the criminal case against him. We consider the issues presented in that case to be separate from and ultimately irrelevant to his status as a snitch. We don't like snitches, but we also don't like seeing people convicted for crimes they did not commit or sentenced excessively even if that person is a snitch. This isn't the first time we have spoken out in defense of somebody we believed to have been treated unfairly only to turn around and call him a snitch later (ex: https://ift.tt/2NXsMQW). We will defend snitches if we think they are being mistreated by the system in way that could easily be applied to solid dudes. We believe that Swinney was wrongfully convicted of Assault II and that his sentence for Unlawful Use of a Weapon (UUW) with a Firearm highlights the need to do away with mandatory minimums. Assault II Swinney was convicted of Assault II for shooting Jason Britton in the eyelid with a paintball based on the theory that a paintball is a dangerous weapon. Assault II is a Measure 11 offense that carries a mandatory minimum of 70 months in prison. We don't believe that a paintball used in the way Swinney intended at the time to qualify as a dangerous weapon "readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury" as defined by statute (https://ift.tt/325M7dd). Swinney was convicted on a transferred intent theory because he intended to shoot someone else. That other person was wearing adequate eye protection in the form of a gas mask. Had that person's gas mask been shot he would not have been at risk of injury let alone serious injury since a paintball hitting his gas mask would not have left so much as a mark on his body. Shooting someone's gas mask with a paintball is much safer than shooting parts of their body that even while clothed are likely to be bruised by the paintball. Since Swinney intended to shoot the other guy's gas mask the intent transferred to Britton should be intent to shoot a gas mask and not intent to shoot a person's eye or other body part. For that reason we don't think that the intent requirement is met. We think a more accurate charge would be Assault IV which covers recklessly injuring another person. Assault IV is a misdemeanor for which nobody can be sentenced to more than 12 months. If this conviction is not overturned on appeal it will set a dangerous precedent capable of putting any stupid kid with a paintball gun in prison. Nailing Swinney is not worth creating law likely to send teenagers to prison instead of college just for shooting someone with a paintball gun. UUW with a Firearm UUW with a Firearm carries a mandatory minimum of 60 months. The UUW was committed a week after the Assault II, so it constituted a separate criminal episode. When sentencing someone for two separate courses of conduct the sentences are typically imposed consecutively as was the case here. We think that the UUW statue unfairly and unnecessary punishes people for the type of weapon used instead of how it is used. If you use a gun to do anything illegal then you've unlawfully used it. Normally using a gun is accounted for in the statutory scheme of other crimes. If you unlawfully use a gun to kill, injure, or rob someone you will already get more time for those acts than you could get for UUW. In this case Swinney used the gun to commit the misdemeanor offense of menacing. Had Swinney used a different weapon like a sword or a bomb he would have only been charged with UUW and would not have faced a mandatory minimum. We don't think people should be subjected to mandatory minimums at all let alone just because the weapon used to commit a crime that didn't hurt anyone happened to be a gun. Political Motivation We think the case against Swinney was largely politically motivated. We think the statist left in Portland wanted to send a message to the far right that Portland is their city, the right is not welcome here, and if they come to cause trouble there will be consequences. The District Attorney in Portland, Mike Schmidt, is a known friend of prominent Antifas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6ugxEWYkJg). The "victims" in this case were both attending an Antifa counter-protest in opposition to a Blue Lives Matter rally organized in part by Swinney. They credited the DA's office with helping them press charges when the police wouldn't. In another case, an Antifa protester was sentenced to 4 years in federal prison for hitting a United States Marshal with a 4 pound hammer (https://ift.tt/3s4fUOo). In that case the judge had to depart above the guidelines to impose a sentence that was a year longer than the one prosecutors sought. Clearly the conduct in that case is more serious than the conduct at issue in Swinney's case. We are saying this even though we hate the feds and loved hearing about someone hitting a U.S. Marshal with a hammer. We don't have a problem with what the hammer guy did on moral level, but as far as a technical legal analysis goes we still have to say that under the laws of the current occupational government what the hammer guy did was technically far more serious than what Swinney did. What Prison Will Be Like for Swinney Swinney is a serial snitch going to prison for 10 years because of a wrongful conviction and an excessive sentence. While in prison he should be properly ostracized by the general population. That means he will likely spend most of his time in protective custody (PC). Inmates in protective custody are typically housed in the same units as those in disciplinary segregation, so they are in their cells 23 hours a day, but unlike inmates in disciplinary segregation they have access to a limited amount of commissary which is much less than they would have in general population. Eventually the staff usually transfer PC cases to other prisons thinking they might do alright in general population there, but usually their jacket follows them and they end up in PC there too. Lucky PC cases are sent to PC prisons where they can walk the yard with other rats, child molesters, and other undesirables. This analysis is based on this author's time served in federal prisons including FCI Sheridan and USP Victorville. However, this author has never done time in state prison and has been told by numerous that have done time in the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) that state prisons are different. In state prison people like Swinney often have the option of paying a gang for protection. They call it paying rent. Paying rent requires that the undesirable inmate buy commissary items or have money sent to gang members in exchange for being allowed to remain in general population. There is no rent in the federal system because we don't want rats or child molesters on the yard period. In the feds you're either a good dude or you're not. If you're not you can't walk the yard. PC cases often request to be placed in PC when they arrive at any place where they know they won't be welcome once the inmates figure out what they are which typically happens right away or shortly after their arrival. In those cases a PC case might walk the yard for a couple weeks before disappearing. Often the disappearance is due to the PC case realizing that someone might be figuring out what they are, but the rest of the time it is due to a couple members of their race making it clear in plain view of the staff that the inmate is not welcome. This cycle continues for PC cases unless they finally land at a prison specifically designed so that rats, child molesters, and other undesirables can walk the yard just find due to there being no good dudes there. We want to make sure that Swinney does his time with the snitch jacket that he deserves even though we don't think he deserves to be there in the first place. Hopefully somebody will ask their people to look Swinney up, they will find this article, and they will their person in prison that Swinney is no good. To make sure that at least some inmates know what's up with Swinney we will mention his history in letters to inmates we know at whatever prison they send him to. We don't want any harm to come to him, but at the same time we don't want people we know to unknowingly do things that could get them in trouble in plain view of a known rat. He needs to be properly ostracized by the community before he learns anything he could use to get anyone in trouble. If that mean he ends up doing time he doesn't deserve worse then that is just the consequence of being a snitch. He will wear that snitch jacket wherever he goes whether he is in society or prison. If snitches don't want to do their time like that don't go to prison. Swinney is currently in Coffee Creek Correctional Facility (CCCF), but CCCF is just hub where convicts are held temporarily while ODOC classifies them. Once classified he will be sent to his assigned prison. We think he will probably be sent to Two Rivers Correctional Institution (TRCI) because we've heard that they have special housing units for PC cases. We've heard that ODOC is far more likely to send a high profile PC case like Swinney straight to a PC yard than the feds are. Several high profile sex offenders are known to this author to have been sent straight to TRCI. However, this author does not know if they afford the same courtesy to snitches, but they probably do. Conclusion Alan Swinney deserves to do every day of the time he doesn't deserve to do in the first place wearing a snitch jacket. #alanswinney #proudboys #antifa #blacklivesmatter #derekchauvinChastity Stoner has been working with detectives for the past 4 years every since she went on a high speed chase trying to get rid of her dope. She got caught with 2 Oz of ice. She started wearing a wire on her dealer from Dayton for a reduced sentence. He got hemmed up leaving her and Jeremys house on young st where they use to live. HH #chastitystonerPhyllis Walker has been working with Middletown detectives for the past 2 years. She set up her plug from Dayton gettin him popped. He is now waiting trial. She acts like a dope fein who deals to support her habit. She sells her pussy for ice and bikes while setting up major players like Sammy frosty Miller Big Earl Reggie Thorton #phylliswalkerPhyllis Walker has been working with Middletown detectives for the past 2 years. She set up her plug from Dayton gettin him popped. He is now waiting trial. She acts like a dope fein who deals to support her habit. She sells her pussy for ice and bikes while setting up major players like Sammy frosty Miller Big Earl Reggie Thorton #phylliswalker
