SLCPD Coordinator Candee Allred Protects Linden Cameron's Shooter

Salt Lake City Police Department GRAMA Coordinator Candee Allred has refused to comply with our public records request seeking information that the public has the right to know. Our request sought all shift schedules for September 5th, full names and badge numbers of all SLCPD staff members currently on paid administrative leave or suspension status, and all police reports related to the shooting of Linden Cameron without redactions. Of those requests, the SLCPD has no right to refuse the first request, has the discretion not to hide behind bad law with regards to the second, and can only legitimately refuse the third. The Utah Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) requires government agencies like the SLCPD to turn over certain types of records upon request, but like every other public records act in America it has various catch all exceptions built into it that allow government agencies to refuse any request for any reason simply by claiming that the information sought would endanger the safety of an individual. Agencies claiming such exceptions are not required to prove that any danger actually exists. They simply must state that a danger exists. At that point the person seeking the record must appeal and will probably have to sue to get the records unless the agency denying the request changes their mind. Coordinator Candee Allred responded to our request for a simple shift schedule as follows: "Your request for this information is hereby denied. These records have been classified as protected records pursuant to Utah Code 63G-2-305(11) in that the disclosure of the records would jeopardize the life or safety of an individual." Allred provided no explanation as to why the disclosure of the shift schedule would endanger the life of any individual. The law she cited simply reads, "(11)records the disclosure of which would jeopardize the life or safety of an individual;" This type of exception is typically cited by every police department that we have ever tried to get a shift schedule from. They think that it is in their best interest to protect the identities of bad officers. For that reason it is the policy of CopBlaster.com to track down and publish public records pertaining to any individual that refuses to produce records on behalf on any agency on such grounds. We did it in Missouri when a sheriff refused to produce a shift schedule following the murder of a young woman by one of his deputies (https://ift.tt/30YvYUF) and we are doing it here with Ms. Allred. Public records contain the following information about Allred: CANDEE HUTCHINGS ALLRED Gender: Female Age: 50 Last Known Home Address: 11916 S WOODRIDGE RD SANDY, UT 84094-5707 Possible Email Addresses: callredscholar[at]yahoo.com candeeallred100[at]gmail.com callred001[at]yahoo.com Office Phone: 801-799-3100 Facebook: https://ift.tt/34dtfrB To this date the Missouri sheriff has not complied with our request, so his address remains on this website. As was the case with that sheriff, Allred can get her address removed from this page at any time simply by complying with our first two requests. That means that we require the shift schedule and a response to our request for disciplinary records other than the following: "Your request for this information is hereby denied. This information is not responsive as a public record in that the discipline status of such individuals has not been determined (See Utah Code 63G-2-301(3)(o)). These records have been classified as private records, at this time, pursuant to Utah Code 63G-2-302(2)(d) in that the release of such information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The claim that releasing police disciplinary records would unreasonably invade the privacy of the officer is outrageous. The public has a right to know which police officers have faced disciplinary action and what that action was for. We will not tolerate refusal to produce such records records on such grounds by any law enforcement agency. GRAMA does not appear to contain any criteria for what constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy. It simply allows the responding agency to claim such and requires the responding party to appeal the decision or file a lawsuit. As for the GRAMA language permitting the SLCPD to refrain from turning over records pertaining to disciplinary proceedings unless "(i)the disciplinary action has been completed and all time periods for administrative appeal have expired; and (ii)the charges on which the disciplinary action was based were sustained;" we have concluded that such provisions fail to hold police officers accountable. By limiting disclosures to only completed proceedings that have been sustained after appeals are exhausted, the public is deprives of the opportunity to review the nature of all accusations and look for patterns. Police disciplinary proceedings are designed to protect officers and as a result meritorious accusations rarely sustained. The public has the right to know about ever allegation an officer has faced whether the Utah legislature recognizes that right or not. They can choose not to hide behind exceptions to public records requests at any time and we require that the do so if they want anything removed from this page. Why Not Appeal, Sue, or Otherwise "Play by the Rules?" Their rules are designed to protect them, so limiting our responses to just those specifically permitted by their rules is unsatisfactory. We simply do not have time to file a lawsuit and we lack a physical presence in Utah, so the best we can do is post locations we would like to see picketed with the hope that someone else might picket those locations. That is why we post addresses. We ask that nobody use that information to damage property or physically harm anyone, but we do encourage people to make their voices heard. We also have zero faith in the appeals process to produce a favorable or timely outcome. We will appeal the decision, but in the meantime the SLCPD will have to contend with our activism. We will not tolerate government officials that refuse to produce records on the grounds cited by Allred. If Ms. Allred is not satisfied with our response she can comply with our requests. We are not being unreasonable. We have dropped our request for documents that are part of a current SLCPD investigation. We knew that our third request would most certainly be denied, but thought it worth requesting anyway just in case someone screwed up and gave them to us. We agree with Allred that producing those documents at this stage could pose a risk to the investigation because it could give people being investigated for wrongdoing in the Linden Cameron case a heads up that they are being investigated. We want justice for Linden, so we were only going to use those to identify his shooter. Also, should Ms. Allred turn over the requested records and we are able to identify Linden Cameron's shooter from those documents we will remove the home address of SLCPD Chief Mike Brown from https://ift.tt/32kExZW #candeeallred #lindencameron #mikebrown #publicrecords

