Shall Not Be and Shall Make No Law: Either It Says What It Says Or We Have No Rights

This has been sitting in the fridge waiting to be prepared for a while now.  I'm at a point where I'm really looking at the court system and by extension the "justice system" [sic] as irreparably broken. There needs ot be an exterminator who takes out judges from top to bottom. Take out AGs who are either not doing their jobs or purposely targetting people for political reasons. Police, including commanders at all levels need to be purged. Not only that, but there needs to be a mass review of laws on the books and those found to be in clear violation of the US Constitution need to be nullified completely. None of this waiting for a person "with standing" and then all the lawyering that takes years while the unconstitutional laws are in effect. What's gotten my ire up? Read on.

First we had this opinion by SCOTUS: 

First, government regulations are not neutral and gener- ally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any compa- rable secular activity more favorably than religious exer- cise. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3–4). It is no answer that a State treats some comparable secular businesses or other activities as poorly as or even less fa- vorably than the religious exercise at issue. Id., at ___–___ (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2–3).

No. FIRST:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof 

We're done here. None of this "strict scrutiny" bullshit. People exercising their religion? Yes? Then the state can get bent.  And mind you this constitutional guarantee was created by civilized people who didn't engage in human sacrifice so none of that BS here.

Second, whether two activities are comparable for pur- poses of the Free Exercise Clause must be judged against the asserted government interest that justifies the regula- tion at issue. Id., at ___ (per curiam) (slip op., at 3) (describ- ing secular activities treated more favorably than religious worship that either “have contributed to the spread of COVID–19” or “could” have presented similar risks). Com- parability is concerned with the risks various activities pose, not the reasons why people gather.

This "government interest" thing needs to go as well. There is no exception in the constitution for "government interest" it says "shall make no law". Period. The founders weren't stupid. If they wanted to allow "government interest" they would have said so.  The only "government interest" are laws passed by the legislature via the people's representatives. Not the CDC, FDA or governors dictats.

On a good note:

Fourth, even if the government withdraws or modifies a COVID restriction in the course of litigation, that does not necessarily moot the case. And so long as a case is not moot, litigants otherwise entitled to emergency injunctive relief remain entitled to such relief where the applicants “remain under a constant threat” that government officials will use their power to reinstate the challenged restrictions.

This is a tactic that I (and others) have discussed where these states (and even the fed) try to avoid precedent producing decisions by withdrawing unconstitutional "laws", which are actually regulations created by bodies with no legislative powers whatsoever, before the court can rule.  This tactic has been often used by the state of NY which we'll get to later.

Now back to the nonsense. Here's Kagen, Sotomayor and Breyer:

I would deny the application largely for the reasons stated in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ (2021) (KAGAN, J., dissenting). The First Amendment requires that a State treat religious conduct as well as the State treats comparable secular conduct. 

No that's not what the First Amendment requires. It says "Shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's what it says. Y'all just put some fancy bullshit around it to justify the infringements of these rights by the state by declaring some "State interest" policy.

California limits religious gath- erings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment.

Both the "restrictions on gatherings in private homes and religious gatherings are unlawful. Period and full stop. That we have judges at multiple levels of the court system who do not understand this basic principle of American life and culture is a problem that needs to be addressed. 

So lets go to NYS. NYS has a blatantly unconstitutional law that prohibits carrying a gun. 

Again from the supreme legal document of the land:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Bear arms means carrying that shit around. 

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. You can not only keep, as in possess, but you can walk around with your gun. No need for "strict scrutiny" or any of that garbage. It says what it says.  Let's  look at this case:

For the first time in more than a decade, the United States Supreme Court will be reviewing a Second Amendment case that could change the landscape when it comes to gun right laws in this country.  On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a law in New York that sets extremely stringent limits on who can carry a gun outside of the home.

"sets extremely stringent limits on who can carry a gun outside of the home."

How did this get this far without being struck down. The very first judge that heard this should have said "shall not be infringed" and decided in favour of the plaintiffs.  Not only that, there is no reason whatsoever to "hear arguments". The constitution says what it says: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This law is a blatant infringement. We're done here.

Everyone involved with creating and enforcing this law should be liable for civil rights violations. Personally with no limits on damages. The only way these laws and "regulations" stop being produced is when the people making them have to deal with the consequences personally.

New York imposes some of the strictest gun laws in the country. It requires New Yorkers applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun in public to show they have “proper cause,” or in other words, a special need for self-protection.

This is that 'state interest" BS. There is no "proper cause" exception in the Second Amendment. This is made up BS created to enable the state to bypass restrictions imposed upon it.

“We look forward to presenting the state’s arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court and to showing how New York’s laws protect public safety in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment,” James said.  

First, there is no "public safety" exception in the Second Amendment. Secondly, we can all see now that the state is using this concept of "public safety" as a means to grab power and disenfranchise the citizens.  This must be stopped completely.

The stakes here are far larger than whether you can carry a gun, concealed or not. This case along with the California case is about whether the rights we have and that the states or clearly prohibited from infringing upon actually exist. If the plain and clear reading of the supreme document of the land cannot prevail in these cases then YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.  And that goes FAR beyond bladed weapons and firearms.

Follow Up On India

 In my last post I discussed the possibility of air pollution, specifically airborne feces as the or major contributor to it's recent increase in cases and deaths. This morning I read a piece that may support that hypotheses.

Thirdly, Delhi, the focus of the media’s messaging, and the source of many of the media’s horrifying scenes of suffering, has the most toxic air in the world which often leads to the city having to close down due to the widespread effects on respiratory health [4, 5, 6]. This even led to Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul having to flee the city in November 2020 until the air quality improved [7].

Well that doesn't sound good.

I also discussed the use of Ivermectin. I had thought that India WAS using Ivermectin but was lead to believe that they had not been. That was incorrect. India WAS (and parts may still be) using Ivermectin but it appears that they may have dropped it. If they have not the rise in cases seems to coincide with the use of "vaccines".