Judge Heidi Moawad sentenced Proud Boy Alan Swinney to 10 years in state prison for paintballing Antifa on two separate occasions and pulling a gun during one of those occasions. Swinney was convicted on a total of 11 counts, but only two them seem to matter because Judge Moawad was bound by Oregon's Measure 11 to impose mandatory minimums in both cases after failing to apply downward departures. She also determined correctly that there were two separate criminal episodes, but technically she was not required by law to impose consecutive sentences. Assault II Swinney was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 70 months in state prison for shooting Jason Britton with a paintball on August 15, 2020. This conviction was made possible by the court improperly allowing the jury to consider whether or not a regular paintball is dangerous enough to legally be considered a dangerous weapon. A reasonable judge would have ruled that a regular paintball is not dangerous enough to qualify as a dangerous weapon for the purpose of distinguishing an Assault II from an Assault IV. The jury unfortunately bought the state's claim that a paintball is readily capable of causing serious bodily injury due to the rare likelihood that someone gets hit in the eye at close range which is what almost happened in this case. Britton was hit in the eyelid area and suffered a black eye. Britton also claimed to have suffered long term damage that continues to this day, but the state provided no medical documentation to back up his claims. To prove that Britton suffered the long term injuries the state would have had to introduce expert testimony ideally in the form of an eye doctor stating that he had evaluated Britton and diagnosed him with long term injuries, but they didn't do that, so the state had to proceed on the theory that a paintball is a dangerous weapon. However, the state argued that this was a case of transferred intent because Swinney intended to shoot someone else, but missed and shot Britton. That was necessary to establish the intent element necessary to convict someone of Assault II. However, the intended victim was wearing adequate eye protection, so if the intent were to be transferred then so too should have been the fact that Swinney intended to shoot someone with adequate eye protection making the likelihood of an eye injury to that person nearly impossible. A paintball cannot be considered a dangerous weapon if it is being used in a manner incapable of causing serious injury which was the intended case when Swinney pulled the trigger. How can the court transfer intent to use a paintball gun in a manner incapable of causing serious injury into intentionally assaulting someone with a weapon readily capable of causing serious physical injury? The intent to use a weapon readily capable of causing serious physical injury is missing in this case. Judge Moawad could have applied a downward departure capable of freeing Swinney from the mandatory minimum requirement of Measure 11, but chose not to largely due to Britton's unfounded claims of long term injury. The problem with those claims are that there has been no medical evidence presented to the court other than Britton's word. The fact that no expert testimony was presented at trial suggests that there is no evidence beyond Britton's word. Unfortunately, the burden of proof necessary to prove something in a criminal trial does not exist at a sentencing hearing. Anything, even hearsay, is allowed at a sentencing hearing and the judge can base her sentencing decisions on unproven accusations. In the video below Judge Moawad refuses to give Swinney the departure on the grounds that he caused "significant injury" to Britton's eye. Had it not been for this decision Swinney would have faced - months because of the sentencing guidelines. Unlawful Use of a Weapon (UUW) with a Firearm Alan Swinney was sentenced to 60 months consecutive for Unlawful Use of a Firearm under ORS 161.610 which states "The minimum terms of imprisonment for felonies having as an element the defendants use or threatened use of a firearm in the commission of the crime shall be as follows: (a) Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, upon the first conviction for such felony, five years" (https://ift.tt/3ICp9eC). The felony Swinney committed with his firearm was Unlawful Use of a Firearm. That unlawful use being for the purpose of menacing Antifa. On August 22, 2020 Swinney pointed the gun at a crowd during a protest. He was convicted of menacing for that and the sentence will run concurrently with his sentence for unlawfully using a gun. Another problem with the system highlighted by this count is treating any UUW as if the weapon was used for its intended purpose. In this case using a firearm for an unlawful purpose other than shooting at someone carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years regardless of the manner in which its used. It doesn't matter if you shoot someone or just threaten them either way you're using a gun for an illegal purpose and must be sentenced to at least 5 years. This type of statutory scheme has a disproportional impact on minor offenses involving firearms because most cases involving unlawful use of a firearm are covered by other statutes which carry longer mandatory minimums. For instance, had Swinney used his gun to rob a liquor store he would be charged with Robbery 1 for which he would be facing a mandatory minimum of 7 years 6 months (https://ift.tt/3DQyeNs). Adding a count of UUW to his charges would just result in him receiving a concurrent sentence, so it really wouldn't change the outcome. Likewise if he opened fire he would face far more time. At the same time it makes sense to make UUW a more serious charge than some offenses that can be committed with or without a weapon. In this case Swinney unlawfully used his gun to commit the misdemeanor offense of menacing which is defined as attempting "to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury" (https://ift.tt/3rUNW7U). A person can commit menacing simply by getting into someone's face and threatening to beat their ass, so it makes sense to make it a felony to use a weapon to commit the offense since the amount of fear experienced by the victim will be greater, but it does not make sense to impose a mandatory minimum just because the weapon in question is a gun. A person could commit menacing with a deadlier weapon like a bomb or grenade and get less time on the UUW than Swinney did just for not using a gun. Selective Prosecution and Activist "Victims" This case has a lot of red flags indicative of selective prosecution due to the high profile nature of Swinney's activism, the political leanings of District Attorney Mike Schmidt, the excessive nature of the charges, the excessive nature of the sentence, the history of the judge, and the fact that the "victims" in this case were activists using the court to push their agenda. In August of 2020, DA Schmidt announced an amnesty policy for people charged with specific crimes related to protests (https://ift.tt/3ixdUGr) and said that charges not on the list would be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. There were lots of incidents involving injuries more serious than Britton's which were inflicted with rocks, mace, paintballs, and other objects for which the perpetrators even when identified were never charged. It should not be hard for Swinney's legal team to find similarly situated persons not charged by the DA's office. The next step in a selective prosecution challenge would be to show that the difference between Swinney and the uncharged similarly situated people was Swinney's exercise of a constitutional right. Since Swinney has no prior criminal history it seems that the only difference between Swinney and countless uncharged similarly situated people was Swinney's far-right politics. If Swinney had shown up in black bloc and done the same things he probably would have never been charged even if the cops knew who he was. The biggest difference one could argue was Swinney brandishing a gun, but if you look at cases of injuries inflicted at some of the protests you'll find far more serious injuries, so in theory public safety needs would favor prosecuting those cases. It seems the biggest difference between Swinney and other similarly situated people was the high profile nature of his activism. Swinney went from city to city protesting and counter-protesting Antifa. According to the government he would bait Antifa into attacking him so that he would have an excuse to use force in self-defense, but that in this case he had no right to self defense. The video certainly shows that he had no right to self-defense in the case of Britton, but whether he had a right to self-defense when he pulled the pistol a week later is less clear. We were not at the rally, have seen limited amounts of video footage showing both sides attacking each other, and can't tell