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26015/slcpd-coordinator-candee-allred-protects-linden-camerons-shooter

Former Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson is a Trainwreck

Former Chicago Police Department (CPD) Superintendent Eddie Johnson is a complete trainwreck that has managed to get seven officers suspended and himself sued for sexual harassment in just one week. Last week was the culmination of a year's long downward spiral that began with him being found passed out drunk behind the wheel of his CPD issued SUV last October. Johnson originally blamed the incident on a medical issue and ordered an internal investigation thinking that his subordinates would probably rubber stamp whatever he said. Unfortunately for Johnson, the city's inspector general investigated the incident, found out that he had been drinking heavily at a local bar with a female subordinate, and Mayor Lori Lightfoot fired him in December. Lightfoot's stated reasons for firing him included conduct unbecoming and lying to her personally. Somehow Johnson was still allowed to officially retire a few weeks later despite being officially fired. By being allowed to retire he will most likely receive a full pension and other benefits that former officers that retire in good standing are entitle to. The new CPD Superintendent David Brown suspended seven officers this past week for helping cover up Johnson's drinking last year. The suspended officers include two probationary officers, two patrol officers, one sergeant, one lieutenant and one commander believed to be Don J. Jerome. Their suspensions range from one day to twenty eight days. These suspensions are just slaps on their wrists in our opinion. It tells the CPD that they should still hold their own to a different standard than the rest of society because all they have to worry about are minor suspensions. Minor suspensions are a small price to pay for supporting a system that keeps them above the law for the most part. The inspector general didn't even name the officers in their report, but they did say that one of them had consumed a large amount of rum with Johnson at a bar before he was found passed out behind the wheel. That officer was Cynthia Donald according to a lawsuit filed by Donald last week. Officer Cynthia Donald is suing Johnson for sexual misconduct stemming from their inappropriate relationship according to CNN (https://ift.tt/35a4KLd). Donald claims that Johnson structured her schedule so that he would always have easy access to her, sent her nude photos of himself, compelled her to send him nude photos of herself, and conditioned her advancement within the CPD on her engaging in unwanted sexual acts. Donald claims that the old boy network within the CPD is also to blame for enabling Johnson and that culture needs to change. She says that at lease six other officers were aware of their relationship, but did nothing to intervene. As much as we want to believe Donald, we have not seen any evidence indicating that this was nothing more than a consensual relationship that got exposed. The timing of their relationship getting exposed and the lawsuit are suspicious. It creates the appearance of a woman that got exposed and is now doing damage control. Whenever a woman is forced to choose between looking like the office skank and turning herself into a victim, she will almost always chose the latter. We believe her that the relationship was inappropriate, that he sent her nudes, convinced her to send him nudes, and engaged in sexual activity. All of those things are inappropriate and not conduct becoming of an employer in any workplace, but we think that had things been as bad as she says that she would not have waited until after she was caught drinking with the boss to call herself a victim. Conclusion This case provides a glimpse into the culture that exists in American police departments. It is a culture that puts police officers above the law and proves the illegitimacy of the law enforcement establishment. As long as police officers only choose to enforce the laws on those that do not belong to their club then they have not legitimate claim of authority to force laws on anyone. #eddiejohnson #lorilightfoot #cynthiadonald #donjerome #harassment

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26014/former-chicago-police-superintendent-eddie-johnson-is-a-trainwreck