I will leave you the reader to ponder the data.

What's Going On In India?

 So India is apparently in the midst of a huge Wuhan virus spike. They have deaths currently at just under 1% of cases

You'll note that they are in the second wave which just about every country has gone through so this is not an unexpected phenomenon. But the slope of this second wave is very peculiar relative to the first wave.  In many countries the second spike had a far more gentler slope rather than this vertical one.  So what's different here?

I was most concerned because I thought that India was using Ivermectin on a mass scale. It turns out they are not, at least officially. If they were using it and this kind of spike was occurring it would mean that  this virus variant was unaffected by Ivermectin which would be a big deal. We already know that HCQ is not effective past the early stages so even if they were using it, those who waited too long would not be helped much. 

But what is responsible for this spike? My guess is the fecal matter in the air.

Toilets and poop aren’t often subjects of discussion, or blogs for that matter, but they are major global issues. India is the country that has the largest amount of people who don’t use toilets – and all that poop is causing some very serious problems. Something big is about to change in India – UNICEF is working to spark a new social movement for toilets, and it’s going to make a big splash

When people don’t use toilets, kids are exposed to poop in their environment, and they can pick up diseases like diarrhoea, which kills almost 400 children under five in India every day.

Another source:

 More people in India practice open defecation (44%) than use toilets connected to adequate waste management systems (40%). That’s more than half a billion people defecating in the open, oftentimes in festering pits that leach into sources of water. This leads to countless forms of disease, which impacts a person’s ability to grow, do their job, or go to school.

 In rural India, however, there is another dimension: behavior. Many people in villages simply prefer open defecation, and so any comprehensive attempt to end this dangerous practice has to be supplemented with an educational campaign that directly links health problems to bad sanitation. A 2014 study found that a large proportion of village households with toilets continued to openly defecate because it was “pleasurable, comfortable, or convenient.”

Why could this be a problem? Well it is known that the Wuhan virus often sheds in feces. As a matter of fact many outbreaks are discovered because the virus shows up in the sewage systems.  It has already been shown that people who have had no contact whatsoever but who live in the same building as someone shedding Wuhan in their feces, ends up getting sick because the contaminated air gets into their apartments by traveling up the main line.

Now imagine living in a country where there is no "sewage system" and feces is out in the open. All that feces, some laden with the Wuhan virus freely releasing the virus in the air.

Of course this is a theory. One could legitimately ask why, if this theory is correct, did the first wave not look like this current one. Legit question. I would suggest that the actual case and death counts in the first wave are not accurate. Just as how in the "west" by the time they figured out what was going on, many millions had already been infected, I think there was a great under count in wave one. Now with more widespread awareness and testing, you're catching more infections. And yet there are many claims that these numbers are not accurate (under).

Juror Confirms Ghost Hypothesis

In my last post on the Chauvin trial I pointed out why I think the jury rendered a guilty verdicts, though I continue to think the murder one was wrong. Yesterday I saw a report on an alternate juror that provides evidence supporting my reasoning. 

Let's look at some of the statements:

Raguse: Why?

Christensen: I think the prosecution did a good presentation of their case. Dr. (Martin) Tobin was the one I really related to. I feel like all the doctors in one way or another said the same thing.

I said that the state presented a very strong argument. It was logical and importantly did so in a visual manner that was easy to follow.  A lot of the people I see who are upset about the outcome clearly did not watch the trial or were so biased by their own belief that they could not understand just how strong a case the state made.

Raguse: Do you think that Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd’s death?

Christensen: I feel like the kneeling on the neck for so long did, yes.

Raguse: You heard a lot of testimony about use of force, was the force reasonable and did the knee cause Floyd’s death. Did it seem like those were the major questions that were presented to you? 

Christensen: Yes, we heard a lot about the use of force, was it excessive, was it necessary, when do police officers stop it, and could it have been stopped at one point. I kept thinking about the critical decision-making model that was presented. It was in the back of my mind about how they said you must reassess constantly, and I felt like that was not done.

Raguse: Which witness convinced you that it was an unreasonable use of force?

Christensen: I thought (LAPD sergeant) Jody Stiger, the prosecution expert, did a good job of explaining it to us.

Raguse: Was it meaningful to you to have Minneapolis police officers testify against Chauvin? 

Christensen: It was. Some of the trainers said, “I don’t even know what that is, we don’t train like that.” That was helpful to hear because they said they can use force, but it did not seem like they could use that type of force. 

This point about when to stop is important. That Chauvin continued to lean on Floyd after he was non-responsive played a HUGE role in this case. And this was shown to the jury multiple times.

Raguse: When it came to the medical testimony, what was it about Dr. Tobin that was so impactful on you?

Christensen: He broke it down to where we could understand it. He had us demonstrate. We were all in the jury touching our necks and we could feel what he was trying to make us feel. What really did it was when he said, "right here at this point was when he (George Floyd) had that seizure and this is where he died."

Again, I mentioned that this guy's testimony was the most important of the case. He laid out a clear theory on how the death occurred and this jurors discussion on touching their own necks makes this point that much more strong.  This is why I said that the defense needed to have a live demo of a guy of Floyd's build take a knee to the back and neck for 9 minutes (or however long it took for Floyd to pass out). The jury needed to SEE that Floyd would have survived. The defense provided no such demo.

Raguse: What was the key evidence in your opinion?

Christensen: The testimony by the experts, the forensics, and all the perspectives from the different videos. I think it would have been harder to understand exactly what happened, but the videos are what really nailed it.

How many times did I mention the impact of the video?

Raguse: Were you left with any lingering questions?

Christensen: At the very end, when no one really thought about the carbon monoxide issue. I was wondering why it was thrown in at the last minute. I did not know why they did not bring it up sooner if they were going to talk about it. Plus, nobody could say if the squad car was on or off. 

I told you it was an EPIC mistake to mention the carbon monoxide at the end of the trial.  It looked desperate and the jury thought so as well. The last thing you want your client to look like is desperate.