for sure if there is activity on the Antifa side that may have justified using a gun solely in a deterrent capacity. If Swinney could show that he had legitimate fear of a felony being committed against his person then he could have justified pulling the gun, but it seems more likely that he was showing off and using it to scare people that didn't need to be scared. The government took the position that Swinney is a very dangerous person that needs to be kept off the streets because they know he won't change at all. We are going to say for the sake of argument that they are right, but that his conduct was clearly not dangerous enough to justify keeping him off the streets for as long as possible. It seems the worst anyone has to worry about from Alan Swinney is a black eye and soiled panties. If anyone is in danger because of Swinney's activities it is Swinney himself. He would surely continue his efforts to provoke Antifa into giving him excuses to use physical force against him and leftists tend to have a really hard time controlling their emotions when offended. Other leftists recognize that and try to protect them by targeting the provocateur thinking that if they don't stop the provocateur somehow it is only a matter of time until an emotionally unstable lefty violently attacks him. If the likely target of such an attack is known to the government to have violent tendencies or has at least made statements indicating a propensity to engage in violence, in this part of the country the government often engages in what some legal scholars call a "heckler's veto" which involves taking action to silence a speaker to prevent a reacting party's anticipated negative behavior. A common example is the denial of permits to groups of demonstrators whose speech is anticipated to provoke a violent response from counter-protesters. A common tactic used to silence such people is selective prosecution for the purpose of seeking excessive sentences. Another goal of this prosecution was to deter other right wingers from following in Swinney's footsteps. Hearing that he got 10 years no matter what the circumstances will resonate throughout the country and make others think twice before setting foot in Oregon. This was perhaps the biggest and ultimately most irrelevant motivation prosecutors had. Prosecutors think that by persecuting Swinney they can prevent future violence by deterring those likely to provoke Antifa because if let loose Swinney would continue recruiting people to his cause. The bigger his group grows the more people they piss off the greater the likelihood there is of something going wrong. However, that is all technically skepticism that has no place in a court of law. The activist "victims" in this case followed a familiar playbook used by snitches that consider themselves "victims" in criminal cases the outcome of which benefits an agenda. In this case the agenda was in furtherance of Antifa's fight against the right. In other cases the agenda can be to shut down a competing business (ex: https://ift.tt/31WcsKG), get custody of a kid, make a name for yourself, improve your reputation (ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chn6OlKg29g), or something else. Activist "victims" typically know how to exploit their status as "victims" in the eyes of the law to inflict maximum damage on their target. This is largely due to the blanket of immunity given to and systematic whitewashing of named victims in criminal cases. The immunity allows named victims to do whatever they want for the most part with zero accountability. Named victims can be caught lying in court and prosecutors will always insist they're telling the truth not because they believe them but because they are their "victim" and basically their client. This immunity often extends to prior crimes exposed by defense counsel even when the crimes were committed against the defendant before the defendant allegedly committed the crime for which they're on trial. When the government realized that their "victim" is no angel they go out of their way to whitewash them so that the jury and the court view them more favorably, plus the government does not want anyone to be afraid to report crime due to what would surely be discovered about them if they did. The end result is a scenario where named victims can make things up with impunity and little scrutiny. Activist "victims" take advantage of this by concocting tales that make their adversary look not just guilty, but monstrous as well. If you take an activist "victim" at their word all of sudden the defendant is the devil himself and the "victim" was lucky to survive. In this case Britton had his tale of suffering eye injuries to this day which defense counsel pointed out was not backed by any tangible evidence beyond his word. DDA Nathan Vasquez obviously realized that he could still use his claim to help the case anyway as long as he didn't use it in a way that required an expert witness to back it up. That meant that he couldn't charge Swinney with Assault II using the serious physical injury prong because that would have required proof of injury beyond a reasonable doubt, such proof can only be established with expert testimony, and the defense has a right to a rebuttal expert. Proof of Britton's injury would have made the case a slam dunk, but instead they had to go with treating a paintball as a dangerous weapon. The injury story could still be used to help the dangerous weapon argument because jurors would hear that the victim claims to have been injured in a way that sounds serious, so they would naturally think that surely something is capable of causing serious injuries when someone is complaining of being seriously injured. That bolstered the argument that a paintball is a dangerous weapon without requiring that the injury be proven. That continued at sentencing when Vasquez read Britton's victim impact statement and argued that he was in fact seriously injured or at the very least suffered "significant injury." Judges love to make their sentences look like a reasonable compromise between the parties, so when a prosecutor argues serious injury the judge often sees significant injury as a compromise. The other "victim" Megan Steward a.k.a. Meg McLain was able to use incidents that Swinney had nothing to do with against him in her victim impact statement. Specifically, this article of ours https://ift.tt/3imecCG which she describes at 55:20 as, "when I left the courtroom I was informed that a new social media post went live that not only curiously insulted my participation in the case but included an address connected to my name." We have no association with Swinney whatsoever yet somehow our article can be considered a result of Swinney's crimes for the purpose of sentencing. At sentencing the defendant is blamed for all of the victim's problems so much as tangentially linked to the offense, so even though Swinney had nothing to do with the article she can say that he is still somewhat to blame for any emotional distress she alleges. On our end we can say that we do post home addresses of known snitches as a warning for the community. Snitches are dangerous and people need to know where they are so that they don't do or say something that gets noticed because if noticed snitches are liable to call the police and put people in jail. Providing the public with an online service for posting information about snitches could save people from a lot of time behind bars. We eventually took the address down after Jason Britton complained and eventually began a constructive dialog. The addresses were removed as a reward for making a positive contribution to the site. Conclusion Alan Swinney was singled out to be made an example of. His sentence is a reflection of who he is and not what he did. He will certainly appeal and we think he has a few valid objections. Judge Moawad should be ashamed of herself which is why her address is the one hidden behind the block on this page. #alanswinney #heidimoawad #nathanvasquez #antifa #proudboys
Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo are the snitches from the Jussie Smollett fake hate crime hoax case. The two brothers testified against Smollett at his trial earlier this month. They claimed that he offered them money to help stage a fake hate crime. As the star witnesses in the case it is well known that Smollett probably would not have been convicted without them. Police didn't contact the brothers until they were coming back to Chicago from Nigeria three weeks after the "attack" (see case timeline https://ift.tt/3yfvo3s). At that time they were merely "persons of interest" because they were the only two people that police could find in surveillance footage from areas near the "attack" but none of it actually showed the "attack" which of course never happened. They were arrested on suspicion of assault, held for 48 hours, and let go without charges after talking to the police. Whatever they said was enough for investigators to say that they "shifted" their investigation because of it. As Chicago Police Department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said, "We can confirm that the information received from the individuals questioned by police earlier in the Empire case has in fact shifted the trajectory of the investigation." Smollett was arrested just 5 days after the brothers were released. He was charged with one count of disorderly conduct for filing a false police report. The charge was dropped a couple months later when Smollett agreed to perform community service and forfeit his bond. Then thousands of documents were released due to a records request, a special prosecutor was appointed to review the case, and the charges were re-instated. The brothers later testified against Smollett at his trial. That testimony made the state's case and led to his conviction. According to public records, Abimbola J. Osundairo and Olabinjo J. Osundairo are 28 and 30 year old residents of Chicago, Illinois. Abimbola's last known home address is 6604 S Saint Louis Ave. and Olabinjo's last known address is 4138 N Ashland Ave Apt. D. We are making that information publicly available so that the community can know that there are snitches in those areas. People need to know not to trust these people. Please do not use any of this information for any unlawful purpose. Olabinjo J. Osundairo was convicted of Aggravated Battery in 2011. They do not appear to be registered to vote. #jussiesmollett #abimbolaosundairo #olabinjoosundairo
