jewworldorder--2020-07-30--Trump Says Feds Won’t Be Leaving Portland ‘Until There Is Safety’

Following a claim by Oregon ’ s govenor on Wednesday that federal agents would leave Portland and let local officials handle Black Lives Matter protesters , President Trump said they were going nowhere until things are under control .
In a tweet on Thursday morning the President said that Governor Kate Brown “ isn ’ t doing her job ” and insisted that protesters had to be cleared out and “ in some cases ” arrested .
“ If she can ’ t do it , the Federal Government will do it for her .
We will not be leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
RT reports : The tweet was posted less than a day after Brown announced she had reached an agreement with the Trump administration that would see a phased withdrawal of federal agents — who were originally deployed after demonstrators attempted to burn down a courthouse — from Portland , which has seen ongoing Black Lives Matter protests turn to rioting and violence .
In her announcement , Brown called the Homeland Security agents an “ occupying force ” and blamed them for bringing “ violence ” to the city .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , as Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary Chad Wolf took to Twitter to clarify that until the “ violent activity ” in the city ends , federal authorities will remain in place .
Trump now appears to have confirmed that the feds are staying put until further notice .
Wolf added that the federal government will only leave the area when they are assured that there is no threat to federal property or law enforcement officers from protesters , who have taken to the streets of Portland for two months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the “ occupying force ” out of Brown ’ s state , according to a statement from Wolf , would involve having state troopers protect federal buildings from potential vandalism or destruction .
Brown did not directly mention this part of the deal in her tweets , but said local police officers would still be present in downtown Portland to “ protect Oregonians ’ right to free speech and keep the peace .
”

Following a claim by Oregon’s govenor on Wednesday that federal agents would leave Portland and let local officials handle Black Lives Matter protesters, President Trump said they were going nowhere until things are under control.
In a tweet on Thursday morning the President said that Governor Kate Brown “isn’t doing her job” and insisted that protesters had to be cleared out and “in some cases” arrested. “
If she can’t do it, the Federal Government will do it for her. We will not be leaving until there is safety!” he added.
Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon, isn’t doing her job. She must clear out, and in some cases arrest, the Anarchists & Agitators in Portland. If she can’t do it, the Federal Government will do it for her. We will not be leaving until there is safety! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020
RT reports: The tweet was posted less than a day after Brown announced she had reached an agreement with the Trump administration that would see a phased withdrawal of federal agents — who were originally deployed after demonstrators attempted to burn down a courthouse — from Portland, which has seen ongoing Black Lives Matter protests turn to rioting and violence.
In her announcement, Brown called the Homeland Security agents an “occupying force” and blamed them for bringing “violence” to the city.
Our local Oregon State Police officers will be downtown to protect Oregonians’ right to free speech and keep the peace. Let’s center the Black Lives Matter movement’s demands for racial justice and police accountability. It’s time for bold action to reform police practices. — Governor Kate Brown (@OregonGovBrown) July 29, 2020
It appears Brown was premature in her announcement, however, as Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary Chad Wolf took to Twitter to clarify that until the “violent activity” in the city ends, federal authorities will remain in place. Trump now appears to have confirmed that the feds are staying put until further notice.
As I told the Governor yesterday, federal law enforcement will remain in Portland until the violent activity toward our federal facilities ends. We are not removing any law enforcement while our facilities and law enforcement remain under attack. — Acting Secretary Chad Wolf (@DHS_Wolf) July 29, 2020
Wolf added that the federal government will only leave the area when they are assured that there is no threat to federal property or law enforcement officers from protesters, who have taken to the streets of Portland for two months now.
Part of the agreement to get the “occupying force” out of Brown’s state, according to a statement from Wolf, would involve having state troopers protect federal buildings from potential vandalism or destruction.
Brown did not directly mention this part of the deal in her tweets, but said local police officers would still be present in downtown Portland to “protect Oregonians’ right to free speech and keep the peace.”


jewworldorder--2020-07-30--Mask Zombie Tells Children, “I Hope You All Die,” For Not Wearing Coronahoax Muzzle

Mask Zombie Tells Children , “ I Hope You All Die , ” For Not Wearing Coronahoax Muzzle This woman @ @ @ @ @ without masks are endangering countless lives that she actually wishes death upon young children for @ @ @ @ @ can skip to the end and leave a response .
Pinging is currently not allowed @

Mask Zombie Tells Children, “I Hope You All Die,” For Not Wearing Coronahoax Muzzle
This woman is so convinced that people without masks are endangering countless lives that she actually wishes death upon young children for not having masks. Bitchute link
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.


jewworldorder--2020-07-30--Portland: Getting Out of Jail Requires Relinquishing Constitutional Rights