This is why I think that despite the riots and stuff that there will be no successful appeal, except perhaps the murder charge. I have access to more information than the jury had (or would have had) even if they were sequestered and I can see Chauvin being convicted. 

The only way I see an appeal winning is if they can produce at least one juror who was going to acquit Chauvin but voted guilty due to the riots or potential threats to his or her life or property. If a juror comes out, on record saying this then I would absolutely expect the convictions to be thrown out

 https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18

The Chauvin Trial: Epilogue

 So the verdict went mostly as I expected it to go. I didn't expect murder charges to stick and that may change on appeal. If that was it I'd have nothing to post on. However; this post is really about those, particularly on the right who are apparently shocked at the outcome. Apparently, they thought that Chauvin would be found not guilty on all charges. I don't know what trial they were watching but there is no way you could have watched the proceedings and think acquittal across the board.

One reason I think these individuals thought Chauvin was going to get off was that in general the general differences in attitudes towards criminals and criminal behavior in white America vs that in black America. Generally speaking, white Americans are not very sympathetic to their criminal class. Whites as a group commit very few violent crimes relative to whites and thus are far less likely to not only HAVE a criminal in the family but are also far less likely to actually KNOW a criminal personally. This allows that community to have a "well if you involve yourself in criminal activity then what happens to you is your fault" attitude towards crime.  Hence if you die during the commission of or resisting arrest due to committing a crime it's YOUR fault and responsibility due to decisions you made.

This is the gist of the commentary I've seen on the [white] right. Mind you this used to be THE attitude across America left OR right as recently as perhaps the early to mid-80s. When we look at the Chauvin trial from this lens you can understand why they thought Chauvin should be let off. Chauvin was enforcing the law. Floyd was allegedly engaged not only in criminal behavior (possibly knowingly passing along fake currency) but had consumed illegal controlled substances and was resisting police. Had he NOT passed the fake bill and had cooperated with the police, he may have actually gone home since it is entirely possible that he did not know he had been passed a fake bill. In the end, in this view, Floyd died due to Floyd's decisions.

While one may agree with this argument it isn't a legal standard.

The other argument in favor of Chauvin was that the mobs of people had undermined the process and the jurors were not only intimidated by the threat of more violence should they not give the "right" verdict but they also were affected by a member of congress commentary.

I'm not totally dismissive of these concerns. I think we've seen enough press and ANTIFA activities which have included doxxing people to think that would be a concern. How much, I cannot say. That all said, I don't think it matters because the state made a strong argument AND the defense made an epic own-goal.

The state's argument was that Chauvin's knee was THE factor, not A factor, in Floyd's death. They repeatedly showed the video of Chauvin and his knee on Floyd. I said earlier that it would be a huge ask to  think the jury was going to ignore the thing they saw multiple times for a theory they have to imagine in their heads. But this was made worse by the defense.

I didn't actually catch it when they first made the argument but I did catch it in the closing arguments. The defense said that Floyd had a prior run-in with police. He was apparently taken to the hospital where he had a VERY high blood pressure reading. My understanding was that he was in bad shape. 

And yet he lived.

I think the defense thought that by presenting that encounter that the jury would conclude that Floyd "got lucky" that time and that THIS time the drugs got the better of his system. However; they either didn't realize or calculated a small risk that the jury could ALSO use that prior incident of proof that had Chauvin not put his knee on Floyd that Floyd would be alive.

I would put cold hard cash..well given the money printer is going "brrrrrrr" at the moment, I'll put up gold that the jury came to the latter conclusion.

And thus the jury came to a reasonable conclusion (even if I think the murder charge remains unproven). I don't think an appeal will change any charge that involves negligence. I don't see arguments about mob violence and congresspersons  having an effect because as I understand it, such an argument would have to show that the jury would come to a different decision absent these things and as I've laid out, that would not be the case.

So for those on the right who are shell shocked about the verdict I suggest self-reflection. It is likely your own biases and emotions are blocking clear thinking on this subject.

The Chauvin Trial: I Think He's Getting Convicted

 After the many days of prosecution witnesses, I was surprised at how brief the defense's case was. Mind you the state had the burden of proof so one would expect them to have to go through more pains to make their case. That said, I think there is a high likelihood that the jury will find against Chauvin but NOT for intentional murder.

Please note that if you watched the trial on YouTube or elsewhere you got to see and hear stuff that the jury did not. Therefore the conclusion you would come to is likely to be different than what the jury would come to because they are looking at a different set of information. With this in mind let me explain why I think Chauvin is likely to be headed to the big house.

Firstly the jury was shown video of George Floyd dying under Chauvin's knee. 

Repeatedly.

I cannot understate the impact that this visual stimuli has on the mind. The state made a clear argument that the cause of death was a result of Chauvin's knee on Floyd's back. That argument was re-enforced by the constant repetition of the video of Chauvin knee on Floyd's back. In essence, the jury was being asked by the state to believe their eyes. That's not a hard ask.

The defense needed to plant reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. The defense could NOT talk away the video of Chauvin's knee to the back of Floyd. Instead, they had to ask the jury to believe in something they could not see This IS a hard ask.

They were being asked to disregard what they saw with their own eyes.

Repeatedly.

And to instead imagine that Floyd's heart was bad and that he would have died regardless of Chauvin's knee. Because that is what would be required for the jury to decline to convict on all counts.

Based on what I think the jury saw and the testimony given, I don't think the jury will clear Chauvin across the board. I think a reasonable and fair jury can believe that even in Floyd had these conditions the act of holding him to the ground played a significant role in Floyd's death, particularly IF they also believe the evidence showing that they suspected that he had ingested drugs.

In an earlier post on the trial I mentioned that what would have definitely won Chauvin would have been a live demonstration of someone healthy being held down in the same manner for the same amount of time who doesn't die.  A study was introduced, I believe by the prosecution of healthy males subjected to having plate weights placed on their backs. But plate weights are not knees with the ability of "pinpoint" pressure.