Sentencing former "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett to prison for staging a fake hate crime and lying about it would be a miscarriage of justice. Smollett is a famous actor whose career will likely never recover, his criminal history is minor, and the offense of conviction is non-violent. Those factors favor a sentence of probation with fines and/or community service. Our position is consistent with the sentencing factors outlined by Congress in the federal system which include "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant ... to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense ... to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct ... to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant ... to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner." (see 18 U.S.C. 3553 https://ift.tt/1PpgsSS). Note that although this case is before an Illinois court and not a federal court that the law we just cited does not apply, but we are still using it because we are more familiar with the federal system and we know that the factors outlined by Congress are basically the same as the factors used by local judges across the country. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense The nature and circumstances of the offense do not favor prison time because the offense was non-violent, not a sex crime, and did not result in significant monetary losses for anyone other than Smollett. History and Characteristics of the Defendant The only prior conviction we are aware of Smollett having on his records was a misdemeanor for giving false information to law enforcement in 2007 (https://ift.tt/2BL6OLH). People with a single prior misdemeanor from over 10 years ago typically fall at the bottom of the criminal history scales used in sentencing guidelines across the country. In such cases the guidelines typically favor probation unless the nature and circumstances of the offense are heinous enough to justify sending a first time felon to prison. Smollett himself is a famous actor whose reputation has been ruined as a result of this case. There is a good chance he won't be able to find work in Hollywood at all after this. Any work he does find will not be anything like his prior work. He might be able to land a role as a zombie on The Walking Dead, but only because the makeup will keep viewers from recognizing him. Even then would likely have to exploit personal connections to overcome the fear any company would have of him being seen on their property. This factor favors probation because he has already suffered far more financially than most similarly situated defendants. Reflect Seriousness of Offense Nobody deserves to go to prison for making up stupid stories. Had he gotten away with it what would have been the harm? Two guys would have been paid for helping him stage the attack and nobody would have been hurt. It would have been for the most part a victimless crime with the only real victim being the truth. Such acts are not serious enough to justify sending anyone to prison. Afford Adequate Deterrence and Protect the Public from Further Crimes Smollett likely learned his lesson the second people started realizing what really happened. Just being known for doing something like this should be enough to deter Smollett and any similarly situated celebrity from trying to do something like this in the future. The conviction is surely enough to deter Smollett from doing it ever again. The only possible argument for sending Smollett to prison under this section would be that he needs to be made an example of because of the high profile nature of the case. That argument is not valid because it would be largely based on who the defendant is and not what he did. Provide the Defendant with needed Educational or Vocational Training Smollett is a rich and famous actor with the means to send himself to college. The system has nothing to offer Smollett in this area. Conclusion Jussie Smollett did a stupid thing, but society would not benefit from paying to incarcerate him. He is not a danger to society, he has suffered enough to deter anyone in his shoes from doing anything like this ever again, and he is not in need of any services from the system. #jussiesmollett #liars #blacklivesmatter
Isleta Police Officer Leon Martin was arrested this past week for raping a woman he had just arrested for DUI while taking her to jail in his patrol car. The crime took place on November 22nd and was reported at the hospital, but it still took another week for the IPD to arrest Martin. Martin admitted to having sex with the woman, but denies raping her. A couple days later she tested positive for Chlamydia. The victim says that she had sex with Martin because she was afraid that he would add extra charges or shoot her if she resisted. That power dynamic is why nobody in police custody can legally consent to having sex with an officer. Even if the victim in this case genuinely liked Officer Martin and asked for it, it is still rape because no detainee can legally consent to sex with an officer no matter how much they want it. We don't mean to imply that she wanted it at all, we are just trying to emphasize the fact that nobody in Officer Martin's position can defend an allegation of raping a detainee by claiming the sex was consensual. The description of events sure doesn't sound consensual. It sounds like he asked her to come to the driver's seat, took off his belt, and offered to talk to the judge for the purpose of seeking a charge reduction if she had sex with him. She said that she went along with it because she felt she had no other choice. Officer Martin claims that she initiated the encounter and that he had a lapse in judgment. Even if this were merely a lapse in judgment the power dynamic means that the victim could not legally give consent to Martin, so by admitting to having sex with the victim Officer Martin admitted to raping her. Martin is no longer employed by the IPD. #leonmartin #rape #sexoffenders #drunkdriving
Johnson County Sheriff's Deputy Zachariah Johnson was arrested this past week for having a sexual relationship with a female inmate at the Johnson County Jail where he worked as a correctional officer. He now faces three counts of sexual misconduct, three counts of official misconduct and one count of trafficking with an inmate. Fun time was over when the inmate's lawyer reported the relationship to authorities. The Morgan County Sheriff's Office is investigating the case in an attempt to make the investigation look non-biased by brining in an outside agency. The exact details of the relationship does not appear to have been released. We are curious to learn exactly how Johnson had sex with a female inmate three times with nobody noticing. We also suspect that there could be more victims because by the time guys like Johnson get caught they've been doing it awhile. According to public records, Zachariah Braden Johnson is a 28 year old resident of Hope, Indiana. However, news reports say that he lives in North Vernon. We reviewed the results of our background check and it appears that he was only recently associated with an address in North Vernon, so we think that is where he lives. #zachariahjohnson #johnsoncountyjail #sexualmisconduct
Pinellas County correctional officer Patrick Knight was arrested Monday on charges of battery and official misconduct for using excessive force on an inmate. Officials say that Knight slapped, punched and pulled out a clump of of the victim's hair before lying about it. Knight would have probably gotten away with it had it not been for a superior officer doing his job and a fellow officer ratting him out. Officer Jameson Jessie originally told supervisors a version of events similar to Knight's, but changed his story after Lt. Priscilla Campbell noticed inconsistencies between Knight's story and the physical evidence. According to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (PCSO), inmate Terrell Johnson was yelling and kicking a cell door because his handcuffs were too tight. Officers Knight and Jessie entered the cell. Knight then pushed Johnson to the floor "without provocation," Johnson's head hit a cement bunk as he fell, Knight grabbed Johnson by the hair so hard that he pulled a chunk of hair out, pinned him to a wall, slapped him in the face, and punched him. The encounter left Johnson with a laceration above his left eye. Knight filed an incident report with Lt. Campbell in which he mentioned pulling Johnson's hair, but did not mention slapping or punching him. Knight also falsely accused Johnson of trying to kick him in order to justify pushing Johnson to the floor. Lt. Campbell became suspicious when Knight reported that Johnson suffered injuries to the back of his head as well as the laceration on the front of his head. Knight's explanation did not explain how Johnson could have suffered injuries to both the front and back of his head. Officer Jessie initially told Lt. Campbell a