Dade county federal credit union ebranch
Michael Alcock King, Joshua Myers, Andrew Cash, Mark Essick, with overt deliberate negligence on the part of the entire Board of Sonoma County Supervisors, stole 6 years of my life, after their employee Virgil Smith almost killed me and caused me serious injury.
2023.04.01 04:47 Adventurous-Plant419 Michael Alcock King, Joshua Myers, Andrew Cash, Mark Essick, with overt deliberate negligence on the part of the entire Board of Sonoma County Supervisors, stole 6 years of my life, after their employee Virgil Smith almost killed me and caused me serious injury.
I just want people to know that the Sonoma County government is corrupt. They spent 186 million dollars on a "new courthouse" that is 163k square feet, which works out to $1,100 per square foot, which is over double the second most expensive building I could find was, and over four times the average price per square foot of palaces and museums. And it's just going to look like a giant portable. This is to house some of the most corrupt people in this County, who all make $200-350+k per year (I am including their benefits in that, but not their pension). The entire DA's Office has a vendetta against Civil Rights in general, and will literally knowingly commit criminal violations of laws for the purpose of covering up serious criminal misconduct on the part of Sonoma County employees.
Lynda Hopkins took money from the law enforcement unions, and turns a willfully blind eye to it.
The County Office of Legal Counsel is literally a crime syndicate.
In 2015, the Sheriff's Office had a veritable torture ring in the jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izcHIv5Y4z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYrGChrW5HM&list=TLPQMzAwMzIwMjMv0QAOPDy1Lw&index=2
This is just the tip of the iceberg. They lied about the existence of these videos, and "lost" the one where they gave one of the inmates internal bleeding, with a knee to their back.
There was a lawsuit about it. It was called the "Yard Counseling Case". There are news articles about it.
There was an official, written policy, called "Yard Counseling", later its name was changed to "Behavior Counseling" which dictated that for arbitrary punitive measures, Sheriff's Office personnel should extract inmates from their cells individually (which meant slamming their heads onto the door frames on the way out and other abuse), and isolate them, and putting them into "pain compliance" techniques (literally, by definition, torture) for extended periods of time while "counseling" them, which meant wearing no name tags, ski masks and riot gear, carrying a shotgun with them, and insulting them in explicit language for over 20 minutes.
This official written policy was acknowledged by Rob Giordano in a video, where he lies that no inmates where injured, uploaded to YouTube in 2018, when they finally addressed this official written policy, and the practice of torturing inmates without reasonable cause (leading exercise routines, for example).
In 2021, they saw one of the victims of this torture ring, who had sued them and had won, at a peaceful protest, and shot him with a grenade launcher while hiding on a rooftop in the face with a crowd control grenade, which exploded on impact and caused horrific injury that I don't care to describe.
In 2017, I was almost killed by application of a "carotid hold" / lateral vascular neck restraint, by a sheriff's deputy, for literally no reason. A knee was placed on my lower back while I was on the ground on my stomach as well, which caused a serious injury to my kidney, which was the worst injury of my life. I have also been diagnosed with an organic brain injury and cognitive impairment. I was tested for the same type of cognitive impairment before the incident and there is a marked difference, and I have about 30 pages describing the differences I've noticed / troubles I've had in my cognitive functioning. There was no probable cause to arrest me, and I was polite and compliant with all the instructions given to me, and this was confirmed by witnesses. I was punished for invoking my right to remain silent, then my arm was grabbed and yanked up behind me, and then a carotid hold was applied because my body pivoted after the deputy grabbed and yanked my arm.
This occurred UNDER A CAMERA and IN FRONT OF WITNESSES. I called the Sheriff's Office the next day said I want to "make an official complaint in writing". I was transferred to Captain of Internal Affairs, Captain Mark Essick. I repeated my request, verbatim. He responded, verbatim: "We don't do that. Why don't you tell me what happened." I did. I told him it happened right under a camera. He said "The camera can't record." I asked for confirmation. He said the cameras "Don't have recording technology installed."
I asked the County for a claim form. They ignored my request, and instructed me to report the incident to IOLERO. IOLERO requested I meet with Internal Affairs, and I said fine.
Sgt. Andy Cash called me and scheduled me for a meeting at the Sheriff's den. I was made to walk first and guided upstairs to a meeting room, and then patted down for weapons, and the interview was recorded. For 75 minutes I was deposed about happened. He asked me repeatedly about my mental state after the incident. I admitted that I was upset after the incident, and he acted like that justified the whole incident. He explicitly promised to interview the 4 deputies who witnessed the event in addition to the 2 deputies who participated, as well as the arresting officer (who I told him would confirm that I was polite and cooperative), which he agreed "would confirm [my] demeanor", and a bystander witness I told him about.
I complained to IOLERO director Jerry Threet. Mr. Threet agreed that that was inappropriate, then resigned without reviewing the investigation.
For about 4 years review of the investigation was put on hold because IOLERO staff quit, and when more staff was hired, they complained of being understaffed. They had a budget of over a million dollars but only had 2 employees. They only reviewed one case per four months. And they put off "backlogged" cases and focused on new cases. My complaint was finally reviewed by Interim Director Garrick Byers who clearly stated that the investigation was not conducted appropriately. I have the letter from him. That still has never been made public.
After the interview with Internal Affairs, I corresponded with Lynda Hopkins, and she refused to give her opinion on the matter. I specifically complained that the carotid hold was being used recklessly, and it is a dangerous technique. This was in 2018. She forwarded me to Janell Crane, who then had me meet with Kristi Schultz.
I contacted the DA's Office and spoke to Richard Celli (who made $346k in 2017, and has gunned down two unarmed people, and was convicted by a jury in one of the civil cases brought against him by one of the victim's family, but the sentence was overturned by a judge, while working for the SRPD). The first time I spoke to Mr. Celli, he told me that another law enforcement agency should take my case. After that first time, him and the rest of the DA's Office openly refused to comply with the Victims' Rights Laws (CA Con Art. 1 S. 28), and the "policies" (which are legally binding under CA Con Art 5 S. 13) of the Attorney General stating clearly that they are to take complaints from victims if it can't be resolved with the department.
After the first talk with Mr. Celli, I called Rohnert Park Police as I was instructed, and they 3-way called the Sheriff's office and then transferred me. I spent about 30 minutes reporting the incident to a deputy, and he asked me questions in a fair manner. The incident report from the 30 minute phone call was "directed" to Andrew Cash, and was then destroyed, which is literally a state and federal crime. I called RPPD back and talked to the arresting officer and he positively clearly confirmed that I was "polite, calm, compliant, and cooperative" (or something nearly verbatim, I can't remember exactly any more).
Andrew Cash called me the next day, at precisely 7:00 AM. He told me he was driving. He was extremely confrontational with me. He said "There were 6 deputies [referring to the two who used excessive force on me, and 4 witness deputies]. You were combative." This was false. He had only interviewed one of the 4 witness deputies, and the other 3 had provided written statements. They said that they had witnessed force being used, that they had not participated in the use of force to the best of their memory, and that I "did not appear to be resisting". But again, he had promised explicitly to interview the 4 deputy witnesses, and the arresting officer, and the other witnesses (such as the bystander witness who saw the whole incident, the nurse, etc.).
Internal Affairs exonerated the officers. The letter was signed by Eddie Engram, captain of Internal Affairs at that time. I called Mr. Engram, and had an hour long conversation with him, and he told me to contact Sgt. Cash after April 1st.
I filed a federal claim on the last day that it was due.
Mr. Cash referred me to Legal Counselor, Kara Abelson.
Ms. Abelson spent a year and a half refusing to comply with the Public Records Act, the Rules of Procedure, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She refused to provide me documents that I was entitled to under law, including the incident report written by Deputies Jacquelin Fazzio and Virgil Smith, and the recorded interviews that he promised he would conduct, and stated pretty clearly that he had conducted.
Kara Abelson spent a year and a half trying to claim that my federal complaint was time barred by 1 day when it wasn't. The judge (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) entertained this and forced me to respond SEVEN TIMES, before she finally admitted that the "law wouldn't allow [her] to dismiss [my] complaint".
After a year and a half, Kara Abelson finally withdrew from the case after I started citing the Rules of Professional Conduct to her that require her to resign or withdraw from the case rather than defend a civil case where defense isn't warranted. Nobody had disputed any of the allegations I had made. In fact, Eddie Engram had confirmed that what I said happened was not disputed by the evidence.
At some point around this time, either before or after Ms. Abelson withdrew, the 2 incident reports written by the two deputies, the written statements by 3 of the 4 witness deputies, and the recorded interviews with me, the 2 deputies who assaulted me, and 1 of the eye witness deputies, were provided, along with various other records from the facility. In the recorded interview, and the incident report, the deputies admitted that Virgil Smith had applied the carotid hold.
I had also reported the incident to the State Attorney General Public Inquiry Unite (Lupe Zinzin). She had told me, over and over and over, that the local DA's are required to take complaints from civilians in these situations. She refused to call the DA's Office, though. The DA's Office (Richard Celli, Mark Azzouni, David Kahl, and the anonymous receptionists who all refused to provide their names) refused to take a complaint from me. They (including the receptionists) hung up on me every time I called after no more than 2 minutes, for no reason, transferred me to dead lines, never returned any voicemails I managed to leave, told me explicitly that if I send a complaint, they will throw it away, and didn't care, at all, what the laws were. The receptionists also refuse to provide their names. The Attorney General's Office told me to send them a complaint, so I did. The DA's Office acknowledged receiving the complaint. But later said that they did not have a record of it, meaning they threw it away.
The Attorney General's Office finally agreed to take a complaint from me. It sat on their desk for a year. I finally called them, concerned that evidence was being destroyed, and left a voicemail for Casey Hallinan requesting that they request copies of the physical evidence from the Sheriff's Office. Literally 2 days after that voicemail, a letter was sent to me signed by Sharon Loughner with Casey Hallinan CC'ed on the letter, stating that they would "take no action", and blamed the incident on me. I had not received the letter though, and called and spoke to Ms. Hallinan, who was extremely rude. After that, the Attorney General's Office hang up on me as soon as they find out it's me, for no reason. There has since been a bystander witness who saw the whole thing, and it has come to light that the cameras did record, that no upgrades were ever performed like Ms. Abelson alleged, the cameras do continuously record (as of 2019), and they just lied through their teeth about the camera for 4 straight years. The Attorney General's Office does not care. They violate the laws, and do not care what the laws are.
Sonoma County Office of Legal Counsel attorney Michael King took over after Ms. Abelson withdrew. Right off the bat, Mr. King told me that my motions were deficient - a contention he has repeated frequently, since then. I asked him how. He changed the subject, and to this day has NEVER given any explanation as to how any of my motions are deficient.
He continued to claim that my claim was time barred, filing frivolous motions, in blatant violation of the rules of professional conduct, after I cited the rules to him, constituting explicit legal misconduct.
As I said, the judge finally agreed to open Discovery after a year and a half of full time work trying to fight for my right to not be nearly murdered for no reason.
Lawyers do not take these cases unless there is undeniable proof of blatant guilt, along with undeniable proof of catastrophic injury. Multiple law firms have confirmed that it takes over a million dollars worth of legal work to get these cases to trial.
The judge also promised me a pro bono attorney "if you make it past summary judgment".
The judge scheduled us for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) hearing with a magistrate judge. Mr. King elicited an offer from me, which I spent about 2 weeks working on, trying to make it as agreeable as possible. But then for the hearing, his written offer was to waive charging me his attorneys fees. The ADR magistrate confirmed that there was no legal basis for him to do that - it would be illegal. He had been ordered to participate in this hearing, and there was a legal obligation under the Rules of Procedure to try in good faith to settle the case. He violated the order and the rule of procedure (26 (f)).
All of my motions were completely ignored for no reason.
Mr. King / Defendant Virgil Smith lied about the cameras. They said "Denies the existence of cameras capable of recording in the vicinity", in writing, under oath. They never disputed that he put his knee on top of my back with all his weight on it.
Mr. King refused to comply with his Discovery obligations. I had to file about 4 different motions pertaining to their refusal to comply with the laws regarding disclosure of evidence.
Upon receiving an official Discovery request for records of camera equipment, I received a letter signed under oath by Mr. King (nearly 4 years after the incident) stating that the cameras CAN RECORD. But stating "tasks must be performed" to start the recording function, and stating that all records pertaining to the equipment that was installed at the time HAD BEEN DESTROYED (literally a federal and state crime, a civil tort violation, and a sanctionable act of legal misconduct).
Mr. King refused to schedule any of the witnesses for deposition, demanded MY deposition BEFORE he would even schedule the two deputies who assaulted me, even though I had been requesting depositions with other witnesses for over a month, and refused to schedule anyone else, he refused to answer interrogatories, he refused to provide copies of the policies from the time of the incident. He tried to pass off a weird spreadsheet with the word camera on it as proof that upgrades had been done to the cameras. He refused to provide complete training records for the deputies. He refused to provide details about the training. He refused to provide blueprints of the facility, refused to provide photos of the cameras at the location, refused to provide still images showing which direction the cameras were pointing, was caught lying under oath (and "penalty of perjury") multiple times, refused to provide photos of the deputies so I could schedule depositions efficiently.
The judge erroneously dismissed my Equal Protection claims, construing them as Due Process and Employment Discrimination claims, which are different types of claims than Equal Protection claims against a government actor. The government cannot arbitrarily treat anyone disparately. The Court also dismissed my "Monell" claim against the municipality for their "policies, customs, or practices", but left me leave to amend that claim. And she waited until Discovery opened over 1.5 years into litigation, to do this, forcing me to amend the complaint DURING DISCOVERY which was only open for a limited amount of time, instead of any point in the 1.5 years prior to that.
In the recorded interview with Andrew Cash and one of the witness deputies, she spontaneously states that Mr. Cash instructed her to review the written statements made by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to the interview. Another deputy witness confirmed that Mr. Cash had instructed her to review the written reports by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to her providing Mr. Cash with a written statement as well.
The judge finally retaliated against me, without rational basis, for filing motions, which I had filed because I was being illegally obstructed from preserving evidence, by withdrawing leave to amend regarding the "Monell" claim (I had stated a clear Monell claim to begin with, but the judge literally has an aversion to reading, and relies on guessing, and is biased against pro se litigants; I am summarizing well over 100 pages, if not well over double that, of motions, objections, and replies and the judge's responsive orders).
She did however, finally schedule a hearing with a Discovery referee magistrate. All my motions (and the months of work I was required to do dictated by the various rules) was completely disregarded, and both me and Mr. King were given 2 pages each (double spaced) to go over discovery issues, even though I had filed about 4 different motions about various issues, and he hadn't filed ANY, about Discovery issues, and never did.
During conference I was required to do in accordance with the Rules, Mr. King repeatedly tried to establish that I had committed crimes during the course of conferring which was my legal obligation, without having any rational basis to believe what he was trying to establish. He demanded evidence that would exist, and he kept repeating every lie he could come up with to the judge. The judge would either get annoyed at me if I addressed any of Mr. King's baseless accusations, or take his statements at face value for being 100% true.
Mr. King finally "compromised" and agreed to schedule depositions with me (as long as Mr. King wanted to) and the two deputies who had assaulted me (for 25 minutes each or something) all simultaneously, but refused to schedule anyone else, even though this was grossly advantageous to him, and in blatant violation of Rule 26 of Civil Procedure. One of the eye witness deputies later confirmed that he had "consulted" her over 4 times prior to the trial. During this deposition, Mr. King asked me where a family member of mine works. He had spent about 30-40 minutes trying to convince me that I can tell him anything, that the entire record was designated confidential, that I had nothing to worry about - and at a deposition, you are obligated to answer the questions unless they are harassing. Mr. King also requested contact information for counselors from over 10 years ago, and that was the only question I didn't answer - I told him to provide the request in writing. At some point after that, I told Mr. King to not contact my family member at her workplace, and Mr. King responded "unless you fully and completely cooperate" with his request for contact information for counselors from 10 years+ ago, he would do exactly that - harass my family member with subpoenas sent to her workplace, as I had requested he not do, without EVER REQUESTING A DEPOSITION WITH HER, just using it as leverage.
At the hearing, the Discovery Magistrate (Donna M. Ryu) discussed matters only with Mr. King, without including me. He told her that the 4 eye witness deputies "saw nothing" and "weren't there" (verbatim) trying to get her to deny me my request to take their deposition. She asked him if he would get them to sign fresh "sworn declarations", "under oath" (Judge Ryu's words, verbatim) stating this. Mr. King said yes, absolutely, he would. Judge Ryu asked me "Would that be okay?" I said "No." She started laughing, and asked me why, and I explained that I had explicitly described various interactions with them that had taken place while the carotid hold was still being applied to me, and that they had stated in their written statements that they had witnessed force being used, and that I was "not resisting". She confirmed that this was all true with Mr. King and that he already knew all of this, and ordered him to cooperate with scheduling them for deposition. Mr. King then repeated the same phrases "saw nothing", "weren't there" to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers prior to the trial.
After that, they went back to discussing matters only with eachother, and I was excluded from discussion. This was an hour long hearing, and at about the 45 minute mark, Mr. King was again lying to the magistrate judge, and when he had finished, I interjected, "That's not true". Judge Ryu shouted "Stop! Stop stop stop stop stop!" And then very assertively explained to me the importance of not interrupting people for the convenience of the court reporter / transcriber. I was excluded from the rest of the hearing.
At some point at either this hearing or the next one, I cited the legal requirement for the parties to disclose contact information for witnesses. I cited the rule of procedure. Judge Ryu responded, "Mr. King is a lawyer!" as if that alone justified his refusal to provide me contact information for EYE witnesses who saw the event. Mr. King and Ms. Abelson had also claimed that they did not have the contact information for the bystander witness (which was a lie), and refused to provide the contact information for the nurse. And when Magistrate Ryu ordered them to provide that, they only gave me the company name he used to work for.
Mr. King refused to provide both fresh written statements from the eye witness deputies as he had promised the magistrate, and to schedule them for deposition, and stated that if he provided written statements, they would be copied and pasted versions of the same statements previously provided, signed under oath (nowhere saying that they "saw nothing" or "weren't there").
Mr. King kept threatening to go to my family member's workplace unless I provided him contact information for counselors from 10+ years ago, DURING a DEPOSITION, without him providing any written request for the information.
He also interfered with scheduling the witnesses for deposition, with the Court reporter that I had hired, disregarded the schedule that I had set, and set them according to his own schedule, which raised the cost of deposition from an estimated about $700 to about $4,000, and said this was my one and only chance.
The Federal Pro Bono Project / the Justice & Diversity Center is an organization that receives seven million dollars a year in public funding and is under contract with the Federal District Court to work with the Court to provide legal consultation to pro se litigants. I had about 19 appointments with them, about 18 with Abby Herzberg, and 1 with Rosemarie Maliekel. Ms. Herzberg was precisely 15 minutes late to every single appointment, repeatedly gave me horrible advice ("just wait", do nothing, "don't file this", despite admitting that the entire motion was valid, directly causing excessive delay and the spoliation of crucial evidence). She also yelled at me aggressively on two occasions because I had brought up state laws, which were being currently violated against me, because the Court had dismissed my "state claims" because Sonoma County refused to supply with a state tort claim form when I first asked, reasoning that was not relevant to the state laws being currently violated against me. After Ms. Herzberg yelled at me the second time, I requested an appointment with Rosemarie Maliekel. Ms. Maliekel spent the entire appointment ranting at me about irrelevant issues, and kept talking over me and interrupting me. I was polite but eventually asked "can I finish what I was saying?" She responded "No!" and kept ranting at me.
I had repeatedly asked about how to properly get medical evidence, and about expert witnesses. Ms. Herzberg ignored my questions and spent nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment reading (or pretending to) through the rules, without letting me speak at all, even to summarize the relevant sections of the rules that I had read.
On a video on their webpage (on the Court's website, because they are a "partner project" with the Court), Abby Herzberg explicitly demonstrates a clear understanding of the fact that the Court provides funding for expert witnesses, despite ignoring my questions about that and spending nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment either reading rules or pretending to.
Discovery was closed.
Mr. King rehashed the legally baseless and frivolous "time barred" claim in a Motion for Summary Judgment. I was required to respond to it twice, and it was obvious Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wanted to dismiss my claim, and I was required to disprove their baseless legal claims with several tens of pages of case laws. I was required to answer all his "undisputed material facts" under threat of terminating my entire case, but he refused to answer mine. He lied over and over to the judges. As I said, the judge ruled that the laws "wouldn't allow [her] to" dismiss my entire case and rejected his Motion for Summary Judgement.
The Court ordered the Federal Pro Bono Project (FPBP) to put me on a list for attorneys seeking clients. Ms. Herzberg told me that if I filed any motions, that the FPBP would not cooperate with the Court's order, until 1 month before my trial, instead of 6 months before. She also said that a law firm had reached out to them about my case over a month prior to that, and that the staff at the FPBP had not followed up. My filing privileges were then revoked by the Court.
An attorney, David Ratner, reached out to me, and scheduled an initial consultation, over Zoom, at which he stated he "hates cops", and gave a showing of being enthusiastic. I explicitly told him that I wanted to make sure we were on the same page as far as what to "aim for". I told him that I had been working for FIVE YEARS, that I had almost died, that I had suffered two different extremely serious injuries (though I was up front about the injuries being surreptitious and that there had been major delays and flaws with medical evaluation, due to the hospitals not taking my insurance at the time, and ongoing delays because of Covid, and other reasons). I told him that what I asked for was consistent with the most similar case (the Esa Wroth case of 2013) that I knew of (an ask of three million dollars). This was coincidental. I was not aware of the Esa Wroth case when I came up with that number. I agonized over the number to ask for, and had tried SEVERAL times to resolve the case for a tiny fraction of that amount, with Kristi Shultz, with Janell Crane, with Lynda Hopkins, several times with Ms. Abelson who refused to even hear me out, and SEVERAL TIMES with Mr. King, and spent a lot of time trying to come up with a amount that would be MUTUALLY AGREEABLE, EACH TIME and described the methods I used to come up with that number in detail in court documents. Mr. Ratner explicitly agreed to aim for that at the trial. During the Zoom conference, his partner Shelley Mollineaux, showed up about 15 minutes late, stayed for about 3 minutes without saying anything, Mr. Ratner made an awkwardly flirtatious remark to her, and she left without saying anything at all.
Mr. Ratner, and Ms. Mollineaux, who was set to represent me at trial under Mr. Ratner's supervision, then both went dark for over a month. They ignored my emails, voicemails, and messages that I left with their receptionists. There was a hearing, and then Mr. Ratner emailed me demanding "all the documents" that I had. I had over 50 gb of files across thousands of files, and spent about a month working with his paralegals sending them batches of files, and providing all the information they asked me for. Mr. Ratner forwarded me an email from Mr. King where King accused me of violating a court order regarding providing medical providers and the physical addresses of my entire family and my friends, which was false -- the Court had ordered me to provide him CONTACT information, at a second hearing, which wasn't significant, and I had fully and completely complied in good faith with all the Court's orders. Mr. Ratner accused me of not sending him "anything", after I had spent at least several weeks with his paralegals sending them batches of files and information, and he simultaneously threatened to ask the judge for leave to withdraw.
There had been major delays with medical evaluation due in large part to Covid, as well as delayed discovery of brain injury, which is very common, and other factors.
With trial set, Mr. Ratner forwarded me an offer from Defendants for $5,000. Upon discussion (which was 100% in email because he refused to talk over the phone and Ms. Mollineaux completely ignored me), he accused me of not doing Discovery right. I pointed him to the video I referred to earlier, which I had found since Mr. Ratner took my case, but wasn't aware of when I was interacting with the FPBP, where the FPBP (Abby Herzberg), and various District Judges from the Court I was litigating in, state that it is general policy (and it is official policy under the Court's General Order 25) to REOPEN DISCOVERY when a pro bono attorney comes onto the case, and to FUND DEPOSITION AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES.
Mr. Ratner stated he "won't file any motions" and ultimately elected to withdraw from the case over fulfill his legal obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Judge Gonzalez Rogers IGNORED MY REQUEST FOR A HEARING, and in her order granting him leave to withdraw about 2 months before my trial, thanked him. I had spent a ton of time trying to find private attorneys and trying to talk to the FPBP, telling them very clearly that I expected to be put back on the list.After Mr. Ratner withdrew, the FPBP refused to put me back on the list. I was forced into trial BY MYSELF, at 1-2 months prior to trial, after 3 months of my time being completely wasted by Mr. Ratner and his law firm.
I went through the appropriate legal process to submit an expert witness. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, as usual, completely ignored my motions, but allowed me to use him after I went through the entire legal process, and paid him thousands of dollars without knowing if I would be granted permission or not, and provided the Court a report stating that the carotid hold was ILLEGAL unless the subject exhibited "assaultive behavior" and that Defendants had never alleged any behavior of mine that constituted "assaultive behavior" (under POST Basic, during 2017). The expert was a Master level instructor at a police academy and former SWAT.
Mr. King provided his pre-trial disclosures, and it contained a document from Rohnert Park police department which had been extensively redacted on the copy that they had provided to me. The new copy contained the contact information for the bystander witness. I called him, and he confirmed that he saw the entire thing, that I had never yelled at the deputies before the first deputy grabbed my arm, and that I was not resisting at any point in time. I told the judge this. She had me call him at a hearing, and both me and Mr. King were allowed a couple of minutes to ask him questions, where he refused to admit that I was even "wiggling" when Mr. King badgered him.
RPPD later sent me the email correspondence between them and Mr. King and Mr. King clearly stated that he had that copy in his records without them sending it, but wanted them to send it to appear official, meaning they had the contact information for the bystander witness the entire time, when they repeatedly lied that they didn't have it.
The judge then refused to allow him to appear at the trial over Zoom (during the height of Covid, even though she let one of the deputies), and refused to summon him to the trial.
Just prior to the trial, the Judge accused me falsely of firing my attorney, and explicitly prohibited me from telling the jury about ANY of the Defendants previous statements about the camera's ability to record (that they had lied about it for 4 years). She explicitly prohibited me from submitting scientific evidence about the carotid hold. She allowed Mr. King to make extremely defamatory false remarks about me and my past which had a huge impact on the jury's perception of things. At a pretrial hearing, we had gone over about 110 documents that I wanted to present at the trial. She vetted about 40 as admissible at the hearing, but at the trial she only let me submit about 4. Defendants were allowed to submit a SECOND expert witness, both of whom worked for the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. The first was Andrew Cash. The second was James Naugle who had been disclosed literally a week before trial, without a report, and without allowing me to take his deposition. She refused to allow me to ask Mr. Naugle about case laws, or about information pertaining to the carotid hold. The Court refused to summon any of my treating physicians, whom I had provided the names and contact information for in my disclosures at the end of Discovery and some in my initial disclosures, and I had complied with Mr. King's written requests for information or objected within the boundaries of the laws (which I quoted and cited), in good faith, and complied with the Court's orders, in good faith.
I had informed the Court that I was scheduled for medical evaluations for brain injury AFTER THE TRIAL. The Court completely ignored this.
So it was my word against theirs. 5 years, at the time of the mistrial, to get a mockery of a trial, and have the jurors' time completely wasted. The jury wrote me a letter thanking me or something, but awarded me nothing.
I was diagnosed with organic brain injury after the trial. I had a similar test prior to the incident and had absolutely no problems and answered every question with no trouble. I now score in the FOURTH PERCENTILE on those areas.
Despite its length, this has been a short summary of all the events over the past 6 years. Much has been summarized, and much has been left out. I tried my best to balance completeness with leaving out irrelevant details.
There is no record of any misconduct on the part of anyone involved in this that is available to any law enforcement agencies or to the public. Nobody has been disciplined. No investigation was ever conducted. I was almost killed and was seriously injured, under a camera, and in front of witnesses, and spent 6 years working with the government. The government has done precisely NOTHING.
The County now routinely retaliates against me whenever we interact, in blatant violation of various laws.
submitted by Adventurous-Plant419 to Bad_Cop_No_Donut [link] [comments]
Lynda Hopkins took money from the law enforcement unions, and turns a willfully blind eye to it.
The County Office of Legal Counsel is literally a crime syndicate.
In 2015, the Sheriff's Office had a veritable torture ring in the jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izcHIv5Y4z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYrGChrW5HM&list=TLPQMzAwMzIwMjMv0QAOPDy1Lw&index=2
This is just the tip of the iceberg. They lied about the existence of these videos, and "lost" the one where they gave one of the inmates internal bleeding, with a knee to their back.
There was a lawsuit about it. It was called the "Yard Counseling Case". There are news articles about it.
There was an official, written policy, called "Yard Counseling", later its name was changed to "Behavior Counseling" which dictated that for arbitrary punitive measures, Sheriff's Office personnel should extract inmates from their cells individually (which meant slamming their heads onto the door frames on the way out and other abuse), and isolate them, and putting them into "pain compliance" techniques (literally, by definition, torture) for extended periods of time while "counseling" them, which meant wearing no name tags, ski masks and riot gear, carrying a shotgun with them, and insulting them in explicit language for over 20 minutes.
This official written policy was acknowledged by Rob Giordano in a video, where he lies that no inmates where injured, uploaded to YouTube in 2018, when they finally addressed this official written policy, and the practice of torturing inmates without reasonable cause (leading exercise routines, for example).
In 2021, they saw one of the victims of this torture ring, who had sued them and had won, at a peaceful protest, and shot him with a grenade launcher while hiding on a rooftop in the face with a crowd control grenade, which exploded on impact and caused horrific injury that I don't care to describe.
In 2017, I was almost killed by application of a "carotid hold" / lateral vascular neck restraint, by a sheriff's deputy, for literally no reason. A knee was placed on my lower back while I was on the ground on my stomach as well, which caused a serious injury to my kidney, which was the worst injury of my life. I have also been diagnosed with an organic brain injury and cognitive impairment. I was tested for the same type of cognitive impairment before the incident and there is a marked difference, and I have about 30 pages describing the differences I've noticed / troubles I've had in my cognitive functioning. There was no probable cause to arrest me, and I was polite and compliant with all the instructions given to me, and this was confirmed by witnesses. I was punished for invoking my right to remain silent, then my arm was grabbed and yanked up behind me, and then a carotid hold was applied because my body pivoted after the deputy grabbed and yanked my arm.
This occurred UNDER A CAMERA and IN FRONT OF WITNESSES. I called the Sheriff's Office the next day said I want to "make an official complaint in writing". I was transferred to Captain of Internal Affairs, Captain Mark Essick. I repeated my request, verbatim. He responded, verbatim: "We don't do that. Why don't you tell me what happened." I did. I told him it happened right under a camera. He said "The camera can't record." I asked for confirmation. He said the cameras "Don't have recording technology installed."
I asked the County for a claim form. They ignored my request, and instructed me to report the incident to IOLERO. IOLERO requested I meet with Internal Affairs, and I said fine.
Sgt. Andy Cash called me and scheduled me for a meeting at the Sheriff's den. I was made to walk first and guided upstairs to a meeting room, and then patted down for weapons, and the interview was recorded. For 75 minutes I was deposed about happened. He asked me repeatedly about my mental state after the incident. I admitted that I was upset after the incident, and he acted like that justified the whole incident. He explicitly promised to interview the 4 deputies who witnessed the event in addition to the 2 deputies who participated, as well as the arresting officer (who I told him would confirm that I was polite and cooperative), which he agreed "would confirm [my] demeanor", and a bystander witness I told him about.
I complained to IOLERO director Jerry Threet. Mr. Threet agreed that that was inappropriate, then resigned without reviewing the investigation.
For about 4 years review of the investigation was put on hold because IOLERO staff quit, and when more staff was hired, they complained of being understaffed. They had a budget of over a million dollars but only had 2 employees. They only reviewed one case per four months. And they put off "backlogged" cases and focused on new cases. My complaint was finally reviewed by Interim Director Garrick Byers who clearly stated that the investigation was not conducted appropriately. I have the letter from him. That still has never been made public.
After the interview with Internal Affairs, I corresponded with Lynda Hopkins, and she refused to give her opinion on the matter. I specifically complained that the carotid hold was being used recklessly, and it is a dangerous technique. This was in 2018. She forwarded me to Janell Crane, who then had me meet with Kristi Schultz.
I contacted the DA's Office and spoke to Richard Celli (who made $346k in 2017, and has gunned down two unarmed people, and was convicted by a jury in one of the civil cases brought against him by one of the victim's family, but the sentence was overturned by a judge, while working for the SRPD). The first time I spoke to Mr. Celli, he told me that another law enforcement agency should take my case. After that first time, him and the rest of the DA's Office openly refused to comply with the Victims' Rights Laws (CA Con Art. 1 S. 28), and the "policies" (which are legally binding under CA Con Art 5 S. 13) of the Attorney General stating clearly that they are to take complaints from victims if it can't be resolved with the department.
After the first talk with Mr. Celli, I called Rohnert Park Police as I was instructed, and they 3-way called the Sheriff's office and then transferred me. I spent about 30 minutes reporting the incident to a deputy, and he asked me questions in a fair manner. The incident report from the 30 minute phone call was "directed" to Andrew Cash, and was then destroyed, which is literally a state and federal crime. I called RPPD back and talked to the arresting officer and he positively clearly confirmed that I was "polite, calm, compliant, and cooperative" (or something nearly verbatim, I can't remember exactly any more).
Andrew Cash called me the next day, at precisely 7:00 AM. He told me he was driving. He was extremely confrontational with me. He said "There were 6 deputies [referring to the two who used excessive force on me, and 4 witness deputies]. You were combative." This was false. He had only interviewed one of the 4 witness deputies, and the other 3 had provided written statements. They said that they had witnessed force being used, that they had not participated in the use of force to the best of their memory, and that I "did not appear to be resisting". But again, he had promised explicitly to interview the 4 deputy witnesses, and the arresting officer, and the other witnesses (such as the bystander witness who saw the whole incident, the nurse, etc.).
Internal Affairs exonerated the officers. The letter was signed by Eddie Engram, captain of Internal Affairs at that time. I called Mr. Engram, and had an hour long conversation with him, and he told me to contact Sgt. Cash after April 1st.
I filed a federal claim on the last day that it was due.
Mr. Cash referred me to Legal Counselor, Kara Abelson.
Ms. Abelson spent a year and a half refusing to comply with the Public Records Act, the Rules of Procedure, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She refused to provide me documents that I was entitled to under law, including the incident report written by Deputies Jacquelin Fazzio and Virgil Smith, and the recorded interviews that he promised he would conduct, and stated pretty clearly that he had conducted.
Kara Abelson spent a year and a half trying to claim that my federal complaint was time barred by 1 day when it wasn't. The judge (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) entertained this and forced me to respond SEVEN TIMES, before she finally admitted that the "law wouldn't allow [her] to dismiss [my] complaint".
After a year and a half, Kara Abelson finally withdrew from the case after I started citing the Rules of Professional Conduct to her that require her to resign or withdraw from the case rather than defend a civil case where defense isn't warranted. Nobody had disputed any of the allegations I had made. In fact, Eddie Engram had confirmed that what I said happened was not disputed by the evidence.
At some point around this time, either before or after Ms. Abelson withdrew, the 2 incident reports written by the two deputies, the written statements by 3 of the 4 witness deputies, and the recorded interviews with me, the 2 deputies who assaulted me, and 1 of the eye witness deputies, were provided, along with various other records from the facility. In the recorded interview, and the incident report, the deputies admitted that Virgil Smith had applied the carotid hold.
I had also reported the incident to the State Attorney General Public Inquiry Unite (Lupe Zinzin). She had told me, over and over and over, that the local DA's are required to take complaints from civilians in these situations. She refused to call the DA's Office, though. The DA's Office (Richard Celli, Mark Azzouni, David Kahl, and the anonymous receptionists who all refused to provide their names) refused to take a complaint from me. They (including the receptionists) hung up on me every time I called after no more than 2 minutes, for no reason, transferred me to dead lines, never returned any voicemails I managed to leave, told me explicitly that if I send a complaint, they will throw it away, and didn't care, at all, what the laws were. The receptionists also refuse to provide their names. The Attorney General's Office told me to send them a complaint, so I did. The DA's Office acknowledged receiving the complaint. But later said that they did not have a record of it, meaning they threw it away.
The Attorney General's Office finally agreed to take a complaint from me. It sat on their desk for a year. I finally called them, concerned that evidence was being destroyed, and left a voicemail for Casey Hallinan requesting that they request copies of the physical evidence from the Sheriff's Office. Literally 2 days after that voicemail, a letter was sent to me signed by Sharon Loughner with Casey Hallinan CC'ed on the letter, stating that they would "take no action", and blamed the incident on me. I had not received the letter though, and called and spoke to Ms. Hallinan, who was extremely rude. After that, the Attorney General's Office hang up on me as soon as they find out it's me, for no reason. There has since been a bystander witness who saw the whole thing, and it has come to light that the cameras did record, that no upgrades were ever performed like Ms. Abelson alleged, the cameras do continuously record (as of 2019), and they just lied through their teeth about the camera for 4 straight years. The Attorney General's Office does not care. They violate the laws, and do not care what the laws are.
Sonoma County Office of Legal Counsel attorney Michael King took over after Ms. Abelson withdrew. Right off the bat, Mr. King told me that my motions were deficient - a contention he has repeated frequently, since then. I asked him how. He changed the subject, and to this day has NEVER given any explanation as to how any of my motions are deficient.
He continued to claim that my claim was time barred, filing frivolous motions, in blatant violation of the rules of professional conduct, after I cited the rules to him, constituting explicit legal misconduct.
As I said, the judge finally agreed to open Discovery after a year and a half of full time work trying to fight for my right to not be nearly murdered for no reason.
Lawyers do not take these cases unless there is undeniable proof of blatant guilt, along with undeniable proof of catastrophic injury. Multiple law firms have confirmed that it takes over a million dollars worth of legal work to get these cases to trial.
The judge also promised me a pro bono attorney "if you make it past summary judgment".
The judge scheduled us for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) hearing with a magistrate judge. Mr. King elicited an offer from me, which I spent about 2 weeks working on, trying to make it as agreeable as possible. But then for the hearing, his written offer was to waive charging me his attorneys fees. The ADR magistrate confirmed that there was no legal basis for him to do that - it would be illegal. He had been ordered to participate in this hearing, and there was a legal obligation under the Rules of Procedure to try in good faith to settle the case. He violated the order and the rule of procedure (26 (f)).
All of my motions were completely ignored for no reason.
Mr. King / Defendant Virgil Smith lied about the cameras. They said "Denies the existence of cameras capable of recording in the vicinity", in writing, under oath. They never disputed that he put his knee on top of my back with all his weight on it.
Mr. King refused to comply with his Discovery obligations. I had to file about 4 different motions pertaining to their refusal to comply with the laws regarding disclosure of evidence.
Upon receiving an official Discovery request for records of camera equipment, I received a letter signed under oath by Mr. King (nearly 4 years after the incident) stating that the cameras CAN RECORD. But stating "tasks must be performed" to start the recording function, and stating that all records pertaining to the equipment that was installed at the time HAD BEEN DESTROYED (literally a federal and state crime, a civil tort violation, and a sanctionable act of legal misconduct).
Mr. King refused to schedule any of the witnesses for deposition, demanded MY deposition BEFORE he would even schedule the two deputies who assaulted me, even though I had been requesting depositions with other witnesses for over a month, and refused to schedule anyone else, he refused to answer interrogatories, he refused to provide copies of the policies from the time of the incident. He tried to pass off a weird spreadsheet with the word camera on it as proof that upgrades had been done to the cameras. He refused to provide complete training records for the deputies. He refused to provide details about the training. He refused to provide blueprints of the facility, refused to provide photos of the cameras at the location, refused to provide still images showing which direction the cameras were pointing, was caught lying under oath (and "penalty of perjury") multiple times, refused to provide photos of the deputies so I could schedule depositions efficiently.
The judge erroneously dismissed my Equal Protection claims, construing them as Due Process and Employment Discrimination claims, which are different types of claims than Equal Protection claims against a government actor. The government cannot arbitrarily treat anyone disparately. The Court also dismissed my "Monell" claim against the municipality for their "policies, customs, or practices", but left me leave to amend that claim. And she waited until Discovery opened over 1.5 years into litigation, to do this, forcing me to amend the complaint DURING DISCOVERY which was only open for a limited amount of time, instead of any point in the 1.5 years prior to that.
In the recorded interview with Andrew Cash and one of the witness deputies, she spontaneously states that Mr. Cash instructed her to review the written statements made by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to the interview. Another deputy witness confirmed that Mr. Cash had instructed her to review the written reports by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to her providing Mr. Cash with a written statement as well.
The judge finally retaliated against me, without rational basis, for filing motions, which I had filed because I was being illegally obstructed from preserving evidence, by withdrawing leave to amend regarding the "Monell" claim (I had stated a clear Monell claim to begin with, but the judge literally has an aversion to reading, and relies on guessing, and is biased against pro se litigants; I am summarizing well over 100 pages, if not well over double that, of motions, objections, and replies and the judge's responsive orders).
She did however, finally schedule a hearing with a Discovery referee magistrate. All my motions (and the months of work I was required to do dictated by the various rules) was completely disregarded, and both me and Mr. King were given 2 pages each (double spaced) to go over discovery issues, even though I had filed about 4 different motions about various issues, and he hadn't filed ANY, about Discovery issues, and never did.
During conference I was required to do in accordance with the Rules, Mr. King repeatedly tried to establish that I had committed crimes during the course of conferring which was my legal obligation, without having any rational basis to believe what he was trying to establish. He demanded evidence that would exist, and he kept repeating every lie he could come up with to the judge. The judge would either get annoyed at me if I addressed any of Mr. King's baseless accusations, or take his statements at face value for being 100% true.
Mr. King finally "compromised" and agreed to schedule depositions with me (as long as Mr. King wanted to) and the two deputies who had assaulted me (for 25 minutes each or something) all simultaneously, but refused to schedule anyone else, even though this was grossly advantageous to him, and in blatant violation of Rule 26 of Civil Procedure. One of the eye witness deputies later confirmed that he had "consulted" her over 4 times prior to the trial. During this deposition, Mr. King asked me where a family member of mine works. He had spent about 30-40 minutes trying to convince me that I can tell him anything, that the entire record was designated confidential, that I had nothing to worry about - and at a deposition, you are obligated to answer the questions unless they are harassing. Mr. King also requested contact information for counselors from over 10 years ago, and that was the only question I didn't answer - I told him to provide the request in writing. At some point after that, I told Mr. King to not contact my family member at her workplace, and Mr. King responded "unless you fully and completely cooperate" with his request for contact information for counselors from 10 years+ ago, he would do exactly that - harass my family member with subpoenas sent to her workplace, as I had requested he not do, without EVER REQUESTING A DEPOSITION WITH HER, just using it as leverage.
At the hearing, the Discovery Magistrate (Donna M. Ryu) discussed matters only with Mr. King, without including me. He told her that the 4 eye witness deputies "saw nothing" and "weren't there" (verbatim) trying to get her to deny me my request to take their deposition. She asked him if he would get them to sign fresh "sworn declarations", "under oath" (Judge Ryu's words, verbatim) stating this. Mr. King said yes, absolutely, he would. Judge Ryu asked me "Would that be okay?" I said "No." She started laughing, and asked me why, and I explained that I had explicitly described various interactions with them that had taken place while the carotid hold was still being applied to me, and that they had stated in their written statements that they had witnessed force being used, and that I was "not resisting". She confirmed that this was all true with Mr. King and that he already knew all of this, and ordered him to cooperate with scheduling them for deposition. Mr. King then repeated the same phrases "saw nothing", "weren't there" to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers prior to the trial.
After that, they went back to discussing matters only with eachother, and I was excluded from discussion. This was an hour long hearing, and at about the 45 minute mark, Mr. King was again lying to the magistrate judge, and when he had finished, I interjected, "That's not true". Judge Ryu shouted "Stop! Stop stop stop stop stop!" And then very assertively explained to me the importance of not interrupting people for the convenience of the court reporter / transcriber. I was excluded from the rest of the hearing.
At some point at either this hearing or the next one, I cited the legal requirement for the parties to disclose contact information for witnesses. I cited the rule of procedure. Judge Ryu responded, "Mr. King is a lawyer!" as if that alone justified his refusal to provide me contact information for EYE witnesses who saw the event. Mr. King and Ms. Abelson had also claimed that they did not have the contact information for the bystander witness (which was a lie), and refused to provide the contact information for the nurse. And when Magistrate Ryu ordered them to provide that, they only gave me the company name he used to work for.
Mr. King refused to provide both fresh written statements from the eye witness deputies as he had promised the magistrate, and to schedule them for deposition, and stated that if he provided written statements, they would be copied and pasted versions of the same statements previously provided, signed under oath (nowhere saying that they "saw nothing" or "weren't there").
Mr. King kept threatening to go to my family member's workplace unless I provided him contact information for counselors from 10+ years ago, DURING a DEPOSITION, without him providing any written request for the information.
He also interfered with scheduling the witnesses for deposition, with the Court reporter that I had hired, disregarded the schedule that I had set, and set them according to his own schedule, which raised the cost of deposition from an estimated about $700 to about $4,000, and said this was my one and only chance.
The Federal Pro Bono Project / the Justice & Diversity Center is an organization that receives seven million dollars a year in public funding and is under contract with the Federal District Court to work with the Court to provide legal consultation to pro se litigants. I had about 19 appointments with them, about 18 with Abby Herzberg, and 1 with Rosemarie Maliekel. Ms. Herzberg was precisely 15 minutes late to every single appointment, repeatedly gave me horrible advice ("just wait", do nothing, "don't file this", despite admitting that the entire motion was valid, directly causing excessive delay and the spoliation of crucial evidence). She also yelled at me aggressively on two occasions because I had brought up state laws, which were being currently violated against me, because the Court had dismissed my "state claims" because Sonoma County refused to supply with a state tort claim form when I first asked, reasoning that was not relevant to the state laws being currently violated against me. After Ms. Herzberg yelled at me the second time, I requested an appointment with Rosemarie Maliekel. Ms. Maliekel spent the entire appointment ranting at me about irrelevant issues, and kept talking over me and interrupting me. I was polite but eventually asked "can I finish what I was saying?" She responded "No!" and kept ranting at me.
I had repeatedly asked about how to properly get medical evidence, and about expert witnesses. Ms. Herzberg ignored my questions and spent nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment reading (or pretending to) through the rules, without letting me speak at all, even to summarize the relevant sections of the rules that I had read.
On a video on their webpage (on the Court's website, because they are a "partner project" with the Court), Abby Herzberg explicitly demonstrates a clear understanding of the fact that the Court provides funding for expert witnesses, despite ignoring my questions about that and spending nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment either reading rules or pretending to.
Discovery was closed.
Mr. King rehashed the legally baseless and frivolous "time barred" claim in a Motion for Summary Judgment. I was required to respond to it twice, and it was obvious Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wanted to dismiss my claim, and I was required to disprove their baseless legal claims with several tens of pages of case laws. I was required to answer all his "undisputed material facts" under threat of terminating my entire case, but he refused to answer mine. He lied over and over to the judges. As I said, the judge ruled that the laws "wouldn't allow [her] to" dismiss my entire case and rejected his Motion for Summary Judgement.
The Court ordered the Federal Pro Bono Project (FPBP) to put me on a list for attorneys seeking clients. Ms. Herzberg told me that if I filed any motions, that the FPBP would not cooperate with the Court's order, until 1 month before my trial, instead of 6 months before. She also said that a law firm had reached out to them about my case over a month prior to that, and that the staff at the FPBP had not followed up. My filing privileges were then revoked by the Court.
An attorney, David Ratner, reached out to me, and scheduled an initial consultation, over Zoom, at which he stated he "hates cops", and gave a showing of being enthusiastic. I explicitly told him that I wanted to make sure we were on the same page as far as what to "aim for". I told him that I had been working for FIVE YEARS, that I had almost died, that I had suffered two different extremely serious injuries (though I was up front about the injuries being surreptitious and that there had been major delays and flaws with medical evaluation, due to the hospitals not taking my insurance at the time, and ongoing delays because of Covid, and other reasons). I told him that what I asked for was consistent with the most similar case (the Esa Wroth case of 2013) that I knew of (an ask of three million dollars). This was coincidental. I was not aware of the Esa Wroth case when I came up with that number. I agonized over the number to ask for, and had tried SEVERAL times to resolve the case for a tiny fraction of that amount, with Kristi Shultz, with Janell Crane, with Lynda Hopkins, several times with Ms. Abelson who refused to even hear me out, and SEVERAL TIMES with Mr. King, and spent a lot of time trying to come up with a amount that would be MUTUALLY AGREEABLE, EACH TIME and described the methods I used to come up with that number in detail in court documents. Mr. Ratner explicitly agreed to aim for that at the trial. During the Zoom conference, his partner Shelley Mollineaux, showed up about 15 minutes late, stayed for about 3 minutes without saying anything, Mr. Ratner made an awkwardly flirtatious remark to her, and she left without saying anything at all.
Mr. Ratner, and Ms. Mollineaux, who was set to represent me at trial under Mr. Ratner's supervision, then both went dark for over a month. They ignored my emails, voicemails, and messages that I left with their receptionists. There was a hearing, and then Mr. Ratner emailed me demanding "all the documents" that I had. I had over 50 gb of files across thousands of files, and spent about a month working with his paralegals sending them batches of files, and providing all the information they asked me for. Mr. Ratner forwarded me an email from Mr. King where King accused me of violating a court order regarding providing medical providers and the physical addresses of my entire family and my friends, which was false -- the Court had ordered me to provide him CONTACT information, at a second hearing, which wasn't significant, and I had fully and completely complied in good faith with all the Court's orders. Mr. Ratner accused me of not sending him "anything", after I had spent at least several weeks with his paralegals sending them batches of files and information, and he simultaneously threatened to ask the judge for leave to withdraw.
There had been major delays with medical evaluation due in large part to Covid, as well as delayed discovery of brain injury, which is very common, and other factors.
With trial set, Mr. Ratner forwarded me an offer from Defendants for $5,000. Upon discussion (which was 100% in email because he refused to talk over the phone and Ms. Mollineaux completely ignored me), he accused me of not doing Discovery right. I pointed him to the video I referred to earlier, which I had found since Mr. Ratner took my case, but wasn't aware of when I was interacting with the FPBP, where the FPBP (Abby Herzberg), and various District Judges from the Court I was litigating in, state that it is general policy (and it is official policy under the Court's General Order 25) to REOPEN DISCOVERY when a pro bono attorney comes onto the case, and to FUND DEPOSITION AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES.
Mr. Ratner stated he "won't file any motions" and ultimately elected to withdraw from the case over fulfill his legal obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Judge Gonzalez Rogers IGNORED MY REQUEST FOR A HEARING, and in her order granting him leave to withdraw about 2 months before my trial, thanked him. I had spent a ton of time trying to find private attorneys and trying to talk to the FPBP, telling them very clearly that I expected to be put back on the list.After Mr. Ratner withdrew, the FPBP refused to put me back on the list. I was forced into trial BY MYSELF, at 1-2 months prior to trial, after 3 months of my time being completely wasted by Mr. Ratner and his law firm.
I went through the appropriate legal process to submit an expert witness. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, as usual, completely ignored my motions, but allowed me to use him after I went through the entire legal process, and paid him thousands of dollars without knowing if I would be granted permission or not, and provided the Court a report stating that the carotid hold was ILLEGAL unless the subject exhibited "assaultive behavior" and that Defendants had never alleged any behavior of mine that constituted "assaultive behavior" (under POST Basic, during 2017). The expert was a Master level instructor at a police academy and former SWAT.
Mr. King provided his pre-trial disclosures, and it contained a document from Rohnert Park police department which had been extensively redacted on the copy that they had provided to me. The new copy contained the contact information for the bystander witness. I called him, and he confirmed that he saw the entire thing, that I had never yelled at the deputies before the first deputy grabbed my arm, and that I was not resisting at any point in time. I told the judge this. She had me call him at a hearing, and both me and Mr. King were allowed a couple of minutes to ask him questions, where he refused to admit that I was even "wiggling" when Mr. King badgered him.
RPPD later sent me the email correspondence between them and Mr. King and Mr. King clearly stated that he had that copy in his records without them sending it, but wanted them to send it to appear official, meaning they had the contact information for the bystander witness the entire time, when they repeatedly lied that they didn't have it.
The judge then refused to allow him to appear at the trial over Zoom (during the height of Covid, even though she let one of the deputies), and refused to summon him to the trial.
Just prior to the trial, the Judge accused me falsely of firing my attorney, and explicitly prohibited me from telling the jury about ANY of the Defendants previous statements about the camera's ability to record (that they had lied about it for 4 years). She explicitly prohibited me from submitting scientific evidence about the carotid hold. She allowed Mr. King to make extremely defamatory false remarks about me and my past which had a huge impact on the jury's perception of things. At a pretrial hearing, we had gone over about 110 documents that I wanted to present at the trial. She vetted about 40 as admissible at the hearing, but at the trial she only let me submit about 4. Defendants were allowed to submit a SECOND expert witness, both of whom worked for the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. The first was Andrew Cash. The second was James Naugle who had been disclosed literally a week before trial, without a report, and without allowing me to take his deposition. She refused to allow me to ask Mr. Naugle about case laws, or about information pertaining to the carotid hold. The Court refused to summon any of my treating physicians, whom I had provided the names and contact information for in my disclosures at the end of Discovery and some in my initial disclosures, and I had complied with Mr. King's written requests for information or objected within the boundaries of the laws (which I quoted and cited), in good faith, and complied with the Court's orders, in good faith.
I had informed the Court that I was scheduled for medical evaluations for brain injury AFTER THE TRIAL. The Court completely ignored this.
So it was my word against theirs. 5 years, at the time of the mistrial, to get a mockery of a trial, and have the jurors' time completely wasted. The jury wrote me a letter thanking me or something, but awarded me nothing.
I was diagnosed with organic brain injury after the trial. I had a similar test prior to the incident and had absolutely no problems and answered every question with no trouble. I now score in the FOURTH PERCENTILE on those areas.