Rachel Shaver of Seattle, Washington Snitched on Cop Blaster

When we parsed the Washington Coronavirus Snitch List into individual posts on this website we knew that we would get a lot of complaints. That is because by parsing those complaints into individual posts in that fashion we did something that the source of the original leaked data never did. We made the snitch list search engine friendly. We have gotten a lot of traffic and of course complaints as a result. The complaints come in a variety of forms, but this latest one is the first to result in snitch paperwork about the person complaining to us that by itself warrants an independent snitch report on this website. Rachel Shaver of Seattle, Washington became known to us in early September after she sent us a series of emails demanding that her snitch report be removed. Most people try to argue that the snitch report about them is not accurate in some way, but not her. Shaver used the approach of challenging the practice of publishing publicly available information that is both true and accurate on other grounds. Her argument was basically that although she had ratted out her neighbors as documented by the report that we did not have the right to publish some of the information in the report. As people that know our rights we knew that she was wrong about that, so we refused to remove or redact anything at all. That did not sit well with her and like a lot of snitches, her response was to threaten us with more snitching. Think about this for a second, a person arguing that their information should not be on a snitch list threatens to snitch on people as part of that argument if their information is not removed from the snitch list. That qualifies such people as snitches whose behavior needs to be known to those around them. Over a month after our last correspondence with Shaver we received a letter from Christopher Kiefer at the Washington Attorney General's Office saying that his office had received a consumer complaint about our business. His letter was followed by a full unredacted copy of that complaint including all contact information for the person that filed the complaint. That person was Rachel Shaver. We have criticized consumer protection agencies in other states before for failing to protect consumers by turning over their personal contact information to people and businesses that they receive complaints about (https://ift.tt/2IcVYRE). Mr. Kiefer's letter shows that agencies such as his have not learned their lesson. They continue to sent home addresses of their snitches to the subjects of their complaints regardless of who they are. Even when they complain about a business that was founded by a convicted felon after spending time in a federal penitentiary for a violent crime (violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(b)) they still send everything anyone would need to find and potentially silence forever the person asking them for help. We have no intention of harming Ms. Shaver physically or harming her property in any way, but that is besides the point. The point is that if we wanted her dead we could easily make that happen using the information given to us by a self described "Consumer Protection Specialist." Part of what we do at Cop Blaster is expose government hypocrisy and government agencies that act contrary to their stated purposes. When a "Consumer Protection Division" fails to protect a consumer by giving people like us everything we would need if we ever felt like reaching out to violent gangsters that we know in Ms. Shaver's area then they are failing protect consumers. Back to the consumer that the state of Washington is failing to protect. Rachel Shaver filed the following complaint with the State of Washington: "I live in the state of Washington, and while complying with WA state orders to stay home during the global pandemic, I reported a massive house party next door to me in the month of May. Since then, an e-commerce website, Copblaster.com, that sells T-shirts, has published this report and my personal information including home address, email and phone number, with intention to put myself in harms way and cause damage to my reputation. While the webmaster claims this information is public record, my personal information is not. I have gone back and forth several times with this person asking them to remove my information. Because I was complying with a state order, it seems the state should be able to assist in removing this information. Tens of thousands of people have had their personal information exposed, and some of them have indeed suffered violence and vandalism from having their addresses published. Please help shut this activity down; it is dangerous and illegal." There are some truths to Ms. Shaver's complaint. She did rat out her neighbors to Governor Inslee's stay at home violation reporting form and we did publish a post containing her complaint along with the contact information that she herself submitted to the state via that form. She has also gone back in forth with us trying to get it removed. We posted some of that back and forth in the comments section of the original report (linked to above this article). That back and forth convinced us that she is the type of person that people need to be warned about because she ratted on her neighbors and was threatening to rat on us. Knowing that she's a rat could save future neighbors, friends, co-workers, and others that interact with her a lot of trouble if they keep that in mind when deciding what activities of theirs she is allowed to see. That is the underlying purpose of tracking snitches on this website. We provide a service capable of denying snitches the opportunity to snitch by informing those around them of the liability they present. Ms. Shaver also included several claims that are not true. We do not and have never sold t-shirts on CopBlaster.com, we did not post the Coronavirus Snitch List for the purpose of putting people in harms