A surprising eye witness saw the armed standoff that led to a Baltimore cop killing the young mother, Korryn Gaines last month in front of her child.

Now, her family is suing the Balitmore County Police & Fire Department for wrongful death.

Gaines’ death drew worldwide attention when Facebook pulled the plug on her live video broadcast of the standoff.

When the live video ended, so did Gaines’ life.

Baltimore County Police asked Facebook to pull the plug before killing Korryn Gaines.

Activists have started a Facebook page to seeking justice for Gaines and an end to Facebook’s censorship of live video involving the interaction between citizens and police.

Ramon Coleman was the eye witness, and he said the cop who shot Gaines shot her out of frustration, and not self-defense, attorneys revealed Tuesday at a press conference.

Gaines’ family revealed this key detail after filing civil lawsuit against Baltimore County, and the killer Baltimore cop identified only as Officer Ruby.

It wasn’t his first kill either.

It turns out, Officer Ruby also fatally shot Adam Benjamin Rothstein, who was armed with a BB gun in 2007, according to the Baltimore Sun.

Coleman was an apartment away when police singled out Gaines to not only serve misdemeanor warrants on at her home, which is uncommon, but kicked in the door to her apartment after she chose not to answer it after police knocked.

Korryn Gaines had some misdemeanor traffic tickets, so police unlawfully kicked down her door and unlawfully entered her home. She protected herself with a shotgun for six hours and never pointed her gun at them.

According to wbaltv.com, a Baltimore SWAT Unit illegally commandeered Coleman’s apartment to monitor the standoff with Gaines.

Coleman was confined against his will as the SWAT team set up their systems and operation.

Baltimore cops negotiated with Gaines for about six hours before shooting and killing her.

Coleman was able to hear dialogue between Gaines and see some of the interaction between Gaines and police through the entryway since the door was at times left cracked open during so-called negotiations.

During the first hour, Coleman reported hearing Gaines, who held a shotgun, negotiating with the cops who forcefully and illegally broke into her home.

“You put yours down, I’ll put mine down,” she proposed.

They refused.

About six hours later, officer Ruby grew frustrated, lost his cool and took matters into his own hands yelling, “I’m sick of this shit, put the gun down!”

Immediately, several bullets were fired, which killed Gaines in front of her 5-year-old son.

Either Ruby is a terrible shot, or a bullet ricocheted and struck him in the cheek.

Baltimore cops denied having body cameras, but the lawyers for Gaines family have faith their witness paints a clear enough picture about what actually happened.

“He did not shoot her because he was in fear that she posed a threat to him or other officers,” explained J. Wyndal Gordon, an attorney representing the Gaines family.

“They had been with Ms. Gaines for approximately seven hours,  He shot Ms. Gaines out of frustration, and that is not a legitimate basis for shooting and killing an individual,” he added.

Family, lawyers and others close to Gaines gathered at the press conference, including Gaines’ boyfriend Kareem Courtney, who left the apartment when police broke inside.

Kareem Courtney said it’s difficult to understand how someone paid to protect lives can just take a life away, and not be held accountable whatsoever.

“I can’t understand why the people who get paid to serve and protect us can take her life that way and not be held responsible for their actions,” said Courtney.

Lawyers for the Gaines family said one of the biggest reasons they filed the lawsuit is because they don’t have any faith in police investigating themselves.

“An arrest warrant is not a search warrant,” Gordon explained. “When they took that key and cracked the threshold of that doorway so they could peer inside, ladies and gentleman, that was a search. It was an unlawful search.”

The lawsuit claims it was the duty of the Defendants to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to protect Gaines right to be free from unlawful searches and excessive force resulting from an arrest for traffic violations and misdemeanor criminal offenses, which is what a Baltimore cops kicked down the door to Gaines apartment were there for.

It alleges, among many things, that Baltimore cops ‘ratcheted up’ the situation by forcing the issue and insistently and forcibly arresting Gaines rather than coming back the next day, especially since the apartment complex is across the street from the police station.

It also describes First Amendment violations when police disabled her Facebook account.

