Alex Zazove filed a complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice (ODOJ) Civil Enforcement Division against a website for refusing to take down user generated content (UGC) without proof that the user violated the website's term of use. You can find the report that Zazove was complaining about by clicking on the "more info" link above the map on this page. That report was created by an anonymous user on April 28, 2009. It accused him of being bisexual and having sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Zazove refuses to work with the website's removal program and instead chose to work with a government agency that falsely claims to protect consumers. The body of Zazove's complaint reads as follows: "There is a false and defamatory report on this website concerning false medical information about me. This false information was first posted a number of years ago. The information was taken down for a period of time and has now reappeared. In addition to the information being false, I should not have to submit to testing to prove the information is false which is also is violative of my private health information. This false information, which is accessible to the public, is injurious to my personal and professional reputation. I ask this office to please have this entity remove my name and the false information it posted on its website immediately." - Alex Zazove The website has a mechanism in place for removing false allegations involving STDs. It permits the party accusing the report's author of lying to submit clean test results via their medical provider. That mechanism has existed since 2008, but despite being listed on the site for over a decade Zazove seems to think that complaining to the government is an easier way to get the report removed than just getting tested for genital herpes. Often people who continue to deny having the condition for so long rather than get a simple blood test turn out to be people that actually have the disease, but are trying to get the report removed anyway. Usually they will attempt to exploit privacy laws to get around the simple fact that they cannot test negative. Their argument will be that the author of the report provided no proof that they have the disease and that such proof could never be legally obtained due to HIPAA. The problem with that position is that often people find out people have STDs from other sources such as being infected themselves or word of mouth. In such cases the honor system is the only system capable of allowing such people to warn others. It is unfortunate that privacy laws like HIPAA prevent the government from being able to publish a national STD registry based on real medical records, so in its stead we provide the best possible alternative. Zazove's claim that submitting to testing "is also is violative of my private health information" is false. When submitting to testing an individual voluntarily waives doctor/patient confidentiality by giving their doctor permission to send copies of their test results to our post office box. They can also waive doctor/patient privilege by creating a share once link via MyChart which they send to the website. When an individual voluntarily waives doctor/patient confidentiality then the information is no longer private. Zazove's argument is common. People will claim that the website has no right to inquire as to their STD status because proof of that status only exists in confidential documents. That argument fails to account for the simple fact that those documents are only confidential as long as the patient keeps them that way. When this is pointed out they will often accuse the website of trying to blackmail them for confidential documents. They will equate giving them the option to submit proof to a form of theft similar to extortion as if a voluntary act done to mitigate a negative consequence is not voluntary. Perhaps they would have a point if we threatened to do something to them in the future if they did not turn over documents, but we don't do that. We simply do nothing otherwise. They act as if they have no choice, but the truth is they do have a choice. That choice has benefits and drawbacks just like other choices. Just because you don't like the drawbacks does not mean you don't have a choice. We have a long history with the ODOJ dating back over a decade when Alicia Suarez first sent us proof of someone snitching to her agency. At times we tried to work with her when we thought she might be able to provide evidence that a report was in violation of the terms of use (https://ift.tt/30r7Y8L), but she and her co-worker Geoff Darling seemed less interested in working with us to help people and more interested in finding ways around the First Amendment . That period of time in which the report was not online that Zazove refers to involved the FBI persecuting the founder of the website for sending a death threat to a deranged stalker that had swatted a family member of his (https://ift.tt/2UPt53c). Rather than recognizing the fact that he was the real victim, the feds chose to throw the book at him over a single isolated threatening email. They even tried to build a case against him based on his business model using complaints filed with Suarez's office as evidence, but eventually had to drop it. Despite never getting a conviction based on the business itself, the ODOJ claimed partial credit for the threat conviction. After that we revoked their contact privileges and will not respond to complaints from their office under any circumstances other than posting what they mail us online. We can do that because our website is not hosted in Oregon, so they have zero authority over it. If they ever try to "have this entity" remove anything we will just say no unless their request contains proof that the content in question should not be on the website. Getting a judge to back their efforts would not result in a different outcome. The ODOJ claims to protect consumers while at the same time disclosing all of their contact information to whoever they complain about. We pointed this out long ago when we described their complaint form as an open relay for giving us your information (https://ift.tt/2IcVYRE). We don't think the form on the ODOJ website gives people like Mr. Zazove adequate warning that their personal contact information will be disclosed in this manner, so we are willing to remove Zazove's contact information if the ODOJ does certain things. They must add a clear warning that any information provided will be forwarded to the subject of the complaint, stop requiring that people submit their mailing address and phone number, and publicly credit us with helping them make the change. That public credit must include a direct link to our website published in a press release on the ODOJ website. If they do those things we will remove the mapped address on this page as well as Mr. Zazove's email address and phone number (azaz[at]gmail.com, 3106623710), and we will do the same with those of others obtained directly from their office. We think that our offer has the best interests of society at heart. What if we were gangsters hell bent on shutting up anyone that runs their mouths about us by any means necessary? If that were the case Mr. Zazove would be in big trouble. The ODOJ sends copies of complainant data to anyone regardless of who they are. We know a lot of people that would not bother to respond to someone like Zazove peacefully. They would simply track him down and shut him up. We think it is only a matter of time until someone like Zazove gets hit because ODOJ forwards their complaint to those types of people. #alexzazove #odoj #aliciasuarez #consumerprotectionsource https://copblaster.com/blast/35564/alex-zazove-snitched-on-a-std-website-over-user-generated-content
This person has been setting people up to avoid jail time since 2005. He has been working recently in the area as of 2020. Funny that he hides most of the dirt he does like being a closet fag as well. #snitchbitch
Snitch snitch snitch. Stay away. Unless you are really seriously wanting to give up your freedom and your life. #snitchingbitch
Cheyanne Hoffman is a snitch. Once you get close you go down quick. Shes a rat. She had me and my boy thinking we were all tight and she would smoke down with us and everything. We heard she was a mark before but she seemed chill so we just brushed it off. She even went and got shit with us before and then one day she just flipped and we went down but she was no where to be found #criminalinformant
Alexandria Police Officer Brian Willett was charged today with several crimes for doing something that is perfectly legal in many parts of the country. Possessing a bag of weed and a gun in a so called "drug free zone." For that he is charged with marijuana possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a weapon with a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), and possession of drugs in a drug free zone. His arrest should not be considered a poor reflection of his character, but rather a poor reflection of Louisiana's draconian drug laws and possible racial bias. DRACONIAN DRUG LAWS Under Louisiana Revised Statute 40:964 (https://ift.tt/2SxH9S3), marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance. Schedule I controlled substances are considered the most dangerous of the five schedules. Notable Schedule I substances include heroin, mescaline, and psychedelic mushrooms (psilocybin). Marijuana is number 19 on the list of dangerous hallucinogens right below lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) under its Spanish name Marihuana. As a Schedule I substance marijuana is considered more dangerous than cocaine, methamphetamine, morphine, and oxycodone all of which are Schedule II substances. Under Louisiana Revised Statute 40:966 (https://ift.tt/3oVaxxH) anyone found in possession of marijuana "(b) On a first conviction, wherein the offender possesses more than fourteen grams, the offender shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, imprisoned in the parish jail for not more than six months, or both." That punishment is considerably less than the punishment for possessing other types of Schedule I substances, but it is still draconian in that it criminalizes a harmless plant. The Louisiana House of Representatives recently passed a bill that should reduce the penalty for less than 14 grams to a $100 fine (see PDF icon above map). That bill is currently pending before the Louisiana State Senate, but it does not go far enough. At least 16 states have fully legalized marijuana for personal recreational use, 12 have decriminalized possession and legalized medical use, 14 have legalized medical use (including Louisiana), 2 have decriminalized possession, and it remains fully illegal in 6 states (https://ift.tt/2EP8zs6). We don't see how Louisiana can justify permitting medical marijuana use while at the same time classifying it as a Schedule I substance. Under Louisiana Revised Statute 40:963 (https://ift.tt/34seCzX) Schedule I substances are defined as having "no currently accepted medical use". By legalizing medical marijuana the state has admitted that marijuana does in fact have currently accepted medical uses and therefore cannot possibly be considered a Schedule I substance. We would like to see Officer Willett's lawyer challenge the legality of classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance under these circumstances. The argument would be that since marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance that subsequent legislation has made it impossible for marijuana to fit the definition of a Schedule I substance. The other charges Willett faces would not be possible if it were not for the draconian state of marijuana