Denver Protest Shooting Videos Show Man Shot in Head in Broad Daylight

A private security guard with no affiliation with Antifa shot a Patriot Muster demonstrator at a protest/counter protest in Denver, Colorado today (https://mobile.twitter.com/DenverPolice/status/1315100293940441088). Social media chatter indicates that he was hired by a local news station to protect reporters. The shooting took place in broad daylight right in from of the police and several live streamers. The shooter was immediately arrested and the victim died at the scene, but was it self defense? The deceased appears to have sprayed the shooter with mace right before he was shot, but was that mace in response to the shooter pulling his gun? The footage seen so far cannot answer that question. According to the media, the event was a right wing rally attended by members of the Sons of Silence motorcycle club and other right with groups. Counter protesters from Antifa and Black Lives Matter groups shows up also. After the shooting one counter protester was caught on camera saying, "one less white f*cking supremist, f*ck yeah ... right in the f*cking dome." The video below is a compilation of three videos that we found on Twitter. The full videos can be found at: https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1315052743128563712 https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1315058359297433601 https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1315090249404485633 UPDATE: The source link for this story has been changed. We now know that the deceased was part of a group called Patriot Muster, but we still do not have any names. UPDATE: 9News has released a statement saying that the shooter was a Pinkerton security guard hired by them https://ift.tt/3djqLKU #antifa #blacklivesmatter #sonsofsilence #patriotmuster #pinkerton

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26004/denver-protest-shooting-videos-show-man-shot-in-head-in-broad-daylight

Boogaloo Bois Spokesman Mike Dunn Arrested Unconstitutionally

Boogaloo Bois spokesman Mike Dunn was unconstitutionally arrested this past week for openly carrying a firearm at a public park in Newport News, Virginia. Dunn, a Marine Corps veteran, arrived outside an event hosted by Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate Spike Cohen with a holstered pistol on his belt. Dunn wore the gun specifically to protest a local ordinance approved last week by Virginia Governor Ralph Northam. That ordinance banned open carry in public parks. Realizing that the ordinance was unconstitutional, Dunn decided to open carry anyway to see if local law enforcement would choose to honor their oath to the constitution or enforce an unconstitutional law. They chose to enforce the unconstitutional law. We applaud Mike Dunn for having the courage to stand up for what he believes in. By protesting the law he now has standing to challenge it in a court of law as part of his criminal defense. If he is represented by court appointed counsel then the state will have to pay for it all. By getting arrested he is now entitled to a lawyer. Before his arrest, he would have had to hire an attorney himself and file a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law. He would have had standing without being arrested as someone that wanted to open carry, but now he has an absolute right to counsel whether he can afford it or not. Dunn is just 20 years old and probably does not have the financial resources to fund the type of legal challenge needed to overturn the law by himself. Hopefully his arrest will lead to a successful challenge to an unconstitutional law before more people are arrested for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in public parks in Virginia. Dunn's arrest was caught on camera in the video below. Dunn was just standing in a public place with a holstered pistol on his right hip; two cops approached him and asked that he put the gun in his car; Dunn questioned them about their oath to defend the constitution to which they admitted that they had sworn an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States; the officers argued that the law was not unconstitutional and that is why they were enforcing it; then Dunn was arrested. While handcuffed Dunn said, "this is what tyranny looks like." The names of the arresting officers are not known to us at this time. #mikedunn #boogaloobois #gunrights #spikecohen #ralphnortham

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26003/boogaloo-bois-spokesman-mike-dunn-arrested-unconstitutionally