Despite its length, this has been a short summary of all the events over the past 6 years. Much has been summarized, and much has been left out. I tried my best to balance completeness with leaving out irrelevant details.
There is no record of any misconduct on the part of anyone involved in this that is available to any law enforcement agencies or to the public. Nobody has been disciplined. No investigation was ever conducted. I was almost killed and was seriously injured, under a camera, and in front of witnesses, and spent 6 years working with the government. The government has done precisely NOTHING.
The County now routinely retaliates against me whenever we interact, in blatant violation of various laws.
2023.04.01 04:46 Adventurous-Plant419 Michael Alcock King, Joshua Myers, Andrew Cash, Mark Essick, with overt deliberate negligence on the part of the entire Board of Sonoma County Supervisors, stole 6 years of my life, after their employee Virgil Smith almost killed me and caused me serious injury.
I just want people to know that the Sonoma County government is corrupt. They spent 186 million dollars on a "new courthouse" that is 163k square feet, which works out to $1,100 per square foot, which is over double the second most expensive building I could find was, and over four times the average price per square foot of palaces and museums. And it's just going to look like a giant portable. This is to house some of the most corrupt people in this County, who all make $200-350+k per year (I am including their benefits in that, but not their pension). The entire DA's Office has a vendetta against Civil Rights in general, and will literally knowingly commit criminal violations of laws for the purpose of covering up serious criminal misconduct on the part of Sonoma County employees.
Lynda Hopkins took money from the law enforcement unions, and turns a willfully blind eye to it.
The County Office of Legal Counsel is literally a crime syndicate.
In 2015, the Sheriff's Office had a veritable torture ring in the jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izcHIv5Y4z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYrGChrW5HM&list=TLPQMzAwMzIwMjMv0QAOPDy1Lw&index=2
This is just the tip of the iceberg. They lied about the existence of these videos, and "lost" the one where they gave one of the inmates internal bleeding, with a knee to their back.
There was a lawsuit about it. It was called the "Yard Counseling Case". There are news articles about it.
There was an official, written policy, called "Yard Counseling", later its name was changed to "Behavior Counseling" which dictated that for arbitrary punitive measures, Sheriff's Office personnel should extract inmates from their cells individually (which meant slamming their heads onto the door frames on the way out and other abuse), and isolate them, and putting them into "pain compliance" techniques (literally, by definition, torture) for extended periods of time while "counseling" them, which meant wearing no name tags, ski masks and riot gear, carrying a shotgun with them, and insulting them in explicit language for over 20 minutes.
This official written policy was acknowledged by Rob Giordano in a video, where he lies that no inmates where injured, uploaded to YouTube in 2018, when they finally addressed this official written policy, and the practice of torturing inmates without reasonable cause (leading exercise routines, for example).
In 2021, they saw one of the victims of this torture ring, who had sued them and had won, at a peaceful protest, and shot him with a grenade launcher while hiding on a rooftop in the face with a crowd control grenade, which exploded on impact and caused horrific injury that I don't care to describe.
In 2017, I was almost killed by application of a "carotid hold" / lateral vascular neck restraint, by a sheriff's deputy, for literally no reason. A knee was placed on my lower back while I was on the ground on my stomach as well, which caused a serious injury to my kidney, which was the worst injury of my life. I have also been diagnosed with an organic brain injury and cognitive impairment. I was tested for the same type of cognitive impairment before the incident and there is a marked difference, and I have about 30 pages describing the differences I've noticed / troubles I've had in my cognitive functioning. There was no probable cause to arrest me, and I was polite and compliant with all the instructions given to me, and this was confirmed by witnesses. I was punished for invoking my right to remain silent, then my arm was grabbed and yanked up behind me, and then a carotid hold was applied because my body pivoted after the deputy grabbed and yanked my arm.
This occurred UNDER A CAMERA and IN FRONT OF WITNESSES. I called the Sheriff's Office the next day said I want to "make an official complaint in writing". I was transferred to Captain of Internal Affairs, Captain Mark Essick. I repeated my request, verbatim. He responded, verbatim: "We don't do that. Why don't you tell me what happened." I did. I told him it happened right under a camera. He said "The camera can't record." I asked for confirmation. He said the cameras "Don't have recording technology installed."
I asked the County for a claim form. They ignored my request, and instructed me to report the incident to IOLERO. IOLERO requested I meet with Internal Affairs, and I said fine.
Sgt. Andy Cash called me and scheduled me for a meeting at the Sheriff's den. I was made to walk first and guided upstairs to a meeting room, and then patted down for weapons, and the interview was recorded. For 75 minutes I was deposed about happened. He asked me repeatedly about my mental state after the incident. I admitted that I was upset after the incident, and he acted like that justified the whole incident. He explicitly promised to interview the 4 deputies who witnessed the event in addition to the 2 deputies who participated, as well as the arresting officer (who I told him would confirm that I was polite and cooperative), which he agreed "would confirm [my] demeanor", and a bystander witness I told him about.
I complained to IOLERO director Jerry Threet. Mr. Threet agreed that that was inappropriate, then resigned without reviewing the investigation.
For about 4 years review of the investigation was put on hold because IOLERO staff quit, and when more staff was hired, they complained of being understaffed. They had a budget of over a million dollars but only had 2 employees. They only reviewed one case per four months. And they put off "backlogged" cases and focused on new cases. My complaint was finally reviewed by Interim Director Garrick Byers who clearly stated that the investigation was not conducted appropriately. I have the letter from him. That still has never been made public.
After the interview with Internal Affairs, I corresponded with Lynda Hopkins, and she refused to give her opinion on the matter. I specifically complained that the carotid hold was being used recklessly, and it is a dangerous technique. This was in 2018. She forwarded me to Janell Crane, who then had me meet with Kristi Schultz.
I contacted the DA's Office and spoke to Richard Celli (who made $346k in 2017, and has gunned down two unarmed people, and was convicted by a jury in one of the civil cases brought against him by one of the victim's family, but the sentence was overturned by a judge, while working for the SRPD). The first time I spoke to Mr. Celli, he told me that another law enforcement agency should take my case. After that first time, him and the rest of the DA's Office openly refused to comply with the Victims' Rights Laws (CA Con Art. 1 S. 28), and the "policies" (which are legally binding under CA Con Art 5 S. 13) of the Attorney General stating clearly that they are to take complaints from victims if it can't be resolved with the department.
After the first talk with Mr. Celli, I called Rohnert Park Police as I was instructed, and they 3-way called the Sheriff's office and then transferred me. I spent about 30 minutes reporting the incident to a deputy, and he asked me questions in a fair manner. I called RPPD back and talked to the arresting officer and he positively clearly confirmed that I was "polite, calm, compliant, and cooperative" (or something nearly verbatim, I can't remember exactly any more).
Andrew Cash called me the next day, at precisely 7:00 AM. He told me he was driving. He was extremely confrontational with me. He said "There were 6 deputies [referring to the two who used excessive force on me, and 4 witness deputies]. You were combative." This was false. He had only interviewed one of the 4 witness deputies, and the other 3 had provided written statements. They said that they had witnessed force being used, that they had not participated in the use of force to the best of their memory, and that I "did not appear to be resisting". But again, he had promised explicitly to interview the 4 deputy witnesses, and the arresting officer
Internal Affairs exonerated the officers. The letter was signed by Eddie Engram, captain of Internal Affairs. I called Mr. Engram, and had an hour long conversation with him, and he told me to contact Sgt. Cash after April 1st.
I filed a federal claim on the last day that it was due.
Mr. Cash referred me to Legal Counselor, Kara Abelson.
Ms. Abelson spent a year and a half refusing to comply with the Public Records Act, the Rules of Procedure, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She refused to provide me documents that I was entitled to under law, including the incident report written by Deputies Jacquelin Fazzio and Virgil Smith, and the recorded interviews that he promised he would conduct, and stated pretty clearly that he had conducted.
Kara Abelson spent a year and a half trying to claim that my federal complaint was time barred by 1 day when it wasn't. The judge (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) entertained this and forced me to respond SEVEN TIMES, before she finally admitted that the "law wouldn't allow [her] to dismiss my complaint".
After a year and a half, Kara Abelson finally withdrew from the case after I started citing the Rules of Professional Conduct to her that require her to resign or withdraw from the case rather than defend a civil case where defense isn't warranted. Nobody had disputed any of the allegations I had made. In fact, Eddie Engram had confirmed that what I said happened was not disputed by the evidence.
At some point around this time, either before or after Ms. Abelson withdrew, the 2 incident reports written by the two deputies, the written statements by 3 of the 4 witness deputies, and the recorded interviews with me, the 2 deputies who assaulted me, and 1 of the eye witness deputies, were provided, along with various other records from the facility. In the recorded interview, and the incident report, the deputies admitted that Virgil Smith had applied the carotid hold.
I had also reported the incident to the State Attorney General Public Inquiry Unite (Lupe Zinzin). She had told me, over and over and over, that the local DA's are required to take complaints from civilians in these situations. She refused to call the DA's Office, though. The DA's Office (Richard Celli, Mark Azzouni, David Kahl) refused to take a complaint from me. They (including the receptionists) hung up on me every time I called after no more than 2 minutes, for no reason, transferred me to dead lines, never returned any voicemails I managed to leave, told me explicitly that if I send a complaint, they will throw it away, and didn't care, at all, what the laws were. The receptionists also refuse to provide their names. The Attorney General's Office told me to send them a complaint, so I did. The DA's Office acknowledged receiving the complaint. But later said that they did not have a record of it, meaning they threw it away.
The Attorney General's Office finally agreed to take a complaint from me. It sat on their desk for a year. I finally called them, concerned that evidence was being destroyed, and left a voicemail for Casey Hallinan requesting that they request copies of the physical evidence from the Sheriff's Office. Literally 2 days after that voicemail, a letter was sent to me signed by Sharon Loughner with Casey Hallinan CC'ed on the letter, stating that they would "take no action", and blamed the incident on me. I had not received the letter though, and called and spoke to Ms. Hallinan, who was extremely rude. After that, the Attorney General's Office hang up on me as soon as they find out it's me, for no reason. There has since been a bystander witness who saw the whole thing, and it has come to light that the cameras did record, that no upgrades were ever performed like Ms. Abelson alleged, the cameras do continuously record (as of 2019), and they just lied through their teeth about the camera for 4 straight years. The Attorney General's Office does not care. They violate the laws, and do not care what the laws are.
Sonoma County Office of Legal Counsel attorney Michael King took over after Ms. Abelson withdrew. Right off the bat, Mr. King told me that my motions were deficient - a contention he has repeated frequently, since then. I asked him how. He changed the subject, and to this day has NEVER given any explanation as to how any of my motions are deficient.
He continued to claim that my claim was time barred, filing frivolous motions, in blatant violation of the rules of professional conduct, after I cited the rules to him, constituting explicit legal misconduct.
As I said, the judge finally agreed to open Discovery after a year and a half of full time work trying to fight for my right to not be nearly murdered for no reason.
Lawyers do not take these cases unless there is undeniable proof of blatant guilt, along with undeniable proof of catastrophic injury. Multiple law firms have confirmed that it takes over a million dollars worth of legal work to get these cases to trial.
The judge also promised me a pro bono attorney "if you make it past summary judgment".
The judge scheduled us for Alternative Dispute Resolution hearing with a magistrate judge. Mr. King elicited an offer from me, which I spent about 2 weeks working on, trying to make it as agreeable as possible. But then for the hearing, his written offer was to waive charging me his attorneys fees. The judge confirmed that there was no legal basis for him to do that - it would be illegal. He had been ordered to participate in this hearing, and there was a legal obligation under the Rules of Procedure to try in good faith to settle the case. He violated the order and the rule of procedure (26 (f)).
All of my motions were completely ignored for no reason.
Mr. King / Defendant Virgil Smith lied about the cameras. They said "Denies the existence of cameras capable of recording in the vicinity", in writing, under oath. They never disputed that he put his knee on top of my back with all his weight on it.
Mr. King refused to comply with his Discovery obligations. I had to file about 4 different motions pertaining to their refusal to comply with the laws regarding disclosure of evidence.
Upon receiving an official Discovery request for records of camera equipment, I received a letter signed under by Mr. King (nearly 4 years after the incident) stating that the cameras CAN RECORD. But stating "tasks must be performed" to start the recording function, and stating that all records pertaining to the equipment that was installed at the time HAD BEEN DESTROYED (literally a federal and state crime, a civil tort violation, and a sanctionable act of legal misconduct).
Mr. King refused to schedule any of the witnesses for deposition, demanded MY deposition BEFORE he would even schedule the two deputies who assaulted me, even though I had been requesting depositions with other witnesses for over a month, and refused to schedule anyone else, he refused to answer interrogatories, he refused to provide copies of the policies from the time of the incident. He tried to pass off a weird spreadsheet with the word camera on it as proof that upgrades had been done to the cameras. He refused to provide complete training records for the deputies. He refused to provide details about the training. He refused to provide blueprints of the facility, refused to provide photos of the cameras at the location, refused to provide still images showing which direction the cameras were pointing, refused to provide photos of the deputies so I could schedule depositions efficiently.
The judge erroneously dismissed my Equal Protection claims, construing them as Due Process and Employment Discrimination claims, which are different types of claims than Equal Protection claims against a government actor. The government cannot arbitrarily treat anyone disparately. The Court also dismissed my "Monell" claim against the municipality for their "policies, customs, or practices", but left me leave to amend that claim. And she waited until Discovery opened over 1.5 years into litigation, to do this, forcing me to amend the complaint DURING DISCOVERY which was only open for a limited amount of time, instead of any point in the 1.5 years prior to that.
In the recorded interview with Andrew Cash and one of the witness deputies, she spontaneously states that Mr. Cash instructed her to review the written statements made by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to the interview. Another deputy witness confirmed that Mr. Cash had instructed her to review the written reports by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to her providing Mr. Cash with a written statement as well.
The judge finally retaliated against me, without rational basis, for filing motions, which I had filed because I was being illegally obstructed from preserving evidence, by withdrawing leave to amend regarding the "Monell" claim (I had stated a clear Monell claim to begin with, but the judge literally has an aversion to reading, and relies on guessing, and is biased against pro se litigants; I am summarizing well over 100 pages, if not well over double that, of motions, objections, and replies and the judge's responsive orders).
She did however, finally schedule a hearing with a Discovery referee magistrate. All my motions (and the months of work I was required to do dictated by the various rules) was completely disregarded, and both me and Mr. King were given 2 pages each (double spaced) to go over discovery issues, even though I had filed about 4 different motions about various issues, and he hadn't filed ANY, at that time.
During conference I was required to do in accordance with the Rules, Mr. King repeatedly tried to establish that I had committed crimes during the course of conferring which was my legal obligation, without having any rational basis to believe what he was trying to establish. He demanded evidence that would exist, and he kept repeating every lie he could come up with to the judge. The judge would either get annoyed at me if I addressed any of Mr. King's baseless accusations, or take his statements at face value for being 100% true.
Mr. King finally "compromised" and agreed to schedule depositions with me (as long as Mr. King wanted to) and the two deputies who had assaulted me (for 25 minutes each or something) all simultaneously, but refused to schedule anyone else, even though this was grossly advantageous to him. One of the eye witness deputies later confirmed that he had "consulted" her over 4 times prior to the trial. During this deposition, Mr. King asked me where a family member of mine works. He had spent about 30-40 minutes trying to convince me that I can tell him anything, that the entire record was designated confidential, that I had nothing to worry about - and at a deposition, you are obligated to answer the questions unless they are harassing. Mr. King also requested contact information for counselors from over 10 years ago, and that was the only question I didn't answer - I told him to provide the request in writing. At some point after that, I told Mr. King to not contact my family member at her workplace, and Mr. King responded "unless you fully and completely cooperate" with his request for contact information for counselors from 10 years+ ago.
At the hearing, the Discovery Magistrate (Donna M. Ryu) discussed matters only with Mr. King, without including me. He told her that the 4 eye witness deputies "saw nothing" and "weren't there" (verbatim) trying to get her to deny me my request to take their deposition. She asked him if he would get them to sign fresh "sworn declarations", "under oath" (Judge Ryu's words, verbatim) stating this. Mr. King said yes, absolutely, he would. Judge Ryu asked me "Would that be okay?" I said "No." She started laughing, and asked me why, and I explained that I had explicitly described various interactions with them that had taken place while the carotid hold was still being applied to me, and that they had stated in their written statements that they had witnessed force being used, and that was "not resisting". She confirmed that this was all true with Mr. King and that he already knew all of this, and ordered him to cooperate with scheduling them for deposition.
After that, they went back to discussing matters only with eachother, and I was excluded from discussion. This was an hour long hearing, and at about the 45 minute mark, Mr. King was again lying to the magistrate judge, and when he had finished, I interjected, "That's not true". Judge Ryu shouted "Stop! Stop stop stop stop stop!" And then very assertively explained to me the importance of not interrupting people for the convenience of the court reporter / transcriber. I was excluded from the rest of the hearing.
At some point at either this hearing or the next one, I cited the legal requirement for the parties to disclose contact information for witnesses. I cited the rule of procedure. Judge Ryu responded, "Mr. King is a lawyer!" as if that alone justified his refusal to provide me contact information for witnesses.
Mr. King refused to provide both written statements from the eye witness deputies, and to schedule them for deposition, and stated that if he provided written statements, they would be copied and pasted versions of the same statements previously provided, signed under oath (nowhere saying that they "saw nothing" or "weren't there").
Mr. King kept threatening to go to my family member's workplace unless I provided him contact information for counselors from 10+ years ago, DURING a DEPOSITION, without him providing any written request for the information.
He also interfered with scheduling the witnesses for deposition, with the Court reporter that I had hired, disregarded the schedule that I had set, and set them each for 30 minutes, which raised the cost of deposition from an estimated about $700 to about $4,000, and said this was my one and only chance.
The Federal Pro Bono Project / the Justice & Diversity Center is an organization that receives seven million dollars a year in public funding and is under contract with the Federal District Court to work with the Court to provide legal consultation to pro se litigants. I had about 19 appointments with them, about 18 with Abby Herzberg, and 1 with Rosemarie Maliekel. Ms. Herzberg was precisely 15 minutes late to every single appointment, repeatedly gave me horrible advice ("just wait", do nothing, "don't file this", despite admitting that the entire motion was valid, directly causing excessive delay and the spoliation of crucial evidence). She also yelled at me aggressively on two occasions because I had brought up state laws, which were being currently violated against me, because the Court had dismissed my "state claims" because Sonoma County refused to supply with a state tort claim form when I first asked, reasoning that was not relevant to the state laws being currently violated against me. After Ms. Herzberg yelled at me the second time, I requested an appointment with Ms. Maliekel. Ms. Maliekel spent the entire appointment ranting at me about irrelevant issues, and kept talking over me and interrupting me. I was polite but eventually asked "can I finish what I was saying?" She responded "No!" and kept ranting at me.
I had repeatedly asked about how to properly get medical evidence, and about expert witnesses. Ms. Herzberg ignored my questions and spent nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment reading through the rules, without letting me speak at all, even to summarize the relevant sections of the rules that I had read.
On a video on their webpage (on the Court's website, because they are a "partner project" with the Court), Abby Herzberg explicitly demonstrates a clear understanding of the fact that the Court provides funding for expert witnesses, despite ignoring my questions about and spending nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment either reading rules or pretending to.
Discovery was closed.
Mr. King rehashed the legally baseless and frivolous "time barred" claim in a Motion for Summary Judgment. I was required to respond to it twice. I was required to answer all his "undisputed material facts" under threat of terminating my entire case, but he refused to answer mine. He lied over and over to the judges. As I said, the judge ruled that the laws "wouldn't allow her to" dismiss my entire case and rejected his Motion for Summary Judgement.
The Court ordered the Federal Pro Bono Project (FPBP) to put me on a list for attorneys seeking clients. Ms. Herzberg told me that if I filed any motions, that the FPBP would not cooperate with the Court's order, until 1 month before my trial, instead of 6 months before. She also said that a law firm had reached out to them about my case over a month prior to that, and that the staff at the FPBP had not followed up. My filing privileges were then revoked by the Court.
An attorney, David Ratner, reached out to me, and scheduled an initial consultation, over Zoom, at which he stated he "hates cops", and gave a showing of being enthusiastic. I explicitly told him that I wanted to make sure we were on the same page as far as what to "aim for". I told him that I had been working for FIVE YEARS, that I had almost died, that I had suffered two different extremely serious injuries. I told him that what I asked for was consistent with the most similar case (the Esa Wroth case of 2013) that I knew of (an ask of three million dollars). This was coincidental. I was not aware of the Esa Wroth case when I came up with that number. I agonized over that, and spent a lot of time trying to come up with a fair amount, and described the methods I used to come up with that number in detail in court documents. Mr. Ratner explicitly agreed to aim for that.
Mr. Ratner, and his partner, Shelley Mollineaux, who was set to represent me at trial under Mr. Ratner's supervision, then both went dark for over a month. They ignored my emails, voicemails, and messages that I left with their receptionists. There was a hearing, and then Mr. Ratner emailed me demanding "all the documents" that I had. I had over 50 gb of files across thousands of files, and spent about a month working with his paralegals sending them batches of files, and providing all the information they asked me for. Mr. Ratner forwarded me an email from Mr. King where King accused me of violating a court order regarding providing medical providers and the physical addresses of my entire family and my friends, which was false -- the Court had ordered me to provide him CONTACT information, at a second hearing, which wasn't significant, and I had fully and completely complied in good faith with all the Court's orders. Mr. Ratner accused me of not sending him "anything", after I had spent at least several weeks with his paralegals sending them batches of files and information, and he simultaneously threatened to ask the judge for leave to withdraw.
There had been major delays with medical evaluation due in large part to Covid, as well as delayed discovery of brain injury, which is very common, and other factors.
With trial set, Mr. Ratner forwarded me an offer from Defendants for $5,000. Upon discussion (which was 100% in email because he refused to talk over the phone and Ms. Mollineaux completely ignored me), he accused me of not doing Discovery right. I pointed him to the video I referred to earlier, which I had found since Mr. Ratner took my case, but wasn't aware of when I was interacting with the FPBP, where the FPBP (Abby Herzberg), and various District Judges from the Court I was litigating in, state that it is general policy (and it is official policy under the Court's General Order 25) to REOPEN DISCOVERY when a pro bono attorney comes onto the case, and to FUND DEPOSITION AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES.
Mr. Ratner stated he "won't file any motions" and ultimately elected to withdraw from the case over fulfill his legal obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court thanked him and granted him permission to withdraw. The FPBP refused to put me back on the list. I was forced into trial BY MYSELF, at 1-2 months prior to trial, after 2-3 months of my time being completely wasted by Mr. Ratner and his law firm.
I went through the appropriate legal process to submit an expert witness. The Court, as usual, completely ignored my motions, but allowed me to use him after I went through the entire legal process, and paid him thousands of dollars without knowing if I would be granted permission or not, and provided the Court a report stating that the carotid hold was ILLEGAL unless the subject exhibited "assaultive behavior" and that Defendants had never alleged any behavior of mine that constituted "assaultive behavior" (under POST Basic). The expert was a Master level instructor at a police academy and former SWAT.
Mr. King provided his pre-trial disclosures, and it contained a document from Rohnert Park police department which had been extensively redacted on the copy that they had provided to me. The new copy contained the contact information for the bystander witness. I called him, and he confirmed that he saw the entire thing, that I had never yelled at the deputies before the first deputy grabbed my arm, and that I was not resisting at any point in time. I told the judge this. She had me call him at a hearing, and both me and Mr. King were allowed a couple of minutes to ask him questions, where he refused to admit that I was even "wiggling" when Mr. King badgered him.
The judge then refused to allow him to appear over Zoom, and refused to summon him to the trial.
At the trial, the Judge accused me falsely of firing my attorney, and explicitly prohibited me from telling the jury that the Defendants had LIED about the camera's ability to record. She explicitly prohibited me from submitting scientific evidence about the carotid hold. She allowed Mr. King to make extremely defamatory false remarks about me and my past which had a huge impact on the jury's perception of things. At a pretrial hearing, we had gone over about 110 documents that I wanted to present at the trial. She vetted about 40 as admissible at the hearing, but at the trial she only let me submit about 5. Defendants were allowed to submit a SECOND expert witness, both of whom worked for the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. The first was Andrew Cash. The second was James Naugle who had been disclosed literally a week before trial, without a report, and without allowing me to take his deposition. She refused to allow me to ask Mr. Naugle about case laws, or about information pertaining to the carotid hold. The Court refused to summon any of my treating physicians, whom I had provided the names and contact information for in my disclosures at the end of Discovery and some in my initial disclosures, and I had complied with Mr. King's written requests for information or objected within the boundaries of the law, in good faith, and complied with the Court's orders, in good faith.
I had informed the Court that I was scheduled for medical evaluations for brain injury AFTER THE TRIAL. The Court completely ignored this.
So it was my word against theirs. 5 years, at the time of the mistrial, to get a mockery of a trial, and have the jurors' time completely wasted. The jury wrote me a letter thanking me or something, but awarded me nothing.
I was diagnosed with organic brain injury after the trial. I had a similar test prior to the incident and had absolutely no problems and answered every question with no trouble. I now score in the FOURTH PERCENTILE on those areas.
Despite its length, this has been a short summary of all the events over the past 6 years. Much has been summarized, and much has been left out. I tried my best to balance completeness with leaving out irrelevant details.
There is no record of any misconduct on the part of anyone involved in this that is available to any law enforcement agencies or to the public. Nobody has been disciplined. No investigation was ever conducted. I was almost killed and was seriously injured, under a camera, and in front of witnesses, and spent 6 years working with the government. The government has done precisely NOTHING.
The County now routinely retaliates against me whenever we interact, in blatant violation of various laws.
submitted by Adventurous-Plant419 to TooManyBadApples [link] [comments]
Lynda Hopkins took money from the law enforcement unions, and turns a willfully blind eye to it.
The County Office of Legal Counsel is literally a crime syndicate.
In 2015, the Sheriff's Office had a veritable torture ring in the jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izcHIv5Y4z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYrGChrW5HM&list=TLPQMzAwMzIwMjMv0QAOPDy1Lw&index=2
This is just the tip of the iceberg. They lied about the existence of these videos, and "lost" the one where they gave one of the inmates internal bleeding, with a knee to their back.
There was a lawsuit about it. It was called the "Yard Counseling Case". There are news articles about it.
There was an official, written policy, called "Yard Counseling", later its name was changed to "Behavior Counseling" which dictated that for arbitrary punitive measures, Sheriff's Office personnel should extract inmates from their cells individually (which meant slamming their heads onto the door frames on the way out and other abuse), and isolate them, and putting them into "pain compliance" techniques (literally, by definition, torture) for extended periods of time while "counseling" them, which meant wearing no name tags, ski masks and riot gear, carrying a shotgun with them, and insulting them in explicit language for over 20 minutes.
This official written policy was acknowledged by Rob Giordano in a video, where he lies that no inmates where injured, uploaded to YouTube in 2018, when they finally addressed this official written policy, and the practice of torturing inmates without reasonable cause (leading exercise routines, for example).
In 2021, they saw one of the victims of this torture ring, who had sued them and had won, at a peaceful protest, and shot him with a grenade launcher while hiding on a rooftop in the face with a crowd control grenade, which exploded on impact and caused horrific injury that I don't care to describe.
In 2017, I was almost killed by application of a "carotid hold" / lateral vascular neck restraint, by a sheriff's deputy, for literally no reason. A knee was placed on my lower back while I was on the ground on my stomach as well, which caused a serious injury to my kidney, which was the worst injury of my life. I have also been diagnosed with an organic brain injury and cognitive impairment. I was tested for the same type of cognitive impairment before the incident and there is a marked difference, and I have about 30 pages describing the differences I've noticed / troubles I've had in my cognitive functioning. There was no probable cause to arrest me, and I was polite and compliant with all the instructions given to me, and this was confirmed by witnesses. I was punished for invoking my right to remain silent, then my arm was grabbed and yanked up behind me, and then a carotid hold was applied because my body pivoted after the deputy grabbed and yanked my arm.
This occurred UNDER A CAMERA and IN FRONT OF WITNESSES. I called the Sheriff's Office the next day said I want to "make an official complaint in writing". I was transferred to Captain of Internal Affairs, Captain Mark Essick. I repeated my request, verbatim. He responded, verbatim: "We don't do that. Why don't you tell me what happened." I did. I told him it happened right under a camera. He said "The camera can't record." I asked for confirmation. He said the cameras "Don't have recording technology installed."
I asked the County for a claim form. They ignored my request, and instructed me to report the incident to IOLERO. IOLERO requested I meet with Internal Affairs, and I said fine.
Sgt. Andy Cash called me and scheduled me for a meeting at the Sheriff's den. I was made to walk first and guided upstairs to a meeting room, and then patted down for weapons, and the interview was recorded. For 75 minutes I was deposed about happened. He asked me repeatedly about my mental state after the incident. I admitted that I was upset after the incident, and he acted like that justified the whole incident. He explicitly promised to interview the 4 deputies who witnessed the event in addition to the 2 deputies who participated, as well as the arresting officer (who I told him would confirm that I was polite and cooperative), which he agreed "would confirm [my] demeanor", and a bystander witness I told him about.
I complained to IOLERO director Jerry Threet. Mr. Threet agreed that that was inappropriate, then resigned without reviewing the investigation.
For about 4 years review of the investigation was put on hold because IOLERO staff quit, and when more staff was hired, they complained of being understaffed. They had a budget of over a million dollars but only had 2 employees. They only reviewed one case per four months. And they put off "backlogged" cases and focused on new cases. My complaint was finally reviewed by Interim Director Garrick Byers who clearly stated that the investigation was not conducted appropriately. I have the letter from him. That still has never been made public.
After the interview with Internal Affairs, I corresponded with Lynda Hopkins, and she refused to give her opinion on the matter. I specifically complained that the carotid hold was being used recklessly, and it is a dangerous technique. This was in 2018. She forwarded me to Janell Crane, who then had me meet with Kristi Schultz.
I contacted the DA's Office and spoke to Richard Celli (who made $346k in 2017, and has gunned down two unarmed people, and was convicted by a jury in one of the civil cases brought against him by one of the victim's family, but the sentence was overturned by a judge, while working for the SRPD). The first time I spoke to Mr. Celli, he told me that another law enforcement agency should take my case. After that first time, him and the rest of the DA's Office openly refused to comply with the Victims' Rights Laws (CA Con Art. 1 S. 28), and the "policies" (which are legally binding under CA Con Art 5 S. 13) of the Attorney General stating clearly that they are to take complaints from victims if it can't be resolved with the department.
After the first talk with Mr. Celli, I called Rohnert Park Police as I was instructed, and they 3-way called the Sheriff's office and then transferred me. I spent about 30 minutes reporting the incident to a deputy, and he asked me questions in a fair manner. I called RPPD back and talked to the arresting officer and he positively clearly confirmed that I was "polite, calm, compliant, and cooperative" (or something nearly verbatim, I can't remember exactly any more).
Andrew Cash called me the next day, at precisely 7:00 AM. He told me he was driving. He was extremely confrontational with me. He said "There were 6 deputies [referring to the two who used excessive force on me, and 4 witness deputies]. You were combative." This was false. He had only interviewed one of the 4 witness deputies, and the other 3 had provided written statements. They said that they had witnessed force being used, that they had not participated in the use of force to the best of their memory, and that I "did not appear to be resisting". But again, he had promised explicitly to interview the 4 deputy witnesses, and the arresting officer
Internal Affairs exonerated the officers. The letter was signed by Eddie Engram, captain of Internal Affairs. I called Mr. Engram, and had an hour long conversation with him, and he told me to contact Sgt. Cash after April 1st.
I filed a federal claim on the last day that it was due.
Mr. Cash referred me to Legal Counselor, Kara Abelson.
Ms. Abelson spent a year and a half refusing to comply with the Public Records Act, the Rules of Procedure, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She refused to provide me documents that I was entitled to under law, including the incident report written by Deputies Jacquelin Fazzio and Virgil Smith, and the recorded interviews that he promised he would conduct, and stated pretty clearly that he had conducted.
Kara Abelson spent a year and a half trying to claim that my federal complaint was time barred by 1 day when it wasn't. The judge (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) entertained this and forced me to respond SEVEN TIMES, before she finally admitted that the "law wouldn't allow [her] to dismiss my complaint".
After a year and a half, Kara Abelson finally withdrew from the case after I started citing the Rules of Professional Conduct to her that require her to resign or withdraw from the case rather than defend a civil case where defense isn't warranted. Nobody had disputed any of the allegations I had made. In fact, Eddie Engram had confirmed that what I said happened was not disputed by the evidence.
At some point around this time, either before or after Ms. Abelson withdrew, the 2 incident reports written by the two deputies, the written statements by 3 of the 4 witness deputies, and the recorded interviews with me, the 2 deputies who assaulted me, and 1 of the eye witness deputies, were provided, along with various other records from the facility. In the recorded interview, and the incident report, the deputies admitted that Virgil Smith had applied the carotid hold.
I had also reported the incident to the State Attorney General Public Inquiry Unite (Lupe Zinzin). She had told me, over and over and over, that the local DA's are required to take complaints from civilians in these situations. She refused to call the DA's Office, though. The DA's Office (Richard Celli, Mark Azzouni, David Kahl) refused to take a complaint from me. They (including the receptionists) hung up on me every time I called after no more than 2 minutes, for no reason, transferred me to dead lines, never returned any voicemails I managed to leave, told me explicitly that if I send a complaint, they will throw it away, and didn't care, at all, what the laws were. The receptionists also refuse to provide their names. The Attorney General's Office told me to send them a complaint, so I did. The DA's Office acknowledged receiving the complaint. But later said that they did not have a record of it, meaning they threw it away.
The Attorney General's Office finally agreed to take a complaint from me. It sat on their desk for a year. I finally called them, concerned that evidence was being destroyed, and left a voicemail for Casey Hallinan requesting that they request copies of the physical evidence from the Sheriff's Office. Literally 2 days after that voicemail, a letter was sent to me signed by Sharon Loughner with Casey Hallinan CC'ed on the letter, stating that they would "take no action", and blamed the incident on me. I had not received the letter though, and called and spoke to Ms. Hallinan, who was extremely rude. After that, the Attorney General's Office hang up on me as soon as they find out it's me, for no reason. There has since been a bystander witness who saw the whole thing, and it has come to light that the cameras did record, that no upgrades were ever performed like Ms. Abelson alleged, the cameras do continuously record (as of 2019), and they just lied through their teeth about the camera for 4 straight years. The Attorney General's Office does not care. They violate the laws, and do not care what the laws are.
Sonoma County Office of Legal Counsel attorney Michael King took over after Ms. Abelson withdrew. Right off the bat, Mr. King told me that my motions were deficient - a contention he has repeated frequently, since then. I asked him how. He changed the subject, and to this day has NEVER given any explanation as to how any of my motions are deficient.
He continued to claim that my claim was time barred, filing frivolous motions, in blatant violation of the rules of professional conduct, after I cited the rules to him, constituting explicit legal misconduct.
As I said, the judge finally agreed to open Discovery after a year and a half of full time work trying to fight for my right to not be nearly murdered for no reason.
Lawyers do not take these cases unless there is undeniable proof of blatant guilt, along with undeniable proof of catastrophic injury. Multiple law firms have confirmed that it takes over a million dollars worth of legal work to get these cases to trial.
The judge also promised me a pro bono attorney "if you make it past summary judgment".
The judge scheduled us for Alternative Dispute Resolution hearing with a magistrate judge. Mr. King elicited an offer from me, which I spent about 2 weeks working on, trying to make it as agreeable as possible. But then for the hearing, his written offer was to waive charging me his attorneys fees. The judge confirmed that there was no legal basis for him to do that - it would be illegal. He had been ordered to participate in this hearing, and there was a legal obligation under the Rules of Procedure to try in good faith to settle the case. He violated the order and the rule of procedure (26 (f)).
All of my motions were completely ignored for no reason.
Mr. King / Defendant Virgil Smith lied about the cameras. They said "Denies the existence of cameras capable of recording in the vicinity", in writing, under oath. They never disputed that he put his knee on top of my back with all his weight on it.
Mr. King refused to comply with his Discovery obligations. I had to file about 4 different motions pertaining to their refusal to comply with the laws regarding disclosure of evidence.
Upon receiving an official Discovery request for records of camera equipment, I received a letter signed under by Mr. King (nearly 4 years after the incident) stating that the cameras CAN RECORD. But stating "tasks must be performed" to start the recording function, and stating that all records pertaining to the equipment that was installed at the time HAD BEEN DESTROYED (literally a federal and state crime, a civil tort violation, and a sanctionable act of legal misconduct).
Mr. King refused to schedule any of the witnesses for deposition, demanded MY deposition BEFORE he would even schedule the two deputies who assaulted me, even though I had been requesting depositions with other witnesses for over a month, and refused to schedule anyone else, he refused to answer interrogatories, he refused to provide copies of the policies from the time of the incident. He tried to pass off a weird spreadsheet with the word camera on it as proof that upgrades had been done to the cameras. He refused to provide complete training records for the deputies. He refused to provide details about the training. He refused to provide blueprints of the facility, refused to provide photos of the cameras at the location, refused to provide still images showing which direction the cameras were pointing, refused to provide photos of the deputies so I could schedule depositions efficiently.
The judge erroneously dismissed my Equal Protection claims, construing them as Due Process and Employment Discrimination claims, which are different types of claims than Equal Protection claims against a government actor. The government cannot arbitrarily treat anyone disparately. The Court also dismissed my "Monell" claim against the municipality for their "policies, customs, or practices", but left me leave to amend that claim. And she waited until Discovery opened over 1.5 years into litigation, to do this, forcing me to amend the complaint DURING DISCOVERY which was only open for a limited amount of time, instead of any point in the 1.5 years prior to that.
In the recorded interview with Andrew Cash and one of the witness deputies, she spontaneously states that Mr. Cash instructed her to review the written statements made by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to the interview. Another deputy witness confirmed that Mr. Cash had instructed her to review the written reports by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to her providing Mr. Cash with a written statement as well.
The judge finally retaliated against me, without rational basis, for filing motions, which I had filed because I was being illegally obstructed from preserving evidence, by withdrawing leave to amend regarding the "Monell" claim (I had stated a clear Monell claim to begin with, but the judge literally has an aversion to reading, and relies on guessing, and is biased against pro se litigants; I am summarizing well over 100 pages, if not well over double that, of motions, objections, and replies and the judge's responsive orders).
She did however, finally schedule a hearing with a Discovery referee magistrate. All my motions (and the months of work I was required to do dictated by the various rules) was completely disregarded, and both me and Mr. King were given 2 pages each (double spaced) to go over discovery issues, even though I had filed about 4 different motions about various issues, and he hadn't filed ANY, at that time.
During conference I was required to do in accordance with the Rules, Mr. King repeatedly tried to establish that I had committed crimes during the course of conferring which was my legal obligation, without having any rational basis to believe what he was trying to establish. He demanded evidence that would exist, and he kept repeating every lie he could come up with to the judge. The judge would either get annoyed at me if I addressed any of Mr. King's baseless accusations, or take his statements at face value for being 100% true.
Mr. King finally "compromised" and agreed to schedule depositions with me (as long as Mr. King wanted to) and the two deputies who had assaulted me (for 25 minutes each or something) all simultaneously, but refused to schedule anyone else, even though this was grossly advantageous to him. One of the eye witness deputies later confirmed that he had "consulted" her over 4 times prior to the trial. During this deposition, Mr. King asked me where a family member of mine works. He had spent about 30-40 minutes trying to convince me that I can tell him anything, that the entire record was designated confidential, that I had nothing to worry about - and at a deposition, you are obligated to answer the questions unless they are harassing. Mr. King also requested contact information for counselors from over 10 years ago, and that was the only question I didn't answer - I told him to provide the request in writing. At some point after that, I told Mr. King to not contact my family member at her workplace, and Mr. King responded "unless you fully and completely cooperate" with his request for contact information for counselors from 10 years+ ago.
At the hearing, the Discovery Magistrate (Donna M. Ryu) discussed matters only with Mr. King, without including me. He told her that the 4 eye witness deputies "saw nothing" and "weren't there" (verbatim) trying to get her to deny me my request to take their deposition. She asked him if he would get them to sign fresh "sworn declarations", "under oath" (Judge Ryu's words, verbatim) stating this. Mr. King said yes, absolutely, he would. Judge Ryu asked me "Would that be okay?" I said "No." She started laughing, and asked me why, and I explained that I had explicitly described various interactions with them that had taken place while the carotid hold was still being applied to me, and that they had stated in their written statements that they had witnessed force being used, and that was "not resisting". She confirmed that this was all true with Mr. King and that he already knew all of this, and ordered him to cooperate with scheduling them for deposition.
After that, they went back to discussing matters only with eachother, and I was excluded from discussion. This was an hour long hearing, and at about the 45 minute mark, Mr. King was again lying to the magistrate judge, and when he had finished, I interjected, "That's not true". Judge Ryu shouted "Stop! Stop stop stop stop stop!" And then very assertively explained to me the importance of not interrupting people for the convenience of the court reporter / transcriber. I was excluded from the rest of the hearing.
At some point at either this hearing or the next one, I cited the legal requirement for the parties to disclose contact information for witnesses. I cited the rule of procedure. Judge Ryu responded, "Mr. King is a lawyer!" as if that alone justified his refusal to provide me contact information for witnesses.
Mr. King refused to provide both written statements from the eye witness deputies, and to schedule them for deposition, and stated that if he provided written statements, they would be copied and pasted versions of the same statements previously provided, signed under oath (nowhere saying that they "saw nothing" or "weren't there").
Mr. King kept threatening to go to my family member's workplace unless I provided him contact information for counselors from 10+ years ago, DURING a DEPOSITION, without him providing any written request for the information.
He also interfered with scheduling the witnesses for deposition, with the Court reporter that I had hired, disregarded the schedule that I had set, and set them each for 30 minutes, which raised the cost of deposition from an estimated about $700 to about $4,000, and said this was my one and only chance.
The Federal Pro Bono Project / the Justice & Diversity Center is an organization that receives seven million dollars a year in public funding and is under contract with the Federal District Court to work with the Court to provide legal consultation to pro se litigants. I had about 19 appointments with them, about 18 with Abby Herzberg, and 1 with Rosemarie Maliekel. Ms. Herzberg was precisely 15 minutes late to every single appointment, repeatedly gave me horrible advice ("just wait", do nothing, "don't file this", despite admitting that the entire motion was valid, directly causing excessive delay and the spoliation of crucial evidence). She also yelled at me aggressively on two occasions because I had brought up state laws, which were being currently violated against me, because the Court had dismissed my "state claims" because Sonoma County refused to supply with a state tort claim form when I first asked, reasoning that was not relevant to the state laws being currently violated against me. After Ms. Herzberg yelled at me the second time, I requested an appointment with Ms. Maliekel. Ms. Maliekel spent the entire appointment ranting at me about irrelevant issues, and kept talking over me and interrupting me. I was polite but eventually asked "can I finish what I was saying?" She responded "No!" and kept ranting at me.
I had repeatedly asked about how to properly get medical evidence, and about expert witnesses. Ms. Herzberg ignored my questions and spent nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment reading through the rules, without letting me speak at all, even to summarize the relevant sections of the rules that I had read.
On a video on their webpage (on the Court's website, because they are a "partner project" with the Court), Abby Herzberg explicitly demonstrates a clear understanding of the fact that the Court provides funding for expert witnesses, despite ignoring my questions about and spending nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment either reading rules or pretending to.
Discovery was closed.
Mr. King rehashed the legally baseless and frivolous "time barred" claim in a Motion for Summary Judgment. I was required to respond to it twice. I was required to answer all his "undisputed material facts" under threat of terminating my entire case, but he refused to answer mine. He lied over and over to the judges. As I said, the judge ruled that the laws "wouldn't allow her to" dismiss my entire case and rejected his Motion for Summary Judgement.
The Court ordered the Federal Pro Bono Project (FPBP) to put me on a list for attorneys seeking clients. Ms. Herzberg told me that if I filed any motions, that the FPBP would not cooperate with the Court's order, until 1 month before my trial, instead of 6 months before. She also said that a law firm had reached out to them about my case over a month prior to that, and that the staff at the FPBP had not followed up. My filing privileges were then revoked by the Court.
An attorney, David Ratner, reached out to me, and scheduled an initial consultation, over Zoom, at which he stated he "hates cops", and gave a showing of being enthusiastic. I explicitly told him that I wanted to make sure we were on the same page as far as what to "aim for". I told him that I had been working for FIVE YEARS, that I had almost died, that I had suffered two different extremely serious injuries. I told him that what I asked for was consistent with the most similar case (the Esa Wroth case of 2013) that I knew of (an ask of three million dollars). This was coincidental. I was not aware of the Esa Wroth case when I came up with that number. I agonized over that, and spent a lot of time trying to come up with a fair amount, and described the methods I used to come up with that number in detail in court documents. Mr. Ratner explicitly agreed to aim for that.
Mr. Ratner, and his partner, Shelley Mollineaux, who was set to represent me at trial under Mr. Ratner's supervision, then both went dark for over a month. They ignored my emails, voicemails, and messages that I left with their receptionists. There was a hearing, and then Mr. Ratner emailed me demanding "all the documents" that I had. I had over 50 gb of files across thousands of files, and spent about a month working with his paralegals sending them batches of files, and providing all the information they asked me for. Mr. Ratner forwarded me an email from Mr. King where King accused me of violating a court order regarding providing medical providers and the physical addresses of my entire family and my friends, which was false -- the Court had ordered me to provide him CONTACT information, at a second hearing, which wasn't significant, and I had fully and completely complied in good faith with all the Court's orders. Mr. Ratner accused me of not sending him "anything", after I had spent at least several weeks with his paralegals sending them batches of files and information, and he simultaneously threatened to ask the judge for leave to withdraw.
There had been major delays with medical evaluation due in large part to Covid, as well as delayed discovery of brain injury, which is very common, and other factors.
With trial set, Mr. Ratner forwarded me an offer from Defendants for $5,000. Upon discussion (which was 100% in email because he refused to talk over the phone and Ms. Mollineaux completely ignored me), he accused me of not doing Discovery right. I pointed him to the video I referred to earlier, which I had found since Mr. Ratner took my case, but wasn't aware of when I was interacting with the FPBP, where the FPBP (Abby Herzberg), and various District Judges from the Court I was litigating in, state that it is general policy (and it is official policy under the Court's General Order 25) to REOPEN DISCOVERY when a pro bono attorney comes onto the case, and to FUND DEPOSITION AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES.
Mr. Ratner stated he "won't file any motions" and ultimately elected to withdraw from the case over fulfill his legal obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court thanked him and granted him permission to withdraw. The FPBP refused to put me back on the list. I was forced into trial BY MYSELF, at 1-2 months prior to trial, after 2-3 months of my time being completely wasted by Mr. Ratner and his law firm.
I went through the appropriate legal process to submit an expert witness. The Court, as usual, completely ignored my motions, but allowed me to use him after I went through the entire legal process, and paid him thousands of dollars without knowing if I would be granted permission or not, and provided the Court a report stating that the carotid hold was ILLEGAL unless the subject exhibited "assaultive behavior" and that Defendants had never alleged any behavior of mine that constituted "assaultive behavior" (under POST Basic). The expert was a Master level instructor at a police academy and former SWAT.
Mr. King provided his pre-trial disclosures, and it contained a document from Rohnert Park police department which had been extensively redacted on the copy that they had provided to me. The new copy contained the contact information for the bystander witness. I called him, and he confirmed that he saw the entire thing, that I had never yelled at the deputies before the first deputy grabbed my arm, and that I was not resisting at any point in time. I told the judge this. She had me call him at a hearing, and both me and Mr. King were allowed a couple of minutes to ask him questions, where he refused to admit that I was even "wiggling" when Mr. King badgered him.
The judge then refused to allow him to appear over Zoom, and refused to summon him to the trial.
At the trial, the Judge accused me falsely of firing my attorney, and explicitly prohibited me from telling the jury that the Defendants had LIED about the camera's ability to record. She explicitly prohibited me from submitting scientific evidence about the carotid hold. She allowed Mr. King to make extremely defamatory false remarks about me and my past which had a huge impact on the jury's perception of things. At a pretrial hearing, we had gone over about 110 documents that I wanted to present at the trial. She vetted about 40 as admissible at the hearing, but at the trial she only let me submit about 5. Defendants were allowed to submit a SECOND expert witness, both of whom worked for the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. The first was Andrew Cash. The second was James Naugle who had been disclosed literally a week before trial, without a report, and without allowing me to take his deposition. She refused to allow me to ask Mr. Naugle about case laws, or about information pertaining to the carotid hold. The Court refused to summon any of my treating physicians, whom I had provided the names and contact information for in my disclosures at the end of Discovery and some in my initial disclosures, and I had complied with Mr. King's written requests for information or objected within the boundaries of the law, in good faith, and complied with the Court's orders, in good faith.
I had informed the Court that I was scheduled for medical evaluations for brain injury AFTER THE TRIAL. The Court completely ignored this.
So it was my word against theirs. 5 years, at the time of the mistrial, to get a mockery of a trial, and have the jurors' time completely wasted. The jury wrote me a letter thanking me or something, but awarded me nothing.
I was diagnosed with organic brain injury after the trial. I had a similar test prior to the incident and had absolutely no problems and answered every question with no trouble. I now score in the FOURTH PERCENTILE on those areas.
Despite its length, this has been a short summary of all the events over the past 6 years. Much has been summarized, and much has been left out. I tried my best to balance completeness with leaving out irrelevant details.
There is no record of any misconduct on the part of anyone involved in this that is available to any law enforcement agencies or to the public. Nobody has been disciplined. No investigation was ever conducted. I was almost killed and was seriously injured, under a camera, and in front of witnesses, and spent 6 years working with the government. The government has done precisely NOTHING.
The County now routinely retaliates against me whenever we interact, in blatant violation of various laws.
2023.04.01 04:42 1000000students Master List of What President Biden Has Done - Year 2
What President Biden has done - Year Two Makes sexual harassment in the military a crime
Economy grows faster than China's for 1st time in 20 years - Strongest economic growth since 1984
Limits the release of mercury from coal-burning power plants
Kills ISIS leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi
$5 billion for electric vehicle chargers
Gives $7 billion in frozen Afghanistan funds to compensate 9/11 victims and provide humanitarian aid
Posts $119 billion budget surplus in January; first in over 2 years
Unites world against Russia aggression
Imposes stiff sanctions to stifle Russian economy
Led the Western world in defending Ukraine against Russia's invasion
Ends forced arbitration in sexual assault cases in the workplace
Reinstates California authority to set pollution standards for cars
Ends asylum restrictions for children traveling alone
Clarifies the role of podiatric medicine for Veterans
Reauthorizes and strengthens the Violence Against Women Act
Creates Amache National Historic Site as America’s newest national park
Makes lynching a federal crime
Initiates "use it, or lose it" policy on drilling on public lands to force oil companies to increase production
Releases one million barrels of oil a day for 6 months from strategic reserves to ease gas prices
Rescinds Trump-era policy allowing rapid expulsion of migrants at border and blocks them from seeking asylum
Expunges student loan defaults
Overhauled the US Postal Service's finances to allow the agency to modernize its service
Requires federal dollars spent on infrastructure to use materials made in America
Restores environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects
Launches $6 billion effort to save distressed nuclear plants
Provides $385 million to help families and individuals with home energy costs through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This is in addition to $4.5 billion provided in the American Rescue Plan.