Above photo : Portland protester enveloped in tear gas holds US flag on July 21 .
By Nathan Howard/Getty Images .
“ Federal defenders and prosecutors in Portland , Oregon , have teamed up to try to end a court practice of releasing arrested protesters only after they have agreed not to attend protests — a restriction that legal experts called a clear violation of the constitutional right to free assembly .
There are early signs that the effort is working .
After the joint request , a federal magistrate judge released two protesters without including restrictions on their attendance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or imposing a blanket curfew on them during evening hours .
The same magistrate , Jolie A. Russo , had signed some of the release orders since July 23 that included protest bans.
” A dozen protesters facing federal charges are barred from going to “ public gatherings ” as a condition of release from jail — a tactic one expert described as “ sort of hilariously unconstitutional.
” Federal authorities are using a new tactic in their battle against protesters in Portland , Oregon : arrest them on offenses as minor as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get off a sidewalk on federal property — and then tell them they can ’ t protest anymore as a condition for release from jail .
Legal experts describe the move as a blatant violation of the constitutional right to free assembly , but at least 12 protesters arrested in recent weeks have been specifically barred from attending protests or demonstrations as they await trials on federal misdemeanor charges .
“ Defendant may not attend any other protests , rallies , assemblies or public gathering in the state of Oregon , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Release ” for an accused protester , alongside other conditions such as appearing for court dates .
The orders are signed by federal magistrate judges .
For other defendants , the restricted area is limited to Portland , where clashes between protesters and federal troops have grown increasingly violent in recent weeks .
In at least two cases , there are no geographic restrictions ; one release document instructs , “ Do not participate in any protests , demonstrations , rallies , assemblies while this case is pending.
” Protesters who have agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they felt forced to accept those terms to get out of jail .
“ Those terms were given to me after being in a holding cell after 14 hours , ” Bailey Dreibelbis , who was charged July 24 with “ failing to obey a lawful order , ” told ProPublica .
“ It was pretty cut-and-dried , just , ‘ These are your conditions for [ getting out ] of here.
’ “ If I didn ’ t take it , I would still be in holding .
It wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It could not be learned who drafted the orders barring the protesters from joining further demonstrations .
The documents reviewed by ProPublica were signed by a federal magistrate in Portland .
Magistrates have broad authority to set the terms of release for anyone accused of a crime .
They typically receive recommendations from U.S. Pretrial Services , an arm of the U.S. Courts , which can gather input from prosecutors and others involved in the case .
ProPublica identified several instances in which the protest ban was added to the conditions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before it was given to the judge .
It remained unclear whether the limits on protesting were initiated by Justice Department officials or the magistrates hearing the cases .
Constitutional lawyers said conditioning release from jail on a promise to stop joining protests were overly broad and almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment right to free assembly .
“ The government has a very heavy burden when it comes to restrictions on protest rights and on assembly , ” noted Jameel Jaffer of Columbia University ’ s Knight First Amendment Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the government to meet that burden where it has individualized information about a threat .
So for example , they know that a particular person is planning to carry out some unlawful activity at a particular protest.
” Over the past week , the federal government has sharply increased the number of protesters it ’ s charging with federal crimes — often for petty offenses that are classified as federal misdemeanors only because they occur on federal property .
Court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that over a third of the protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lawful order , ” which 14 protesters were charged with between July 21 and July 24 alone .
The office of the U.S. attorney for Oregon , Billy J. Williams , did not respond to ProPublica ’ s questions about who was making charging decisions .
In a recent interview with The Oregonian , Williams urged local citizens to demand that “ violent extremists ” who have attempted to break through the fence outside the federal courthouse leave .
“ Until that happens , we ’ re going to do what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Craig Gabriel , an assistant U.S. attorney who works for Williams , insisted the office understood and respected the right to protest racial injustice .
“ People are angry .
Very large crowds are gathering , expressing deep and legitimate anger with police and the justice system , ” Gabriel told The Oregonian .
“ We wholeheartedly support the community ’ s constitutionally protected rights to assemble together in large , even rowdy protests and engage in peaceful and civil disobedience.
” Gabriel did not mention the written restrictions against protest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some of those arrested .
Several protesters who were let go on July 23 had bans against demonstrating added by hand on their release documents by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta , who signed off on them , a review by ProPublica found .
Acosta ’ s office did not respond to ProPublica ’ s questions .
For those released on July 24 , the restriction was added to the original typed document , also signed by Acosta .
One protester arrested and released earlier in the month had his conditions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 .
The modified order , signed by Acosta , added a protest ban not previously included .
Three of the 15 protesters charged on July 27 , in orders signed by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo , also had explicit protest restrictions added to their release terms .
( One release order has not yet been posted to the federal courts database . )
Russo ’ s office did not reply to ProPublica ’ s questions .
“ I don ’ t see that as constitutionally defensible , ” Jaffer said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that any judge would uphold it.
” The ACLU ’ s Somil Trivedi said , “ Release conditions should be related to public safety or flight ” — in other words , the risk that the defendant will abscond .
“ This is neither.
” He described the handwritten addition of a protest ban to a release document as “ sort of hilariously unconstitutional.
” Publicly , the Trump administration has claimed that it has no problem with the protests that erupted in Portland and other American cities in response to the May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black man , in police custody in Minneapolis .
The administration said it launched Operation Diligent Valor in July with a massive deployment of federal officers merely to protect federal property from “ violent extremists.
” Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School said that imposing a protest ban as a release condition undermines the distinction between protected protest and criminal activity .
“ Even if they ’ re right that these people did , in fact , step beyond the bounds of the First Amendment and do something illegal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then restrict their First Amendment right.
” In many cases , the charges leveled at Portland protesters are closely tied to their presence at the protest — and not to any violent acts .
Eighteen of the 50 protesters charged in Portland are accused only of minor offenses under Title 40 , Section 1315 , of the U.S. Code .
That law criminalizes certain behavior ( like “ failure to obey a lawful order , ” as well as “ disorderly conduct ” ) when it happens on federal property or against people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In other words , it describes behavior that wouldn ’ t otherwise be a matter for a federal court .
Dreibelbis , like other protesters to whom ProPublica has spoken , said he was arrested for being on the sidewalk outside the federal courthouse .
Because the federal government owns the land under the sidewalk , another protester ( who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid influencing his upcoming trial ) told ProPublica it ’ s “ common knowledge ” among protesters that the sidewalk is a no-go zone , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dreibelbis told ProPublica he roller-skated into the protest , expecting to attend only briefly .
He said he knelt on the sidewalk and was arrested by officers .
( The charging document filed against Dreibelbis offers no arrest details . )
Section 1315 is the same law the Trump administration is using to justify initiating the federal show of force in Portland , which the administration has said it intends to employ in other cities where protests have raged since Floyd ’ s death .
The law allows the secretary of homeland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the relatively small agency partly responsible for federal building security , with law enforcement agents from the department ’ s other agencies ( such as Customs and Border Protection ) .
Both President Donald Trump and his predecessor , Barack Obama , have invoked that part of the law in the past .
But the use of that same law to file criminal charges appears to be novel .
The Obama administration sent a “ surge force ” of 400 FPS agents , and a dozen CBP agents , to Baltimore in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freddie Gray sparked broad unrest , but no charges were filed under Section 1315 itself in that response .
In Portland , the federal government has relied on the FPS and U.S .
Marshals to write affidavits used to charge protesters in federal court .
But it has detailed other agencies on the protest front lines : DHS agencies cited in court complaints include CBP , through its BORTAC tactical unit ; Immigration and Customs Enforcement ’ s investigations unit ; DHS ’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis , in addition to FPS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marshals and the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives , which are Justice Department entities .
In the first weeks of the operation , the most common charge against protesters was assault of a federal officer — which , in some cases , counted as a crime on federal property because protesters on the streets were shining lasers at officers inside the courthouse .
( DHS has claimed that some officers may permanently lose their vision , but as of July 24 , the most serious injury detailed in federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing spots in his eyes for 15 minutes after the laser attack . )
Over July 23 and 24 , however , 10 of the 13 cases opened were charges only of “ failing to obey a lawful order.
” ( One other defendant was charged with assaulting a U.S .
Marshal while detained inside the courthouse — where she had been taken after an arrest for “ failing to obey a lawful order.
” ) Since then , almost all cases have accused protesters of assaulting a federal officer ( generally a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the assault cases , files are thin and no details of the allegations have been posted , even for protesters charged as early as July 6 .
No case files identify an alleged victim — either by name or by the “ unique identifier ” on their uniforms .
( DHS officials have claimed it ’ s unfair to describe the federal agents in Portland as “ unidentified ” because they clearly show identification . )
ProPublica obtained these police records from New York City ’ s Civilian Complaint Review Board .
NYPD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from making the data public .
Some assault accusations charge protesters with throwing unidentified objects at officers in body armor , who were unharmed .
Even those defendants who aren ’ t explicitly barred from attending protests are unable to return to the epicenter of Portland ’ s unrest as a condition of their release .
They are placed under a curfew ( either from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. or 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. ) and told not to go within five blocks of the courthouse grounds except for court hearings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that sort are common , they ’ re still questionably constitutional .
“ Though ‘ stay away ’ orders from a place where a potential crime has been committed are generally standard , ” the ACLU ’ s Trivedi said , “ ‘ stay away ’ orders from public places that are part of the public square are more questionable.
” But he and others conceded that the government could make an argument that it was necessary to prevent further wrongdoing .
They saw no legitimate rationale for a blanket ban on protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue , ‘ You disobeyed a law enforcement officer at a protest , and we don ’ t trust you to not do it again , ’ ” Trivedi said .
But the release documents already instruct defendants that they are not allowed to break any laws while awaiting trial .
“ If they want to say ‘ don ’ t break a law again , ’ they ’ ve already said that , ” Trivedi told ProPublica .
“ Beyond that , the only part that ’ s left would be not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Driebelbis , for his part , must now watch the protests proceed without him .
“ I work across the water from the protests , and I can see it every ” night , he told ProPublica .
“ I ’ m protesting from this side.
” He hastened to clarify that he didn ’ t mean he was attending a protest in violation of the court order .
“ Not protesting !
There ’ s no protesting going on in the party of one .
But I am there in spirit @ @