laws in Louisiana. If marijuana were legalized then a marijuana pipe would not be considered drug paraphernalia, possessing a weapon with marijuana would not constitute possessing a weapon with CDS, and you would be free to possess it in a drug free zone. Of those charges the most serious charge Willett faces is possessing a weapon with CDS. The relevant statute reads as follows" "E. If the offender uses, possesses, or has under his immediate control any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, while committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence or while unlawfully in the possession of a controlled dangerous substance except the possession of fourteen grams or less of marijuana, or during the unlawful sale or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, the offender shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars and imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five nor more than ten years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than twenty years nor more than thirty years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence." - Louisiana Revised Statute 14:95 (https://ift.tt/3fUgMh5) The phrase "not less than five" constitutes a statutory minimum of 5 years just for possessing a weapon with more than 14 grams of marijuana. It is widely recognized in many jurisdiction that an ounce (28 grams) or less is considered a personal amount. In this case, a police officer increased his exposure for possessing more than half an ounce from a maximum of 6 months to a minimum of 5 years just for carrying his service weapon. IS THIS RACIST? We don't mean to sound racist, but judging by the look of Willett we think he might be African American. It is well known that racism runs rampant in the old south and often black officers are ganged up on by their white colleagues in efforts to get rid of them. Alexandria, Louisiana still has a street named after Confederate General Robert E. Lee where black people were massacred in 1942 (https://ift.tt/3wCsKm1). We doubt that a man with Willett's complexion was not looked down upon by his fellow white officers. Maybe Willett thought that by joining the force he could lick enough boots to avoid being treated like any other black man, but obviously he was wrong. CONCLUSION Officer Brian Anthony Willett did nothing wrong. The police always have discretion not to enforce the law and that discretion is best exercised in cases involving outdated laws criminalizing harmless activities. NOTE: We rarely support officers, especially when they are charged with breaking the same laws they swore to uphold, but ironically this is the second time this week that we have come to the defense of an officer charged under an unjust law. Earlier this week we came to the defense of an officer charged with possessing an unregistered firearm on the grounds that gun registration laws violate the 2nd Amendment and he appeared to have been targeted for speaking in favor of Qanon theory (https://ift.tt/3ukyDCO). #brianwillett #marijuana #drugs #racism #blacklivesmatter
Meth, heroin, and Fentynal are there drugs of choice. Watch your stuff and your back or they will rip you off and turn you in watch out for meg Helphrey and Gordon Gillihan #gordonandmegsayfriendsgetswhattheywantsandscrewsyouover
Hilltown Township Police Officer Matthew Reiss was recently arrested on 10 felony counts of child pornography possession. He was quickly arraigned before Magisterial District Judge Albert J. Augustine who set his bail at $75,000 and gave him a future court date of June 7th. Reiss posted bail right away and is now a free man. The Hilltown Township Police Department (HTPD) has placed him on administrative leave. Reiss' downfall began on April 16th when detectives in Montgomery County received a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children regarding two images of child sexual abuse that were uploaded to a Gmail account. The IP address used to access the Gmail account was quickly traced to Reiss' home in Palm, Pennsylvania. Detectives finally served a search warrant on the Gmail account on May 19th and discovered 660 images. 10 of those images depicted children under the age of 13 posing provocatively and being sexually assaulted. According to public records, Matthew Reiss is a 47 year old resident of Palm, Pennsylvania last known to reside at 1034 Ziegler Road. We are amplifying the visibility of that publicly available address for the purpose of warning the community. Normally we block home addresses of police officer, but we make exceptions when the officer poses a heightened risk to the community. We ask that nobody use this information for any unlawful purpose. We are not sure if Reiss is on paid administrative leave or not. Media reports only mention that he is on leave, but do not specify if it is paid leave or not. If you know the answer to this question please post it in the comments section below. #matthewreiss #sexoffenders #childpornography #gmail
Former Palm Springs Unified School District police officer Alfredo Luna Jr. was arrested on January 15th for doing something every American has a constitutional right to do. He possessed an unregistered assault rifle. How now faces one count of owning an unregistered assault rifle. Before going to court Luna Tweeted, "I ask you all for a special prayer for me today as I head into court to defend my constitutional rights to freedom of speech and my 2nd amendment right." (https://twitter.com/xAlphaWarriorx/status/1396830982095863808). He is absolutely right. His arrest violates his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, the government's motive appears to be a violation of his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and association, and the search warrant lacked probable cause. 2nd Amendment Analysis The 2nd Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (https://ift.tt/3ijRNn6). Notice how that sentence ends with no exception to the right to bear arms. It does not say that you can only bear certain types of arms or that your right to bear arms may be infringed under certain circumstances. Despite the 2nd Amendment being written in plain English, the government has been finding excuses not to uphold it for almost a century. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) was the first major transgression. The NFA imposed hefty taxes on certain types of guns for the purpose of curtaining their use. The NFA also required owners of certain types of guns to register with the government like sex offenders. Many similar and more severe laws have been passed over the years. Today the 2nd Amendment might as well read "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed unless ..." followed by a list of every type of person not allowed to bear arms. Despite being unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has been upholding most of these laws on the grounds that they bear no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." see United States v. Miller (https://ift.tt/3yzpbPr). The logic being that a militia would be worse off if it included certain types of arms or people. When convicted felons, the mentally ill, and people subject to restraining orders were banned from bearing arms the courts reasoned that a "well regulated militia" would be better off without such people. This pattern of eliminating people that might not make the best soldier for a militia is nonsense. The founding fathers created the 2nd Amendment so that the people would be able to defend themselves should their government become tyrannical. The "well regulated militia" the founders referred to is a militia best equipped to overthrow the government. A militia is not best equipped when recruits are systematically denied membership and those that do join can only carry weapons too weak to rival the government's arsenal. Today no militia is capable of challenging the government because they can't legally become "well regulated" as long as the government interprets "regulated" to mean regulated by the government. Alfredo Luna was obviously aware of the fact that he had a 2nd Amendment right to possess an assault rifle. He was also aware of the fact that decades of unconstitutional legislation made it illegal for him to exercise that right. 1st Amendment Analysis Investigators admit that they targeted Luna because of his speech. Luna is an active supporter of Qanon theory on social media. Our background check service listed freddieluna[at]verizon.net and freddie.luna79[at]gmail.com as likely belonging to a 41 year old man living in Cathedral City, California named Alfredo Flores Luna. It also linked those email addresses to a Twitter account at https://twitter.com/FreddieLuna21. That Twitter account is suspended, but when we searched Google for cached content from that account we found a status update (https://twitter.com/FreddieLuna21/status/1272174282349527040) that redirects to xAlphaWarriorx. We instantly recognized the profile picture of xAlphaWarriorx as Alfredo Luna. We also noticed a link to a fundraising page called Defend Patriot Luna which has raised slightly over $2,000 for his defense (https://ift.tt/2QTNoz6). Luna's Twitter account is packed with Qanon content and the FBI alleges that some of that content is threatening, but oddly whatever he posted was not enough to get his Twitter account shut down. Because of his posts the FBI flagged him as a possible domestic terrorist and obtained a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) against him. We are not in the position to say if Luna's posts were threatening or not because we have not seen them, but we doubt that he posted any true threats because he is not charged with making threats. "True threats" are defined by the Ninth Circuit as, "a statement which, in the entire context and under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee would be interpreted by those to whom the statement is communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon that person." (https://ift.tt/2PdT6HT). The FBI went to the trouble of getting a GVRO, a search warrant to confiscate guns pursuant to the GVRO, and charged Luna with the one unregistered gun they found. We think that had Luna posted anything illegal on the internet such as a "true threat" that he would have been charged for it as well. It appears to us that the FBI put together a profile of someone labeled dangerous because of his speech and associations. Then they used that profile to justify a pre-emptive gun seizure which produced an illegal gun. If he was targeted just because he supports Qanon, associates with Three Percenters, and hates certain government officials this entire case is a 1st Amendment violation. 4th Amendment Analysis Normally the police need probably cause that a crime was committed before they can search someone's home for anything. The California Red Flag law has essentially eliminated that requirement by allowing search warrants to be issued against anyone if the government says there is a "substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future" (https://ift.tt/3hRnyH2). How does this not violate the 4th Amendment which clearly reads "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" (https://ift.tt/2SqCIs9)? In this case it seems that the only probably cause the government needs to show is probably cause that someone might commit a crime in the future. We believe that Luna should file a motion to suppress the gun on the grounds that GVRO warrants such as his do not require the showing of probably cause that a crime has been committed necessary to justify searching his home for evidence of a crime. Luna's History Luna's employment history is kind of sketchy. He used to be a Cathedral City Police officer but he was fired for some type of misconduct that we don't know the specifics about. Luna claims that he bought his unregistered assault rifle from a fellow CCPD officer while he was on the force. After being fired he became a Palm Springs Unified School District officer. Luna appears to be a gypsy cop. Gypsy cops are cops that move from department to department because they get into trouble and are still able to find a new job. Conclusion Luna was not the best cop in the world, but he still has just as much of a right to free speech as the rest of us. You don't have to agree with his views, but nobody should be subjected to search and seizure for supporting a controversial movement. What is scary here is that the government is free to invade anyone's home as long as they fill out paperwork labeling them as dangerous. They don't need probably cause that you broke any laws and anything they find will be used against you just the same. This kind of government is exactly what the founding fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. #alfredoluna #qanon #gunrights #gypsycops