way, and any damage to her reputation caused by this is of her own doing. People often try to use such arguments to get around the simple fact that posting truthful information is always a defense to claims of defamation. When they realize that they cannot get a post removed by attacking its accuracy then they look for other things. Things like trying to argue that addresses posted are posted to cause physical harm. There is zero evidence to support her claim. She simply sees her address and argues that it is posted to cause her physical harm without any proof. The truth is that addresses help people identify the subjects they are reading about and locations they are likely to encounter them. Identifying them is key to figuring out if you know them. She's also wrong in asserting that her personal information is not publicly available. Why Not Redact Personal Information? The more information we can provide the easier it is for our readers to figure out what threat if any that a person poses to them. That is why we included the contact fields from the Coronavirus Snitch List (https://ift.tt/2zuObxn). Now that over 10,000 posts contain that type of information we could not simply go back and block it out even if we wanted to. That is why we will never make exceptions for people claiming that such information presents some atypical danger in their specific case. That would require us to potentially dedicate countless hours to redacting information that otherwise requires not time to manage. Ms. Shaver is right that this website is a commercial entity. It would not make sense for any commercial operation to allocate resources to activities that do not require any resources at all unless they are being paid to do so and since we do not offer paid removal services on this site it does not make sense to allocate time or resources to such things at this time. We are nice enough to send brief explanations to people complaining about why their information is on the site as time permits event though it is an unnecessary courtesy, but technically we are under no obligation to respond to them at all let alone work with them. It just would not be economically viable to investigate such claims and it certainly would not be viable to go through each post and censor information. For that reason we will not consider removing her personal information because if we did it for her we would have to do it for others and that would just not be a productive use of our time. What is Publicly Available Information? A lot of people do not realize that most of their information is publicly available. In Ms. Shaver's case we were able to find a public record containing the following information about her: RACHEL AUSTIN SHAVER Sex: Female Age: 36 Address History: 1017 W GARFIELD ST SEATTLE, WA 98119 2013 - Now 59 QUAIL PT PITTSBORO, NC 27312 2008 - 2016 PO BOX 14953 JACKSON, WY 83002 2008 - 2015 7511 E 19TH AVE DENVER, CO 80220 2013 - 2014 1639 N OGDEN ST APT 4 DENVER, CO 80218 2013 - 2014 106 FAIRFAX LN CARY, NC 27513 2007 - 2012 100 WILLIAM WHITE CT CARRBORO, NC 27510 2001 - 2008 Phone Numbers: 919-259-0408 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS - NC (VERIZON WIRELESS) CHAPEL HILL, NC 919-967-6180 BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC DBA SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH (AT&T SOUTHEAST) CHAPEL HILL, NC 919-542-3793CAROLINA TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY LLC DBA CENTURYLINK (CENTURYLINK) PITTSBORO, NC Email Addresses: rashaver1[at]gmail.com Criminal Records: Case Number: 01170CATAWBA2003CR010049 Case Type: CR Crime County: CATAWBA Offense Description: UNSPECIFIED Charges Filed Date: 08/07/2003 County: CATAWBA Case Number: 01170CATAWBA 2003CR 010049 Case Type: TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR Crime County: CATAWBA Offense Code: 20-141(J1) Offense Date: 07/31/2003 Offense Description: CONVICT:SPEEDING 084/65 Charges Filed Date: 07/31/2003 Court: CATAWBA Plea: GUILTY Disposition: VERDICT:PRAYER FOR JUDGMENT- JUDGE (TRIAL BY JUDGE OR GUILTY PLEA BEFORE JUDGE AT DISTRICT COURT L Disposition Date: 09/08/2003 Court Costs: 10 Case Number: 01910WAKE 2006CR 728353 Case Type: INFRACTION Crime County: WAKE Offense Code: 20-141(B)(G) Offense Date: 11/04/2006 Offense Description: CONVICT:SPEEDING 074/65 Charges Filed Date: 11/04/2006 Court: WAKE Plea: RESPONSIBLE TO L Disposition: VERDICT: RESPONSIBLE- JUDGE (TRIAL BY JUDGE OR GUILTY PLEA BEFORE JUDGE AT DISTRICT COURT LEVEL, GU Disposition Date: 11/28/2006 Court Costs: 11 Fines: 10 Case Number: 1702003010049CR Crime County: CATAWBA Offense Code: CITATION NO: 2128835 Offense Description Charges Filed Date: 08/07/2003 Court: CATAWBA Case Number: 9102006728353CR Case Type: CRIMINAL Crime County: WAKE Offense Code: CITATION NO: E748246 Offense Description: NOT SPECIFIED Charges Filed Date: 11/06/2006 Court: WAKE Additional records list her relatives, neighbors, and voter registration history, but as a courtesy for innocent people we are not naming her relatives or neighbors. Her voter registration is quite interesting since it appears that she was a registered Republican originally but switched to the other side in 2008 and is now a registered Democrat. All of the above information is from the same source. We simply subscribed to a background check website and typed in her name before selecting the state of Washington. She herself has made publicly available a lot of information about herself. The above image was found on one of her social media accounts. That same account contains the following information about her: Employment History Job Title: Chief Content Officer Company Name: Self-employed Dates Employed: Aug 2020-Present Employment Duration: 3 mos Location: Seattle, Washington, United States Leading content strategy, production and creative consulting for multiple high-profile SaaS organizations. Creating content from the Pacific Northwest, available to clients globally. Job Title: Director, Content Marketing