story similar to Knight's, but recanted a few hours later. We don't know why Jessie recanted his story. Usually correctional officers stick together in scenarios like this so that they don't get in trouble. Supervising officers are usually in it as well, so whenever a guard accuses an inmate of something and there is no video to support the inmate's version of events, then the supervisor sides with the guard. That is often the case even when the guard's version of events fails to explain the physical evidence. After that the rest of the department and the DA's office stick by the official story of a sworn officer unless they are shown incontrovertible proof that it is not accurate. Usually the only way to obtain enough proof for a department or DA to take action you need incontrovertible video evidence. It is like instant replay in football for which you need incontrovertible video evidence to overturn the call on the field. Even expert medical evidence can be considered insufficient to compel action. This author knows this all too well having obtained what is so far an unrebutted expert witness report proving that stories told by correctional officers could not physically explain injuries I sustained in an Oregon jail. The report was good enough to get me a plea offer of time served when I was facing years in prison based on false accusations of battery fabricated by deputies in an effort to justify breaking my arm. To this date the sheriff and local prosecutors stand by the official story of the deputies involved and I have a lawsuit pending in federal court. While in the federal system I witnessed countless cases of guards abusing inmates and nothing was ever done about it. According to public records, Patrick Buchanan Knight is a 51 year old resident of Trinity, Florida. He is a registered Republican with no prior criminal record. We are not sure if he was named after former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan (https://ift.tt/1hG1vNc). Pat Buchanan was still working as an aid for Richard Nixon when Knight was born, so we doubt that some lady would have named her son after a White House aid unless she knew him. #patrickknight #priscillacampbell #jamesonjessie #patbuchananAfter an exhausting search Kevin R. Johnson 49yrs. Of age is finally outed in Muncie Indiana . He was suspected of possible police affiliation but modern day being what it is. The age of technology has finally brought this informant and his number to the light ( Informant # 15265921D.T.F) As many as 35 different reports Kevin has informed from Texas to Chicago his reports are still putting people behind bars. #snitches #confidential #informant #delawarecounty #indiana #kevin #johnson
Sewall's Point Police Officer Juan Garcia was arrested today for sexual misconduct with a 15 year old. Garcia now faces four counts of soliciting a minor and one count of traveling to meet a minor for sex. He was arrested by the Martin County Sheriff's Office in the county which he resides. Garcia is a 5 year veteran with the Sewall's Point Police Department (SPPD). He has been placed on unpaid administrative leave pending the outcome of the case and an internal investigation. We noticed that initial media reports about his case didn't bother to name Garcia. Those sources just said "an officer" whose name had not been released. We were able to find one source that did print his name and you can check it out by clicking on the source attribution link above the map on this page. We couldn't find any good images of Garcia at first, but we were able to find the above image on the Town of Sewall's Facebook page in a post about Officer Garcia receiving an award for traffic safety earlier this year (https://ift.tt/3DRWkbm). We found Garcia's LinkedIn profile on which he claims to be the owner of Mi Cabana Taco Truck in Stuart, Florida and Garcia Services in Martin County. He described Garcia Services as follows: "I am a self employed Public Notary for the state of Florida. My business dedicates itself in Notarizing Documents, Translating Documents from Spanish to English (written or orally), Translating in Person, and helping fill out applications (I.e. Passport Applications, Job Employment Applications, & More). My Spanish has helped resolve issues and translate for those unable to speak English." - https://ift.tt/3nNAcJM Mi Cabana Taco Truck claims to be located at 2602 SE Clayton St, Stuart, FL 34997 according to the company's Facebook page (https://ift.tt/3FHyNum) which lists the email address juangarcia_772[at]yahoo.com and phone number (772) 209-2463. That same email address was used to create the Juan Garcia LinkedIn account which has been linked to the phone number 772-283-9656. We found a profile of Juan Garcia promoting himself as a notary public in Stuart, Florida which is where we finally found his picture (https://ift.tt/3CGQhFj). According to public records, Juan Antonio Garcia is a 30 year old resident of Stuart, Florida last known to reside at 2602 SE Clayton Street. We noticed that address matches the address of Mi Cabana Taco Truck from Facebook, however public records list the address of Mi Cabana Taco Truck as 3450 SE Dixie HWY. Garcia has also been linked to the address 4592 SE MURRAY COVE CIR STUART, FL 34997 as recently as this year. We normally don't paste the home addresses of police officers into the body of our articles, but we make exceptions for exceptional officers. Garcia made himself exceptional in our view by being arrested for sex crimes against a minor. #juangarcia #micabanatacotruck #sexoffenders.jpg)
Dr. Lyn J. Mangiameli was assigned to my case which involved a false allegation. My former attorney had previously threatened to tamper with any evaluation. She said that she "lost a lot of business" as a result of complaints that I had previously made about her. This attorney allowed my 13 year old son to be sexually molested. There are also strong indications that my other children had been molested, but I can't confirm it because I haven't seen them in over 7 years. Furthermore, my youngest daughter is under the legal custody of a man who previously drugged and raped a teen. California Penal Code 236.1 dictates that "the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process" cannot be used to sex traffic a child. If there were to be any false determination of competency, it would affect my standing to protect my children. I used this law to make an argument to the judge that any evaluation would unlawful. Although the judge accepted this, my attorney indicated the Dr. Mangiameli would still submit a psychological evaluation into the record. I promptly filed a preemptive complaint with the California Board of Psychology. I included all the ALL the details of what is happening to my kids. I requested that he not submit any report, as no empirically valid assessment would be utilized, nor did he have my consent. Dr. Mangiameli went ahead anyhow and submitted into the record a report that indicated that I was mentally incompetent, despite not having my consent or participation. He indicated in the report that he viewed the evidence that the custodial father of my youngest daughter previously engaged in a drugging and rape, but it did nothing to deter him. He also stated that because I report the sexual abuse of my children to the District Attorney in 2017 that it could be an indication of a "psychiatric issue". At no point did Dr. Mangiameli confirm or disconfirm the abuse. He simply said that I was crazy for having reported it. I call on Dr. Mangiameli to retract the improper report that he filed. #sexualabuse #psychologist #drlynmangiameli #court
Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty today. This comes as no surprise to us because we called this case self-defense from literally the first day (https://ift.tt/2EDh7Wg), continued to call it self-defense after his testimony simply confirmed what we saw on film (https://ift.tt/3D6R9nE), and called the likelihood of conviction "almost impossible" after Judge Bruce Schroder dismissed the misdemeanor weapons charge (https://ift.tt/31ZcDFb). We agree with the jury's verdict and applaud them for giving this boy a fair trial. We believed that Rittenhouse was defending himself from day one when we were one of the first outlets to post his name with the conclusion that he acted in self-defense. Our self-defense conclusion was based on a series of videos from the shooting. The first video clearly showed Rittenhouse running away from Joseph Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, closed within feet of him, and at the last possible moment Rittenhouse opened fire. The other videos clearly showed Rittenhouse running down the street before being attacked, falling to the ground, and shooting two people after one of them attacked him with a skateboard and the other had a gun in his hand. Our earlier analysis was done under the assumption that Rittenhouse was engaged in unlawful conduct by being a minor in possession of a firearm. In that scenario he would have had a duty to flee before he could legally use force to defend himself. We concluded that it is hard to find a better example of someone fulfilling their duty to flee than Kyle Rittenhouse. Then Judge Schroeder dismissed the weapons charge, so we had to re-evaluate a little bit because without being unlawfully in possession of a gun, Rittenhouse had the right to stand his ground as a law abiding citizen. It was then that we realized his acquittal was a near certainty because he fled without having a duty to flee. This has been an awkward case for us because we usually support Black Lives Matter and Antifa in their efforts to fight the police, but at the same time we are against charging people with crimes they did not commit. Our defense of Rittenhouse was not a defense of his decision to go to Kenosha in the first place. We defended Rittenhouse because after reviewing the evidence we concluded that he was acting within the scope of the Wisconsin self-defense statute. We do not believe in charging people with crimes they did not commit for the sake of social justice. Just because someone is right wing doesn't make them a criminal and if the left abuses the courts to put right wingers in jail for crimes they did not commit then they are no better than the fascists they've been protesting. We have seen cases where the question of guilt of innocence seems have boiled down to a question of whether or not a defendant is a white supremacist. The political leanings of the defendant is almost always irrelevant to the question of guilt. #kylerittenhouse #bruceschroeder #selfdefense #antifa