Name: Himari Age: Hypothetically racist and homophobic (16) Nationality: Hydrated Victories: Sim swapping innocent people for their Coinbase 2FA codes, stealing bitcoin, catfishing a kid and leaving him devastated after he found out Himari was actually a dude and not a super hot sexy egirl, Ratting children that searched for free roblox exploits, being rich but refusing to spend the money on friends Losses: Getting fed fucked in 7th grade Allies: Most of the hyperpop community Hobbies: Creating songs that are never released, beaming innocent people out of their bitcoin, sounding like a hot anime girl, gettin his bands up Proof of himari buying sim cards on fucking ebay LOL: https://ift.tt/3451dgW https://ift.tt/3oGJ7vb #cryptothief
Himari hacks mainframes, bypasses firewalls, steals crypto and listens to DaBaby on repeat. You know it's baby, my friend of African descent. Basically sits on Discord and commits cybercrimes daily. He got in legal trouble for swatting someone who went to his school, which was a pretty dumb move. He has learned from his mistakes and now does not associate his online life with real life. Watch out for this user, as he may steal all your cryptocurrency by sim swapping you and getting into your coinbase account with the 2FA code. Has a bag STACKED with sim cards that he has used to steal people's accounts and bitcoin with. Proof of himari buying the sim cards: https://ift.tt/3451dgW https://ift.tt/3oGJ7vb #cryptothief
Oregon State Senator James Ivory Manning Jr. voted in favor of HB 3047 yesterday shortly after using an example of constitutionally protected speech as an example of why he supports the bill. HB 3047 also known as the anti-doxxing bill is an overly broad piece of legislation designed to create a civil cause of action whenever someone posts personal information about someone on the internet such as their home address, personal email address, personal phone number, or the contact information of their employer with the intent to harass, stalk, or injure them. That sounds fine at first, but when we looked at their definition of "harass" we found out that it extends far beyond the definition of harassment to include intentional infliction of emotional distress based on anxiety. Under this bill someone could file a lawsuit against someone that posted their employer's contact information just because they did it hoping to get them fired and they suffered substantial anxiety as a result. The First Amendment protects the right to post that type of information for those reasons. We already doxxed the Oregon House or Representatives for approving the bill and with that dox we included comprehensive arguments proving that it is unconstitutional (https://ift.tt/2R5PMCt). You can watch the Committee on Judiciary discuss HB 3047 in the video below. At about 3:43 Sen. Manning says, "we were looking at this issue with a specific scope. One is at do, is it permissible to allow personal information of a person to be spread out all over wherever for the purposes of gathering mob-like to go and visit their homes or personal areas where they have children, they have family members, things like that." That specific scope covers a variety of First Amendment protected activities because it fails to distinguish what the mob-like groups intend to do when they get there. If the bill focused on mob-like law breaking then it would not be unconstitutional, but its broad language includes things like posting home addresses of people for the purpose of gathering mob-like and visiting their homes to protest peacefully. Mobs like the group that showed up at Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler's house in the early morning hours chanting "wake up Wheeler!" Under this bill Ted Wheeler could sue people that post his address for the purpose of helping such groups protest outside of his home. Protesting outside the homes of government officials has long been a form of political protest recognized by the courts as being protected by the First Amendment. Surely those government officials suffer anxiety due to such things and that anxiety is the intentional result of the protesters as well as those that post information online for the purpose of helping them find their locations. Unfortunately, there are often family members and kids living with them, but they are just as capable at ignoring protesters as their loved ones are at ignoring the needs of the people. Protesting at their homes is a great way to make yourself heard in a way they cannot ignore which is why trying to chill that speech strikes the heart of the First Amendment. Upholding the constitution is far more important than sheltering children, so if government officials really don't want their kids to hear what the public thinks of them they should do their jobs better. We submitted testimony to the committee to make sure they knew that the bill is unconstitutional and what would happen if they voted in favor of it (https://ift.tt/2SZXrmH). They did not publicly discuss any of the case law given to them, but they did falsely claim to have done so during meetings. We are uploading the staff measure summary for this meeting as a PDF with this article (see PDF icon above map). As the video below shows "free speech case law in Oregon" was not discussed. We also watched the first committee hearing on this bill and did not hear it discussed there either (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpjh6jb3DE). Clearly this committee does not care about the First Amendment. That trait is all too common among legislative bodies when proposed legislation has a lot of bipartisan support. They think that if an idea is popular enough that it is alright to simply pass it and hope nobody challenges it later. We intend to challenge it as soon as the first person threatens to sue us for posting personal information pertaining to them. Our response will be to file a motion for declaratory relief in federal court on the grounds that the bill is unconstitutionally overbroad and while it is pending we will not remove anything. According to public records, James Ivory Manning Jr. is a 67 year old resident of Eugene, Oregon. His home address is 1170 Throne Drive. We are posting that address with the hopes of inspiring free speech activists to stand in the street outside with signs that say "YOU CAN'T SHUT US UP MANning!" That probably will not happen, but we have the right to dream. His address is available on the Secretary of State website along with him home and cell numbers (https://ift.tt/3f9K643). His home phone number is listed as (541)653-8604 and his cell is listed as (541)221-7277. His email address is senjamesmanning[at]gmail.com. Our public records broker found the phone number (541) 729-0284 and convictions for killing or disposing of wildlife illegally. #jamesmanning #freespeech #censorship #enemiesofliberty
Hates (also known as 1hates) creates music revolving around the topic of doxbin. He became interested in music and began creating what he calls "doxbincore" for people to hear on SoundCloud. One of his most played songs (at the time of writing) is "swat me maybe". This song has hit 1,000 plays, and is a cover of the song "Call Me Maybe" by Kanye West. The song talks about illegally ordering pizza to a victim's house and sending the S.W.A.T. team to raid the victim's home by calling a bomb threat. He has created many other songs that revolve around the same topic and you should definitely be aware that this user is participating in many illegal activities such as [REDACTED]. His music slaps though. https://ift.tt/3woV8rR https://t.me/TroIIing https://ift.tt/2Sb2lwR #doxbincore
Oregon State Senator Floyd Prozanski is the chairman of the Committee on Judiciary and Ballot Measure 110 Implementation. On May 20, 2021 he presided over a work session in which the committee approved an unconstitutional internet censorship bill by a vote of 4-3. Prozanski cast one of the yes votes. HB 3047 also known as the Anti-Doxxing Bill aims to create a civil cause of action for people subjected to First Amendment protected activities such as posting their home address online for the purpose of helping non-violent demonstrators protest at locations where they know they will be heard. We previously doxxed every member of the Oregon House of Representatives that voted in favor of the bill and promised to do the same thing to any senator that voted for it. When we doxxed the House we explained why this bill is unconstitutional and don't feel the need to repeat ourselves too much, so to read our in depth arguments backed by the latest decisions from federal courts visit our Oregon House or Representative Director of Home Addresses (https://ift.tt/2R5PMCt). In addition, Prozanski failed to publicly consider our First Amendment arguments even thought we sent the committee written testimony directing them to federal court decisions striking down similar bills. All the bills recently stuck down by federal courts had more in common than just being strikingly similar to HB 3047. They were also less broad than HB 3047. Despite being more narrowly tailored, every one of the bills cited in the federal court decisions we sent to the committee failed to survive First Amendment challenges on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally overbroad. A law is overbroad when its language covers speech protected by the First Amendment. To learn more check out our testimony which we are uploading as a PDF with this article (see PDF link above the map to Prozanski's home). The committee also failed to discuss free speech law despite claiming that such discussion was on the agenda. The meeting summary uploaded to the Oregon Legislature website specifically said "free speech case law in Oregon" (https://ift.tt/2SguouO). At chairman of the committee it was Prozanski's job to make sure that issues they planned to discuss were in fact discussed and to make sure that the legislature's website does not contain false claims such as discussing things that were not discussed. The discussion about HB 3047 begins at about 33:00 in the video below. At no point does the committee mention free speech as a factor to consider. It is as if they all decided that they do not care about the federal constitution and anyone that wants to make that argument will need to make it in court. We will do just that if anyone tries to use it against us after it is passed. We do not make empty promises, so to that end we are including the current home address and other information covered by the bill pertaining to Sen. Floyd Frank Prozanski personally. Normally the home addresses of elected officials are displayed on the Oregon Secretary of State website with their filing information, but Prozanski somehow managed to get his address replaced with the phrase "exempt from public disclosure" (https://ift.tt/3f9geVt). We also had trouble finding his address using our usual online background check service because the service we use listed the above address as only being current as of 2003 and listed a post office box as his address since then. However, the City Data website still lists Prozanski as the owner of that property (https://ift.tt/3wpOwtb) and other sites list that as well. If you have a more recent address for him please contact us. All of this information was obtained from public records and we have a First Amendment right to post it as a form of political protest. The contact information of Prozanski's employer is one of the data types the bill attempts to censor. Everyone knows he works for the government, but his post office box is also listed as the address of a company in his employment history. That company is: COINCDENTAL COMMUNICATIONS LLC PO BOX 11511 EUGENE, OR 97440 That company also has an address in Florence: 900 GREENWOOD ST FLORENCE, OR 97439-9492 We also found a possible email address, floydp[at]efn.org. #floydprozanski #censorship #freespeech #enemiesofliberty