Company Name: Expedia Group Dates Employed: Sep 2019-Aug 2020 Employment Duration: 1 yr Location: Seattle, Washington Leader for the global B2B content marketing and creative center of excellence for Travel Partner Group (TPG), the supply side of Expedia Group (lodging, vacation rental, air, car, activities). Responsible for bringing the partner voice to life with human-centric stories to drive brand awareness, acquisition and growth across a variety of digital channels. Managed and mentored a full-service global creative team (of 11+) for supply (lodging, vacation rental, air, cruise, car). Along with full time creative directors, copywriters, designers and project managers I also managed creative agencies and freelancers. Job Title: Director, Content Strategy Company Name: iCrossing Dates Employed: Mar 2019-Sep 2019 Employment Duration: 7 mos Location: Greater Seattle Area Leader for regional West teams and accounts focused on content strategy and production for clients at Microsoft and T-Mobile for Business. Job Title: Associate Creative Director, Content & Partners Company Name: Slalom Dates Employed: Mar 2018 Feb 2019 Employment Duration: 1 yr Location: Greater Seattle Area Marketing leader for content strategy and programs in partnership with Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud Platform, Salesforce, Microsoft Azure and Tableau Software. Job Title: Content Marketing Manager Company Name: Tableau Software Dates Employed: Jun 2014-Mar 2018 Employment Duration: 3 yrs 10 mos Location: Greater Seattle Area As Tableau's first-ever content marketer, I took a high-growth marketing organization from a "random acts of content" studio to a content center of excellence by implementing integrated marketing processes and consistently aligning content strategy to pipeline goals and business initiatives. Education University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Degree Name: BA Field Of Study: Journalism and Mass Communication Minor, Creative Writing Licenses & certifications Content Strategy - Brand Partner Program Issuing authority: YouTube Issued date and, if applicable, expiration date of the certification or license Issued: Dec 2016 No Expiration Date Lithium Certified Community Manager Issued date and, if applicable, expiration date of the certification or license Issued: Apr 2013 No Expiration Date Volunteer Experience All Hands Volunteers Post-Quake Labor and Media Volunteer, Logne Haiti Company Name: All Hands Volunteers Dates volunteered: Jun 2010-Jul 2010 Volunteer duration: 2 mos Cause Disaster and Humanitarian Relief The Tableau Foundation Marketing, Special Projects Company Name: The Tableau Foundation Dates volunteered: Jun 2014-Feb 2018 Volunteer duration: 3 yrs 9 mos Open Media Foundation Marketing Manager Company Name: Open Media Foundation Dates volunteered: Aug 2011-Mar 2012 Volunteer duration: 8 mos Noticeably missing from her public records is the phone number listed in her original snitch report (3074136943), so to her credit that number probably was not publicly available before she submitted it to the state via the COVID-19 snitching form. Unfortunately, she made that number public record by submitting it to the government with a report discoverable under the Washington public records law. That is how a lot of information that used to be private becomes public record. People submit previously restricted phone numbers or addresses to government agencies and businesses when doing things like purchasing a home, obtaining a loan, paying taxes, registering to vote, or ratting out their neighbors. Then they are often blind sided when they see it turn up in public records online. The lesson to learn from this is that just because something is private today does not mean that it will remain private tomorrow. The best thing anyone can really do to prevent their information from becoming public is to be careful who they give it to and schedule a Google alert or search Google periodically for information they really do not want there like addresses or phone numbers. If they find them then they might be able to get the information removed if the site hosting the information is willing to remove it. Do We Intent To Post Articles About Anyone That Complains to the Government About Us? Yes we do and we always have. Anyone that knows anything about the history of this website knows that we always post articles about people that snitch on us. That is how our snitch list got started. We try to post a new and unique article on this website at least once a day. Sometimes there are plenty of newsworthy and interesting stories for us to choose from, but on slower days we have to go to Google hoping to find something interesting to write about. On those days we have no problem skipping Google and using material that we receive in the mail. We do it with threatening letters (https://ift.tt/2zyNpQ1) and we do it with consumer complaints from government agencies. By doing so we are able to turn the tables on such people by making their efforts to threaten, intimidate, or incite action against us beneficial for us. As a result any attempt to compromise our ability to serve our users just gives us more material. Why create a liability by responding to such things privately and inefficiently when you can create an asset by responding publicly and efficiently? We can think of no good reason to handle such things any other way. Finally, we will not legitimize letters such as this one with our cooperation. When people cooperate with the government they essentially say that it is a legitimate government deserving of their cooperation. We realized many years ago that the fake democracy calling itself the United States of America is not a legitimate government because it operates in violation of its own constitution. The governments of the states are the same way. We could never in good conscience treat such things as legitimate authorities. #rachelshaver #christopherkiefer #coronavirus #consumerprotection