After all, if your claim is that the knee had no impact on the death of Floyd, then anyone, particularly other police who use the tactic, should be willing to subject themselves to it. Heck, Chauvin should have subjected himself to it. If he doesn't quit then you must acquit.

I also think that the defense made a HUGE mistake in introducing a carbon monoxide argument. First of all the old adage applies that you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.  Unless they had a report that showed that Floyd had low Oxygen or high CO concentration. They should have never even brought it up. If I'm a juror, I'd be inclined to ask what else have they not done their prep work on.

Also working against the defense was the fact that Hall not only did not testify but that the transcript of his interrogation in Texas was not put into evidence.  This is important because his statements, in conjunction with the female passenger would have gone to contradict the state's position that the Fentanyl had no impact on Floyd's ability to survive the encounter.  Also, from what I saw I did not see an explainer as to how a person high on Fentanyl goes from near comatose at the wheel to as active as Floyd was. I may have missed the testimony and if so I'll stand corrected.

The things on Chauvin's side would be the supreme court ruling cited by the defense in regards to Monday Morning Quarterbacking.  Such behaviour is not grounds for convictions of police officers and there was a lot of MMQ by the state witnesses.

Secondly, I think that the defense successfully removed "intent" from the table and without intent some of the charges simply do not stand.

With those two items out of the way, I still say it is a tall ask to expect the jury to put aside the numerous times they saw Floyd die under Chauvin's knee AND to see Chauvin's knee continue to be on him after he was non-responsive.  Hence why I think Chauvin is going to jail.

In Defense Of Patrisse Cullors

 Apparently Patrisse Cullors, the "trained Marxist" leader of Black Lives Matter Inc. has gotten paid quite a bit. People are mad. I'm not. Why?

See, I knew BLM was a fraud when the facts of the Michael Brown shooting occurred. It was then compounded when this chick said that black on black crime is not a real thing. But still y'all (you know who you are) supported that bullshit so why shouldn't she get paid?

Evervybody else gets paid. Blue Vest Deray got paid and a position at Princeton. I've been writing on black issues here since 2003 not a single Ivy League university has so much as looked up my e-mail address. Perhaps if I get more black people killed they would want to know who I am.

Colleges and universities are getting paid to teach "social justice". If these professors can be paid to run the scam why can't Patrisse? 

I can't walk around without seeing a "black lives matter" face mask on somebody's face. If these folks can get paid why can't Patrisse?

Look, back in the day the NAACP had the sense to make sure that whoever they went to bat for had impeccable credentials. Do you think Rosa Parks was the first person to refuse to get up out her seat? You think Jackie Robinson was the first AND BEST black baseball player?

No. They had impeccable character so that the issue would always be what was done TO them. But now these so called leaders jump up for every crook who passes a paper bag test. 

So everything is backwards now and y'all (you know who you are) support that BS. Again, Tim Wise gets paid to promote black victimology. Robin DeAngelo gets paid to promote not only black victimology but these crackers get away with making children out of grown ass black people. How? Because they teach that black people have no agency or responsibility for their behavior.

Witness the current "Asian hate crimes" hysteria where it is known that the vast majority of these attacks have been at the hands, mouths and feet of black people and yet these clear racial hate incidents are blamed on...

White people.

Just like how these so called "throw back to Jim Crow" voter laws are being said to disenfranchise blacks because apparently black people are incapable of getting, renewing or changing their ID cards before the cut off date for registration and/or voting.

So yeah, since everybody can get in and get paid off black victimization and infantilization  then Patrisse Cullors should be able to as well.

And if you don't like it then stop financially supporting Black Lives Matter Inc (which has a lot of front organizations as well as BEING a front organization itself) and financially supporting those who are NOT profiting off of black victim and infant mentalities.

Responding to Officer Tatum's Analysis

 You can watch Officer Tatum's analysis of the encounter with Nazario below:

I think he makes some good points and I'll address those in a second. If you read my post yesterday you know I came down hard on the police and I still think they were overboard. Even with the video of the guy with the AR who shot a responding officer.

My point is about the "he drove a mile before stopping". As I said before I think that is a lame excuse as I have had police pull the "I don't recognize the temp tag" excuse on me before.  But I think his issue with the distance driven is out of order. I can run 1 mile in about 6 minutes provided I don't have to do anything  else for the rest of the day. A vehicle traveling 60 MPH will cover the distance in 1 minute. A Cyclist at 23 MPH, which is quite fast will cover that distance in about 3 minutes. We do not know how fast Nazario was traveling but given the average "in town" speed limit is 35 MPH, he was driving with the cruiser behind him for 2 minutes. But let me tell you a story.

Many years ago I was driving through South Carolina. I was doing about 85 MPH. Apparently I passed a police cruiser on the side of the highway who decided to pull me over. Well. I didn't see his lights or hear his siren. I don't know how long he had been following me but when I finally saw his lights I pulled over. He approached my vehicle and asked me if I knew how long he had been behind me. No guns drawn. No shouty orders to get out the car. In the south. White police officer too. 

You would think that under those circumstances where I was booking at near 90MPH with a police car with flashing lights behind me, he would have had every reason to do a "felony stop".  But he did not.

So no, I don't buy the "he continued to drive for a mile" as a valid excuse for the level up. Nor do I consider the tag issue since I see tags in all kinds of places ALL THE TIME. And I regularly travel the roads.

Go watch some videos on VINWIKI on YouTube. They have all kinds of stories. These officers were over the top. Period. Particuarly since the offenses were not violent felonies and they did not have a report OR witness a felony involving the vehicle.

That said, I agree with officer Tatum that Nazario was not being cooperative and seemingly had a social justice martyr complex. Most importantly though is what happened at the end of the video. If you didn't watch to the end, go back and do so. That, IMO changes my overall view of the encounter. Yes, I still think they over-responded to the incident. I do agree that they took it down and gave the guy a break given that yes, as a fed, he faces double jeopardy if he gets written up.