Chouteau Police officer Dale Tillotson was arrested yesterday for lewd molestation also known as lewd or indecent proposals or acts to a child. Tillotson was employed as a School Resource Officer by the Chouteau Public School District until these allegations were reported on May 14th. The victim said that Tillotson had touched him inappropriately during school hours. Tillotson was booked into the Mayes County Jail but later released. According to jail records, Dale Leroy Tillotson is a 52 year old resident of Chouteau, Oklahoma. His booking number is 21-000559. We searched public records, but could not locate his current address. His most recent address is listed as a post office box and his most recent residential address was listed as only being through 2017. We did find voting records listing him as a registered Democrat. A Google search produced a story about him being suspended in 2010 (https://ift.tt/2Sdd9uo). In that case he was arrested for assault and battery. Officers responded to a disturbance involving Tillotson, his wife, and two other people. Tillotson told officers that he was afraid of losing his job because he punched one of the other people for calling his wife a bitch. The person he punched was a woman who asked Tillotson what he would do about her calling his wife a bitch. Officer Tillotson was on duty and in uniform when this incident took place. We are not sure what the disposition of that case is, but we think it was likely dismissed due to the fact that Tillotson remained employed by the CPD and our background check of Tillotson did not produce any record of it. It was likely expunged, but because it proved Tillotson does not have what it takes to be a real cop he was reassigned to school resource officer duty. If you have more information about Tillotson please contact us. #daletillotson #sexoffenders #childmolestation
The body camera footage from the shooting of Andrew Brown Jr. has finally been released. The video clearly shows that Brown was driving away from Pasquotank County deputies when they opened fire. Despite this Pasquotank County District Attorney Andrew Womble is calling the shooting justified and Sheriff Tommy Wooten has vowed that he will reinstate the deputies. You can watch the body camera footage for yourself in the video embedded below this article. To the credit of the deputies, there is a brief moment where a reasonable person may not have been sure where Brown intended to drive. When they arrive he backs his vehicle up and drives slightly forward before making a hard left turn and driving away. The deputies were swarming the vehicle and most of them were in front of it when he turned left, but there were a couple of deputies on the left hand side of the vehicle. At that moment there was reasonable apprehension on their part that he might try to hit one of them, but Brown did not make any moves indicating that he would try to hit them. He simply did the best he could to drive away without hitting anyone. This justification defense used by DA Womble is typical of prosecutors whenever an officer argues that he thought his victim might do something. They say that Brown recklessly drove towards them, but the truth is that they recklessly opened fire on the vehicle before they could tell what he intended to do. Even after he was clearly driving away from them they kept shooting. This happens all the time and prosecutors defend it which is why people keep protesting. Other examples include cases in which armed suspects are shot just because they don't comply with requests to drop their weapon. Usually such people don't point their guns towards the cops, but the cops shoot them anyway and say they thought they were going to point the gun at them. Those shooting are just as unjustified as this one. The fact that the sheriff plans to reinstate and retrain the deputies is an admission that they did not do the right thing. Hopefully it can be used by the Brown family to argue in court that failure to train was the driving force behind this murder and therefore the county is liable for wrongful death. We already wrote an article detailing who the killers are (https://ift.tt/3sZbrJO). They are deputies Daniel Ryan Meads, Robert Dwayne Morgan, and Aaron Scott Lewellyn. We also covered the disrespectful attitude of Pasquotank County Attorney Richard Michael Cox (https://ift.tt/3gFUYrq). #danielmeads #robertmorgan #aaronlewellyn #andrewbrown #bodycam
South Carolina Department of Corrections Sergeant Dana Fisher was arrested recently for smuggling lollipops laced with methamphetamine into the Ridgeland Correctional Institution. She is charged with distribution of methamphetamine, providing contraband to an inmate, and misconduct in office. According to the SCDC Office of Investigations and Intelligence, Fisher brought in a bag of Blow Pop suckers and a fellow officer noticed that the wrappers on some of them appeared to have been altered with glue. The altered Blow Pops were tested for drugs and the results came back positive for meth. Authorities say they are still waiting for test results from other suckers she brought in. She has been fired. We don't know what Fisher's motives were and the authorities have not released any, so we can only speculate based on this author's experience as a federal convict. Based on Fisher's appearance we believe that she was lonely and at least one male inmate made her feel good about herself for the first time in years. she has the type of big booty build commonly desired by black men. One of them probably complemented her on her looks either verbally or by being caught "gunning." "Gunning" is prison slang used to describe the act of jacking off at your cell door while a female staff member is on the other side. Inmates that engage in "gunning" are usually referred to as "gunners." The general prison population is a segregated community where each race has different rules for their own members. If a white guy gets caught gunning he is put in the same category as a sex offender and smashed off the yard. Other races, especially the blacks, tolerate gunners. Most female officers are disgusted by gunners, but every once in awhile one comes along that seems to like it and in rarer cases admits liking it. If Fisher's special inmate were not a gunner then he probably came up to her while she was working by herself and sweet talked her. At first she probably rejected him, but didn't write him up. Then he probably became persistent and wore her down. He had to have triggered feeling in her so powerful that she was willing to risk her job to keep feeling that way. Perhaps she would have been better off using the meth herself, losing a few pounds, and finding a better man. Then again this may not have been a romantic situation at all. State prison guards are paid notoriously small wages and she may have simply been working for an inmate. Whatever the truth is, we may never know and certainly won't know until the media reports the alleged motive. The media reported that Fisher is 39 and lives in Savannah, Georgia, but when we did a background check on Dana Fisher we found no results for 39 year old people in Savannah, Georgia by that name. We did find a realtor with a Facebook profile under a different name and thought the profile photos looked a lot like the same person, but we are not posting the link because we have too many doubts. #danafisher #methamphetamine #lollipops
Congresswoman Janice Danoff Schakowsky has launched an attack on free speech that threatens to silence millions of voices with a new bill she calls the Online Consumer Protection Act. The name is misleading. If the bill becomes law and people obey it, the only websites in the United States that will remain capable of allowing users to speak will be the ones capable of spending large sums of money on content moderation. American companies like Facebook and Twitter will be the only ones left standing while foreign businesses capitalize to void created by American companies that choose to shut down due to being unable to afford the costs associated with compliance and too cowardly to defy the government. The Online Consumer Protection Act (OCPA) aims to require social media companies with over 10,000 monthly users to hire a "consumer protection officer", register with the government, create unnecessary moderation policies, and categorizes choosing not to enforce their usage terms as an unfair or deceptive trade practice. The OCPA has two thresholds that would trigger compliance requirements, over 10,000 monthly users or over $250,000 in annual revenue. Of those terms, the former is most unreasonable because most websites that only have 10,000 monthly users cannot afford to hire employees. Unless they receive a lot of donations or are trafficking in exceptionally valuable goods or services, sites with just 10,000 monthly users typically make so little money off ads alone that their owners cannot support themselves without launching additional platforms or getting real jobs. The ability of an individual to create a website that permits others to speak would be limited to just those that can afford to hire a "consumer protection officer." That requirement creates an unconstitutional restriction on free speech in violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment gives everyone the right to create a website and accurately quote other people on that site. If user X posts statement Y then the owner of the site has a First Amendment right to say "X said Y." Whether X was telling the truth or not is irrelevant because the fact that X said Y will always be true regardless of what Y is. The OCPA essentially says that if you want to continue allowing X to speak you need to implement procedures to make sure that Y does not contain any false information or you are responsible for Y. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" it does not include an exception. The OCPA abridges the right to freedom of speech by imposing regulatory requirements on webmasters seeking to exercise it. The OCPA also requires that social media companies register with the FTC. Their registration must include the full names and contact information of site owners as well as their "consumer protection officer" along with a detailed description of their "consumer protection program" and any changes made to it. The filings will be made publicly available on the FTC website. The chilling effect this will have is monumental. Every online community based in the United States will have to tell the government who is in charge. This might not sound like a big deal for most communities, but what about communities founded to speak out against the government or other powerful entities? The ability to create a website for the purpose of organizing against powerful people/groups often requires privacy to avoid retaliation. Right now someone can register a website, keep their registration information private, host it anonymously, and post using a screen name. Communities are then able to speak out without fear of retaliation. That would become a thing of the past the second the monthly user average exceeds 10,000 and the webmaster is required to register. At that point anyone seeking to unmask the website and take action (legal or otherwise) against the owner could learn all they need to know by requesting the FTC website. The moderation policies required by the OCPA are so extreme that they will likely create an new service industry for lawyers capable of writing compliant policies. Some of the provisions, such as requiring websites to explain their policies so that people can understand them sounds reasonable. We always try to explain what our usage terms are and how they will or will not be enforced. However, the OCPA goes much further by requiring those polices to contain certain things. Things that would make it impossible for social media companies to use scalable business models. One of our first thoughts when reading the bill was that if they want polices to be easy to understand and enforced equally that one could simply create a policy saying that users can do as they wish and no moderation will occur. That by itself would expose to platform to liability for consenting to all types of use, so it would make sense to modify the policy to permit all lawful activity and explain that only complaints of unlawful user activity would be investigated or enforced. That way the company would not have rules to enforce in the first place and therefore could not be found to have unfairly failed to enforce terms that do not exist. Unfortunately, the OCPA has clauses under the "consumer protection program" requirements which read: "(D) mitigate risks that could be harmful to consumer's safety, well-being, and reasonable expectations of users of the social media platform or online marketplace; (E) implement reasonable safeguards with in, and training and education of employees and contractors of, the social media platform or marketplace to promote compliance with all consumer protection laws and the consumer protection program;" The use of the term "reasonable" is a legal term that is supposed to be used objectively, but is all too often enforced subjectively. It refers to the objectively reasonable person standard which is used typically to analyze negligence claims in personal injury lawsuits. Cornell Law describes the reasonable person standard as: "The hypothetical reasonable person behaves in a way that is legally appropriate. Those who do not meet this standard -- that is, they do not behave at least as a reasonable person would -- are considered negligent and may be held liable for damages caused by their actions." - https://ift.tt/3eWZ25a The courts have gone further by categorizing reasonable behavior not as optimal behavior, but as behaving how most people would under the circumstances. This approach lowers that bar significantly by only requiring a plaintiff to prove that most people would have reacted differently even if what most people would do is not optimal. Webmasters (especially the ones that build their own sites) typically have IQ scores far exceeding average. What an intelligent person considers reasonable typically differs from what a dimwitted person considers reasonable. Under the reasonable person standard, someone can make a decision that intelligent people consider quite reasonable for someone in their position, but still be found negligent if 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty think most people would have acted differently. This author for example scored in the superior range on an IQ test several years ago and as a smart person realizes it is reasonable to blame people who react inappropriately to false information they read online for their actions because in general people should not believe what they read on the internet. They certainly should not take unverified information posted by social media users literally without further investigation. If people were to heed his advice and analyze information found online reasonably there would be no need to censor the internet. People would then be free to assume sole liability for what they post, platforms would be free to exhibit the statements of others accurately, and readers would not react inappropriately to false information. Unfortunately, most people consider his position to be unreasonable. To support their opposition they point to ways that most people naturally react inappropriately to what they read online. They often concede that the reaction is inappropriate and that he is right about how they should act, but because their reaction is natural and most people react naturally in that way his position is not reasonable. Their argument is based on the fact that often what should be and what is are not the same. Their position is that stupid people need to be protected from their own stupidity and sometimes that means censoring anything that is potentially misleading. They think that websites should be required to verify what their users say or take things down. That position often fails to consider what the world would be like if only those capable of proving their accusations were allowed to voice them publicly. EXAMPLES Under the OCPA, movements like #metoo would not exist because Harvey Weinstein's victims started off with no proof beyond common tales and Twitter would be liable for reputational harm done to Weinstein if a jury concluded that most people would not consider it reasonable not to take down unproven accusations of that nature. Weinstein was eventually convicted, but that conviction required more that 140 characters or less. That conviction likely would not have been possible without the ability of his victims to tell their stories on social media and the ability of social media companies to let them speak without fear of liability. If the OCPA had been in effect Weinstein surely would have sued Twitter for permitting people to accuse him of sexual assault without proof, a jury would have likely considered their refusal to remove such claims to be unreasonable, and the #metoo movement would have died. In recent New York Times piece, the found of Cop Blaster was profiled for some of his other work (Cop Blaster was not mentioned). That other work includes gripe sites and search engines that archive articles from gripe sites. He was accused of profiting off of "slander" in blatant violation of the dictionary because the only statements at issue were written (defamatory written statements are considered "libel" not slander). Despite this obvious grammatical defect the story was featured on the front page of the print edition. All they cared about was that most of their readers would consider it slander. They took the position that because most people don't bother to click on links when they Google someone that websites should be responsible for false information showing up in those results. They took the position that false accusations appear credible when they are on the first page of Google. Most people agree with them. Even people smart enough to know better (like hiring managers) allow them to impact their decisions. Human resources professionals advocate against using Google when screening applicants because the information found is not reliable, but people do it anyway and decide not to hire people because of false information they find. The logical response to this should be to prohibit internet searches from being used in the employment screening process by classifying the use of unverified online accusations as unjustified discrimination just like expunged criminal records. Then people who can't prove their claims could still speak, webmasters could still quote people accurately, and people would not be denied employment opportunities. Instead Schakowsky wants to crack down on innocent third parties who do nothing more than host platforms for others to speak. In a less sympathetic case, David Mackey is currently facing federal charges for allegedly violating the civil rights of stupid voters by tricking them into thinking they could cast their vote in the 2016 election via text message. Over 4,900 people responded by texting "Hillary" to the number he gave them. He used Twitter memes that looked like fake campaign ads for Hillary Clinton directing readers to vote by text message. We analyzed the criminal charges against Mackey and concluded that they don't meet the necessary elements for a conviction under the applicable statute (https://ift.tt/3prlsi2). This is the type of thing cited by people like Schakowsky in support of bills like this one. They think that Twitter is to blame for stupid people thinking they voted and that failing to keep people from reading Mackey's posts is not reasonable, so such failures should be considered unfair or deceptive trade practices. Arguments that no reasonable person should believe such things and that nobody would have texted the number had they done basic research to verify the posts fall on deaf ears. All they care about is that people believed them. People on the left fail to realize that Mackey did society a favor by keeping people from voting that are so stupid they really shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. We believe that an IQ test should be a prerequisite for voting and only those in the 80th percentile should be allowed to vote. America would cease to be a democracy and would instead become a republic governed by intelligent people. If only the intellectually competent were allowed to vote and make important decisions (like determining guilt in court) we would no longer suffer at the hands of stupid people in large groups. Under those circumstances people like Mackey would be free to circulate stupid memes because nobody whose reaction really matters would be dumb enough to believe them. Instead we live in a society that caters to stupidity because those in power must build consensus among the intellectually inferior just get elected. Such a system cannot be relied upon to produce optimal results. It only perpetuates groupthink (https://ift.tt/3tUjGav). CDA IMPACT Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 reads, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (https://ift.tt/3w5C3Lc). That clause makes social media platforms immune from legal liability for content posted by users. It is essential but not necessarily necessary for a free society to speak freely online. Even without it everyone still has a First Amendment right to accurately quote third parties. For instance, without the CDA this website would still have a First Amendment right to say that every statement posted by an end user is nothing more than an accurate quotation of their words. That position could still be defended as a true statement regardless of the truthfulness of the user's statement. An opposing party could argue that without the CDA we could be treated as the speaker of the user's content. Then a court would need to decide if we made the statement as alleged or merely quoted someone else accurately. A reasonable competent jury would of course rule that we have every right to quote someone accurately, but juries are rarely reasonable or competent. Typical juries are made up of people that are incompetent largely due to their emotions. They would see statements that they themselves