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26013/rachel-shaver-of-seattle-washington-snitched-on-cop-blaster

2020 Election Guide: How to Fill Out Your Ballot Correctly in Portland

Are you confused by your ballot? Never fear, Cop Blaster is here to help you fill out your 2020 Election ballot correctly in the city of Portland, Oregon and beyond. There is only one way to fill out your ballot correctly. You can choose between a black or blue pen, but other than that there is zero room for deviating from this guide. Deviating from this guide will result in your ballot not being counted for anything good. The first and most important field is for President of the United States. To vote correctly you must fill in the oval located to the left of the word "Democrat" and the name "Joseph R Biden." Failing to fill out your ballot in this matter will result in your ballot not being counted in a positive manner. Subsequent fields of importance require that you fill out the ovals next to the names Jeff Merkley and Earl Blumenauer because they have been established in Washington D.C. on the state's behalf for decades. As such they are connected in ways that their challengers would not be if elected. State offices such as Attorney General require that you fill out the oval next to the name Ellen Rosenbaum because she defended the state from the feds in court last summer (https://ift.tt/30NpK83) and voting her out would disrupt those proceedings. The mayoral race in Portland requires that you fill out the oval next to the name Sarah Iannarone because she is the only feasible alternative to incumbent Ted Wheeler. Wheeler's police have responded to mostly peaceful protests with escalating violence since May (https://ift.tt/38mIYF7), he failed to protect his city from the feds even after they tear gassed him during a publicity stunt gone bad (https://ift.tt/3hs2jbb), and he eventually betrayed his own people to the federal government by allowing his police to remain employed after accepting deputizations from the United States Marshals (https://ift.tt/3ncY1rM). Today protesters are at risk of being federally charged for their interactions with local police because of Ted Wheeler. Traitor Ted has effectively turned over control of his city to the federal government. He has conducted himself so poorly that we would rather vote for Ted Bundy. Other fields of importance include Measure 107 which requires that you vote "No" to protect the free speech rights of campaign contributors. Measure 108 requires a "No" vote to protect people that smoke and vape from being taxed for their habit. Measure 109 requires a "Yes" vote to enable the legitimate medical use of psychoactive mushrooms. Measure 110 requires a "Yes" vote to protect the liberties of marijuana connoisseurs. The rest of the ballot really does not matter, but you should still fill in one circle to the left on a choice for each one. If you really don't care write in your own name. Summary of Advice To fill out a ballot correctly in Portland, Oregon you must start by voting for Joe Biden, Jeff Merkley, Earl Blumenauer, Ellen Rosenbaum, and Sarah Iannarone. After that you have to vote "No" on measures 107 and 108. Then you must vote "Yes" on measures 109 and 110. The rest of the ballot really does not matter. Conclusion If you fail to fill out your ballot correctly in accordance with this guide then your vote will not be counted positively. We recommend that you follow this guide to the letter if you want to make sure that your vote really counts towards the betterment of society. #joebiden #donaldtrump #sarahiannarone #tedwheeler #tedbundy

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26012/2020-election-guide-how-to-fill-out-your-ballot-correctly-in-portland