So I'll take yesterdays commentary which was a 10 on the outrage scale and bring it down to a 5.

Chauvin Trial: Ever-Givening The Defense

If you watch the Tour de France on the telly then you know that they have a thing called the virtual yellow jersey. This indicates the person who at that moment in time in the race, if it were stopped at that moment would be the winner of the yellow jersey for the day (or the race depending on circumstances). This person usually NOT the actual race leader by the end of the stage because most times the "actual" leader gains enough time back to "restore" his lead. But the hand over does happen often enough that tracking the virtual leader is interesting and something to note.

Similarly in a criminal trial we can think of each day as a stage race. There are days where the prosecution will make a stronger "case" than the defense and depending on the circumstances, the defense makes a stronger case than the state. If I were to hand the virtual yellow jersey to a team as of today, it would be to the prosecution. This makes sense because they get to go first and their witnesses will be hostile to the defense. As I mentioned in my last posting, I think the state has made it's argument clear, though not necessarily "reasonable doubt" proof. They contend that Floyd died due to positional asphyxiation caused by Chauvin's "excessive use of force". Their argument is underscored by claims made by various experts that Fentanyl, to the extent that it affected Floyd would not allow him to be "excitable" and thus the resistant behavior of Floyd as seen by the various videos is proof that the drugs had no bearing on his death. I want to emphasize this point because it goes to the point of this post.

More than one time did an expert for the state state that Fentanyl causes a person to fall asleep and that the slowdown in respiration and heartrate is what leads to death.  

Today during the morning proceedings the defense was asking the judge to allow Mr Hall's testimony to be entered into the record via the federal agent who interrogated him in Texas where he had fled to. Mr. Hall who was with Floyd on the day of his death made statements to the agent that, from the statements of the defense attorney go directly to Chauvin's defense in that he is said to have indicated that Floyd had fallen asleep at the wheel of the vehicle to the extent that they, Hall and the female companion, were concerned for their safety had Floyd actually driven.

This is important because IF it can be shown that Floyd had taken Fentanyl (among other things) that caused his body to start shutting down, then it would show that Floyd was well on his way to dying regardless of what Chauvin did to him. It would underscore why Floyd was stating that he couldn't breath prior to being placed on the ground. His apparent "spike" in behavior may have been a temporary effect of the "excitement" of being arrested or something else that I am unaware of. But once he calmed down, or the adrenaline wore off, he continued his inevitable slide to the "great beyond".

Hall is in a position to provide that information. The state apparently knows this and has decided to block Hall from testifying. Hall's testimony has the potential to blow many reasonable doubt holes into the state's case. The state could and should grant Hall immunity so that he can testify without having to take the 5th, which is his right.

Now the Jury doesn't know about this. I'm not even sure if they know that Hall has invoked a blanket 5th amendment stand., If he doesn't testify and his  statement given to the FBI agent is not put into the record and presented to the jury, I would think it would be grounds for appeal should Chauvin be found guilty.

I don't think the Judge can force the state to grant Hall immunity. I definitely know that the judge cannot force Hall to not "plead the 5th". Since defense has made it clear that Hall's testimony establishes an, if not THE important lines of defense for Chauvin, I believe the judge will allow some if not all of his testimony to the agent to be entered into record.

Ye Olde "License Plate" Trick

[ Follow up post here: https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2021/04/responding-to-officer-tatums-analysis.html ] 

Those of us who are not on the ACAB (look it up) camp must be prepared to condemn out of control police whenever they are violating the rights of people. And as much as I've made a point to point out when "suspects" are responsible for the bad outcomes they end up in, I'm totally prepared to call out bad policing.

Over the weekend I heard about lieutenant Nazario's situation and watched the video. Complete assery on the part of the police and I hope the officers involved are personally bankrupted for their actions. If you are unfamiliar with the story you can find it here:

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/11/986271819/officer-who-handcuffed-and-pepper-sprayed-black-army-lieutenant-is-fired

I was wondering what had the officers in such a state of alarm. That they claimed there was a "traffic violation" as a pretense to get a suspect out of a vehicle IS something that happens. The reason being this: Say a suspect in a homicide is seen on the road. You pull him over BECAUSE he is a suspect in a homicide but you don't want him to know that because he may become aggressive and try to drive off or kill the officer. So what they do is make up a minor "incident" story that tricks the person into thinking that they are likely to "get away" with a warning or something. This increases the likelyhood that they will cooperate. Once out of the vehicle they are informed they are being arrested due to whatever.

So with that in mind I wanted to know why they had guns out. Then I read this:

In a report filed on the night of the incident, Gutierrez says they were treating it as a "high risk traffic stop" because Nazario's vehicle had no tag displayed, he took a long time to stop, and he had "extremely dark" window tint.

Been there and done that.

Many many years ago I was stopped on the NJ Turnpike while I had temporary plates on my vehicle. Two state troopers pulled me over for speeding (I was) while letting a blue Miata (driven by a white guy) in front of me (so was ALSO speeding and going faster than me) go. While one trooper had his gun on me the other wanted to search my vehicle. Again, for "speeding". Did I mention the average speed on that section of the turnpike was 80MPH? Yeah. OK. So there wasn't any probable cause or reasonable suspicion to conduct a search but whatever. The reason he gave? He didn't recognize the temporary plate. 

Sure. Mr. Proffessional law enforcement doesn't recognize a temp tag.

Sure.

The second thing is that Nazario did not immediately pull over. I don't know the exact details but again, this is NOT a sign of a problem unless Nazario was maneuvering to evade the police.

Again, been there and done that.

In South Carolina I was stopped by a police officer. I'm going to guess speeding since it was one of those places where the speed limit drops dramatically because you're entering a town. In any case, it was dark and I had no intention of being pulled over in a spot with low visibility. So I put on my blinkers and kept going until I got to a lit, public location.

No guns drawn. Nothing but a warning and the hassle.

A person not immediately pulling over, particularly at night is not necessarily a risk.  It is actually safer for ALL involved for the person to get to a lit location as Nazario did.