Above photo: Portland protester enveloped in tear gas holds US flag on July 21. By Nathan Howard/Getty Images.
UPDATE: Pro Publica reports: “Federal defenders and prosecutors in Portland, Oregon, have teamed up to try to end a court practice of releasing arrested protesters only after they have agreed not to attend protests — a restriction that legal experts called a clear violation of the constitutional right to free assembly. There are early signs that the effort is working. After the joint request, a federal magistrate judge released two protesters without including restrictions on their attendance at protests or other mass events — or imposing a blanket curfew on them during evening hours. The same magistrate, Jolie A. Russo, had signed some of the release orders since July 23 that included protest bans.”
“Defendant Shall Not Attend Protests.”
A dozen protesters facing federal charges are barred from going to “public gatherings” as a condition of release from jail — a tactic one expert described as “sort of hilariously unconstitutional.”
Federal authorities are using a new tactic in their battle against protesters in Portland, Oregon: arrest them on offenses as minor as “failing to obey” an order to get off a sidewalk on federal property — and then tell them they can’t protest anymore as a condition for release from jail.
Legal experts describe the move as a blatant violation of the constitutional right to free assembly, but at least 12 protesters arrested in recent weeks have been specifically barred from attending protests or demonstrations as they await trials on federal misdemeanor charges.
“Defendant may not attend any other protests, rallies, assemblies or public gathering in the state of Oregon,” states one “Order Setting Conditions of Release” for an accused protester, alongside other conditions such as appearing for court dates. The orders are signed by federal magistrate judges.
For other defendants, the restricted area is limited to Portland, where clashes between protesters and federal troops have grown increasingly violent in recent weeks. In at least two cases, there are no geographic restrictions; one release document instructs, “Do not participate in any protests, demonstrations, rallies, assemblies while this case is pending.”
Protesters who have agreed to stay away from further demonstrations say they felt forced to accept those terms to get out of jail.
“Those terms were given to me after being in a holding cell after 14 hours,” Bailey Dreibelbis, who was charged July 24 with “failing to obey a lawful order,” told ProPublica. “It was pretty cut-and-dried, just, ‘These are your conditions for [getting out] of here.’
“If I didn’t take it, I would still be in holding. It wasn’t really an option, in my eyes.”
It could not be learned who drafted the orders barring the protesters from joining further demonstrations. The documents reviewed by ProPublica were signed by a federal magistrate in Portland. Magistrates have broad authority to set the terms of release for anyone accused of a crime. They typically receive recommendations from U.S. Pretrial Services, an arm of the U.S. Courts, which can gather input from prosecutors and others involved in the case. ProPublica identified several instances in which the protest ban was added to the conditions of release document when it was drafted, before it was given to the judge. It remained unclear whether the limits on protesting were initiated by Justice Department officials or the magistrates hearing the cases.
Constitutional lawyers said conditioning release from jail on a promise to stop joining protests were overly broad and almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment right to free assembly.
“The government has a very heavy burden when it comes to restrictions on protest rights and on assembly,” noted Jameel Jaffer of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute. “It’s much easier for the government to meet that burden where it has individualized information about a threat. So for example, they know that a particular person is planning to carry out some unlawful activity at a particular protest.”
Over the past week, the federal government has sharply increased the number of protesters it’s charging with federal crimes — often for petty offenses that are classified as federal misdemeanors only because they occur on federal property. Court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that over a third of the protesters are charged with “failing to obey a lawful order,” which 14 protesters were charged with between July 21 and July 24 alone.
The office of the U.S. attorney for Oregon, Billy J. Williams, did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about who was making charging decisions. In a recent interview with The Oregonian, Williams urged local citizens to demand that “violent extremists” who have attempted to break through the fence outside the federal courthouse leave. “Until that happens, we’re going to do what we need to do to protect federal property.”
Craig Gabriel, an assistant U.S. attorney who works for Williams, insisted the office understood and respected the right to protest racial injustice. “People are angry. Very large crowds are gathering, expressing deep and legitimate anger with police and the justice system,” Gabriel told The Oregonian. “We wholeheartedly support the community’s constitutionally protected rights to assemble together in large, even rowdy protests and engage in peaceful and civil disobedience.”
Gabriel did not mention the written restrictions against protest that have been made a condition of release for some of those arrested.
Several protesters who were let go on July 23 had bans against demonstrating added by hand on their release documents by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta, who signed off on them, a review by ProPublica found. Acosta’s office did not respond to ProPublica’s questions.
For those released on July 24, the restriction was added to the original typed document, also signed by Acosta. One protester arrested and released earlier in the month had his conditions of release modified at his arraignment on July 24. The modified order, signed by Acosta, added a protest ban not previously included.
Three of the 15 protesters charged on July 27, in orders signed by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo, also had explicit protest restrictions added to their release terms. (One release order has not yet been posted to the federal courts database.) Russo’s office did not reply to ProPublica’s questions.
“I don’t see that as constitutionally defensible,” Jaffer said. And I find it difficult to believe that any judge would uphold it.”
The ACLU’s Somil Trivedi said, “Release conditions should be related to public safety or flight” — in other words, the risk that the defendant will abscond. “This is neither.” He described the handwritten addition of a protest ban to a release document as “sort of hilariously unconstitutional.”
Publicly, the Trump administration has claimed that it has no problem with the protests that erupted in Portland and other American cities in response to the May 25 death of George Floyd, a Black man, in police custody in Minneapolis. The administration said it launched Operation Diligent Valor in July with a massive deployment of federal officers merely to protect federal property from “violent extremists.”
Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School said that imposing a protest ban as a release condition undermines the distinction between protected protest and criminal activity. “Even if they’re right that these people did, in fact, step beyond the bounds of the First Amendment and do something illegal, that doesn’t mean you can then restrict their First Amendment right.”
In many cases, the charges leveled at Portland protesters are closely tied to their presence at the protest — and not to any violent acts.
Eighteen of the 50 protesters charged in Portland are accused only of minor offenses under Title 40, Section 1315, of the U.S. Code. That law criminalizes certain behavior (like “failure to obey a lawful order,” as well as “disorderly conduct”) when it happens on federal property or against people who are located on that property. In other words, it describes behavior that wouldn’t otherwise be a matter for a federal court.
Dreibelbis, like other protesters to whom ProPublica has spoken, said he was arrested for being on the sidewalk outside the federal courthouse. Because the federal government owns the land under the sidewalk, another protester (who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid influencing his upcoming trial) told ProPublica it’s “common knowledge” among protesters that the sidewalk is a no-go zone, and setting foot on it risks federal prosecution.
Dreibelbis told ProPublica he roller-skated into the protest, expecting to attend only briefly. He said he knelt on the sidewalk and was arrested by officers. (The charging document filed against Dreibelbis offers no arrest details.)
Section 1315 is the same law the Trump administration is using to justify initiating the federal show of force in Portland, which the administration has said it intends to employ in other cities where protests have raged since Floyd’s death.
The law allows the secretary of homeland security to supplement the Federal Protective Service, the relatively small agency partly responsible for federal building security, with law enforcement agents from the department’s other agencies (such as Customs and Border Protection).
Both President Donald Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, have invoked that part of the law in the past. But the use of that same law to file criminal charges appears to be novel. The Obama administration sent a “surge force” of 400 FPS agents, and a dozen CBP agents, to Baltimore in 2015, when the police killing of Freddie Gray sparked broad unrest, but no charges were filed under Section 1315 itself in that response.
In Portland, the federal government has relied on the FPS and U.S. Marshals to write affidavits used to charge protesters in federal court. But it has detailed other agencies on the protest front lines: DHS agencies cited in court complaints include CBP, through its BORTAC tactical unit; Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s investigations unit; DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis, in addition to FPS. Complaints also cite the U.S. Marshals and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which are Justice Department entities.
In the first weeks of the operation, the most common charge against protesters was assault of a federal officer — which, in some cases, counted as a crime on federal property because protesters on the streets were shining lasers at officers inside the courthouse. (DHS has claimed that some officers may permanently lose their vision, but as of July 24, the most serious injury detailed in federal charging documents was an agent who reported seeing spots in his eyes for 15 minutes after the laser attack.)
Over July 23 and 24, however, 10 of the 13 cases opened were charges only of “failing to obey a lawful order.” (One other defendant was charged with assaulting a U.S. Marshal while detained inside the courthouse — where she had been taken after an arrest for “failing to obey a lawful order.”)
Since then, almost all cases have accused protesters of assaulting a federal officer (generally a misdemeanor charge).
In many of the assault cases, files are thin and no details of the allegations have been posted, even for protesters charged as early as July 6. No case files identify an alleged victim — either by name or by the “unique identifier” on their uniforms. (DHS officials have claimed it’s unfair to describe the federal agents in Portland as “unidentified” because they clearly show identification.)
ProPublica obtained these police records from New York City’s Civilian Complaint Review Board. NYPD unions are suing to halt the city from making the data public.
Some assault accusations charge protesters with throwing unidentified objects at officers in body armor, who were unharmed.
Even those defendants who aren’t explicitly barred from attending protests are unable to return to the epicenter of Portland’s unrest as a condition of their release. They are placed under a curfew (either from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. or 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) and told not to go within five blocks of the courthouse grounds except for court hearings.
Experts said that while restrictions of that sort are common, they’re still questionably constitutional. “Though ‘stay away’ orders from a place where a potential crime has been committed are generally standard,” the ACLU’s Trivedi said, “‘stay away’ orders from public places that are part of the public square are more questionable.” But he and others conceded that the government could make an argument that it was necessary to prevent further wrongdoing.
They saw no legitimate rationale for a blanket ban on protests.
“I suppose the government could argue, ‘You disobeyed a law enforcement officer at a protest, and we don’t trust you to not do it again,’” Trivedi said. But the release documents already instruct defendants that they are not allowed to break any laws while awaiting trial.
“If they want to say ‘don’t break a law again,’ they’ve already said that,” Trivedi told ProPublica. “Beyond that, the only part that’s left would be not letting you exercise your First Amendment right.”
Driebelbis, for his part, must now watch the protests proceed without him. “I work across the water from the protests, and I can see it every” night, he told ProPublica. “I’m protesting from this side.”
He hastened to clarify that he didn’t mean he was attending a protest in violation of the court order. “Not protesting! There’s no protesting going on in the party of one. But I am there in spirit.”
Dara Lind covers immigration policy for ProPublica in Washington, DC.


jewworldorder--2020-07-30--Democrats Offer Half-Hearted Measures To Impending Eviction Crisis

Above photo : A view of a poster saying Cancel Rent Cancel Mortgage during the coronavirus pandemic on May 18 , 2020 in Brooklyn Borough of New York City .
By John Nacion from STAR MAX/IPx .
The federal moratorium on evictions expired this week , leaving 12 million renters at risk of losing their homes , and much as they did with healthcare , Democrats are offering little more than token non-solutions .
The best defense against a raging pandemic that has already claimed over 152,000 American lives is simply to stay home .
But even this could soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States is facing an impending eviction crisis of “ biblical proportions , ” according to the Housing Rights Initiative .
Earlier this week , the federal moratorium on evictions expired , meaning the nation ’ s 12 million renters are now at risk of losing their homes .
Renters tend to be poorer , many of whom are among the 52 million that have filed for unemployment benefits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic .
Instead of extending the eviction ban , top Democrats , including California Sen. Kamala Harris and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own solution to the crisis : new money for a fund to help renters faced with eviction access legal representation .
“ We must take bold , urgent action to affirm that right and protect the millions of families facing housing instability , ” said Pressley , as the bill was introduced yesterday .
Liberal outlet Vox presented the move as a “ lifeline ” to millions and a stroke of political genius .
Yet others saw it differently .
“ Is this a joke ?
” responded The Intercept ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she saw the plan as pathetically weak non-solution to an impending crisis .
“ What if they just… introduced a bill to stop them from being evicted in the first place , ” asked another user .
Judging from reporting , this appears not to have occurred to them .
Harris , who is the prohibitive favorite with bookmakers to become Joe Biden ’ s vice-presidential pick come November , has a history of proposing piecemeal reform rather than bold solutions .
According to a poll conducted last September , 58 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters support making college free for all and totally eliminating outstanding student debt , a position advocated by Bernie Sanders .
Harris , however , proposed instead to cancel up to $ 20,000 of debt only for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in a disadvantaged community and maintain that business for at least three years .
“ When you look at the requirements , it ’ s hard to imagine more than a handful of people would ever qualify for it , ” said Matt Bruenig , founder of the People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Harris ’ proposal from the Democratic base was much the same as that to Rep. Joe Kennedy III ’ s ( D—MA ) recent statement that “ Not a single patient should be forced to fight off medical bankruptcy in the midst of a global health pandemic without a lawyer by their side , ” many feeling that he could have just stopped talking six or even 14 words sooner .
Republicans have put forward their own new coronavirus stimulus package that includes billions for the military and the FBI but nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uninsured Americans , or for state and local governments .
While it does include a second $ 1,200 check , it also cuts unemployment benefits for tens of millions of Americans from $ 600 to $ 200 per week .
Environmental justice group 350.org described the plan as a “ disgraceful offering ” from the GOP .
“ As unemployment skyrockets , this bill would cut off much of the support offered thus far to everyday people struggling to make ends meet .
We won ’ t let Congress pass a giveaway to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dry without a fight , ” they wrote in a statement .
But Democrats have made pains to stress that they agree with the Republicans on the need to reduce unemployment benefits , even as there are no signs of a significant economic recovery in the short to medium term .
“ Look , it ’ s not $ 600 or bust , ” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ( D-MD ) , claiming that a weekly $ 600 check serves as a disincentive to many to start working again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said about American wages .
In fact , the U.S. offer to the unemployed has been particularly stingy , in comparison to similar countries .
For example , Western European countries like France , the U.K. , Ireland , and Germany simply pay between 60 and 84 percent of newly unemployed workers ’ pre-pandemic salaries .
Meanwhile , businesses in New Zealand have had little problem finding generous financial sponsorship from their government .
New Zealand has an unemployment rate of around 4 percent , compared to the U.S. ’ 11 percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its base on healthcare , a key issue during a global pandemic .
85 percent of Democratic voters support Medicare for All .
But the Democratic National Committee blocked its inclusion in the party ’ s draft platform , voting it down , 125-36 .
The party is now facing a quiet internal revolt just three weeks from the National Convention .
Between a worsening pandemic , the threat of eviction , and a reduction in unemployment benefits , it appears that millions of Americans are in for a tough fall .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ MintPress News .
After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books : Bad News From Venezuela : Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age : Still Manufacturing Consent .
He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary .

Above photo: A view of a poster saying Cancel Rent Cancel Mortgage during the coronavirus pandemic on May 18, 2020 in Brooklyn Borough of New York City. By John Nacion from STAR MAX/IPx .
The federal moratorium on evictions expired this week, leaving 12 million renters at risk of losing their homes, and much as they did with healthcare, Democrats are offering little more than token non-solutions.
The best defense against a raging pandemic that has already claimed over 152,000 American lives is simply to stay home. But even this could soon become impossible for millions, as the United States is facing an impending eviction crisis of “biblical proportions,” according to the Housing Rights Initiative. Earlier this week, the federal moratorium on evictions expired, meaning the nation’s 12 million renters are now at risk of losing their homes. Renters tend to be poorer, many of whom are among the 52 million that have filed for unemployment benefits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Instead of extending the eviction ban, top Democrats, including California Sen. Kamala Harris and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), proposed their own solution to the crisis: new money for a fund to help renters faced with eviction access legal representation. “We must take bold, urgent action to affirm that right and protect the millions of families facing housing instability,” said Pressley, as the bill was introduced yesterday.
Liberal outlet Vox presented the move as a “lifeline” to millions and a stroke of political genius. Yet others saw it differently. “Is this a joke?” responded The Intercept’s Aída Chávez on Twitter, suggesting that she saw the plan as pathetically weak non-solution to an impending crisis. “What if they just… introduced a bill to stop them from being evicted in the first place,” asked another user. Judging from reporting, this appears not to have occurred to them.
Harris, who is the prohibitive favorite with bookmakers to become Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick come November, has a history of proposing piecemeal reform rather than bold solutions. According to a poll conducted last September, 58 percent of Americans, including nearly three-quarters of Democrat voters support making college free for all and totally eliminating outstanding student debt, a position advocated by Bernie Sanders. Harris, however, proposed instead to cancel up to $20,000 of debt only for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in a disadvantaged community and maintain that business for at least three years. “When you look at the requirements, it’s hard to imagine more than a handful of people would ever qualify for it,” said Matt Bruenig, founder of the People’s Policy Project.
The reaction to Harris’ proposal from the Democratic base was much the same as that to Rep. Joe Kennedy III’s (D—MA) recent statement that “Not a single patient should be forced to fight off medical bankruptcy in the midst of a global health pandemic without a lawyer by their side,” many feeling that he could have just stopped talking six or even 14 words sooner.
Republicans have put forward their own new coronavirus stimulus package that includes billions for the military and the FBI but nothing for hazard pay, nutrition assistance, uninsured Americans, or for state and local governments. While it does include a second $1,200 check, it also cuts unemployment benefits for tens of millions of Americans from $600 to $200 per week. Environmental justice group 350.org described the plan as a “disgraceful offering” from the GOP. “As unemployment skyrockets, this bill would cut off much of the support offered thus far to everyday people struggling to make ends meet. We won’t let Congress pass a giveaway to wealthy corporations while leaving our communities out to dry without a fight,” they wrote in a statement.
But Democrats have made pains to stress that they agree with the Republicans on the need to reduce unemployment benefits, even as there are no signs of a significant economic recovery in the short to medium term. “Look, it’s not $600 or bust,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), claiming that a weekly $600 check serves as a disincentive to many to start working again. He did not dwell on what that said about American wages. In fact, the U.S. offer to the unemployed has been particularly stingy, in comparison to similar countries. For example, Western European countries like France, the U.K., Ireland, and Germany simply pay between 60 and 84 percent of newly unemployed workers’ pre-pandemic salaries. Meanwhile, businesses in New Zealand have had little problem finding generous financial sponsorship from their government. New Zealand has an unemployment rate of around 4 percent, compared to the U.S.’ 11 percent.
The Democratic Party is also at odds with its base on healthcare, a key issue during a global pandemic. 85 percent of Democratic voters support Medicare for All. But the Democratic National Committee blocked its inclusion in the party’s draft platform, voting it down, 125-36. The party is now facing a quiet internal revolt just three weeks from the National Convention.
Between a worsening pandemic, the threat of eviction, and a reduction in unemployment benefits, it appears that millions of Americans are in for a tough fall.
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.


jewworldorder--2020-07-30--Current NYPD Officers With The Most Substantiated Misconduct Complaints