Crystal Mason's 5 Year Sentence for Voting Upheld on Appeal

Crystal Mason was sentenced to five years in prison for voting in the 2016 Presidential Election because Texas judges think that federal supervised release is a punishment under the law. It is not. Under federal law, supervised release is considered the rehabilitative stage of a criminal proceeding, but that did not stop Justices Wade Birdwell, Elizabeth Kerr, and Dabney Bassel from the Second Appellate District of the Texas Court of Appeals from ruling that Mason had illegally cast a provisional ballot before her punishment for tax fraud had been fully discharged and therefore committed voting fraud. Congress created supervised release to replace parole in the federal system as part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. As explained by Chapter 7(A)(2)(b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG): "(b) Supervised release, a new form of post-imprisonment supervision created by the Sentencing Reform Act, accompanied implementation of the guidelines. A term of supervised release may be imposed by the court as a part of the sentence of imprisonment at the time of initial sentencing. 18 U.S.C. 3583(a). Unlike parole, a term of supervised release does not replace a portion of the sentence of imprisonment, but rather is an order of supervision in addition to any term of imprisonment imposed by the court." Conditions of supervision are governed by 18 U.S.C. 3583(c) which lists the factors to be considered when imposing a term of supervised release as "section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7)." Those subsections allow several factors to be considered when imposing a term of supervised release. Noticeably missing from that list is 3553(a)(2)(A) which allows courts to consider "just punishment" when imposing a sentence of imprisonment. That is because supervised release is technically considered the rehabilitative phase of criminal proceedings and not the punishment phase; see U.S. SENTENCING COMMN, FEDERAL OFFENDERS SENTENCED TO SUPERVISED RELEASE (July 2010) "The legislative history indicates that section 3553(a)(2)(A) was not included for consideration under 18 U.S.C. 3583(c) because the primary purpose of supervised release is to facilitate the integration of offenders back into the community rather than punish them." The Court admitted that they could not find anything in the state court system identical to federal supervised release. The closest was "community supervision" which could only be imposed if: "(A) criminal proceedings are deferred without an adjudication of guilt; or (B) a sentence of imprisonment or confinement, imprisonment and fine, or confinement and fine, is probated and the imposition of sentence is suspended in whole or in part." That differs from federal supervised release because supervised release is only imposed in cases involving a conviction and prison time in addition to prison time whether or not part of that time is suspended. Unable to equate "community supervision" with supervised release they next went to a dictionary and used the definition "[t]he series of acts involved in managing, directing, or overseeing persons or projects." Then they incorporated definitions of probation an parole that showed neither of those definitions fit before adding: "Applying normal grammar rules and construction aids to Section 11.002(a)(4)(A)'s phrase, 'has not been finally convicted of a felony or, if so convicted, has . . . fully discharged the person's sentence, including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or completed a period of probation ordered by any court,' we glean two important meanings. First, this subsection contemplates that under Texas law the punishment for a criminal conviction a sentence can consist of one or a combination of consequences. By introducing the words 'incarceration', 'parole', and 'supervision' and the phrase 'completed a period of probation' with the word 'including,' the legislature indicated that those things are not an exhaustive list of what can be included in a sentence. See Tex. Govt Code Ann. art. 311.005(13) ('"Includes" and "including" are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded.'). The plain wording of the statute indicates that whatever modes of punishment one or more make up a sentence, they must all be completed for the person to regain eligibility to vote after a felony conviction." The key to that paragraph is in the last sentence, where they say that "The plain working of the statute indicates that whatever modes of punishment one or more make up a sentence, they must all be completed for the person to regain eligibility to vote after a felony conviction." In order for part of a sentence to fit that definition it must be a punishment. Texas cannot change federal supervised release to a punishment just because the state of Texas considers supervision to be punishment. Doing so allows the state to change the meaning of federal statutes. Crystal Mason is clearly innocent. Even if that statute includes non-punitive sentencing conditions, that opens up other types of objections. Such as the statute being too vague to put a person of ordinary intelligence on notice or what is prohibited and punishment without due process of law. Unfortunately, The Court ruled that Mason's counsel failed to preserve a void for vagueness objection for appeal and therefore the issue was not ripe for review. They said that after ruling Mason's counsel was not ineffective for reasons other than failing to challenge the statute for being too vague. This makes us wonder how effective her appellate counsel was. She was reported represented by the ACLU of Texas, so a good question for them would be why they did not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the statute for being too vague. If an appellate court has to go to so much trouble to figure out the meaning of a statute then surely it is not reasonable to expect a lay person to understand it. Mason will take this fight to the Texas Supreme Court next and then maybe even the Supreme Court of the United States. We sincerely hope that her conviction is overturned or at least her sentenced is reduced. Five years is a ridiculous amount of time for casting a vote that was not even counted. Trying to vote is a harmless activity that people should feel free doing. It is up to the people running the elections not to count ineligible votes. Expecting the voters to police themselves is unreasonable and ridiculous. The appeals court of course seems more interested in making sure ineligible voters don't try to vote. They're probably more concerned about sending a message to all the illegal aliens in that state to not even try voting than fair punishment for Crystal Mason. Public records contain the following information about Judges Wade Birdwell, Elizabeth Kerr, and Dabney Bassel: James Wade Birdwell Male Age: 61 Affiliations: TEXANS FOR LIFE COMMITTEE TEXANS FOR LIFE COALITION LIFE DECISIONS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION Last Known Home Address: 3902 N SHADYCREEK DR ARLINGTON, TX 76013 Possible Email Address: jbirdwell[at]lvcoxmail.com Elizabeth Sturdivant Kerr Female Age: 64 Affiliations: MNS ESK LLC Last Known Home Address: 3317 BELLAIRE PARK CT FORT WORTH, TX 76109 Possible Email Addresses: lkerr[at]flash.net dreamgirl10792[at]yahoo.com Dabney Dorsett Bassel Male Age: 62 Affiliation: BASSEL & WILCOX, PLLC LAW OFFICE OF DABNEY BASSEL Last Known Home Address: 5804 FOREST BEND PL FORT WORTH, TX 76112-1065 Possible Email Address: dbassell[at]hotmail.com We are making these addresses available for non-violent purposes only. We believe that they would be great places for groups like Black Lives Matter to protest injustice. We ask that if you choose any of these places to express yourself that you do so without damaging property or physically harming anyone. We would be happy to remove them if the Texas Supreme Court or SCOTUS overturns their outrageous opinion or if they issue public retractions denouncing their opinion and ask the higher courts fix their mess. Donate to Crystal Mason at: https://ift.tt/2GM1GfT Learn more at: https://ift.tt/3bey9VY #crystalmason #wadebirdwell #elizabethkerr #dabneybassel