Establishes national registry of police officers who are fired for misconduct
Lifts sanctions on the Rojava and other opposition-held territory in Syria
Tightens restrictions on chokeholds, no-knock warrants, and transfer of military equipment to police departments
Requires all federal Law enforcement officers to wear body cameras
$265 million for South Florida reservoir, key component of Everglades restoration
Major wind farm project off West coast to provide electricity for 1.5 million homes
Continues Obama administration's practice of posting log records of visitors to White House
Devotes $2.1 billion to strengthen US food supply chain
Round 6 student loan debt cancelation: $5.8 billion - This is in addition to $20.7 billion previously cancelled
Invokes Defense Production Act to rapidly expand domestic production of critical clean energy technologies
Enacts two-year pause of anti-circumvention tariffs on solar
Allocates funds to federal agencies to counter 300-plus anti-LGBTQ laws by state lawmakers this year alone
Round 7 of student loan cancellation: $6 billion to 200,000 defrauded borrowers - Bringing total to $31 billion
Relaunches cancer 'moonshot' initiative to help cut death rate
Expands access to emergency contraception and long-acting reversible contraception
Prevents states from banning Mifepristone -- a medication used to end early pregnancy that has FDA approval
Steps to ensure the safety of those seeking and providing abortion care, including by protecting mobile clinics
Protecting privacy, safety and security of patients, providers and clinics
21 executive actions to reduce gun violence
Climate Smart Buildings Initiative: Creates public-private partnerships to modernize Federal buildings to meet agencies’ missions, create good-paying jobs, and cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - Paying for today’s needed renovations with tomorrow’s energy savings without requiring upfront taxpayer funding
Safeguards access to health care, including the right to choose and contraception
Oversees effort to admit Finland and Sweden to NATO
Ends Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy
Operation Fly-Formula bringing needed baby formula – (19 missions to date)
Executive order protecting travel for abortion
Kills Al Qaeda leader and 9/11 architect Al-Zawahiri with no civilian casualties
Invested more in crime control and prevention than any president in history
As of August 2022, unemployment at 3.5% (50 year low)
Gas Prices drop below $4 a gallon
Provides death, disability, and education benefits to public safety officers and survivors who are killed or injured in the line of duty
Round 8 of student loan cancellation: $3.4 Billion dollars of defrauded IT student loans have been cancelled
Reunites 400 migrant families separated under Trump
$1.66 billion in grants to transit agencies, territories, and states to invest in 150 bus fleets and facilities
Brokers joint US/Mexico infrastructure project - Mexico to pay $1.5 billion for US border security and processing source says
Blocked 4 hospital mergers that would've driven up prices and is poised to thwart more anti-competition consolidation attempts
Gets $1.5 billion in new border control security at the border and got Mexico to pay for it
Historic Police Reform
FIRST MAJOR GUN LEGISLATION IN 30 YEARS • $750 million to implement and run crisis intervention programs
• Ended boyfriend loophole – Previously only married people convicted of domestic abuse were banned from owning firearms. The new law extends it to people who are dating
• Requires gun sellers to register as Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers
• More thorough reviews of people ages 18-21 who want to buy guns
• New statutes against gun trafficking and straw trafficking
• Increases funding for mental health programs and school security
THE PACT ACT • Ensures high-quality health care screenings and services to veterans exposed to potential toxic exposure
• Extends period of time veterans have to enroll in VA health care from 5 to 10 years post discharge
• Codifies VA’s new process for evaluating and determining exposure and service connection for various chronic conditions
• Removes need for certain veterans and their survivors to prove service connection if diagnosed with one of 23 specific conditions
• Requires VA to conduct new studies of veterans health trends
• Provides critical resources to VA to ensure delivery of
• Invests in VA health care facilities by authorizing 31 major medical health clinics and research facilities in 19 states
THE CHIPS ACT • Provides $52.7 billion to secure domestic supply of American made semi-conductor chips, create tens of thousands of good-paying, union construction jobs and thousands more high-skilled manufacturing jobs, and catalyze hundreds of billions more in private
• $39 billion in manufacturing incentives
• $2 billion for the legacy chips used in automobiles and defense systems
• $13.2 billion in R&D and workforce development
• $500 million to provide international information communications technology security and semiconductor supply chain activities
• Provides a 25 percent investment tax credit for capital expenses for manufacturing of semiconductors and related equipment
THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2022 Climate:
• Largest climate investment in history - Will reduce 40% amount of carbon released into atmosphere by 2030
• Defines greenhouse gases as a pollutant making them subjected to pollution laws
• $370 billion for U.S. energy security and fighting climate change
• Tax incentives for switching to electricity to power homes and vehicles
• $60 billion invested creating millions of new domestic clean manufacturing jobs and 550,000 new clean energy jobs
• Will quadruple the number of solar panels over the next 8 years
• Cuts energy bills by $500 to $1,000 per year
• Doubles battery storage on the grid
• Invests in disadvantaged communities
Health:
• $62 billion to extend subsidies for health insurance under the ACA
• Provides free vaccines (2023), $35/month insulin for Medicare patients, (2023) and caps out-of-pocket drug costs to an estimated $4,000 or less in 2024 and settling at $2,000 in 2025
• Lowers health care costs of the average enrollee $800/year in the ACA marketplace
• Allows Medicare to negotiate 100 drugs over the next decade, and requires drug companies to rebate price increases higher than inflation
Inflation Reduction:
• Significantly Lowers energy and health care costs for families
• Reduces Deficit by $313,000,000,000
• Closes tax loopholes used by wealthy: a 15% corporate minimum tax, a 1% fee on stock buybacks and enhanced IRS enforcement
• Protects families and small business making under $400,000 a year
The Cost • $485 billion of new costs would be offset with $790 billion of additional revenue and savings over a decade.
Total Revenue Raised: $737 billion
• 15% Minimum tax on corporations with profits exceeding $1 billion
• Prescription Drug Pricing Reform: $265 billion
• IRS Tax Enforcement: $124 billion
• 1% Stock Buybacks Fee: $74 billion
• Loss Limitation extension: $ 52 billion
Deficit Reduction:
• $313 billion dollars
STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS (Round 8 and by far the largest) • $20,000 for everyone with Pell Grants
• $10,000 for everyone else making less than $125,000 for individuals & $250,000 married couples
• Payments again paused until the end of 2022
• Payments for undergrad loans capped at 5% of your income (previously was 10%)
• This is addition to the 8 previous rounds of debt cancellation totally $35 billion
• 20-40 million people will benefit
• Codifies DACA into law - Allows dreamers (children of immigrants born in US) ability to work and stay in US
Declares Moonshot Style Effort to Cure Cancer • Hires Dr. Renee Wegrzyn as the inaugural Director of ARPA-H, a new agency to drive biomedical innovation
• Launches National Biotechnology and Manufacturing Initiative
• Cancer Cabinet’s progress towards delivering cancer detection tech and support for researchers across US
Infrastructure Projects in Individual States Created by Infrastructure Bill
All-Time Low Uninsured rate
10 million jobs—more than ever created before at this point of a presidency
3.5% unemployment rate—a near record low in the history of this country
Best Economic growth in over two decades (yes that has been adjusted for inflation)
More than 220 million Americans were vaccinated
Record small business creation
Round nine of student loan forgiveness - $1.5 Billion for defrauded college borrowers
Biden created DOJ task force dismantles human smuggling organization near Texas-American border
Intervened to prevent nation-wide rail strike which would have caused national economic disaster
Blocks Chinese investments in US tech
Eliminates statute of limitations for civil suits for people who were sexually abused as minors
Pardons thousands for simple possession of marijuana
Reevaluating how cannabis is classified. Currently it is schedule I like heroin - Meth & coke are schedule II
Reunited over 500 families separated at the border by Trump policies
Puts new limits on drone strikes including requiring the presidential approval
Brokered deal between Israel and Lebanon ending maritime boundary dispute and establish a permanent maritime boundary between them
PAWS Act: Requires zoos, commercial animal dealers, and research facilities to have contingency plans in place to evacuate and care for animals in an emergency or disaster situation
Increases veterans’' life insurance benefit coverage to $500,000. First increase in 17 years
Ensures US is not funding or participating in human trafficking of 3rd world-country workers through our contracts overseas
Enacts aggressive steps to improve quality of nursing homes
Codifies Gay Marriage into law - Protects Same-Sex and Interracial Marriage
Prohibits private possession of big cats and prohibits exhibitors from allowing direct contact with cubs
Electrifies US Postal trucks by 2026
Stops the forcing out of pregnant workers, or denying reasonable accommodations
Extended health care funding for the 9/11 first-responders and survivors
Streamlined Veterans home loans, provided way to transfer GI Bill benefits to new school, and provided support for survivors of military sexual trauma.
Year Two Accomplishments: 4.5 million jobs added in year two - Over 11 million jobs added in first two years
Unemployment rate at 50 year low
Cuts budget deficit in half - $1.4 trillion deficit reduction is the largest single-year reduction in US history
Greatest year in history for new small business applications - (over 10 million new businesses created)
Record number of Americans having health insurance
This Senate has confirmed 97 federal judges
Limit China’s technological development breaking decades of federal policy and represents most aggressive American action yet to curtail Beijing’s economic and military rise
Appointed more black women to the court than any president in history
submitted by 1000000students to POTUSWatch [link] [comments]
Economy grows faster than China's for 1st time in 20 years - Strongest economic growth since 1984
Limits the release of mercury from coal-burning power plants
Kills ISIS leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi
$5 billion for electric vehicle chargers
Gives $7 billion in frozen Afghanistan funds to compensate 9/11 victims and provide humanitarian aid
Posts $119 billion budget surplus in January; first in over 2 years
Unites world against Russia aggression
Imposes stiff sanctions to stifle Russian economy
Led the Western world in defending Ukraine against Russia's invasion
Ends forced arbitration in sexual assault cases in the workplace
Reinstates California authority to set pollution standards for cars
Ends asylum restrictions for children traveling alone
Clarifies the role of podiatric medicine for Veterans
Reauthorizes and strengthens the Violence Against Women Act
Creates Amache National Historic Site as America’s newest national park
Makes lynching a federal crime
Initiates "use it, or lose it" policy on drilling on public lands to force oil companies to increase production
Releases one million barrels of oil a day for 6 months from strategic reserves to ease gas prices
Rescinds Trump-era policy allowing rapid expulsion of migrants at border and blocks them from seeking asylum
Expunges student loan defaults
Overhauled the US Postal Service's finances to allow the agency to modernize its service
Requires federal dollars spent on infrastructure to use materials made in America
Restores environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects
Launches $6 billion effort to save distressed nuclear plants
Provides $385 million to help families and individuals with home energy costs through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This is in addition to $4.5 billion provided in the American Rescue Plan.
Establishes national registry of police officers who are fired for misconduct
Lifts sanctions on the Rojava and other opposition-held territory in Syria
Tightens restrictions on chokeholds, no-knock warrants, and transfer of military equipment to police departments
Requires all federal Law enforcement officers to wear body cameras
$265 million for South Florida reservoir, key component of Everglades restoration
Major wind farm project off West coast to provide electricity for 1.5 million homes
Continues Obama administration's practice of posting log records of visitors to White House
Devotes $2.1 billion to strengthen US food supply chain
Round 6 student loan debt cancelation: $5.8 billion - This is in addition to $20.7 billion previously cancelled
Invokes Defense Production Act to rapidly expand domestic production of critical clean energy technologies
Enacts two-year pause of anti-circumvention tariffs on solar
Allocates funds to federal agencies to counter 300-plus anti-LGBTQ laws by state lawmakers this year alone
Round 7 of student loan cancellation: $6 billion to 200,000 defrauded borrowers - Bringing total to $31 billion
Relaunches cancer 'moonshot' initiative to help cut death rate
Expands access to emergency contraception and long-acting reversible contraception
Prevents states from banning Mifepristone -- a medication used to end early pregnancy that has FDA approval
Steps to ensure the safety of those seeking and providing abortion care, including by protecting mobile clinics
Protecting privacy, safety and security of patients, providers and clinics
21 executive actions to reduce gun violence
Climate Smart Buildings Initiative: Creates public-private partnerships to modernize Federal buildings to meet agencies’ missions, create good-paying jobs, and cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - Paying for today’s needed renovations with tomorrow’s energy savings without requiring upfront taxpayer funding
Safeguards access to health care, including the right to choose and contraception
Oversees effort to admit Finland and Sweden to NATO
Ends Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy
Operation Fly-Formula bringing needed baby formula – (19 missions to date)
Executive order protecting travel for abortion
Kills Al Qaeda leader and 9/11 architect Al-Zawahiri with no civilian casualties
Invested more in crime control and prevention than any president in history
As of August 2022, unemployment at 3.5% (50 year low)
Gas Prices drop below $4 a gallon
Provides death, disability, and education benefits to public safety officers and survivors who are killed or injured in the line of duty
Round 8 of student loan cancellation: $3.4 Billion dollars of defrauded IT student loans have been cancelled
Reunites 400 migrant families separated under Trump
$1.66 billion in grants to transit agencies, territories, and states to invest in 150 bus fleets and facilities
Brokers joint US/Mexico infrastructure project - Mexico to pay $1.5 billion for US border security and processing source says
Blocked 4 hospital mergers that would've driven up prices and is poised to thwart more anti-competition consolidation attempts
Gets $1.5 billion in new border control security at the border and got Mexico to pay for it
Historic Police Reform
FIRST MAJOR GUN LEGISLATION IN 30 YEARS • $750 million to implement and run crisis intervention programs
• Ended boyfriend loophole – Previously only married people convicted of domestic abuse were banned from owning firearms. The new law extends it to people who are dating
• Requires gun sellers to register as Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers
• More thorough reviews of people ages 18-21 who want to buy guns
• New statutes against gun trafficking and straw trafficking
• Increases funding for mental health programs and school security
THE PACT ACT • Ensures high-quality health care screenings and services to veterans exposed to potential toxic exposure
• Extends period of time veterans have to enroll in VA health care from 5 to 10 years post discharge
• Codifies VA’s new process for evaluating and determining exposure and service connection for various chronic conditions
• Removes need for certain veterans and their survivors to prove service connection if diagnosed with one of 23 specific conditions
• Requires VA to conduct new studies of veterans health trends
• Provides critical resources to VA to ensure delivery of
• Invests in VA health care facilities by authorizing 31 major medical health clinics and research facilities in 19 states
THE CHIPS ACT • Provides $52.7 billion to secure domestic supply of American made semi-conductor chips, create tens of thousands of good-paying, union construction jobs and thousands more high-skilled manufacturing jobs, and catalyze hundreds of billions more in private
• $39 billion in manufacturing incentives
• $2 billion for the legacy chips used in automobiles and defense systems
• $13.2 billion in R&D and workforce development
• $500 million to provide international information communications technology security and semiconductor supply chain activities
• Provides a 25 percent investment tax credit for capital expenses for manufacturing of semiconductors and related equipment
THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2022 Climate:
• Largest climate investment in history - Will reduce 40% amount of carbon released into atmosphere by 2030
• Defines greenhouse gases as a pollutant making them subjected to pollution laws
• $370 billion for U.S. energy security and fighting climate change
• Tax incentives for switching to electricity to power homes and vehicles
• $60 billion invested creating millions of new domestic clean manufacturing jobs and 550,000 new clean energy jobs
• Will quadruple the number of solar panels over the next 8 years
• Cuts energy bills by $500 to $1,000 per year
• Doubles battery storage on the grid
• Invests in disadvantaged communities
Health:
• $62 billion to extend subsidies for health insurance under the ACA
• Provides free vaccines (2023), $35/month insulin for Medicare patients, (2023) and caps out-of-pocket drug costs to an estimated $4,000 or less in 2024 and settling at $2,000 in 2025
• Lowers health care costs of the average enrollee $800/year in the ACA marketplace
• Allows Medicare to negotiate 100 drugs over the next decade, and requires drug companies to rebate price increases higher than inflation
Inflation Reduction:
• Significantly Lowers energy and health care costs for families
• Reduces Deficit by $313,000,000,000
• Closes tax loopholes used by wealthy: a 15% corporate minimum tax, a 1% fee on stock buybacks and enhanced IRS enforcement
• Protects families and small business making under $400,000 a year
The Cost • $485 billion of new costs would be offset with $790 billion of additional revenue and savings over a decade.
Total Revenue Raised: $737 billion
• 15% Minimum tax on corporations with profits exceeding $1 billion
• Prescription Drug Pricing Reform: $265 billion
• IRS Tax Enforcement: $124 billion
• 1% Stock Buybacks Fee: $74 billion
• Loss Limitation extension: $ 52 billion
Deficit Reduction:
• $313 billion dollars
STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS (Round 8 and by far the largest) • $20,000 for everyone with Pell Grants
• $10,000 for everyone else making less than $125,000 for individuals & $250,000 married couples
• Payments again paused until the end of 2022
• Payments for undergrad loans capped at 5% of your income (previously was 10%)
• This is addition to the 8 previous rounds of debt cancellation totally $35 billion
• 20-40 million people will benefit
• Codifies DACA into law - Allows dreamers (children of immigrants born in US) ability to work and stay in US
Declares Moonshot Style Effort to Cure Cancer • Hires Dr. Renee Wegrzyn as the inaugural Director of ARPA-H, a new agency to drive biomedical innovation
• Launches National Biotechnology and Manufacturing Initiative
• Cancer Cabinet’s progress towards delivering cancer detection tech and support for researchers across US
Infrastructure Projects in Individual States Created by Infrastructure Bill
All-Time Low Uninsured rate
10 million jobs—more than ever created before at this point of a presidency
3.5% unemployment rate—a near record low in the history of this country
Best Economic growth in over two decades (yes that has been adjusted for inflation)
More than 220 million Americans were vaccinated
Record small business creation
Round nine of student loan forgiveness - $1.5 Billion for defrauded college borrowers
Biden created DOJ task force dismantles human smuggling organization near Texas-American border
Intervened to prevent nation-wide rail strike which would have caused national economic disaster
Blocks Chinese investments in US tech
Eliminates statute of limitations for civil suits for people who were sexually abused as minors
Pardons thousands for simple possession of marijuana
Reevaluating how cannabis is classified. Currently it is schedule I like heroin - Meth & coke are schedule II
Reunited over 500 families separated at the border by Trump policies
Puts new limits on drone strikes including requiring the presidential approval
Brokered deal between Israel and Lebanon ending maritime boundary dispute and establish a permanent maritime boundary between them
PAWS Act: Requires zoos, commercial animal dealers, and research facilities to have contingency plans in place to evacuate and care for animals in an emergency or disaster situation
Increases veterans’' life insurance benefit coverage to $500,000. First increase in 17 years
Ensures US is not funding or participating in human trafficking of 3rd world-country workers through our contracts overseas
Enacts aggressive steps to improve quality of nursing homes
Codifies Gay Marriage into law - Protects Same-Sex and Interracial Marriage
Prohibits private possession of big cats and prohibits exhibitors from allowing direct contact with cubs
Electrifies US Postal trucks by 2026
Stops the forcing out of pregnant workers, or denying reasonable accommodations
Extended health care funding for the 9/11 first-responders and survivors
Streamlined Veterans home loans, provided way to transfer GI Bill benefits to new school, and provided support for survivors of military sexual trauma.
Year Two Accomplishments: 4.5 million jobs added in year two - Over 11 million jobs added in first two years
Unemployment rate at 50 year low
Cuts budget deficit in half - $1.4 trillion deficit reduction is the largest single-year reduction in US history
Greatest year in history for new small business applications - (over 10 million new businesses created)
Record number of Americans having health insurance
This Senate has confirmed 97 federal judges
Limit China’s technological development breaking decades of federal policy and represents most aggressive American action yet to curtail Beijing’s economic and military rise
Appointed more black women to the court than any president in history
2023.04.01 03:30 Kitsap9 Navy Federal Credit Union Transactions Not Syncing/Posting
As of yesterday, March 30th, my Navy Federal Credit Union accounts are not updating. I'm getting the dreaded yellow circle and exclamation point. Trying to reconfigure an account leads to a "403 - Forbidden: Access Denied" page at my credit union. Please fix this!
submitted by Kitsap9 to banktivity [link] [comments]
2023.04.01 01:29 rrmdp 📢 Five County Credit Union is hiring a Bank Teller!
submitted by rrmdp to jobboardsearch [link] [comments]2023.03.31 23:04 Then_Marionberry_259 MAR 31, 2023 TLO.TO US EV BATTERY SUPPLY CHAIN: TALON COMMENDS DRAFT GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTNG IRA CRITICAL MINERAL REQUIREMENTS
 | https://preview.redd.it/bf4ltld235ra1.png?width=3500&format=png&auto=webp&s=85455622c41a3faf8c95b193cb63b2e0cc7ca3d3 submitted by Then_Marionberry_259 to Treaty_Creek [link] [comments] "Balanced" New Rules Should Establish Domestic Mineral Preference Through Strong Enforcement Mechanisms Tamarack, Minnesota--(Newsfile Corp. - March 31, 2023) - Talon Metals Corp. (TSX: TLO) (OTC Pink: TLOFF) ("Talon" or the "Company"), the majority owner and operator of the Tamarack Nickel Project ("Tamarack Nickel Project") in central Minnesota, commends the Biden Administration for new draft rules published today on the implementation of the Section 30D tax credit provisions as amended by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Section 30D provides an individual tax credit of up to $7,500 for individual taxpayers that purchase a qualifying electric vehicle. To qualify for the credit, an EV must be manufactured in North America and use a battery that contains a certain percentage of minerals, such as nickel and lithium, that were extracted or processed in the United States or certain free trade agreement (FTA) countries. Talon Metals CEO Henri van Rooyen commented: "This is a balanced approach to two urgent objectives: securing strategic supply chains while also advancing America's ability to get more EVs on the road. Addressing climate change through the energy transition and building a strong domestic battery manufacturing capability from mining to recycling are vital goals." The draft rules published by the U.S. Department of Treasury today provide guidance in the sourcing of critical minerals and battery components for credit-eligible EV batteries. While minerals sourced from FTA countries are eligible, the law excludes vehicles which include critical minerals or battery components from "foreign entities of concern." Todd Malan, Talon Metals Chief External Affairs Officer & Head of Climate Strategy commented, "Congress put a premium on minerals sourced domestically or from our free trade allies. These rules are faithful to this preference. We hope that additional clarification of the Foreign Entity of Concern provisions, including audit and claw-back mechanisms, will ensure that minerals processed in Russia, China, or sourced by Chinese-owned companies in countries like Indonesia do not end up in qualifying vehicles through opaque supply chains or "mineral laundering." With enforcement measures in place, minerals sourced from mines and recycling facilities in the US and free trade allies will be the easiest way to meet the requirements and support the development of the domestic supply chain." Talon CEO van Rooyen concluded: "The United States has significant high grade-nickel deposits. In 1997, the Department of Interior and U.S. Geological Survey predicted that there were high-grade nickel mineralization zones in the US that are similar to zones in Canada and Russia. They focused on the U.S. Mid-Continental Rift (MCR), which extends from Kansas up through Michigan. Talon is singularly focused on exploring for these high-grade nickel deposits in the United States. The IRA, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the expanded authority of the Defense Production Act Title III Program all provide the private sector with strong incentives to responsibly explore and develop battery resources like nickel in the US, all at high standards for environmental protection, labor and human rights, public consultation in permitting and in consultation with tribal sovereign governments. The scale of mineral demand for the energy transition will require new responsible mining and recycling. There is not enough nickel, lithium, copper and cobalt in circulation today to achieve the energy transition through recycling alone. That said, the nickel we extract today is infinitely recyclable and will support generations of batteries in a future circular battery supply chain." About Talon Talon is a TSX-listed base metals company in a joint venture with Rio Tinto on the high-grade Tamarack Nickel-Copper-Cobalt Project located in central Minnesota. Talon's shares are also traded in the US over the OTC market under the symbol TLOFF. The Tamarack Nickel Project comprises a large land position (18km of strike length) with high-grade intercepts outside the current resource area. Talon has an earn-in right to acquire up to 60% of the Tamarack Nickel Project, and currently owns 51%. Talon is focused on (i) expanding and infilling its current high-grade nickel mineralization resource prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 to shape a mine plan for submission to Minnesota regulators, and (ii) following up on additional high-grade nickel mineralization in the Tamarack Intrusive Complex. Talon has an agreement with Tesla Inc. to supply it with 75,000 metric tonnes (165 million lbs) of nickel in concentrate (and certain by-products, including cobalt and iron) from the Tamarack Nickel Project over an estimated six-year period once commercial production is achieved. Talon has a neutrality and workforce development agreement in place with the United Steelworkers union. Talon's Battery Mineral Processing Facility in Mercer County was selected by the US Department of Energy for $114m funding grant from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Talon has well-qualified experienced exploration, mine development, external affairs and mine permitting teams. For additional information on Talon, please visit the Company's website at www.talonmetals.com. Media Contact: Todd Malan 1-(202)-714-8187 [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) Investor Contact: Sean Werger 1-(416)-500-9891 [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) Forward-Looking Statements This news release contains certain "forward-looking statements." All statements, other than statements of historical fact that address activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements reflect the current expectations or beliefs of the Company based on information currently available to the Company. Such forward-looking statements include statements relating to the implementation of the Section 30D tax credit provisions as amended by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Forward-looking statements are subject to significant risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements, and even if such actual results are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on the Company. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise. Although the Company believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein. To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/160784 https://preview.redd.it/5s92whr235ra1.png?width=4000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8aebd5bbdcdad1f9fc6faa9595217fb2dee8c464
|
2023.03.31 21:16 Dismal-Jellyfish Fed Report: "Despite generally strong conditions, Council members reported stark differences in economic impact between the “haves” and the “have nots.”" "Wealthier parts of their markets are not yet slowed by inflationary pressures, while lower-income households are feeling the squeeze."
 | Source: https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/files/CDIAC-meeting-20221117.pdf submitted by Dismal-Jellyfish to Superstonk [link] [comments] Community Depository Institutions Advisory Council:The Community Depository Institutions Advisory Council (CDIAC) was established in 2010 by the Board of Governors to provide input to the Board on the economy, lending conditions, and other issues of interest to community depository institutions. Unlike the Federal Advisory Council, CDIAC is not a statutory body, but it performs a parallel function in providing first-hand input to the Board on the economy, lending conditions, and other issues. Members are selected from representatives of banks, thrift institutions, and credit unions serving on local advisory councils at the twelve Federal Reserve Banks. One member of each of the Reserve Bank councils is selected to serve on the CDIAC, which meets twice a year with the Board in Washington. Record of Meeting Community Depository Institutions Advisory Council and the Board of Governors November 17, 2022:Overall Economic Conditions: How do Council members assess overall economic conditions in their regions?
Inflation: Are the prices o for products and services rising (or declining) more or less quickly than in the recent past? Are the prices for the products and services Council members purchase rising more or less quickly?:
Housing: How have home prices changed in recent months? Have there been any changes in overall housing activity in Council members’ Districts?:
Labor Markets: How have the labor markets in which Council members operate changed in recent months? In particular, please assess the degree o f job loss or gain (and, in which industries). Please comment on the changes to wages that Council members have observed over the pastyear.:
Consumer Confidence: Are Council members seeing any signs o fimproved (or declining) consumer confidence? What is the outlookfor consumer credit losses?:
Deposits: What changes have Council members seen in local deposit markets? Describe these changes by segment (retail, small business, and corporate). What are Council members' expectations with respect to deposit levels?:
Potential FHLB borrowing limitations and Cryptocurrency:
TLDRS:There is a TON to take in here but the bullets called out above:
|
2023.03.31 21:15 NotABotaboutIt New Mexico United releases 2023 Academy Schedule.
 | submitted by NotABotaboutIt to NewMexicoUnited [link] [comments] |
2023.03.31 17:45 rrmdp 📢 Local Government Federal Credit Union is hiring a VP of Risk Management!
submitted by rrmdp to jobboardsearch [link] [comments]2023.03.31 17:39 Frame_Late Interloper V
The greatest tragedy of war is that for some people the war never ends.
Prev/First
Silijima hopped into the truck, next to Sargen. The massive Gojid's head nearly reached the roof of the vehicle forcing him to crouch ever so slightly. He was an even more imposing figure up close, his muscles bulging and his scars held taut against his skin. He seemed preoccupied, as if her presence made him uncomfortable when they were close. His claws gripped the steering wheel, lightly scraping the carbon material. He seemed to be in his late thirties to early forties, and a distinguished Gojid at that save for the eye and the prosthetic arm. Most would consider him quite handsome if it wasn't for the damage he had received, and even then she was sure some women would find a prosthetic like that doubly enticing.
Senek sat in the back, leaning his head back and yawning. He seemed exhausted, most likely from being on duty for the last good knows how many weeks. He kept an eye on Sargen, but it wasn't a distrustful one, more like he was concerned for Sargen's wellbeing. It was hilarious to Silijima, to think that Sargen warranted concern, but she didn't know him or his past so she wouldn't judge; sometimes the strongest people held the greatest burdens.
"So, where to next? Do we have any other stops to make?" Silijima asked, breaking the uncomfortable silence.
"No, not unless you want to stop," replied Sargen.
Behind them, Senek grumbled. "We need to head back to the Collective and finish for the day; I'm fucking exhausted."
Sargen started the truck and turned around. "Then go home, Senek; you've done your work for the day. I'll show Silijima a bit of the station before I deliver the goods and introduce Silijima to the captains."
Senek didn't seem convinced. "They won't be happy that Sujek and I bailed halfway through the delivery."
Sargen snorted. "Ayaz and Igor won't give a damn as long as the delivery gets delivered. Take a tram and go home and see your mate and kids; you looked harrowed."
Silijima was inclined to agree. Before today, she didn't know if it was possible for a reptile to have bags under its eyes, but Senek surely did. He looked like shit, although Silijima would never voice that out loud.
Senek hissed but didn't argue, opening the door and leaving the back of the truck with a grunt. Silijima saw him walk down the street towards a tram stop in the distance, where one was unloading all sorts of people heading to shop at Zapadnyy tsentral'nyy rynok, as well as those ready finished with their shopping trips. Eventually, Senek disappeared into the crowd of humans, arxur, and the occasional venlil, harchin and gojid.
"So," Sargen started with an apprehensive sigh, "My name's Sargen, as you've probably been told. I'm sure Senek and Sujek have already told you all about me."
Silijima chuckled nervously. "Not much, actually. I've been wondering where you got that arm from; it seems very high tech. I've only seen prosthetics like that on high ranking military personnel in the federation."
The question only seemed to make Sargen even more tense. "I lost my real arm in battle. They replaced it with this." He flexed the arm, the prosthetic was agile and precise in its movements. "It's near identical to the real thing utility-wise, although the look of it took some time to get used to."
Silijima nodded absentmindedly, admiring both the arm and his physical build. Sargen must've been through hell and back to be so torn up.
"Are you ex-military? You have the hardware to be."
Sargen frowned lightly. "You could say that. But that's enough about me." Then Sargen put a soft smile on his face, a fake one, as if he was trying to hide his true feelings. "I was told you served in the navy; what was that like?"
Silijima didn't push for more information. "I was a Master Technical Coordinator for the Unwavering Credence. I kept the Guns and the hull functioning along with crews of grunt welders, and I pieced the ship back together after battles.
Sargen whistled, impressed by her rank. "You were pretty high up on the totem pole on that ship. Why'd you leave?"
Silijima scoffed. "The lies, the brutality, and the stress. I came to Skhamar looking for answers after losing faith in the state I defended for over a decade. Now that I know the truth, I realize that I hated every second of it, although I do miss it in a way. Once you get out, well, nothing seems right. For the first few months, I couldn't stand being off duty. I still miss that safety of knowing I was on a military vessel; at least we could defend ourselves. Back on Nishtal, I felt so… exposed, since I wasn't allowed to carry a firearm on my person anymore."
Sargen chuckled. "I know how you feel. I couldn't sleep right after I… left: I kept expecting an attack at all hours. Sometimes I'd wake up in a panic, clutching my ion pistol and ready to kill, only to realize it was just the sound of some puny asteroid bouncing off the outer shell of the station or a ship taking off."
Silijima snorted. "I remember nearly having a heart attack from the fireworks they set off for unification day. My parents didn't understand, or maybe they couldn't, but I don't celebrate that day anymore. It sounds too similar to Arxur hybrid charges slamming against the hull of a ship."
Silijima chuckled at first, but the laughter quickly died as reality set in. Her service in the navy had messed her up in more ways than one, but she couldn't imagine not living that life; she wouldn't know what to do with herself otherwise. She hated it, but she was better for it.
"So… What is there to do on this station? I'm pretty new to all of this freedom. What is there to do?"
"That's the good thing about this job; you get a good week or so in between missions to relax," Sargen smiled bitterly, but it was still a happy smile, "Me and the rest of the crew have so much to show you."
Silijima's heart skipped a beat at his statement. "Senek didn't seem too excited to show me anything."
"Senek's just tired; in fact he's always tired. He worked two missions in a row, same as Sujek, and they're probably going to push for another one," Sargen stated, "although I bet both Ayaz and Igor will send them both home and tell them to spend some time just relaxing for once since those two practically kill themselves working." He chuckled before continuing, "But as for things to do, well, there's a lot: Theaters, Restaurants, Museums, a full-sized futbol stadium, and even a few more exotic things the humans brought over. Humans are kind of the cultural heart of the entire Commonwealth; The big Arxur houses might be the dominant economic forces besides the coalitions, but the Humans really brought a heart and soul to what would otherwise be a pretty dull and barren place."
Silijima thought about that for a moment. She had seen sporting events before; Nishtal had plenty of ballastier stadiums to choose from, where Krakotl would work as a flock to move a floating ball from one end to the other. There were also games of airborne agility and such, so she wasn't too interested in sports.
But the idea of a theater intrigued her. Nishtal didn't have many theaters: the Krakotl didn't like being cooped up in a dark place for too long, since their instincts were to nest under the open sky instead of burrow underground. Mix that with a lack of any big theater culture and you git a species that vastly preferred doing over watching. Sports and music were far more popular with the Krakotl, their ability to fly and vast vocal ranges helping them flourish in alternative mediums of entertainment.
"How are the theaters here? I've never really gone to one before."
Sargen eyed her with disbelief. "Neither did I before I came here. They're pretty great, with lots of cheap snacks and reclining seats. There aren't any 'new' movies yet since there's no real movie industry here on Skhamar yet, but they play a lot of older human movies. A few months ago I went with Timothy, Sarah, and their daughter Maggie to go see The Tale of the Princess Kaguya. The art style was pretty mind-blowing, to say the least."
"The art style?"
"Animation. It's considered a proper medium of theater in human culture. There are a plethora of what humans call 'the animated classics': movies that have achieved universal human acclaim due to their outstanding quality. If I'm not mistaken, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya is one of them."
Human art seemed so fascinating to her; the Federation was so cut and dry with what they considered art that anything that pushed the envelope was ridiculed and even reviled, often only gaining traction in underground groups that appreciated the bizarre and the condemned. To hear of artistic styles having entire mediums dedicated to them was astounding to her.
"That sounds incredible! What other movies have you seen?"
"Well, I've been itching to see Star Wars, but it's a long trilogy that's best watched at home. There's also a relatively new western by comparison called The Cursed that's being shown this week, so we can go see that. I've heard nothing but good things about it."
Silijima didn't know what a 'western' was, but if it was anything like how Sargen describes their animated movies, she was sure a human western couldn't be bad.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silijima casually read the synopsis for the movie they would be watching on her holophone.
The year is 1886: Aging civil war veteran turned outlaw Thomas 'Death-Singer' Lawrence ekes out a humble living amongst the Ojibwa Indians of what is now modern-day Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, hoping to live out his final years of his life with his beloved wife, son and adopted tribe in peace. But when a bitter ex-Confederate, Klan member, and son of a wealthy plantation owner Shaw Cunningham and his gang of killers massacre the tribe for supporting the Union during the war, his entire world is torn from him. Now, all that's left after the carnage is himself and a teenager named Nanabush, the fatherless black sheep of the tribe.
Now, with nothing but vengeance burning in his heart, Thomas once again takes up the mantle of 'Death-Singer', and along with his newly adopted ward Nanabush, he travels south to reform his old gang of thieves and outlaws, 'The Cursed', in a last-ditch effort to gain the ultimate revenge and both kill Shaw Cunningham and ruin his family fortune. The curse must be passed on, and there couldn't be a more worthy recipient…
Now that sounded interesting. Silijima didn't understand much of the context, but a revenge plot wasn't a common theme in Federation media, or federation art at all for that matter, so it seemed like a great place to start. Besides, it wasn't like it was real, so if it was overly violent then she could just finish the movie and never watch it again.
But first, there were snacks to buy. Silijima didn't know why Sargen insisted on buying snacks, but he stated that they 'improved the movie experience', or whatever that meant. Either way, he practically dragged Silijima up to a counter operated by a bored human, preparing to order a whole slew of snacks for the both of them.
"I'll get two medium boxes of Çäkçäk style popcorn, a large bag of Korivka, and two large bottles of… Give me a moment." Sargen turned to her. "What do you want to drink?"
Silinima browsed the menu nervously, not knowing what to choose. "Uhhh, I guess I'll try some Baikal? Is it good?"
Sargen shrugged. "It's pretty good, a bit different than most colas." Then he turned back to the snack vendor. "And two large bottles of Baikal."
The bored human sighed, obviously just ready for his shift to end, and prepared the food for the two of them. Sargen prepared his credit chip and handed it to the worker when he returned, paying for everything.
"You don't have to, Sargen, I can pay for myself."
Sargen chuckled. "Maybe, but I'm the one who's taking you out. Just let me take care of it."
The human returned with the popcorn, which was two buckets of strange yellow… things that had a slight glowing orange sheen, along with a large bag of candies and two massive bottles of soda, which were also huge. Sargen somehow deftly balanced all the snacks in their arms as they made their way to the movie room they were assigned to without even a grunt and gave her a soft grin. Despite his obvious optimism, he seemed tense, as if she reminded him of something.
Sargen hurried down the hall, his large stride making it difficult for Silijima to keep up with him, but she managed. He avoided her gaze, his eyes focusing on absolutely anything else. There it was again, the strange behavior. It was as if she was some kind of phantom to him, but he couldn't point out her existence without seeming crazy.
They made their way into a door on the side that led down a dark hall with dim lights lining the floor. It opened up to a massive screen showing adverts for products before the movie began.
"Where would you like to sit? I'm partial to the back; you get better seats and a better view."
Silijima shrugged her feathered shoulders. "Wherever you think is best; I have no clue."
Sargen chuckled, but led her up toe stairs to the upper row of seats. They made it there, sitting down near the center, and Sargen handed Silijima her popcorn and baikal. Silijime pecked at the popcorn hesitantly, but found that she loved it! The sweet, nutty and floral flavors of the coating reminded her of the Vagra nectar from Nishtal when peddlers would sell organic jars of it during the summer months, and it paired wonderfully with the salty-sweet crunch of the 'corn' itself. The baikal was another thing entirely; the sweet-spicy and pine flavors of the cola tasted like nothing she had ever experienced like fruit and spices boiled in bitter tree sap and carbonated, but palatable. By the time the movie had started, a third of her popcorn was gone, causing Sargen to chuckle.
The lights dimmed, causing Silijima to panic for a bit, but Sargen's hand reached out and grabbed her shoulder, calming her. He was there, and he was big; nothing could hurt such a giant, right?
Then, the movie began to play. The sound of some kind of delicate stringed instrument being strummed softly alongside the croaking and chirping of amphibians and insects on a warm summer night. The sounds of the wildlife stopped suddenly for a moment, as did the instrument when a small gang of about a dozen humans riding strange, four-legged creatures reminiscent of suleans without horns advanced towards a gathering of flickering lights in the distance; probably a village. Their gallops were thunderous and destructive, nothing like the sound of a stampede. It was the sound of unwavering strength.
The men wore sackcloth hoods with holes cut out for their eyes and ropes around their necks. In their hands were primitive revolving handguns. They wore a myriad of different clothes; some wore gray army uniforms, while others wore khakis, union shirts and suspenders. They laughed and bickered as they spurred their steeds onward, obviously ready to commit some unspeakable atrocity…
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silijima has two panic attacks during the movie. Sargen was there, able to quell them by offering his support. He seemed to know what it was like to have one because he reached out and held her when she began to hyperventilate and raise her hackles. He didn't speak, but he made himself known. He was there, and that was enough.
At least the movie ended with a triumph: Thomas Lawrence got his revenge, even if he died in the end. His adopted ward, Nanabush, took up the mantle of Death-Singer, using it to defend the weak. It was a tightly wrapped story that should've been happy, but the memories of war still scarred Silijima; the sounds of the gunshots reminded her of the blasts of flechette cannons, and the blood on Lawrence's knife…
She still felt the phantom pain in her wing and body from being run through by an Arxur skimming blade. She had survived, of course, but the near-death experience had permanently changed her. She couldn't stand being around knives too long unless she was actually on the battlefield, and even then it caused her distress. Luckily, she never needed to be around too many sharp objects, being an engineer, but she had her… moments. She was able to quell her attacks, her panic and anxiety being quelled by the far more substantial fear of what she would be subjected to if her true state of mind were to be found out.
If the Federation found out you acted out of the norm, they'd spend weeks forcing you through the most agonizing 'therapies' before stuffing you full of pills and sending you home, never to be the same person again. She had seen the effects of these treatments; her former colleagues practically turned into zombies, their brains melted from the drugs. They lived off of government stipends, unable to truly contribute to the workforce, but the Federation seemed to consider this an acceptable tradeoff, the politicians being praised for lowering the rate of self-termination by any means necessary. In reality, it just created a state-funded drug epidemic.
Part of Silijima did want answers, but she realized her true motive for coming to Skhamar was to escape; she was so scared of staying home on Nishtal because every little thing could set her off. And if she were to have a serious enough outburst…
No, she wouldn't become what many of her former prey-in-arms had; a babbling mess of drugs and trauma. She was strong; she could do this. She wouldn't let her trauma overcome her.
"Are you okay, Silijima?" Sargent asked her, shaking her shoulder lightly. They were in the truck, riding to the Corsair collective where Ayaz and Igor had docked their cruiser. He seemed far more tired than before like she was exhausting to be around. She didn't doubt it; having predator disease was already exhausting enough for Silijima alone.
"I shouldn't have recommended that movie, it was too violent. Maybe something animated would've been better," said Sargent. "I was hoping that your experiences as a navy engineer would've been less traumatic than the average foot soldier, and I was wrong."
Silijima turned to him, emboldened. "It wasn't your fault, Sagren; I agreed to watch it. Besides, it might've opened up a few wounds, but it was still an excellent movie. And the popcorn and baikal were wonderful as well. And besides, it was a good movie, triggers notwithstanding."
Sargen smiled a little, although he was still feeling guilty. "I'm glad you liked it. But we should get to the collective; Ayaz and Igor will be happy to become acquainted with you."
Silijima nodded before turning back to the window, watching as the city raced by. The spires of the station-city rose hundreds of stories into the air, hover-tram systems connecting entire levels of platforms that connected to the taller towers. It made sense that the station would focus on the height of buildings; the width was a rare commodity on space stations due to the cost of adding extra floor-level infrastructure, so extremely tall spires interconnected by platforms and hover-tram systems that stretched for kilometers made sense. Everything was brightly lit: massive glowing LED signs depicting everything from clinics and dispensaries to shops and eateries were plastered across the buildings, along with almost lifelike and three-dimensional digital billboards depicting a wide array of advertisements and entertainment. It was the very definition of an urban jungle, sprawl and all, with tens of millions of individuals living their daily lives unimpeded.
"The station's pretty cool, huh? It's technically one of the larger cities in the galaxy, with a population of around twenty-five million inhabitants of all races."
That number was impressive for a city, but not for a nation. "But how many planets does Skhamar control? Fifty-five million is nothing compared to the five hundred billion sentients in the Federation alone."
Sargen nodded. "Yeah, that's true. Antheia and Calaïs are pretty sparsely populated at the moment, maybe a few million each, and the planet of Skhamar itself has about ten million. That means this place doesn't really have the manpower to keep up with the Federation or the Dominion in terms of fleet size. We still beat them in engagements though."
Silijima didn't believe that. "But how? The Federation outnumbers you guys a hundred to one!"
Sargen snorted, eyes focused on the road as he pulled into the parking lot of a ginormous building. "If there's one thing that I learned after only two years of living on Skhamar is that the Federation's school of naval doctrine is laughably bad. They solely rely on the force of numbers and firepower to overwhelm their enemies before they can strike back. This would normally work on smaller fleet engagements against lesser foes, but the humans don't play fair. They hide in gas clouds, and in asteroid fields. They launch silent torpedoes, drone strikes, and shells filled with toxic gas before initiating boarding actions to cause widespread panic in enemy fleets. Skhamar's newly minted traditions of piracy have led to a whole new level of Naval military thinking, one where the entire sector is an ever-changing battlefield and anything's fair game."
"But wouldn't they get discovered? How hasn't the Federation just listed down Skhamar's tactics for admirals to memorize and quantify in fleet engagements?"
"You're demanding too much from a Federation full of scared herbivores, and you're forgetting who runs that Federation. The Kolshians and the Farsul vehemently believe that thinking like a predator makes you a predator and that anything that resembles predatory behavior should be scrubbed away. To them, the 'herd' is the entire reason for their existence, and to stray from that is to become food." Sargen shook his head, obviously bemused by their rigid mindset. "In reality, predators have been chipping away at herds for thousands of years. To think that any herd is impervious is just stupid."
Silijima knew the former, and she had suspected the latter for a long time. "But herds need to adapt to survive, right? I bet you that was the reasoning behind the gene-modding and culture erasure at the hands of the Kolshians and the Farsul."
Sargen rolled his eyes like he had heard it all before. "It shocks me that you weren't thrown into an institution, with how perceptive you are. I'm telling you, the Kolshians and the Farsul couldn't care less about the other species in the Federation. All they care about is controlling and leading that herd they've stitched together with lies. To them, adaptability is only good when it benefits their narratives and power structures."
It made a sickening sort of sense, and it was completely believable now that the treachery of the Kolshians and the Farsul had come to light. The Kolshians and the Farsul being afraid of any change that challenged their ideals was a cancer on the Federation, and one that Silijima was sure would eat away at it until it was nothing more than a corpse. "I'm glad I left, you know, not being afraid of being locked up for having predator disease. I just hope that isn't a thing here."
"It isn't, believe me, or I would've been incarcerated a long time ago." Sargen replied, "Now let's go; I think we've wasted enough of Ayaz and Igor's time."
With that, Sargen stepped out of the truck, slamming the door and taking a deep breath of the blatantly recycled air. Silijima followed, leaving the truck and stepping out into a small, empty parking lot, which seemed strange for such a large and important building. The building itself was less of a spire and more short and squat but also very wide, with glass walls similar to those of the urban business centers on Nishtal. There was an entrance of glass doors in the front of the building, along with a massive sigil above them made out of what seemed to be platinum. There was a sword with wings skillfully engraved on it, along with the words Qui militat præter me, frater meus erit surrounding the edges. Her translator struggled to translate it due to the age of the language and her translator's lack of exposure to the esoteric language, but it came out as something similar to He who fights beside me shall be my brother. An interesting term, but certainly more unique than the Federation Navy's slogan, Defend the Herd.
Sargen grabbed her feathered shoulder and steered her away from the truck just as something hovered down and clamped its magnetic claws onto it. A massive, black-colored hover-drone the size of an eighteen-wheeler buzzed as it deftly floated around the two of them, one giant crimson eye with an LED dot acting as an almost animated pupil darting between the two of them. Then it lifted away, making beeping noises as it carried the truck in tow towards a large tower several hundred stories tall in the distance made from a monotonous gray material. "What in sweet Ina's name?" Silijima said under her breath, causing Sargen to chuckle.
"Moth Drones; they’re very useful things. There's not enough space on the station to have traditional parking lots, so Sarn Robotics found a pretty neat solution: massive drones come and pick up vehicles and transport them to large parking towers like the one it's flying to right now. Then, when we come back, I can just call back for my car, maybe wait a minute or so, and have my car returned to me. It's pretty awesome, and something you wouldn't find in a million years in the Federation."
That was true; the citizens would be spooked by so many flying objects. She could just imagine the number of stampedes such a creation would cause.
"Wait, what about the food and ammo?" She asked, curious as to why he'd leave it there."
"Oh, don't worry about that: that tower specifically has an automated storage system. All of our goods will be sent to our ship in the next few hours sorted, packed up, and sealed up in space-grade storage containers"
"Huh, that's pretty incredible," she replied.
"Yeah, it is. Like them or not, these predators seem to think of everything. I guess their minds just work differently; nothing wrong with that."
They walked through the doors as they conversed, and a massive lobby greeted them. Over two dozen secretaries of multiple races greeted countless individuals, many of them armed. Most of them were humans and Arxur, although she spotted a few Harchens and Gojids in the mix. The sound of phones ringing and computer keyboards being typed on resonated through the building with an echo. The entire lobby was beautifully decorated, with corners filled with fine gold-trimmed mahogany furniture and intricately woven carpets covering the marble floor. Sargen guided her up to the lobby and towards a young human woman with blonde hair. He greeted her with a smile, causing her to smile back. The snarl made Silijima's blood rush, but it was far less noticeable now, more like the feeling of adrenaline than pure fear.
"Hey, Csilla, how are you?"
The woman, apparently named Csilla, seemed to brighten up in Sargen's presence. "Oh, you know, just swamped as usual. Igor is waiting for you at dock thirteen, just take the tram down." Then her eyes swiveled in there sockets towards Silijima, causing her to flinch slightly. "And who is this? I didn't know a Krakotl was joining your crew."
"I'm Silijima," Silijima croaked, "I'm the new Engineer."
"Aww, isn't she just precious? It's been a pleasure to see you both, but I have to get back to work; we've got too many customers even with two dozen secretaries."
And with that, they were off. Sargen led her up multiple flights of stairs, passing different office levels before reaching floor seven, which was the connection to the Dok-stantsiya Vest-Enda. There were at least two dozen fully sized trams on multiple levels, with signs detailing over a hundred docks available to travel to. It was truly ginormous, more insane than any public transit system she had seen all packed into one place, but also a testament to the engineering of the station.
They boarded a packed train filled mainly with humans, although there were Arxur, Gojids and Harchen there sprinkled throughout. They rode for a few minutes, before reaching an open-space area sealed with active magnetic field shielding, keeping gravity and a working atmosphere within its borders while simultaneously allowing ships to pass through. There were hundreds of ships, both big and small, docked within the Corsair Coalition's docks, and some of them were exceptionally huge. They ranged from gigantic, rust-red lengths of bulbous metal covered in cannons to sleek, flat warships packed with rocket pods and covered with graffiti of snarling, gaping maws and bloodied talons. Eventually, they reached a point where their tram stopped, and they descended. Just a few dozen meters away was a younger human, maybe in his late twenties or early thirties, an old human woman who couldn't have been younger than seventy, and an Arxur practically made out of cybernetics, his body glowing with energy. The latter seemed to be organizing and directing a small number of droids, which were loading sealed containers into the fuselage of the large, rust-red battle cruiser with the word Iconoclast printed in bold letters on the side. The man saw us and approached, a wide smile on his face.
He was huge for a human, about six and a half feet, and had a long, bushy beard with a handlebar mustache, a short military buzz cut with a bit of hair left a little taller near the middle like a short mohawk, and a pair of black camo pants and a white t-shirt that showed the outline of his muscles underneath. He was practically a bear of a human, with arms the size of bridge cables and a neck thicker than your average gas pipe.
Despite all of that, he was obviously friendly, a wide snarl on his face. "Sargen! Dobriy den, how are you?" Even through the translator, his accent was thick and exotic.
Sargen scratched his head with his claws, obviously a little nervous. "I'm doing great, Igor, listen, this is-"
"Ah, yes, Silijima! Senek called me on his way home to explain their situation. It is a pleasure to meet you, my dear!"
Igor took her wing and shook it vigorously, having to bend down to do so. Having and snarling predator lean down on her in such a way, regardless of their intentions, sent shivers down her spine, but she kept it together. She would not break down in front of her new boss.
"T-the pleasure is all mine, Sir."
Igor didn't seem to notice how intimidating he was, but luckily a distraction appeared. Tarlim arrived just in time, carrying several crates of birch water and plums on his shoulders like they were nothing. The old woman seemed to spot him, because she hobbled over to help, only for Tarlim to prevent her from doing so. "No, Babushka, I can handle it."
"Nonsense," she said sternly, her accent even thicker than Igor's, "I can carry some, boy; your Babushka is not helpless."
Tarlim simply ignored her, carrying the crates over to the droids, with both Tarlim and the Arxur snickering at Babushka's pestering.
"Tarlim, what do you bring? Did I order something and forget again?"
Tarlim chuckled merely at that. "No, Babushka, Sujek ordered some Birch Water and Plums for you."
Babushka softened up at that, placing a hand over her heart like the delivery of birch water was an emotional matter. "Oh Tarlim, I thank you." She hobbled over and practically buried herself in his fur, hugging him as hard as an old woman could.
"Thank Sujek, I'm just the delivery boy."
Babushka snorted. "Hah, I know better. You probably dared him to do something for it."
Tarlim blushed at that. "Well maybe, but he demanded the plums as extra, so make sure you give him a big hug and plenty of food as well."
Babushka seemed to brighten up at that. "Come in, Tarlim; we are having a feast, to celebrate a great victory! No meat in the borscht, just for you!"
"Tarlim seemed very apprehensive towards the idea of eating anything that was even near the meat, but apparently he couldn't resist the old woman. "For you, Babushka, anything for you."
Igor snickered. "They are like a circus, no? Come, we are having a feast, and you shall partake."
Silijima wanted to leave, as the whole situation had escalated very quickly, but Sargen placed a hand on her shoulder. "There is no denying an invitation to a feast; it is a grave insult to do so."
Silijima just sighed and prepared herself for the horrors that awaited her.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's finally here; THE NEXT CHAPTER OF INTERLOPER! Somebody pop open a bottle of champaign.
I want to thank u/Acceptable_Egg5560 for the support and u/Bushbacon69 for the wonderful fanart.
If you want an AI generated picture, just let me know. That's become my new method of conveying what I'm creating to the world since I can't draw for shit.
The Next chapters for Chains made from Hope and The Apostate should be out this week, along with a new short called The Life Shaper.
submitted by Frame_Late to NatureofPredators [link] [comments]
- Nebojsa Knezevic, head of psychiatry for Pallas Medical Institute, 2142
Prev/First
Silijima hopped into the truck, next to Sargen. The massive Gojid's head nearly reached the roof of the vehicle forcing him to crouch ever so slightly. He was an even more imposing figure up close, his muscles bulging and his scars held taut against his skin. He seemed preoccupied, as if her presence made him uncomfortable when they were close. His claws gripped the steering wheel, lightly scraping the carbon material. He seemed to be in his late thirties to early forties, and a distinguished Gojid at that save for the eye and the prosthetic arm. Most would consider him quite handsome if it wasn't for the damage he had received, and even then she was sure some women would find a prosthetic like that doubly enticing.
Senek sat in the back, leaning his head back and yawning. He seemed exhausted, most likely from being on duty for the last good knows how many weeks. He kept an eye on Sargen, but it wasn't a distrustful one, more like he was concerned for Sargen's wellbeing. It was hilarious to Silijima, to think that Sargen warranted concern, but she didn't know him or his past so she wouldn't judge; sometimes the strongest people held the greatest burdens.
"So, where to next? Do we have any other stops to make?" Silijima asked, breaking the uncomfortable silence.
"No, not unless you want to stop," replied Sargen.
Behind them, Senek grumbled. "We need to head back to the Collective and finish for the day; I'm fucking exhausted."
Sargen started the truck and turned around. "Then go home, Senek; you've done your work for the day. I'll show Silijima a bit of the station before I deliver the goods and introduce Silijima to the captains."
Senek didn't seem convinced. "They won't be happy that Sujek and I bailed halfway through the delivery."
Sargen snorted. "Ayaz and Igor won't give a damn as long as the delivery gets delivered. Take a tram and go home and see your mate and kids; you looked harrowed."
Silijima was inclined to agree. Before today, she didn't know if it was possible for a reptile to have bags under its eyes, but Senek surely did. He looked like shit, although Silijima would never voice that out loud.