“By blocking her live streaming, the Baltimore County Police Department not only suppressed speech under the Maryland Constitution but also stopped the only independent visual video record of what was taking place before Officer Ruby killed her,” Jimmy Bell an attorney for the Gaines family said.

“Her life mattered. It matters, and everyone who was involved in this, beforehand or afterwards, if you tried to cover it up, we are coming at you civilly,” added Bell.

Gaines’ family’s lawyers also argue Ruby’s actions were intentional and foreseeable, given his history, and that using his authority created more danger for Gaines than if he hadn’t acted at all, which directly caused her death.

Why Ruby was there is an interesting question, given his past and the level of judgement he displayed when not only killed Gaines but fired at her while her 5-year-old son sat in her lap.

“[The cops] should have used better tactics to get her out of the apartment. No one should die like that,” said Coleman.

Some might even argue cops should have never been there in the first place, kicking down her door to serve a traffic ticket warrant, which almost never entails forced entry in departments across the country and seems more like Baltimore police retaliating against Gaines for opposing them, and questioning their legitimacy.

Her life did matter.

Estate of Korryn Gaines vs Baltimore County Police Department (Text)

Ed. Note: Grant Stern contributed to this report.

The post WITNESS: Baltimore Cop Got Frustrated And Killed Korryn Gaines, It Wasn’t Self-Defense appeared first on PINAC News.

Homestead Police Department (HPD) has silenced the First Amendment with false stalking charges and restraining orders.

Their abuses leading to two of my three false arrest, and to me being served with four frivolous restraining orders.

Sadly, such abuses are not limited to Florida, and occur nationwide.

I have researched this new trick in the police playbook being used to stalk away the First Amendment.

PINAC presents this series as a case study on such stalking abuses in Florida and across the country.

Included are discussions on the federal subsidies which create disincentives to fixing the problem, and discussions on Florida stalking law related to the First Amendment and online activities.

The focus is on cops who violate the law, yet when exposed hide behind laws meant for the protection of battered and abused women.

COWARDS!

HPD’s actions inspired creation of the Coward of the Month award, with John Monaco being the first nominee.

My Transgressors Choose To Invoke God

Some may choose to skip over this section, but being a Christian I must oblige these officers with truth as they are lacking in knowledge.  

Generally, I leave the good Lord out of secular discussions, but HPD officers John Monaco (video above) and Alejandro Murguido (email) blasphemously invoke God.

They bear false witness against their neighbors, not just me, breaking laws as ancient the Decalogue.

Swearing oaths to be the keepers of the law, they do not keep it themselves, instead lording it over others.

I am just waiting for them to abuse scripture, while claiming a blessed status.

Like the Pharisees they lower their profession to one of sinful revenge and tax collection for their temple (City Hall), simultaneously claiming hero status and victimhood.

Hypocrites, Ye Brood of Vipers!

This fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities.

I pray for them, while rebuking them, praying they would repent of their sin, turning back to God.

Regardless, their intimidation will never force me into quietly walking away while they continue unrepentant in their crimes against humanity.

OK Back To Secular Earthly Damnation

This began when I asked HPD Officer Murguido to drive respectfully and obey the law on October 29, 2012,  fearing his driving would kill a child, possibly my own.

Since then HPD officers, including Chief Alexander Rolle, have retaliated against me with nine false stalking abuses alone.

Some of HPD’s stalking complaints got traction, jamming me up with ex-parte injunctions and false arrest, others did not.

HPD officers claim filing complaints against them is stalking, and claim making YouTube videos about cops and/or criticizing them online is cyberstalking.

HPD officers have even retaliated against my family, making the comment below when I called them out for criminally libeling my wife on leoaffairs.com.

“Jimmy, we all have families, and we protect them and our ability to feed and care for them; is called a job. Someone that is trying to take a person’s job is also hurting that person’s family, so it seems fit to get all the family members involved in this fight; don’t you agree?”

NO, I do NOT agree.

It is NEVER acceptable to attack innocent family members, period.

We expect the Mafia to do this, not police officers.

My wife and the community, here and here, do not agree with this line of reasoning, and there is great doubt their families would either.

Rolle covered up these crimes, having the audacity to send my wife a letter stating his refusal to even look to see if his officers are involved.