Approximately four thousand of the NYPD ’ s 36,000 active officers have at least one substantiated complaint of police misconduct , according to data from the Civilian Complaint Review Board published by ProPublica on Sunday .
Gothamist/WNYC has identified seven officers in the CCRB ’ s data set with substantiated allegations in at least six separate complaints—the most of all current NYPD officers .
All enjoyed high-ranking positions as of last month , according to the dataset .
All are white men .
Some have been the subject of extensive news coverage .
We have reached out to each officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some did not reply and others referred us to the NYPD or their union .
“ The NYPD has for many years worked to increase transparency to gain the trust of the communities we serve , ” the department said in a statement , when asked specifically about these officers .
A representative for Mayor Bill de Blasio did not respond to a request for comment .
In 2008 , Michael Raso was accused of pointing his gun at a 22-year-old Black man during a stop in the North Bronx .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommending “ command discipline ” for the then 27-year-old police officer .
Instead , the NYPD opted to give him “ instruction , ” the least severe form of discipline , intended for those who “ misunderstand a policy.
” Over the next twelve years , the CCRB substantiated seven more complaints against Raso — the most of any police officer in the database .
On three separate occasions , the CCRB found he had abused his authority during vehicular stops .
Each time the CCRB recommended he face departmental charges that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But in each case , the police department let him off with either “ instruction , ” or no penalty at all .
Raso has also been named in three civil misconduct suits since 2014 .
During a 2013 arrest , Raso was accused of violently removing a man from a cab and falsely accusing him of having a gun ( the man was later acquitted of all charges ) .
The city settled the suit for $ 62,500 , according to CAPstat .
Typically , the city settles these cases without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CCRB investigations into his conduct , Raso has steadily risen through the ranks of the NYPD .
He was promoted to sergeant and then lieutenant in the North Bronx ’ s 47th precinct , and recently transferred to the NYPD ’ s Strategic Response Group , a controversial unit tasked with policing protests , counterterrorism investigations , and gang operations .
The SRG has been involved in some of the NYPD ’ s most brutal crackdowns against recent Black Lives Matter demonstrations .
Raso took home $ 195,000 in total compensation in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is available .
Five of Lieutenant Leonardi ’ s incidents of substantiated misconduct were determined by the CCRB between 2014 and 2015 when he was a sergeant in Bedford Stuyvesant , a gentrifying neighborhood in Brooklyn that has historically suffered underinvestment and high rates of crime .
Most of these complaints came from Black residents upset about stops , frisks , and strip searches .
Over the course of his career , the CCRB recommended Leonardi be brought up on departmental charges , its most serious determination , five separate times .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the most discipline Leonardi ever faced was lost vacation days , according to the database .
In a 2015 lawsuit , a man named Jason Crushshon accused Leonardi and several other officers of an unprovoked assault during a drug arrest the previous year in Bedford-Stuyvesant .
According to court documents , Crushshon was taken to Woodhull Hospital , where he received five stitches on his head .
The case settled for $ 40,000 .
Since then , Leonardi has risen to become a lieutenant in Queens ’ 103rd precinct , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 109,000 in 2018 , according to CAPstat .
Reached by phone , Leonardi declined comment .
Over his 34-year career at the NYPD , Detective Tallarine has been the subject of CCRB complaints for use of force , discourtesy , and use of racist language .
Records show that only Black New Yorkers have filed complaints against Tallarine .
The most recent of those substantiated complaints occurred in 2004 , for abuse of authority .
For that complaint , Tallarine was punished with “ instruction.
” The CCRB records do not show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 , now-Detective Tallarine was named in a lawsuit filed by Clarence Bailey , who was wrongfully convicted of a 2007 attempted murder , and was released from prison in 2013 .
Bailey ’ s lawyers claimed that Tallarine and two other NYPD officers from Brooklyn ’ s 83rd Precinct had “ threatened ” a witness with parole revocation if he did not testify that Bailey was to blame .
After recounting the many previous scandals coming out of the 83rd Precinct , Bailey ’ s attorneys wrote that prosecutors had failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense attorneys that “ Tallarine…had a history of dishonesty and poor judgement.
” The city settled the case for $ 750,000 .
Tallarine is named in two other lawsuits that the city settled for a total of $ 125,000 , according to CAPstat .
Detective Tallarine received $ 186,000 in total compensation in 2018 , and is currently on the board of the Detectives ’ Endowment Association .
Christopher McCormack : 16 Substantiated Allegations in 6 Separate Complaints In February of 2013 , Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack advised a subordinate to specifically stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Bronx .
The officer , NYPD whistleblower Pedro Serrano , was recording him , and his tape soon sparked a scandal over the NYPD ’ s Stop & Frisk program .
But previously , secret CCRB investigations had provided warning signs for years before .
Between 2004 and 2010 , the Civilian Complaint Review Board substantiated complaints against McCormack over inappropriate stops and frisks of Black and Latino men at least three times .
The most discipline he ever received was instructions from a supervisor .
Two months after Serrano ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trial , the CCRB substantiated another inappropriate stop and frisk of the then Bronx commander for which he received no discipline .
In the years that followed , McCormack continued to rise to the highest echelons of the department .
McCormack took home over $ 223,000 in 2018 , as an Assistant Chief Inspector , according to CAPstat .
A longtime member of the notorious Brooklyn North Narcotics team , Daniel Sbarra has been the subject of 16 allegations proven by the CCRB .
In one 2004 incident , a Black barbershop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from work in Bushwick when Sbarra and another officer dragged him out of his vehicle , demanded to know “ where are the drugs and guns at , ” and called him the n-word .
The officers , who were driving in an unmarked car , wore black tape over their badges and refused to identify themselves as police , according to the barbershop owner , who was eventually released without any citation .
The CCRB investigated and substantiated the complaint , and Sbarra was ultimately found guilty by the Deputy Commissioner of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two vacation days for the offense .
After his promotion to lieutenant in 2013 , the Daily News ran a lengthy investigation into Sbarra ’ s history of misconduct , which found that allegations of unprovoked violence , intimidation and racial profiling had cost city taxpayers nearly $ 500,000 .
In response to that investigation , Sbarra was reportedly transferred to desk duty , where he was permitted to keep his $ 102,000 salary but “ expected to make less overtime.
” Both Sbarra ’ s salary and overtime have steadily increased in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he took home a $ 125,000 salary , along with more than $ 45,000 in overtime .
He has not been investigated by the CCRB since 2012 .
Reich spent his early years as a young police officer in East New York , a working-class Brooklyn community that has historically suffered high rates of violent crime .
There in the 75th precinct , he only received two complaints , one of which was substantiated in 2005 for a stop and refusal to provide his shield number .
The department gave him instructions for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for charges .
As Reich transitioned into South Brooklyn ’ s narcotics unit , he began to attract far more complaints for vehicle searches , strip searches , and use of force .
Narcotics policing can lead to numerous tense encounters with residents , and nearly all of these accusations were unsubstantiated .
But later , after joining Staten Island ’ s narcotics unit , he began to receive substantiated determinations .
Between 2013 and 2016 , residents accused Reich of unjustified vehicle stops , excessive force , and other violations .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during this period , Reich ’ s only punishments were command discipline and formalized training .
Detective Reich has also been named in twenty-one lawsuits , which cost the city over $ 700,000 according to CAPstat .
In a 2014 lawsuit , a man said he was inside a car with a friend at a street corner when Reich and other officers allegedly approached them , guns drawn .
Police ordered the pair out of the vehicle .
The man claimed that police threw them to the ground , kicking and punching them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reich falsely swore that the man had been transferring pills to a friend .
The man claimed he had gotten the pills with a valid prescription , but had been beaten when he had tried to explain this to the officers .
The man refused to plead guilty and prosecutors dropped the charges a few months later .
Reich received $ 142,000 in total compensation in 2018 , including more than $ 47,000 in overtime .
Since starting his career at the NYPD in 1997 , Lieutenant Henderson has been the subject of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for discourtesy , improper use of physical force , and abuse of authority .
The complaints contain 44 total allegations — 21 of them substantiated — related to stops and searches of people and their property , as are the 12 lawsuits that name Lieutenant Henderson as a defendant .
According to CAPstat , the City has paid out at least $ 278,000 to settle those lawsuits , and several remain pending ( the Daily News pegged the actual figure at “ more than $ 500,000.
” ) One CCRB complaint in 2003 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 67th Precinct in Brooklyn , who complained that Lieutenant Henderson abused his authority and used improper force .
Henderson was docked 10 vacation days .
For other substantiated complaints , he was given “ instruction , ” the least severe form of discipline , intended for those who “ misunderstand a policy.
” In at least three of the complaints that the CCRB substantiated against Lieutenant Henderson , the NYPD found him “ not guilty ” and did not issue punishment , according to the CCRB ’ s records .
Lieutenant Henderson received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , including more than $ 43,000 in overtime .
Help us hold the NYPD accountable—tell us about your encounters with the NYPD .
An encounter with a certain officer that didn ’ t seem right ?
Certain cops who have a bad reputation in your community ?
Gothamist/WNYC is working with THE CITY , ProPublica and The Marshall Project to pool our collective resources to share disciplinary records with you .