Senek hissed but didn't argue, opening the door and leaving the back of the truck with a grunt. Silijima saw him walk down the street towards a tram stop in the distance, where one was unloading all sorts of people heading to shop at Zapadnyy tsentral'nyy rynok, as well as those ready finished with their shopping trips. Eventually, Senek disappeared into the crowd of humans, arxur, and the occasional venlil, harchin and gojid.
"So," Sargen started with an apprehensive sigh, "My name's Sargen, as you've probably been told. I'm sure Senek and Sujek have already told you all about me."
Silijima chuckled nervously. "Not much, actually. I've been wondering where you got that arm from; it seems very high tech. I've only seen prosthetics like that on high ranking military personnel in the federation."
The question only seemed to make Sargen even more tense. "I lost my real arm in battle. They replaced it with this." He flexed the arm, the prosthetic was agile and precise in its movements. "It's near identical to the real thing utility-wise, although the look of it took some time to get used to."
Silijima nodded absentmindedly, admiring both the arm and his physical build. Sargen must've been through hell and back to be so torn up.
"Are you ex-military? You have the hardware to be."
Sargen frowned lightly. "You could say that. But that's enough about me." Then Sargen put a soft smile on his face, a fake one, as if he was trying to hide his true feelings. "I was told you served in the navy; what was that like?"
Silijima didn't push for more information. "I was a Master Technical Coordinator for the Unwavering Credence. I kept the Guns and the hull functioning along with crews of grunt welders, and I pieced the ship back together after battles.
Sargen whistled, impressed by her rank. "You were pretty high up on the totem pole on that ship. Why'd you leave?"
Silijima scoffed. "The lies, the brutality, and the stress. I came to Skhamar looking for answers after losing faith in the state I defended for over a decade. Now that I know the truth, I realize that I hated every second of it, although I do miss it in a way. Once you get out, well, nothing seems right. For the first few months, I couldn't stand being off duty. I still miss that safety of knowing I was on a military vessel; at least we could defend ourselves. Back on Nishtal, I felt so… exposed, since I wasn't allowed to carry a firearm on my person anymore."
Sargen chuckled. "I know how you feel. I couldn't sleep right after I… left: I kept expecting an attack at all hours. Sometimes I'd wake up in a panic, clutching my ion pistol and ready to kill, only to realize it was just the sound of some puny asteroid bouncing off the outer shell of the station or a ship taking off."
Silijima snorted. "I remember nearly having a heart attack from the fireworks they set off for unification day. My parents didn't understand, or maybe they couldn't, but I don't celebrate that day anymore. It sounds too similar to Arxur hybrid charges slamming against the hull of a ship."
Silijima chuckled at first, but the laughter quickly died as reality set in. Her service in the navy had messed her up in more ways than one, but she couldn't imagine not living that life; she wouldn't know what to do with herself otherwise. She hated it, but she was better for it.
"So… What is there to do on this station? I'm pretty new to all of this freedom. What is there to do?"
"That's the good thing about this job; you get a good week or so in between missions to relax," Sargen smiled bitterly, but it was still a happy smile, "Me and the rest of the crew have so much to show you."
Silijima's heart skipped a beat at his statement. "Senek didn't seem too excited to show me anything."
"Senek's just tired; in fact he's always tired. He worked two missions in a row, same as Sujek, and they're probably going to push for another one," Sargen stated, "although I bet both Ayaz and Igor will send them both home and tell them to spend some time just relaxing for once since those two practically kill themselves working." He chuckled before continuing, "But as for things to do, well, there's a lot: Theaters, Restaurants, Museums, a full-sized futbol stadium, and even a few more exotic things the humans brought over. Humans are kind of the cultural heart of the entire Commonwealth; The big Arxur houses might be the dominant economic forces besides the coalitions, but the Humans really brought a heart and soul to what would otherwise be a pretty dull and barren place."
Silijima thought about that for a moment. She had seen sporting events before; Nishtal had plenty of ballastier stadiums to choose from, where Krakotl would work as a flock to move a floating ball from one end to the other. There were also games of airborne agility and such, so she wasn't too interested in sports.
But the idea of a theater intrigued her. Nishtal didn't have many theaters: the Krakotl didn't like being cooped up in a dark place for too long, since their instincts were to nest under the open sky instead of burrow underground. Mix that with a lack of any big theater culture and you git a species that vastly preferred doing over watching. Sports and music were far more popular with the Krakotl, their ability to fly and vast vocal ranges helping them flourish in alternative mediums of entertainment.
"How are the theaters here? I've never really gone to one before."
Sargen eyed her with disbelief. "Neither did I before I came here. They're pretty great, with lots of cheap snacks and reclining seats. There aren't any 'new' movies yet since there's no real movie industry here on Skhamar yet, but they play a lot of older human movies. A few months ago I went with Timothy, Sarah, and their daughter Maggie to go see The Tale of the Princess Kaguya. The art style was pretty mind-blowing, to say the least."
"The art style?"
"Animation. It's considered a proper medium of theater in human culture. There are a plethora of what humans call 'the animated classics': movies that have achieved universal human acclaim due to their outstanding quality. If I'm not mistaken, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya is one of them."
Human art seemed so fascinating to her; the Federation was so cut and dry with what they considered art that anything that pushed the envelope was ridiculed and even reviled, often only gaining traction in underground groups that appreciated the bizarre and the condemned. To hear of artistic styles having entire mediums dedicated to them was astounding to her.
"That sounds incredible! What other movies have you seen?"
"Well, I've been itching to see Star Wars, but it's a long trilogy that's best watched at home. There's also a relatively new western by comparison called The Cursed that's being shown this week, so we can go see that. I've heard nothing but good things about it."
Silijima didn't know what a 'western' was, but if it was anything like how Sargen describes their animated movies, she was sure a human western couldn't be bad.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silijima casually read the synopsis for the movie they would be watching on her holophone.
The year is 1886: Aging civil war veteran turned outlaw Thomas 'Death-Singer' Lawrence ekes out a humble living amongst the Ojibwa Indians of what is now modern-day Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, hoping to live out his final years of his life with his beloved wife, son and adopted tribe in peace. But when a bitter ex-Confederate, Klan member, and son of a wealthy plantation owner Shaw Cunningham and his gang of killers massacre the tribe for supporting the Union during the war, his entire world is torn from him. Now, all that's left after the carnage is himself and a teenager named Nanabush, the fatherless black sheep of the tribe.
Now, with nothing but vengeance burning in his heart, Thomas once again takes up the mantle of 'Death-Singer', and along with his newly adopted ward Nanabush, he travels south to reform his old gang of thieves and outlaws, 'The Cursed', in a last-ditch effort to gain the ultimate revenge and both kill Shaw Cunningham and ruin his family fortune. The curse must be passed on, and there couldn't be a more worthy recipient…
Now that sounded interesting. Silijima didn't understand much of the context, but a revenge plot wasn't a common theme in Federation media, or federation art at all for that matter, so it seemed like a great place to start. Besides, it wasn't like it was real, so if it was overly violent then she could just finish the movie and never watch it again.
But first, there were snacks to buy. Silijima didn't know why Sargen insisted on buying snacks, but he stated that they 'improved the movie experience', or whatever that meant. Either way, he practically dragged Silijima up to a counter operated by a bored human, preparing to order a whole slew of snacks for the both of them.
"I'll get two medium boxes of Çäkçäk style popcorn, a large bag of Korivka, and two large bottles of… Give me a moment." Sargen turned to her. "What do you want to drink?"
Silinima browsed the menu nervously, not knowing what to choose. "Uhhh, I guess I'll try some Baikal? Is it good?"
Sargen shrugged. "It's pretty good, a bit different than most colas." Then he turned back to the snack vendor. "And two large bottles of Baikal."
The bored human sighed, obviously just ready for his shift to end, and prepared the food for the two of them. Sargen prepared his credit chip and handed it to the worker when he returned, paying for everything.
"You don't have to, Sargen, I can pay for myself."
Sargen chuckled. "Maybe, but I'm the one who's taking you out. Just let me take care of it."
The human returned with the popcorn, which was two buckets of strange yellow… things that had a slight glowing orange sheen, along with a large bag of candies and two massive bottles of soda, which were also huge. Sargen somehow deftly balanced all the snacks in their arms as they made their way to the movie room they were assigned to without even a grunt and gave her a soft grin. Despite his obvious optimism, he seemed tense, as if she reminded him of something.
Sargen hurried down the hall, his large stride making it difficult for Silijima to keep up with him, but she managed. He avoided her gaze, his eyes focusing on absolutely anything else. There it was again, the strange behavior. It was as if she was some kind of phantom to him, but he couldn't point out her existence without seeming crazy.
They made their way into a door on the side that led down a dark hall with dim lights lining the floor. It opened up to a massive screen showing adverts for products before the movie began.
"Where would you like to sit? I'm partial to the back; you get better seats and a better view."
Silijima shrugged her feathered shoulders. "Wherever you think is best; I have no clue."
Sargen chuckled, but led her up toe stairs to the upper row of seats. They made it there, sitting down near the center, and Sargen handed Silijima her popcorn and baikal. Silijime pecked at the popcorn hesitantly, but found that she loved it! The sweet, nutty and floral flavors of the coating reminded her of the Vagra nectar from Nishtal when peddlers would sell organic jars of it during the summer months, and it paired wonderfully with the salty-sweet crunch of the 'corn' itself. The baikal was another thing entirely; the sweet-spicy and pine flavors of the cola tasted like nothing she had ever experienced like fruit and spices boiled in bitter tree sap and carbonated, but palatable. By the time the movie had started, a third of her popcorn was gone, causing Sargen to chuckle.
The lights dimmed, causing Silijima to panic for a bit, but Sargen's hand reached out and grabbed her shoulder, calming her. He was there, and he was big; nothing could hurt such a giant, right?
Then, the movie began to play. The sound of some kind of delicate stringed instrument being strummed softly alongside the croaking and chirping of amphibians and insects on a warm summer night. The sounds of the wildlife stopped suddenly for a moment, as did the instrument when a small gang of about a dozen humans riding strange, four-legged creatures reminiscent of suleans without horns advanced towards a gathering of flickering lights in the distance; probably a village. Their gallops were thunderous and destructive, nothing like the sound of a stampede. It was the sound of unwavering strength.
The men wore sackcloth hoods with holes cut out for their eyes and ropes around their necks. In their hands were primitive revolving handguns. They wore a myriad of different clothes; some wore gray army uniforms, while others wore khakis, union shirts and suspenders. They laughed and bickered as they spurred their steeds onward, obviously ready to commit some unspeakable atrocity…
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silijima has two panic attacks during the movie. Sargen was there, able to quell them by offering his support. He seemed to know what it was like to have one because he reached out and held her when she began to hyperventilate and raise her hackles. He didn't speak, but he made himself known. He was there, and that was enough.
At least the movie ended with a triumph: Thomas Lawrence got his revenge, even if he died in the end. His adopted ward, Nanabush, took up the mantle of Death-Singer, using it to defend the weak. It was a tightly wrapped story that should've been happy, but the memories of war still scarred Silijima; the sounds of the gunshots reminded her of the blasts of flechette cannons, and the blood on Lawrence's knife…
She still felt the phantom pain in her wing and body from being run through by an Arxur skimming blade. She had survived, of course, but the near-death experience had permanently changed her. She couldn't stand being around knives too long unless she was actually on the battlefield, and even then it caused her distress. Luckily, she never needed to be around too many sharp objects, being an engineer, but she had her… moments. She was able to quell her attacks, her panic and anxiety being quelled by the far more substantial fear of what she would be subjected to if her true state of mind were to be found out.
If the Federation found out you acted out of the norm, they'd spend weeks forcing you through the most agonizing 'therapies' before stuffing you full of pills and sending you home, never to be the same person again. She had seen the effects of these treatments; her former colleagues practically turned into zombies, their brains melted from the drugs. They lived off of government stipends, unable to truly contribute to the workforce, but the Federation seemed to consider this an acceptable tradeoff, the politicians being praised for lowering the rate of self-termination by any means necessary. In reality, it just created a state-funded drug epidemic.
Part of Silijima did want answers, but she realized her true motive for coming to Skhamar was to escape; she was so scared of staying home on Nishtal because every little thing could set her off. And if she were to have a serious enough outburst…
No, she wouldn't become what many of her former prey-in-arms had; a babbling mess of drugs and trauma. She was strong; she could do this. She wouldn't let her trauma overcome her.
"Are you okay, Silijima?" Sargent asked her, shaking her shoulder lightly. They were in the truck, riding to the Corsair collective where Ayaz and Igor had docked their cruiser. He seemed far more tired than before like she was exhausting to be around. She didn't doubt it; having predator disease was already exhausting enough for Silijima alone.
"I shouldn't have recommended that movie, it was too violent. Maybe something animated would've been better," said Sargent. "I was hoping that your experiences as a navy engineer would've been less traumatic than the average foot soldier, and I was wrong."
Silijima turned to him, emboldened. "It wasn't your fault, Sagren; I agreed to watch it. Besides, it might've opened up a few wounds, but it was still an excellent movie. And the popcorn and baikal were wonderful as well. And besides, it was a good movie, triggers notwithstanding."
Sargen smiled a little, although he was still feeling guilty. "I'm glad you liked it. But we should get to the collective; Ayaz and Igor will be happy to become acquainted with you."
Silijima nodded before turning back to the window, watching as the city raced by. The spires of the station-city rose hundreds of stories into the air, hover-tram systems connecting entire levels of platforms that connected to the taller towers. It made sense that the station would focus on the height of buildings; the width was a rare commodity on space stations due to the cost of adding extra floor-level infrastructure, so extremely tall spires interconnected by platforms and hover-tram systems that stretched for kilometers made sense. Everything was brightly lit: massive glowing LED signs depicting everything from clinics and dispensaries to shops and eateries were plastered across the buildings, along with almost lifelike and three-dimensional digital billboards depicting a wide array of advertisements and entertainment. It was the very definition of an urban jungle, sprawl and all, with tens of millions of individuals living their daily lives unimpeded.
"The station's pretty cool, huh? It's technically one of the larger cities in the galaxy, with a population of around twenty-five million inhabitants of all races."
That number was impressive for a city, but not for a nation. "But how many planets does Skhamar control? Fifty-five million is nothing compared to the five hundred billion sentients in the Federation alone."
Sargen nodded. "Yeah, that's true. Antheia and Calaïs are pretty sparsely populated at the moment, maybe a few million each, and the planet of Skhamar itself has about ten million. That means this place doesn't really have the manpower to keep up with the Federation or the Dominion in terms of fleet size. We still beat them in engagements though."
Silijima didn't believe that. "But how? The Federation outnumbers you guys a hundred to one!"
Sargen snorted, eyes focused on the road as he pulled into the parking lot of a ginormous building. "If there's one thing that I learned after only two years of living on Skhamar is that the Federation's school of naval doctrine is laughably bad. They solely rely on the force of numbers and firepower to overwhelm their enemies before they can strike back. This would normally work on smaller fleet engagements against lesser foes, but the humans don't play fair. They hide in gas clouds, and in asteroid fields. They launch silent torpedoes, drone strikes, and shells filled with toxic gas before initiating boarding actions to cause widespread panic in enemy fleets. Skhamar's newly minted traditions of piracy have led to a whole new level of Naval military thinking, one where the entire sector is an ever-changing battlefield and anything's fair game."
"But wouldn't they get discovered? How hasn't the Federation just listed down Skhamar's tactics for admirals to memorize and quantify in fleet engagements?"
"You're demanding too much from a Federation full of scared herbivores, and you're forgetting who runs that Federation. The Kolshians and the Farsul vehemently believe that thinking like a predator makes you a predator and that anything that resembles predatory behavior should be scrubbed away. To them, the 'herd' is the entire reason for their existence, and to stray from that is to become food." Sargen shook his head, obviously bemused by their rigid mindset. "In reality, predators have been chipping away at herds for thousands of years. To think that any herd is impervious is just stupid."
Silijima knew the former, and she had suspected the latter for a long time. "But herds need to adapt to survive, right? I bet you that was the reasoning behind the gene-modding and culture erasure at the hands of the Kolshians and the Farsul."
Sargen rolled his eyes like he had heard it all before. "It shocks me that you weren't thrown into an institution, with how perceptive you are. I'm telling you, the Kolshians and the Farsul couldn't care less about the other species in the Federation. All they care about is controlling and leading that herd they've stitched together with lies. To them, adaptability is only good when it benefits their narratives and power structures."
It made a sickening sort of sense, and it was completely believable now that the treachery of the Kolshians and the Farsul had come to light. The Kolshians and the Farsul being afraid of any change that challenged their ideals was a cancer on the Federation, and one that Silijima was sure would eat away at it until it was nothing more than a corpse. "I'm glad I left, you know, not being afraid of being locked up for having predator disease. I just hope that isn't a thing here."
"It isn't, believe me, or I would've been incarcerated a long time ago." Sargen replied, "Now let's go; I think we've wasted enough of Ayaz and Igor's time."
With that, Sargen stepped out of the truck, slamming the door and taking a deep breath of the blatantly recycled air. Silijima followed, leaving the truck and stepping out into a small, empty parking lot, which seemed strange for such a large and important building. The building itself was less of a spire and more short and squat but also very wide, with glass walls similar to those of the urban business centers on Nishtal. There was an entrance of glass doors in the front of the building, along with a massive sigil above them made out of what seemed to be platinum. There was a sword with wings skillfully engraved on it, along with the words Qui militat præter me, frater meus erit surrounding the edges. Her translator struggled to translate it due to the age of the language and her translator's lack of exposure to the esoteric language, but it came out as something similar to He who fights beside me shall be my brother. An interesting term, but certainly more unique than the Federation Navy's slogan, Defend the Herd.
Sargen grabbed her feathered shoulder and steered her away from the truck just as something hovered down and clamped its magnetic claws onto it. A massive, black-colored hover-drone the size of an eighteen-wheeler buzzed as it deftly floated around the two of them, one giant crimson eye with an LED dot acting as an almost animated pupil darting between the two of them. Then it lifted away, making beeping noises as it carried the truck in tow towards a large tower several hundred stories tall in the distance made from a monotonous gray material. "What in sweet Ina's name?" Silijima said under her breath, causing Sargen to chuckle.
"Moth Drones; they’re very useful things. There's not enough space on the station to have traditional parking lots, so Sarn Robotics found a pretty neat solution: massive drones come and pick up vehicles and transport them to large parking towers like the one it's flying to right now. Then, when we come back, I can just call back for my car, maybe wait a minute or so, and have my car returned to me. It's pretty awesome, and something you wouldn't find in a million years in the Federation."
That was true; the citizens would be spooked by so many flying objects. She could just imagine the number of stampedes such a creation would cause.
"Wait, what about the food and ammo?" She asked, curious as to why he'd leave it there."
"Oh, don't worry about that: that tower specifically has an automated storage system. All of our goods will be sent to our ship in the next few hours sorted, packed up, and sealed up in space-grade storage containers"
"Huh, that's pretty incredible," she replied.
"Yeah, it is. Like them or not, these predators seem to think of everything. I guess their minds just work differently; nothing wrong with that."
They walked through the doors as they conversed, and a massive lobby greeted them. Over two dozen secretaries of multiple races greeted countless individuals, many of them armed. Most of them were humans and Arxur, although she spotted a few Harchens and Gojids in the mix. The sound of phones ringing and computer keyboards being typed on resonated through the building with an echo. The entire lobby was beautifully decorated, with corners filled with fine gold-trimmed mahogany furniture and intricately woven carpets covering the marble floor. Sargen guided her up to the lobby and towards a young human woman with blonde hair. He greeted her with a smile, causing her to smile back. The snarl made Silijima's blood rush, but it was far less noticeable now, more like the feeling of adrenaline than pure fear.
"Hey, Csilla, how are you?"
The woman, apparently named Csilla, seemed to brighten up in Sargen's presence. "Oh, you know, just swamped as usual. Igor is waiting for you at dock thirteen, just take the tram down." Then her eyes swiveled in there sockets towards Silijima, causing her to flinch slightly. "And who is this? I didn't know a Krakotl was joining your crew."
"I'm Silijima," Silijima croaked, "I'm the new Engineer."
"Aww, isn't she just precious? It's been a pleasure to see you both, but I have to get back to work; we've got too many customers even with two dozen secretaries."
And with that, they were off. Sargen led her up multiple flights of stairs, passing different office levels before reaching floor seven, which was the connection to the Dok-stantsiya Vest-Enda. There were at least two dozen fully sized trams on multiple levels, with signs detailing over a hundred docks available to travel to. It was truly ginormous, more insane than any public transit system she had seen all packed into one place, but also a testament to the engineering of the station.
They boarded a packed train filled mainly with humans, although there were Arxur, Gojids and Harchen there sprinkled throughout. They rode for a few minutes, before reaching an open-space area sealed with active magnetic field shielding, keeping gravity and a working atmosphere within its borders while simultaneously allowing ships to pass through. There were hundreds of ships, both big and small, docked within the Corsair Coalition's docks, and some of them were exceptionally huge. They ranged from gigantic, rust-red lengths of bulbous metal covered in cannons to sleek, flat warships packed with rocket pods and covered with graffiti of snarling, gaping maws and bloodied talons. Eventually, they reached a point where their tram stopped, and they descended. Just a few dozen meters away was a younger human, maybe in his late twenties or early thirties, an old human woman who couldn't have been younger than seventy, and an Arxur practically made out of cybernetics, his body glowing with energy. The latter seemed to be organizing and directing a small number of droids, which were loading sealed containers into the fuselage of the large, rust-red battle cruiser with the word Iconoclast printed in bold letters on the side. The man saw us and approached, a wide smile on his face.
He was huge for a human, about six and a half feet, and had a long, bushy beard with a handlebar mustache, a short military buzz cut with a bit of hair left a little taller near the middle like a short mohawk, and a pair of black camo pants and a white t-shirt that showed the outline of his muscles underneath. He was practically a bear of a human, with arms the size of bridge cables and a neck thicker than your average gas pipe.
Despite all of that, he was obviously friendly, a wide snarl on his face. "Sargen! Dobriy den, how are you?" Even through the translator, his accent was thick and exotic.
Sargen scratched his head with his claws, obviously a little nervous. "I'm doing great, Igor, listen, this is-"
"Ah, yes, Silijima! Senek called me on his way home to explain their situation. It is a pleasure to meet you, my dear!"
Igor took her wing and shook it vigorously, having to bend down to do so. Having and snarling predator lean down on her in such a way, regardless of their intentions, sent shivers down her spine, but she kept it together. She would not break down in front of her new boss.
"T-the pleasure is all mine, Sir."
Igor didn't seem to notice how intimidating he was, but luckily a distraction appeared. Tarlim arrived just in time, carrying several crates of birch water and plums on his shoulders like they were nothing. The old woman seemed to spot him, because she hobbled over to help, only for Tarlim to prevent her from doing so. "No, Babushka, I can handle it."
"Nonsense," she said sternly, her accent even thicker than Igor's, "I can carry some, boy; your Babushka is not helpless."
Tarlim simply ignored her, carrying the crates over to the droids, with both Tarlim and the Arxur snickering at Babushka's pestering.
"Tarlim, what do you bring? Did I order something and forget again?"
Tarlim chuckled merely at that. "No, Babushka, Sujek ordered some Birch Water and Plums for you."
Babushka softened up at that, placing a hand over her heart like the delivery of birch water was an emotional matter. "Oh Tarlim, I thank you." She hobbled over and practically buried herself in his fur, hugging him as hard as an old woman could.
"Thank Sujek, I'm just the delivery boy."
Babushka snorted. "Hah, I know better. You probably dared him to do something for it."
Tarlim blushed at that. "Well maybe, but he demanded the plums as extra, so make sure you give him a big hug and plenty of food as well."
Babushka seemed to brighten up at that. "Come in, Tarlim; we are having a feast, to celebrate a great victory! No meat in the borscht, just for you!"
"Tarlim seemed very apprehensive towards the idea of eating anything that was even near the meat, but apparently he couldn't resist the old woman. "For you, Babushka, anything for you."
Igor snickered. "They are like a circus, no? Come, we are having a feast, and you shall partake."
Silijima wanted to leave, as the whole situation had escalated very quickly, but Sargen placed a hand on her shoulder. "There is no denying an invitation to a feast; it is a grave insult to do so."
Silijima just sighed and prepared herself for the horrors that awaited her.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's finally here; THE NEXT CHAPTER OF INTERLOPER! Somebody pop open a bottle of champaign.
I want to thank u/Acceptable_Egg5560 for the support and u/Bushbacon69 for the wonderful fanart.
If you want an AI generated picture, just let me know. That's become my new method of conveying what I'm creating to the world since I can't draw for shit.
The Next chapters for Chains made from Hope and The Apostate should be out this week, along with a new short called The Life Shaper.
2023.03.31 16:56 cunning5tunt5 Credit Unions and Investment Protection/Insurance
There's been talk here about systemic risk from some of the big 5 banks in Canada in the past. So, I'm thinking about finally switching to a credit union. There are some that are actively trying to be federally regulated/covered by the CDIC and I want to avoid those CUs. Correct me if I'm wrong, the big banks are protected under the CDIC and I want to switch to a Credit Union because the CDIC insures only up to $100,000. So, let's say I deposit $40,000 in a TFSA trading account and grow it to $1,000,000 and the bank goes under, I'd get $100,000. Whereas CUs I'd get the $1,000,000 since the coverage isn't limited. I read about this here and on SuperS many months ago and want to confirm with others if this is the case before making the switch. Am I on the right track? Can someone explain this better for me please? Have a good weekend folks!
submitted by cunning5tunt5 to GMECanada [link] [comments]
2023.03.31 15:22 tamelaraynor23 10 Stolen Works of Art Recovered Through Unusual Circumstances
 | Almost 52,000 entries of stolen works of art, each with images and descriptions, are available in the Interpol Stolen Arts Database. In a global effort that spans oceans, continents, and borders, nations from all over the world send lists of stolen goods that are verified with police information. It comes as no surprise that both art theft and recovery are lucrative industries in the billion-dollar illicit market. Here are five instances where vanished pieces of art were rediscovered in odd situations. submitted by tamelaraynor23 to u/tamelaraynor23 [link] [comments] 10-Woman-Ochre:https://preview.redd.it/6j7zm5e1q2ra1.jpg?width=196&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c57269a3201c7bdaa48d509063a834729f46c6a8The $160 million painting Woman-Ochre by American-Dutch artist Willem de Kooning was stolen from the University of Arizona Museum of Art in late November 1985, leading to a 32-year search for the priceless work of art's location. Soon after the museum opened, a couple committed the heist, with the woman diverting a security officer before the officer could reach her upstairs station. The male separated the painting from its frame in the meantime. Before the guard realized Woman-Ochre had vanished, the couple made off with the priceless painting. Woman-Ochre remained missing until the passing of two experienced teachers because there were no cameras or fingerprints to help with the search. In 2017, Jerome and Rita Alter passed away in Cliff, a small town in New Mexico, and left their nephew in charge of handling their estate, which included a painting that hung behind their bedroom door. The deceased couple's artwork was immediately purchased for $2,000 by antiques dealer David Van Aucker, who also took control of the priceless painting. Customers in his Silver City shop recognized the artwork after it was hung there. Woman-Ochre now hangs on the same wall from where she was removed in 1985 after a procedure involving the FBI and a 22-year restoration. The Alter family is left to speculate as to whether Jerome Alter's short fiction about a woman and her daughter stealing a 120-carat jewel while a guard is preoccupied and hanging it behind a wall panel for the two criminals' hidden enjoyment is based more on reality than just his imagination. Howard and Paula Ellman, art glass dealers in New York City, 9-Tiffany Glass:https://preview.redd.it/dmz4sb26r2ra1.jpg?width=278&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=17dfc6727092e2e35440e9bbe3935e9a8568a32cmade a shocking discovery in May 2018. They discovered that some of the glass, including a Tiffany Favrile vase, had been stolen from them 37 years earlier after placing the winning bid on numerous pieces at a Pennsylvania auction. When four of the products the Ellmans had won through call-in bids were delivered by the shipping company they had engaged, the finding was made. Howard found their own shop labels on the bottom of the Tiffany pieces while he was unloading the goods; the pair always removed these labels once a piece was sold. Further research revealed that 16 more of the 40–50 Tiffany pieces the Ellmans had lost in the unsolved burglary had been sold at the same auction where they had bought their own stolen glass. It was ruled that the pair was entitled to the return or value of all 16 stolen Tiffany pieces thanks to the paperwork Paula had kept for nearly four decades; works whose value had significantly improved during their absent years. 8-Marble Bust:https://preview.redd.it/dhdhmnqar2ra1.jpg?width=194&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9484ef7bf02c9a29e2716972d33ec665653f31b2The nonprofit's goal of empowering the less fortunate, the affordable prices, or, less frequently, the discovery of actual treasure, are some of the reasons that devoted Goodwill customers may bring up. This was Laura Young's experience when she stumbled onto the find of a lifetime at an Austin Goodwill for $34.99 and now an antique dealer. The find, a 50-pound (22.7-kilogram) marble sculpture, turned out to be a first-century bust of Roman general Drusus Germanicus that went missing from the German museum Pompejanum during World War II. Young's attorney negotiated a deal that involved the San Antonio Museum of Art housing the piece until May 2023 after Young hired a lawyer to facilitate the repatriation of the 2,000-year-old bust to its original owners. 7-Palette:At an estate sale in Sarasota, a Florida architect discovered a piece that had been stolen from Jon Corbino. The Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall owns numerous works by the same artist, including the painting Palette, which was named for the actual artist's palette it was painted on. It was the most well-known piece in the collection even if it wasn't the most expensive. At an Oak Ridge Boys concert in the early 1990s, the picture that was hanging in the hall's lobby of the lower gallery vanished. The weekend yard sale enthusiast and architect Eric Bower immediately recognized Corbino's sculpture. Bower, who had previously discovered the works of famous artists at garage sales, paid only $25 for the painting and then got in touch with the artist's daughter, who informed him that Palette was a stolen work. Even though he was offered a reward, Bower gave the performing arts center the stolen painting back. The painting's whereabouts are now known, but the culprit who took it is still a mystery. The son of the estate from which Palette was bought claimed that his mother had kept a number of works of art for an unidentified man who had never picked them up.6-Walking Horses:https://preview.redd.it/vpft8bjls2ra1.jpg?width=280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5dff26c29ba95e9b7e682f051b9be94a3fc51558Josef Thorak's bronze horses previously stood on either side of the stairs leading into Adolf Hitler's New Reich Chancellery in Berlin, Germany, measuring 16 feet tall and 33 feet long (4.8m x 10m). The massive sculpture vanished with the Soviet Union after World War II, only to reappear in Eberswalde in the 1950s in a site that had served as a Red Army barracks' sports field. They had been painted gold to cover bullet holes. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the horses vanished once more, leading to rumors that the sculpture had been sold or the horses had been melted down. The horses were finally rediscovered in 2015 after an investigation was started when the sculpture was reportedly sold for $5.6 million on the illegal market. Then, the tale of the horses' trip came into focus. An article detailing the discovery of many bronze statues in Eberswalde, including Walking Horses, by an art expert was found by vintage car dealer Helmut Schumacher shortly before the Berlin Wall fell. The result was a highly intricate and intense smuggling operation, with the Red Army soldiers actually helping the traffickers. Due to the horses’ sheer size, the sculpture had to be cut up in order to be smuggled to the Western side of Berlin, eventually ending up in possession of the man paying the bribes—a businessman by the name of Rainer Wolf. When Wolf’s property was searched in May 2015, investigators discovered not only Walking Horses but a number of other illicit Nazi artworks that were subsequently seized and turned over to the German government. 5-Tres Personajes:https://preview.redd.it/olforv8pr2ra1.jpg?width=318&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=742b9668990bdf86a94c1e8c0ddc7eea9973195cElizabeth Gibson found the oil painting "Tres Personajes" by Rufino Tamayo in a pile of trash in Manhattan and decided to take it home, hanging it on her wall before doing some research and discovering a part of lost treasures on Antique Roadshow FYIs. The painting, which was acquired from Sotheby's auction house in 1977 for $55,000 as a gift for his wife, was regarded as a significant work from Tamayo's mature time. Ten years later, while being held in a Houston warehouse during a relocation, the painting—which was distinctive in that marble dust and sand were incorporated into the medium—was stolen. The painting was listed in several databases, and the original owners reported the disappearance to Houston and federal officials, but no leads were found. Having discovered the oil painting's worth, Gibson gave it back to the widowed original gift receiver and took a $15,000 reward. Gibson also got a share of the $1,049,000 sale price of the artwork when it was later sold through Sotheby's New York auction house twenty years after the theft in 2007. 4-Madonna and Child:https://preview.redd.it/q27o3ihvr2ra1.jpg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b854462ddc05367c9adca9a468931c0c688b1f09The Royal Collection at Windsor Castle in Britain houses the majority of Giovanni Battista Salvi's artwork. Salvi was an Italian artist who was born in Sassoferrato, in the Marches, in 1609. It therefore came as no surprise that the museum staff was overjoyed when one of his drawings was given to the Washington County Museum of Fine Arts in 2021. John and Sylvie O'Brien had acquired the rare car. 1650 Baroque piece in 1970 from an unidentified French collector. The drawing was donated to the museum by the couple 51 years later, despite the fact that it had been reported stolen since 1965. Although no one is certain of the precise date the Sassoferatto was taken, it was confirmed to be the priceless drawing by Washington County Museum of Fine Art staff after it was found torn from its base by a student conducting research at the Graphische Sammlung. In August 2022, it was scheduled to be delivered to the appropriate museum. 3-Poppy Field at Vetheuil and BloomingChestnut Branches:https://preview.redd.it/p00te2i1s2ra1.jpg?width=170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=319f6011b4b980d1b638b9ebbd95d3e70de03e27The works of two of the most well-known impressionist painters in the world, Claude Monet and Vincent van Gogh, regularly fetch millions of dollars at auction. In an effort to make money on the underground market, they also tempt thieves. Three armed, mask-wearing thieves stole a $163.2 million haul from the E.G. Buehrle Collection, a private museum of impressionist and neo-impressionist art, on February 10, 2008. The robbers also took Paul Cezanne's Boy in a Red Waistcoat, Ludovic Lepic by Edgar Degas, Monet's Poppy Field at Vetheuil, and van Gogh's Flowering Chestnut Branches. Authorities suspect the burglars merely took the first four works of art they came to, rather than being intentionally targeted. In an unexpected turn of events, both the Monet and van Gogh were found only a few days later in an abandoned car in front of a mental hospital just a few feet from the Zurich museum, still shielded by the museum glass they were displayed beneath. Finally, all four paintings were rediscovered, and while there is no information about the Degas paintings' recovery in 2009, Boy in a Red Waistcoat was discovered in a black van's roof upholstery in Belgrade, Serbia, in 2012. 2-Third Imperial Easter Egg:https://preview.redd.it/es4qf5f7s2ra1.jpg?width=318&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=624c63420b9f116a1dc42e982e181223c67a0af5The killings of the Russian Imperial Family stunned the world in July 1918. The Fabergé Easter eggs, among the family's most expensive valuables, were removed from the Romanov residences by the Bolsheviks and stored in the Kremlin Armory after their terrible demise. The family commissioned the eggs between 1885 and 1916, and they were regarded as both the pinnacle of Fabergé's artistic career and one of the last significant art commissions. Before Joseph Stalin came to power and decided the priceless eggs might be sold to the West, they remained sealed in their storage crates. Eight of the original 50 Imperial Easter Eggs are still missing today, despite the fact that some of the eggs were sold and others were buried by Kremlin curators. One of them, the third Imperial egg, made in 1887 and thought to be lost since 1922, was found in 2004 at a flea market booth in the Midwest by a scrap metal dealer. The yellow-gold Romanov treasure languished in the dealer's cabinet for almost ten years until research made him believe his flea market acquisition might indeed be one of the missing Imperial Eggs, even though he had paid more for it than the egg was worth as scrap. The Easter egg was sold to a private collector for an amount estimated to be over $33 million when the origin of the golden bauble was established. 1-Alleged Imperial Easter Egg:https://preview.redd.it/89agf6uas2ra1.jpg?width=225&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f45454cad15f9bddf574d3f97ced8809166d923Another of the lost Imperial Easter Eggs is presently undergoing identification. Western nations slapped sanctions on Russian oligarchs when Moscow invaded Ukraine in February 2022. What is thought to be one of the seven missing Imperial eggs was discovered aboard a 348-foot (106-meter) superyacht that was apprehended in Fiji. Once Suleiman Kasimov's $300 million ship docked in San Diego in June 2022, Lisa Monaco, U.S. deputy attorney general, made the discovery public. Once verified, there will only be six Imperial Fabergé eggs missing. |
2023.03.31 09:20 WeekendSimilar9521 Tesla Financing Question [Time sensitive]
Hello Folks,
VIN assigned today with delivery tomorrow. I ran credit application with Tesla. Initially they showed 5.59% but after the application, it went to 6.44%.
My question is how soon can I refinance the car? I don’t have time to look around and delivery is tomorrow (also want to avail the tax credit). Can you please suggest me options since I feel 6.44 is pretty high! Also I am non US citizen and credit unions like tower federal does not apply to me.
Any help is highly appreciated!
submitted by WeekendSimilar9521 to TeslaModelY [link] [comments]
VIN assigned today with delivery tomorrow. I ran credit application with Tesla. Initially they showed 5.59% but after the application, it went to 6.44%.
My question is how soon can I refinance the car? I don’t have time to look around and delivery is tomorrow (also want to avail the tax credit). Can you please suggest me options since I feel 6.44 is pretty high! Also I am non US citizen and credit unions like tower federal does not apply to me.
Any help is highly appreciated!
2023.03.31 07:21 RealHiddenTooth Credit card recommendation
- * Current credit cards you are the primary account holder of: discover secured
- * FICO Scores with source (see note on FICO score sources below): Experian 730
- * Oldest credit card account age with you as primary name on the account: (5 months
- * Number of personal credit cards approved for in the past 6 months: 0
- * Number of personal credit cards approved for in the past 12 months: 0
- * Number of personal credit cards approved for in the past 24 months: 0
- * Annual income $: around 30k
- * OK with category-specific cards?: yes
- * OK with rotating category cards?:yes
- * Estimate average monthly spend in the categories below. Only include what you can pay by credit card.
- * Dining $: 150
- * Groceries $: 200 sams 100 walmart
- * Gas $: 200
- * Travel $: Maybe around 75 a month
- * Do you plan on using this card abroad for a significant length of time No
- * Any other categories $ Regular credit card spend
- * Any other significant, regular credit card spend you didn't include above?: no
- * Can you pay rent by credit card? If yes, list rent amount and if there's a fee for paying by credit card: $no
- * Current member of Costco or Sam's Club? Sams club
- * Current member of Chase, US Bank or any other big bank?: PNC Bank
- * What's the purpose of your next card (choose ONE)?: first credit card
- * Do you have any cards you've been looking at? I want to end up with amex
- Remove all text after the last question above.
- After submitting your post, you can edit your post to make sure you have decent line spacing so that it's easily readable (not one big paragraph). Expect to be downvoted (and not receive good recommendations) if your post isn't readable.
Regarding your FICO score: Credit Karma, Capital One's Credit Wise, Chase's Credit Journey, Mint, NerdWallet, and several other sites are not FICO scores and are sadly not useful information. Free FICO scores may be obtained from Experian (never submit payment info) and Discover Credit Scorecard. FICO scores that can be obtained using bank accounts (checking/savings or credit should provide access): Bank of America (TransUnion FICO 8), Citi (Equifax BankCard Score 8), First National Bank of Omaha (Experian FICO 9), Wells Fargo (Experian FICO 9), possibly others but be sure to confirm what scoring model you are looking at.
What counts as income: (Note you may be asked to provide proof. It's against federal law to put false information on a credit card application.)
- Personal income (your job, your bank account interest earnings)
- Shared household income with a spouse or partner (i.e. you and your spouses combined income)
- Shared household income with parents (if you're 21+ and dependent on your parents, you can include their income, assuming you have reasonable expectation of access to it)
- Allowances and regular gifts (i.e. a monthly check from your parents for college - mostly relevant if you're under 21)
- Scholarships and grants (student loans do NOT count as income)
- Retirement fund distributions
- Trust fund distributions
- Social Security income
2023.03.31 06:43 Disastrous_Object_28 Should i join Navy Federal?
I was given advice here i should join Navy Federal Credit Union. Im looking to expand my credit and find a cheap car loan for a work car and get new credit cards to increase my credit limit.im also looking to buy a house in the future and have 10k saved. . Are they good to join for these things? My fico score is 711 and my credit age is 11 month. Latest account is 3 months ago.
submitted by Disastrous_Object_28 to CreditScore [link] [comments]
2023.03.31 06:32 Adventurous-Plant419 Michael Alcock King, Joshua Myers, Andrew Cash, Mark Essick, with overt deliberate negligence on the part of the entire Board of Sonoma County Supervisors, stole 6 years of my life, after their employee Virgil Smith almost killed me and caused me serious injury.
I just want people to know that the Sonoma County government is corrupt. They spent 186 million dollars on a "new courthouse" that is 163k square feet, which works out to $1,100 per square foot, which is over double the second most expensive building I could find was, and over four times the average price per square foot of palaces and museums. And it's just going to look like a giant portable. This is to house some of the most corrupt people in this County, who all make $200-350+k per year (I am including their benefits in that, but not their pension). The entire DA's Office has a vendetta against Civil Rights in general, and will literally knowingly commit criminal violations of laws for the purpose of covering up serious criminal misconduct on the part of Sonoma County employees.
Lynda Hopkins took money from the law enforcement unions, and turns a willfully blind eye to it.
The County Office of Legal Counsel is literally a crime syndicate.
In 2015, the Sheriff's Office had a veritable torture ring in the jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izcHIv5Y4z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYrGChrW5HM&list=TLPQMzAwMzIwMjMv0QAOPDy1Lw&index=2
This is just the tip of the iceberg. They lied about the existence of these videos, and "lost" the one where they gave one of the inmates internal bleeding, with a knee to their back.
There was a lawsuit about it. It was called the "Yard Counseling Case". There are news articles about it.
There was an official, written policy, called "Yard Counseling", later its name was changed to "Behavior Counseling" which dictated that for arbitrary punitive measures, Sheriff's Office personnel should extract inmates from their cells individually (which meant slamming their heads onto the door frames on the way out and other abuse), and isolate them, and putting them into "pain compliance" techniques (literally, by definition, torture) for extended periods of time while "counseling" them, which meant wearing no name tags, ski masks and riot gear, carrying a shotgun with them, and insulting them in explicit language for over 20 minutes.
This official written policy was acknowledged by Rob Giordano in a video, where he lies that no inmates where injured, uploaded to YouTube in 2018, when they finally addressed this official written policy, and the practice of torturing inmates without reasonable cause (leading exercise routines, for example).
In 2021, they saw one of the victims of this torture ring, who had sued them and had won, at a peaceful protest, and shot him with a grenade launcher while hiding on a rooftop in the face with a crowd control grenade, which exploded on impact and caused horrific injury that I don't care to describe.
In 2017, I was almost killed by application of a "carotid hold" / lateral vascular neck restraint, by a sheriff's deputy, for literally no reason. A knee was placed on my lower back while I was on the ground on my stomach as well, which caused a serious injury to my kidney, which was the worst injury of my life. I have also been diagnosed with an organic brain injury and cognitive impairment. I was tested for the same type of cognitive impairment before the incident and there is a marked difference, and I have about 30 pages describing the differences I've noticed / troubles I've had in my cognitive functioning. There was no probable cause to arrest me, and I was polite and compliant with all the instructions given to me, and this was confirmed by witnesses. I was punished for invoking my right to remain silent, then my arm was grabbed and yanked up behind me, and then a carotid hold was applied because my body pivoted after the deputy grabbed and yanked my arm.
This occurred UNDER A CAMERA and IN FRONT OF WITNESSES. I called the Sheriff's Office the next day said I want to "make an official complaint in writing". I was transferred to Captain of Internal Affairs, Captain Mark Essick. I repeated my request, verbatim. He responded, verbatim: "We don't do that. Why don't you tell me what happened." I did. I told him it happened right under a camera. He said "The camera can't record." I asked for confirmation. He said the cameras "Don't have recording technology installed."
I asked the County for a claim form. They ignored my request, and instructed me to report the incident to IOLERO. IOLERO requested I meet with Internal Affairs, and I said fine.
Sgt. Andy Cash called me and scheduled me for a meeting at the Sheriff's den. I was made to walk first and guided upstairs to a meeting room, and then patted down for weapons, and the interview was recorded. For 75 minutes I was deposed about happened. He asked me repeatedly about my mental state after the incident. I admitted that I was upset after the incident, and he acted like that justified the whole incident. He explicitly promised to interview the 4 deputies who witnessed the event in addition to the 2 deputies who participated, as well as the arresting officer (who I told him would confirm that I was polite and cooperative), which he agreed "would confirm [my] demeanor", and a bystander witness I told him about.
I complained to IOLERO director Jerry Threet. Mr. Threet agreed that that was inappropriate, then resigned without reviewing the investigation.
For about 4 years review of the investigation was put on hold because IOLERO staff quit, and when more staff was hired, they complained of being understaffed. They had a budget of over a million dollars but only had 2 employees. They only reviewed one case per four months. And they put off "backlogged" cases and focused on new cases. My complaint was finally reviewed by Interim Director Garrick Byers who clearly stated that the investigation was not conducted appropriately. I have the letter from him. That still has never been made public.
After the interview with Internal Affairs, I corresponded with Lynda Hopkins, and she refused to give her opinion on the matter. I specifically complained that the carotid hold was being used recklessly, and it is a dangerous technique. This was in 2018. She forwarded me to Janell Crane, who then had me meet with Kristi Schultz.
I contacted the DA's Office and spoke to Richard Celli (who made $346k in 2017, and has gunned down two unarmed people, and was convicted by a jury in one of the civil cases brought against him by one of the victim's family, but the sentence was overturned by a judge, while working for the SRPD). The first time I spoke to Mr. Celli, he told me that another law enforcement agency should take my case. After that first time, him and the rest of the DA's Office openly refused to comply with the Victims' Rights Laws (CA Con Art. 1 S. 28), and the "policies" (which are legally binding under CA Con Art 5 S. 13) of the Attorney General stating clearly that they are to take complaints from victims if it can't be resolved with the department.
After the first talk with Mr. Celli, I called Rohnert Park Police as I was instructed, and they 3-way called the Sheriff's office and then transferred me. I spent about 30 minutes reporting the incident to a deputy, and he asked me questions in a fair manner. I called RPPD back and talked to the arresting officer and he positively clearly confirmed that I was "polite, calm, compliant, and cooperative" (or something nearly verbatim, I can't remember exactly any more).
Andrew Cash called me the next day, at precisely 7:00 AM. He told me he was driving. He was extremely confrontational with me. He said "There were 6 deputies [referring to the two who used excessive force on me, and 4 witness deputies]. You were combative." This was false. He had only interviewed one of the 4 witness deputies, and the other 3 had provided written statements. They said that they had witnessed force being used, that they had not participated in the use of force to the best of their memory, and that I "did not appear to be resisting". But again, he had promised explicitly to interview the 4 deputy witnesses, and the arresting officer
Internal Affairs exonerated the officers. The letter was signed by Eddie Engram, captain of Internal Affairs. I called Mr. Engram, and had an hour long conversation with him, and he told me to contact Sgt. Cash after April 1st.
I filed a federal claim on the last day that it was due.
Mr. Cash referred me to Legal Counselor, Kara Abelson.
Ms. Abelson spent a year and a half refusing to comply with the Public Records Act, the Rules of Procedure, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She refused to provide me documents that I was entitled to under law, including the incident report written by Deputies Jacquelin Fazzio and Virgil Smith, and the recorded interviews that he promised he would conduct, and stated pretty clearly that he had conducted.
Kara Abelson spent a year and a half trying to claim that my federal complaint was time barred by 1 day when it wasn't. The judge (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) entertained this and forced me to respond SEVEN TIMES, before she finally admitted that the "law wouldn't allow [her] to dismiss my complaint".
After a year and a half, Kara Abelson finally withdrew from the case after I started citing the Rules of Professional Conduct to her that require her to resign or withdraw from the case rather than defend a civil case where defense isn't warranted. Nobody had disputed any of the allegations I had made. In fact, Eddie Engram had confirmed that what I said happened was not disputed by the evidence.
At some point around this time, either before or after Ms. Abelson withdrew, the 2 incident reports written by the two deputies, the written statements by 3 of the 4 witness deputies, and the recorded interviews with me, the 2 deputies who assaulted me, and 1 of the eye witness deputies, were provided, along with various other records from the facility. In the recorded interview, and the incident report, the deputies admitted that Virgil Smith had applied the carotid hold.
I had also reported the incident to the State Attorney General Public Inquiry Unite (Lupe Zinzin). She had told me, over and over and over, that the local DA's are required to take complaints from civilians in these situations. She refused to call the DA's Office, though. The DA's Office (Richard Celli, Mark Azzouni, David Kahl) refused to take a complaint from me. They (including the receptionists) hung up on me every time I called after no more than 2 minutes, for no reason, transferred me to dead lines, never returned any voicemails I managed to leave, told me explicitly that if I send a complaint, they will throw it away, and didn't care, at all, what the laws were. The receptionists also refuse to provide their names. The Attorney General's Office told me to send them a complaint, so I did. The DA's Office acknowledged receiving the complaint. But later said that they did not have a record of it, meaning they threw it away.
The Attorney General's Office finally agreed to take a complaint from me. It sat on their desk for a year. I finally called them, concerned that evidence was being destroyed, and left a voicemail for Casey Hallinan requesting that they request copies of the physical evidence from the Sheriff's Office. Literally 2 days after that voicemail, a letter was sent to me signed by Sharon Loughner with Casey Hallinan CC'ed on the letter, stating that they would "take no action", and blamed the incident on me. I had not received the letter though, and called and spoke to Ms. Hallinan, who was extremely rude. After that, the Attorney General's Office hang up on me as soon as they find out it's me, for no reason. There has since been a bystander witness who saw the whole thing, and it has come to light that the cameras did record, that no upgrades were ever performed like Ms. Abelson alleged, the cameras do continuously record (as of 2019), and they just lied through their teeth about the camera for 4 straight years. The Attorney General's Office does not care. They violate the laws, and do not care what the laws are.
Sonoma County Office of Legal Counsel attorney Michael King took over after Ms. Abelson withdrew. Right off the bat, Mr. King told me that my motions were deficient - a contention he has repeated frequently, since then. I asked him how. He changed the subject, and to this day has NEVER given any explanation as to how any of my motions are deficient.
He continued to claim that my claim was time barred, filing frivolous motions, in blatant violation of the rules of professional conduct, after I cited the rules to him, constituting explicit legal misconduct.
As I said, the judge finally agreed to open Discovery after a year and a half of full time work trying to fight for my right to not be nearly murdered for no reason.
Lawyers do not take these cases unless there is undeniable proof of blatant guilt, along with undeniable proof of catastrophic injury. Multiple law firms have confirmed that it takes over a million dollars worth of legal work to get these cases to trial.
The judge also promised me a pro bono attorney "if you make it past summary judgment".
The judge scheduled us for Alternative Dispute Resolution hearing with a magistrate judge. Mr. King elicited an offer from me, which I spent about 2 weeks working on, trying to make it as agreeable as possible. But then for the hearing, his written offer was to waive charging me his attorneys fees. The judge confirmed that there was no legal basis for him to do that - it would be illegal. He had been ordered to participate in this hearing, and there was a legal obligation under the Rules of Procedure to try in good faith to settle the case. He violated the order and the rule of procedure (26 (f)).
All of my motions were completely ignored for no reason.
Mr. King / Defendant Virgil Smith lied about the cameras. They said "Denies the existence of cameras capable of recording in the vicinity", in writing, under oath. They never disputed that he put his knee on top of my back with all his weight on it.
Mr. King refused to comply with his Discovery obligations. I had to file about 4 different motions pertaining to their refusal to comply with the laws regarding disclosure of evidence.
Upon receiving an official Discovery request for records of camera equipment, I received a letter signed under by Mr. King (nearly 4 years after the incident) stating that the cameras CAN RECORD. But stating "tasks must be performed" to start the recording function, and stating that all records pertaining to the equipment that was installed at the time HAD BEEN DESTROYED (literally a federal and state crime, a civil tort violation, and a sanctionable act of legal misconduct).
Mr. King refused to schedule any of the witnesses for deposition, demanded MY deposition BEFORE he would even schedule the two deputies who assaulted me, even though I had been requesting depositions with other witnesses for over a month, and refused to schedule anyone else, he refused to answer interrogatories, he refused to provide copies of the policies from the time of the incident. He tried to pass off a weird spreadsheet with the word camera on it as proof that upgrades had been done to the cameras. He refused to provide complete training records for the deputies. He refused to provide details about the training. He refused to provide blueprints of the facility, refused to provide photos of the cameras at the location, refused to provide still images showing which direction the cameras were pointing, refused to provide photos of the deputies so I could schedule depositions efficiently.
The judge erroneously dismissed my Equal Protection claims, construing them as Due Process and Employment Discrimination claims, which are different types of claims than Equal Protection claims against a government actor. The government cannot arbitrarily treat anyone disparately. The Court also dismissed my "Monell" claim against the municipality for their "policies, customs, or practices", but left me leave to amend that claim. And she waited until Discovery opened over 1.5 years into litigation, to do this, forcing me to amend the complaint DURING DISCOVERY which was only open for a limited amount of time, instead of any point in the 1.5 years prior to that.
In the recorded interview with Andrew Cash and one of the witness deputies, she spontaneously states that Mr. Cash instructed her to review the written statements made by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to the interview. Another deputy witness confirmed that Mr. Cash had instructed her to review the written reports by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to her providing Mr. Cash with a written statement as well.