Yet, with fists full’s of irony and their contrived statements, they call me the “stalker”.

9 Stalking Law Abuses Personally Suffered At The Hands Of HPD:

Abuses 1-3

The first three stalking abuses were felony aggravated stalking (1), misdemeanor simple stalking (2), and the first stalking injunction (3).

The felony was immediately no actioned, then the misdemeanor was brought in getting nolle prossed, and the injunction was dismissed when Murguido failed to show.

Dates are critical in this section, after the “initial” incident on October 29, 2012, I met with the FBI on October 30, 2012 who told me to go to IA, and was held against my will by HPD officers again on November 1, 2012.

Waiting for things to settle a bit, and in my gut greatly fearing retaliation, I waited until January 24, 2013 before first calling Internal Affairs (IA), and leaving a message with my contact information stating I wanted to make a formal complaint in person, for felony violations against me.

Then I made a return call to IA on February 13, 2013 as my call was not being returned, leaving another message with slightly more information, but still never mentioning any officer’s name nor the date, time, or place of either incident; I mentioned being held against my will more than once, and mentioned felony violations of state and federal law, and that Miami-Dade officers were included.

In response Murguido filed criminal charges on February 15, 2013.

Murguido filed his first injunction, see at bottom, on February 28, 2013, when he also unlawfully looked up my information on D.A.V.I.D., though we have had no contact that he hasn’t initiated since October 29,2012 and this was all allegedly done as a private citizen.

Murguido claims I contacted IA, and that he was advised to file against me.

Murguido even claims I have a “history of clinically diagnosed mental health problems”, though I have never been to a mental health professional.  This is an obvious lie used to discredit me, that has been carried on by all other HPD officers attacking me.

Murguido alleges two incidents in his injunction, one incident (completely fabricated) occurring in June 2012 (in all other statements he says July 27, 2012 @ 8:00 pm) and the other incident occurring on December 22, 2012 (actually October 29, 2012).

I got served with the injunction on March 6, 2013, and was arrested on April 15, 2013.

IA Detective Antonio Aquino finally returned my call on March 19, 2013 and later sent me this letter as proof of date.

Why did Murguido wait four months from our last interaction to file these false criminal and civil complaints, and six months from the first alleged action where he was in great fear for his life?

The police report from the last incident says it was a simple neighbor dispute settled on scene.

Who advised Murguido to file these complaints?

How did Murguido know I had contacted IA (i.e. left two messages for Aquino) at least a month before Aquino returned my call?

Murguido later swore under oath in response to my interrogatories (See question and answer #7) that it was Aquino who told him this, confirming the suspected conspiracy of the head of IA.

Aquino wrote in his IA report that I did not try to re-initiate my complaint until after Murguido filed against me first.

Aquino conveniently omits that he stalled my complaint by not calling me back for two months, and giving Murguido ample time to file his complaints first.

This is conspiracy against rights at its finest, which Chief Rolle knows all about, and personally tried to cover-up by destroying public records.

Aquino repeatedly and falsely states that I took a plea deal.  Yet, the case dispositions included in his own files show pleas of not guilty and charges dismissed, no actioned, or nolle prossed.

I recorded the meeting with Aquino and the Chief, what Aquino claims in his report is not the conversation we had, nor did he respond to the issues I busted him on in this letter.

Further, Murguido committed perjury in his statements as proven by the recording, below, of our conversation from October 29, 2012 (or December 22).

In his statements the incident he claims occurred in June (or July 27th, 2012 @ 8:00 pm) never happened, and I have an alibi and witness.

I did talk to Murguido other times in March and May of 2009 respectively, in the latter conversation he begged me not file a complaint, and to come to him as a neighbor and gentleman if I had issues with him in the future.

In email correspondence Murguido initiated with me in May 2015, and in his earlier statements he falsely states he told me to go to IA and file a complaint, but he never did.

In the criminal complaint he filed two days after my last call to IA, he claims I blocked him in his driveway with my car, putting him in great fear for his life.

Though Murguido has been a traffic officer for two decades, he could give not description of the car I was driving, how convenient.

I am currently litigating the above abuses in federal and state court.