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26002/crystal-masons-5-year-sentence-for-voting-upheld-on-appeal

Wolverine Watchmen Busted for Plotting Gretchen Whitmer Treason Trial

A group of mostly peaceful anti-government activists called the Wolverine Watchmen were kidnapped by the FBI today for allegedly plotting a treason trial for Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. According to the FBI, members of the Wolverine Watchmen realized that Governor Whitmer was violating the U.S. Constitution and needed to be removed from office. They are then accused of plotting a mostly peaceful direct action to hold her accountable for her crimes. The current government of the United States has been finding excuses not to honor the Constitution for generations. The end result is an illegitimate authoritarian state run by traitors. Traitors that swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but do the opposite by violating the Constitutional rights of the people on a daily basis. People are beginning to wake up and realize that they are living in an Orwellian reality. Some of those people have begun organizing with the hope that someday they might be able to hold traitors accountable for their actions, end the authoritarian state, and restore their rights. The Wolverine Watchmen appear to be one such group. According to the FBI, they planned to execute a citizen's arrest of Governor Whitmer at her vacation home. They bought tasers hoping that the arrest could be carried out with less than lethal force, and crafted explosives for the purpose of diverting law enforcement from Governor Whitmer's location. The evidence presented thus far indicate that the Wolverine Watchmen were trying to do what they thought was the right thing as peacefully as possible. They are now imprisoned for their activism. Some of these political prisoners are listed as Adam Fox, Ty Garbin, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris, Brandon Caserta, and Barry Croft. These six men and others are being persecuted by the government just because they wanted to live in "a society that followed the US Bill of Rights and where they could be self-sufficient." In other words, they wanted to live in the type of society that the founding fathers had envisioned for all of us. We will be following this case closely. We believe that social media monitoring software played a critical role, so it will be interesting to see if the discovery process shines light into how closely big brother is watching us. It also sounds like there was a snitch and/or an undercover operative involved. If you have any useful information about this matter please contact us. #gretchenwhitmer #wolverinewatchmen #fbi #treason #militias