The judge finally retaliated against me, without rational basis, for filing motions, which I had filed because I was being illegally obstructed from preserving evidence, by withdrawing leave to amend regarding the "Monell" claim (I had stated a clear Monell claim to begin with, but the judge literally has an aversion to reading, and relies on guessing, and is biased against pro se litigants; I am summarizing well over 100 pages, if not well over double that, of motions, objections, and replies and the judge's responsive orders).
She did however, finally schedule a hearing with a Discovery referee magistrate. All my motions (and the months of work I was required to do dictated by the various rules) was completely disregarded, and both me and Mr. King were given 2 pages each (double spaced) to go over discovery issues, even though I had filed about 4 different motions about various issues, and he hadn't filed ANY, at that time.
During conference I was required to do in accordance with the Rules, Mr. King repeatedly tried to establish that I had committed crimes during the course of conferring which was my legal obligation, without having any rational basis to believe what he was trying to establish. He demanded evidence that would exist, and he kept repeating every lie he could come up with to the judge. The judge would either get annoyed at me if I addressed any of Mr. King's baseless accusations, or take his statements at face value for being 100% true.
Mr. King finally "compromised" and agreed to schedule depositions with me (as long as Mr. King wanted to) and the two deputies who had assaulted me (for 25 minutes each or something) all simultaneously, but refused to schedule anyone else, even though this was grossly advantageous to him. One of the eye witness deputies later confirmed that he had "consulted" her over 4 times prior to the trial. During this deposition, Mr. King asked me where a family member of mine works. He had spent about 30-40 minutes trying to convince me that I can tell him anything, that the entire record was designated confidential, that I had nothing to worry about - and at a deposition, you are obligated to answer the questions unless they are harassing. Mr. King also requested contact information for counselors from over 10 years ago, and that was the only question I didn't answer - I told him to provide the request in writing. At some point after that, I told Mr. King to not contact my family member at her workplace, and Mr. King responded "unless you fully and completely cooperate" with his request for contact information for counselors from 10 years+ ago.
At the hearing, the Discovery Magistrate (Donna M. Ryu) discussed matters only with Mr. King, without including me. He told her that the 4 eye witness deputies "saw nothing" and "weren't there" (verbatim) trying to get her to deny me my request to take their deposition. She asked him if he would get them to sign fresh "sworn declarations", "under oath" (Judge Ryu's words, verbatim) stating this. Mr. King said yes, absolutely, he would. Judge Ryu asked me "Would that be okay?" I said "No." She started laughing, and asked me why, and I explained that I had explicitly described various interactions with them that had taken place while the carotid hold was still being applied to me, and that they had stated in their written statements that they had witnessed force being used, and that was "not resisting". She confirmed that this was all true with Mr. King and that he already knew all of this, and ordered him to cooperate with scheduling them for deposition.
After that, they went back to discussing matters only with eachother, and I was excluded from discussion. This was an hour long hearing, and at about the 45 minute mark, Mr. King was again lying to the magistrate judge, and when he had finished, I interjected, "That's not true". Judge Ryu shouted "Stop! Stop stop stop stop stop!" And then very assertively explained to me the importance of not interrupting people for the convenience of the court reporter / transcriber. I was excluded from the rest of the hearing.
At some point at either this hearing or the next one, I cited the legal requirement for the parties to disclose contact information for witnesses. I cited the rule of procedure. Judge Ryu responded, "Mr. King is a lawyer!" as if that alone justified his refusal to provide me contact information for witnesses.
Mr. King refused to provide both written statements from the eye witness deputies, and to schedule them for deposition, and stated that if he provided written statements, they would be copied and pasted versions of the same statements previously provided, signed under oath (nowhere saying that they "saw nothing" or "weren't there").
Mr. King kept threatening to go to my family member's workplace unless I provided him contact information for counselors from 10+ years ago, DURING a DEPOSITION, without him providing any written request for the information.
He also interfered with scheduling the witnesses for deposition, with the Court reporter that I had hired, disregarded the schedule that I had set, and set them each for 30 minutes, which raised the cost of deposition from an estimated about $700 to about $4,000, and said this was my one and only chance.
The Federal Pro Bono Project / the Justice & Diversity Center is an organization that receives seven million dollars a year in public funding and is under contract with the Federal District Court to work with the Court to provide legal consultation to pro se litigants. I had about 19 appointments with them, about 18 with Abby Herzberg, and 1 with Rosemarie Maliekel. Ms. Herzberg was precisely 15 minutes late to every single appointment, repeatedly gave me horrible advice ("just wait", do nothing, "don't file this", despite admitting that the entire motion was valid, directly causing excessive delay and the spoliation of crucial evidence). She also yelled at me aggressively on two occasions because I had brought up state laws, which were being currently violated against me, because the Court had dismissed my "state claims" because Sonoma County refused to supply with a state tort claim form when I first asked, reasoning that was not relevant to the state laws being currently violated against me. After Ms. Herzberg yelled at me the second time, I requested an appointment with Ms. Maliekel. Ms. Maliekel spent the entire appointment ranting at me about irrelevant issues, and kept talking over me and interrupting me. I was polite but eventually asked "can I finish what I was saying?" She responded "No!" and kept ranting at me.
I had repeatedly asked about how to properly get medical evidence, and about expert witnesses. Ms. Herzberg ignored my questions and spent nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment reading through the rules, without letting me speak at all, even to summarize the relevant sections of the rules that I had read.
On a video on their webpage (on the Court's website, because they are a "partner project" with the Court), Abby Herzberg explicitly demonstrates a clear understanding of the fact that the Court provides funding for expert witnesses, despite ignoring my questions about and spending nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment either reading rules or pretending to.
Discovery was closed.
Mr. King rehashed the legally baseless and frivolous "time barred" claim in a Motion for Summary Judgment. I was required to respond to it twice. I was required to answer all his "undisputed material facts" under threat of terminating my entire case, but he refused to answer mine. He lied over and over to the judges. As I said, the judge ruled that the laws "wouldn't allow her to" dismiss my entire case and rejected his Motion for Summary Judgement.
The Court ordered the Federal Pro Bono Project (FPBP) to put me on a list for attorneys seeking clients. Ms. Herzberg told me that if I filed any motions, that the FPBP would not cooperate with the Court's order, until 1 month before my trial, instead of 6 months before. She also said that a law firm had reached out to them about my case over a month prior to that, and that the staff at the FPBP had not followed up. My filing privileges were then revoked by the Court.
An attorney, David Ratner, reached out to me, and scheduled an initial consultation, over Zoom, at which he stated he "hates cops", and gave a showing of being enthusiastic. I explicitly told him that I wanted to make sure we were on the same page as far as what to "aim for". I told him that I had been working for FIVE YEARS, that I had almost died, that I had suffered two different extremely serious injuries. I told him that what I asked for was consistent with the most similar case (the Esa Wroth case of 2013) that I knew of (an ask of three million dollars). This was coincidental. I was not aware of the Esa Wroth case when I came up with that number. I agonized over that, and spent a lot of time trying to come up with a fair amount, and described the methods I used to come up with that number in detail in court documents. Mr. Ratner explicitly agreed to aim for that.
Mr. Ratner, and his partner, Shelley Mollineaux, who was set to represent me at trial under Mr. Ratner's supervision, then both went dark for over a month. They ignored my emails, voicemails, and messages that I left with their receptionists. There was a hearing, and then Mr. Ratner emailed me demanding "all the documents" that I had. I had over 50 gb of files across thousands of files, and spent about a month working with his paralegals sending them batches of files, and providing all the information they asked me for. Mr. Ratner forwarded me an email from Mr. King where King accused me of violating a court order regarding providing medical providers and the physical addresses of my entire family and my friends, which was false -- the Court had ordered me to provide him CONTACT information, at a second hearing, which wasn't significant, and I had fully and completely complied in good faith with all the Court's orders. Mr. Ratner accused me of not sending him "anything", after I had spent at least several weeks with his paralegals sending them batches of files and information, and he simultaneously threatened to ask the judge for leave to withdraw.
There had been major delays with medical evaluation due in large part to Covid, as well as delayed discovery of brain injury, which is very common, and other factors.
With trial set, Mr. Ratner forwarded me an offer from Defendants for $5,000. Upon discussion (which was 100% in email because he refused to talk over the phone and Ms. Mollineaux completely ignored me), he accused me of not doing Discovery right. I pointed him to the video I referred to earlier, which I had found since Mr. Ratner took my case, but wasn't aware of when I was interacting with the FPBP, where the FPBP (Abby Herzberg), and various District Judges from the Court I was litigating in, state that it is general policy (and it is official policy under the Court's General Order 25) to REOPEN DISCOVERY when a pro bono attorney comes onto the case, and to FUND DEPOSITION AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES.
Mr. Ratner stated he "won't file any motions" and ultimately elected to withdraw from the case over fulfill his legal obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court thanked him and granted him permission to withdraw. The FPBP refused to put me back on the list. I was forced into trial BY MYSELF, at 1-2 months prior to trial, after 2-3 months of my time being completely wasted by Mr. Ratner and his law firm.
I went through the appropriate legal process to submit an expert witness. The Court, as usual, completely ignored my motions, but allowed me to use him after I went through the entire legal process, and paid him thousands of dollars without knowing if I would be granted permission or not, and provided the Court a report stating that the carotid hold was ILLEGAL unless the subject exhibited "assaultive behavior" and that Defendants had never alleged any behavior of mine that constituted "assaultive behavior" (under POST Basic). The expert was a Master level instructor at a police academy and former SWAT.
Mr. King provided his pre-trial disclosures, and it contained a document from Rohnert Park police department which had been extensively redacted on the copy that they had provided to me. The new copy contained the contact information for the bystander witness. I called him, and he confirmed that he saw the entire thing, that I had never yelled at the deputies before the first deputy grabbed my arm, and that I was not resisting at any point in time. I told the judge this. She had me call him at a hearing, and both me and Mr. King were allowed a couple of minutes to ask him questions, where he refused to admit that I was even "wiggling" when Mr. King badgered him.
The judge then refused to allow him to appear over Zoom, and refused to summon him to the trial.
At the trial, the Judge accused me falsely of firing my attorney, and explicitly prohibited me from telling the jury that the Defendants had LIED about the camera's ability to record. She explicitly prohibited me from submitting scientific evidence about the carotid hold. She allowed Mr. King to make extremely defamatory false remarks about me and my past which had a huge impact on the jury's perception of things. At a pretrial hearing, we had gone over about 110 documents that I wanted to present at the trial. She vetted about 40 as admissible at the hearing, but at the trial she only let me submit about 5. Defendants were allowed to submit a SECOND expert witness, both of whom worked for the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. The first was Andrew Cash. The second was James Naugle who had been disclosed literally a week before trial, without a report, and without allowing me to take his deposition. She refused to allow me to ask Mr. Naugle about case laws, or about information pertaining to the carotid hold. The Court refused to summon any of my treating physicians, whom I had provided the names and contact information for in my disclosures at the end of Discovery and some in my initial disclosures, and I had complied with Mr. King's written requests for information or objected within the boundaries of the law, in good faith, and complied with the Court's orders, in good faith.
I had informed the Court that I was scheduled for medical evaluations for brain injury AFTER THE TRIAL. The Court completely ignored this.
So it was my word against theirs. 5 years, at the time of the mistrial, to get a mockery of a trial, and have the jurors' time completely wasted. The jury wrote me a letter thanking me or something, but awarded me nothing.
I was diagnosed with organic brain injury after the trial. I had a similar test prior to the incident and had absolutely no problems and answered every question with no trouble. I now score in the FOURTH PERCENTILE on those areas.
Despite its length, this has been a short summary of all the events over the past 6 years. Much has been summarized, and much has been left out. I tried my best to balance completeness with leaving out irrelevant details.
There is no record of any misconduct on the part of anyone involved in this that is available to any law enforcement agencies or to the public. Nobody has been disciplined. No investigation was ever conducted. I was almost killed and was seriously injured, under a camera, and in front of witnesses, and spent 6 years working with the government. The government has done precisely NOTHING.
The County now routinely retaliates against me whenever we interact, in blatant violation of various laws.
submitted by Adventurous-Plant419 to bayarea [link] [comments]
Lynda Hopkins took money from the law enforcement unions, and turns a willfully blind eye to it.
The County Office of Legal Counsel is literally a crime syndicate.
In 2015, the Sheriff's Office had a veritable torture ring in the jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izcHIv5Y4z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYrGChrW5HM&list=TLPQMzAwMzIwMjMv0QAOPDy1Lw&index=2
This is just the tip of the iceberg. They lied about the existence of these videos, and "lost" the one where they gave one of the inmates internal bleeding, with a knee to their back.
There was a lawsuit about it. It was called the "Yard Counseling Case". There are news articles about it.
There was an official, written policy, called "Yard Counseling", later its name was changed to "Behavior Counseling" which dictated that for arbitrary punitive measures, Sheriff's Office personnel should extract inmates from their cells individually (which meant slamming their heads onto the door frames on the way out and other abuse), and isolate them, and putting them into "pain compliance" techniques (literally, by definition, torture) for extended periods of time while "counseling" them, which meant wearing no name tags, ski masks and riot gear, carrying a shotgun with them, and insulting them in explicit language for over 20 minutes.
This official written policy was acknowledged by Rob Giordano in a video, where he lies that no inmates where injured, uploaded to YouTube in 2018, when they finally addressed this official written policy, and the practice of torturing inmates without reasonable cause (leading exercise routines, for example).
In 2021, they saw one of the victims of this torture ring, who had sued them and had won, at a peaceful protest, and shot him with a grenade launcher while hiding on a rooftop in the face with a crowd control grenade, which exploded on impact and caused horrific injury that I don't care to describe.
In 2017, I was almost killed by application of a "carotid hold" / lateral vascular neck restraint, by a sheriff's deputy, for literally no reason. A knee was placed on my lower back while I was on the ground on my stomach as well, which caused a serious injury to my kidney, which was the worst injury of my life. I have also been diagnosed with an organic brain injury and cognitive impairment. I was tested for the same type of cognitive impairment before the incident and there is a marked difference, and I have about 30 pages describing the differences I've noticed / troubles I've had in my cognitive functioning. There was no probable cause to arrest me, and I was polite and compliant with all the instructions given to me, and this was confirmed by witnesses. I was punished for invoking my right to remain silent, then my arm was grabbed and yanked up behind me, and then a carotid hold was applied because my body pivoted after the deputy grabbed and yanked my arm.
This occurred UNDER A CAMERA and IN FRONT OF WITNESSES. I called the Sheriff's Office the next day said I want to "make an official complaint in writing". I was transferred to Captain of Internal Affairs, Captain Mark Essick. I repeated my request, verbatim. He responded, verbatim: "We don't do that. Why don't you tell me what happened." I did. I told him it happened right under a camera. He said "The camera can't record." I asked for confirmation. He said the cameras "Don't have recording technology installed."
I asked the County for a claim form. They ignored my request, and instructed me to report the incident to IOLERO. IOLERO requested I meet with Internal Affairs, and I said fine.
Sgt. Andy Cash called me and scheduled me for a meeting at the Sheriff's den. I was made to walk first and guided upstairs to a meeting room, and then patted down for weapons, and the interview was recorded. For 75 minutes I was deposed about happened. He asked me repeatedly about my mental state after the incident. I admitted that I was upset after the incident, and he acted like that justified the whole incident. He explicitly promised to interview the 4 deputies who witnessed the event in addition to the 2 deputies who participated, as well as the arresting officer (who I told him would confirm that I was polite and cooperative), which he agreed "would confirm [my] demeanor", and a bystander witness I told him about.
I complained to IOLERO director Jerry Threet. Mr. Threet agreed that that was inappropriate, then resigned without reviewing the investigation.
For about 4 years review of the investigation was put on hold because IOLERO staff quit, and when more staff was hired, they complained of being understaffed. They had a budget of over a million dollars but only had 2 employees. They only reviewed one case per four months. And they put off "backlogged" cases and focused on new cases. My complaint was finally reviewed by Interim Director Garrick Byers who clearly stated that the investigation was not conducted appropriately. I have the letter from him. That still has never been made public.
After the interview with Internal Affairs, I corresponded with Lynda Hopkins, and she refused to give her opinion on the matter. I specifically complained that the carotid hold was being used recklessly, and it is a dangerous technique. This was in 2018. She forwarded me to Janell Crane, who then had me meet with Kristi Schultz.
I contacted the DA's Office and spoke to Richard Celli (who made $346k in 2017, and has gunned down two unarmed people, and was convicted by a jury in one of the civil cases brought against him by one of the victim's family, but the sentence was overturned by a judge, while working for the SRPD). The first time I spoke to Mr. Celli, he told me that another law enforcement agency should take my case. After that first time, him and the rest of the DA's Office openly refused to comply with the Victims' Rights Laws (CA Con Art. 1 S. 28), and the "policies" (which are legally binding under CA Con Art 5 S. 13) of the Attorney General stating clearly that they are to take complaints from victims if it can't be resolved with the department.
After the first talk with Mr. Celli, I called Rohnert Park Police as I was instructed, and they 3-way called the Sheriff's office and then transferred me. I spent about 30 minutes reporting the incident to a deputy, and he asked me questions in a fair manner. I called RPPD back and talked to the arresting officer and he positively clearly confirmed that I was "polite, calm, compliant, and cooperative" (or something nearly verbatim, I can't remember exactly any more).
Andrew Cash called me the next day, at precisely 7:00 AM. He told me he was driving. He was extremely confrontational with me. He said "There were 6 deputies [referring to the two who used excessive force on me, and 4 witness deputies]. You were combative." This was false. He had only interviewed one of the 4 witness deputies, and the other 3 had provided written statements. They said that they had witnessed force being used, that they had not participated in the use of force to the best of their memory, and that I "did not appear to be resisting". But again, he had promised explicitly to interview the 4 deputy witnesses, and the arresting officer
Internal Affairs exonerated the officers. The letter was signed by Eddie Engram, captain of Internal Affairs. I called Mr. Engram, and had an hour long conversation with him, and he told me to contact Sgt. Cash after April 1st.
I filed a federal claim on the last day that it was due.
Mr. Cash referred me to Legal Counselor, Kara Abelson.
Ms. Abelson spent a year and a half refusing to comply with the Public Records Act, the Rules of Procedure, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She refused to provide me documents that I was entitled to under law, including the incident report written by Deputies Jacquelin Fazzio and Virgil Smith, and the recorded interviews that he promised he would conduct, and stated pretty clearly that he had conducted.
Kara Abelson spent a year and a half trying to claim that my federal complaint was time barred by 1 day when it wasn't. The judge (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) entertained this and forced me to respond SEVEN TIMES, before she finally admitted that the "law wouldn't allow [her] to dismiss my complaint".
After a year and a half, Kara Abelson finally withdrew from the case after I started citing the Rules of Professional Conduct to her that require her to resign or withdraw from the case rather than defend a civil case where defense isn't warranted. Nobody had disputed any of the allegations I had made. In fact, Eddie Engram had confirmed that what I said happened was not disputed by the evidence.
At some point around this time, either before or after Ms. Abelson withdrew, the 2 incident reports written by the two deputies, the written statements by 3 of the 4 witness deputies, and the recorded interviews with me, the 2 deputies who assaulted me, and 1 of the eye witness deputies, were provided, along with various other records from the facility. In the recorded interview, and the incident report, the deputies admitted that Virgil Smith had applied the carotid hold.
I had also reported the incident to the State Attorney General Public Inquiry Unite (Lupe Zinzin). She had told me, over and over and over, that the local DA's are required to take complaints from civilians in these situations. She refused to call the DA's Office, though. The DA's Office (Richard Celli, Mark Azzouni, David Kahl) refused to take a complaint from me. They (including the receptionists) hung up on me every time I called after no more than 2 minutes, for no reason, transferred me to dead lines, never returned any voicemails I managed to leave, told me explicitly that if I send a complaint, they will throw it away, and didn't care, at all, what the laws were. The receptionists also refuse to provide their names. The Attorney General's Office told me to send them a complaint, so I did. The DA's Office acknowledged receiving the complaint. But later said that they did not have a record of it, meaning they threw it away.
The Attorney General's Office finally agreed to take a complaint from me. It sat on their desk for a year. I finally called them, concerned that evidence was being destroyed, and left a voicemail for Casey Hallinan requesting that they request copies of the physical evidence from the Sheriff's Office. Literally 2 days after that voicemail, a letter was sent to me signed by Sharon Loughner with Casey Hallinan CC'ed on the letter, stating that they would "take no action", and blamed the incident on me. I had not received the letter though, and called and spoke to Ms. Hallinan, who was extremely rude. After that, the Attorney General's Office hang up on me as soon as they find out it's me, for no reason. There has since been a bystander witness who saw the whole thing, and it has come to light that the cameras did record, that no upgrades were ever performed like Ms. Abelson alleged, the cameras do continuously record (as of 2019), and they just lied through their teeth about the camera for 4 straight years. The Attorney General's Office does not care. They violate the laws, and do not care what the laws are.
Sonoma County Office of Legal Counsel attorney Michael King took over after Ms. Abelson withdrew. Right off the bat, Mr. King told me that my motions were deficient - a contention he has repeated frequently, since then. I asked him how. He changed the subject, and to this day has NEVER given any explanation as to how any of my motions are deficient.
He continued to claim that my claim was time barred, filing frivolous motions, in blatant violation of the rules of professional conduct, after I cited the rules to him, constituting explicit legal misconduct.
As I said, the judge finally agreed to open Discovery after a year and a half of full time work trying to fight for my right to not be nearly murdered for no reason.
Lawyers do not take these cases unless there is undeniable proof of blatant guilt, along with undeniable proof of catastrophic injury. Multiple law firms have confirmed that it takes over a million dollars worth of legal work to get these cases to trial.
The judge also promised me a pro bono attorney "if you make it past summary judgment".
The judge scheduled us for Alternative Dispute Resolution hearing with a magistrate judge. Mr. King elicited an offer from me, which I spent about 2 weeks working on, trying to make it as agreeable as possible. But then for the hearing, his written offer was to waive charging me his attorneys fees. The judge confirmed that there was no legal basis for him to do that - it would be illegal. He had been ordered to participate in this hearing, and there was a legal obligation under the Rules of Procedure to try in good faith to settle the case. He violated the order and the rule of procedure (26 (f)).
All of my motions were completely ignored for no reason.
Mr. King / Defendant Virgil Smith lied about the cameras. They said "Denies the existence of cameras capable of recording in the vicinity", in writing, under oath. They never disputed that he put his knee on top of my back with all his weight on it.
Mr. King refused to comply with his Discovery obligations. I had to file about 4 different motions pertaining to their refusal to comply with the laws regarding disclosure of evidence.
Upon receiving an official Discovery request for records of camera equipment, I received a letter signed under by Mr. King (nearly 4 years after the incident) stating that the cameras CAN RECORD. But stating "tasks must be performed" to start the recording function, and stating that all records pertaining to the equipment that was installed at the time HAD BEEN DESTROYED (literally a federal and state crime, a civil tort violation, and a sanctionable act of legal misconduct).
Mr. King refused to schedule any of the witnesses for deposition, demanded MY deposition BEFORE he would even schedule the two deputies who assaulted me, even though I had been requesting depositions with other witnesses for over a month, and refused to schedule anyone else, he refused to answer interrogatories, he refused to provide copies of the policies from the time of the incident. He tried to pass off a weird spreadsheet with the word camera on it as proof that upgrades had been done to the cameras. He refused to provide complete training records for the deputies. He refused to provide details about the training. He refused to provide blueprints of the facility, refused to provide photos of the cameras at the location, refused to provide still images showing which direction the cameras were pointing, refused to provide photos of the deputies so I could schedule depositions efficiently.
The judge erroneously dismissed my Equal Protection claims, construing them as Due Process and Employment Discrimination claims, which are different types of claims than Equal Protection claims against a government actor. The government cannot arbitrarily treat anyone disparately. The Court also dismissed my "Monell" claim against the municipality for their "policies, customs, or practices", but left me leave to amend that claim. And she waited until Discovery opened over 1.5 years into litigation, to do this, forcing me to amend the complaint DURING DISCOVERY which was only open for a limited amount of time, instead of any point in the 1.5 years prior to that.
In the recorded interview with Andrew Cash and one of the witness deputies, she spontaneously states that Mr. Cash instructed her to review the written statements made by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to the interview. Another deputy witness confirmed that Mr. Cash had instructed her to review the written reports by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to her providing Mr. Cash with a written statement as well.
The judge finally retaliated against me, without rational basis, for filing motions, which I had filed because I was being illegally obstructed from preserving evidence, by withdrawing leave to amend regarding the "Monell" claim (I had stated a clear Monell claim to begin with, but the judge literally has an aversion to reading, and relies on guessing, and is biased against pro se litigants; I am summarizing well over 100 pages, if not well over double that, of motions, objections, and replies and the judge's responsive orders).
She did however, finally schedule a hearing with a Discovery referee magistrate. All my motions (and the months of work I was required to do dictated by the various rules) was completely disregarded, and both me and Mr. King were given 2 pages each (double spaced) to go over discovery issues, even though I had filed about 4 different motions about various issues, and he hadn't filed ANY, at that time.
During conference I was required to do in accordance with the Rules, Mr. King repeatedly tried to establish that I had committed crimes during the course of conferring which was my legal obligation, without having any rational basis to believe what he was trying to establish. He demanded evidence that would exist, and he kept repeating every lie he could come up with to the judge. The judge would either get annoyed at me if I addressed any of Mr. King's baseless accusations, or take his statements at face value for being 100% true.
Mr. King finally "compromised" and agreed to schedule depositions with me (as long as Mr. King wanted to) and the two deputies who had assaulted me (for 25 minutes each or something) all simultaneously, but refused to schedule anyone else, even though this was grossly advantageous to him. One of the eye witness deputies later confirmed that he had "consulted" her over 4 times prior to the trial. During this deposition, Mr. King asked me where a family member of mine works. He had spent about 30-40 minutes trying to convince me that I can tell him anything, that the entire record was designated confidential, that I had nothing to worry about - and at a deposition, you are obligated to answer the questions unless they are harassing. Mr. King also requested contact information for counselors from over 10 years ago, and that was the only question I didn't answer - I told him to provide the request in writing. At some point after that, I told Mr. King to not contact my family member at her workplace, and Mr. King responded "unless you fully and completely cooperate" with his request for contact information for counselors from 10 years+ ago.
At the hearing, the Discovery Magistrate (Donna M. Ryu) discussed matters only with Mr. King, without including me. He told her that the 4 eye witness deputies "saw nothing" and "weren't there" (verbatim) trying to get her to deny me my request to take their deposition. She asked him if he would get them to sign fresh "sworn declarations", "under oath" (Judge Ryu's words, verbatim) stating this. Mr. King said yes, absolutely, he would. Judge Ryu asked me "Would that be okay?" I said "No." She started laughing, and asked me why, and I explained that I had explicitly described various interactions with them that had taken place while the carotid hold was still being applied to me, and that they had stated in their written statements that they had witnessed force being used, and that was "not resisting". She confirmed that this was all true with Mr. King and that he already knew all of this, and ordered him to cooperate with scheduling them for deposition.
After that, they went back to discussing matters only with eachother, and I was excluded from discussion. This was an hour long hearing, and at about the 45 minute mark, Mr. King was again lying to the magistrate judge, and when he had finished, I interjected, "That's not true". Judge Ryu shouted "Stop! Stop stop stop stop stop!" And then very assertively explained to me the importance of not interrupting people for the convenience of the court reporter / transcriber. I was excluded from the rest of the hearing.
At some point at either this hearing or the next one, I cited the legal requirement for the parties to disclose contact information for witnesses. I cited the rule of procedure. Judge Ryu responded, "Mr. King is a lawyer!" as if that alone justified his refusal to provide me contact information for witnesses.
Mr. King refused to provide both written statements from the eye witness deputies, and to schedule them for deposition, and stated that if he provided written statements, they would be copied and pasted versions of the same statements previously provided, signed under oath (nowhere saying that they "saw nothing" or "weren't there").
Mr. King kept threatening to go to my family member's workplace unless I provided him contact information for counselors from 10+ years ago, DURING a DEPOSITION, without him providing any written request for the information.
He also interfered with scheduling the witnesses for deposition, with the Court reporter that I had hired, disregarded the schedule that I had set, and set them each for 30 minutes, which raised the cost of deposition from an estimated about $700 to about $4,000, and said this was my one and only chance.
The Federal Pro Bono Project / the Justice & Diversity Center is an organization that receives seven million dollars a year in public funding and is under contract with the Federal District Court to work with the Court to provide legal consultation to pro se litigants. I had about 19 appointments with them, about 18 with Abby Herzberg, and 1 with Rosemarie Maliekel. Ms. Herzberg was precisely 15 minutes late to every single appointment, repeatedly gave me horrible advice ("just wait", do nothing, "don't file this", despite admitting that the entire motion was valid, directly causing excessive delay and the spoliation of crucial evidence). She also yelled at me aggressively on two occasions because I had brought up state laws, which were being currently violated against me, because the Court had dismissed my "state claims" because Sonoma County refused to supply with a state tort claim form when I first asked, reasoning that was not relevant to the state laws being currently violated against me. After Ms. Herzberg yelled at me the second time, I requested an appointment with Ms. Maliekel. Ms. Maliekel spent the entire appointment ranting at me about irrelevant issues, and kept talking over me and interrupting me. I was polite but eventually asked "can I finish what I was saying?" She responded "No!" and kept ranting at me.
I had repeatedly asked about how to properly get medical evidence, and about expert witnesses. Ms. Herzberg ignored my questions and spent nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment reading through the rules, without letting me speak at all, even to summarize the relevant sections of the rules that I had read.
On a video on their webpage (on the Court's website, because they are a "partner project" with the Court), Abby Herzberg explicitly demonstrates a clear understanding of the fact that the Court provides funding for expert witnesses, despite ignoring my questions about and spending nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment either reading rules or pretending to.
Discovery was closed.
Mr. King rehashed the legally baseless and frivolous "time barred" claim in a Motion for Summary Judgment. I was required to respond to it twice. I was required to answer all his "undisputed material facts" under threat of terminating my entire case, but he refused to answer mine. He lied over and over to the judges. As I said, the judge ruled that the laws "wouldn't allow her to" dismiss my entire case and rejected his Motion for Summary Judgement.
The Court ordered the Federal Pro Bono Project (FPBP) to put me on a list for attorneys seeking clients. Ms. Herzberg told me that if I filed any motions, that the FPBP would not cooperate with the Court's order, until 1 month before my trial, instead of 6 months before. She also said that a law firm had reached out to them about my case over a month prior to that, and that the staff at the FPBP had not followed up. My filing privileges were then revoked by the Court.
An attorney, David Ratner, reached out to me, and scheduled an initial consultation, over Zoom, at which he stated he "hates cops", and gave a showing of being enthusiastic. I explicitly told him that I wanted to make sure we were on the same page as far as what to "aim for". I told him that I had been working for FIVE YEARS, that I had almost died, that I had suffered two different extremely serious injuries. I told him that what I asked for was consistent with the most similar case (the Esa Wroth case of 2013) that I knew of (an ask of three million dollars). This was coincidental. I was not aware of the Esa Wroth case when I came up with that number. I agonized over that, and spent a lot of time trying to come up with a fair amount, and described the methods I used to come up with that number in detail in court documents. Mr. Ratner explicitly agreed to aim for that.
Mr. Ratner, and his partner, Shelley Mollineaux, who was set to represent me at trial under Mr. Ratner's supervision, then both went dark for over a month. They ignored my emails, voicemails, and messages that I left with their receptionists. There was a hearing, and then Mr. Ratner emailed me demanding "all the documents" that I had. I had over 50 gb of files across thousands of files, and spent about a month working with his paralegals sending them batches of files, and providing all the information they asked me for. Mr. Ratner forwarded me an email from Mr. King where King accused me of violating a court order regarding providing medical providers and the physical addresses of my entire family and my friends, which was false -- the Court had ordered me to provide him CONTACT information, at a second hearing, which wasn't significant, and I had fully and completely complied in good faith with all the Court's orders. Mr. Ratner accused me of not sending him "anything", after I had spent at least several weeks with his paralegals sending them batches of files and information, and he simultaneously threatened to ask the judge for leave to withdraw.
There had been major delays with medical evaluation due in large part to Covid, as well as delayed discovery of brain injury, which is very common, and other factors.
With trial set, Mr. Ratner forwarded me an offer from Defendants for $5,000. Upon discussion (which was 100% in email because he refused to talk over the phone and Ms. Mollineaux completely ignored me), he accused me of not doing Discovery right. I pointed him to the video I referred to earlier, which I had found since Mr. Ratner took my case, but wasn't aware of when I was interacting with the FPBP, where the FPBP (Abby Herzberg), and various District Judges from the Court I was litigating in, state that it is general policy (and it is official policy under the Court's General Order 25) to REOPEN DISCOVERY when a pro bono attorney comes onto the case, and to FUND DEPOSITION AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES.
Mr. Ratner stated he "won't file any motions" and ultimately elected to withdraw from the case over fulfill his legal obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court thanked him and granted him permission to withdraw. The FPBP refused to put me back on the list. I was forced into trial BY MYSELF, at 1-2 months prior to trial, after 2-3 months of my time being completely wasted by Mr. Ratner and his law firm.
I went through the appropriate legal process to submit an expert witness. The Court, as usual, completely ignored my motions, but allowed me to use him after I went through the entire legal process, and paid him thousands of dollars without knowing if I would be granted permission or not, and provided the Court a report stating that the carotid hold was ILLEGAL unless the subject exhibited "assaultive behavior" and that Defendants had never alleged any behavior of mine that constituted "assaultive behavior" (under POST Basic). The expert was a Master level instructor at a police academy and former SWAT.
Mr. King provided his pre-trial disclosures, and it contained a document from Rohnert Park police department which had been extensively redacted on the copy that they had provided to me. The new copy contained the contact information for the bystander witness. I called him, and he confirmed that he saw the entire thing, that I had never yelled at the deputies before the first deputy grabbed my arm, and that I was not resisting at any point in time. I told the judge this. She had me call him at a hearing, and both me and Mr. King were allowed a couple of minutes to ask him questions, where he refused to admit that I was even "wiggling" when Mr. King badgered him.
The judge then refused to allow him to appear over Zoom, and refused to summon him to the trial.
At the trial, the Judge accused me falsely of firing my attorney, and explicitly prohibited me from telling the jury that the Defendants had LIED about the camera's ability to record. She explicitly prohibited me from submitting scientific evidence about the carotid hold. She allowed Mr. King to make extremely defamatory false remarks about me and my past which had a huge impact on the jury's perception of things. At a pretrial hearing, we had gone over about 110 documents that I wanted to present at the trial. She vetted about 40 as admissible at the hearing, but at the trial she only let me submit about 5. Defendants were allowed to submit a SECOND expert witness, both of whom worked for the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. The first was Andrew Cash. The second was James Naugle who had been disclosed literally a week before trial, without a report, and without allowing me to take his deposition. She refused to allow me to ask Mr. Naugle about case laws, or about information pertaining to the carotid hold. The Court refused to summon any of my treating physicians, whom I had provided the names and contact information for in my disclosures at the end of Discovery and some in my initial disclosures, and I had complied with Mr. King's written requests for information or objected within the boundaries of the law, in good faith, and complied with the Court's orders, in good faith.
I had informed the Court that I was scheduled for medical evaluations for brain injury AFTER THE TRIAL. The Court completely ignored this.
So it was my word against theirs. 5 years, at the time of the mistrial, to get a mockery of a trial, and have the jurors' time completely wasted. The jury wrote me a letter thanking me or something, but awarded me nothing.
I was diagnosed with organic brain injury after the trial. I had a similar test prior to the incident and had absolutely no problems and answered every question with no trouble. I now score in the FOURTH PERCENTILE on those areas.
Despite its length, this has been a short summary of all the events over the past 6 years. Much has been summarized, and much has been left out. I tried my best to balance completeness with leaving out irrelevant details.
There is no record of any misconduct on the part of anyone involved in this that is available to any law enforcement agencies or to the public. Nobody has been disciplined. No investigation was ever conducted. I was almost killed and was seriously injured, under a camera, and in front of witnesses, and spent 6 years working with the government. The government has done precisely NOTHING.
The County now routinely retaliates against me whenever we interact, in blatant violation of various laws.
2023.03.31 06:30 Adventurous-Plant419 Michael Alcock King, Joshua Myers, Andrew Cash, Mark Essick, with overt deliberate negligence on the part of the entire Board of County Supervisors, stole 6 years of my life, after their employee Virgil Smith almost killed me and caused me serious injury.
I just want people to know that the Sonoma County government is corrupt. They spent 186 million dollars on a "new courthouse" that is 163k square feet, which works out to $1,100 per square foot, which is over double the second most expensive building I could find was, and over four times the average price per square foot of palaces and museums. And it's just going to look like a giant portable. This is to house some of the most corrupt people in this County, who all make $200-350+k per year (I am including their benefits in that, but not their pension). The entire DA's Office has a vendetta against Civil Rights in general, and will literally knowingly commit criminal violations of laws for the purpose of covering up serious criminal misconduct on the part of Sonoma County employees.
Lynda Hopkins took money from the law enforcement unions, and turns a willfully blind eye to it.
The County Office of Legal Counsel is literally a crime syndicate.
In 2015, the Sheriff's Office had a veritable torture ring in the jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izcHIv5Y4z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYrGChrW5HM&list=TLPQMzAwMzIwMjMv0QAOPDy1Lw&index=2
This is just the tip of the iceberg. They lied about the existence of these videos, and "lost" the one where they gave one of the inmates internal bleeding, with a knee to their back.
There was a lawsuit about it. It was called the "Yard Counseling Case". There are news articles about it.
There was an official, written policy, called "Yard Counseling", later its name was changed to "Behavior Counseling" which dictated that for arbitrary punitive measures, Sheriff's Office personnel should extract inmates from their cells individually (which meant slamming their heads onto the door frames on the way out and other abuse), and isolate them, and putting them into "pain compliance" techniques (literally, by definition, torture) for extended periods of time while "counseling" them, which meant wearing no name tags, ski masks and riot gear, carrying a shotgun with them, and insulting them in explicit language for over 20 minutes.
This official written policy was acknowledged by Rob Giordano in a video, where he lies that no inmates where injured, uploaded to YouTube in 2018, when they finally addressed this official written policy, and the practice of torturing inmates without reasonable cause (leading exercise routines, for example).
In 2021, they saw one of the victims of this torture ring, who had sued them and had won, at a peaceful protest, and shot him with a grenade launcher while hiding on a rooftop in the face with a crowd control grenade, which exploded on impact and caused horrific injury that I don't care to describe.
In 2017, I was almost killed by application of a "carotid hold" / lateral vascular neck restraint, by a sheriff's deputy, for literally no reason. A knee was placed on my lower back while I was on the ground on my stomach as well, which caused a serious injury to my kidney, which was the worst injury of my life. I have also been diagnosed with an organic brain injury and cognitive impairment. I was tested for the same type of cognitive impairment before the incident and there is a marked difference, and I have about 30 pages describing the differences I've noticed / troubles I've had in my cognitive functioning. There was no probable cause to arrest me, and I was polite and compliant with all the instructions given to me, and this was confirmed by witnesses. I was punished for invoking my right to remain silent, then my arm was grabbed and yanked up behind me, and then a carotid hold was applied because my body pivoted after the deputy grabbed and yanked my arm.
This occurred UNDER A CAMERA and IN FRONT OF WITNESSES. I called the Sheriff's Office the next day said I want to "make an official complaint in writing". I was transferred to Captain of Internal Affairs, Captain Mark Essick. I repeated my request, verbatim. He responded, verbatim: "We don't do that. Why don't you tell me what happened." I did. I told him it happened right under a camera. He said "The camera can't record." I asked for confirmation. He said the cameras "Don't have recording technology installed."
I asked the County for a claim form. They ignored my request, and instructed me to report the incident to IOLERO. IOLERO requested I meet with Internal Affairs, and I said fine.
Sgt. Andy Cash called me and scheduled me for a meeting at the Sheriff's den. I was made to walk first and guided upstairs to a meeting room, and then patted down for weapons, and the interview was recorded. For 75 minutes I was deposed about happened. He asked me repeatedly about my mental state after the incident. I admitted that I was upset after the incident, and he acted like that justified the whole incident. He explicitly promised to interview the 4 deputies who witnessed the event in addition to the 2 deputies who participated, as well as the arresting officer (who I told him would confirm that I was polite and cooperative), which he agreed "would confirm [my] demeanor", and a bystander witness I told him about.
I complained to IOLERO director Jerry Threet. Mr. Threet agreed that that was inappropriate, then resigned without reviewing the investigation.
For about 4 years review of the investigation was put on hold because IOLERO staff quit, and when more staff was hired, they complained of being understaffed. They had a budget of over a million dollars but only had 2 employees. They only reviewed one case per four months. And they put off "backlogged" cases and focused on new cases. My complaint was finally reviewed by Interim Director Garrick Byers who clearly stated that the investigation was not conducted appropriately. I have the letter from him. That still has never been made public.
After the interview with Internal Affairs, I corresponded with Lynda Hopkins, and she refused to give her opinion on the matter. I specifically complained that the carotid hold was being used recklessly, and it is a dangerous technique. This was in 2018. She forwarded me to Janell Crane, who then had me meet with Kristi Schultz.
I contacted the DA's Office and spoke to Richard Celli (who made $346k in 2017, and has gunned down two unarmed people, and was convicted by a jury in one of the civil cases brought against him by one of the victim's family, but the sentence was overturned by a judge, while working for the SRPD). The first time I spoke to Mr. Celli, he told me that another law enforcement agency should take my case. After that first time, him and the rest of the DA's Office openly refused to comply with the Victims' Rights Laws (CA Con Art. 1 S. 28), and the "policies" (which are legally binding under CA Con Art 5 S. 13) of the Attorney General stating clearly that they are to take complaints from victims if it can't be resolved with the department.
After the first talk with Mr. Celli, I called Rohnert Park Police as I was instructed, and they 3-way called the Sheriff's office and then transferred me. I spent about 30 minutes reporting the incident to a deputy, and he asked me questions in a fair manner. I called RPPD back and talked to the arresting officer and he positively clearly confirmed that I was "polite, calm, compliant, and cooperative" (or something nearly verbatim, I can't remember exactly any more).
Andrew Cash called me the next day, at precisely 7:00 AM. He told me he was driving. He was extremely confrontational with me. He said "There were 6 deputies [referring to the two who used excessive force on me, and 4 witness deputies]. You were combative." This was false. He had only interviewed one of the 4 witness deputies, and the other 3 had provided written statements. They said that they had witnessed force being used, that they had not participated in the use of force to the best of their memory, and that I "did not appear to be resisting". But again, he had promised explicitly to interview the 4 deputy witnesses, and the arresting officer
Internal Affairs exonerated the officers. The letter was signed by Eddie Engram, captain of Internal Affairs. I called Mr. Engram, and had an hour long conversation with him, and he told me to contact Sgt. Cash after April 1st.
I filed a federal claim on the last day that it was due.
Mr. Cash referred me to Legal Counselor, Kara Abelson.
Ms. Abelson spent a year and a half refusing to comply with the Public Records Act, the Rules of Procedure, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She refused to provide me documents that I was entitled to under law, including the incident report written by Deputies Jacquelin Fazzio and Virgil Smith, and the recorded interviews that he promised he would conduct, and stated pretty clearly that he had conducted.
Kara Abelson spent a year and a half trying to claim that my federal complaint was time barred by 1 day when it wasn't. The judge (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) entertained this and forced me to respond SEVEN TIMES, before she finally admitted that the "law wouldn't allow [her] to dismiss my complaint".
After a year and a half, Kara Abelson finally withdrew from the case after I started citing the Rules of Professional Conduct to her that require her to resign or withdraw from the case rather than defend a civil case where defense isn't warranted. Nobody had disputed any of the allegations I had made. In fact, Eddie Engram had confirmed that what I said happened was not disputed by the evidence.
At some point around this time, either before or after Ms. Abelson withdrew, the 2 incident reports written by the two deputies, the written statements by 3 of the 4 witness deputies, and the recorded interviews with me, the 2 deputies who assaulted me, and 1 of the eye witness deputies, were provided, along with various other records from the facility. In the recorded interview, and the incident report, the deputies admitted that Virgil Smith had applied the carotid hold.
I had also reported the incident to the State Attorney General Public Inquiry Unite (Lupe Zinzin). She had told me, over and over and over, that the local DA's are required to take complaints from civilians in these situations. She refused to call the DA's Office, though. The DA's Office (Richard Celli, Mark Azzouni, David Kahl) refused to take a complaint from me. They (including the receptionists) hung up on me every time I called after no more than 2 minutes, for no reason, transferred me to dead lines, never returned any voicemails I managed to leave, told me explicitly that if I send a complaint, they will throw it away, and didn't care, at all, what the laws were. The receptionists also refuse to provide their names. The Attorney General's Office told me to send them a complaint, so I did. The DA's Office acknowledged receiving the complaint. But later said that they did not have a record of it, meaning they threw it away.
The Attorney General's Office finally agreed to take a complaint from me. It sat on their desk for a year. I finally called them, concerned that evidence was being destroyed, and left a voicemail for Casey Hallinan requesting that they request copies of the physical evidence from the Sheriff's Office. Literally 2 days after that voicemail, a letter was sent to me signed by Sharon Loughner with Casey Hallinan CC'ed on the letter, stating that they would "take no action", and blamed the incident on me. I had not received the letter though, and called and spoke to Ms. Hallinan, who was extremely rude. After that, the Attorney General's Office hang up on me as soon as they find out it's me, for no reason. There has since been a bystander witness who saw the whole thing, and it has come to light that the cameras did record, that no upgrades were ever performed like Ms. Abelson alleged, the cameras do continuously record (as of 2019), and they just lied through their teeth about the camera for 4 straight years. The Attorney General's Office does not care. They violate the laws, and do not care what the laws are.
Sonoma County Office of Legal Counsel attorney Michael King took over after Ms. Abelson withdrew. Right off the bat, Mr. King told me that my motions were deficient - a contention he has repeated frequently, since then. I asked him how. He changed the subject, and to this day has NEVER given any explanation as to how any of my motions are deficient.
He continued to claim that my claim was time barred, filing frivolous motions, in blatant violation of the rules of professional conduct, after I cited the rules to him, constituting explicit legal misconduct.
As I said, the judge finally agreed to open Discovery after a year and a half of full time work trying to fight for my right to not be nearly murdered for no reason.
Lawyers do not take these cases unless there is undeniable proof of blatant guilt, along with undeniable proof of catastrophic injury. Multiple law firms have confirmed that it takes over a million dollars worth of legal work to get these cases to trial.
The judge also promised me a pro bono attorney "if you make it past summary judgment".
The judge scheduled us for Alternative Dispute Resolution hearing with a magistrate judge. Mr. King elicited an offer from me, which I spent about 2 weeks working on, trying to make it as agreeable as possible. But then for the hearing, his written offer was to waive charging me his attorneys fees. The judge confirmed that there was no legal basis for him to do that - it would be illegal. He had been ordered to participate in this hearing, and there was a legal obligation under the Rules of Procedure to try in good faith to settle the case. He violated the order and the rule of procedure (26 (f)).
All of my motions were completely ignored for no reason.
Mr. King / Defendant Virgil Smith lied about the cameras. They said "Denies the existence of cameras capable of recording in the vicinity", in writing, under oath. They never disputed that he put his knee on top of my back with all his weight on it.
Mr. King refused to comply with his Discovery obligations. I had to file about 4 different motions pertaining to their refusal to comply with the laws regarding disclosure of evidence.
Upon receiving an official Discovery request for records of camera equipment, I received a letter signed under by Mr. King (nearly 4 years after the incident) stating that the cameras CAN RECORD. But stating "tasks must be performed" to start the recording function, and stating that all records pertaining to the equipment that was installed at the time HAD BEEN DESTROYED (literally a federal and state crime, a civil tort violation, and a sanctionable act of legal misconduct).
Mr. King refused to schedule any of the witnesses for deposition, demanded MY deposition BEFORE he would even schedule the two deputies who assaulted me, even though I had been requesting depositions with other witnesses for over a month, and refused to schedule anyone else, he refused to answer interrogatories, he refused to provide copies of the policies from the time of the incident. He tried to pass off a weird spreadsheet with the word camera on it as proof that upgrades had been done to the cameras. He refused to provide complete training records for the deputies. He refused to provide details about the training. He refused to provide blueprints of the facility, refused to provide photos of the cameras at the location, refused to provide still images showing which direction the cameras were pointing, refused to provide photos of the deputies so I could schedule depositions efficiently.
The judge erroneously dismissed my Equal Protection claims, construing them as Due Process and Employment Discrimination claims, which are different types of claims than Equal Protection claims against a government actor. The government cannot arbitrarily treat anyone disparately. The Court also dismissed my "Monell" claim against the municipality for their "policies, customs, or practices", but left me leave to amend that claim. And she waited until Discovery opened over 1.5 years into litigation, to do this, forcing me to amend the complaint DURING DISCOVERY which was only open for a limited amount of time, instead of any point in the 1.5 years prior to that.
In the recorded interview with Andrew Cash and one of the witness deputies, she spontaneously states that Mr. Cash instructed her to review the written statements made by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to the interview. Another deputy witness confirmed that Mr. Cash had instructed her to review the written reports by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to her providing Mr. Cash with a written statement as well.
The judge finally retaliated against me, without rational basis, for filing motions, which I had filed because I was being illegally obstructed from preserving evidence, by withdrawing leave to amend regarding the "Monell" claim (I had stated a clear Monell claim to begin with, but the judge literally has an aversion to reading, and relies on guessing, and is biased against pro se litigants; I am summarizing well over 100 pages, if not well over double that, of motions, objections, and replies and the judge's responsive orders).
She did however, finally schedule a hearing with a Discovery referee magistrate. All my motions (and the months of work I was required to do dictated by the various rules) was completely disregarded, and both me and Mr. King were given 2 pages each (double spaced) to go over discovery issues, even though I had filed about 4 different motions about various issues, and he hadn't filed ANY, at that time.
During conference I was required to do in accordance with the Rules, Mr. King repeatedly tried to establish that I had committed crimes during the course of conferring which was my legal obligation, without having any rational basis to believe what he was trying to establish. He demanded evidence that would exist, and he kept repeating every lie he could come up with to the judge. The judge would either get annoyed at me if I addressed any of Mr. King's baseless accusations, or take his statements at face value for being 100% true.
Mr. King finally "compromised" and agreed to schedule depositions with me (as long as Mr. King wanted to) and the two deputies who had assaulted me (for 25 minutes each or something) all simultaneously, but refused to schedule anyone else, even though this was grossly advantageous to him. One of the eye witness deputies later confirmed that he had "consulted" her over 4 times prior to the trial. During this deposition, Mr. King asked me where a family member of mine works. He had spent about 30-40 minutes trying to convince me that I can tell him anything, that the entire record was designated confidential, that I had nothing to worry about - and at a deposition, you are obligated to answer the questions unless they are harassing. Mr. King also requested contact information for counselors from over 10 years ago, and that was the only question I didn't answer - I told him to provide the request in writing. At some point after that, I told Mr. King to not contact my family member at her workplace, and Mr. King responded "unless you fully and completely cooperate" with his request for contact information for counselors from 10 years+ ago.
At the hearing, the Discovery Magistrate (Donna M. Ryu) discussed matters only with Mr. King, without including me. He told her that the 4 eye witness deputies "saw nothing" and "weren't there" (verbatim) trying to get her to deny me my request to take their deposition. She asked him if he would get them to sign fresh "sworn declarations", "under oath" (Judge Ryu's words, verbatim) stating this. Mr. King said yes, absolutely, he would. Judge Ryu asked me "Would that be okay?" I said "No." She started laughing, and asked me why, and I explained that I had explicitly described various interactions with them that had taken place while the carotid hold was still being applied to me, and that they had stated in their written statements that they had witnessed force being used, and that was "not resisting". She confirmed that this was all true with Mr. King and that he already knew all of this, and ordered him to cooperate with scheduling them for deposition.
After that, they went back to discussing matters only with eachother, and I was excluded from discussion. This was an hour long hearing, and at about the 45 minute mark, Mr. King was again lying to the magistrate judge, and when he had finished, I interjected, "That's not true". Judge Ryu shouted "Stop! Stop stop stop stop stop!" And then very assertively explained to me the importance of not interrupting people for the convenience of the court reporter / transcriber. I was excluded from the rest of the hearing.
At some point at either this hearing or the next one, I cited the legal requirement for the parties to disclose contact information for witnesses. I cited the rule of procedure. Judge Ryu responded, "Mr. King is a lawyer!" as if that alone justified his refusal to provide me contact information for witnesses.
Mr. King refused to provide both written statements from the eye witness deputies, and to schedule them for deposition, and stated that if he provided written statements, they would be copied and pasted versions of the same statements previously provided, signed under oath (nowhere saying that they "saw nothing" or "weren't there").
Mr. King kept threatening to go to my family member's workplace unless I provided him contact information for counselors from 10+ years ago, DURING a DEPOSITION, without him providing any written request for the information.
He also interfered with scheduling the witnesses for deposition, with the Court reporter that I had hired, disregarded the schedule that I had set, and set them each for 30 minutes, which raised the cost of deposition from an estimated about $700 to about $4,000, and said this was my one and only chance.