To be continued…

1st Stalking Injunction used by the City of Homestead Police against Dr. James Eric McDonough (Text)

The post Stalking Away The First Amendment: Part 1 appeared first on PINAC News.

Las Vegas police arrested a journalist Saturday who was video recording a protest against President Donald Trump, demanding that he release his tax forms.

Police say KLAS news videographer Nebyou Solomon was arrested for trespassing and obstructing because he was standing on the private property of the Fashion Show Mall, refusing to leave when ordered to do so, then refusing to identify himself.

But a short video of his arrest shows he was standing on a sidewalk outside the mall, which is generally considered public property because it is paid for and maintained by tax dollars.

However, Las Vegas has a long-standing habit of allowing businesses to privatize the sidewalks in front of their establishments.

But a court ruled almost two decades ago that just because these sidewalks are private does not mean they are not public forums to conduct First Amendment-related activities.

And that exactly is what Solomon was doing when he was standing across the street from about 250 protesters, who were standing on the sidewalk in front of the Trump International Hotel, which evidently is not owned by the president.

In 2001, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruled that private sidewalks in Las Vegas are considered public forums just like public sidewalks because both are indistinguishable from one another.

According to a Metropolitan News Empire article from 2001:

The sidewalk in front of the Venetian Casino Resort on the Las Vegas Strip, constructed privately by the hotel to replace a public sidewalk that existed on the site when it housed the old Sands hotel, is a public forum for First Amendment purposes, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.

The divided panel handed a victory to local unions which have picketed the non-union hotel, local authorities who have refused to interfere with the picketing, and the ACLU of Nevada.

The Venetian argued that the sidewalk is not a public forum, citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding pedestrian malls and enclosed shopping centers. But Judge Procter Hug Jr., joined by Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, said the cases were distinguishable.

“The historically public character of the Venetian’s sidewalk, the sidewalk’s continued use by the general public, the fact that the sidewalk is connected to and virtually indistinguishable from the public sidewalks to its north and south, and the dedication of the sidewalk to public use all serve to distinguish this case from the two Supreme Court cases…,” Hug wrote.

The First Amendment not only guarantees the right to assemble peacefully in demonstration, but also the right to freedom of the press, so there should be no reason why charges against Solomon should not be dropped before the case heads to trial.

Unfortunately, Las Vegas Metropolitan police are clueless about the 2001 decision because this is the statement they issued after Solomon’s arrest:

“The LVMPD is committed to transparency and creating and maintaining public trust. We work with our local media partners, including KLAS TV on a routine basis. Today, during what was otherwise a peaceful protest in front of the Trump International Hotel, Mr. Nebyou Solomon was arrested.

While Mr. Solomon was working in an official capacity as a member of the media, he was recording the event from what was determined to be private property which belongs to the Fashion Show Mall. Fashion Show Mall security officers requested that he not film from their property and when he refused, notified LVMPD officers who were already present at the event. Upon contact by officers, Mr. Solomon was uncooperative and refused to provide his personal identifying information, in violation of NRS 171.123. Mr. Solomon was told he would be issued a misdemeanor citation for Trespass to which he replied that he would not sign – a violation of NRS 171.177. Because of his refusal, Mr. Solomon was arrested and transported to the Clark County Detention Center where he was booked accordingly.”

This is what KLAS General Manager Lisa Howfield had to say about the arrest:

“Today, one of our employees, an experienced and respected photojournalist Neb Solomon, was arrested by Metro police officers, charged with trespassing and obstruction. Neb was doing his job, carrying out an assignment given to him by his news managers, covering a news event of considerable interest to the community. We support Neb and the rights of all journalists to report from the scene of newsworthy events. While some details surrounding this arrest are still being gathered, we are fully prepared to take the appropriate steps based on the facts and governing laws.”

And the ACLU has also weighed in, pointing out that it has fought this issue for several decades with the courts agreeing that private sidewalks are public forums.

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Nevada’s ACLU has litigated similar public forum issues for more than two decades, according to ACLU Nevada legal director Amy Rose, including areas in question on the Fremont Street Experience and sidewalks in front of The Venetian.