Nazario did nothing wrong. He is right that for a traffic violation there is absolutely no need or requirement to get out of his vehicle. The tint and perhaps the unseen tag was a civil offense at best. License, registration, insurance and have a nice day.

Lastly here's a note to you officers. Keep fucking around with the law abiding citizens. Keep enforcing clearly unconstitutional "orders" from governors and presidents and ANTIFA and sovereign citizen types will not be the only groups of people you're going to have to worry about.

So We Were Right. Again. Covid and T-Cells

 So last year at the beginning of the lockdowns many of us noted that people exposed to other corona viruses like the approximately 30% that make up the "common cold" would likely have T-Cell cross-reactivity to Covid-19. Therefore; it was a bad idea to depend on the presence of anti-bodies to determine whether someone was currently immune from C-19 and that anti-bodies should not be the be all and end all of "ending the pandemic".

The usual suspects did everything they could to dismiss these notions. I was personally called all manner of bad things for making such an argument. Of course those dismissing this claim could NOT explain why Japan had seen so many people with T-cell responses to C-19 even though they had not been infected. But you know, no need to answer questions when you're "on the right side of history" and not an "anti-vax conspiracy theorist".

Nearly a year later:

Unexposed what?

"In 14/33 (42.4%) unexposed donors and 85/87 (97.7%) COVID-19 convalescent subjects a positive result for at least one SARS-CoV-2 antigen was observed."

More from the full text:

Studies reported highly activated T cells patients who experienced COVID-19 [8, 9, 10] and the documented presence of T-cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 antigens in unexposed subjects raise interesting question about cross-reactivity and cross-protection [11].

 Fourteen out of 33 (42.4%) unexposed donors showed a positive T cell response for at least one SARS-CoV-2 peptide pool. Of them 4/14 (28.6%) experienced a proven HCoV infection in the past while no information was available for the other 10 subjects. Seven out of 33 (21.2%) were positive for spike-specific T-cell response, 9/33 (27.3%) showed a positive response T-cell response against nucleoprotein peptide pool, 4/33 (12.2%) were positive for membrane –specific T-cell response and 4/33 (12.2%) for NS8; in 7/33 (21.2%) we observed a positive T-cell response against NS7B peptide pool and 3/33 (9.1%) were positive for whole SARS-CoV-2 lysate.

And:

We observed that SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response was detectable in more than 97% of convalescent COVID-19 positive subjects and in about 40% of unexposed donors sampled before the pandemic period, in agreement with previous observations [13-15]. The data obtained in healthy population could reflect the endemic circulation of common cold coronaviruses (HCoVs), since they account for about 20% of common cold cases and are ubiquitous [16,17]; thus, the possible cross-reactivity between HCoVs might be due to the recognition of conserved epitopes. According to this observation, it could be speculated that SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive T-cell response derived from previous infection with common cold HCoVs might contribute to the understanding of protection mechanisms or COVID-19 disease severity. It is widely known that humoral immune response to coronaviruses is variable and commonly short-lived while coronavirus-specific T-cell response might be more sustained and long-term detectable [6,18].

Despite 40 to 60% of unexposed individuals showed positive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response, less is known about its relevance in the clinical outcome of COVID-19 infected individual. In keeping with some authors, it could be speculated that the presence of cross-reactive T cells correlates with mild disease [19,20]. [My underlines]

Now those who have been following the blog should have had the underlined portion jump out at them because it was a part of a previous posting:

Our immune system develops typically something like five or six different types of antibodies to protect us from mutations that might happen while we are infected to make sure that even if there is a mutation in one of the epitopes, the targets of the antibodies, if there is a mutation, then there should be other antibodies that still are sufficient to prevent the virus from being replicated and from spreading.

 So right then. 

So not only were we correct about the cross reactivity due to exposure to other corona viruses but this analysis may support the idea that lockdowns have actually harmed the population by NOT exposing people to other, less lethal viruses that would have conferred a level of immunity, perhaps enough to prevent severe illness.

Not only that but it also provides evidence for the idea that the reason why the Asian countries are not seeing the levels of illness as other countries is NOT because of the masks or general sanitary habits of the people, but that they have been exposed to CVs so frequently that they are largely immune to this particular one.

So once again the MSM (and big tech) have been shown to be wrong. Do you still trust them?

Chauvin Trial: All In On Positional Asphyxiation

 I think the prosecution had a decent day today. If we go back about a year ago, the idea being floated was that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck and that lead to compression or blockage of the carotid arteries along the side of the next causing a drop in blood pressure and then brain death due to the extended time on the neck. However; the video showed that Chauvin's knee was not on the side of Floyd's neck for the vast majority of the time and was instead on the back of the neck or on the shoulder (left). This effectively eliminated carotid blockage by Chauvin as the proximate cause of death. Hence the state's case was to show that it was the restriction of the windpipe and the inability to expand the lungs that was THE cause of Floyd's death. I think their two witnesses did a decent job of making that case.

One of the more interesting portions was the chart explaining lung capacity and how it could be decreased by compression and restriction. It's a sound theory to me so long as the premises stand up. I'm not sure they do.

The largest problem with the witness testimony is that neither of the ones I saw were actual doctors FOR Floyd. They.came to conclusions based on after the fact reports and video. Why is this important? Well lets take aerobic capacity.  Anyone who has done MAF training knows that the same person can have greatly increased (ore reduced) aerobic capacity simply based on lifestyle.  Some people can climb stairs and barely raise their breathing rate and another person of the same build may have issues. Since everyone is different, unless you know THAT particular person's aerobic capacity you cannot make any assumptions about it.  This is why ethical doctors decline to make diagnoses where they do not know the patient.

The second thing I found particularly...reaching by the prosecution was the idea that Floyd was "pushing on the tire" of the patrol car with a finger to lift himself up to breath. It actually looks like Floyd is flailing.