would not want someone to say about them and let that govern their decisions. The likely outcome would be a group of angry jurors disregarding the Frist Amendment. The OCPA does not change the wording of the CDA, but it does say that social media platforms cannot claim CDA immunity as a defense to allegations of unfair or deceptive trade practices. It takes away the ability to respond to an allegation of an unfair or deceptive practice regarding content moderation by saying that under Section 230 they are not considered the author of the content. The OCPA concedes that social media platforms are not authors of user generated content under the CDA, but says they have to regulate it anyway and can be fined or sued for failing to do so. Plaintiffs could argue that they were treated unfairly by a failure to moderate, that a reasonable person would have taken something down, and they were harmed as a result. The defendant could not rebut that simply by proving that they are not the information content provider for the purpose of Section 230. The First Amendment defense could encounter similar arguments that the platform used their First Amendment right to quote people accurately in an unfair or deceptive way. A defendant would have to make a Constitutional argument and hope the courts uphold the Constitution. RESPONSE Our response to this bill is the same as our responses to other efforts to violate our First Amendment rights. We moved our servers offshore so that Congress has no say as to what can or cannot be hosted on them. We did this years ago and it has allowed us to continue operating despite unfavorable court rulings. For example, a federal judge once barred the owner from running the site as a condition of pre-trial detention. The site stayed up and he was still able to post by mailing stuff to a third party or having inmates take letters out for him. We will not register the site with the FTC, hire a "consumer protection officer", or change how we operate. If we are fined by the FTC or lose a lawsuit we will appeal to the Supreme Court and if they ignore us or rule against us we still will not pay. We will also continue our development of another website (PostAlmostAnything.com). That other website was originally conceived as a Craigslist alternative many years ago. We will finish building it, add features similar to those of Twitter/Facebook, and market it to people silenced by big tech censorship. We will also conduct comprehensive background checks on those that support or enforce bills such as the OCPA. To those ends we have obtained personal information pertaining to Janice Danoff Schakowsky. In addition to the residential address featured on the map above, we have also obtained the following information: DOB: May 26, 1944 EMAILS: jschakowsky[at]usa.net jan4congress[at]aol.com jan.schakowsky[at]mail.house.gov PHONE NUMBERS: (847) 491-6066 (219) 871-0414 (219) 730-0298 (847) 424-1998 VACATION HOME: 1711 Lake Shore Dr Michigan City, IN 46360 We had some difficulty locating that information due to Janice Schakowsky getting her information removed from a lot of public records databases and search engines burying it in results for searches like "Janice Danoff Schakowsky home address." Eventually we gave up and sent a message to Kent the moderator at Doxbin (https://ift.tt/2ZbT0Fr) asking him if he knew of any good places to find this information. He responded saying that he did not. We stopped working on this article for several days, but then he sent us a message saying that he created a page for us. You can navigate to his work by clicking on the "More Info" link above the map on this page. Note: The link has a lot of information that we were not looking for. Specifically, stuff about her relatives. We don't post information about relatives because we like to limit our criticism solely to the subject of our gripes. We consider being related to someone like her punishment enough. As always, we ask that you not use this information for any unlawful purpose. CONCLUSION We have never and will never tolerate government attempts to violate our First Amendment rights. #janiceschakowsky #censorship #doxbin #enemiesofliberty #freespeech
Long Branch Police Officer Christopher Walls was busted with a meth lab in his basement earlier today and is now lodged in the Monmouth County Correctional Institution pending a detention hearing. He is charged with maintaining or operating a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) production facility, possession of a firearm during a CDS offense, risking widespread injury, endangering the welfare of a child, manufacturing CDS (methamphetamine), and possession of CDS (methamphetamine). The Long Branch Police Department (LBPD) has suspended him without pay. If convicted he faces up to 20 years in state prison, but as first time offender that spent 19 years working in law enforcement he will either get a slap on the wrist or made an example of. Walls got caught because he failed to keep his own house in order. LBPD received a call about a domestic disturbance at his home last night around 10:30. When officers arrived someone he lived with ratted him out. We suspect the rat in this case to be whoever was on the receiving end of the domestic disturbance. Often people get caught because they pissed off someone enough to run their mouth during a brief moment of rage because snitching makes them feel empowered (ex: "you hit me, but guess what? I know about your meth lab and I'm telling on you!"). Chains are only as strong as their weakest link. Moral of the story, if you're going to build a meth lab in your basement make sure you're not living with anyone that will tell on you no matter what you do. Wives and girlfriends might say that they will keep their mouths shut and make good on their word for a long while, but if they get emotional they are almost always liable to tell on you, so if you're going to live with women, build a meth lab, and don't want to go to jail don't hit them or cheat on them. According to public records, Christopher S. Walls is a 50 year old resident of Long Branch, New Jersey. His current address is 385 West End Ave. We are making that public because the Monmouth County Prosecutors Office has already disclosed that the arrest took place on West End Avenue and we want to make sure anyone thinking of living there knows that it used to be a meth lab. Meth labs can cause irreversible damage to property and cause people to be exposed to harmful chemicals that soaked into the walls/floors for years after the last batch was cooked. Hopefully someone thinking of living there will Google the address, see this article, and know what happened. #christopherwalls #methamphetamine #methlab #drugs
Salt Lake City Police Officer Nickolas Pearce has been slapped with his second aggravated assault charge in the past year for his abusive use of his K9 partner. Last year he was arrested for setting his dog Tuco on an unarmed black man who had his hands in the air and was not resisting. This past week prosecutors amended his charges to include a second count of aggravated assault for a 2019 attack on an unarmed woman during a traffic stop. Pearce faces up to 15 years in prison. Jeffrey Ryans was attacked by SLCPD K9 Officer Tuco on the orders of Officer Pearce in April of 2020. Body camera footage showed that Ryans had his hands in the air and was not resisting. He subsequently filed a lawsuit which led to prosecutors charging Pearce despite the Salt Lake City Civilian Review board ruling that excessive force was not used. Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill rarely charges officers for using excessive force and has never gotten a conviction, so expect his efforts in prosecuting Pearce to be half-assed (https://ift.tt/33GwTZt). Nellieana Mafileo Langi was pulled over by Officer Pearce in November of 2019. She extended her arms out the window of her vehicle and Officer Pearce lifted Tuco up so that he could bite her. She did not resist or make any threats according to prosecutors. She suffered serious injuries. Despite these charges, the Salt Lake City Police Association continues to support Officer Pearce. The posted a press release on Facebook (https://ift.tt/3uRtWle) that says: "The Police Association and its Members continue to have the utmost and fiercest support for all of our officers and members currently being scrutinized by DA Sim Gill's office. It is our understanding the DA's Office currently has 2 full-time prosecutors and 2 full-time paralegals assigned to work solely on the SLCPD K9 incidents. Instead of using these employees to investigate and prosecute criminal cases, Sim Gill has 4 of his staff members investigating one of the most decorated K9 units in the state of Utah... A year of time wasted by the DA led to only two unjustified charges. This seems to be a gross misappropriation of taxpayer dollars - we believe would be better spent prosecuting criminals posing the greatest threat to our city... We will continue to support them during this ridiculous witch hunt led by Sim Gill." According to public records, Nickolas John Pearce is a 39 year old resident of Herriman, Utah. He has no prior criminal history and the voter registration record we found did not list his party affiliation. He has been with the SLCPD for 14 years. We suspect that he no longer has control over Tuco because usually police dogs belong to police departments, but sometimes they are gifted to their handlers. However, in cases of misconduct the dogs are usually assigned to new handlers. That is why we are not pasting Pearce's address into the body of this article because absent reports from the media that he has Tuco at his home we do not feel the need to warn the public about a good dog with a bad owner at that location. Despite his arrests getting a lot of publicity we have been unable to locate a picture of Pearce that shows his face anywhere on the internet. All we could find was body cam footage of him wearing a mask. If you have a picture of him please contact us. You can learn more about both of these incidents in the video below. #nickolaspearce #jeffreyryans #nellieanalangi #dogs #assault
Mt. Juliet Police officer Cody Mang was arrested by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) this week on four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. TBI received a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that someone had uploaded child pornography to a personal email account back in December. Mang was an officer with the Mt. Juliet Police Department at the time. His employment was terminated shortly after the allegations surfaced. He was booked into the Wilson County Jail on a $12,500 bond and likely freed quickly. These types of catch and release stories are common whenever police officers are charged with crimes, even sex crimes against children. According to public records, Cody Allan Mang is 33 year old resident of Lebanon, Tennessee. His date of birth is 5/12/1988 so it appears he was arrested on or about his 33rd birthday, so to Mr. Mang we say "Happy Birthday Weirdo!" For his birthday we would like to offer him this dox so that people in his area can keep their kids away from him just in case he cannot control his urges. His last known home address is 1545 Cairo Bend Road, Lebanon, Tennessee 37087-6512. We usually block home addresses of cops, but make exceptions in extreme cases such as getting arrested for sex crimes against minors. We make the exception so that people in the area know to be on the lookout for a sexual predator. We hope that people, especially parents, will see this and keep kids from going to his home. Please do not use this information to commit any crimes against him or his property. #codymang #childpornography #sexoffenders #tbi