“The courts have consistently found that sidewalks on Fremont and on parts of the Strip are traditionally a public forum,” Rose said.

But according to ACLU Nevada, the immediate issue following Solomon’s arrest is the obstruction of the freedom of the press.

“It is so, so disturbing that Metro decided to arrest a journalist who was doing his job by filming a political protest,” Rose said. “And the facts as we understand them, this was an assault to his constitutional rights.”

So hopefully, KLAS will pursue this matter in civil court once the criminal charges are dismissed or beaten because if the previous lawsuits have not sent the message to police that private sidewalks are public forums, then perhaps this one will.

The post WATCH: Las Vegas Cops Arrest Journalist for Recording on Sidewalk appeared first on PINAC News.

A Pennsylvania state lawmaker just got caught on camera assaulting a photographer at a public speaking event, confiscating his camera and refusing to return it in a pair of videos which you can see below.

The photographer is an opposition researcher for the political action committee American Bridge, who walked into the back of the room and recorded about five minutes of the Senator’s comments.

Republican State Senator Scott Wagner was attending an event as part of his Quaker state gubernatorial campaign when he creepily spoke about himself in the third person to the  York County Estate Planning Council at the local country club, where he’s a member.

“We’re about the see our State Senator in action.”

That’s when Wagner struck like a thief in the night, but in broad daylight, on camera and in front of a room of about 100 people.

The progressive political action committee was quick to pounce on Wagner’s childish behavior at the County Club, which went on for several minutes after the initial assault and theft. Philly.com reports:

Lizzy Price, an American Bridge communications director, had a different perspective: “Scott Wagner’s actions today show how unhinged he truly is. If he can’t handle the pressure of the campaign, what makes him think he can handle leading the state? ”

Price would not identify the tracker, who she said got his video camera and tripod back, but without the memory card. Even so, she said, the tracker was able to retrieve the footage because he had set it to record both on the camera and the memory card. She said the tracker received medical attention and is fine.

In light of the Senator’s remarks, he’s likely to face a civil rights lawsuit since he indicated that the speech was in his official capacity as a legislative public official, rather than as a political candidate, but the lawmaker boldly told his victim in local media: “bring it on.”

Wagner wrongly claims that his assault – at a club where he’s a member – was justified because of his claim that the American Bridge photographer was trespassing.

Scott Wagner should know better that the First Amendment restricts all public servants and agents of the state from impairing photographers free speech rights, and if there’s a private property right at stake – such as trespassing – well that is why America spends a fortune on police to arrive and impartially enforce those laws.

Shockingly, police haven’t pressed charges over the scuffle, yet.

But they were called.

Regardless of any ensuing legal action, local observers are already comparing this incident to the infamous 2006 video of former Virginia Senator George Allen being caught on tape saying a racial slur, which ended his previously rising political career.

Watch the lawmaker’s assault here: 

The post Pennsylvania State Senator Caught On Camera Attacking Photographer appeared first on PINAC News.

Miami-Dade County’s State Attorney Katherine Fernandez-Rundle is censoring at least 100 of her critics on Twitter, including a dozen accounts either named Darren Rainey or with the deceased man’s profile image.

We have pictures to prove it.

It all started when the prosecutor sent a tweet about freedom.

This exclusive report is based upon public records requested from the Miami-Dade SAO’s office under Florida’s Sunshine Law, including their social media policy, which as it turns out does not specify that a public official in their office has any allowance to censor citizens by blocking access to their public posts.

Miami residents are in an uproar after the veteran prosecutor decided not to charge Rainey’s captors at a state prison rife with abuse.

When government actors block critics on social media, it may violate both the state of Florida and federal constitution, both of which protect the right to petition the government.

State Attorney Fernandez-Rundle is facing intense public criticism after she declined to prosecute the four Florida state prison guards who left Darren Rainey – a non-violent offender – locked in a scalding hot shower with external temperature controls for over 90 minutes until he was found dead.

Rainey’s post-mortem body temperature was estiamted at 109 degrees.

The prosecutor’s office didn’t  initially wish to respond to our records request, writing, “We have no responsive records to your second request.”