In terms of the Fentanyl the state made an argument that I actually found interesting: Floyd had levels that were indicative of someone who did not meet the definition of DUI.  Now I'm no expert in drugs but I have an understanding that Fentanyl is many times more powerful than morphine. If I'm a juror and I'm "informed" that the drugs in Floyd's system don't even meet the DUI standard for impairment I am FAR more likely to convict Chauvin of at least negligent homicide because the ONLY thing left, at this point, would be Chauvin's knee.

This is why I think the prosecution had a good day.

The Fentanyl ball is in the defense court. To successfully maintain Chauvin's innocence they will need to show that the prosecution [grossly] understated the effects of the drugs in Floyd's system. From the closing questions of the day I suspect they intend to do that. 

One last point. I think the defense will have to address, pick apart, the asphyxiation argument. I personally think that for someone who could not breath he was making far too many loud statements. If he was that unable to breath he should not be making that many loud statements and that along with the energy he was burning moving around just doesn't sit right with me.

But again, the state's witnesses flat out claim that it was hypoxia brought on by Chauvin's knee that was the cause of death. So the defense has to address that.

Again, I give the day to the prosecution.

A Note On The Chauvin Trial

 Unlike the Sean Bell trial and the Zimmerman trial, I've not been doing daily posts on the subject. The major reason for that is that unlike Sean Bell and Trayvon Martin who were minding their own business before police or other individual made a situation, Floyd was a low life crook, high on drugs who made a series of bad decisions. Hence I don't have any of the sympathy for the "victim" as I had for the others.However; I am still interested in the subject because this trial will be a major test of the US criminal justice [sic] system and how this spring/summer is going to be. To that end I've been watching some of the live coverage and I saw something today that I think will be important to the jury and perhaps a flub by the defense.

There was this black guy, don't recall his name, from LA who was called as an expert in police procedure or something to that effect. There were two points that he made, or was made to make, that established a lot of reasonable doubt. Not necessarily in order:

1) That Chauvin's knee was at the "base of the neck". Now I have a post on the carotid artery that has been referenced by a lot of people.  The important part is this:

The carotid arteries are major blood vessels in the neck that supply blood to the brain, neck, and face. There are two carotid arteries, one on the right and one on the left. In the neck, each carotid artery branches into two divisions

Understand that these arteries are on the sides of the neck not the back/base of the neck (you'd have to see the referenced photo exhibit to see why I said "back/base".  Picture below:

 So the defense got multiple "experts" including the person I referenced to say that Chauvin's knee was NOT on Floyd's carotid artery and therefore could not have cut off oxygen to the brain OR caused a drop in blood pressure leading to death.

This is important so I'll repeat it: The Defense got the expert witnesses to state under oath that it was their professional opinion that Chauvin did NOT asphyxiate Floyd.

When you combine this with the ME report that there was no signs of trauma to the neck, the defense has established that Chauvin could not have killed Floyd even IF he had him down for "too long".

Now, my commentary on the ME report was before I saw the leaked body cam video which I linked to but has been removed from the linked location. When I saw the video I had noticed that Chauvin's knee was not where I thought it was (side of neck) but appeared to be higher up towards the shoulder area. Also that Floyd was able to repeatedly raise his chest off the ground  which also meant that his chest cavity was NOT under compression meaning that he could in fact "breath".

Then why was he saying he couldn't breath? Well he started saying that before he was put on the ground. I believe it was the drugs he had taken beginning to affect his body. Remember, he had a fatal dose in his system at the time. He was in fact dying before Chauvin even got there.

So there's that.

The second thing that this guy established was that putting Floyd on the ground and restraining him was appropriate force. No, he didn't say that outright. What he said was that once a suspect is in cuffs, the officer(s) should roll him over, sit him up or otherwise not apply force. However; he also said that the totality of the circumstances is the ultimate arbiter of decision making.  So going back to the video we know that Floyd had been cuffed before. We was compliant and THEN became uncompliant when the officers tried to put him in the patrol vehicle. Hence; the jury would have seen that a cuffed suspect who is cooperative may not remain cooperative. Since Floyd had shown himself to be uncooperative even when cuffed, it is reasonable (which is the standard under which the MPD operates) to decide to apply force to a suspect who has just shown to not remain compliant.

Also, if memory serves correctly, since I cannot review the video, Floyd actually asked to be put on the ground rather than be in the vehicle. This is important because the expert witness said that accommodating a "resistant" suspect who may be having an "emotional moment" is an example of de-escalation. So it can be reasonably argued that by putting Floyd on the ground, per his wishes and keeping him there by restraining him due to his previous behavior was actually a de-escalation. Hence you cannot have unjustifiable force during a "de-escalation".

So I think the defense team has caused the witnesses to make their case without realizing they are doing so. I think the defense is actually being pretty non-adversarial as I thought I saw points where they should have pushed the above points, but I'm not a trial lawyer so I could be missing the larger plan.

One thing I did think should be done by the defense is to get a person of Floyd's build to be kneeled on per the video. Have EMTs there and see if the guy passes out. It would be an OJ Simpson "if it doesn't fit..."moment. If the guy can breath and speak after being subject to the same circumstances, trial is over.

Anyway. Two cents. Ponder. 

Vaccine Passports: The End Of Constitutional USA

This perhaps will be the most important "political" blog entry I will make. I need for you, dear reader, particularly if you are a citizen of the United States, to have a seat and read this with your full attention and contemplative capabilities. If you don't have time, then close this and come back later when you do because I need your absolute and full attention.

I recently posted on the NYS "Excellsior Pass". It has gotten very few views relative to say my post on the linguistic origins of the word "Amen".  This bothers me because relatively speaking, the subject of "Amen" is the equivalent of having a smudge on the bottom of your foot. These "passports" are far more important of an issue. 

I have previously written about what the US form of government is and how it differed from the governments of the time but also from many current governments. I'm going to do it again because without this understanding the threat of "passports" cannot be wholly understood. So let's look at it in brief.