Above photo: By Spencer Platt/Getty Images.
Approximately four thousand of the NYPD’s 36,000 active officers have at least one substantiated complaint of police misconduct, according to data from the Civilian Complaint Review Board published by ProPublica on Sunday.
Gothamist/WNYC has identified seven officers in the CCRB’s data set with substantiated allegations in at least six separate complaints—the most of all current NYPD officers. All enjoyed high-ranking positions as of last month, according to the dataset. All are white men. Some have been the subject of extensive news coverage.
We have reached out to each officer named here individually and through their unions. Some did not reply and others referred us to the NYPD or their union.
“The NYPD has for many years worked to increase transparency to gain the trust of the communities we serve,” the department said in a statement, when asked specifically about these officers.
A representative for Mayor Bill de Blasio did not respond to a request for comment.
Michael Raso: 14 Substantiated Allegations in 8 Separate Complaints
In 2008, Michael Raso was accused of pointing his gun at a 22-year-old Black man during a stop in the North Bronx. The CCRB investigated and substantiated that complaint, recommending “command discipline” for the then 27-year-old police officer. Instead, the NYPD opted to give him “instruction,” the least severe form of discipline, intended for those who “misunderstand a policy.”
Over the next twelve years, the CCRB substantiated seven more complaints against Raso — the most of any police officer in the database. On three separate occasions, the CCRB found he had abused his authority during vehicular stops. Each time the CCRB recommended he face departmental charges that could have resulted in a suspension or termination. But in each case, the police department let him off with either “instruction,” or no penalty at all.
Raso has also been named in three civil misconduct suits since 2014. During a 2013 arrest, Raso was accused of violently removing a man from a cab and falsely accusing him of having a gun (the man was later acquitted of all charges). The city settled the suit for $62,500, according to CAPstat. Typically, the city settles these cases without admitting liability.
Despite more than 18 CCRB investigations into his conduct, Raso has steadily risen through the ranks of the NYPD. He was promoted to sergeant and then lieutenant in the North Bronx’s 47th precinct, and recently transferred to the NYPD’s Strategic Response Group, a controversial unit tasked with policing protests, counterterrorism investigations, and gang operations. The SRG has been involved in some of the NYPD’s most brutal crackdowns against recent Black Lives Matter demonstrations.
Raso took home $195,000 in total compensation in 2018, the most recent year that data is available.
David Leonardi: 11 Substantiated Allegations in 7 Separate Complaints
Five of Lieutenant Leonardi’s incidents of substantiated misconduct were determined by the CCRB between 2014 and 2015 when he was a sergeant in Bedford Stuyvesant, a gentrifying neighborhood in Brooklyn that has historically suffered underinvestment and high rates of crime. Most of these complaints came from Black residents upset about stops, frisks, and strip searches. Over the course of his career, the CCRB recommended Leonardi be brought up on departmental charges, its most serious determination, five separate times. But the NYPD has the final say, and the most discipline Leonardi ever faced was lost vacation days, according to the database.
In a 2015 lawsuit, a man named Jason Crushshon accused Leonardi and several other officers of an unprovoked assault during a drug arrest the previous year in Bedford-Stuyvesant. According to court documents, Crushshon was taken to Woodhull Hospital, where he received five stitches on his head. The case settled for $40,000. Since then, Leonardi has risen to become a lieutenant in Queens’ 103rd precinct, according to the CCRB database. Leonardi made over $109,000 in 2018, according to CAPstat. Reached by phone, Leonardi declined comment.
Joseph Tallarine, 23 Substantiated Allegations in 6 Separate Complaints
Over his 34-year career at the NYPD, Detective Tallarine has been the subject of CCRB complaints for use of force, discourtesy, and use of racist language. Records show that only Black New Yorkers have filed complaints against Tallarine. The most recent of those substantiated complaints occurred in 2004, for abuse of authority. For that complaint, Tallarine was punished with “instruction.” The CCRB records do not show any other form of discipline.
In 2014, now-Detective Tallarine was named in a lawsuit filed by Clarence Bailey, who was wrongfully convicted of a 2007 attempted murder, and was released from prison in 2013. Bailey’s lawyers claimed that Tallarine and two other NYPD officers from Brooklyn’s 83rd Precinct had “threatened” a witness with parole revocation if he did not testify that Bailey was to blame. After recounting the many previous scandals coming out of the 83rd Precinct, Bailey’s attorneys wrote that prosecutors had failed to provide evidence to Bailey’s original defense attorneys that “Tallarine…had a history of dishonesty and poor judgement.”
The city settled the case for $750,000. Tallarine is named in two other lawsuits that the city settled for a total of $125,000, according to CAPstat.
Detective Tallarine received $186,000 in total compensation in 2018, and is currently on the board of the Detectives’ Endowment Association.
Christopher McCormack: 16 Substantiated Allegations in 6 Separate Complaints
In February of 2013, Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack advised a subordinate to specifically stop “male Blacks” in Mott Haven in the Bronx. The officer, NYPD whistleblower Pedro Serrano, was recording him, and his tape soon sparked a scandal over the NYPD’s Stop & Frisk program. But previously, secret CCRB investigations had provided warning signs for years before. Between 2004 and 2010, the Civilian Complaint Review Board substantiated complaints against McCormack over inappropriate stops and frisks of Black and Latino men at least three times. The most discipline he ever received was instructions from a supervisor. Two months after Serrano’s secret recording was played publicly at a trial, the CCRB substantiated another inappropriate stop and frisk of the then Bronx commander for which he received no discipline.
In the years that followed, McCormack continued to rise to the highest echelons of the department. McCormack took home over $223,000 in 2018, as an Assistant Chief Inspector, according to CAPstat.
Daniel Sbarra: 16 Substantiated Allegations in 6 Separate Complaints
A longtime member of the notorious Brooklyn North Narcotics team, Daniel Sbarra has been the subject of 16 allegations proven by the CCRB. In one 2004 incident, a Black barbershop owner said that he was driving home from work in Bushwick when Sbarra and another officer dragged him out of his vehicle, demanded to know “where are the drugs and guns at,” and called him the n-word. The officers, who were driving in an unmarked car, wore black tape over their badges and refused to identify themselves as police, according to the barbershop owner, who was eventually released without any citation.
The CCRB investigated and substantiated the complaint, and Sbarra was ultimately found guilty by the Deputy Commissioner of Trials. Records show he was docked two vacation days for the offense.
NYPD release records show Daniel Sbarra had 75 complaints! (And sued 15 times). He used N-Word & beat people. He was promoted to Lt. After NYDN expose, he still kept full $102,000yr salary. His OT alone totaled $40K in 2011. This is not fixable #DefundNYPD https://t.co/JV7FAvCsMh — ChuckModi (@ChuckModi1) July 26, 2020
After his promotion to lieutenant in 2013, the Daily News ran a lengthy investigation into Sbarra’s history of misconduct, which found that allegations of unprovoked violence, intimidation and racial profiling had cost city taxpayers nearly $500,000. In response to that investigation, Sbarra was reportedly transferred to desk duty, where he was permitted to keep his $102,000 salary but “expected to make less overtime.”
Both Sbarra’s salary and overtime have steadily increased in the years since. In 2018, he took home a $125,000 salary, along with more than $45,000 in overtime. He has not been investigated by the CCRB since 2012.
Mathew Reich, 7 Substantiated Allegations in 6 Separate Complaints
Reich spent his early years as a young police officer in East New York, a working-class Brooklyn community that has historically suffered high rates of violent crime. There in the 75th precinct, he only received two complaints, one of which was substantiated in 2005 for a stop and refusal to provide his shield number. The department gave him instructions for that finding, though the CCRB pushed for charges. As Reich transitioned into South Brooklyn’s narcotics unit, he began to attract far more complaints for vehicle searches, strip searches, and use of force. Narcotics policing can lead to numerous tense encounters with residents, and nearly all of these accusations were unsubstantiated. But later, after joining Staten Island’s narcotics unit, he began to receive substantiated determinations. Between 2013 and 2016, residents accused Reich of unjustified vehicle stops, excessive force, and other violations. Of the five complaints that the CCRB substantiated during this period, Reich’s only punishments were command discipline and formalized training.
Detective Reich has also been named in twenty-one lawsuits, which cost the city over $700,000 according to CAPstat. In a 2014 lawsuit, a man said he was inside a car with a friend at a street corner when Reich and other officers allegedly approached them, guns drawn. Police ordered the pair out of the vehicle. The man claimed that police threw them to the ground, kicking and punching them. Afterwards, the suit alleged, Reich falsely swore that the man had been transferring pills to a friend. The man claimed he had gotten the pills with a valid prescription, but had been beaten when he had tried to explain this to the officers. The man refused to plead guilty and prosecutors dropped the charges a few months later.
Reich received $142,000 in total compensation in 2018, including more than $47,000 in overtime.
Robert Henderson, 21 Substantiated Allegations in 6 Separate Complaints
Since starting his career at the NYPD in 1997, Lieutenant Henderson has been the subject of six separate substantiated complaints from the CCRB for discourtesy, improper use of physical force, and abuse of authority. The complaints contain 44 total allegations — 21 of them substantiated — related to stops and searches of people and their property, as are the 12 lawsuits that name Lieutenant Henderson as a defendant. According to CAPstat, the City has paid out at least $278,000 to settle those lawsuits, and several remain pending (the Daily News pegged the actual figure at “more than $500,000.”)
One CCRB complaint in 2003 involved a 27-year-old Black man in the 67th Precinct in Brooklyn, who complained that Lieutenant Henderson abused his authority and used improper force. Henderson was docked 10 vacation days. For other substantiated complaints, he was given “instruction,” the least severe form of discipline, intended for those who “misunderstand a policy.” In at least three of the complaints that the CCRB substantiated against Lieutenant Henderson, the NYPD found him “not guilty” and did not issue punishment, according to the CCRB’s records.
Lieutenant Henderson received more than $185,000 in compensation in 2018, including more than $43,000 in overtime.
Help us hold the NYPD accountable—tell us about your encounters with the NYPD. An encounter with a certain officer that didn’t seem right? Certain cops who have a bad reputation in your community? Gothamist/WNYC is working with THE CITY, ProPublica and The Marshall Project to pool our collective resources to share disciplinary records with you.


jewworldorder--2020-08-01--Bill Clinton Implicated In Unsealed Ghislaine Maxwell Documents

What Happened : According to a cache of documents that ’ ve just been unsealed regarding the case of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell , Epstein ’ s right hand person , Maxwell sexually abused children and also directed victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre to be sexually abused by others .
These accusations also corroborate with a number of other victims that have spoken out against both Maxwell , Epstein and others .
The documents were part of now-settled civil litigation against Maxwell .
The documents also provide details about Bill Clinton , who has long been implicated with Epstein , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to running rampant .
A paper published in European Psychiatry outlines one of many examples : Research eventually led to the Franklin scandal that broke in 1989 when hundreds of children were apparently flown around the US to be abused by high ranking ‘ Establishment ’ members .
Former state senator John W DeCamp , cited as one of the most effective legislators in Nebraska history , is today attorney for two of the abuse victims .
A 15 year old girl disclosed that she had been abused since the age of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 9 and was exposed to ‘ ritual murder ’ of a new born girl , a small boy ( who was subsequently fried and eaten ) and three others .
This is a big issue that plagues our world , and it ’ s important because many of these people may be making major decisions when it comes to global health , geopolitics , environmental issues and more .
Can we expect them to do the right thing when there is such a clear disregard for human life , a lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe that Epstein ’ s his job was actually to entice powerful people within politics to have sex with young women and then ultimately entrap them , whether it ’ s with photographs or hidden cameras or thorugh other methods .
For example , in an interview with Zev Shalev , former CBS News executive producer and award-winning investigative journalist for Narativ , the former senior executive for Israel ’ s Directorate of Military Intelligence , Ari Ben-Menashe , claimed not only to have met Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged madame Ghislaine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that both Epstein and Maxwell were already working with Israeli intelligence during that time period .
It ’ s also odd mainstream media likes to use the term “ underage ” and “ minors ” , that should not take away from the fact that these are just children .
There is reason to believe that elite level child trafficking and ritual abuse actually implicates children of all ages , including babies .
It ’ s great that this topic is receiving the attention it is within the mainstream , but a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trafficking , where millions of children suffer every single year , isn ’ t dealt with in the same way we are dealing with coronavirus , for example .
It really makes you ask the question , what ’ s really going on here ?
We ’ ve written about this topic a lot , and if you want to dive in a bit deeper , I published this article late last year that provides more examples .
A lot of what is coming out now corroborates with the information given by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Survivor : One of the main reasons we keep covering the Maxwell and Epstein saga is to draw attention to our interview with a survivor of child sex trafficking .
You can access the full interview and start your free trial HERE on CETV , a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics .
The interview is with Anneke Lucas , who is is an author , speaker , advocate for child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-profit organization Liberation Prison Yoga , and creator of the Unconditional Model .
Her work is based on personal experience of a 30-year healing journey after surviving being sold by her family as a child sex slave to a pedophile network .
The interview is deep , and goes into the consciousness aspect of her experience and why that aspect is so important .
At the end of the day , it ’ s easy to see how this type of thing sustains itself , and that ’ s simply because the ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem are actually involve themselves .
For example , Cardinal George Pell , a high ranking Vatican official who was convicted of child sexual abuse has been set free , and all charges have been dropped .
It ’ s disturbing to contemplate the idea that Cardinal George Pell is or would be involved in such things , after all , he himself established The Diocesan Commission Into Sexual Abuse in 1996 .
If he is in fact guilty , this leads to the point above made by Wedger , that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually involved and part of the problem .
That being said , Pell is innocent under the law .
What ’ s the point ?
We can ’ t continue to rely on those in positions of power to handle our issues .
We can not keep choosing to participate in a process , like elections , that simply provide the illusion of democracy while authoritarian measures are continually pushed upon the population .
We must keep speaking up , and at the same time we must continue to do this work from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try and tackle a topic with the same energy that comes out of the topic , you ’ re simply running in circles .