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26001/wolverine-watchmen-busted-for-plotting-gretchen-whitmer-treason-trial

Derek Chauvin Released on Bail Pending Trial for George Floyd's Murder

The former Minneapolis Police Officer that murdered George Floyd is now a free man. Derek Michael Chauvin posted a $1,000,000 bond this morning and went home. Hennepin County Jail records list his release address (pictured above) as 7517 17TH ST N, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128. However, the reporter in the video below say that the house in Oakdale was sold in September and that he would not be living there, so did he give the jail a fake release address or is that the address that the have the jail when booked and they have not updated it with his release address? We do not know at this time. We do know that Chauvin should be considered armed and extremely dangerous. Avoid at all costs unless very well prepared. We are listing his addresses because of the extreme indifference for human life that he has demonstrated. He is a danger to any community he is in. We ask that this information be used for non-violent purposes only. Please do not damage property or harm any people at that location. Derek Chauvin also owns a vacation home in Florida at 7330 Brightland Street, Windermere, Florida 34786. Black Lives Matter picketed this location back in May shortly after the murder of George Floyd. Public records indicate that Chauvin's estranged wife, former Mrs. Minnesota Kellie Chauvin currently resides there, probably as part of their separation and pending divorce. If you protest there please leave here alone. Derek Chauvin has also been linked to a residence at 3172 Frontier Drive, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55129 as recently as earlier this year. We do not know what connection if any that he has with the place at present. We stress that we do not know if he has anything to do with this address, so absent confirmation of his presence we ask that people don't do anything there beyond surveillance for the limited purpose of determining if Chauvin is there. #derekchauvin #georgefloyd #murder #racism

source https://copblaster.com/blast/26000/derek-chauvin-released-on-bail-pending-trial-for-george-floyds-murder

Cop Blaster Turns Up on Complaints Business Rollup File

A Google Alert surprised us today with a link to a PDF on the Washington Attorney General's website. The PDF title "Complaints Business Rollup" is a list of businesses that have had complaints filed against them in recent years. The list is "Based on Attorney General Consumer Complaints" and lists Cop Blaster under the category "Dating Clubs and Social Networking" with the number 812199 as having had a complaint opened in 2020. We are not surprised. Ever since we a acquired the Washington Coronavirus Snitch List we have received complaints from the state of Washington. They usually start with people saying that they are wrongfully listed or that they were listed and just don't want their information on this website. When we refuse to remove their information they often start threatening to snitch on us or pursue some sort of legal action. Ironic since even if a post on the site were shown not to be true, the act of snitching us out to the Attorney General's Office by itself could form the basis for an accurate snitch report. People like that are basically saying they are not snitches only to turn around and start snitching. We do not know the identity of the snitch in this case. Like we said, we have gotten a lot of complaints about that. We do not have time at the moment to publish all the complaints we receive. #consumerprotection #coronavirus #businesscomplaints

source https://copblaster.com/blast/25999/cop-blaster-turns-up-on-complaints-business-rollup-file