Miami Police Department (MPD) officers arrived at the scene of an accident and found one of their own falling down drunk with bloodshot eyes on Tuesday. MPD officer Ashley Hunter's speech was slurred when she refused to conduct a field sobriety test or provide a blood sample. She was arrested and taken to a hospital. Officers said that she nearly fell down while being placed in the back seat of a patrol car. When taken to jail she refused a breathalyzer test. She is charged with driving under the influence (DUI) and DUI resulting in property damage. The MPD has relieved her of her duties. According to public records, Ashley Susan Hunter is 30 years old. She owns a home in Homestead, but also has a recent address listed not far the scene of this accident (Southwest 224th Street and Old Cutler Road), so we think she has two residences. She registered to vote as a Democrat in 2008. She has no prior criminal record. #ashleyhunter #dui #drunkdriving
Name: Craig Harlan Jones Age: mid-late 50s. Drugs of choice: Meth, Herion, Pills Crimes: 20+ years- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMAT, Wire to law enforcement, buyer and dealer in busts, just an overall rat, known rapist/pedifile, 100% coward, he works with all types of law enforcement agencies and makes calls to them daily for cash payment. Him and his buddies go around preying on girls age 14-30 get them alone and shoot them up with herion and do this for days at a time till there hooked and sick and feel trapped and helpless. He makes it out online he takes care of them with money when facts are he has none. Wife of nearly 20 years divorced him recently due to his obsession with theses younger girls and his drug addiction. Craig is known to be in Springville alabama, Argo alabama, Scottsboro alabama, or around jefferson co Birmingham areas. Theses are areas he often busts guys for law enforcement and snag young girls too. #petifile #drugaddict #drugsunderagegirls #snitch
New York Police Department (NYPD) officers Robert Hassett and Heather Busch were arrested along with retired NYPD officer Robert Smith for accepting bribes and other crimes. The trio accepted payments from a tow truck company in exchange for using their services to tow wrecked vehicles and sold victims' information to third parties as potential sales leads. They are charged in a 9 count federal indictment (see PDF above) with a variety of offenses including use of interstate facilities to commit bribery and conspiracy to violate the Travel Act. Former officer Robert Smith is also charged with attempted heroin distribution and possessing a firearm while committing a drug trafficking offense. The tow truck scheme began in 2016. When officers need a tow truck to remove damaged vehicles from the scene of an accident they are supposed to use the department's Directed Accident Response Program (DARP) which randomly selects a licensed towing company to avoid favoring any specific company. The trio elected instead to call a specific company that had bribed them rather than use DARP. They also sold personal information about accident victims to a physical therapy business and personal injury lawyers for use with their sales efforts. Robert Smith began distributing heroin in July of 2020. Smith was already a retired officer at the time. The government says that he met with a man in Brooklyn, picked up a bag of heroin, and delivered it to someone in Queens in exchange for $1,200. Smith retired in March of 2020 after being exposed as a racist in text messages. According to public records, Robert J. Smith is a 44 year old resident of Plainview, New York. He was convicted of first degree forgery in Dekalb County, Georgia in 1999 (case number 99CR2578). The disposition of the case is listed as "First Offender Act - Pending" which we believe explains how he was able to become a NYPD officer. Under Georgia's First Offender Act a defendant's conviction is sealed when their sentence is complete (https://ift.tt/3vQRXce). This information was obtained from an online background check service when searching for 44 year old men named Robert Smith in Plainview. The USAO press release listed his age as 44 and his city of residence as Plainview, so although Robert Smith is a common name we think we have the right person. Smith is a registered Republican. According to public records, Robert T Hassett is a 36 year old resident of Holbrook, New York. The USAO press release lists his residence as being in Farmingville, but we think that is outdated. Our background check service lists him as having a Farmingville residence as recently as last year, but also lists him as owning a home in Holbrook since last year. He is a registered Republican with no prior criminal record. According to public records, Heather Busch is a 34 year old resident of Massapequa, New York. Her voter registration lists her affiliation as BLK. She has no prior criminal record. #heatherbusch #roberthassett #robertsmith #bribery
A disgruntled so called wife out to get her husband because she can't take accountability for being a snitch and handing over videos of there kitchen table full of lines, she gave them to her attorney then slandering him saying he was gay which he's far from #snitch #coward
Forest Grove Police officer Bradley Schuetz was charged last week with one count of official misconduct for how he responded to fellow officer Steven Teets' attack on a home for displaying a Black Lives Matter flag. Officer Teets attacked a residence in a drunken stupor on Halloween last year, banged on a BLM flag, yelled at the residents to "come on" and fight, trashed their Halloween decorations, and charged towards the front door when someone opened it (see https://ift.tt/3pc5GI1). Officer Schuetz arrived on the scene and gave Teets a ride home. We have not seen the indictment, but based on media report we believe that Schuetz violated his duty to the public by giving Teets preferential treatment. Anyone else would have been arrested, but because Teets was a fellow officer he was simply driven home. Schuetz also failed to activate his body camera in violation of department policy. Obviously, Schuetz wanted to avoid getting his fellow officer on camera in the state he was in. According to public records, Bradley Douglas Schuetz is a 30 year old resident of Forest Grove, Oregon. His DPSST number is 54684. He has been a Forest Grove Police officer since 2015. His voter registration lists him as non-partisan. #bradleyschuetz #steventeets #blacklivesmatter
A federal grand jury has indicted former Minneapolis Police officers Derek Chauvin, Tou Thao, Thomas Lane, and J. Alexander Kueng for violating George Floyd's civil rights under color of state law. This is great news in the fight against police brutality, but it also has led to a lot of confusion. The purpose of this article is to explain to lay people what awaits these four officers in federal court. We will cover the statute that they are charged under, explain what dual sovereignty is, and we will calculate their likely sentences under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). 18 U.S.C. 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law All four officers are charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 242. 18 U.S.C. 242 addresses deprivation of civil rights under color of law and pertains specifically to law enforcement officers. The body of the statute reads as follows: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." - 18 U.S.C. 242 (https://ift.tt/1GpwJlY) Derek Chauvin is charged with depriving George Floyd of his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable force resulting in death. Specifically, Chauvin placed his knee of Floyd's neck for over nine minutes during which Floyd was not responsive for several minutes. He is also charged with being deliberately indifferent to Floyd's serious medical needs. The statutory maximum for violations of 18 U.S.C. 242 resulting in death is death. Chauvin is also charged with depriving a 14 year old boy of his civil rights resulting in bodily in jury in 2017. We are uploading a copy of the indictment against Chauvin as a PDF with this article (see PDF icon above). Officers Tou Thao and J. Alexander Kueng are charged with willfully failing to intervene to stop Chauvin's unreasonable use of force resulting in death. They are also charged with being deliberately indifferent to Floyd's medical needs. Officer Lane appears to only be charged with deliberate indifference to Floyd's serious medical needs. Dual Sovereignty People are quick to ask if this prosecution violates the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment which reads "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." We believe that it does, but the courts do not agree with us. Derek Chauvin was just convicted of murder in the state of Minnesota for his conduct in this incident. We believe that the Fifth Amendment should prohibit prosecuting someone in both state and federal court for the same conduct because usually such prosecutions are carried out to impose excessive sentences on people that do not deserve them. Victims of such prosecutions have argued unsuccessfully that they have been twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense. Those arguments failed because of dual sovereignty also known as the separate sovereigns doctrine. The most recent notable challenge to dual sovereignty was the 2019 case of Gamble v. United States (https://ift.tt/3vRcFZm). Gamble pled guilty being a felon in possession of a firearm under Alabama law and was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under federal law. Gamble argued that his federal prosecution violated double jeopardy by twice putting him in jeopardy for the same offense. The Supreme Court ruled that when there are two sovereigns there are two laws and therefore two offenses even thought the statutes of both sovereigns prohibited the same behavior and were used to prosecute the same conduct. We are against dual sovereignty in cases involving prosecutions in both state and federal courts because federal jurisdiction includes the states in cases like this one. It is one thing if someone commits crimes in different states during the same course of conduct and is charged by both states. That requires that someone cause crimes to be committed in two different places. It is another thing to apply dual sovereignty to a single event that takes place in one specific location just because one sovereign inhabits a sub-area of a larger sovereign. The state of Minnesota is basically a subdivision of the United States and as such the government should have to pick one court. They should not be able to force people through two separate trials for the same conduct. Dual sovereignty has been abused over the years to give the government a second chance at convictions when people have been acquitted in state courts. It gives the feds the ability to look at how the state screwed up and make sure not to make those mistakes. Does our position on dual sovereignty mean that justice for George Floyd should not be possible? No, it just means that Chauvin should never have been put on trial by the state of Minnesota. Usually when the feds take a case they ask state prosecutors to dismiss all charges. They do that because they don't want to risk something happening in state court that prejudices the federal case and to conserve judicial resources. People charged by the feds almost always face significantly longer sentences and those sentences are supposed to be served concurrently with any state sentence when based on the same conduct. It usually does not make sense for the state to go to the trouble of obtaining a lighter sentence that would inevitably be served concurrently with a federal