The Facts: Documents pertaining Ghislaine Maxwell have been unsealed and allege that not only did she sexually abuse children, but also groomed and trained them to be sex slaves.
Reflect On: How many high profile people are involved in this? Could your favourite politician, actor, actress, director also be implicated? Is our world a reflection of our decision to let corrupt people it? Are they a product of what we created?
What Happened: According to a cache of documents that’ve just been unsealed regarding the case of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s right hand person, Maxwell sexually abused children and also directed victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre to be sexually abused by others. These accusations also corroborate with a number of other victims that have spoken out against both Maxwell, Epstein and others.
The documents were part of now-settled civil litigation against Maxwell.
The documents stem from a 2015 civil action brought against Maxwell by Giuffre, who has claimed Maxwell lured her into Epstein’s orbit as a teenager under the guise of offering work as a masseuse. She said the couple subsequently pressured her into having sex with numerous rich or notable men, including Prince Andrew, US politicians, wealthy entrepreneurs, a famous scientist, and a fashion designer. (source)
The documents also provide details about Bill Clinton, who has long been implicated with Epstein, just like Prince Andrew.
These claims seem to running rampant. A paper published in European Psychiatry outlines one of many examples:
Research eventually led to the Franklin scandal that broke in 1989 when hundreds of children were apparently flown around the US to be abused by high ranking ‘Establishment’ members. Former state senator John W DeCamp, cited as one of the most effective legislators in Nebraska history, is today attorney for two of the abuse victims. A 15 year old girl disclosed that she had been abused since the age of 9 and was exposed since the age of 9 and was exposed to ‘ritual murder’ of a new born girl, a small boy (who was subsequently fried and eaten) and three others.
This is a big issue that plagues our world, and it’s important because many of these people may be making major decisions when it comes to global health, geopolitics, environmental issues and more. Can we expect them to do the right thing when there is such a clear disregard for human life, a lack of empathy and morality?
There is reason to believe that Epstein’s his job was actually to entice powerful people within politics to have sex with young women and then ultimately entrap them, whether it’s with photographs or hidden cameras or thorugh other methods. For example, in an interview with Zev Shalev, former CBS News executive producer and award-winning investigative journalist for Narativ, the former senior executive for Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence, Ari Ben-Menashe, claimed not only to have met Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged madame Ghislaine Maxwell, back in the 1980s, but that both Epstein and Maxwell were already working with Israeli intelligence during that time period.
It’s also odd mainstream media likes to use the term “underage” and “minors”, that should not take away from the fact that these are just children. There is reason to believe that elite level child trafficking and ritual abuse actually implicates children of all ages, including babies. It’s great that this topic is receiving the attention it is within the mainstream, but a shame that the issue of child sex trafficking, where millions of children suffer every single year, isn’t dealt with in the same way we are dealing with coronavirus, for example. It really makes you ask the question, what’s really going on here?
We’ve written about this topic a lot, and if you want to dive in a bit deeper, I published this article late last year that provides more examples.
A lot of what is coming out now corroborates with the information given by a survivor we interviewed.
Our Interview With A Survivor: One of the main reasons we keep covering the Maxwell and Epstein saga is to draw attention to our interview with a survivor of child sex trafficking.
You can access the full interview and start your free trial HERE on CETV, a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics.
The interview is with Anneke Lucas, who is is an author, speaker, advocate for child sex trafficking victims, founder of the non-profit organization Liberation Prison Yoga, and creator of the Unconditional Model. Her work is based on personal experience of a 30-year healing journey after surviving being sold by her family as a child sex slave to a pedophile network.
The interview is deep, and goes into the consciousness aspect of her experience and why that aspect is so important.
The Takeaway
At the end of the day, it’s easy to see how this type of thing sustains itself, and that’s simply because the ones we go to in order to stop the problem are actually involve themselves. For example, Cardinal George Pell, a high ranking Vatican official who was convicted of child sexual abuse has been set free, and all charges have been dropped. It’s disturbing to contemplate the idea that Cardinal George Pell is or would be involved in such things, after all, he himself established The Diocesan Commission Into Sexual Abuse in 1996. If he is in fact guilty, this leads to the point above made by Wedger, that the people responsible for tackling this issue are actually involved and part of the problem. That being said, Pell is innocent under the law.
What’s the point? We can’t continue to rely on those in positions of power to handle our issues. We cannot keep choosing to participate in a process, like elections, that simply provide the illusion of democracy while authoritarian measures are continually pushed upon the population. We must keep speaking up, and at the same time we must continue to do this work from a peaceful place within. When you try and tackle a topic with the same energy that comes out of the topic, you’re simply running in circles.


jewworldorder--2020-07-31--Harvard Urges USDA To NOT Require Labels Identifying Lab-Grown Meat For Consumers

Harvard ’ s Animal Law & Policy Clinic has sent a 20-page letter to the U. S. Department of Agriculture urging the agency to adopt a labeling approach for cell-based meat and poultry products that does not overly restrict speech and that respects the First Amendment ’ s of manufacturers to call lab-grown meant as “ meat ” : In February , the USDA announced that it likely will initiate rule-making , a lengthy public process for drafting new regulations , to address labeling cell-based ( or “ cultivated ” ) meat and poultry products .
Under an agreement with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for overseeing the labeling of these products , but the specific manner in which the agency will regulate product labels and product names remains unknown .
While these labeling regulations are still under development , our Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Clinic ’ s principle positions and requests are as follows : -The U.S. Department of Agriculture should not establish new standards of identity and should not ban the use of common or usual meat and poultry terms or product names specified in existing standards of identity ( such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ chicken ” , “ sausage ” , etc. )
.
Such a ban likely violates the First Amendment and its commercial speech protections .
-The U.S. Department of Agriculture should require disclosures or qualifying language on cell-based meat labels only when doing so is necessary to protect consumers from an increased food safety risk or material compositional difference .
-Before requiring any such disclosures or qualifiers , the U.S. Department of Agriculture ’ s Food Safety and Inspection Service should : 1 ) wait until it has had the opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cell-based meat products ; 2 ) review actual proposed labels ; and then , 3 ) assess what , if any , specific labeling requirements are essential on a case-by-case basis to protect consumers from being misled .
-The Harvard Animal Law & Policy Clinic further requests that the U.S. Department of Agriculture coordinate closely with the Food and Drug Administration as it develops its proposed cell-based meat labeling rules .
“ These technologies all deserve as fair a chance as any other new technologies , and these companies should not have their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Kelley McGill JD ’ 20 who worked on the letter with Clinical Instructor Nicole Negowetti .
It is virtually guaranteed that Harvard has received millions of dollars in research grants from the companies standing to make billions off these fake meat products — but , as we know , those companies are merely exercising their ‘ free speech ’ by giving Harvard millions in payola .
Why , it ’ s downright un-American to not allow lab-grown meat to be called real meat — and why should consumer need to know if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they couldn ’ t tell the difference anyway ?
Ignorance is bliss , after all .
We saw a similar battle when food manufacturers fought tooth and nail against labeling GMO products — claiming that such labeling would unfairly “ discriminate ” against their products .
Even though there is mounting evidence that GMO foods are dangerous to animals and humans , the labeling requirement will never change .
It would take years of humans eating lab-grown meat to find out it ’ s long-term heath risks — and , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eats in a short-term study , so it will be given its GRAS ( Generally Recognized As Safe ) status by the regulators .
And so , the result will be that meat that is NOT grown in a lab will have labels stating , “ Not cell-based product ” or “ Not lab-grown ” or even more obscurely “ No CBPs ” or “ No LGPs ” .
In other words , lab-grown meats will eventually become the rule rather than the exception , just as GMO foods have become .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meat because it won ’ t cause bogus global warming the way real meat allegedly does .
And considering that much of the research and development for lab-grown meat is coming out of Israel , we can be assured that it will be enthusiastically endorsed by the mainstream media whores .
Also on Christians for Truth :