The Federal Pro Bono Project / the Justice & Diversity Center is an organization that receives seven million dollars a year in public funding and is under contract with the Federal District Court to work with the Court to provide legal consultation to pro se litigants. I had about 19 appointments with them, about 18 with Abby Herzberg, and 1 with Rosemarie Maliekel. Ms. Herzberg was precisely 15 minutes late to every single appointment, repeatedly gave me horrible advice ("just wait", do nothing, "don't file this", despite admitting that the entire motion was valid, directly causing excessive delay and the spoliation of crucial evidence). She also yelled at me aggressively on two occasions because I had brought up state laws, which were being currently violated against me, because the Court had dismissed my "state claims" because Sonoma County refused to supply with a state tort claim form when I first asked, reasoning that was not relevant to the state laws being currently violated against me. After Ms. Herzberg yelled at me the second time, I requested an appointment with Ms. Maliekel. Ms. Maliekel spent the entire appointment ranting at me about irrelevant issues, and kept talking over me and interrupting me. I was polite but eventually asked "can I finish what I was saying?" She responded "No!" and kept ranting at me.
I had repeatedly asked about how to properly get medical evidence, and about expert witnesses. Ms. Herzberg ignored my questions and spent nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment reading through the rules, without letting me speak at all, even to summarize the relevant sections of the rules that I had read.
On a video on their webpage (on the Court's website, because they are a "partner project" with the Court), Abby Herzberg explicitly demonstrates a clear understanding of the fact that the Court provides funding for expert witnesses, despite ignoring my questions about and spending nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment either reading rules or pretending to.
Discovery was closed.
Mr. King rehashed the legally baseless and frivolous "time barred" claim in a Motion for Summary Judgment. I was required to respond to it twice. I was required to answer all his "undisputed material facts" under threat of terminating my entire case, but he refused to answer mine. He lied over and over to the judges. As I said, the judge ruled that the laws "wouldn't allow her to" dismiss my entire case and rejected his Motion for Summary Judgement.
The Court ordered the Federal Pro Bono Project (FPBP) to put me on a list for attorneys seeking clients. Ms. Herzberg told me that if I filed any motions, that the FPBP would not cooperate with the Court's order, until 1 month before my trial, instead of 6 months before. She also said that a law firm had reached out to them about my case over a month prior to that, and that the staff at the FPBP had not followed up. My filing privileges were then revoked by the Court.
An attorney, David Ratner, reached out to me, and scheduled an initial consultation, over Zoom, at which he stated he "hates cops", and gave a showing of being enthusiastic. I explicitly told him that I wanted to make sure we were on the same page as far as what to "aim for". I told him that I had been working for FIVE YEARS, that I had almost died, that I had suffered two different extremely serious injuries. I told him that what I asked for was consistent with the most similar case (the Esa Wroth case of 2013) that I knew of (an ask of three million dollars). This was coincidental. I was not aware of the Esa Wroth case when I came up with that number. I agonized over that, and spent a lot of time trying to come up with a fair amount, and described the methods I used to come up with that number in detail in court documents. Mr. Ratner explicitly agreed to aim for that.
Mr. Ratner, and his partner, Shelley Mollineaux, who was set to represent me at trial under Mr. Ratner's supervision, then both went dark for over a month. They ignored my emails, voicemails, and messages that I left with their receptionists. There was a hearing, and then Mr. Ratner emailed me demanding "all the documents" that I had. I had over 50 gb of files across thousands of files, and spent about a month working with his paralegals sending them batches of files, and providing all the information they asked me for. Mr. Ratner forwarded me an email from Mr. King where King accused me of violating a court order regarding providing medical providers and the physical addresses of my entire family and my friends, which was false -- the Court had ordered me to provide him CONTACT information, at a second hearing, which wasn't significant, and I had fully and completely complied in good faith with all the Court's orders. Mr. Ratner accused me of not sending him "anything", after I had spent at least several weeks with his paralegals sending them batches of files and information, and he simultaneously threatened to ask the judge for leave to withdraw.
There had been major delays with medical evaluation due in large part to Covid, as well as delayed discovery of brain injury, which is very common, and other factors.
With trial set, Mr. Ratner forwarded me an offer from Defendants for $5,000. Upon discussion (which was 100% in email because he refused to talk over the phone and Ms. Mollineaux completely ignored me), he accused me of not doing Discovery right. I pointed him to the video I referred to earlier, which I had found since Mr. Ratner took my case, but wasn't aware of when I was interacting with the FPBP, where the FPBP (Abby Herzberg), and various District Judges from the Court I was litigating in, state that it is general policy (and it is official policy under the Court's General Order 25) to REOPEN DISCOVERY when a pro bono attorney comes onto the case, and to FUND DEPOSITION AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES.
Mr. Ratner stated he "won't file any motions" and ultimately elected to withdraw from the case over fulfill his legal obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court thanked him and granted him permission to withdraw. The FPBP refused to put me back on the list. I was forced into trial BY MYSELF, at 1-2 months prior to trial, after 2-3 months of my time being completely wasted by Mr. Ratner and his law firm.
I went through the appropriate legal process to submit an expert witness. The Court, as usual, completely ignored my motions, but allowed me to use him after I went through the entire legal process, and paid him thousands of dollars without knowing if I would be granted permission or not, and provided the Court a report stating that the carotid hold was ILLEGAL unless the subject exhibited "assaultive behavior" and that Defendants had never alleged any behavior of mine that constituted "assaultive behavior" (under POST Basic). The expert was a Master level instructor at a police academy and former SWAT.
Mr. King provided his pre-trial disclosures, and it contained a document from Rohnert Park police department which had been extensively redacted on the copy that they had provided to me. The new copy contained the contact information for the bystander witness. I called him, and he confirmed that he saw the entire thing, that I had never yelled at the deputies before the first deputy grabbed my arm, and that I was not resisting at any point in time. I told the judge this. She had me call him at a hearing, and both me and Mr. King were allowed a couple of minutes to ask him questions, where he refused to admit that I was even "wiggling" when Mr. King badgered him.
The judge then refused to allow him to appear over Zoom, and refused to summon him to the trial.
At the trial, the Judge accused me falsely of firing my attorney, and explicitly prohibited me from telling the jury that the Defendants had LIED about the camera's ability to record. She explicitly prohibited me from submitting scientific evidence about the carotid hold. She allowed Mr. King to make extremely defamatory false remarks about me and my past which had a huge impact on the jury's perception of things. At a pretrial hearing, we had gone over about 110 documents that I wanted to present at the trial. She vetted about 40 as admissible at the hearing, but at the trial she only let me submit about 5. Defendants were allowed to submit a SECOND expert witness, both of whom worked for the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. The first was Andrew Cash. The second was James Naugle who had been disclosed literally a week before trial, without a report, and without allowing me to take his deposition. She refused to allow me to ask Mr. Naugle about case laws, or about information pertaining to the carotid hold. The Court refused to summon any of my treating physicians, whom I had provided the names and contact information for in my disclosures at the end of Discovery and some in my initial disclosures, and I had complied with Mr. King's written requests for information or objected within the boundaries of the law, in good faith, and complied with the Court's orders, in good faith.
I had informed the Court that I was scheduled for medical evaluations for brain injury AFTER THE TRIAL. The Court completely ignored this.
So it was my word against theirs. 5 years, at the time of the mistrial, to get a mockery of a trial, and have the jurors' time completely wasted. The jury wrote me a letter thanking me or something, but awarded me nothing.
I was diagnosed with organic brain injury after the trial. I had a similar test prior to the incident and had absolutely no problems and answered every question with no trouble. I now score in the FOURTH PERCENTILE on those areas.
Despite its length, this has been a short summary of all the events over the past 6 years. Much has been summarized, and much has been left out. I tried my best to balance completeness with leaving out irrelevant details.
There is no record of any misconduct on the part of anyone involved in this that is available to any law enforcement agencies or to the public. Nobody has been disciplined. No investigation was ever conducted. I was almost killed and was seriously injured, under a camera, and in front of witnesses, and spent 6 years working with the government. The government has done precisely NOTHING.
The County now routinely retaliates against me whenever we interact, in blatant violation of various laws.
submitted by Adventurous-Plant419 to sonomacounty [link] [comments]
Lynda Hopkins took money from the law enforcement unions, and turns a willfully blind eye to it.
The County Office of Legal Counsel is literally a crime syndicate.
In 2015, the Sheriff's Office had a veritable torture ring in the jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izcHIv5Y4z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYrGChrW5HM&list=TLPQMzAwMzIwMjMv0QAOPDy1Lw&index=2
This is just the tip of the iceberg. They lied about the existence of these videos, and "lost" the one where they gave one of the inmates internal bleeding, with a knee to their back.
There was a lawsuit about it. It was called the "Yard Counseling Case". There are news articles about it.
There was an official, written policy, called "Yard Counseling", later its name was changed to "Behavior Counseling" which dictated that for arbitrary punitive measures, Sheriff's Office personnel should extract inmates from their cells individually (which meant slamming their heads onto the door frames on the way out and other abuse), and isolate them, and putting them into "pain compliance" techniques (literally, by definition, torture) for extended periods of time while "counseling" them, which meant wearing no name tags, ski masks and riot gear, carrying a shotgun with them, and insulting them in explicit language for over 20 minutes.
This official written policy was acknowledged by Rob Giordano in a video, where he lies that no inmates where injured, uploaded to YouTube in 2018, when they finally addressed this official written policy, and the practice of torturing inmates without reasonable cause (leading exercise routines, for example).
In 2021, they saw one of the victims of this torture ring, who had sued them and had won, at a peaceful protest, and shot him with a grenade launcher while hiding on a rooftop in the face with a crowd control grenade, which exploded on impact and caused horrific injury that I don't care to describe.
In 2017, I was almost killed by application of a "carotid hold" / lateral vascular neck restraint, by a sheriff's deputy, for literally no reason. A knee was placed on my lower back while I was on the ground on my stomach as well, which caused a serious injury to my kidney, which was the worst injury of my life. I have also been diagnosed with an organic brain injury and cognitive impairment. I was tested for the same type of cognitive impairment before the incident and there is a marked difference, and I have about 30 pages describing the differences I've noticed / troubles I've had in my cognitive functioning. There was no probable cause to arrest me, and I was polite and compliant with all the instructions given to me, and this was confirmed by witnesses. I was punished for invoking my right to remain silent, then my arm was grabbed and yanked up behind me, and then a carotid hold was applied because my body pivoted after the deputy grabbed and yanked my arm.
This occurred UNDER A CAMERA and IN FRONT OF WITNESSES. I called the Sheriff's Office the next day said I want to "make an official complaint in writing". I was transferred to Captain of Internal Affairs, Captain Mark Essick. I repeated my request, verbatim. He responded, verbatim: "We don't do that. Why don't you tell me what happened." I did. I told him it happened right under a camera. He said "The camera can't record." I asked for confirmation. He said the cameras "Don't have recording technology installed."
I asked the County for a claim form. They ignored my request, and instructed me to report the incident to IOLERO. IOLERO requested I meet with Internal Affairs, and I said fine.
Sgt. Andy Cash called me and scheduled me for a meeting at the Sheriff's den. I was made to walk first and guided upstairs to a meeting room, and then patted down for weapons, and the interview was recorded. For 75 minutes I was deposed about happened. He asked me repeatedly about my mental state after the incident. I admitted that I was upset after the incident, and he acted like that justified the whole incident. He explicitly promised to interview the 4 deputies who witnessed the event in addition to the 2 deputies who participated, as well as the arresting officer (who I told him would confirm that I was polite and cooperative), which he agreed "would confirm [my] demeanor", and a bystander witness I told him about.
I complained to IOLERO director Jerry Threet. Mr. Threet agreed that that was inappropriate, then resigned without reviewing the investigation.
For about 4 years review of the investigation was put on hold because IOLERO staff quit, and when more staff was hired, they complained of being understaffed. They had a budget of over a million dollars but only had 2 employees. They only reviewed one case per four months. And they put off "backlogged" cases and focused on new cases. My complaint was finally reviewed by Interim Director Garrick Byers who clearly stated that the investigation was not conducted appropriately. I have the letter from him. That still has never been made public.
After the interview with Internal Affairs, I corresponded with Lynda Hopkins, and she refused to give her opinion on the matter. I specifically complained that the carotid hold was being used recklessly, and it is a dangerous technique. This was in 2018. She forwarded me to Janell Crane, who then had me meet with Kristi Schultz.
I contacted the DA's Office and spoke to Richard Celli (who made $346k in 2017, and has gunned down two unarmed people, and was convicted by a jury in one of the civil cases brought against him by one of the victim's family, but the sentence was overturned by a judge, while working for the SRPD). The first time I spoke to Mr. Celli, he told me that another law enforcement agency should take my case. After that first time, him and the rest of the DA's Office openly refused to comply with the Victims' Rights Laws (CA Con Art. 1 S. 28), and the "policies" (which are legally binding under CA Con Art 5 S. 13) of the Attorney General stating clearly that they are to take complaints from victims if it can't be resolved with the department.
After the first talk with Mr. Celli, I called Rohnert Park Police as I was instructed, and they 3-way called the Sheriff's office and then transferred me. I spent about 30 minutes reporting the incident to a deputy, and he asked me questions in a fair manner. I called RPPD back and talked to the arresting officer and he positively clearly confirmed that I was "polite, calm, compliant, and cooperative" (or something nearly verbatim, I can't remember exactly any more).
Andrew Cash called me the next day, at precisely 7:00 AM. He told me he was driving. He was extremely confrontational with me. He said "There were 6 deputies [referring to the two who used excessive force on me, and 4 witness deputies]. You were combative." This was false. He had only interviewed one of the 4 witness deputies, and the other 3 had provided written statements. They said that they had witnessed force being used, that they had not participated in the use of force to the best of their memory, and that I "did not appear to be resisting". But again, he had promised explicitly to interview the 4 deputy witnesses, and the arresting officer
Internal Affairs exonerated the officers. The letter was signed by Eddie Engram, captain of Internal Affairs. I called Mr. Engram, and had an hour long conversation with him, and he told me to contact Sgt. Cash after April 1st.
I filed a federal claim on the last day that it was due.
Mr. Cash referred me to Legal Counselor, Kara Abelson.
Ms. Abelson spent a year and a half refusing to comply with the Public Records Act, the Rules of Procedure, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She refused to provide me documents that I was entitled to under law, including the incident report written by Deputies Jacquelin Fazzio and Virgil Smith, and the recorded interviews that he promised he would conduct, and stated pretty clearly that he had conducted.
Kara Abelson spent a year and a half trying to claim that my federal complaint was time barred by 1 day when it wasn't. The judge (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) entertained this and forced me to respond SEVEN TIMES, before she finally admitted that the "law wouldn't allow [her] to dismiss my complaint".
After a year and a half, Kara Abelson finally withdrew from the case after I started citing the Rules of Professional Conduct to her that require her to resign or withdraw from the case rather than defend a civil case where defense isn't warranted. Nobody had disputed any of the allegations I had made. In fact, Eddie Engram had confirmed that what I said happened was not disputed by the evidence.
At some point around this time, either before or after Ms. Abelson withdrew, the 2 incident reports written by the two deputies, the written statements by 3 of the 4 witness deputies, and the recorded interviews with me, the 2 deputies who assaulted me, and 1 of the eye witness deputies, were provided, along with various other records from the facility. In the recorded interview, and the incident report, the deputies admitted that Virgil Smith had applied the carotid hold.
I had also reported the incident to the State Attorney General Public Inquiry Unite (Lupe Zinzin). She had told me, over and over and over, that the local DA's are required to take complaints from civilians in these situations. She refused to call the DA's Office, though. The DA's Office (Richard Celli, Mark Azzouni, David Kahl) refused to take a complaint from me. They (including the receptionists) hung up on me every time I called after no more than 2 minutes, for no reason, transferred me to dead lines, never returned any voicemails I managed to leave, told me explicitly that if I send a complaint, they will throw it away, and didn't care, at all, what the laws were. The receptionists also refuse to provide their names. The Attorney General's Office told me to send them a complaint, so I did. The DA's Office acknowledged receiving the complaint. But later said that they did not have a record of it, meaning they threw it away.
The Attorney General's Office finally agreed to take a complaint from me. It sat on their desk for a year. I finally called them, concerned that evidence was being destroyed, and left a voicemail for Casey Hallinan requesting that they request copies of the physical evidence from the Sheriff's Office. Literally 2 days after that voicemail, a letter was sent to me signed by Sharon Loughner with Casey Hallinan CC'ed on the letter, stating that they would "take no action", and blamed the incident on me. I had not received the letter though, and called and spoke to Ms. Hallinan, who was extremely rude. After that, the Attorney General's Office hang up on me as soon as they find out it's me, for no reason. There has since been a bystander witness who saw the whole thing, and it has come to light that the cameras did record, that no upgrades were ever performed like Ms. Abelson alleged, the cameras do continuously record (as of 2019), and they just lied through their teeth about the camera for 4 straight years. The Attorney General's Office does not care. They violate the laws, and do not care what the laws are.
Sonoma County Office of Legal Counsel attorney Michael King took over after Ms. Abelson withdrew. Right off the bat, Mr. King told me that my motions were deficient - a contention he has repeated frequently, since then. I asked him how. He changed the subject, and to this day has NEVER given any explanation as to how any of my motions are deficient.
He continued to claim that my claim was time barred, filing frivolous motions, in blatant violation of the rules of professional conduct, after I cited the rules to him, constituting explicit legal misconduct.
As I said, the judge finally agreed to open Discovery after a year and a half of full time work trying to fight for my right to not be nearly murdered for no reason.
Lawyers do not take these cases unless there is undeniable proof of blatant guilt, along with undeniable proof of catastrophic injury. Multiple law firms have confirmed that it takes over a million dollars worth of legal work to get these cases to trial.
The judge also promised me a pro bono attorney "if you make it past summary judgment".
The judge scheduled us for Alternative Dispute Resolution hearing with a magistrate judge. Mr. King elicited an offer from me, which I spent about 2 weeks working on, trying to make it as agreeable as possible. But then for the hearing, his written offer was to waive charging me his attorneys fees. The judge confirmed that there was no legal basis for him to do that - it would be illegal. He had been ordered to participate in this hearing, and there was a legal obligation under the Rules of Procedure to try in good faith to settle the case. He violated the order and the rule of procedure (26 (f)).
All of my motions were completely ignored for no reason.
Mr. King / Defendant Virgil Smith lied about the cameras. They said "Denies the existence of cameras capable of recording in the vicinity", in writing, under oath. They never disputed that he put his knee on top of my back with all his weight on it.
Mr. King refused to comply with his Discovery obligations. I had to file about 4 different motions pertaining to their refusal to comply with the laws regarding disclosure of evidence.
Upon receiving an official Discovery request for records of camera equipment, I received a letter signed under by Mr. King (nearly 4 years after the incident) stating that the cameras CAN RECORD. But stating "tasks must be performed" to start the recording function, and stating that all records pertaining to the equipment that was installed at the time HAD BEEN DESTROYED (literally a federal and state crime, a civil tort violation, and a sanctionable act of legal misconduct).
Mr. King refused to schedule any of the witnesses for deposition, demanded MY deposition BEFORE he would even schedule the two deputies who assaulted me, even though I had been requesting depositions with other witnesses for over a month, and refused to schedule anyone else, he refused to answer interrogatories, he refused to provide copies of the policies from the time of the incident. He tried to pass off a weird spreadsheet with the word camera on it as proof that upgrades had been done to the cameras. He refused to provide complete training records for the deputies. He refused to provide details about the training. He refused to provide blueprints of the facility, refused to provide photos of the cameras at the location, refused to provide still images showing which direction the cameras were pointing, refused to provide photos of the deputies so I could schedule depositions efficiently.
The judge erroneously dismissed my Equal Protection claims, construing them as Due Process and Employment Discrimination claims, which are different types of claims than Equal Protection claims against a government actor. The government cannot arbitrarily treat anyone disparately. The Court also dismissed my "Monell" claim against the municipality for their "policies, customs, or practices", but left me leave to amend that claim. And she waited until Discovery opened over 1.5 years into litigation, to do this, forcing me to amend the complaint DURING DISCOVERY which was only open for a limited amount of time, instead of any point in the 1.5 years prior to that.
In the recorded interview with Andrew Cash and one of the witness deputies, she spontaneously states that Mr. Cash instructed her to review the written statements made by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to the interview. Another deputy witness confirmed that Mr. Cash had instructed her to review the written reports by the two deputies who assaulted me prior to her providing Mr. Cash with a written statement as well.
The judge finally retaliated against me, without rational basis, for filing motions, which I had filed because I was being illegally obstructed from preserving evidence, by withdrawing leave to amend regarding the "Monell" claim (I had stated a clear Monell claim to begin with, but the judge literally has an aversion to reading, and relies on guessing, and is biased against pro se litigants; I am summarizing well over 100 pages, if not well over double that, of motions, objections, and replies and the judge's responsive orders).
She did however, finally schedule a hearing with a Discovery referee magistrate. All my motions (and the months of work I was required to do dictated by the various rules) was completely disregarded, and both me and Mr. King were given 2 pages each (double spaced) to go over discovery issues, even though I had filed about 4 different motions about various issues, and he hadn't filed ANY, at that time.
During conference I was required to do in accordance with the Rules, Mr. King repeatedly tried to establish that I had committed crimes during the course of conferring which was my legal obligation, without having any rational basis to believe what he was trying to establish. He demanded evidence that would exist, and he kept repeating every lie he could come up with to the judge. The judge would either get annoyed at me if I addressed any of Mr. King's baseless accusations, or take his statements at face value for being 100% true.
Mr. King finally "compromised" and agreed to schedule depositions with me (as long as Mr. King wanted to) and the two deputies who had assaulted me (for 25 minutes each or something) all simultaneously, but refused to schedule anyone else, even though this was grossly advantageous to him. One of the eye witness deputies later confirmed that he had "consulted" her over 4 times prior to the trial. During this deposition, Mr. King asked me where a family member of mine works. He had spent about 30-40 minutes trying to convince me that I can tell him anything, that the entire record was designated confidential, that I had nothing to worry about - and at a deposition, you are obligated to answer the questions unless they are harassing. Mr. King also requested contact information for counselors from over 10 years ago, and that was the only question I didn't answer - I told him to provide the request in writing. At some point after that, I told Mr. King to not contact my family member at her workplace, and Mr. King responded "unless you fully and completely cooperate" with his request for contact information for counselors from 10 years+ ago.
At the hearing, the Discovery Magistrate (Donna M. Ryu) discussed matters only with Mr. King, without including me. He told her that the 4 eye witness deputies "saw nothing" and "weren't there" (verbatim) trying to get her to deny me my request to take their deposition. She asked him if he would get them to sign fresh "sworn declarations", "under oath" (Judge Ryu's words, verbatim) stating this. Mr. King said yes, absolutely, he would. Judge Ryu asked me "Would that be okay?" I said "No." She started laughing, and asked me why, and I explained that I had explicitly described various interactions with them that had taken place while the carotid hold was still being applied to me, and that they had stated in their written statements that they had witnessed force being used, and that was "not resisting". She confirmed that this was all true with Mr. King and that he already knew all of this, and ordered him to cooperate with scheduling them for deposition.
After that, they went back to discussing matters only with eachother, and I was excluded from discussion. This was an hour long hearing, and at about the 45 minute mark, Mr. King was again lying to the magistrate judge, and when he had finished, I interjected, "That's not true". Judge Ryu shouted "Stop! Stop stop stop stop stop!" And then very assertively explained to me the importance of not interrupting people for the convenience of the court reporter / transcriber. I was excluded from the rest of the hearing.
At some point at either this hearing or the next one, I cited the legal requirement for the parties to disclose contact information for witnesses. I cited the rule of procedure. Judge Ryu responded, "Mr. King is a lawyer!" as if that alone justified his refusal to provide me contact information for witnesses.
Mr. King refused to provide both written statements from the eye witness deputies, and to schedule them for deposition, and stated that if he provided written statements, they would be copied and pasted versions of the same statements previously provided, signed under oath (nowhere saying that they "saw nothing" or "weren't there").
Mr. King kept threatening to go to my family member's workplace unless I provided him contact information for counselors from 10+ years ago, DURING a DEPOSITION, without him providing any written request for the information.
He also interfered with scheduling the witnesses for deposition, with the Court reporter that I had hired, disregarded the schedule that I had set, and set them each for 30 minutes, which raised the cost of deposition from an estimated about $700 to about $4,000, and said this was my one and only chance.
The Federal Pro Bono Project / the Justice & Diversity Center is an organization that receives seven million dollars a year in public funding and is under contract with the Federal District Court to work with the Court to provide legal consultation to pro se litigants. I had about 19 appointments with them, about 18 with Abby Herzberg, and 1 with Rosemarie Maliekel. Ms. Herzberg was precisely 15 minutes late to every single appointment, repeatedly gave me horrible advice ("just wait", do nothing, "don't file this", despite admitting that the entire motion was valid, directly causing excessive delay and the spoliation of crucial evidence). She also yelled at me aggressively on two occasions because I had brought up state laws, which were being currently violated against me, because the Court had dismissed my "state claims" because Sonoma County refused to supply with a state tort claim form when I first asked, reasoning that was not relevant to the state laws being currently violated against me. After Ms. Herzberg yelled at me the second time, I requested an appointment with Ms. Maliekel. Ms. Maliekel spent the entire appointment ranting at me about irrelevant issues, and kept talking over me and interrupting me. I was polite but eventually asked "can I finish what I was saying?" She responded "No!" and kept ranting at me.
I had repeatedly asked about how to properly get medical evidence, and about expert witnesses. Ms. Herzberg ignored my questions and spent nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment reading through the rules, without letting me speak at all, even to summarize the relevant sections of the rules that I had read.
On a video on their webpage (on the Court's website, because they are a "partner project" with the Court), Abby Herzberg explicitly demonstrates a clear understanding of the fact that the Court provides funding for expert witnesses, despite ignoring my questions about and spending nearly the entirety of almost every single appointment either reading rules or pretending to.
Discovery was closed.
Mr. King rehashed the legally baseless and frivolous "time barred" claim in a Motion for Summary Judgment. I was required to respond to it twice. I was required to answer all his "undisputed material facts" under threat of terminating my entire case, but he refused to answer mine. He lied over and over to the judges. As I said, the judge ruled that the laws "wouldn't allow her to" dismiss my entire case and rejected his Motion for Summary Judgement.
The Court ordered the Federal Pro Bono Project (FPBP) to put me on a list for attorneys seeking clients. Ms. Herzberg told me that if I filed any motions, that the FPBP would not cooperate with the Court's order, until 1 month before my trial, instead of 6 months before. She also said that a law firm had reached out to them about my case over a month prior to that, and that the staff at the FPBP had not followed up. My filing privileges were then revoked by the Court.
An attorney, David Ratner, reached out to me, and scheduled an initial consultation, over Zoom, at which he stated he "hates cops", and gave a showing of being enthusiastic. I explicitly told him that I wanted to make sure we were on the same page as far as what to "aim for". I told him that I had been working for FIVE YEARS, that I had almost died, that I had suffered two different extremely serious injuries. I told him that what I asked for was consistent with the most similar case (the Esa Wroth case of 2013) that I knew of (an ask of three million dollars). This was coincidental. I was not aware of the Esa Wroth case when I came up with that number. I agonized over that, and spent a lot of time trying to come up with a fair amount, and described the methods I used to come up with that number in detail in court documents. Mr. Ratner explicitly agreed to aim for that.
Mr. Ratner, and his partner, Shelley Mollineaux, who was set to represent me at trial under Mr. Ratner's supervision, then both went dark for over a month. They ignored my emails, voicemails, and messages that I left with their receptionists. There was a hearing, and then Mr. Ratner emailed me demanding "all the documents" that I had. I had over 50 gb of files across thousands of files, and spent about a month working with his paralegals sending them batches of files, and providing all the information they asked me for. Mr. Ratner forwarded me an email from Mr. King where King accused me of violating a court order regarding providing medical providers and the physical addresses of my entire family and my friends, which was false -- the Court had ordered me to provide him CONTACT information, at a second hearing, which wasn't significant, and I had fully and completely complied in good faith with all the Court's orders. Mr. Ratner accused me of not sending him "anything", after I had spent at least several weeks with his paralegals sending them batches of files and information, and he simultaneously threatened to ask the judge for leave to withdraw.
There had been major delays with medical evaluation due in large part to Covid, as well as delayed discovery of brain injury, which is very common, and other factors.
With trial set, Mr. Ratner forwarded me an offer from Defendants for $5,000. Upon discussion (which was 100% in email because he refused to talk over the phone and Ms. Mollineaux completely ignored me), he accused me of not doing Discovery right. I pointed him to the video I referred to earlier, which I had found since Mr. Ratner took my case, but wasn't aware of when I was interacting with the FPBP, where the FPBP (Abby Herzberg), and various District Judges from the Court I was litigating in, state that it is general policy (and it is official policy under the Court's General Order 25) to REOPEN DISCOVERY when a pro bono attorney comes onto the case, and to FUND DEPOSITION AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES.
Mr. Ratner stated he "won't file any motions" and ultimately elected to withdraw from the case over fulfill his legal obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court thanked him and granted him permission to withdraw. The FPBP refused to put me back on the list. I was forced into trial BY MYSELF, at 1-2 months prior to trial, after 2-3 months of my time being completely wasted by Mr. Ratner and his law firm.
I went through the appropriate legal process to submit an expert witness. The Court, as usual, completely ignored my motions, but allowed me to use him after I went through the entire legal process, and paid him thousands of dollars without knowing if I would be granted permission or not, and provided the Court a report stating that the carotid hold was ILLEGAL unless the subject exhibited "assaultive behavior" and that Defendants had never alleged any behavior of mine that constituted "assaultive behavior" (under POST Basic). The expert was a Master level instructor at a police academy and former SWAT.
Mr. King provided his pre-trial disclosures, and it contained a document from Rohnert Park police department which had been extensively redacted on the copy that they had provided to me. The new copy contained the contact information for the bystander witness. I called him, and he confirmed that he saw the entire thing, that I had never yelled at the deputies before the first deputy grabbed my arm, and that I was not resisting at any point in time. I told the judge this. She had me call him at a hearing, and both me and Mr. King were allowed a couple of minutes to ask him questions, where he refused to admit that I was even "wiggling" when Mr. King badgered him.
The judge then refused to allow him to appear over Zoom, and refused to summon him to the trial.
At the trial, the Judge accused me falsely of firing my attorney, and explicitly prohibited me from telling the jury that the Defendants had LIED about the camera's ability to record. She explicitly prohibited me from submitting scientific evidence about the carotid hold. She allowed Mr. King to make extremely defamatory false remarks about me and my past which had a huge impact on the jury's perception of things. At a pretrial hearing, we had gone over about 110 documents that I wanted to present at the trial. She vetted about 40 as admissible at the hearing, but at the trial she only let me submit about 5. Defendants were allowed to submit a SECOND expert witness, both of whom worked for the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. The first was Andrew Cash. The second was James Naugle who had been disclosed literally a week before trial, without a report, and without allowing me to take his deposition. She refused to allow me to ask Mr. Naugle about case laws, or about information pertaining to the carotid hold. The Court refused to summon any of my treating physicians, whom I had provided the names and contact information for in my disclosures at the end of Discovery and some in my initial disclosures, and I had complied with Mr. King's written requests for information or objected within the boundaries of the law, in good faith, and complied with the Court's orders, in good faith.
I had informed the Court that I was scheduled for medical evaluations for brain injury AFTER THE TRIAL. The Court completely ignored this.
So it was my word against theirs. 5 years, at the time of the mistrial, to get a mockery of a trial, and have the jurors' time completely wasted. The jury wrote me a letter thanking me or something, but awarded me nothing.
I was diagnosed with organic brain injury after the trial. I had a similar test prior to the incident and had absolutely no problems and answered every question with no trouble. I now score in the FOURTH PERCENTILE on those areas.
Despite its length, this has been a short summary of all the events over the past 6 years. Much has been summarized, and much has been left out. I tried my best to balance completeness with leaving out irrelevant details.
There is no record of any misconduct on the part of anyone involved in this that is available to any law enforcement agencies or to the public. Nobody has been disciplined. No investigation was ever conducted. I was almost killed and was seriously injured, under a camera, and in front of witnesses, and spent 6 years working with the government. The government has done precisely NOTHING.
The County now routinely retaliates against me whenever we interact, in blatant violation of various laws.
2023.03.31 02:52 Formal-Mud-990 Idk y I try ppl don't deserve it
The way freedom dies. And the path it took.
Now I'll start off with some inspiration for all Americans from Americans. The American declaration of independence states the following in it's article 11 but for those saying I take what I want out of context to suit my own ends...yes that is correct. I would encourage all to go when able and read the thing in it's entirety to see the context for themselves. --" All experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer- Whilst evils are sufferable- then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."-- American declaration of independence --"God made all men equal and gave them the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted amongst men deriving there just powers from the consent of governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends. It is the rights of the people,it is the duty, to alter or abolish it and institute new guards for there future security."--
George Washington (1796) - In his farewell address, President Washington discussed the dangers of political factions and foreign entanglements. He warned that excessive partisanship and international alliances could undermine the unity and independence of the country. Washington's concerns reflected the challenges facing the young nation as it sought to establish a stable and democratic government, while also dealing with powerful European powers and internal divisions.In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington warned of the dangers of political parties and foreign entanglements, and called on Americans to preserve unity and avoid division.
Andrew Johnson (1869) - In his farewell address, President Johnson discussed the importance of constitutional government and the rule of law, and warned against the dangers of corruption and abuse of power. Johnson's presidency had been marked by conflict with Congress and controversy over his approach to Reconstruction following the Civil War. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of preserving democratic institutions and norms, and avoiding abuses of power.
William Howard Taft (1913) - In his farewell address, President Taft discussed the importance of international peace and cooperation, and called for greater emphasis on diplomacy and mediation in resolving conflicts. Taft had been involved in international affairs throughout his presidency, and had worked to promote international arbitration and disarmament. His farewell address reflected his belief in the need for greater cooperation and dialogue between nations, and his concern that the world was becoming more divided and dangerous.
Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address, President Hoover discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems. Hoover had been widely criticized for his handling of the Depression, and had faced growing calls for government intervention in the economy. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of self-reliance and individual initiative, but also acknowledged the need for collective action and government assistance in times of crisis.In his in
President Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1936) - In his State of the Union address, was responding to the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals, which he saw as a threat to American democracy. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans. He expressed concern about the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1938) - In his "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies," President Roosevelt was responding to a growing concern among Americans about the power of big business and monopolies. During the Great Depression, many people felt that corporations were exploiting workers and consumers, and that the government needed to step in to protect the interests of the people. Roosevelt's speech called for stronger government regulation of the economy, including antitrust laws to break up monopolies and promote competition. Roosevelt argued that a fair and just society required strong government intervention to prevent abuses by powerful economic interests. The New Deal programs and reforms initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression continue to shape the country's social safety net and regulatory framework, with programs like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act still in place today.
Harry S. Truman (1951) - In his "Labor Day Address," President Truman was responding to concerns among workers about the state of the American economy. Truman argued that the government had a responsibility to protect workers' rights and freedoms, and to ensure that the economy worked for everyone, not just the wealthy. Truman called for stronger government regulation of the economy to prevent abuses by employers and corporations, and to promote fair wages and working conditions for workers. Truman's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about economic inequality and the need for government intervention to promote social justice.The Marshall Plan, proposed by Harry Truman in 1947, helped to rebuild Europe after World War II and cemented the United States' role as a global superpower.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961) - In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the potential dangers of the close relationship between the military and the defense industry.-Military industrial complex, that would distort national priorities and threaten individual liberties. and called on Americans to remain vigilant in protecting democratic values and institutions. Eisenhower had served as a general in World War II before becoming president, and had witnessed firsthand the growth of the military and defense industries during his time in office. His farewell address reflected his concern that the power of these industries could threaten the stability and security of the country, and his belief in the importance of maintaining a balance between military preparedness and civilian control.
John F. Kennedy (1961) - In his inaugural address, President Kennedy famously called on Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Kennedy's speech reflected his belief in the importance of civic responsibility and public service, and his hope that Americans would be willing to work together to address the challenges facing the country.
Lyndon B. Johnson, who championed the principles of civil rights and social welfare, and who oversaw the passage of important legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, but who also faced criticism for his handling of the Vietnam War and his expansion of the federal government's role in domestic affairs.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1965) - In his "Special Message to the Congress: The Quality of American Life," President Johnson was responding to a range of social problems facing the country, including poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation. Johnson argued that government had a crucial role to play in addressing these issues, and that unwarranted influence by special interests was a threat to American democracy. Johnson called for stronger government action to promote social justice and environmental protection, including new laws to protect civil rights and preserve natural resources. Johnson's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about the need for government intervention to address social and environmental problems.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1969) - In his farewell address, President Johnson spoke about the need for continued progress on issues like civil rights and poverty, and called on Americans to remain committed to the values of justice and equality. Johnson's presidency had been marked by significant progress on issues like civil rights and social welfare, but had also been marred by the Vietnam War and growing social and political divisions. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of continued social and political progress, and his hope that the country could overcome its divisions and work together for a better future.The War on Poverty and Great Society programs, initiated by Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, helped to reduce poverty and expand access to education and health care for millions of Americans, although issues of poverty and inequality remain a challenge today.The civil rights legislation passed during the 1960s, including the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, helped to dismantle legal segregation and expand voting rights for African Americans, although issues of racial inequality and discrimination persist to this day.
Richard Nixon (1971) - In his "Message to the Congress on Reorganization of the Executive Branch," President Nixon was responding to concerns among conservatives about the size and power of the federal government. Nixon argued that excessive bureaucracy and regulation were stifling economic growth and innovation, and that government needed to be streamlined and made more efficient. Nixon's speech called for a reorganization of the executive branch of government to make it more effective and responsive to the needs of the American people. Nixon's speech reflected a growing concern among conservatives about the need to reduce the size and power of government.
Richard Nixon (1974) - In his resignation speech, President Nixon discussed the need for national healing and reconciliation following the Watergate scandal and his resignation from office. Nixon's presidency had been marked by significant achievements in foreign policy and domestic issues, but had also been marred by corruption and abuse of power. His resignation speech reflected his recognition of the damage done to the country by the Watergate scandal, and his hope that the country could move past it and focus on the future.The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, passed under Richard Nixon in the 1970s, helped to protect the environment and improve public health, although debates over environmental regulation and climate change continue to be major issues today.
Jimmy Carter (1979) - In his "Crisis of Confidence" speech, President Carter discussed the need for Americans to confront the energy crisis, and to work together to build a more sustainable and equitable society. Carter's speech reflected his concern that the country was losing its sense of purpose and direction, and his belief in the importance of public engagement and citizen involvement. That a crisis reflected his concern that excessive government regulation was hindering the development of alternative energy sources and impeding economic growth so that He felt compelled enough he called for a more balanced approach to energy policy that would promote conservation, innovation, and private investment.
President Ronald Reagan (1981) - In his inaugural address, expressed his belief that government had become too large and too intrusive, and that excessive regulation was stifling economic growth and individual freedom. He advocated for a smaller, more limited government that would give individuals and businesses more control over their own lives.
Ronald Reagan (1989) - In his farewell address, President Reagan discussed the importance of individual freedom and limited government, and called on Americans to remain committed to these values. Reagan's presidency had been marked by a conservative shift in American politics, and he had championed policies like tax cuts, deregulation, and increased military spending. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of these policies in promoting economic growth and national security, and his hope that they would continue to guide American policy in the future.The deregulation and tax cuts implemented during the Reagan era continue to shape the country's economic policies and debates, with questions about the role of government in the economy and the distribution of wealth remaining hotly contested.
Why do we let people who Right now. At this moment are acting to accelerate if not make it a certainty. The lives of our grandchildren will be worsening. More world wide famine disease and war. All creating more death . We all follow suit unquestionably due to the slavery of greed stemmed from this income inequalities. We do this even though we all love our grand kids. Truly then and only then will the systemic changes necessary for elimination of the evils allowing this way of life occur. The American declaration of independence states this in it's article 11 but for those saying I take what I want out of context to suit my own ends...yes that is correct. I would encourage all to go when able and read the thing in it's entirety to see the context for themselves. Robbing kids of education. and. sanity via stupid ,pointless , unhelpful, horrible,amoung other description words that fits the means by which the children where treated. Just to parade them around like masked bandits is both as ironic as it is ignorant. And what the whole world was doing not so long ago. Teaching them in good schools without biases. Agendas pertaining only to the best possible responsibility there is. None Other then that of allowing the next generation to be the most capable, and competent. When the time comes to pass the torch. As no one can hold it up forever no matter how strong it must be inevitably be passed on. Whether from such crippling old age. The dead hands of the strongest wisest. Yet still to unwilling in stubbornness to let the task be trusted to others. As he does the job and he knows he will. To The most proud of moments. Knowing the one taking it from yourself. Is truly ready and able ,and likely to be a Better then yourself job well done, when they pass it. To every single possible variation in-between.
From the white end extreme to the black end extremes. The almost entirety of grades of grey. Forming the majority as it seeps from the tips of each of those. Until it finally forms the tiny, albiet bright and visible none the less for it , in fact far from it. Admist the sea of grey around it. You find shining all the brighter for it. Silver lining in the exact middle. Idk y I try ppl don't deserve it
The way freedom dies. And the path it took.
Now I'll start off with some inspiration for all Americans from Americans.
--" All experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer- Whilst evils are sufferable- then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."-- American declaration of independence --"God made all men equal and gave them the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted amongst men deriving there just powers from the consent of governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends. It is the rights of the people,it is the duty, to alter or abolish it and institute new guards for there future security."--
George Washington (1796) - In his farewell address, President Washington discussed the dangers of political factions and foreign entanglements. He warned that excessive partisanship and international alliances could undermine the unity and independence of the country. Washington's concerns reflected the challenges facing the young nation as it sought to establish a stable and democratic government, while also dealing with powerful European powers and internal divisions.In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington warned of the dangers of political parties and foreign entanglements, and called on Americans to preserve unity and avoid division.
Andrew Johnson (1869) - In his farewell address, President Johnson discussed the importance of constitutional government and the rule of law, and warned against the dangers of corruption and abuse of power. Johnson's presidency had been marked by conflict with Congress and controversy over his approach to Reconstruction following the Civil War. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of preserving democratic institutions and norms, and avoiding abuses of power.
William Howard Taft (1913) - In his farewell address, President Taft discussed the importance of international peace and cooperation, and called for greater emphasis on diplomacy and mediation in resolving conflicts. Taft had been involved in international affairs throughout his presidency, and had worked to promote international arbitration and disarmament. His farewell address reflected his belief in the need for greater cooperation and dialogue between nations, and his concern that the world was becoming more divided and dangerous.
Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address, President Hoover discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems. Hoover had been widely criticized for his handling of the Depression, and had faced growing calls for government intervention in the economy. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of self-reliance and individual initiative, but also acknowledged the need for collective action and government assistance in times of crisis.In his in
President Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1936) - In his State of the Union address, was responding to the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals, which he saw as a threat to American democracy. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans. He expressed concern about the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1938) - In his "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies," President Roosevelt was responding to a growing concern among Americans about the power of big business and monopolies. During the Great Depression, many people felt that corporations were exploiting workers and consumers, and that the government needed to step in to protect the interests of the people. Roosevelt's speech called for stronger government regulation of the economy, including antitrust laws to break up monopolies and promote competition. Roosevelt argued that a fair and just society required strong government intervention to prevent abuses by powerful economic interests. The New Deal programs and reforms initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression continue to shape the country's social safety net and regulatory framework, with programs like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act still in place today.
Harry S. Truman (1951) - In his "Labor Day Address," President Truman was responding to concerns among workers about the state of the American economy. Truman argued that the government had a responsibility to protect workers' rights and freedoms, and to ensure that the economy worked for everyone, not just the wealthy. Truman called for stronger government regulation of the economy to prevent abuses by employers and corporations, and to promote fair wages and working conditions for workers. Truman's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about economic inequality and the need for government intervention to promote social justice.The Marshall Plan, proposed by Harry Truman in 1947, helped to rebuild Europe after World War II and cemented the United States' role as a global superpower.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961) - In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the potential dangers of the close relationship between the military and the defense industry.-Military industrial complex, that would distort national priorities and threaten individual liberties. and called on Americans to remain vigilant in protecting democratic values and institutions. Eisenhower had served as a general in World War II before becoming president, and had witnessed firsthand the growth of the military and defense industries during his time in office. His farewell address reflected his concern that the power of these industries could threaten the stability and security of the country, and his belief in the importance of maintaining a balance between military preparedness and civilian control.
John F. Kennedy (1961) - In his inaugural address, President Kennedy famously called on Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Kennedy's speech reflected his belief in the importance of civic responsibility and public service, and his hope that Americans would be willing to work together to address the challenges facing the country.
Lyndon B. Johnson, who championed the principles of civil rights and social welfare, and who oversaw the passage of important legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, but who also faced criticism for his handling of the Vietnam War and his expansion of the federal government's role in domestic affairs.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1965) - In his "Special Message to the Congress: The Quality of American Life," President Johnson was responding to a range of social problems facing the country, including poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation. Johnson argued that government had a crucial role to play in addressing these issues, and that unwarranted influence by special interests was a threat to American democracy. Johnson called for stronger government action to promote social justice and environmental protection, including new laws to protect civil rights and preserve natural resources. Johnson's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about the need for government intervention to address social and environmental problems.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1969) - In his farewell address, President Johnson spoke about the need for continued progress on issues like civil rights and poverty, and called on Americans to remain committed to the values of justice and equality. Johnson's presidency had been marked by significant progress on issues like civil rights and social welfare, but had also been marred by the Vietnam War and growing social and political divisions. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of continued social and political progress, and his hope that the country could overcome its divisions and work together for a better future.The War on Poverty and Great Society programs, initiated by Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, helped to reduce poverty and expand access to education and health care for millions of Americans, although issues of poverty and inequality remain a challenge today.The civil rights legislation passed during the 1960s, including the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, helped to dismantle legal segregation and expand voting rights for African Americans, although issues of racial inequality and discrimination persist to this day.
Richard Nixon (1971) - In his "Message to the Congress on Reorganization of the Executive Branch," President Nixon was responding to concerns among conservatives about the size and power of the federal government. Nixon argued that excessive bureaucracy and regulation were stifling economic growth and innovation, and that government needed to be streamlined and made more efficient. Nixon's speech called for a reorganization of the executive branch of government to make it more effective and responsive to the needs of the American people. Nixon's speech reflected a growing concern among conservatives about the need to reduce the size and power of government.
Richard Nixon (1974) - In his resignation speech, President Nixon discussed the need for national healing and reconciliation following the Watergate scandal and his resignation from office. Nixon's presidency had been marked by significant achievements in foreign policy and domestic issues, but had also been marred by corruption and abuse of power. His resignation speech reflected his recognition of the damage done to the country by the Watergate scandal, and his hope that the country could move past it and focus on the future.The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, passed under Richard Nixon in the 1970s, helped to protect the environment and improve public health, although debates over environmental regulation and climate change continue to be major issues today.
Jimmy Carter (1979) - In his "Crisis of Confidence" speech, President Carter discussed the need for Americans to confront the energy crisis, and to work together to build a more sustainable and equitable society. Carter's speech reflected his concern that the country was losing its sense of purpose and direction, and his belief in the importance of public engagement and citizen involvement. That a crisis reflected his concern that excessive government regulation was hindering the development of alternative energy sources and impeding economic growth so that He felt compelled enough he called for a more balanced approach to energy policy that would promote conservation, innovation, and private investment.
President Ronald Reagan (1981) - In his inaugural address, expressed his belief that government had become too large and too intrusive, and that excessive regulation was stifling economic growth and individual freedom. He advocated for a smaller, more limited government that would give individuals and businesses more control over their own lives.
Ronald Reagan (1989) - In his farewell address, President Reagan discussed the importance of individual freedom and limited government, and called on Americans to remain committed to these values. Reagan's presidency had been marked by a conservative shift in American politics, and he had championed policies like tax cuts, deregulation, and increased military spending. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of these policies in promoting economic growth and national security, and his hope that they would continue to guide American policy in the future.The deregulation and tax cuts implemented during the Reagan era continue to shape the country's economic policies and debates, with questions about the role of government in the economy and the distribution of wealth remaining hotly contested.
There can be no sense of community's if there is no common ground on which to live next to one another. It takes good communities to raise good kids. The easy said an not implemented as easy as said I get that but none the less a fact for it Solution here. Is simply put help the most vulnerable after discovery of who that is and how to do so. Not to panic into a pandemic. Robbing kids of education. and. sanity via stupid ,pointless , unhelpful, horrible,amoung other description words that fits the means by which the children where treated. Just to parade them around like masked bandits is both as ironic as it is ignorant. And what the whole world was doing not so long ago. Teaching them in good schools without biases. Agendas pertaining only to the best possible responsibility there is. None Other then that of allowing the next generation to be the most capable, and competent. When the time comes to pass the torch. As no one can hold it up forever no matter how strong it must be inevitably be passed on. Whether from such crippling old age. The dead hands of the strongest wisest. Yet still to unwilling to let the task be trusted to others. As he does the job and he knows he will. To The most proud of moments. Knowing the one taking it from yourself. Is truly ready and able ,and likely to be a Better then yourself job well done, when they pass it. To every single possible variation in-between.
From the white end extreme to the black end extremes. The almost entirety of grades of grey. Forming the majority as it seeps from the tips of each of those. Until it finally forms the tiny, albiet bright and visible none the less for it , in fact far from it. Admist the sea of grey around it. You find shining all the brighter for it. Silver lining in the exact middle.
Why do we let people who Right now. At this moment are acting to accelerate if not make it a certainty. The lives of our grandchildren will be worsening. More world wide famine disease and war. All creating more death . We all follow suit unquestionably due to the slavery of greed stemmed from this income inequalities. We do this even though we all love our grand kids. Truly then and only then will the systemic changes necessary for elimination of the evils allowing this way of life occur.
It was in ancient Greece that Pluto stated "It should never be more then six to one ratio in financial pay between the highest and lowest employee."
It wasn't until 1923 that J.P Morgan said " it was actually more like 20:1 as optimal difference. (I'm sure him being a banker is just coincidence.) Now just 100 years later it is sometimes 500:1. Even 1000:1. When the income inequality, is in a ratio of 500 to 1, and it is been known to be 1000 to 1 but even 500 to 1. The whole concept of living may as well be between two different species. The difference in economy, ideals , or just the ways of living all together. The ranges of disparity is in entirely different brackets. One never seeing even the best of the worst of the other in any circumstances.
Where how and why it all went wrong....
Earl Miller ,along with alot of original top level of various positions.
The original head of marketing Instagram, creator of thumbs up on facebook specifically for instance.
They all agree on attention grabbing tactics being used to work for the interest of someone rich.
Misinformation comes in all shapes and sizes.
All Forms and fashions. To all conceivable degrees and extents.
As countless and limitless as the ppls own personal perspectives allows them to. It can be on purpose on accident.
For fun, for harm, and just for the fuck of it. For the calculator of profits always going up....
This is a problem for us all that can only get worse the longer it goes unaddressed.
The FED is the lobbyist for the commercial banking system. Plutocracy is government by the rich.
Trickle down economics: Reaganomics as it's sometimes referred to
as: - The only responsibility of the corporation is that of the fiduciary responsibility. To it's stock holders, even at the expense of the stake holders, at the expense of the environment, and community.
this is not the solution it is in fact the problem. It is the reason for 90% of the suffering by the 99% less rich then the top 1% of wealth holders.
If I create money in my home it is considered bad counterfeit and illegal.
When businesses do this with no money it is called " cooking the books" Also illegal.
When private and commercial banks do it it is legal, and when you continue to allow fraud to remain legalized it creates a lot of problems that can have nothing done against them.
In 1971 Nixon takes America off the gold standard system replaced with the FIAT system.
Fiat is Latin for let it be so by the way.
Only governments can make a Fiat currency. And only banks can create by lending. Central banks lend to investment banks , who lend to commercial banks, who lend to top corporations , who go to giant govt contractors, who then finally lend to borrowers.
It was in 1932 that the glass steagall act was passed to help oppose this. Yet in 1999 treasury's Secretary at the time Larry summers. As well as his predecessor Robert Rubin repealed this glass steagall act. Goldman Sachs uses money to buy influence in Congress to pass laws to make it easier to make money on wall street to buy more influence in Congress....one of the most influential investment banks of the world in Sept 2008, just about one month before the stock market crashed conveniently changed it's banking status from investment to commercial,this made it eligible for state protection. During the bailout Then congressman Hank Paulson more or less said. If you don't bail us banks out for letting this problem occur via these methods that were supposed to just the opposite. Every citizens bank account empties and they revolt. Do what you got to. Make it ,borrow it, whatever we need a 700 billion dollar bail out now. This is how along with Allen Greenspan's timely encouraging you get inflation and insurance causing subprime housing crises.
Proof the govt tries to make money and does not care if you die is in the following. when the same people in private health care, who are the very ones always saying to go get a second opinion, want to allow only one in the public debate you have problems 1987 CDC knew how and who aids would most likely effect and harm. Instead of being helpful and precise a fear campaign was launched. " Aids will explode into the hetero sexual community." , So instead a lot of in reality not even needed but now clogging the lines for those who do from being tested, Was said on commercials to the public at large. Just like covid is not Russian roulette, and of course technically anything can kill anyone or anything else at any time, yea sure it's not wrong. That is the just the law of the universe and as such it applies at all times to all things regardless of gender , race economic status , or personal preference of the plethora of human enjoyments practiced throughout the ages. As of may 2021 according to the CDC 75% of covid deaths are 65 years or older in America. 98-99% of those are unvaccinated. So if if your 65 years old or older and not vaccinated don't go crowd surfing at a concert or you will probably be a goner. Problems including but not limited too.... Countless prescriptions labeled effective, safe , now giving out lawsuits for those who took them.
The way and the order of actions most important to take over listed as chronological events. Then given as way played off after.