sentence. They only consider it worth their time in exceptionally extreme cases. What is Chauvin's Likely Sentence? Despite Chauvin facing the death penalty, he probably will not receive it. He is also not likely to get a life sentence because Congress advised judges to follow the USSG (https://ift.tt/3tuOzC7). The USSG is strictly advisory, so judges are free to depart from the sentencing ranges recommended under it for any reason, but rarely do so unless those departures are specifically authorized by the guidelines. The USSG is used to calculate recommended sentences based on the offender's criminal history, severity of the offense, and certain aggravating or mitigating factors. The base offense level for violations of 18 U.S.C. 242 is determined by USSG 2H1.1 (https://ift.tt/3xVEaTz). When an offense involves violence the base offense level is 10. However, Chauvin "was a public official at the time of the offense" and "the offense was committed under color of law," so the offense level should be increased by 6 levels for a total offense level of 16. Criminal history is calculated using USSG 4A1.1 (https://ift.tt/3bekTCW). By the time Chauvin is tried in federal court he will have already been sentenced to more than one year for murder by the state of Minnesota, so he will have 3 history points. A person with 3 points has a criminal history category of 2. However, Chauvin faces two separate federal prosecutions under two separate indictment. The most notable is the George Floyd case, but also important is the 2017 case which is likely to be tried separately (https://ift.tt/3ttKKgw). Unless Chauvin is found not guilty in the first one of those cases that is resolved then he will likely get 3 additional history points (2 if sentenced to less than a year) by the time that the second case is resolved. A person with 5 or 6 history points has a criminal history category of 6. Enhancements applicable to Chauvin in the George Floyd case likely include the following: 3A1.3. Restraint of Victim If a victim was physically restrained in the course of the offense, increase by 2 levels. 3B1.1 Aggravating Role If the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels. We also looked into the possibility of Chauvin being considered a career offender due to his final conviction likely being his third violent felony conviction. However, we concluded that 18 U.S.C. 242 does not qualify as a crime of violence for the purpose of sentencing. It does not qualify because federal courts use a categorical approach based on the underlying statute. Under that approach a statute must require a violent element for every violation. 18 U.S.C. 242 can be violated violently and non-violently, so it does not qualify as a violent offense under the categorical approach (https://ift.tt/3xVPsY4). Chauvin's likely recommended sentence in each of his future cases will depend on the resolution of the other case for the purpose of his history, but under the other USSG factors with the exception of death will remain basically the same. We will calculate his likely recommended sentence should he be convicted in the 2017 case before he is convicted in the Derek Chauvin case. Likely Sentence for 2017 Case If convicted in the 2017 case before being convicted in the George Floyd case: He will have a criminal history category of 2; his base offense level will be 16 (10 points due to use of force and 6 points for being a public official); and he will receive a 2 point enhancement for physically restraining the victim. The recommended sentence for an offense level of 18 with a criminal history category of 2 is 30-37 months (2.5-3 years). Likely Sentence for George Floyd's Case If convicted in the George Floyd case after being convicted in the 2017 case: He will have a criminal history category of 3; his base offense level will be 16 (10 points for using force and 6 points for being a public official); and he will receive 4 points of enhancements for restraint of the victim (2 points) and having an aggravating role due to his supervisory position (2 points). The recommended sentence for an offense level of 20 with a criminal history category of 3 is 41-51 months (3.4-4.25 years). Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences Because the 2017 case is a separate criminal episode the sentence must be served consecutively to that of the George Floyd case, so Chauvin will likely face a maximum of 8.25 years in federal prison for both offenses under the guidelines. However, because the conduct at issue in the George Floyd case is the same conduct at issue in his state murder prosecution, his federal sentence must be served concurrently to his state sentence for that offense (https://ift.tt/3uAOpe4). Chauvin is not likely to receive more that 15 years for his state murder conviction (https://ift.tt/3dxUzFs). Since his federal civil rights conviction from that conduct will have to run concurrently, he will probably only get 3 more years added on to that due to the 2017 case. That means that his recommended combined sentences under applicable guidelines would not be more than 18 years, but aggravating factors apply. Upward Departures The Sentencing Commission recognizes several aggravating factors that if present justify departing upward from the recommended sentencing range in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3553(b)(1), "unless the court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described. In determining whether a circumstance was adequately taken into consideration, the court shall consider only the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and official commentary of the Sentencing Commission." (https://ift.tt/1PpgsSS). Those factors include death, physical injury, and extreme conduct (https://ift.tt/3evWSto). The USSG policy statement on death as an aggravating factor reads as follows: 5K2.1. Death (Policy Statement) If death resulted, the court may increase the sentence above the authorized guideline range. Loss of life does not automatically suggest a sentence at or near the statutory maximum. The sentencing judge must give consideration to matters that would normally distinguish among levels of homicide, such as the defendant's state of mind and the degree of planning or preparation. Other appropriate factors are whether multiple deaths resulted, and the means by which life was taken. The extent of the increase should depend on the dangerousness of the defendant's conduct, the extent to which death or serious injury was intended or knowingly risked, and the extent to which the offense level for the offense of conviction, as determined by the other Chapter Two guidelines, already reflects the risk of personal injury. For example, a substantial increase may be appropriate if the death was intended or knowingly risked or if the underlying offense was one for which base offense levels do not reflect an allowance for the risk of personal injury, such as fraud. In the case of George Floyd, the base offense level for 18 U.S.C. 242 does not "reflect an allowance for the risk of personal injury" because the statute does not qualify as a violent offense under the categorical approach. This means that the court will almost certainly depart upwards from the guidelines. There is no limit to how far upward the court may depart. The only limit on the court is the statutory maximum which is death. Since there was little to no premeditation and the state murder charge was only one of "unintentional" murder we do not think that the death penalty is possible. He might not even get a life sentence unless the court thinks that he intended to kill George Floyd. We believe that the court will likely order Chauvin to spend decades in federal prison due to the death which he clearly "knowingly risked" and we believe he intended. The USSG policy statement on bodily injury reads as follows: 5K2.2. Physical Injury (Policy Statement) If significant physical injury resulted, the court may increase the sentence above the authorized guideline range. The extent of the increase ordinarily should depend on the extent of the injury, the degree to which it may prove permanent, and the extent to which the injury was intended or knowingly risked. When the victim suffers a major, permanent disability and when such injury was intentionally inflicted, a substantial departure may be appropriate. If the injury is less serious or if the defendant (though criminally negligent) did not knowingly create the risk of harm, a less substantial departure would be indicated. In general, the same considerations apply as in 5K2.1. In the 2017 case, the base offense level of 18 U.S.C. 242 does not reflect the injuries inflicted by Chauvin on the 14 year old boy. Therefore an upward departure will be warranted, but the injuries suffered by the boy were not severe, so it probably will not be much of a departure. George Floyd on the other hand suffered a fatal inury that under this policy justifies a substantial upward departure. When this policy statement is read in conjunction with the one on death we can conclude that Chauvin will likely receive a significant upward departure towards the high end of the statutory maximum. Possibly in the 30-40 year range. The USSG policy statement on extreme conduct reads as follows: 5K2.8. Extreme Conduct (Policy Statement) If the defendant's conduct was unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading to the victim, the court may increase the sentence above the guideline range to reflect the nature of the conduct. Examples of extreme conduct include torture of a victim, gratuitous infliction of injury, or prolonging of pain or humiliation. We believe that the prolonged pain and suffering inflicted on George Floyd qualifies. His conduct was so extreme that it resulted in the most disgusting video that this author has ever seen. He humiliated Floyd in public by slowly choking the life out of him. Officers Thao, Kueng, and Lane We believe that Thao and Kueng will likely enter their federal cases with criminal history categories of 2 once their state cases are complete. Their base offense levels will likely be 12 (6 for the base and 6 more for being public officials). Their recommended guidelines sentences will probably be 12-18 months (1-1.5 years). They could potentially be more if the court concludes that the force Floyd was subjected to could be applied to Thao Kueng's failure to intervene. Right now they are charged with doing nothing which is categorically different than kneeling on Floyd's neck. Since death resulted they will almost certainly receive a significant upward departure, but nothing near what Chauvin will receive. We can picture them getting as much a 10 years, but probably no more. They face more time for failing to provide Floyd with medical care than they do for failing to intervene because that activity involved more than two participants. The base offense level will be 18 (12 for involving more than two people and 6 for being public officials). A category 2 with an offense level of 18 faces a recommended sentence of 30-37 months (2.5-2 years). This is only crime that Thomas Lane is charged with and because it is the more severe of conduct from the others' criminal episode they will likely receive a concurrent sentence. Needless to say, the guidelines does not contemplate death of the victim, so they will likely receive upward departures. Conclusion Derek Chauvin will likely spend at least 30-40 years or possibly more in federal prison. The USSG does not give us a good idea of his exposure because the results of his conduct is covered by vague upward departure exceptions that vest discretion to the court. The other officers will likely receive much lighter sentences. #derekchauvin #touthao #thomaslane #alexanderkueng #georgefloyd