There’s no lack of evidence. From Dr. Joseph Sansone at josephsansone.substack.com:
Open Letter to Attorney General Moody [Florida]
Since early 2020 we have seen literal crimes against humanity as we have witnessed murder and conspiracy to commit murder on a global scale. We have seen coerced masks, lockdowns, and Covid 19 shots. Specifically, let’s focus on Covid 19 and the Covid 19 shots.
Dr. Frances Boyle is the Harvard educated law professor that wrote the 1989 Bioweapons and Antiterrorism Act, is both a criminal law and international law expert, and has asserted that crimes have been committed, and that there is a remedy. These are outlined in his book Resisting Medical Tyranny: Why Covid 19 Mandates are criminal.
Dr. Boyle references a scientific paper published in 2015 entitled, A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. According to Dr. Boyle this paper is evidence that Covid 19 is an offensive biological weapon. The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases as well as The National Institute of Health funded this research. Among others, he asserts that Anthony Fauci is incriminated.
One major difference is that the policewoman responsible for the Wright shooting is going to be prosecuted and the policeman responsibly for the Babbitt shooting won’t be. Why? From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:
Within an hour of each other, charging decisions in two lethal police shootings were announced with strikingly different conclusions. The decisions reached in the shootings of Daunte Wright in Minnesota and Ashli Babbitt in Washington highlight concerns over the political and legal elements that can influence such decisions. The timing of the two decisions that involved two chaotic situations raises questions why charges were filed in Minnesota, but not in Washington.
In the Minnesota shooting, police were attempting to arrest Wright who, after a traffic stop, was found to have an outstanding warrant for fleeing police with an unlicensed firearm. Wright broke free of officers while he was being handcuffed and jumped back into the car to drive away. Kim Potter decided to deploy her stun gun against Wright, which would likely be viewed as a reasonable level of force in that circumstance. However, in the struggle, Potter grabbed her service weapon rather than her Taser. In the video, the officer is heard yelling “taser, taser, taser” before she swears and says, “Holy S**t I just shot him.”
Weapon confusion cases
The case has tragically familiar elements as a “weapon confusion” case. There are so many such weapon-confusion cases that departments have tried a variety of solutions, from adding special training to new designs for stun guns. The problem is such training can be lost to the fog and frenzy of the violent scene.
The case is similar to what happened in 2009, when Bay Area Rapid Transit officers struggled with Oscar Grant to arrest him. With Grant on the ground, BART officer Johannes Mehserle warned he was about to use a Taser but then grabbed his service weapon and fired a fatal round into Grant’s back.
Rule by left-wing lunatics has no resemblance to the rule of law. From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:
A governing principle of the Democratic Party is to ask, “Who is in the dock?” before deciding whether to enforce the law.
As we have seen throughout the last year of antifa/BLM riots, in blue states, it’s now legal to commit arson, attempted murder, assault on a law enforcement officer and destruction of property — provided the perp is antifa or antifa-friendly. Andy Ngo’s smash bestseller “Unmasked” gives chapter and verse on antifa’s shocking violence untouched by criminal penalty.
On the other hand, if you’re a conservative, don’t commit a misdemeanor in a blue state. Proud Boys, Capitol Hill protesters, police and other presumed Trump supporters are getting more prison time than actual murderers for minor infractions. Even a couple of personal injury lawyers (liberals) are being criminally prosecuted in St. Louis for brandishing guns at violent looters coming toward their home. The rioters, you see, were BLM protesters.
In all these cases, local Democratic officials gleefully announce that they are locking up “white supremacists.”
Prepare yourself for a lot of witch-trial hysteria in the upcoming trials of Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis and the Capitol Hill trespassers in Washington, D.C. We’ve already seen it with the Proud Boys in New York City.
Federal prosecutors often make defendants an offer they can’t refuse: plea guilty to at least one charge with a comparatively light sentence or spend gobs of money to defend against myriad charges and risk spending decades in prison. From Jacob G. Hornberger at fff.org:
Some anti-Russianites and Trump critics are saying that the guilty plea by 30-year-old Russian citizen Maria Butina confirms that the Russian government was meddling in the 2016 presidential election. It’s true that Russia might well have been helping Donald Trump, who was committed to establishing friendly relations with Russia, defeat Hillary Clinton, who was committed to maintaining a relationship of anger, animosity, and hatred toward Russia. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Butina’s guilty plea to agreeing to fail to register as a foreign agent establishes that she was knowingly part of a conspiracy within the Russian government to meddle in the presidential election. Anyone who believes that has a genuinely naïve and innocent way of viewing the federal criminal justice system, which is akin to how sausage and congressional laws are made, which many people would rather not see or know about.
Here’s how the federal criminal-justice system works.
When the feds decide to target someone, they charge them with every conceivable crime that even remotely relates to the targeted person’s conduct. The potential time in jail, if convicted on all counts, usually adds up to several decades or even to life in prison.
The reason the feds do this is to coerce a plea of guilty from their target. What the feds do is offer the person an opportunity to plead guilty to one count of the indictment in return for a dismissal of all the other counts.
The deal can include an agreed-upon sentence for the count to which the person is pleading guilty or the sentence can be left up to the judge.
The feds make it clear that if the deal is rejected, they will go to trial on all the counts in the indictment and, if successful in securing convictions, will ask the judge to impose the maximum possible punishment, which could be decades in jail. Federal judges go along with this vicious game by severely punishing defendants who exercise their right of trial by jury but then lose.
Continue reading →