Systemic Changes During Economic Downturns:
Increase in unemployment rates Decrease in consumer spending Increase in government spending on social welfare programs Decrease in government tax revenues Decrease in corporate profits Increase in business bankruptcies and closures Increase in foreclosure rates and home price declines Decrease in GDP growth Increase in government debt levels Increase in poverty rates Increase in income inequality Controversial policy's passing congress during economic downturns:
Economic stimulus packages Unemployment benefit extensions Bailouts for specific industries Changes to tax policy Changes to regulations on financial institutions Infrastructure spending Presidential remarks during economic downturns:
Calls for bipartisan cooperation to address the economic crisis Promises to create jobs and stimulate economic growth Urges for increased government spending on social welfare programs Proposals for tax cuts or other measures to spur economic activity Systemic Changes During Economic Upswings:
Decrease in unemployment rates Increase in consumer spending Increase in government tax revenues Increase in corporate profits Decrease in business bankruptcies and closures Increase in home prices and decreases in foreclosure rates Increase in GDP growth Decrease in government debt levels Decrease in poverty rates Decrease in income inequality
Controversial policy's passing congress during economic upswings: Tax cuts Deregulation of industries Changes to government spending priorities Infrastructure spending during economic upswings Claims credit for economic growth and job creation Proposes tax cuts or other measures to continue economic growthPromises to maintain fiscal responsibility and decrease government debt levels
For example, government spending on social welfare programs tends. To increase during economic downturns and decrease during economic upswings, but the specific programs and amounts of funding may change over time. Similarly, tax policy changes and deregulation can have long-lasting impacts on the economy,
Other systemic changes, such as changes in unemployment rates, GDP growth, and income inequality may be more cyclical and subject to fluctuations over time. However, even these changes can be influenced by long-term factors such as technological innovation, demographic shifts, and globalization.
submitted by Formal-Mud-990 to u/Formal-Mud-990 [link] [comments]
Now I'll start off with some inspiration for all Americans from Americans. The American declaration of independence states the following in it's article 11 but for those saying I take what I want out of context to suit my own ends...yes that is correct. I would encourage all to go when able and read the thing in it's entirety to see the context for themselves. --" All experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer- Whilst evils are sufferable- then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."-- American declaration of independence --"God made all men equal and gave them the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted amongst men deriving there just powers from the consent of governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends. It is the rights of the people,it is the duty, to alter or abolish it and institute new guards for there future security."--
George Washington (1796) - In his farewell address, President Washington discussed the dangers of political factions and foreign entanglements. He warned that excessive partisanship and international alliances could undermine the unity and independence of the country. Washington's concerns reflected the challenges facing the young nation as it sought to establish a stable and democratic government, while also dealing with powerful European powers and internal divisions.In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington warned of the dangers of political parties and foreign entanglements, and called on Americans to preserve unity and avoid division.
Andrew Johnson (1869) - In his farewell address, President Johnson discussed the importance of constitutional government and the rule of law, and warned against the dangers of corruption and abuse of power. Johnson's presidency had been marked by conflict with Congress and controversy over his approach to Reconstruction following the Civil War. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of preserving democratic institutions and norms, and avoiding abuses of power.
William Howard Taft (1913) - In his farewell address, President Taft discussed the importance of international peace and cooperation, and called for greater emphasis on diplomacy and mediation in resolving conflicts. Taft had been involved in international affairs throughout his presidency, and had worked to promote international arbitration and disarmament. His farewell address reflected his belief in the need for greater cooperation and dialogue between nations, and his concern that the world was becoming more divided and dangerous.
Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address, President Hoover discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems. Hoover had been widely criticized for his handling of the Depression, and had faced growing calls for government intervention in the economy. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of self-reliance and individual initiative, but also acknowledged the need for collective action and government assistance in times of crisis.In his in
President Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1936) - In his State of the Union address, was responding to the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals, which he saw as a threat to American democracy. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans. He expressed concern about the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1938) - In his "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies," President Roosevelt was responding to a growing concern among Americans about the power of big business and monopolies. During the Great Depression, many people felt that corporations were exploiting workers and consumers, and that the government needed to step in to protect the interests of the people. Roosevelt's speech called for stronger government regulation of the economy, including antitrust laws to break up monopolies and promote competition. Roosevelt argued that a fair and just society required strong government intervention to prevent abuses by powerful economic interests. The New Deal programs and reforms initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression continue to shape the country's social safety net and regulatory framework, with programs like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act still in place today.
Harry S. Truman (1951) - In his "Labor Day Address," President Truman was responding to concerns among workers about the state of the American economy. Truman argued that the government had a responsibility to protect workers' rights and freedoms, and to ensure that the economy worked for everyone, not just the wealthy. Truman called for stronger government regulation of the economy to prevent abuses by employers and corporations, and to promote fair wages and working conditions for workers. Truman's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about economic inequality and the need for government intervention to promote social justice.The Marshall Plan, proposed by Harry Truman in 1947, helped to rebuild Europe after World War II and cemented the United States' role as a global superpower.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961) - In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the potential dangers of the close relationship between the military and the defense industry.-Military industrial complex, that would distort national priorities and threaten individual liberties. and called on Americans to remain vigilant in protecting democratic values and institutions. Eisenhower had served as a general in World War II before becoming president, and had witnessed firsthand the growth of the military and defense industries during his time in office. His farewell address reflected his concern that the power of these industries could threaten the stability and security of the country, and his belief in the importance of maintaining a balance between military preparedness and civilian control.
John F. Kennedy (1961) - In his inaugural address, President Kennedy famously called on Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Kennedy's speech reflected his belief in the importance of civic responsibility and public service, and his hope that Americans would be willing to work together to address the challenges facing the country.
Lyndon B. Johnson, who championed the principles of civil rights and social welfare, and who oversaw the passage of important legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, but who also faced criticism for his handling of the Vietnam War and his expansion of the federal government's role in domestic affairs.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1965) - In his "Special Message to the Congress: The Quality of American Life," President Johnson was responding to a range of social problems facing the country, including poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation. Johnson argued that government had a crucial role to play in addressing these issues, and that unwarranted influence by special interests was a threat to American democracy. Johnson called for stronger government action to promote social justice and environmental protection, including new laws to protect civil rights and preserve natural resources. Johnson's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about the need for government intervention to address social and environmental problems.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1969) - In his farewell address, President Johnson spoke about the need for continued progress on issues like civil rights and poverty, and called on Americans to remain committed to the values of justice and equality. Johnson's presidency had been marked by significant progress on issues like civil rights and social welfare, but had also been marred by the Vietnam War and growing social and political divisions. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of continued social and political progress, and his hope that the country could overcome its divisions and work together for a better future.The War on Poverty and Great Society programs, initiated by Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, helped to reduce poverty and expand access to education and health care for millions of Americans, although issues of poverty and inequality remain a challenge today.The civil rights legislation passed during the 1960s, including the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, helped to dismantle legal segregation and expand voting rights for African Americans, although issues of racial inequality and discrimination persist to this day.
Richard Nixon (1971) - In his "Message to the Congress on Reorganization of the Executive Branch," President Nixon was responding to concerns among conservatives about the size and power of the federal government. Nixon argued that excessive bureaucracy and regulation were stifling economic growth and innovation, and that government needed to be streamlined and made more efficient. Nixon's speech called for a reorganization of the executive branch of government to make it more effective and responsive to the needs of the American people. Nixon's speech reflected a growing concern among conservatives about the need to reduce the size and power of government.
Richard Nixon (1974) - In his resignation speech, President Nixon discussed the need for national healing and reconciliation following the Watergate scandal and his resignation from office. Nixon's presidency had been marked by significant achievements in foreign policy and domestic issues, but had also been marred by corruption and abuse of power. His resignation speech reflected his recognition of the damage done to the country by the Watergate scandal, and his hope that the country could move past it and focus on the future.The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, passed under Richard Nixon in the 1970s, helped to protect the environment and improve public health, although debates over environmental regulation and climate change continue to be major issues today.
Jimmy Carter (1979) - In his "Crisis of Confidence" speech, President Carter discussed the need for Americans to confront the energy crisis, and to work together to build a more sustainable and equitable society. Carter's speech reflected his concern that the country was losing its sense of purpose and direction, and his belief in the importance of public engagement and citizen involvement. That a crisis reflected his concern that excessive government regulation was hindering the development of alternative energy sources and impeding economic growth so that He felt compelled enough he called for a more balanced approach to energy policy that would promote conservation, innovation, and private investment.
President Ronald Reagan (1981) - In his inaugural address, expressed his belief that government had become too large and too intrusive, and that excessive regulation was stifling economic growth and individual freedom. He advocated for a smaller, more limited government that would give individuals and businesses more control over their own lives.
Ronald Reagan (1989) - In his farewell address, President Reagan discussed the importance of individual freedom and limited government, and called on Americans to remain committed to these values. Reagan's presidency had been marked by a conservative shift in American politics, and he had championed policies like tax cuts, deregulation, and increased military spending. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of these policies in promoting economic growth and national security, and his hope that they would continue to guide American policy in the future.The deregulation and tax cuts implemented during the Reagan era continue to shape the country's economic policies and debates, with questions about the role of government in the economy and the distribution of wealth remaining hotly contested.
Why do we let people who Right now. At this moment are acting to accelerate if not make it a certainty. The lives of our grandchildren will be worsening. More world wide famine disease and war. All creating more death . We all follow suit unquestionably due to the slavery of greed stemmed from this income inequalities. We do this even though we all love our grand kids. Truly then and only then will the systemic changes necessary for elimination of the evils allowing this way of life occur. The American declaration of independence states this in it's article 11 but for those saying I take what I want out of context to suit my own ends...yes that is correct. I would encourage all to go when able and read the thing in it's entirety to see the context for themselves. Robbing kids of education. and. sanity via stupid ,pointless , unhelpful, horrible,amoung other description words that fits the means by which the children where treated. Just to parade them around like masked bandits is both as ironic as it is ignorant. And what the whole world was doing not so long ago. Teaching them in good schools without biases. Agendas pertaining only to the best possible responsibility there is. None Other then that of allowing the next generation to be the most capable, and competent. When the time comes to pass the torch. As no one can hold it up forever no matter how strong it must be inevitably be passed on. Whether from such crippling old age. The dead hands of the strongest wisest. Yet still to unwilling in stubbornness to let the task be trusted to others. As he does the job and he knows he will. To The most proud of moments. Knowing the one taking it from yourself. Is truly ready and able ,and likely to be a Better then yourself job well done, when they pass it. To every single possible variation in-between.
From the white end extreme to the black end extremes. The almost entirety of grades of grey. Forming the majority as it seeps from the tips of each of those. Until it finally forms the tiny, albiet bright and visible none the less for it , in fact far from it. Admist the sea of grey around it. You find shining all the brighter for it. Silver lining in the exact middle. Idk y I try ppl don't deserve it
The way freedom dies. And the path it took.
Now I'll start off with some inspiration for all Americans from Americans.
--" All experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer- Whilst evils are sufferable- then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."-- American declaration of independence --"God made all men equal and gave them the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted amongst men deriving there just powers from the consent of governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends. It is the rights of the people,it is the duty, to alter or abolish it and institute new guards for there future security."--
George Washington (1796) - In his farewell address, President Washington discussed the dangers of political factions and foreign entanglements. He warned that excessive partisanship and international alliances could undermine the unity and independence of the country. Washington's concerns reflected the challenges facing the young nation as it sought to establish a stable and democratic government, while also dealing with powerful European powers and internal divisions.In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington warned of the dangers of political parties and foreign entanglements, and called on Americans to preserve unity and avoid division.
Andrew Johnson (1869) - In his farewell address, President Johnson discussed the importance of constitutional government and the rule of law, and warned against the dangers of corruption and abuse of power. Johnson's presidency had been marked by conflict with Congress and controversy over his approach to Reconstruction following the Civil War. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of preserving democratic institutions and norms, and avoiding abuses of power.
William Howard Taft (1913) - In his farewell address, President Taft discussed the importance of international peace and cooperation, and called for greater emphasis on diplomacy and mediation in resolving conflicts. Taft had been involved in international affairs throughout his presidency, and had worked to promote international arbitration and disarmament. His farewell address reflected his belief in the need for greater cooperation and dialogue between nations, and his concern that the world was becoming more divided and dangerous.
Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address, President Hoover discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems. Hoover had been widely criticized for his handling of the Depression, and had faced growing calls for government intervention in the economy. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of self-reliance and individual initiative, but also acknowledged the need for collective action and government assistance in times of crisis.In his in
President Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1936) - In his State of the Union address, was responding to the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals, which he saw as a threat to American democracy. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans. He expressed concern about the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1938) - In his "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies," President Roosevelt was responding to a growing concern among Americans about the power of big business and monopolies. During the Great Depression, many people felt that corporations were exploiting workers and consumers, and that the government needed to step in to protect the interests of the people. Roosevelt's speech called for stronger government regulation of the economy, including antitrust laws to break up monopolies and promote competition. Roosevelt argued that a fair and just society required strong government intervention to prevent abuses by powerful economic interests. The New Deal programs and reforms initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression continue to shape the country's social safety net and regulatory framework, with programs like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act still in place today.
Harry S. Truman (1951) - In his "Labor Day Address," President Truman was responding to concerns among workers about the state of the American economy. Truman argued that the government had a responsibility to protect workers' rights and freedoms, and to ensure that the economy worked for everyone, not just the wealthy. Truman called for stronger government regulation of the economy to prevent abuses by employers and corporations, and to promote fair wages and working conditions for workers. Truman's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about economic inequality and the need for government intervention to promote social justice.The Marshall Plan, proposed by Harry Truman in 1947, helped to rebuild Europe after World War II and cemented the United States' role as a global superpower.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961) - In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the potential dangers of the close relationship between the military and the defense industry.-Military industrial complex, that would distort national priorities and threaten individual liberties. and called on Americans to remain vigilant in protecting democratic values and institutions. Eisenhower had served as a general in World War II before becoming president, and had witnessed firsthand the growth of the military and defense industries during his time in office. His farewell address reflected his concern that the power of these industries could threaten the stability and security of the country, and his belief in the importance of maintaining a balance between military preparedness and civilian control.
John F. Kennedy (1961) - In his inaugural address, President Kennedy famously called on Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Kennedy's speech reflected his belief in the importance of civic responsibility and public service, and his hope that Americans would be willing to work together to address the challenges facing the country.
Lyndon B. Johnson, who championed the principles of civil rights and social welfare, and who oversaw the passage of important legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, but who also faced criticism for his handling of the Vietnam War and his expansion of the federal government's role in domestic affairs.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1965) - In his "Special Message to the Congress: The Quality of American Life," President Johnson was responding to a range of social problems facing the country, including poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation. Johnson argued that government had a crucial role to play in addressing these issues, and that unwarranted influence by special interests was a threat to American democracy. Johnson called for stronger government action to promote social justice and environmental protection, including new laws to protect civil rights and preserve natural resources. Johnson's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about the need for government intervention to address social and environmental problems.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1969) - In his farewell address, President Johnson spoke about the need for continued progress on issues like civil rights and poverty, and called on Americans to remain committed to the values of justice and equality. Johnson's presidency had been marked by significant progress on issues like civil rights and social welfare, but had also been marred by the Vietnam War and growing social and political divisions. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of continued social and political progress, and his hope that the country could overcome its divisions and work together for a better future.The War on Poverty and Great Society programs, initiated by Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, helped to reduce poverty and expand access to education and health care for millions of Americans, although issues of poverty and inequality remain a challenge today.The civil rights legislation passed during the 1960s, including the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, helped to dismantle legal segregation and expand voting rights for African Americans, although issues of racial inequality and discrimination persist to this day.
Richard Nixon (1971) - In his "Message to the Congress on Reorganization of the Executive Branch," President Nixon was responding to concerns among conservatives about the size and power of the federal government. Nixon argued that excessive bureaucracy and regulation were stifling economic growth and innovation, and that government needed to be streamlined and made more efficient. Nixon's speech called for a reorganization of the executive branch of government to make it more effective and responsive to the needs of the American people. Nixon's speech reflected a growing concern among conservatives about the need to reduce the size and power of government.
Richard Nixon (1974) - In his resignation speech, President Nixon discussed the need for national healing and reconciliation following the Watergate scandal and his resignation from office. Nixon's presidency had been marked by significant achievements in foreign policy and domestic issues, but had also been marred by corruption and abuse of power. His resignation speech reflected his recognition of the damage done to the country by the Watergate scandal, and his hope that the country could move past it and focus on the future.The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, passed under Richard Nixon in the 1970s, helped to protect the environment and improve public health, although debates over environmental regulation and climate change continue to be major issues today.
Jimmy Carter (1979) - In his "Crisis of Confidence" speech, President Carter discussed the need for Americans to confront the energy crisis, and to work together to build a more sustainable and equitable society. Carter's speech reflected his concern that the country was losing its sense of purpose and direction, and his belief in the importance of public engagement and citizen involvement. That a crisis reflected his concern that excessive government regulation was hindering the development of alternative energy sources and impeding economic growth so that He felt compelled enough he called for a more balanced approach to energy policy that would promote conservation, innovation, and private investment.
President Ronald Reagan (1981) - In his inaugural address, expressed his belief that government had become too large and too intrusive, and that excessive regulation was stifling economic growth and individual freedom. He advocated for a smaller, more limited government that would give individuals and businesses more control over their own lives.
Ronald Reagan (1989) - In his farewell address, President Reagan discussed the importance of individual freedom and limited government, and called on Americans to remain committed to these values. Reagan's presidency had been marked by a conservative shift in American politics, and he had championed policies like tax cuts, deregulation, and increased military spending. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of these policies in promoting economic growth and national security, and his hope that they would continue to guide American policy in the future.The deregulation and tax cuts implemented during the Reagan era continue to shape the country's economic policies and debates, with questions about the role of government in the economy and the distribution of wealth remaining hotly contested.
There can be no sense of community's if there is no common ground on which to live next to one another. It takes good communities to raise good kids. The easy said an not implemented as easy as said I get that but none the less a fact for it Solution here. Is simply put help the most vulnerable after discovery of who that is and how to do so. Not to panic into a pandemic. Robbing kids of education. and. sanity via stupid ,pointless , unhelpful, horrible,amoung other description words that fits the means by which the children where treated. Just to parade them around like masked bandits is both as ironic as it is ignorant. And what the whole world was doing not so long ago. Teaching them in good schools without biases. Agendas pertaining only to the best possible responsibility there is. None Other then that of allowing the next generation to be the most capable, and competent. When the time comes to pass the torch. As no one can hold it up forever no matter how strong it must be inevitably be passed on. Whether from such crippling old age. The dead hands of the strongest wisest. Yet still to unwilling to let the task be trusted to others. As he does the job and he knows he will. To The most proud of moments. Knowing the one taking it from yourself. Is truly ready and able ,and likely to be a Better then yourself job well done, when they pass it. To every single possible variation in-between.
From the white end extreme to the black end extremes. The almost entirety of grades of grey. Forming the majority as it seeps from the tips of each of those. Until it finally forms the tiny, albiet bright and visible none the less for it , in fact far from it. Admist the sea of grey around it. You find shining all the brighter for it. Silver lining in the exact middle.
Why do we let people who Right now. At this moment are acting to accelerate if not make it a certainty. The lives of our grandchildren will be worsening. More world wide famine disease and war. All creating more death . We all follow suit unquestionably due to the slavery of greed stemmed from this income inequalities. We do this even though we all love our grand kids. Truly then and only then will the systemic changes necessary for elimination of the evils allowing this way of life occur.
It was in ancient Greece that Pluto stated "It should never be more then six to one ratio in financial pay between the highest and lowest employee."
It wasn't until 1923 that J.P Morgan said " it was actually more like 20:1 as optimal difference. (I'm sure him being a banker is just coincidence.) Now just 100 years later it is sometimes 500:1. Even 1000:1. When the income inequality, is in a ratio of 500 to 1, and it is been known to be 1000 to 1 but even 500 to 1. The whole concept of living may as well be between two different species. The difference in economy, ideals , or just the ways of living all together. The ranges of disparity is in entirely different brackets. One never seeing even the best of the worst of the other in any circumstances.
Where how and why it all went wrong....
Earl Miller ,along with alot of original top level of various positions.
The original head of marketing Instagram, creator of thumbs up on facebook specifically for instance.
They all agree on attention grabbing tactics being used to work for the interest of someone rich.
Misinformation comes in all shapes and sizes.
All Forms and fashions. To all conceivable degrees and extents.
As countless and limitless as the ppls own personal perspectives allows them to. It can be on purpose on accident.
For fun, for harm, and just for the fuck of it. For the calculator of profits always going up....
This is a problem for us all that can only get worse the longer it goes unaddressed.
The FED is the lobbyist for the commercial banking system. Plutocracy is government by the rich.
Trickle down economics: Reaganomics as it's sometimes referred to
as: - The only responsibility of the corporation is that of the fiduciary responsibility. To it's stock holders, even at the expense of the stake holders, at the expense of the environment, and community.
this is not the solution it is in fact the problem. It is the reason for 90% of the suffering by the 99% less rich then the top 1% of wealth holders.
If I create money in my home it is considered bad counterfeit and illegal.
When businesses do this with no money it is called " cooking the books" Also illegal.
When private and commercial banks do it it is legal, and when you continue to allow fraud to remain legalized it creates a lot of problems that can have nothing done against them.
In 1971 Nixon takes America off the gold standard system replaced with the FIAT system.
Fiat is Latin for let it be so by the way.
Only governments can make a Fiat currency. And only banks can create by lending. Central banks lend to investment banks , who lend to commercial banks, who lend to top corporations , who go to giant govt contractors, who then finally lend to borrowers.
It was in 1932 that the glass steagall act was passed to help oppose this. Yet in 1999 treasury's Secretary at the time Larry summers. As well as his predecessor Robert Rubin repealed this glass steagall act. Goldman Sachs uses money to buy influence in Congress to pass laws to make it easier to make money on wall street to buy more influence in Congress....one of the most influential investment banks of the world in Sept 2008, just about one month before the stock market crashed conveniently changed it's banking status from investment to commercial,this made it eligible for state protection. During the bailout Then congressman Hank Paulson more or less said. If you don't bail us banks out for letting this problem occur via these methods that were supposed to just the opposite. Every citizens bank account empties and they revolt. Do what you got to. Make it ,borrow it, whatever we need a 700 billion dollar bail out now. This is how along with Allen Greenspan's timely encouraging you get inflation and insurance causing subprime housing crises.
Proof the govt tries to make money and does not care if you die is in the following. when the same people in private health care, who are the very ones always saying to go get a second opinion, want to allow only one in the public debate you have problems 1987 CDC knew how and who aids would most likely effect and harm. Instead of being helpful and precise a fear campaign was launched. " Aids will explode into the hetero sexual community." , So instead a lot of in reality not even needed but now clogging the lines for those who do from being tested, Was said on commercials to the public at large. Just like covid is not Russian roulette, and of course technically anything can kill anyone or anything else at any time, yea sure it's not wrong. That is the just the law of the universe and as such it applies at all times to all things regardless of gender , race economic status , or personal preference of the plethora of human enjoyments practiced throughout the ages. As of may 2021 according to the CDC 75% of covid deaths are 65 years or older in America. 98-99% of those are unvaccinated. So if if your 65 years old or older and not vaccinated don't go crowd surfing at a concert or you will probably be a goner. Problems including but not limited too.... Countless prescriptions labeled effective, safe , now giving out lawsuits for those who took them.
The way and the order of actions most important to take over listed as chronological events. Then given as way played off after.
Systemic Changes During Economic Downturns:
Increase in unemployment rates Decrease in consumer spending Increase in government spending on social welfare programs Decrease in government tax revenues Decrease in corporate profits Increase in business bankruptcies and closures Increase in foreclosure rates and home price declines Decrease in GDP growth Increase in government debt levels Increase in poverty rates Increase in income inequality Controversial policy's passing congress during economic downturns:
Economic stimulus packages Unemployment benefit extensions Bailouts for specific industries Changes to tax policy Changes to regulations on financial institutions Infrastructure spending Presidential remarks during economic downturns:
Calls for bipartisan cooperation to address the economic crisis Promises to create jobs and stimulate economic growth Urges for increased government spending on social welfare programs Proposals for tax cuts or other measures to spur economic activity Systemic Changes During Economic Upswings:
Decrease in unemployment rates Increase in consumer spending Increase in government tax revenues Increase in corporate profits Decrease in business bankruptcies and closures Increase in home prices and decreases in foreclosure rates Increase in GDP growth Decrease in government debt levels Decrease in poverty rates Decrease in income inequality
Controversial policy's passing congress during economic upswings: Tax cuts Deregulation of industries Changes to government spending priorities Infrastructure spending during economic upswings Claims credit for economic growth and job creation Proposes tax cuts or other measures to continue economic growthPromises to maintain fiscal responsibility and decrease government debt levels
For example, government spending on social welfare programs tends. To increase during economic downturns and decrease during economic upswings, but the specific programs and amounts of funding may change over time. Similarly, tax policy changes and deregulation can have long-lasting impacts on the economy,
Other systemic changes, such as changes in unemployment rates, GDP growth, and income inequality may be more cyclical and subject to fluctuations over time. However, even these changes can be influenced by long-term factors such as technological innovation, demographic shifts, and globalization.
2023.03.31 02:05 SammiBanani024 [Reality TV] The kids are not alright: How the CBS show Kid Nation skirted child labor laws as children killed chickens and debated religion on-air
(CW: animal death, religious discrimination, and child abuse/neglect – depending on how you look at it)
What is Kid Nation?
“I think I’m gonna die out here because there’s nothing.” – Jimmy, age 8
If you’re unfamiliar with the American reality show Kid Nation, it’s not a surprise. Created by Tom Forman Productions and Endermol USA, the series premiered on the CBS network on September 19, 2007. Kid Nation features 40 children, ranging from ages 8 to 15, who are given 40 days to create a functioning society out of a ghost town without adult intervention, Lord of the Flies-style. The children pass laws, elect leaders, and build an economy in pursuit of their goal. Kid Nation received mixed-to-negative reviews from critics and was awash in both controversy and legal trouble, leading to its cancellation in May 2008, after just one season. Despite this, the show has maintained a cult-like following among reality TV connoisseurs and received renewed interest in 2020 on social media, presumably due to the pandemic.
At the very beginning of Kid Nation, the participants arrive in Bonanza City, New Mexico, where they are expected to build a viable community from the ground up. The show was filmed on location at the Bonanza Creek Movie Ranch, the purported “ghost town” on the show. In reality, the privately owned town is less of a ghost town and more of a movie set. Only 13 miles south of Santa Fe, Bonanza City has been used as a filming location since the early 1950s. Dozens of films have utilized the site, such as Silverado, The Legend of the Lone Ranger, and A Million Ways to Die in the West. More recently, Bonanza City was the site of the infamous shooting during the filming of Rust, during which Alec Baldwin discharged a prop firearm on set and accidentally killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. It's also somewhat of a tourist destination, with companies offering tourists Jeep rides through Bonanza Creek Movie Ranch. At first, this may seem like a small discrepancy. After all, the kids are still building a society on their own in a relatively empty and isolated town – what does it matter if it’s really a ghost town or a movie set? But this inaccuracy is emblematic of the controversy surrounding Kid Nation: for better or for worse, the conditions depicted on-air were not the reality of the children participating in the show.
The Structure of Kid Nation
“Does anybody else think the Gold Star will significantly increase their sex appeal?” – Michael, age 14
In the first episode of Kid Nation, the kids are told that four of their peers have been deemed members of the “town council” by the production team: Laurel, Mike, Taylor, and Anjay. The other 36 participants are divided into four bunks (also called teams or districts), and each bunk is led by one of the members of the town council. All the bunks were named after different primary colors, with Laurel leading the Green team, Mike leading the Red team, Taylor leading the Yellow team, and Anjay leading the Blue team. Each bunk would sleep together, work together, and compete as a team.
Every few days, the four teams would compete with one another in physical and mental challenges, such as building a working pipeline through an obstacle course or competing in a rock-hauling race. The results of the team challenge determined the team’s economic class for the next few days. The team in the first place was declared the upper-class, second place was the merchants, third place was the cooks, and last place was the laborers. This dictated what jobs each bunk would do for the following days and how much they would be paid in “buffalo nickels”: the upper class had no job and received $1.00/day, the merchants ran the town shops and received 50¢, the cooks made all the meals and did the dishes for 25¢, and the laborers did hard labor (such as filling pails of water, doing laundry, and cleaning outhouses) for 10¢. If this sounds weird to you, you’re not alone. Part of the criticism Kid Nation received was aimed at how the show “indoctrinated the children into capitalism and classism”, with many a thinkpiece posted on this topic.
Additionally, if the town as a whole reached a certain goal by the end of each challenge, the children were granted the choice between an item that they needed and an item that they wanted – and believe me, there’s astounding entertainment value in watching children argue over whether they should get an old-fashioned television set or seven more outhouses (they only had one outhouse at the time… one… for forty kids). To get an idea of how difficult these town goals were, the town goal during the rock-hauling challenge was to collectively haul one ton of rocks. Obviously, the kids failed to haul over a ton of rocks. I mean, really, what did production expect? It’s literally a ton of rocks.
And of course, because this is a reality television show, there is money on the line. While each kid was compensated for their time with $5,000, along with the opportunity to miss a month of school, there were also monetary prizes to be earned. Every three days, the town had a town meeting. During the town meetings, the kids had the opportunity to air their grievances to the community, but more importantly, the town council awarded one of the participants a Gold Star. The Gold Star was worth $20,000, and the town council was tasked with choosing the kid that they felt earned it the most by meaningfully contributing to Bonanza City. Not only did the winner get the Gold Star, but they were also allowed to use the only phone in the town to call their parents. Also, the periodical town meeting was the only time the kids were given the chance to opt out of the experience and go home, which three kids did before the end of the season. In the show’s finale, the town council got to award three participants an additional $50,000 prize each.
Between challenges and town meetings, the kids would complete their jobs, shop at stores run by other kids, try to improve the town, and just generally goof off. At one point, the kids earn a fully stocked arcade for their town after winning a showdown. There was even a “bar” that served root beer, where the kids could dance and drink soda all night. Basically, life in Bonanza City seemed to be all work and all play.
On-Air Drama
“I mean, look at Bush, he’s not smart at all, but he won the U.S. presidency two times in a row!” – Kelsey, age 11
While the format of Kid Nation was not revolutionary, the age of the contestants and the contents of the show was. The stress and physical demands of the show proved too much for many of the children, with the first kid leaving during the first town meeting. First to go was Jimmy, the youngest contestant at 8 years old, who tearfully confesses in the first episode that he misses his parents and thinks he is too young to be on his own. He’s not the only one either; many of the children spend the first episode in tears as they express how homesick and overwhelmed they are.
Jimmy’s departure is just the first of many emotional and controversial moments for the show. The second episode, titled “To Kill or Not to Kill”, centered on a debate between the kids about whether or not to kill some of their chickens to get more protein into their diet. This leads to a heated argument and a peaceful protest, with a group of kids locking themselves inside the chicken coop until the town council promises not to kill any of the chickens. Eventually, the children decide they need meat and kill two chickens. The kids butcher, de-feather, and cook the chickens themselves, leading to some pretty graphic footage. Of all the outrageous things the kids did on-air, killing the chickens seems to be one of the ones that drew the most controversy, with fans still expressing their shock years later. There was even a pretty decently upvoted post about it on TIL four years ago.
In episode four, the council tries to integrate religion into the town by instituting a mandatory church service, but the four council members are the only ones to show up for service. Throughout the entire episode, entitled “Bless Us and Keep Us Safe”, the kids have rather problematic (but entertaining) discussions about different religions, featuring a smattering of anti-semitism and religious discrimination. For the sake of decency, I am not going to give examples or repeat anything they said in this post, but if you just need to know what was said, the episode can be found here. The episode ends peacefully when Morgan invites all the kids to a town bonfire where kids from different religions shared prayers together, showing more tolerance and compassion than I think most adults are capable of.
While the original town council members were chosen by the production team, the town is given the chance to hold elections twice. In a shock to no one, participating in the democratic process proves to be as difficult for kids as it is for adults. The first election gets incredibly heated as kids campaign for the privilege to be the leader of their bunk. One kid, Markelle, goes around town and rips up Taylor’s (the current leader of the Yellow district) campaign posters. This leads to a screaming match in the middle of town, leaving Taylor’s friend who made the posters in tears. Ultimately, Taylor’s political opponent Zach wins the election by exactly one vote after he successfully convinces one of Taylor’s close friends to vote against her. Thank goodness Zach won, or else we never would have gotten the gem that is 10-year-old Zach exclaiming “Viva la Revolucion!”. The first election ends in absolute upset when Guylan defeats incumbent Mike for the position of leader of the Red district. Mike receives exactly one vote (his own), and watching the votes read out in real-time is a crazy experience – everyone is laughing in absolute shock.
Altogether, not only was the age of the contestants a subject of contention for audiences, but the content of the show was also seen as questionable by critics and viewers alike. From animal butchering to religious discrimination to political scandals, Kid Nation really straddled the line of what was acceptable, both for television and for children.
The Aftermath
“Deal with it!” – Taylor, age 10
Even before Kid Nation premiered, critics and viewers were slating the controversial show. By the time the show finished airing, dozens of news outlets were chiming in to give their take on it, including Variety, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and Time. Viewers were worried about how the children would deal with the stress, and whether or not they were pressured into participating by the lure of potential fame or by their parents for the sake of cash. As I mentioned earlier, people were also concerned that the children were being “indoctrinated into consumer culture” based on the class system utilized in Bonanza City. Despite all this, by the third episode, advertisers that had shied away from Kid Nation due to its initial controversy decided to purchase ad slots.
As you probably predicted, Kid Nation became embroiled in lawsuits and legal battles. First of all, production had the kids sign a contract requiring them to be available for filming 24 hours a day for 40 days. While there are limits to how many hours a child can work in a day, there are exemptions for film and TV production that are regulated by the states. At the time, New Mexico had a law in place limiting children’s participation in film and television productions to nine hours a day. However, this law did not come into enforcement until a month after the filming for Kid Nation was completed. New Mexico also had other general child-labor laws that limited children under 14 years old to a maximum number of hours per week or day unless otherwise approved by the state, but CBS did not obtain approval. Although there were adults on site with the children, the nature of how the adults supervised the children made it appear as though the kids were unlawfully engaged in labor under New Mexico law.
The producers challenged the accusations of breaking child labor laws by declaring the set a summer camp instead of a place of employment. Even though the kids were compensated financially and filmed 24/7, production insisted that they were campers instead of reality show contestants. This claim was further questioned by the state of New Mexico, which had additional rules related to camp operations that were not followed by production. In the end, the production team for Kid Nation did not face any legal repercussions for their usage of child labor, and the legal loophole the production used has since been closed. Other investigative efforts into the show by the state of New Mexico were also dropped, with the Attorney General’s Office citing the lack of formal complaint or request for inquiry from any state agency.
Not only was the production team in hot water with the state of New Mexico, but they also found themselves under investigation by the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists over whether its AFTRA National Code of Fair Practices for Network Television Broadcasting was violated. The organization raised questions about whether the reality show participants are more like subjects in a documentary or working actors. While the latter are covered by union rules that govern working hours and compensation, the former is not. The investigation went forward even though the Network Code on reality shows generally covers professional performers, not reality show participants. However, some parents on set on the final day of filming accused the producers of feeding children lines, re-casting dialogue, and repeating scenes, all of which suggest the children functioned more like actors than documentary subjects. In response to the accusations, producer Tom Forman said the parents were observing routine “pickups” for scenes that may have been missed due to technical difficulties.
Along with legal challenges regarding child labor laws, Kid Nation found itself as the subject of legal complaints from one of the participant’s parents. Before filming, parents were required to sign a 22-page waiver that disavowed any responsibility on behalf of CBS or production for any harm experienced by the children on-set. In one infamous, unaired incident, several of the kids reportedly drank bleach on accident. One of the children, DK, age 14, was taken to the emergency room to be checked out before being returned to the set. Additionally, in an interview with The A.V. Club, 14-year-old Anjay revealed that he got so dehydrated from hiking the town that he had to go to EMS because he was throwing up. In another incident that actually made it on-air, 11-year-old Divad Miles received a grease burn on her face while cooking a meal. Her mother, Janis Miles, filed a complaint in June 2008, calling for an investigation into “abusive acts to minors and possible violations of child labor laws”. The complaint was investigated by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office, which found no criminal wrongdoing on behalf of the production company or CBS.
It should be noted that in interviews with four of the participants by Los Angeles Times reporter Maria Elena Fernandez, all the children said that even though they worked harder than they ever had in their lives, they would still willingly repeat the experience. Astutely, Fernandez noted in one of her articles that “the children were never as autonomous or self-reliant as the publicity indicated and the threatened legal investigations by the state of New Mexico never took off”. Despite all the negative press and lawsuits, the show did not live up to its pre-premiere promises or its controversies.
Where Are They Now?
“I just hope we don’t end up like the Donner party, eating our own people.” – Anjay, age 12
Years passed, and fans like myself were dying to know how the children of Kid Nation turned out. In 2014, our insane wishes for resolution began to be fulfilled, with the now-adults of Kid Nation turning to the internet and the media to tell their stories.
One of the first to do so was Michael, who did an AMA on IAmA in 2014. Needless to say, fans like myself flooded the AMA with tons of questions and felt our morbid curiosity being satisfied. Michael confirmed many behind-the-scenes rumors and revealed some information previously unknown to fans, such as hook-ups occurring between contestants, Sophia stealing a phone from a crew member to call home, and Jared constantly getting into fights with other kids. He attested that on one hand, there were always adults present off-camera during the production (such as cameramen, producers, a medic, and a child psychologist), but on the other hand, the children did do almost everything themselves. Michael also said that he would be willing to do a “where are they now?”-style sequel to Kid Nation.
When Kid Nation experienced revitalized interest during 2020, The A.V. Club took advantage of the moment to interview several contestants for a “where are they now?”-style article, including Laurel, Anjay, and Olivia. In the interview, the former participants said that much of the show as presented on television was dramatized. They stated that production set up certain children like Olivia and Greg as “stock villains”, despite this not being the case behind the scenes. Also, Anjay confirmed the highly-publicized story about DK accidentally drinking bleach and explained that this was the result of a bottle of bleach being mistaken for a bottle of seltzer water that they had for flavoring drinks in the town store. Anjay said that the medical staff immediately treated DK and he returned to the set shortly afterward. By far the most interesting piece of information to come out of the interviews, though, is the existence of an unaired episode where kids discussed politics (in a similar vein as the religion episode), which was deemed too controversial to air. Considering the context of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, it is understandable why such an episode might be deemed contentious. However, the logic of this decision has done nothing to quell my and other fans’ desire to see the unaired episode, if only to find out where exactly the production team chose to draw the line after all this *gestures broadly*.
In 2020, YouTuber JonTron, also known as Jon Jafari, interviewed Jimmy, the first child to leave Kid Nation. During his interview, Jimmy criticized the harsh conditions that the production team forced the children to suffer through, such as making them cook their own food and wash their dishes, the poor sleeping conditions (the children slept on the floor), and the poor sanitary conditions (here’s your reminder of the 1 outhouse: 40 kids ratio… also the kids were not able to shower until after the first challenge). Additionally, Jimmy confirmed that on two separate occasions, ambulances had to be called to the set to take children to the emergency room.
Conclusion: The Kids Are Alright - No Really, I Mean It
“My ego pretty much just got like eaten, digested, and crapped out by a coyote, torn apart by vultures, and tossed off a cliff.” – Mike, age 11
As I mentioned at the beginning of this write-up, Kid Nation never got a second season. The show was canceled due to its highly questionable legality and the ton of controversy it garnered. This is not to mention poor audience ratings and the fact that the legal loophole in New Mexico was closed. Since its original run on CBS, Kid Nation has basically been treated as if it's radioactive. The show is nearly impossible to find online because most streaming companies refuse to host the series. Previously, a user on YouTube had uploaded all 13 episodes to the site for viewers to watch in a convenient playlist, but the playlist was recently deleted. Right now, the only place you can find Kid Nation is on Vimeo.
The kids from Kid Nation sincerely do not seem traumatized by their experience, and in fact, most of them actually say they cherish the memory of working on the show. Notably, Laurel called Kid Nation the “ultimate best experience of [her] life” – a sentiment that was also echoed in Michael’s AMA. On the other hand, the show’s host, Jonathan Karsh, has seemingly been unable to find any other television host jobs since his stint on Kid Nation.
Even though Kid Nation was canceled due to backlash from critics and viewers, the show has still managed to situate itself as a cult TV series. It even occasionally makes its way back into popular culture, as seen in 2020. A small, semi-active subreddit dedicated to the show still exists, and YouTubers constantly post videos reacting to the conditions and situations that the participants lived through. For trashy reality TV fanatics like me, Kid Nation remains to be a masterclass in entertainment and social commentary as told by kids, albeit with a sketchy production team and questionable conditions.
Ultimately, whether or not Kid Nation was really as abusive and controversial as people claimed is still up for debate. In my opinion, as with most things, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. At the very least, the kids are alright.
submitted by SammiBanani024 to HobbyDrama [link] [comments]
What is Kid Nation?
“I think I’m gonna die out here because there’s nothing.” – Jimmy, age 8
If you’re unfamiliar with the American reality show Kid Nation, it’s not a surprise. Created by Tom Forman Productions and Endermol USA, the series premiered on the CBS network on September 19, 2007. Kid Nation features 40 children, ranging from ages 8 to 15, who are given 40 days to create a functioning society out of a ghost town without adult intervention, Lord of the Flies-style. The children pass laws, elect leaders, and build an economy in pursuit of their goal. Kid Nation received mixed-to-negative reviews from critics and was awash in both controversy and legal trouble, leading to its cancellation in May 2008, after just one season. Despite this, the show has maintained a cult-like following among reality TV connoisseurs and received renewed interest in 2020 on social media, presumably due to the pandemic.
At the very beginning of Kid Nation, the participants arrive in Bonanza City, New Mexico, where they are expected to build a viable community from the ground up. The show was filmed on location at the Bonanza Creek Movie Ranch, the purported “ghost town” on the show. In reality, the privately owned town is less of a ghost town and more of a movie set. Only 13 miles south of Santa Fe, Bonanza City has been used as a filming location since the early 1950s. Dozens of films have utilized the site, such as Silverado, The Legend of the Lone Ranger, and A Million Ways to Die in the West. More recently, Bonanza City was the site of the infamous shooting during the filming of Rust, during which Alec Baldwin discharged a prop firearm on set and accidentally killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. It's also somewhat of a tourist destination, with companies offering tourists Jeep rides through Bonanza Creek Movie Ranch. At first, this may seem like a small discrepancy. After all, the kids are still building a society on their own in a relatively empty and isolated town – what does it matter if it’s really a ghost town or a movie set? But this inaccuracy is emblematic of the controversy surrounding Kid Nation: for better or for worse, the conditions depicted on-air were not the reality of the children participating in the show.
The Structure of Kid Nation
“Does anybody else think the Gold Star will significantly increase their sex appeal?” – Michael, age 14
In the first episode of Kid Nation, the kids are told that four of their peers have been deemed members of the “town council” by the production team: Laurel, Mike, Taylor, and Anjay. The other 36 participants are divided into four bunks (also called teams or districts), and each bunk is led by one of the members of the town council. All the bunks were named after different primary colors, with Laurel leading the Green team, Mike leading the Red team, Taylor leading the Yellow team, and Anjay leading the Blue team. Each bunk would sleep together, work together, and compete as a team.
Every few days, the four teams would compete with one another in physical and mental challenges, such as building a working pipeline through an obstacle course or competing in a rock-hauling race. The results of the team challenge determined the team’s economic class for the next few days. The team in the first place was declared the upper-class, second place was the merchants, third place was the cooks, and last place was the laborers. This dictated what jobs each bunk would do for the following days and how much they would be paid in “buffalo nickels”: the upper class had no job and received $1.00/day, the merchants ran the town shops and received 50¢, the cooks made all the meals and did the dishes for 25¢, and the laborers did hard labor (such as filling pails of water, doing laundry, and cleaning outhouses) for 10¢. If this sounds weird to you, you’re not alone. Part of the criticism Kid Nation received was aimed at how the show “indoctrinated the children into capitalism and classism”, with many a thinkpiece posted on this topic.
Additionally, if the town as a whole reached a certain goal by the end of each challenge, the children were granted the choice between an item that they needed and an item that they wanted – and believe me, there’s astounding entertainment value in watching children argue over whether they should get an old-fashioned television set or seven more outhouses (they only had one outhouse at the time… one… for forty kids). To get an idea of how difficult these town goals were, the town goal during the rock-hauling challenge was to collectively haul one ton of rocks. Obviously, the kids failed to haul over a ton of rocks. I mean, really, what did production expect? It’s literally a ton of rocks.
And of course, because this is a reality television show, there is money on the line. While each kid was compensated for their time with $5,000, along with the opportunity to miss a month of school, there were also monetary prizes to be earned. Every three days, the town had a town meeting. During the town meetings, the kids had the opportunity to air their grievances to the community, but more importantly, the town council awarded one of the participants a Gold Star. The Gold Star was worth $20,000, and the town council was tasked with choosing the kid that they felt earned it the most by meaningfully contributing to Bonanza City. Not only did the winner get the Gold Star, but they were also allowed to use the only phone in the town to call their parents. Also, the periodical town meeting was the only time the kids were given the chance to opt out of the experience and go home, which three kids did before the end of the season. In the show’s finale, the town council got to award three participants an additional $50,000 prize each.
Between challenges and town meetings, the kids would complete their jobs, shop at stores run by other kids, try to improve the town, and just generally goof off. At one point, the kids earn a fully stocked arcade for their town after winning a showdown. There was even a “bar” that served root beer, where the kids could dance and drink soda all night. Basically, life in Bonanza City seemed to be all work and all play.
On-Air Drama
“I mean, look at Bush, he’s not smart at all, but he won the U.S. presidency two times in a row!” – Kelsey, age 11
While the format of Kid Nation was not revolutionary, the age of the contestants and the contents of the show was. The stress and physical demands of the show proved too much for many of the children, with the first kid leaving during the first town meeting. First to go was Jimmy, the youngest contestant at 8 years old, who tearfully confesses in the first episode that he misses his parents and thinks he is too young to be on his own. He’s not the only one either; many of the children spend the first episode in tears as they express how homesick and overwhelmed they are.
Jimmy’s departure is just the first of many emotional and controversial moments for the show. The second episode, titled “To Kill or Not to Kill”, centered on a debate between the kids about whether or not to kill some of their chickens to get more protein into their diet. This leads to a heated argument and a peaceful protest, with a group of kids locking themselves inside the chicken coop until the town council promises not to kill any of the chickens. Eventually, the children decide they need meat and kill two chickens. The kids butcher, de-feather, and cook the chickens themselves, leading to some pretty graphic footage. Of all the outrageous things the kids did on-air, killing the chickens seems to be one of the ones that drew the most controversy, with fans still expressing their shock years later. There was even a pretty decently upvoted post about it on TIL four years ago.
In episode four, the council tries to integrate religion into the town by instituting a mandatory church service, but the four council members are the only ones to show up for service. Throughout the entire episode, entitled “Bless Us and Keep Us Safe”, the kids have rather problematic (but entertaining) discussions about different religions, featuring a smattering of anti-semitism and religious discrimination. For the sake of decency, I am not going to give examples or repeat anything they said in this post, but if you just need to know what was said, the episode can be found here. The episode ends peacefully when Morgan invites all the kids to a town bonfire where kids from different religions shared prayers together, showing more tolerance and compassion than I think most adults are capable of.
While the original town council members were chosen by the production team, the town is given the chance to hold elections twice. In a shock to no one, participating in the democratic process proves to be as difficult for kids as it is for adults. The first election gets incredibly heated as kids campaign for the privilege to be the leader of their bunk. One kid, Markelle, goes around town and rips up Taylor’s (the current leader of the Yellow district) campaign posters. This leads to a screaming match in the middle of town, leaving Taylor’s friend who made the posters in tears. Ultimately, Taylor’s political opponent Zach wins the election by exactly one vote after he successfully convinces one of Taylor’s close friends to vote against her. Thank goodness Zach won, or else we never would have gotten the gem that is 10-year-old Zach exclaiming “Viva la Revolucion!”. The first election ends in absolute upset when Guylan defeats incumbent Mike for the position of leader of the Red district. Mike receives exactly one vote (his own), and watching the votes read out in real-time is a crazy experience – everyone is laughing in absolute shock.
Altogether, not only was the age of the contestants a subject of contention for audiences, but the content of the show was also seen as questionable by critics and viewers alike. From animal butchering to religious discrimination to political scandals, Kid Nation really straddled the line of what was acceptable, both for television and for children.
The Aftermath
“Deal with it!” – Taylor, age 10
Even before Kid Nation premiered, critics and viewers were slating the controversial show. By the time the show finished airing, dozens of news outlets were chiming in to give their take on it, including Variety, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and Time. Viewers were worried about how the children would deal with the stress, and whether or not they were pressured into participating by the lure of potential fame or by their parents for the sake of cash. As I mentioned earlier, people were also concerned that the children were being “indoctrinated into consumer culture” based on the class system utilized in Bonanza City. Despite all this, by the third episode, advertisers that had shied away from Kid Nation due to its initial controversy decided to purchase ad slots.
As you probably predicted, Kid Nation became embroiled in lawsuits and legal battles. First of all, production had the kids sign a contract requiring them to be available for filming 24 hours a day for 40 days. While there are limits to how many hours a child can work in a day, there are exemptions for film and TV production that are regulated by the states. At the time, New Mexico had a law in place limiting children’s participation in film and television productions to nine hours a day. However, this law did not come into enforcement until a month after the filming for Kid Nation was completed. New Mexico also had other general child-labor laws that limited children under 14 years old to a maximum number of hours per week or day unless otherwise approved by the state, but CBS did not obtain approval. Although there were adults on site with the children, the nature of how the adults supervised the children made it appear as though the kids were unlawfully engaged in labor under New Mexico law.
The producers challenged the accusations of breaking child labor laws by declaring the set a summer camp instead of a place of employment. Even though the kids were compensated financially and filmed 24/7, production insisted that they were campers instead of reality show contestants. This claim was further questioned by the state of New Mexico, which had additional rules related to camp operations that were not followed by production. In the end, the production team for Kid Nation did not face any legal repercussions for their usage of child labor, and the legal loophole the production used has since been closed. Other investigative efforts into the show by the state of New Mexico were also dropped, with the Attorney General’s Office citing the lack of formal complaint or request for inquiry from any state agency.
Not only was the production team in hot water with the state of New Mexico, but they also found themselves under investigation by the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists over whether its AFTRA National Code of Fair Practices for Network Television Broadcasting was violated. The organization raised questions about whether the reality show participants are more like subjects in a documentary or working actors. While the latter are covered by union rules that govern working hours and compensation, the former is not. The investigation went forward even though the Network Code on reality shows generally covers professional performers, not reality show participants. However, some parents on set on the final day of filming accused the producers of feeding children lines, re-casting dialogue, and repeating scenes, all of which suggest the children functioned more like actors than documentary subjects. In response to the accusations, producer Tom Forman said the parents were observing routine “pickups” for scenes that may have been missed due to technical difficulties.
Along with legal challenges regarding child labor laws, Kid Nation found itself as the subject of legal complaints from one of the participant’s parents. Before filming, parents were required to sign a 22-page waiver that disavowed any responsibility on behalf of CBS or production for any harm experienced by the children on-set. In one infamous, unaired incident, several of the kids reportedly drank bleach on accident. One of the children, DK, age 14, was taken to the emergency room to be checked out before being returned to the set. Additionally, in an interview with The A.V. Club, 14-year-old Anjay revealed that he got so dehydrated from hiking the town that he had to go to EMS because he was throwing up. In another incident that actually made it on-air, 11-year-old Divad Miles received a grease burn on her face while cooking a meal. Her mother, Janis Miles, filed a complaint in June 2008, calling for an investigation into “abusive acts to minors and possible violations of child labor laws”. The complaint was investigated by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office, which found no criminal wrongdoing on behalf of the production company or CBS.
It should be noted that in interviews with four of the participants by Los Angeles Times reporter Maria Elena Fernandez, all the children said that even though they worked harder than they ever had in their lives, they would still willingly repeat the experience. Astutely, Fernandez noted in one of her articles that “the children were never as autonomous or self-reliant as the publicity indicated and the threatened legal investigations by the state of New Mexico never took off”. Despite all the negative press and lawsuits, the show did not live up to its pre-premiere promises or its controversies.
Where Are They Now?
“I just hope we don’t end up like the Donner party, eating our own people.” – Anjay, age 12
Years passed, and fans like myself were dying to know how the children of Kid Nation turned out. In 2014, our insane wishes for resolution began to be fulfilled, with the now-adults of Kid Nation turning to the internet and the media to tell their stories.
One of the first to do so was Michael, who did an AMA on IAmA in 2014. Needless to say, fans like myself flooded the AMA with tons of questions and felt our morbid curiosity being satisfied. Michael confirmed many behind-the-scenes rumors and revealed some information previously unknown to fans, such as hook-ups occurring between contestants, Sophia stealing a phone from a crew member to call home, and Jared constantly getting into fights with other kids. He attested that on one hand, there were always adults present off-camera during the production (such as cameramen, producers, a medic, and a child psychologist), but on the other hand, the children did do almost everything themselves. Michael also said that he would be willing to do a “where are they now?”-style sequel to Kid Nation.
When Kid Nation experienced revitalized interest during 2020, The A.V. Club took advantage of the moment to interview several contestants for a “where are they now?”-style article, including Laurel, Anjay, and Olivia. In the interview, the former participants said that much of the show as presented on television was dramatized. They stated that production set up certain children like Olivia and Greg as “stock villains”, despite this not being the case behind the scenes. Also, Anjay confirmed the highly-publicized story about DK accidentally drinking bleach and explained that this was the result of a bottle of bleach being mistaken for a bottle of seltzer water that they had for flavoring drinks in the town store. Anjay said that the medical staff immediately treated DK and he returned to the set shortly afterward. By far the most interesting piece of information to come out of the interviews, though, is the existence of an unaired episode where kids discussed politics (in a similar vein as the religion episode), which was deemed too controversial to air. Considering the context of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, it is understandable why such an episode might be deemed contentious. However, the logic of this decision has done nothing to quell my and other fans’ desire to see the unaired episode, if only to find out where exactly the production team chose to draw the line after all this *gestures broadly*.