Feds Remove Courthouse Fence After Refusing to Pay Portland Fines

The federal government removed an eyesore erected to protect another eyesore in downtown Portland, Oregon today. The fence put in place around the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse last July has finally been taken down. After repeatedly refusing to remove the fence, the City of Portland began steadily increasing fines for blocking a public easement. Those fines now amount to more than $3 million, but the feds are refusing to pay. The video below shows the fence being removed earlier today, but we are not sure the exact reason or who removed it. One would think that the news would be interested in learning and reporting such things. We are hoping that the city grew a pair and had it removed over the feds' objection, but the likelihood of Ted Wheeler standing up to anyone in a meaningful way is practically zero. We think the feds probably took it down themselves thinking that they can hold their own at the courthouse without it. We can only hope that the people prove them wrong. Like we have said before, Timothy McVeigh should have parked there (https://ift.tt/2YNLfEx), but unfortunately he chose to park in Oklahoma City two years before the Mark O. Hatfield United States Eyesore was even built and so there it still stands. That monstrosity is so important to the federal government that it is worth making the people think they are willing to pay $500 every 15 minutes to keep a fence around it. Make the people think that protesting outside it would be good for the city in the long run because it would cost the feds millions of dollars of fines just to keep the fence there. Now we have learned that Homeland Security has no intention of paying those fines. In a letter from Federal Protective Services Assistant Director David Alexander Hess to the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), Hess cites the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and the Homeland Security Act as reasons why his agency cannot legally be fined by a state or local government. The Supremacy Clause says that federal law takes priority over all state and local laws, while the Homeland Security Act permits DHS to perform various law enforcement functions, but Hess does not explain how either specifically permit DHS to avoid paying fines for the fence. As far as we can tell, the Homeland Security Act does not prohibit state and local governments from fining DHS for performing functions authorized by the act. What he may have on the City of Portland is a lack of a specific waiver by Congress for the United States to be sued for things like the fence. Waivers of sovereign immunity are covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Under the FTCA the United States has agreed to be sued by for certain intentional acts by their employees. See 28 U.S.C. 2080(h): "(h)Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights: Provided, That, with regard to acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government, the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall apply to any claim arising, on or after the date of the enactment of this proviso, out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. For the purpose of this subsection, investigative or law enforcement officer means any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law." The only item on the above list that the city might be able to sue to United States for with regards to the fence fines would be interference with contract rights. Even that would be a bit of a stretch. The best argument the city could make would be that DHS intentionally installed the fence and kept it in place knowing that it was interfering with some contractual relationship that the city had. We certainly do not see non-payment of fines or blocking public easements to be something that the United States has waived sovereign immunity for. So, even though the City of Portland has every right under state and local law to bill them, they have no way to force them to actually pay those bills. What should the city do? The city should learn from this and plan to respond in an enforceable way next time the feds try to do something like this. That might involve fining any local company that builds anything for the federal government without also getting permission from local government. It would involve enacting an ordinance saying that any local person or business must get city approval before doing anything for the federal government in city limits or face a stiff fine. The city might also want to order the Portland Police to immediately stop any construction or other activities being conducted by anyone in the city on the federal government's behalf in violation of the ordinance. They also might want a mandate for removing things like that fence over the objections of federal law enforcement. #homelandsecurity #usmarshals #davidhess #deadbeats #antifa

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26011/feds-remove-courthouse-fence-after-refusing-to-pay-portland-fines