Cop Blaster founder Cyrus Sullivan finally completed his final term of federal supervised release on Tuesday, November 16, 2021. This might come as a shock to some because many didn't realize that he was still on supervision after his original terms of supervision expired. SULLIVAN'S CASES Sullivan was originally on supervision for a 2013 guilty plea to making threatening communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(c) the previous year. He was sentenced to two years in federal prison plus three years of supervised release. Before he was scheduled to be released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in 2014, he was charged with assaulting a federal employee and sentenced to a consecutive two year term plus three years of supervised released (https://ift.tt/3CwuiAD). Due to a bureaucratic error, Sullivan was sent to a high security United States Penitentiary in Victorville, California (USP Victorville) where he remained for the entirety of his sentence because even after he got his classification error corrected he had too little time left on his sentence to qualify for a transfer (https://ift.tt/3qROlHQ). While at USP Victorville he was beaten and tortured by staff in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for which Sullivan obtained a $10,000 settlement after suing the feds while acting as his own attorney (https://ift.tt/2OvKm2g). Sullivan was first released from BOP custody in May of 2016, but he was found guilty of violating a condition of his supervision the following year. Sullivan had been ordered not to use a computer without permission from his probation officer. That condition was later changed after the Ninth Circuit ruled such conditions to be unconstitutional in an unrelated case. Sullivan received new conditions requiring him to install monitoring software on his computer and prohibiting him from operating his business. The court justified the former on the grounds that his instant offense involved using a computer to send a threatening email to someone and the court justified the latter by saying that his business was related to the offense due to the person he threatened provoking him in a dispute over his business. All would have been well, but probation abused the monitoring condition by installing software that ruined any computer Sullivan had it installed on. He disabled the monitoring software and posted a guide to help others do the same in an effort to discourage probation from using that software (https://ift.tt/325GDtR). After his probation officer filed a petition to revoke his supervision, he fought back by aggregating publicly available information pertaining to those responsible for his persecution and launching this website. Sullivan was detained as a "danger to the community" in February of 2017 while the disposition of his violation was pending. It was the government's hope that they could hold him long enough to bring this site down. Sullivan's 2012 prosecution was motivated primarily by the desire to shut down the websites he operated at the time and it worked, but only because Sullivan was arrested at a lucky time for them. Sullivan was prepared the second time, so the site stayed up the entire time he was in jail. Sullivan would then threaten to post information (including home addresses) of jail staff if they did or didn't do certain things. Eventually they had enough and assaulted Sullivan by breaking his left arm in a secluded cell. They tried to cover up their tracks by charging Sullivan with assault, but eventually an expert witness provided proof that Sullivan's explanation was the only one given capable of explaining his injury (https://ift.tt/2ZmKgfm). He was offered a sentence of time served if he pled to a lesser charge and he took the offer. Sullivan was sentenced to three years of supervision for impeding a federal officer on November 28, 2018. He was sentenced by a judge from the District of Arizona because Sullivan had run off his Oregon judge by sending a letter to his home from jail asking him to recuse himself. The Arizona judge gave Sullivan a fresh start with the court and she treated him fairly. Sullivan also got lucky with the state of the law at the time of his guilty plea. Because he was a pre-trial detainee the entire time he was being held on the new charge that time was counted towards supervision on his old cases. Sullivan had finished serving his violation sentence in August of 2017 and received two years of supervision following that. Since his new term of supervision was concurrent to his new one and his time as a pretrial detainee was concurrent to it, he finished his two year term of supervision in those cases in late August of 2019. At that point he re-launched several sites that were part of his original business. He was already able to operate Cop Blaster without violating his conditions in the old cases because it was new and thus not related to his old business. SULLIVAN ON SUPERVISION Sullivan's time on supervision was an unusual one for probation, the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), and the court. Probation assigned Sullivan a new probation officer for a fresh start and that officer always treated Sullivan reasonably. Every once in awhile he would show up unannounced and question Sullivan about his online activities. Usually it was in response to complaints he received from law enforcement. There was the time that Sullivan posted the home address of then Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf (https://ift.tt/3f9yc76), showed up at the trial of a jailhouse buddy before posting information about witnesses in the case (https://ift.tt/3g1Mesh), and other times that complaints were forwarded to probation about pending investigations into Sullivan's online activities. The officer's questions usually centered around Sullivan's intent behind the publication of home addresses. Sullivan always answered that he only includes such information when it improves the user experience, could be used to plan peaceful protests, or improves public safety by letting people know places to avoid. Sullivan had put a block on the home address field of reports about police officers, prosecutors, judges, corrections, and probation that is programmed to to stop working if he is prevented from logging into his account for more than 14 days for any reason (https://ift.tt/3co9DUW), but he still pastes addresses into the descriptions of reports sometimes. Sullivan realized that the block would give law enforcement a good motive to treat him fairly by not looking for lame excuses to put him in jail, but that not having the block would make his site nothing but a target. Sullivan made it easy for probation not to find excuses to lock him up by living a law abiding lifestyle. That was never hard for Sullivan because he has never lived a criminal lifestyle. He just lost his temper online one day, got 2 years for it, and has such a low tolerance to being bossed around that the likelihood of him being able to serve any lengthy prison term without acquiring new charges for assaulting staff is nearly zero. Sometimes how somebody behaves in prison is not indicative of how well they will do in society and Sullivan is one such case. A case in which the best way to protect society from future crimes is to let the prisoner go. The USAO had agreed as a condition of his plea not to seek any sort of conditions that would restrict him from operating his websites in any way while on supervision in the new case. This meant that they couldn't respond to complaints from the public by seeking new release conditions unless those complaints included proof of criminal activity. As a result, the USAO never sought new conditions from the court no matter how many complaints were forwarded to their office from other law enforcement agencies. The Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) assigned to the case typically responded by telling other agencies that Sullivan was not violating any law or court conditions. This may have been confusing for some because the original AUSA assigned to Sullivan's cases had argued in court that his business was illegal. The Daily Caller pointed this out in an article last year (https://ift.tt/313cv4s), but Sullivan did not tell Daily Caller that he was still on supervision because he didn't want to burden his probation officer with a flood of frivolous complaints. Now that he is free to discuss his status he feels that his status as a supervisee at the time that article came out proves that his business was never illegal. Had the business been illegal he could have been charged with violating his terms of supervision by engaging in new criminal conduct. One thing that surely played a role in that not happening was a special part of his plea agreement which required the USAO to be consulted by probation before filing charges of violations