Harvard’s Animal Law & Policy Clinic has sent a 20-page letter to the U. S. Department of Agriculture urging the agency to adopt a labeling approach for cell-based meat and poultry products that does not overly restrict speech and that respects the First Amendment’s of manufacturers to call lab-grown meant as “meat”:
In February, the USDA announced that it likely will initiate rule-making, a lengthy public process for drafting new regulations, to address labeling cell-based (or “cultivated”) meat and poultry products. Under an agreement with the FDA, the USDA ultimately is responsible for overseeing the labeling of these products, but the specific manner in which the agency will regulate product labels and product names remains unknown. While these labeling regulations are still under development, our Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Clinic’s principle positions and requests are as follows: -The U.S. Department of Agriculture should not establish new standards of identity and should not ban the use of common or usual meat and poultry terms or product names specified in existing standards of identity (such as “beef”, “burger”, “chicken”, “sausage”, etc.). Such a ban likely violates the First Amendment and its commercial speech protections. -The U.S. Department of Agriculture should require disclosures or qualifying language on cell-based meat labels only when doing so is necessary to protect consumers from an increased food safety risk or material compositional difference. -Before requiring any such disclosures or qualifiers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service should: 1) wait until it has had the opportunity to determine the composition and safety of finished cell-based meat products; 2) review actual proposed labels; and then, 3) assess what, if any, specific labeling requirements are essential on a case-by-case basis to protect consumers from being misled. -The Harvard Animal Law & Policy Clinic further requests that the U.S. Department of Agriculture coordinate closely with the Food and Drug Administration as it develops its proposed cell-based meat labeling rules. “These technologies all deserve as fair a chance as any other new technologies, and these companies should not have their First Amendment Rights infringed upon,” said Kelley McGill JD ’20 who worked on the letter with Clinical Instructor Nicole Negowetti.
It is virtually guaranteed that Harvard has received millions of dollars in research grants from the companies standing to make billions off these fake meat products — but, as we know, those companies are merely exercising their ‘free speech’ by giving Harvard millions in payola.
Why, it’s downright un-American to not allow lab-grown meat to be called real meat — and why should consumer need to know if the meat was grown in a lab if they couldn’t tell the difference anyway?
Ignorance is bliss, after all.
We saw a similar battle when food manufacturers fought tooth and nail against labeling GMO products — claiming that such labeling would unfairly “discriminate” against their products.
Even though there is mounting evidence that GMO foods are dangerous to animals and humans, the labeling requirement will never change.
It would take years of humans eating lab-grown meat to find out it’s long-term heath risks — and, of course, no one will drop dead who eats in a short-term study, so it will be given its GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status by the regulators.
And so, the result will be that meat that is NOT grown in a lab will have labels stating, “Not cell-based product” or “Not lab-grown” or even more obscurely “No CBPs” or “No LGPs”.
In other words, lab-grown meats will eventually become the rule rather than the exception, just as GMO foods have become.
And consumers will be guilted into preferring lab-grown meat because it won’t cause bogus global warming the way real meat allegedly does.
And considering that much of the research and development for lab-grown meat is coming out of Israel, we can be assured that it will be enthusiastically endorsed by the mainstream media whores.


jewworldorder--2020-07-31--I Do Not Consent to Vaccination

I Do Not Consent to Vaccination

Dr. Rima explains how the medical mafia have introduced a “ death gene ” into vaccines .
The correct spelling @ @ @ @ @ it interesting that the word NAGA in the ancient eastern cultures means “ the fallen @ @ @ @ @ ” .
It is the linguistic equivalent of the Hebrew NACHASH , the serpent-seed being @ @ @ @ @ Garden .
The Book of Enoch states , “ Gadrel seduced Eve.
” Get the @ @ @ @ @ the link to the Advance Vaccine Directive Informed Non-Consent Tell everyone you know about EFR @ @ @ @ @ www.vaccinehoax.com

Dr. Rima explains how the medical mafia have introduced a “death gene” into vaccines.
[embedded content]
The correct spelling is n-a-g-a-l-e-s-e. I find it interesting that the word NAGA in the ancient eastern cultures means “the fallen ones” or “nephilim”. It is the linguistic equivalent of the Hebrew NACHASH, the serpent-seed being that seduced Eve in the Garden. The Book of Enoch states, “Gadrel seduced Eve.” Get the picture?
Here’s the link to the Advance Vaccine Directive Informed Non-Consent
Bill Gates of Hell, antichrist?
The real name of "the" Bill Gates is William Henry Gates III. Nowadays he is known as Bill Gates (III), where "III" means the order of third (3rd.) By converting the letters of his current name to the ASCII-values and adding his (III), you get the following: B 66 I 73 L 76 L 76 G 71 A 65 T 84 E 69 S 83 + 3 -------------- 666 !! Some might ask, "How did Bill Gates get so powerful?" Coincidence? Or just the beginning of mankind's ultimate and total enslavement??? YOU decide! Before you decide, consider the following: M S - D O S 6 . 2 1 77+83+45+68+79+83+32+54+46+50+49 = 666 W I N D O W S 9 5 87+73+78+68+79+87+83+57+53+1 = 666 Coincidence? I think not >http://www.netscape.com/people/nathan/
Tell everyone you know about EFR and our sister site: www.vaccinehoax.com


jewworldorder--2020-07-31--ACH (1310) Pastor Eli James – The Testimony Of The Prisoners #5 – Another Look At David Goldberg’s F

In today ’ s show originally broadcast on July 31 2020 , Andy is joined by Pastor Eli James on , “ The Testimony Of The Prisoners , ” for a show entitled , “ Another Look At David Goldberg ’ s Final Words.
” We discussed : the unidentified troops recently sent in to Portland and Seattle to round people up , and how this could be another element of , “ David Goldberg ’ s Final Words , ” being beta tested ; the reason Donald Trump had to proclaim himself the King Of Israel ; Rabbi Stephen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call it Communism , but I call it Judaism , ” that he made when he was Chief Rabbi of the United States ; how the current lockdowns look like a beta test of the real lockdowns coming up later this year , which again would go along with David Goldberg ’ s prediction that this would happen in the Winter of 2020/21 ; and many other topics .
PLEASE WRITE LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO PRISONERS WHO ARE IN JAIL FOR SIMPLY EXERCISING THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH : Click Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Political Prisoners Along With Their Addresses If You Would Like To Support Pastor Eli ’ s Prison Ministry Which Provides Bibles And Biblical Study Tools To Inmates In American Prisons , Please Send A Check , Cash , Or Money Order To : Please Make Checks Payable To ANP , AND BE SURE TO INCLUDE A NOTE TO SAY THAT THIS IS FOR THE PRISON MINISTRY .
Click Here For The Full Version Of David Goldberg ’ s Final Words Click Here For The Head Of The Snake BitChute Video That We Played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here For The EuroFolkRadio Website

ACH (1310) Pastor Eli James – The Testimony Of The Prisoners #5 – Another Look At David Goldberg’s Final Words
THE ACH SHOW
In today’s show originally broadcast on July 31 2020, Andy is joined by Pastor Eli James on, “The Testimony Of The Prisoners,” for a show entitled, “Another Look At David Goldberg’s Final Words.”
We discussed: the unidentified troops recently sent in to Portland and Seattle to round people up, and how this could be another element of, “David Goldberg’s Final Words,” being beta tested; the reason Donald Trump had to proclaim himself the King Of Israel; Rabbi Stephen Wise’s comment, “Some call it Communism, but I call it Judaism,” that he made when he was Chief Rabbi of the United States; how the current lockdowns look like a beta test of the real lockdowns coming up later this year, which again would go along with David Goldberg’s prediction that this would happen in the Winter of 2020/21; and many other topics.
PLEASE WRITE LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO PRISONERS WHO ARE IN JAIL FOR SIMPLY EXERCISING THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH:
GERMANY
Alfred Schaefer, Hindenburgring 12, 86899 Landsberg am Lech, GERMANY
Sylvia Stolz, JVA Aichach, Münchener Str. 33, 86551 Aichach, GERMANY
Horst Mahler, JVA Brandenburg a. d. Havel, z.Hdn. Horst Mahler, Anton-Saefkow-Allee 22, 14772 Brandenburg a. d. Havel, GERMANY
Ursula Haverbeck, JVA Bielefeld-Brackwede, z. Hd. Ursula Haverbeck, Umlostraße 100, 33649 Bielefeld, GERMANY
UNITED KINGDOM
Mikka Vehvilainen A6798EA, HMP Belmarsh, Western Way, Thamesmead, London, SE28 OEB, UNITED KINGDOM
Lawrence Burns, HMP Peterborough, Cambridgshire, PE3 7PD, UNITED KINGDOM
U.S.A.
Matthew F. Hale 15177-424, USP Florence ADMAX, U.S. Penitentiary, P.O. Box 8500, Florence, CO 81226, U.S.A.
Click Here For An Extensive List Of Other U.S.A Political Prisoners Along With Their Addresses
If You Would Like To Support Pastor Eli’s Prison Ministry Which Provides Bibles And Biblical Study Tools To Inmates In American Prisons, Please Send A Check, Cash, Or Money Order To:
PO Box 411373, Chicago, Illinois, 60641, U.S.A.
Please Make Checks Payable To ANP, AND BE SURE TO INCLUDE A NOTE TO SAY THAT THIS IS FOR THE PRISON MINISTRY.
Click Here For The Full Version Of David Goldberg’s Final Words
Click Here For The Head Of The Snake BitChute Video That We Played An Extract From On The Show
Click Here For Pastor Eli’s Ministry
Click Here For Pastor Andrew’s Ministry
Click Here For The EuroFolkRadio Website


Australian Government’s Pedophiles

Why did Jewish John Howard Prime Minister slap a 90 year suppression order on high public profile offenders , identified @ @ @ @ @ Royal Commission .
The S.A Mulligan Report also has an 80 year suppression order on @ @ @ @ @ offenders .
Listen to these videos below describing Kim Beazley and Paul Keating the necrophiliacs @

Australian Government’s Pedophiles
Australia’s VIP Jewish blood libel & Child Sacrifices.
Australian Government’s Jewish blood libel & Child Sacrifices
Why did Jewish John Howard Prime Minister slap a 90 year suppression order on high public profile offenders, identified in the $13.5m Wood Royal Commission.
The S.A Mulligan Report also has an 80 year suppression order on identities of high public profile offenders .
Listen to these videos below describing Kim Beazley and Paul Keating the necrophiliacs.