The founding principle of the US style government up until March of 2020, was that the individual had natural rights granted to them from God who is the Supreme Authority. I'm not going to debate the religious angle. I'll say that we can equally say that these rights are granted by nature. Given that these rights have their origins in a Supreme Authority, no [hu]man has a right to abridge these rights. 

Period.

So when the US Constitution was written and adopted the form of government was that of constraint. That is, the government was given limited responsibilities and only the amount of power needed to carry out those responsibilities. It is important to note that the people who came to settle and found what would become "America" were seeking to escape monarchies and religious authorities. In those places, the people were the subject of the royal class or the church. You had no natural rights, you had whatever privileges the rulers said you had. Note that I did not say "rights the ruler says you have". If a person can "grant" you a right, they can also take it away. A "right" that can be taken away is NOT a right.

People given such power to determine what you can and cannot do, think, say or go inevitably abuse this power. The likelihood of this abuse grows exponentially when they think they are doing it for "the greater good".

So the US form of government was one in which specific powers were granted to various arms of government and where those powers are not specifically granted to the government, they are retained by the people. Again, I must point out that the people retain the power. This enforces the idea that the people are the most powerful agents in the US state, NOT the government.

Most of us are familiar with the first 10 Amendments of the US Constitution. Most people look at them as  rights granted by the government. You'll hear people say things like "I have a 1st Amendment right to..." That is an entirely incorrect  statement. The first amendment is an explicit constraint on government from infringing on the right to speak or practice your religion or peacefully assemble. Hence,  it's not that the first amendment grants you the right to speak. Instead, it is that the government has no right to keep you from speaking. Nor does it have the right to employ a private party to do so in it's stead.

So you have inherent rights to travel freely. Persons who attempt to stop you are guilty of kidnapping. Even when the state wants to detain you, you have a right to be told why you are being detained. That's the "due process of law". And "due process of law" cannot be one that infringes on the inherent rights of the citizen. So for example, you cannot be detained by the state because someone in that government passed a law criminalizing some aspect of your speech (libel and defamation excepted). 

You have the right to gather freely, whether that "gather" is two people or ten thousand people.  You most definitely can have as many or as little people as you want in your private property. 

Now there are readers going "oh but there are fire codes". Sure. Those codes were approved by legislatures as proscribed by the legislatures. Furthermore, those codes do not infringe on your rights.

The point here is that in the US the people have rights the government simply cannot infringe upon without meeting very high bars. Of importance is that the government could not interject itself into the regular coming and going of citizens as the "passports" require.

These "passports" signal a fundamental change in how America works and it is downright dangerous. Let's assume that such a thing is done by private entities entirely, which is not the case. After what you've seen happen this year, you actually trust a private company to decide whether you can or cannot enter a public-serving location AS WELL AS  private ones? 

This is not about privacy. The privacy argument is a sideshow. It doesn't matter if your information is "secure". Your information should not be the basis of going about your business. Period.

Some of you have bought into the "we need to open up society and thus we need..." nonsense. This is classic psychological conditioning.  Yes, it is nonsense. "WE" did not shut down society. "WE" did not shut down businesses. "WE" did not attempt to lock people in their homes. Nor did the virus shut down society. The responsibility lies entirely on the government officials acting entirely outside of the constitution. The state usurped your right AND responsibility to make informed risk analysis decisions about your life. Its central conceit being that it had to act on your behalf because you may make decisions these agents do not agree with.

Let me be clear. I do understand and agree with the concept of "emergency powers". For example a category 5 hurricane is about to hit a state. Governor says to shelter in place, nobody on the road, etc. until the storm passes. That is reasonable and it has a close end date.  Similarly, a massive snowstorm is expected. Governor says to stay off the roads until the storm passes and we clear the streets. Again, this is reasonable.  Even the so-called "15 days to flatten the curve" that kicked this whole thing off, was, in my opinion, reasonable given what we "knew". I put knew in quotes because it is becoming clear that a lot of the images coming out of China was propaganda. What was happening in Italy was probably more real and perhaps more appropriate.  But if the state saw a situation where it would not be able to treat people and needed time to prepare more facilities, then I can see an argument for shutting things down. However; once extra spaces were made, that should have been the end of it. Instead, the agencies, realizing that people were going to be compliant so long as they were scared moved the goalposts and continue to move the goalposts.  None of these lockdowns should have gone past the end of April. The 'Emergency", if it continued should have been imposed on elder care facilities.

Never forget that it was Governor Murphy of New Jersey who had ZERO qualms stating that the first amendment was "above his pay grade". Never forget that the lawyers for the state of Pennsylvania actually argued in court that YOU have NO RIGHT to make a living. Do not overlook the fact that states abused the "licensing" laws to close businesses. 

Do not forget that these state agencies sent armed agents to those acting contrary to these wholly unconstitutional edicts, meaning ultimately they were willing to kill to maintain this power grab. 

Understand that even if these so-called passports are "only" run by private companies, they will employ the state to enforce them. What happens when a citizen refuses to provide this proof? They will be trespassed and who enforces trespass law? The state. Hence ultimately a private company "passport" IS a state passport. this is why businesses are willing to go with the passport. Now say the state says to the private entity that they will not enforce a trespass "violation" stemming from a "lack of passport"? The entire thing falls apart because without a means of enforcement there is no "rule".

This is why this idea is so dangerous. It turns the entire premise of the US state from one where the government is constrained and people have rights, such as movement, gathering and bodily autonomy that cannot be infringed upon OR you have a state with unlimited power in the name of "safety" and what were considered rights are now "privileges" to be revoked if a private company deems it should be with enforcement done by the state.

All this to say that there is no "private company passport". If this goes into effect, which it is starting because there are too many people who "wanna have fun" and don't care about the long term consequences of complying with these "trial periods" it will be the end of America and it may as well be a satellite of China where the social credit system is in full effect. And have no doubt that this is exactly where it is going.  It has already been directly applied to so called "far right" entities such Gab. Don 't think it won't expand.