In 2020, YouTuber JonTron, also known as Jon Jafari, interviewed Jimmy, the first child to leave Kid Nation. During his interview, Jimmy criticized the harsh conditions that the production team forced the children to suffer through, such as making them cook their own food and wash their dishes, the poor sleeping conditions (the children slept on the floor), and the poor sanitary conditions (here’s your reminder of the 1 outhouse: 40 kids ratio… also the kids were not able to shower until after the first challenge). Additionally, Jimmy confirmed that on two separate occasions, ambulances had to be called to the set to take children to the emergency room.
Conclusion: The Kids Are Alright - No Really, I Mean It
“My ego pretty much just got like eaten, digested, and crapped out by a coyote, torn apart by vultures, and tossed off a cliff.” – Mike, age 11
As I mentioned at the beginning of this write-up, Kid Nation never got a second season. The show was canceled due to its highly questionable legality and the ton of controversy it garnered. This is not to mention poor audience ratings and the fact that the legal loophole in New Mexico was closed. Since its original run on CBS, Kid Nation has basically been treated as if it's radioactive. The show is nearly impossible to find online because most streaming companies refuse to host the series. Previously, a user on YouTube had uploaded all 13 episodes to the site for viewers to watch in a convenient playlist, but the playlist was recently deleted. Right now, the only place you can find Kid Nation is on Vimeo.
The kids from Kid Nation sincerely do not seem traumatized by their experience, and in fact, most of them actually say they cherish the memory of working on the show. Notably, Laurel called Kid Nation the “ultimate best experience of [her] life” – a sentiment that was also echoed in Michael’s AMA. On the other hand, the show’s host, Jonathan Karsh, has seemingly been unable to find any other television host jobs since his stint on Kid Nation.
Even though Kid Nation was canceled due to backlash from critics and viewers, the show has still managed to situate itself as a cult TV series. It even occasionally makes its way back into popular culture, as seen in 2020. A small, semi-active subreddit dedicated to the show still exists, and YouTubers constantly post videos reacting to the conditions and situations that the participants lived through. For trashy reality TV fanatics like me, Kid Nation remains to be a masterclass in entertainment and social commentary as told by kids, albeit with a sketchy production team and questionable conditions.
Ultimately, whether or not Kid Nation was really as abusive and controversial as people claimed is still up for debate. In my opinion, as with most things, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. At the very least, the kids are alright.
2023.03.30 22:40 Dismal-Jellyfish Not a 'bailout'! $388.2475 billion in liquidity: A review of the tools the Fed is leveraging to provide banks liquidity while we get rate hikes: Discount Window, Central Bank Liquidity Swaps, Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP), “Other credit extensions”, and "Foreign Official".
 | Good afternoon Superstonk, resident jellyfish back with you for another review. Let's get to it! submitted by Dismal-Jellyfish to Superstonk [link] [comments] This week's Fed balance Sheet:https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20230330/What we are monitoring:
Discount Window/Primary Credithttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WLCFLPCL
Primary Credit allows banks to borrow against collateral at the current federal funds rate:5% expensive money! Probably why BTFP getting used more--it offers 'better terms'?Overview:Federal Reserve lending to depository institutions (the “discount window”) plays an important role in supporting the liquidity and stability of the banking system and the effective implementation of monetary policy. By providing ready access to funding, the discount window helps depository institutions manage their liquidity risks efficiently and avoid actions that have negative consequences for their customers, such as withdrawing credit during times of market stress. Thus, the discount window supports the smooth flow of credit to households and businesses. Providing liquidity in this way is one of the original purposes of the Federal Reserve System and other central banks around the world. The "Primary Credit" program is the principal safety valve for ensuring adequate liquidity in the banking system. Primary credit is priced relative to the FOMC’s target range for the federal funds rate and is normally granted on a “no-questions-asked,” minimally administered basis. There are no restrictions on borrowers’ use of primary credit.https://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/Pages/General-Information/Primary-and-Secondary-Lending-Programs.aspx Here are some examples of common borrowing situations:
The introduction of the primary credit program in 2003 marked a fundamental shift - from administration to pricing - in the Federal Reserve's approach to discount window lending. Notably, eligible depository institutions may obtain primary credit without exhausting or even seeking funds from alternative sources. Minimal administration of and restrictions on the use of primary credit makes it a reliable funding source. Being prepared to borrow primary credit enhances an institution's liquidity.I wonder which institution(s) are seeking “no-questions-asked” "no restrictions on borrowers’ use of primary credit." to the tune of to the tune of $88.157 billion this past week @ 5.00%? The sudden rise in Primary Credit shows big players are trying to get as much liquidity backstop as possible and are increasing their borrowing from the Fed, happily paying 5.00% to borrow billions. These are not cheap loans... I do wonder if this trickles further into BTFP and down into Secondary and Seasonal Credit as this goes on? Central Bank Liquidity Swapshttps://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/desk-operations/central-bank-liquidity-swap-operations
About Central Bank Liquidity Swaps:In April 2009, the Federal Reserve announced foreign-currency liquidity swap lines with the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and the Swiss National Bank. The Federal Reserve lines constitute a part of a network of bilateral swap lines among the six central banks, which allow for the provision of liquidity in each jurisdiction in any of the six currencies should central banks judge that market conditions warrant. In October 2013, the Federal Reserve and these central banks announced that their liquidity swap arrangements would be converted to standing arrangements that will remain in place until further notice. How it works:In general, these swaps involve two transactions. When a foreign central bank draws on its swap line with the Federal Reserve, the foreign central bank sells a specified amount of its currency to the Federal Reserve in exchange for dollars at the prevailing market exchange rate. The Federal Reserve holds the foreign currency in an account at the foreign central bank. The dollars that the Federal Reserve provides are deposited in an account that the foreign central bank maintains at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. At the same time, the Federal Reserve and the foreign central bank enter into a binding agreement for a second transaction that obligates the foreign central bank to buy back its currency on a specified future date at the same exchange rate. The second transaction unwinds the first. At the conclusion of the second transaction, the foreign central bank pays interest, at a market-based rate, to the Federal Reserve. Dollar liquidity swaps have maturities ranging from overnight to three months. When the foreign central bank loans the dollars it obtains by drawing on its swap line to institutions in its jurisdiction, the dollars are transferred from the foreign central bank's account at the Federal Reserve to the account of the bank that the borrowing institution uses to clear its dollar transactions. The foreign central bank remains obligated to return the dollars to the Federal Reserve under the terms of the agreement, and the Federal Reserve is not a counterparty to the loan extended by the foreign central bank. The foreign central bank bears the credit risk associated with the loans it makes to institutions in its jurisdiction. The foreign currency that the Federal Reserve acquires is an asset on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. Because the swap is unwound at the same exchange rate that is used in the initial draw, the dollar value of the asset is not affected by changes in the market exchange rate. The dollar funds deposited in the accounts that foreign central banks maintains at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are a Federal Reserve liability. Last week the operations became daily: Coordinated central bank action to enhance the provision of U.S. dollar liquiditySource: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230319a.htmThe Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, and the Swiss National Bank are today announcing a coordinated action to enhance the provision of liquidity via the standing U.S. dollar liquidity swap line arrangements.**To improve the swap lines' effectiveness in providing U.S. dollar funding, the central banks currently offering U.S. dollar operations have agreed to increase the frequency of 7-day maturity operations from weekly to daily. These daily operations will commence on Monday, March 20, 2023, and will continue at least through the end of April.**The network of swap lines among these central banks is a set of available standing facilities and serve as an important liquidity backstop to ease strains in global funding markets, thereby helping to mitigate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses. Remember, the Swiss National Bank had used this facility 10 times since September for 7-day swaps totaling $20.738 billion:https://preview.redd.it/uy8b5ovcoxqa1.png?width=875&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d8728a13e78306f7129a3230567a253a92a4d85https://preview.redd.it/fqbuw8g6pxqa1.png?width=608&format=png&auto=webp&s=9c1327aeded47ab7ad054fbe0238af46ac69ac20 The Swiss National Bank has likely swapped $20.738 billion to provide short-term liquidity to Credit Suisse, right?!?!?! Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP)https://preview.redd.it/sgr4ahmgvxqa1.png?width=708&format=png&auto=webp&s=e73b3b344072a64e779359bd535d5da3e2daf313
https://preview.redd.it/nnmpi40gnvqa1.png?width=821&format=png&auto=webp&s=63fabc5441f97015583047546f520ac018380d0f
“Other credit extensions”https://preview.redd.it/f47zsvelvxqa1.png?width=713&format=png&auto=webp&s=707f4065892b7c5c8310fcf5895316bf43e70965https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WLCFOCEL
"Foreign Official"https://preview.redd.it/gstr8skqvxqa1.png?width=757&format=png&auto=webp&s=30b2c7df09bbde24a9cddbd14d8c8ac8f1f173d4https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/H41RESPPALGTRFNWW
TLDRS:This liquidity for banks to keep them afloat, rate hikes for the rest of us is how much?!?! As of 3/29:
https://preview.redd.it/q5wimvl6pvqa1.png?width=610&format=png&auto=webp&s=ce4b6c7a59058b9efaf3296d4c39d15133d90637 |
2023.03.30 22:26 Formal-Mud-990 The way freedom dies. And the path it took.
The way and the order of actions most important to take over listed as chronological events.
Systemic Changes During Economic Downturns:
Increase in unemployment rates Decrease in consumer spending Increase in government spending on social welfare programs Decrease in government tax revenues Decrease in corporate profits Increase in business bankruptcies and closures Increase in foreclosure rates and home price declines Decrease in GDP growth Increase in government debt levels Increase in poverty rates Increase in income inequality Controversial policy's passing congress during economic downturns:
Economic stimulus packages Unemployment benefit extensions Bailouts for specific industries Changes to tax policy Changes to regulations on financial institutions Infrastructure spending Presidential remarks during economic downturns:
Calls for bipartisan cooperation to address the economic crisis Promises to create jobs and stimulate economic growth Urges for increased government spending on social welfare programs Proposals for tax cuts or other measures to spur economic activity Systemic Changes During Economic Upswings:
Decrease in unemployment rates Increase in consumer spending Increase in government tax revenues Increase in corporate profits Decrease in business bankruptcies and closures Increase in home prices and decreases in foreclosure rates Increase in GDP growth Decrease in government debt levels Decrease in poverty rates Decrease in income inequality Controversial policy's passing congress during economic upswings:
Tax cuts Deregulation of industries Changes to government spending priorities Infrastructure spending Presidential remarks during economic upswings Claims credit for economic growth and job creation Proposes tax cuts or other measures to continue economic growth Promises to maintain fiscal responsibility and decrease government debt levels
For example, government spending on social welfare programs tends to increase during economic downturns and decrease during economic upswings, but the specific programs and amounts of funding may change over time. Similarly, tax policy changes and deregulation can have long-lasting impacts on the economy,
Other systemic changes, such as changes in unemployment rates, GDP growth, and income inequality , may be more cyclical and subject to fluctuations over time. However, even these changes can be influenced by long-term factors such as technological innovation, demographic shifts, and globalization.
And who controls the long term and how? In the following.
Earl Miller ,along with alot of original top level of various positions.
The original head of marketing Instagram, creator of thumbs up on facebook specifically for instance.
They all agree on attention grabbing tactics being used to work for the interest of someone rich.
Misinformation comes in all shapes and sizes.
All Forms and fashions. To all conceivable degrees and extents.
As countless and limitless as the ppls own personal perspectives allows them to. It can be on purpose on accident.
For fun, for harm, and just for the fuck of it.
This is a problem for us all that can only get worse the longer it goes unaddressed.
The FED is the lobbyist for the commercial banking system. Plutocracy is government by the rich.
Trickle down economics: Reaganomics as it's sometimes referred to
as: - The only responsibility of the corporation is that of the fiduciary responsibility. To it's stock holders, even at the expense of the stake holders, at the expense of the environment, and community.
this is not the solution it is in fact the problem. It is the reason for 90% of the suffering by the 99% less rich then the top 1% of wealth holders.
If I create money in my home it is considered bad counterfeit and illegal.
When businesses do this with no money it is called " cooking the books" Also illegal.
When private and commercial banks do it it is legal, and when you continue to allow fraud to remain legalized it creates a lot of problems that can have nothing done against them.
In 1971 Nixon takes America off the gold standard system replaced with the FIAT system.
Fiat is Latin for let it be so by the way.
Only governments can make a Fiat currency. And only banks can create by lending. Central banks lend to investment banks , who lend to commercial banks, who lend to top corporations , who go to giant govt contractors, who then finally lend to borrowers.
It was in 1932 that the glass steagall act was passed to help oppose this. Yet in 1999 treasury's Secretary at the time Larry summers. As well as his predecessor Robert Rubin repealed this glass steagall act. Goldman Sachs uses money to buy influence in Congress to pass laws to make it easier to make money on wall street to buy more influence in Congress....one of the most influential investment banks of the world in Sept 2008, just about one month before the stock market crashed conveniently changed it's banking status from investment to commercial,this made it eligible for state protection. During the bailout Then congressman Hank Paulson more or less said. If you don't bail us banks out for letting this problem occur via these methods that were supposed to just the opposite. Every citizens bank account empties and they revolt. Do what you got to. Make it ,borrow it, whatever we need a 700 billion dollar bail out now. This is how along with Allen Greenspan's timely encouraging you get inflation and insurance causing subprime housing crises.
It was in ancient Greece that Pluto stated "It should never be more then six to one ratio in financial pay between the highest and lowest employee." It wasn't until 1923 that J.P Morgan said " it was actually more like 20:1 as optimal difference. (I'm sure him being a banker is just coincidence.) Now just 100 years later it is sometimes 500:1. Even 1000:1. When the income inequality, is in a ratio of 500 to 1, and it is been known to be 1000 to 1 but even 500 to 1. The whole concept of living may as well be between two different species. The difference in economy, ideals , or just the ways of living all together. The ranges of disparity is in entirely different brackets. One never seeing even the best of the worst of the other in any circumstances. There can be no sense of community's if there is no common ground on which to live next to one another. It takes good communities to raise good kids. The easy said an not implemented as easy as said I get that but none the less a fact for it Solution here. Is simply put help the most vulnerable after discovery of who that is and how to do so. Not to panic into a pandemic. Robbing kids of education. and. sanity via stupid ,pointless , unhelpful, horrible,amoung other description words that fits the means by which the children where treated. Just to parade them around like masked bandits is both as ironic as it is ignorant. And what the whole world was doing not so long ago. Teaching them in good schools without biases. Agendas pertaining only to the best possible responsibility there is. None Other then that of allowing the next generation to be the most capable, and competent. When the time comes to pass the torch. As no one can hold it up forever no matter how strong it must be inevitably be passed on. Whether from such crippling old age. The dead hands of the strongest wisest. Yet still to unwilling to let the task be trusted to others. As he does the job and he knows he will. To The most proud of moments. Knowing the one taking it from yourself. Is truly ready and able ,and likely to be a Better then yourself job well done, when they pass it. To every single possible variation in-between.
From the white end extreme to the black end extremes. The almost entirety of grades of grey. Forming the majority as it seeps from the tips of each of those. Until it finally forms the tiny, albiet bright and visible none the less for it , in fact far from it. Admist the sea of grey around it. You find shining all the brighter for it. Silver lining in the exact middle.
Human beings.
Right now. At this moment are acting to accelerate if not make it a certainty. The lives of our grandchildren will be worsening. More world wide famine disease and war. All creating more death . We all follow suit unquestionably due to the slavery of greed stemmed from this income inequalities. We do this even though we all love our grand kids. Truly then and only then will the systemic changes necessary for elimination of the evils allowing this way of life occur. The American declaration of independence states the following in it's article 11 but for those saying I take what I want out of context to suit my own ends...yes that is correct. I would encourage all to go when able and read the thing in it's entirety to see the context for themselves.
Now I'll leave off with some inspiration for all Americans from Americans.
--" All experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer- Whilst evils are sufferable- then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."-- American declaration of independence --"God made all men equal and gave them the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted amongst men deriving there just powers from the consent of governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends. It is the rights of the people,it is the duty, to alter or abolish it and institute new guards for there future security."--
George Washington (1796) - In his farewell address, President Washington discussed the dangers of political factions and foreign entanglements. He warned that excessive partisanship and international alliances could undermine the unity and independence of the country. Washington's concerns reflected the challenges facing the young nation as it sought to establish a stable and democratic government, while also dealing with powerful European powers and internal divisions.In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington warned of the dangers of political parties and foreign entanglements, and called on Americans to preserve unity and avoid division.
Andrew Johnson (1869) - In his farewell address, President Johnson discussed the importance of constitutional government and the rule of law, and warned against the dangers of corruption and abuse of power. Johnson's presidency had been marked by conflict with Congress and controversy over his approach to Reconstruction following the Civil War. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of preserving democratic institutions and norms, and avoiding abuses of power.
William Howard Taft (1913) - In his farewell address, President Taft discussed the importance of international peace and cooperation, and called for greater emphasis on diplomacy and mediation in resolving conflicts. Taft had been involved in international affairs throughout his presidency, and had worked to promote international arbitration and disarmament. His farewell address reflected his belief in the need for greater cooperation and dialogue between nations, and his concern that the world was becoming more divided and dangerous.
Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address, President Hoover discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems. Hoover had been widely criticized for his handling of the Depression, and had faced growing calls for government intervention in the economy. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of self-reliance and individual initiative, but also acknowledged the need for collective action and government assistance in times of crisis.In his in
President Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1936) - In his State of the Union address, was responding to the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals, which he saw as a threat to American democracy. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans. He expressed concern about the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1938) - In his "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies," President Roosevelt was responding to a growing concern among Americans about the power of big business and monopolies. During the Great Depression, many people felt that corporations were exploiting workers and consumers, and that the government needed to step in to protect the interests of the people. Roosevelt's speech called for stronger government regulation of the economy, including antitrust laws to break up monopolies and promote competition. Roosevelt argued that a fair and just society required strong government intervention to prevent abuses by powerful economic interests. The New Deal programs and reforms initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression continue to shape the country's social safety net and regulatory framework, with programs like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act still in place today.
Harry S. Truman (1951) - In his "Labor Day Address," President Truman was responding to concerns among workers about the state of the American economy. Truman argued that the government had a responsibility to protect workers' rights and freedoms, and to ensure that the economy worked for everyone, not just the wealthy. Truman called for stronger government regulation of the economy to prevent abuses by employers and corporations, and to promote fair wages and working conditions for workers. Truman's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about economic inequality and the need for government intervention to promote social justice.The Marshall Plan, proposed by Harry Truman in 1947, helped to rebuild Europe after World War II and cemented the United States' role as a global superpower.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961) - In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the potential dangers of the close relationship between the military and the defense industry.-Military industrial complex, that would distort national priorities and threaten individual liberties. and called on Americans to remain vigilant in protecting democratic values and institutions. Eisenhower had served as a general in World War II before becoming president, and had witnessed firsthand the growth of the military and defense industries during his time in office. His farewell address reflected his concern that the power of these industries could threaten the stability and security of the country, and his belief in the importance of maintaining a balance between military preparedness and civilian control.
John F. Kennedy (1961) - In his inaugural address, President Kennedy famously called on Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Kennedy's speech reflected his belief in the importance of civic responsibility and public service, and his hope that Americans would be willing to work together to address the challenges facing the country.
Lyndon B. Johnson, who championed the principles of civil rights and social welfare, and who oversaw the passage of important legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, but who also faced criticism for his handling of the Vietnam War and his expansion of the federal government's role in domestic affairs.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1965) - In his "Special Message to the Congress: The Quality of American Life," President Johnson was responding to a range of social problems facing the country, including poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation. Johnson argued that government had a crucial role to play in addressing these issues, and that unwarranted influence by special interests was a threat to American democracy. Johnson called for stronger government action to promote social justice and environmental protection, including new laws to protect civil rights and preserve natural resources. Johnson's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about the need for government intervention to address social and environmental problems.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1969) - In his farewell address, President Johnson spoke about the need for continued progress on issues like civil rights and poverty, and called on Americans to remain committed to the values of justice and equality. Johnson's presidency had been marked by significant progress on issues like civil rights and social welfare, but had also been marred by the Vietnam War and growing social and political divisions. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of continued social and political progress, and his hope that the country could overcome its divisions and work together for a better future.The War on Poverty and Great Society programs, initiated by Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, helped to reduce poverty and expand access to education and health care for millions of Americans, although issues of poverty and inequality remain a challenge today.The civil rights legislation passed during the 1960s, including the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, helped to dismantle legal segregation and expand voting rights for African Americans, although issues of racial inequality and discrimination persist to this day.
Richard Nixon (1971) - In his "Message to the Congress on Reorganization of the Executive Branch," President Nixon was responding to concerns among conservatives about the size and power of the federal government. Nixon argued that excessive bureaucracy and regulation were stifling economic growth and innovation, and that government needed to be streamlined and made more efficient. Nixon's speech called for a reorganization of the executive branch of government to make it more effective and responsive to the needs of the American people. Nixon's speech reflected a growing concern among conservatives about the need to reduce the size and power of government.
Richard Nixon (1974) - In his resignation speech, President Nixon discussed the need for national healing and reconciliation following the Watergate scandal and his resignation from office. Nixon's presidency had been marked by significant achievements in foreign policy and domestic issues, but had also been marred by corruption and abuse of power. His resignation speech reflected his recognition of the damage done to the country by the Watergate scandal, and his hope that the country could move past it and focus on the future.The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, passed under Richard Nixon in the 1970s, helped to protect the environment and improve public health, although debates over environmental regulation and climate change continue to be major issues today.
Jimmy Carter (1979) - In his "Crisis of Confidence" speech, President Carter discussed the need for Americans to confront the energy crisis, and to work together to build a more sustainable and equitable society. Carter's speech reflected his concern that the country was losing its sense of purpose and direction, and his belief in the importance of public engagement and citizen involvement. That a crisis reflected his concern that excessive government regulation was hindering the development of alternative energy sources and impeding economic growth so that He felt compelled enough he called for a more balanced approach to energy policy that would promote conservation, innovation, and private investment.
President Ronald Reagan (1981) - In his inaugural address, expressed his belief that government had become too large and too intrusive, and that excessive regulation was stifling economic growth and individual freedom. He advocated for a smaller, more limited government that would give individuals and businesses more control over their own lives.
Ronald Reagan (1989) - In his farewell address, President Reagan discussed the importance of individual freedom and limited government, and called on Americans to remain committed to these values. Reagan's presidency had been marked by a conservative shift in American politics, and he had championed policies like tax cuts, deregulation, and increased military spending. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of these policies in promoting economic growth and national security, and his hope that they would continue to guide American policy in the future.The deregulation and tax cuts implemented during the Reagan era continue to shape the country's economic policies and debates, with questions about the role of government in the economy and the distribution of wealth remaining hotly contested.
President George H.W. Bush (1992) - In his State of the Union address, was responding to concerns that government regulations were placing an undue burden on businesses and impeding economic growth. He called for a "regulatory bill of rights" that would give citizens and businesses greater protection against unnecessary government interference.The Americans with Disabilities Act, signed into law by George H.W. Bush in 1990, helped to expand access and opportunities for people with disabilities, although challenges to implementation and ongoing debates over disability rights and accommodations remain.
Present Bill Clinton (1993) - In his "Address to the Nation on Health Care Reform," President Clinton was responding to concerns among Americans about the high cost and limited access to health care. Clinton argued that the government had a responsibility to ensure access to affordable health care for all Americans, and that the current system was subject to unwarranted influence by special interests. Clinton's speech called for comprehensive health care reform, including new regulations to control costs and expand coverage. Clinton's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about the need for government intervention to address the problems in the health care system.
President Bill Clinton(2000) - In his State of the Union address, called for a renewed focus on economic growth and innovation, emphasizing the importance of investing in education, research and development, and technology. He also highlighted the need for greater economic opportunity for all Americans.
President Barack Obama (2008) - In his campaign speech on the economy, then-Senator Barack Obama called for a more balanced approach to economic policy that would address growing income inequality, promote job growth, and provide greater support for the middle class.
President Barack Obama (2009) - In his inaugural address, President Obama discussed the need for a new era of responsibility and citizenship, and called on Americans to work together to overcome the challenges facing the country. Obama's speech reflected his belief in the importance of community and shared sacrifice, and his hope that Americans would be willing to come together to address issues like climate change, healthcare, and economic inequality.
President Barack Obama In his 2011 State of the Union address, emphasized the need to invest in education, innovation, and infrastructure in order to promote long-term economic growth. He also called for greater cooperation between government and business to create jobs and spur economic development.The health care reform efforts of the Obama administration, including the Affordable Care Act, have had a lasting impact on the country's health care system and access to care, although challenges to its implementation and ongoing political opposition continue to shape the debate. ....*man I voted for you and you didn't even legalize weed. *
Donald Trump (2021) - In his farewell address, President Trump discussed his accomplishments as president, and called on Americans to continue to support his agenda and vision for the country. Trump's speech reflected his belief in the importance of strong borders, economic growth, and America-first policies, and his hope that his supporters would remain committed to these values in the years to come.
These are just a few examples, but they demonstrate how presidential speeches and policies can have a lasting impact on American society and its political and economic structures. As they leave office, and the importance of reflecting on these issues in farewell addresses. They also show how these addresses can be used to call attention to important issues and values, and to set the tone for future national debates and policies. Eariguardless of your side or preference.for perceived better or worse.
submitted by Formal-Mud-990 to u/Formal-Mud-990 [link] [comments]
Systemic Changes During Economic Downturns:
Increase in unemployment rates Decrease in consumer spending Increase in government spending on social welfare programs Decrease in government tax revenues Decrease in corporate profits Increase in business bankruptcies and closures Increase in foreclosure rates and home price declines Decrease in GDP growth Increase in government debt levels Increase in poverty rates Increase in income inequality Controversial policy's passing congress during economic downturns:
Economic stimulus packages Unemployment benefit extensions Bailouts for specific industries Changes to tax policy Changes to regulations on financial institutions Infrastructure spending Presidential remarks during economic downturns:
Calls for bipartisan cooperation to address the economic crisis Promises to create jobs and stimulate economic growth Urges for increased government spending on social welfare programs Proposals for tax cuts or other measures to spur economic activity Systemic Changes During Economic Upswings:
Decrease in unemployment rates Increase in consumer spending Increase in government tax revenues Increase in corporate profits Decrease in business bankruptcies and closures Increase in home prices and decreases in foreclosure rates Increase in GDP growth Decrease in government debt levels Decrease in poverty rates Decrease in income inequality Controversial policy's passing congress during economic upswings:
Tax cuts Deregulation of industries Changes to government spending priorities Infrastructure spending Presidential remarks during economic upswings Claims credit for economic growth and job creation Proposes tax cuts or other measures to continue economic growth Promises to maintain fiscal responsibility and decrease government debt levels
For example, government spending on social welfare programs tends to increase during economic downturns and decrease during economic upswings, but the specific programs and amounts of funding may change over time. Similarly, tax policy changes and deregulation can have long-lasting impacts on the economy,
Other systemic changes, such as changes in unemployment rates, GDP growth, and income inequality , may be more cyclical and subject to fluctuations over time. However, even these changes can be influenced by long-term factors such as technological innovation, demographic shifts, and globalization.
And who controls the long term and how? In the following.
Earl Miller ,along with alot of original top level of various positions.
The original head of marketing Instagram, creator of thumbs up on facebook specifically for instance.
They all agree on attention grabbing tactics being used to work for the interest of someone rich.
Misinformation comes in all shapes and sizes.
All Forms and fashions. To all conceivable degrees and extents.
As countless and limitless as the ppls own personal perspectives allows them to. It can be on purpose on accident.
For fun, for harm, and just for the fuck of it.
This is a problem for us all that can only get worse the longer it goes unaddressed.
The FED is the lobbyist for the commercial banking system. Plutocracy is government by the rich.
Trickle down economics: Reaganomics as it's sometimes referred to
as: - The only responsibility of the corporation is that of the fiduciary responsibility. To it's stock holders, even at the expense of the stake holders, at the expense of the environment, and community.
this is not the solution it is in fact the problem. It is the reason for 90% of the suffering by the 99% less rich then the top 1% of wealth holders.
If I create money in my home it is considered bad counterfeit and illegal.
When businesses do this with no money it is called " cooking the books" Also illegal.
When private and commercial banks do it it is legal, and when you continue to allow fraud to remain legalized it creates a lot of problems that can have nothing done against them.
In 1971 Nixon takes America off the gold standard system replaced with the FIAT system.
Fiat is Latin for let it be so by the way.
Only governments can make a Fiat currency. And only banks can create by lending. Central banks lend to investment banks , who lend to commercial banks, who lend to top corporations , who go to giant govt contractors, who then finally lend to borrowers.
It was in 1932 that the glass steagall act was passed to help oppose this. Yet in 1999 treasury's Secretary at the time Larry summers. As well as his predecessor Robert Rubin repealed this glass steagall act. Goldman Sachs uses money to buy influence in Congress to pass laws to make it easier to make money on wall street to buy more influence in Congress....one of the most influential investment banks of the world in Sept 2008, just about one month before the stock market crashed conveniently changed it's banking status from investment to commercial,this made it eligible for state protection. During the bailout Then congressman Hank Paulson more or less said. If you don't bail us banks out for letting this problem occur via these methods that were supposed to just the opposite. Every citizens bank account empties and they revolt. Do what you got to. Make it ,borrow it, whatever we need a 700 billion dollar bail out now. This is how along with Allen Greenspan's timely encouraging you get inflation and insurance causing subprime housing crises.
It was in ancient Greece that Pluto stated "It should never be more then six to one ratio in financial pay between the highest and lowest employee." It wasn't until 1923 that J.P Morgan said " it was actually more like 20:1 as optimal difference. (I'm sure him being a banker is just coincidence.) Now just 100 years later it is sometimes 500:1. Even 1000:1. When the income inequality, is in a ratio of 500 to 1, and it is been known to be 1000 to 1 but even 500 to 1. The whole concept of living may as well be between two different species. The difference in economy, ideals , or just the ways of living all together. The ranges of disparity is in entirely different brackets. One never seeing even the best of the worst of the other in any circumstances. There can be no sense of community's if there is no common ground on which to live next to one another. It takes good communities to raise good kids. The easy said an not implemented as easy as said I get that but none the less a fact for it Solution here. Is simply put help the most vulnerable after discovery of who that is and how to do so. Not to panic into a pandemic. Robbing kids of education. and. sanity via stupid ,pointless , unhelpful, horrible,amoung other description words that fits the means by which the children where treated. Just to parade them around like masked bandits is both as ironic as it is ignorant. And what the whole world was doing not so long ago. Teaching them in good schools without biases. Agendas pertaining only to the best possible responsibility there is. None Other then that of allowing the next generation to be the most capable, and competent. When the time comes to pass the torch. As no one can hold it up forever no matter how strong it must be inevitably be passed on. Whether from such crippling old age. The dead hands of the strongest wisest. Yet still to unwilling to let the task be trusted to others. As he does the job and he knows he will. To The most proud of moments. Knowing the one taking it from yourself. Is truly ready and able ,and likely to be a Better then yourself job well done, when they pass it. To every single possible variation in-between.
From the white end extreme to the black end extremes. The almost entirety of grades of grey. Forming the majority as it seeps from the tips of each of those. Until it finally forms the tiny, albiet bright and visible none the less for it , in fact far from it. Admist the sea of grey around it. You find shining all the brighter for it. Silver lining in the exact middle.
Human beings.
Right now. At this moment are acting to accelerate if not make it a certainty. The lives of our grandchildren will be worsening. More world wide famine disease and war. All creating more death . We all follow suit unquestionably due to the slavery of greed stemmed from this income inequalities. We do this even though we all love our grand kids. Truly then and only then will the systemic changes necessary for elimination of the evils allowing this way of life occur. The American declaration of independence states the following in it's article 11 but for those saying I take what I want out of context to suit my own ends...yes that is correct. I would encourage all to go when able and read the thing in it's entirety to see the context for themselves.
Now I'll leave off with some inspiration for all Americans from Americans.
--" All experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer- Whilst evils are sufferable- then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."-- American declaration of independence --"God made all men equal and gave them the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted amongst men deriving there just powers from the consent of governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends. It is the rights of the people,it is the duty, to alter or abolish it and institute new guards for there future security."--
George Washington (1796) - In his farewell address, President Washington discussed the dangers of political factions and foreign entanglements. He warned that excessive partisanship and international alliances could undermine the unity and independence of the country. Washington's concerns reflected the challenges facing the young nation as it sought to establish a stable and democratic government, while also dealing with powerful European powers and internal divisions.In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington warned of the dangers of political parties and foreign entanglements, and called on Americans to preserve unity and avoid division.
Andrew Johnson (1869) - In his farewell address, President Johnson discussed the importance of constitutional government and the rule of law, and warned against the dangers of corruption and abuse of power. Johnson's presidency had been marked by conflict with Congress and controversy over his approach to Reconstruction following the Civil War. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of preserving democratic institutions and norms, and avoiding abuses of power.
William Howard Taft (1913) - In his farewell address, President Taft discussed the importance of international peace and cooperation, and called for greater emphasis on diplomacy and mediation in resolving conflicts. Taft had been involved in international affairs throughout his presidency, and had worked to promote international arbitration and disarmament. His farewell address reflected his belief in the need for greater cooperation and dialogue between nations, and his concern that the world was becoming more divided and dangerous.
Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address, President Hoover discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems. Hoover had been widely criticized for his handling of the Depression, and had faced growing calls for government intervention in the economy. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of self-reliance and individual initiative, but also acknowledged the need for collective action and government assistance in times of crisis.In his in
President Herbert Hoover (1933) - In his farewell address discussed the challenges of the Great Depression, and called on Americans to work together to address economic and social problems.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1936) - In his State of the Union address, was responding to the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals, which he saw as a threat to American democracy. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans. He expressed concern about the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations and wealthy individuals. He argued that the government had a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and consumers and to promote competition and economic opportunity for all Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1938) - In his "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies," President Roosevelt was responding to a growing concern among Americans about the power of big business and monopolies. During the Great Depression, many people felt that corporations were exploiting workers and consumers, and that the government needed to step in to protect the interests of the people. Roosevelt's speech called for stronger government regulation of the economy, including antitrust laws to break up monopolies and promote competition. Roosevelt argued that a fair and just society required strong government intervention to prevent abuses by powerful economic interests. The New Deal programs and reforms initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression continue to shape the country's social safety net and regulatory framework, with programs like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act still in place today.
Harry S. Truman (1951) - In his "Labor Day Address," President Truman was responding to concerns among workers about the state of the American economy. Truman argued that the government had a responsibility to protect workers' rights and freedoms, and to ensure that the economy worked for everyone, not just the wealthy. Truman called for stronger government regulation of the economy to prevent abuses by employers and corporations, and to promote fair wages and working conditions for workers. Truman's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about economic inequality and the need for government intervention to promote social justice.The Marshall Plan, proposed by Harry Truman in 1947, helped to rebuild Europe after World War II and cemented the United States' role as a global superpower.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961) - In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the potential dangers of the close relationship between the military and the defense industry.-Military industrial complex, that would distort national priorities and threaten individual liberties. and called on Americans to remain vigilant in protecting democratic values and institutions. Eisenhower had served as a general in World War II before becoming president, and had witnessed firsthand the growth of the military and defense industries during his time in office. His farewell address reflected his concern that the power of these industries could threaten the stability and security of the country, and his belief in the importance of maintaining a balance between military preparedness and civilian control.
John F. Kennedy (1961) - In his inaugural address, President Kennedy famously called on Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Kennedy's speech reflected his belief in the importance of civic responsibility and public service, and his hope that Americans would be willing to work together to address the challenges facing the country.
Lyndon B. Johnson, who championed the principles of civil rights and social welfare, and who oversaw the passage of important legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, but who also faced criticism for his handling of the Vietnam War and his expansion of the federal government's role in domestic affairs.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1965) - In his "Special Message to the Congress: The Quality of American Life," President Johnson was responding to a range of social problems facing the country, including poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation. Johnson argued that government had a crucial role to play in addressing these issues, and that unwarranted influence by special interests was a threat to American democracy. Johnson called for stronger government action to promote social justice and environmental protection, including new laws to protect civil rights and preserve natural resources. Johnson's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about the need for government intervention to address social and environmental problems.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1969) - In his farewell address, President Johnson spoke about the need for continued progress on issues like civil rights and poverty, and called on Americans to remain committed to the values of justice and equality. Johnson's presidency had been marked by significant progress on issues like civil rights and social welfare, but had also been marred by the Vietnam War and growing social and political divisions. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of continued social and political progress, and his hope that the country could overcome its divisions and work together for a better future.The War on Poverty and Great Society programs, initiated by Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, helped to reduce poverty and expand access to education and health care for millions of Americans, although issues of poverty and inequality remain a challenge today.The civil rights legislation passed during the 1960s, including the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, helped to dismantle legal segregation and expand voting rights for African Americans, although issues of racial inequality and discrimination persist to this day.
Richard Nixon (1971) - In his "Message to the Congress on Reorganization of the Executive Branch," President Nixon was responding to concerns among conservatives about the size and power of the federal government. Nixon argued that excessive bureaucracy and regulation were stifling economic growth and innovation, and that government needed to be streamlined and made more efficient. Nixon's speech called for a reorganization of the executive branch of government to make it more effective and responsive to the needs of the American people. Nixon's speech reflected a growing concern among conservatives about the need to reduce the size and power of government.
Richard Nixon (1974) - In his resignation speech, President Nixon discussed the need for national healing and reconciliation following the Watergate scandal and his resignation from office. Nixon's presidency had been marked by significant achievements in foreign policy and domestic issues, but had also been marred by corruption and abuse of power. His resignation speech reflected his recognition of the damage done to the country by the Watergate scandal, and his hope that the country could move past it and focus on the future.The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, passed under Richard Nixon in the 1970s, helped to protect the environment and improve public health, although debates over environmental regulation and climate change continue to be major issues today.
Jimmy Carter (1979) - In his "Crisis of Confidence" speech, President Carter discussed the need for Americans to confront the energy crisis, and to work together to build a more sustainable and equitable society. Carter's speech reflected his concern that the country was losing its sense of purpose and direction, and his belief in the importance of public engagement and citizen involvement. That a crisis reflected his concern that excessive government regulation was hindering the development of alternative energy sources and impeding economic growth so that He felt compelled enough he called for a more balanced approach to energy policy that would promote conservation, innovation, and private investment.
President Ronald Reagan (1981) - In his inaugural address, expressed his belief that government had become too large and too intrusive, and that excessive regulation was stifling economic growth and individual freedom. He advocated for a smaller, more limited government that would give individuals and businesses more control over their own lives.
Ronald Reagan (1989) - In his farewell address, President Reagan discussed the importance of individual freedom and limited government, and called on Americans to remain committed to these values. Reagan's presidency had been marked by a conservative shift in American politics, and he had championed policies like tax cuts, deregulation, and increased military spending. His farewell address reflected his belief in the importance of these policies in promoting economic growth and national security, and his hope that they would continue to guide American policy in the future.The deregulation and tax cuts implemented during the Reagan era continue to shape the country's economic policies and debates, with questions about the role of government in the economy and the distribution of wealth remaining hotly contested.
President George H.W. Bush (1992) - In his State of the Union address, was responding to concerns that government regulations were placing an undue burden on businesses and impeding economic growth. He called for a "regulatory bill of rights" that would give citizens and businesses greater protection against unnecessary government interference.The Americans with Disabilities Act, signed into law by George H.W. Bush in 1990, helped to expand access and opportunities for people with disabilities, although challenges to implementation and ongoing debates over disability rights and accommodations remain.
Present Bill Clinton (1993) - In his "Address to the Nation on Health Care Reform," President Clinton was responding to concerns among Americans about the high cost and limited access to health care. Clinton argued that the government had a responsibility to ensure access to affordable health care for all Americans, and that the current system was subject to unwarranted influence by special interests. Clinton's speech called for comprehensive health care reform, including new regulations to control costs and expand coverage. Clinton's speech reflected a growing concern among Americans about the need for government intervention to address the problems in the health care system.
President Bill Clinton(2000) - In his State of the Union address, called for a renewed focus on economic growth and innovation, emphasizing the importance of investing in education, research and development, and technology. He also highlighted the need for greater economic opportunity for all Americans.
President Barack Obama (2008) - In his campaign speech on the economy, then-Senator Barack Obama called for a more balanced approach to economic policy that would address growing income inequality, promote job growth, and provide greater support for the middle class.
President Barack Obama (2009) - In his inaugural address, President Obama discussed the need for a new era of responsibility and citizenship, and called on Americans to work together to overcome the challenges facing the country. Obama's speech reflected his belief in the importance of community and shared sacrifice, and his hope that Americans would be willing to come together to address issues like climate change, healthcare, and economic inequality.
President Barack Obama In his 2011 State of the Union address, emphasized the need to invest in education, innovation, and infrastructure in order to promote long-term economic growth. He also called for greater cooperation between government and business to create jobs and spur economic development.The health care reform efforts of the Obama administration, including the Affordable Care Act, have had a lasting impact on the country's health care system and access to care, although challenges to its implementation and ongoing political opposition continue to shape the debate. ....*man I voted for you and you didn't even legalize weed. *
Donald Trump (2021) - In his farewell address, President Trump discussed his accomplishments as president, and called on Americans to continue to support his agenda and vision for the country. Trump's speech reflected his belief in the importance of strong borders, economic growth, and America-first policies, and his hope that his supporters would remain committed to these values in the years to come.
These are just a few examples, but they demonstrate how presidential speeches and policies can have a lasting impact on American society and its political and economic structures. As they leave office, and the importance of reflecting on these issues in farewell addresses. They also show how these addresses can be used to call attention to important issues and values, and to set the tone for future national debates and policies. Eariguardless of your side or preference.for perceived better or worse.
In this there is togetherness that is truly American at heart.
Proof the govt tries to make money and does not care if you die is in the following. when the same people in private health care, who are the very ones always saying to go get a second opinion, want to allow only one in the public debate you have problems 1987 CDC knew how and who aids would most likely effect and harm. Instead of being helpful and precise a fear campaign was launched. " Aids will explode into the hetero sexual community." , So instead a lot of in reality not even needed but now clogging the lines for those who do from being tested, Was said on commercials to the public at large. Just like covid is not Russian roulette, and of course technically anything can kill anyone or anything else at any time, yea sure it's not wrong. That is the just the law of the universe and as such it applies at all times to all things regardless of gender , race economic status , or personal preference of the plethora of human enjoyments practiced throughout the ages. As of may 2021 according to the CDC 75% of covid deaths are 65 years or older in America. 98-99% of those are unvaccinated. So if if your 65 years old or older and not vaccinated don't go crowd surfing at a concert or you will probably be a goner. Problems including but not limited too.... Countless prescriptions labeled effective, safe , now giving out lawsuits for those who took them.2023.03.30 22:11 AccomplishedArmy9659 Which Side Are You On? A choose-your-own-adventure book of Combined Syndicates elections starting from the Constitutional Convention to 2000. Which Side of the Constitutional Convention Are You On?
Welcome Delegate! It’s September 1939 and the scarlet dawn cascades over this Philadelphia sky. We have won! The revolution is over and we are victorious! We can celebrate but only briefly. It is time for us to reassess America’s status on the world stage and write a socialist constitution for these newly combined syndicates of America and form a proper Commonwealth.
While the revolution is over it is not all sunshine and rainbows in America. Our many cities’ infrastructure and roads are destroyed. Formerly rebel areas still have armed terrorists such as the Silver Legion in the south and US Marines in the east coast and Midwest. Our volunteer armies have demobilized and are struggling to adjust to a peaceful life again. The reconstruction ahead will be long and arduous after over 10 million died in the war.
Abroad, the Third Internationale has begun arming in preparation for a war with the German Reichspacht. On the other side of Germany the Russian State and its Vozhd are arming. The Canadians have begun mobilizing along our border after failing to intervene in time to save the failed United States. A new war is on the horizon and a new government and leadership will be needed to take it on.
While we all know the broad freedoms we fought for. Our right to unionize, to strike, to have better working conditions, and no longer serve those who only benefit themselves. Our work is our right and what we make is what we get back. You’ve heard it all before. But now is the time to debate specifics. While many unions and factions united together to form the Combined Syndicates, now is the time when their disagreements will appear. I assume you are part of the many smaller unincorporated unions like TEA or UBC and therefore aren’t familiar with the policies of the larger unions which will drive this convention. It’s important to know each of these factions as their leader will become the interim president. President Jack Reed with his failing health has announced his retirement once the convention is over and will leave it up to the convention who will be the interim president. The faction that asserts its authority the most will be able to elect its chosen candidate as the second president of the Commonwealth of America.
The strongest and most racidial, as well as personally endorsed by President Jack Reed is the International Workers of the World(IWW). The IWW represents the libertarian left ideal of a small government that can never oppress the workers. They want a weak head of state and highly federalised system of government. They want the legislature to be the Trade Union Council, where local syndicates of equal population elect a representative to the council. With the Trade Union Council they can guarantee regional minorities receive proper representation and aren’t neglected. The IWW wishes to abolish the supreme court seeing it as an inherently reactionary force due its history of denying progressive legislation. If they get their way they will elect Elizabeth Gurley Flynn to be the interim President and first female president of America. A lifelong union organizer and founder of the ACLU, she was arrested ten times before the revolution. In the leadup to the civil war, she organized a nationwide Longshoreman strike in solidarity to the Combined Syndicate cause and during the war she fought for humane treatment and education for war prisoners and is credited for creating a humane image of the Combined Syndicates. She promises to increase women’s rights and never limit free speech if she were elected President.
The moderate and largest, as well as personally endorsed by General Smedley Butler the Hero of the Revolution is the American Federation of Labor(AFL). The AFL represents the more moderate classical left ideal of ‘Each According to his Abilities and Each According to his Needs.’ They desire a head of state to represent the nation strongly on the international framework but be well checked by the legislature and its voters at home with a unitary government. They want the legislature to be a National Working Congress which is elected proportionally. This would allow for minority opinions to be represented no matter how spread out they are. All voices deserve to be heard no matter how poor. The AFL wishes to create a strong supreme court to act as the strong court of the land with the justices being selected by a committee in the National Working Congress. If they get their way, they will elect Vice President Norman Thomas to be interim President. Norman Thomas started his career as the 1928 candidate that brought the SPUSA onto the national stage and would later win the 1929 New York Mayoral Race and served until 1936 when he became the Vice President of the Combined Syndicates during the revolution. During the war, he worked with the Commune of France and Union of Britain’s leaders to ensure material aid and volunteers arrived to support the American Revolution. He promises to bring peace to the war-stricken America and ensure a safe nationalization of energy and healthcare.
The newest and most extreme of the Unions is the Trade Union Unity League(TUUL). The TUUL represents the vanguardist and social revolutionary faction of the left. They desire a strong head of state that can be ‘a beacon of the proletariat’ and defend against reactionaries both within and abroad. They want the legislature to be a Council of Professional Workers where the most senior members workers of the local unions will represent their district. This will ensure that more experienced and professional workers can better represent accurately and correctly the needs of their districts. The TUUL wishes to create a strong supreme court to act as the final decision in the land with its Justices being chosen by the president and ratified by the council. TUUL is split in half on who to represent if they get their way in the convention. The more social revolutionary factions wish to elect Representative William Zebulon Foster as interim president. Representative William Z. Foster of Washington was one of the first SPUSA members elected to congress and first to introduce the ideology of Syndicalism to the United States. He spent decades organizing from the meatpacking plants of Chicago to the steel mills of Pittsburgh. During the war he led the initial Seattle Syndicate Revolt against the Pacific government. He fled to Chicago when it failed but eventually returned to become Seattle’s representative at the Convention. He promises to squash reactionary terrorists and further centralize America’s industry to become the strongest economy in the Third Internationale. The more militarist and vanguardist faction wish to elect Secretary of Communications Earl Browder as interim president. Secretary Earl Browder was a dedicated SPUSA delegate since his teenage years and worked as editor for many socialist newspapers. Earl Browder became the SPUSA delegate to the Third Internatinale and face of the party abroad. When the revolution started, Jack Reed hired him to head the communications from the president to the unions and later became the head secretary of communications. He promises to prepare the Combined Syndicates for war with its reactionary neighbor of Canada and nationalize all industries to destroy capitalism.
There are many exciting people here at the Constitutional Convention but it's us independent and smaller unions that will decide the victor. Now who will you stand with? Which side are you on?
View Poll
submitted by AccomplishedArmy9659 to Kaiserreich [link] [comments]
While the revolution is over it is not all sunshine and rainbows in America. Our many cities’ infrastructure and roads are destroyed. Formerly rebel areas still have armed terrorists such as the Silver Legion in the south and US Marines in the east coast and Midwest. Our volunteer armies have demobilized and are struggling to adjust to a peaceful life again. The reconstruction ahead will be long and arduous after over 10 million died in the war.
Abroad, the Third Internationale has begun arming in preparation for a war with the German Reichspacht. On the other side of Germany the Russian State and its Vozhd are arming. The Canadians have begun mobilizing along our border after failing to intervene in time to save the failed United States. A new war is on the horizon and a new government and leadership will be needed to take it on.
While we all know the broad freedoms we fought for. Our right to unionize, to strike, to have better working conditions, and no longer serve those who only benefit themselves. Our work is our right and what we make is what we get back. You’ve heard it all before. But now is the time to debate specifics. While many unions and factions united together to form the Combined Syndicates, now is the time when their disagreements will appear. I assume you are part of the many smaller unincorporated unions like TEA or UBC and therefore aren’t familiar with the policies of the larger unions which will drive this convention. It’s important to know each of these factions as their leader will become the interim president. President Jack Reed with his failing health has announced his retirement once the convention is over and will leave it up to the convention who will be the interim president. The faction that asserts its authority the most will be able to elect its chosen candidate as the second president of the Commonwealth of America.
The strongest and most racidial, as well as personally endorsed by President Jack Reed is the International Workers of the World(IWW). The IWW represents the libertarian left ideal of a small government that can never oppress the workers. They want a weak head of state and highly federalised system of government. They want the legislature to be the Trade Union Council, where local syndicates of equal population elect a representative to the council. With the Trade Union Council they can guarantee regional minorities receive proper representation and aren’t neglected. The IWW wishes to abolish the supreme court seeing it as an inherently reactionary force due its history of denying progressive legislation. If they get their way they will elect Elizabeth Gurley Flynn to be the interim President and first female president of America. A lifelong union organizer and founder of the ACLU, she was arrested ten times before the revolution. In the leadup to the civil war, she organized a nationwide Longshoreman strike in solidarity to the Combined Syndicate cause and during the war she fought for humane treatment and education for war prisoners and is credited for creating a humane image of the Combined Syndicates. She promises to increase women’s rights and never limit free speech if she were elected President.
The moderate and largest, as well as personally endorsed by General Smedley Butler the Hero of the Revolution is the American Federation of Labor(AFL). The AFL represents the more moderate classical left ideal of ‘Each According to his Abilities and Each According to his Needs.’ They desire a head of state to represent the nation strongly on the international framework but be well checked by the legislature and its voters at home with a unitary government. They want the legislature to be a National Working Congress which is elected proportionally. This would allow for minority opinions to be represented no matter how spread out they are. All voices deserve to be heard no matter how poor. The AFL wishes to create a strong supreme court to act as the strong court of the land with the justices being selected by a committee in the National Working Congress. If they get their way, they will elect Vice President Norman Thomas to be interim President. Norman Thomas started his career as the 1928 candidate that brought the SPUSA onto the national stage and would later win the 1929 New York Mayoral Race and served until 1936 when he became the Vice President of the Combined Syndicates during the revolution. During the war, he worked with the Commune of France and Union of Britain’s leaders to ensure material aid and volunteers arrived to support the American Revolution. He promises to bring peace to the war-stricken America and ensure a safe nationalization of energy and healthcare.
The newest and most extreme of the Unions is the Trade Union Unity League(TUUL). The TUUL represents the vanguardist and social revolutionary faction of the left. They desire a strong head of state that can be ‘a beacon of the proletariat’ and defend against reactionaries both within and abroad. They want the legislature to be a Council of Professional Workers where the most senior members workers of the local unions will represent their district. This will ensure that more experienced and professional workers can better represent accurately and correctly the needs of their districts. The TUUL wishes to create a strong supreme court to act as the final decision in the land with its Justices being chosen by the president and ratified by the council. TUUL is split in half on who to represent if they get their way in the convention. The more social revolutionary factions wish to elect Representative William Zebulon Foster as interim president. Representative William Z. Foster of Washington was one of the first SPUSA members elected to congress and first to introduce the ideology of Syndicalism to the United States. He spent decades organizing from the meatpacking plants of Chicago to the steel mills of Pittsburgh. During the war he led the initial Seattle Syndicate Revolt against the Pacific government. He fled to Chicago when it failed but eventually returned to become Seattle’s representative at the Convention. He promises to squash reactionary terrorists and further centralize America’s industry to become the strongest economy in the Third Internationale. The more militarist and vanguardist faction wish to elect Secretary of Communications Earl Browder as interim president. Secretary Earl Browder was a dedicated SPUSA delegate since his teenage years and worked as editor for many socialist newspapers. Earl Browder became the SPUSA delegate to the Third Internatinale and face of the party abroad. When the revolution started, Jack Reed hired him to head the communications from the president to the unions and later became the head secretary of communications. He promises to prepare the Combined Syndicates for war with its reactionary neighbor of Canada and nationalize all industries to destroy capitalism.
There are many exciting people here at the Constitutional Convention but it's us independent and smaller unions that will decide the victor. Now who will you stand with? Which side are you on?
View Poll