with the court. The purpose of that condition was to protect Sullivan from being wrongfully charged with a violation because without it all a probation officer needs to violate someone is "probably cause." This was a source of great vindication for Sullivan who feels that he can finally prove once and for all that he never should have been charged with a crime related to his business model in the first place. The court scheduled status conferences with the parties ever few months. These conferences served primarily as a way for the government and the court to discuss concerns regarding Sullivan's online activities. There were a few times when the court thought Sullivan got close to the line, but never crossed it. Sullivan didn't agree with every decision the judge made, but always felt she treated him fairly. He started trying to get released from supervision early many months ago and wasn't let off until just now, but other than keeping him on a leash longer than he liked he can't think of anything to complain about. The status conferences did give Sullivan some useful insight into how often the government received complaints about him, which was on a regular basis. The judge always respected Sullivan's First Amendment rights even though she made it clear that she often didn't agree with how he exercised those rights. She did what a judge is supposed to do. She enforced the law. She didn't look for excuses to bend the law to her liking like her predecessor did. Oddly, Sullivan's picture appearing in The New York Times earlier this year never came up (https://ift.tt/3xlzd61). Sullivan doubts that probation was unaware of the article, but that they knew it was irrelevant to his performance on supervision. Sullivan also found it odd that no journalist that interviewed him while on supervision bothered to ask if he was on supervision. One would think that investigative reporters from The New York Times and Daily Caller would have tried to figure out if he were under any type of court supervision, but apparently now. CONCLUSION All Cyrus Sullivan ever needed to successfully complete his term of federal supervised release was a judge, prosecutor, and probation officer that upheld the Constitution. #copblaster #cyrussullivan #uspvictorville #nwrrc #usprobation
Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the misdemeanor weapons charge against Kyle Rittenhouse today on the grounds that Rittenhouse's rifle was too long to qualify for prohibition under the statute. Without that charge it will be almost impossible for the state to argue that Rittenhouse was engaged in criminal activity at the time that Joseph Rosenbaum attacked him. We say almost impossible because the state is still permitted to pursue a provocation theory based on grainy FBI footage taken from a aerial drone which they claim shows Rittenhouse move towards Rosenbaum before Rosenbaum chased him. All of our prior analysis of this case (https://ift.tt/3omooNG) was based on two things we thought we knew for sure. First, that Rittenhouse had a duty to flee before he could legally defend himself because as a minor in possession of a firearm he was engaged in criminal activity. Second, that Rittenhouse was running away from Joseph Rosenbaum when he opened fire. Now we have to change our analysis because the first assumption is no longer valid. Unless the state can show that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had a legal right to stand his ground. Despite having a legal right to stand his ground he chose to flee before shooting Rosenbaum at the last minute. Those facts warrant acquittal unless provocation took place and that provocation was intended to provoke a response that would otherwise justify self-defense. Under Wisconsin law someone waives their right to stand their ground if they provoke someone into attacking them for the purpose of giving them an excuse to defend themselves. Self-defense in Wisconsin is governed by statute 939.48 which reads in part, "A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense." There is zero evidence in the record suggesting that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum for that purpose. We argued previously that one could consider showing up at a Black Lives Matter protest to support the police with an illegally possessed firearm to be a provocative act. That argument was based on a different part of the statute which creates a duty to flee when engaged in an unlawful act likely to provoke others. Without being unlawfully in possession of a firearm we cannot think of any unlawful provocative action that Rittenhouse engaged in. The state's grainy drone surveillance footage is not convincing in this case because even if Rittenhouse moved towards Rosenbaum before being chased that is not enough by itself to constitute the type of provocative action which creates a duty to flee. The footage is too blurry to show anything beyond which circled figure moves which direction. It doesn't show if Rittenhouse raised his rifle at Rosenbaum and there is no audio so you can't tell if he provoked him with words. The footage is of a quality reminiscent of a UFO sighting in which one person claims to have seen a flying saucer, another claims it was a weather balloon, and for all we know it was neither. Even when we thought Rittenhouse had a duty to flee we reached the conclusion that he fulfilled that duty admirably. In ever piece of footage we reviewed we could see him running away before shooting. First, he ran away from Rosenbaum and opened fire only after Rosenbaum got within feet of him. Second, he ran down the street while being chased by a mob, fell down, was attacked, and only then shot people who had either attacked him or was holding a gun. It is hard to find a better example of someone attempting to flee than Kyle Rittenhouse. #kylerittenhouse #bruceschroeder #selfdefense #antifa
The media is buzzing with Judge Bruce Schroeder's decision to allow the jury to consider provocation in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. This is a big decision and we think it is the right decision. The prosecution will argue that Rittenhouse provoked Joseph Rosenbaum and therefore should have been required to exhaust all other options before shooting him. However, our analysis supports the conclusion that Rittenhouse did in fact exhaust all other options, which leaves just one remaining argument that the prosecution might try to make which we don't think there is enough evidence to support. WISCONSIN SELF DEFENSE LAW Self defense claims are governed by Wisconsin statute 939.48 titled "Self-defense and defense of others." The part of the statute relevant to provocation reads as follows: (2)Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant. (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense. - https://ift.tt/2YZzvA9 Under that statute provocation can impact a self-defense claim in three possible ways. First, a person who engages in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others (like showing up at a BLM protest supporting police while unlawfully possessing a gun) is not entitled to use deadly force in self-defense unless the attack places the person in reasonable fear of great bodily harm and has exhausted all possible means of escape. Second, if the provocateur withdraws from a fight and gives notice of such a withdraw they can defend themselves if attacked again. Third, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the provocateur engaged in provocative conduct for the purpose of provoking an attack that would otherwise give him an excuse to use force in self-defense he forfeits his right to self defense. We think the first clause here is relevant to the Rittenhouse case. We don't think the other two apply because there was no fight for Rittenhouse to withdraw from and no evidence introduced suggests that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum for the specific purpose of giving himself an excuse to defend himself. We think that one could successfully argue that the act of showing up at a BLM/Antifa anti-police protest to show support for law enforcement is by itself an act likely to provoke other people. When a person shows up at such an event with a firearm they cannot legally possess they are engaged in unlawful conduct. For those reasons we believe that Rittenhouse had a legal obligation to flee before he could legally use force to defend himself. At the same time our analysis of the video evidence in this case from day one has shown that Rittenhouse fulfilled his duty to flee (https://ift.tt/2EDh7Wg). In fact, it is hard to think of a better example of someone fulfilling their duty to flee than Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse ran away from Joseph Rosenbaum as fast as he could, Rosenbaum continued to chase him, and it wasn't until Rosenbaum closed within a couple feet of Rittenhouse that he opened fire. Rittenhouse continued to fulfill his duty to flee by running down the street towards the police. He was then chased and attacked again. He was hit with a skateboard, fell to the ground, was kicked in the face, shot at the kicker, shot the guy with the skateboard when he attacked him again, and shot a third guy while holding a pistol in the arm he shot him in. This case is self-defense. The only way that we could see a reasonable juror convict Kyle Rittenhouse would be if he had said something indicating that he was looking for an excuse to use his gun, but we are not aware of Rittenhouse making any such statements. They can't even find a witness claiming to have heard him say such things which is surprising in a high profile case like this. We are surprised nobody has come forward with a fabricated claim to have heard him confess to