Throwing Food Worse Than Throwing Rocks According to Feds

A recent decision by federal prosecutors in Portland, Oregon to charge a Black Lives Matter protester with misdemeanor assault shows that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) considers throwing food more serious than throwing rocks. The feds allege that Christian Burke threw a large rock at a federal officer, but missed and hit a tree. Three years ago Cyrus Sullivan threw a handful of spicy chips in the face of a Multnomah County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) corrections deputy while being detained on a U.S. Marshals hold. Burke is charged with misdemeanor assault and Sullivan was convicted of felony assault on a federal officer. Sullivan believes that charging decisions like these support his claim that he was selectively prosecuted. 18 U.S.C. 111 is a broad statute that covered just about every conceivable type of assault on a federal employee (https://ift.tt/1VCiDpj). Section 111(a)(1) punishes all forms of assault except simple assault as a felony. The Ninth Circuit has held that simple assaults are assaults that do not involve physical contact or use of a weapon (https://ift.tt/2DirmPh). Sullivan was convicted of a felony under this statute because the chips he threw made physical contact with the deputy. The only material difference weighting against Sullivan here is that Sullivan made physical contact with the officer and Burke did not.. This difference exposes a flaw with the construction of the statute and/or how the statute is enforced by federal prosecutors in the District of Oregon. Current practices permit punishing people that throw food more severely than people who throw rocks. How can this happen? How could Congress draft an assault statute that classified food throwers worse than rock throwers? Under the current construction a person that throws a rock capable of causing serious injury, but fails to do so, is guilty of a misdemeanor because he did not make physical contact. A person that makes physical contact with no intention of injuring an officer is guilty of a felony. Is that what Congress intended? Section 111(b) is a more serious felony reserved for people that use dangerous weapons, so how large was that rock and how hard was it really thrown? The Ninth Circuit has held that a tennis shoe can be a dangerous weapon depending on how it is used (https://ift.tt/2sMKdts). In that decision, The Court ruled that a dangerous weapon is an " instrument capable of inflicting such injury with the intent to injure his victim." That leads us to believe that Burke must not have intended to injure the officer according the the USAO or at least the USAO does not believe that they can prove intent. We do not see how they could prove intent to injure because Burke could have intended to hit the tree and his intent may have simply been to frighten. Under those circumstances he might be found guilty of violating Section 111(a) as a misdemeanor simply because he intentionally threw a rock and that rock caused the officers reasonable apprehension of harm. Absent intent to injury, Burke cannot be charged with using a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. 111(b), and because he did not make physical contact his conduct is considered simple assault. If Burke threw the rock and it resulted in a reasonable apprehension of harm on the officer's part then he is appropriately charged with a misdemeanor. Felony assault charges under 111(a)(1) have been sustained over the years based on behavior as minor as a shoving a prosecutor in court (citation needed). Is that worse than throwing a rock? Of course not, but that is where the line is drawn. As a result people like Sullivan get convicted of a felony for doing something harmless while people that throw rocks can only be convicted of a misdemeanor absent proof of intent to injure. We have not seen the video footage from the Burke case, so we are thinking it probably shows him throwing a rock at a tree and not at a person. If it showed him aiming at an officer and throwing the rock as hard as he could he would probably be charged under 111(b). Unfortunately for Sullivan there is nothing he can do to challenge his conviction in court anymore. He tried to dismiss the case in 2018 for selective prosecution but lost. Sullivan's lawyers proved that Sullivan was the only federal detainee to be federally prosecuted for assaults on jail staff that did not result in serious injuries over the past 15 years. Sullivan's lawyers produced documents showing that government officials were targeting him in part for his lawfully protected First Amendment activities. Despite those things he lost (https://ift.tt/2Nes8Q5) because AUSA Greg Nyhus argued that his decision to prosecute was based primarily on history. The reality is that courts just don't want to give the targets of selective prosecutions the ability to commit crimes and then claim selective prosecution. #christianburke #blacklivesmatter #gregnyhus #portlandprotests

source https://copblaster.com/blast/25998/throwing-food-worse-than-throwing-rocks-according-to-feds