Police Say Antifa Shooter Michael Reinoehl Had Gun in His Pocket

Thurston County Sheriffs Lt. Ray Brady said Tuesday that Michael Reinoehl had a gun in his pocket when he was shot by federal fugitive task force led by the U.S. Marshals. This admission comes over a month after eyewitness Nathaniel Dingess came forward saying that he never heard the police give Reinoehl any commands before shooting him (https://ift.tt/31UWBtq). According to the New York Times (video below) three other eyewitnesses have come forward saying that the cops never gave Reinoehl any commands. Dingess said that he saw Reinoehl holding a cell phone when police rolled up on him and that he tried to duck for cover before getting shot. According to Dingess, the order to stop firing was the first thing he heard the officers say. This new admission by Brady further supports the theory that this shooting was an unjustified police execution. What does it say of the internal investigation so far when the best thing they can say to justify shooting the man is that he was found with a gun in his pocket and his hand was found near his pocket after he died? It says they are getting desperate to find a way to justify shooting someone that never tried to shoot them. It shows that their investigation will most likely conclude that since Reinoehl was wanted for murder and ducked for cover that they felt the need to gun him down before he had the opportunity to shoot back if he were in fact armed. That is not the same thing as shooting an armed man known to be armed. Is that a justifiable use of force? Unfortunately, the police usually say that it is. We see this happen a lot with people that are told to take their hands out of their pockets and don't. Cops will usually give repeated commands to suspects to show them their hands. If the suspect does not show them their hands they open fire. Afterwards they justify it by saying that they had no way of knowing what was in the person's pocket and it could have been a gun for all they know. We have seen them do the same thing with dark colored objects (https://ift.tt/2Vdd09R). Unfortunately, the courts tend to support officers when they make these types of arguments. In Reinoehl's case, Lt. Brady claims that some officers claim to have given Reinoehl commands to stop and show his hands, one officer claims to have seen Reinoehl try to retrieve a gun from his pocket, and another claims to have seen Reinoehl point a gun at him. With so many different stories one would think that the investigation, which has not been completed, would find that officers telling so many different stories could not possibly be telling the truth, but that is not how these things typically work. The primary objective of internal affairs units is to clear officers of wrongdoing. They will most likely write something up saying that after officer gave commands, Reinoehl reached for his pocket, pointed something at an officer that was thought to be a gun, and a gun was found in his pocket not far from his hand. They will treat the word of the officers like gold and explain any inaccuracies as reasonable due to things happening quickly, so despite conflicting stories from members of the public, they will give more weight to the officers even though any independent fact finder would consider random people with no personal stake in this far more credible. There was of course no body camera or dash camera footage, so nobody will ever be able to prove what really happened. Even when body cam footage is available it does not mean that justice will be served. A Salt Lake City Police Officer was caught on camera shooting an unarmed 13 year old autistic boy 11 times last month, but nothing have been done so far (https://ift.tt/2FVbdR5). They will not even say the officer's name. That case has every indication of a justification waiting to be released. They will probably say that because the boy's mother said he might have a bb gun that they had to treat him like an armed suspect, that he wouldn't take his hands out of his pockets, and that they were justified shooting him because they had no way of knowing that he did not have a gun. This is a systemic problem that allows officers to use force without knowing for sure if a suspect is armed. This is a problem that needs to be fixed at the legislative level. Congress needs to enact a new law requiring officers to know for sure that a suspect is armed before shooting them. Critics of this idea would argue that officers would lose their lives if they had to wait before a weapon is seen before they can shoot. They would be correct, but the public would be better served because the overall body count would be lower. Trained police officers would still usually get the best of most people that they see behaving aggressively with a gun. Surely the small number of officers lost due to them not being able to shoot armed suspects before they see their gun would be far less than the number of people killed by police for not showing them their hands each year. The greater good would be served by taking away the defense being used by officers in cases like this one. Finally, at least two more people were nearly killed by the police during this execution according to the New York Times video. A shot nearly hit an 8 year old boy that was riding his bike down the street. At least 5 shots hit a private residence and one of those shots nearly hit a man. The police should not be allowed to fire aimlessly in any direction that they thing a threat might come from. #michaelreinoehl #raybrady #murder #antifa #blacklivesmatter

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26010/police-say-antifa-shooter-michael-reinoehl-had-gun-in-his-pocket

Who's the Rat That Took Down the Wolverine Watchmen?

As we browsed the FBI complaint filed against the Wolverine Watchmen, we learned that this case, like many, would never have been filed if it were not for a rat. See the PDF uploaded with this article to see what we are talking about. The man identified as CHS-2 is the person that originally tipped off the FBI about an alleged plot to take down Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. CHS-2 is the one that wore a wire to secret meetings and is credited with providing evidence that formed the basis for almost every page of the FBI's criminal complaint. The FBI is of course protecting his identity at this time, referring to him only as CHS-2 and not telling the public much about his history. They just say that he has no criminal record and is considered credible according to them. Right now that sounds really damning, but anyone that knows what types of people the FBI has a history of working with can tell you that the word of a snitch is never any good. Odds are almost everything is taken out of context and this group probably never took any real meaningful steps towards carrying out their plot to liberate Michigan. We picture a group of buddies drinking beer and talking about how cool they think it would be to do a bunch of stuff. What kind of person ruins the lives of their friends and associates to protect the likes of Gretchen Whitmer? Government employees are the scum of the Earth. Turns out this person was paid over $14,000 for his work. How does it not taint evidence to have a snitch that is being paid? This snitch will not be able to keep his identity secret forever. The Wolverine Watchmen have the right to confront their accuser and that means they have the right to know everything about CHS-2. Unfortunately, courts tend to issue protective orders in cases like these that prohibit defendants and their counsel from releasing documents with rats' names on them to the public. However, in a case this high profile all it takes is one person close to the group that knows that name of this person to say something (ex: https://ift.tt/3k2CYq1). If you know the name of CHS-2 please contact us. #wolverinewatchmen #fbi #gretchenwhitmer #militias

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26009/whos-the-rat-that-took-down-the-wolverine-watchmen