provoking Rosenbaum so that he could shoot him in self-defense. Absent such a statement it is not possible to prove that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum for that purpose beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a recording taken before Rittenhouse went to Kenosha in which he voiced a desire to shoot BLM protesters outside a CVS store, but that evidence was excluded. It was excluded because its prejudicial potential outweighed its evidentiary value. Your average idiot that is too stupid to get out of doing jury duty is far too likely to think that such evidence proves he went to Kenosha with the premediated intent to shoot people. An intelligent person would of course say something like, "wait a minute, he never says anything about going to Kenosha, planning to shoot people, or provoking people to give himself an excuse to defend himself." Had Rittenhouse said something like "I'm going to Kenosha and I'm going to shoot some of them," or "I'll just walk around with a rifle shouting my support for the cops until one of them attacks me so I can shoot him in self-defense," or something of identical meaning that would be different story. However, ranting on camera about some homicidal fantasy does not specifically prove that he went to Kenosha to make his fantasy reality. WE ARE NOT WHITE SUPREMACISTS We feel the need to disclaim the fact that we are not white supremacists due to the sentiment online that anyone who doesn't believe that Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty must be a white supremacist. This is being thrown around a lot by people on the far-left right now. We were not going to add this disclaimer, but yesterday we noticed a Tweet from someone with Antifa that we've worked with in the past saying something like "Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty, no one who isn't a white supremacist disagrees." We are going to leave the name of the author out of this article because we rather like him for the most part and don't want to sabotage our ability to work with him in the future. Still, we feel the need to say how frustrating it is to read such things. We feel that it is a form of manipulation employed by the far-left when they are afraid of losing an argument. A smokescreen intended to stop people from taking a closer look and make those that have afraid to speak out unless they are willing to risk being labeled a white supremacist. We experienced a similar issue in Portland, Oregon last year when covering the Jeremy Christian case. In that case, this author spent three months locked up with Jeremy in the Multnomah County Detention Center (MCDC) in late 2018. During that time Jeremy was my neighbor and recreation partner, so I got to know him really well. The man I came to know is nothing like the person depicted by the press. During our time together he told me everything about his case and I told him that if the evidence supported what he told me that I would support him during his trial. When I went to the opening statements and watched the videos from the train I saw first hand that he was telling me the truth. To this day I have yet to catch him in a lie. It would have been much easier for me if I had caught him in a lie because when I started telling people what was really going on I was falsely accused of being a lying white supremacist. People that knew nothing about the case besides what they saw on the news were of the opinion that only a white supremacist would defend Jeremy Christian in any way. I kept getting pressured to stop defending him. If I wrote an article detailing false statements made by a witness people would accuse me of intimidating a victim, report my Facebook page for "hate speech," and call me a liar. To this day there are still people giving me a hard time just because I looked at the evidence and told people what I saw. WHY DEFEND RIGHT WINGERS? So, if I'm not a white supremacist why do I defend right wingers? I do it because I know that the most extreme cases are the ones most likely create bad precedent in the courts that the government will use to violate peoples rights down the road. When the public is crying for blood the government often doesn't care how they answer the cries. Often prosecutors will pursue meritless claims knowing that if the defense cannot keep those claims out of a jury's hands they are likely to win. Then appellate courts are reluctant to overturn the conviction and precedent is established to be used against others. For instance, when I was in prison a fellow inmate asked me if I had read the BOP's announcement about a new law allowing sex offenders to be civilly committed as "sexually dangerous persons." I was like, "I'm not a sex offender, what do I care? WTF are you implying?" He said that he wasn't implying anything, but that he knew I was a legal beagle so I should look at the law closely because it could serve as a foundation for holding anyone after they've done their time for psychiatric reasons. I looked at the law and learned he was right. Under that law certain sex offenders could be civilly committed at the end of their prison sentence if deemed a "sexually dangerous person" by a BOP doctor. It occurred to me that if such legislation is upheld following what are sure to be legal challenges down the road that there wouldn't be much if anything to stop Congress from striking the word "sexually" and allowing anyone deemed a "dangerous person" for any reason to be committed to a mental institution at the end of their sentence. Ever since I have been against civilly committing "sexually dangerous persons." Cases in which people are more likely to disregard the rights of the accused in pursuit of the outcome they want need to be watched the closest. For instance, one of Jeremy Christian's convictions was an Assault II charge for throwing a plastic bottle half full of booze at a woman the night before the stabbing. The bottle hit her in the eye and left her with a bruise. Christian was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon. If that stands then it will create precedent for charging anyone that throws a plastic bottle full of liquid at someone's face with Assault II. Assault II carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years in state prison. Is nailing someone you think is a white supremacist worth exposing everyone to a 5 year sentence just for throwing a plastic bottle at someone? Of course its not. The only people that think it is worth it are those that support a double standard in prosecutorial decisions. The standard of only enforcing certain laws under certain circumstances against certain people when those certain people are alleged white supremacists. There are many such people on the far-left. People that think having the right people in the right places will make sure that only far-right personalities will suffer the wrath of selective prosecution. To their credit they are often correct, but the problem with their position is that the same flaws in the system which permit this to happen can just as easily be used against them by the wrong people. In Portland, Oregon far-left demonstrators rarely face prosecution for property damaged during mostly peaceful protests, but if they did the same thing in a red state they would most certainly be sent to prison. They would be treated similarly to right-wingers prosecuted in liberal communities for conduct offensive to most in that area. We would come to the defense of the far-left if we thought they were being treated like Kyle Rittenhouse. If there were a right wing rally in the deep south and BLM were to show up with rifles to protect black businesses we would support their right to do so. If one of their people were attacked, ran away, got chased, and fired when the pursuer finally caught up we would call that self-defense. If prosecutors were to throw the book at him hoping an all white jury would convict him out of hatred for BLM we would call that racist. The only difference between that scenario and this one is that the discrimination is coming from leftists instead of racists. WE ARE NOT LIBTARDS We find it ironic that some leftists have been calling us a right-wing outlet because usually right wingers are calling us libtards. They call us libtards because we advocate against police misconduct committed against people of color and racial justice protesters far more often than we defend right wingers. They think we must be far-left, but they are not right either. We support things like gun rights, free speech, freedom of religion, and other things conservatives cherish. We oppose censorship on social media because even though we don't agree with most of what the right has to say we also think they have a right to speak just like anyone else. We oppose left wing tyranny which can be just as bad as right wing tyranny. Joseph Stalin killed way more civilians than Adolf Hitler did. We supported the right wing militias that took up arms against the federal government in Bunkerville and Malheur because they were fighting for civil rights that the Constitution entitles them to. The liberties they were fighting for are a lot like the liberties BLM is fighting for. Both groups want the government to honor their oath to uphold the Bill of Rights. CONCLUSION The Rittenhouse jury should consider provocation as a factor in the case, but they should also conclude that Rittenhouse fulfilled his duty to flee. We are not saying this to support the far-right any more than our speech in defense of BLM is intended to support the far-left. We want to remain neutral in that regard so that anyone can rely on us to look at allegations of government overreach objectively. #kylerittenhouse #bruceschroeder #selfdefense #jeremychristian