But we shared an image provided by Navy Corpsman Daniel Suarez proving that Miami’s top prosecutor was censoring citizens, so they relented and delivered a dozen images, which may not even be the complete list.

“Florida public officials should always turn over these kinds of lists if they do in fact exist because they’re a matter of serious public interest,” says Faudlin Pierre, a Florida attorney who has filed suit to obtain social media records, “I commend the State Attorney for promptly releasing this critical document.”

Also, it is unclear that Florida officials are allowed to block citizens whatsoever without running afoul of the state’s Sunshine Law which requires public officials to provide information in the most expeditious and convenient format possible. Florida Statute 119.021(1)b. says that the custodians of records must store make their records “easily accessible”:

Miami-Dade’s medical examiner blamed Rainey’s mental illness and said the prison guards didn’t mean to kill their schizophrenic, 50-year old victim.

Fernandez-Rundle’s own political party is livid over the decision to forgo prosecution of the guards entrusted with Rainey’s care, and voted overwhelmingly for a second time in two months to demand the 24-year veteran prosecutor’s resignation – but for the second time failed to achieve a quorum to make that vote official meaning that a third vote will happen later this month.

“It’s really ironic that the only reason we found out that the State Attorney is censoring her critics,” says Petty Officer Suarez, whom the prosecutor silenced on Memorial Day, “is because she made a post about freedom.”

Author’s Disclosure: I am a voting At-Large member of the Miami-Dade Democratic Executive Committee.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Miami’s Top Prosecutor Busted Censoring Darren Rainey Protesters appeared first on PINAC News.

Homestead Police Department (HPD), in South Florida, has myriad problems respecting the First Amendment. I went to HPD this week to serve some officers in a civil rights suit, the story was covered earlier. While entering I discovered that HPD still has not learned that photography is not a crime.

I covered HPD officer John Frank, last year, him initially claiming that I could not take his picture. He quickly backed down once I started recording the video below. HPD adopting a policy such as shown in the sign above makes it understandable that some of their officers would fail to realize that photography is not a crime.

However, HPD officers such as Tony Sincore realize that it is our right to record them and to record within the station. The below video was taken by another local victim of HPD abuse.

Photography Is Not A Crime, is not only our name as an organization, it’s the law. It is also part and parcel of our First Amendment right as Americans to gather information on governmental affairs. First, I will address briefly herein the legal issues of video recording with sound which is legally equivalent to audio recording. Then I will cover photography which is legally equivalent to video without sound.

The Florida wire tap statute, FSS. 934.03, makes it illegal to intercept an “oral communication”, i.e. voices, without the consent of all parties. In this way video recordings having audio and/or audio recordings could be a crime, in some cases. Yet, the definition, FSS. 934.02, of “oral communication”, excludes conversations having no expectation of privacy, see also State v. Inciarano. Additionally, what can be plainly seen or overheard in public is covered by the plain view doctrine.

Katz v. United States establishes that no person in the publicly accessible lobby of the police department would have an expectation of privacy. Further, it must be noted that Constitutional rights, such as privacy, protect citizens from government intrusion not the other way around.

What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment [privacy] protection.

Additionally, no public official in Florida has an expectation of privacy in the performance of their official duties, see Department Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Edwards.

Further, Smith v. City of Cumming  establishes the right to record in such public locations.

The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.

The rights established by the First Amendment outlined in Smith above is subject only to intermediate scrutiny. This is a high burden to meet, Bacon v. McKeithen.

The state would need to show that it does not “restrict speech substantially more than necessary to further a legitimate government interest,” and it “leave[s] open adequate alternative channels of communication.”

Therefore, video recording with sound or audio recording in the publicly accessible lobby of a police station, would not be a crime if you are not otherwise breaking the law. Additionally, taking photos in public places, while lawfully present with an intention to express ideas to an audience, is protected activity and not a crime.

There is NO Florida or Federal statue which addresses such photography in public.  Further, the state cannot after the fact create laws upon which to prosecute an action, as this violates ex post facto provisions of the Constitution. This means things are not illegal until made so by duly enacted laws, and such laws cannot be applied retroactively.

If anyone attempts to use the Florida wire tap law against you under similar circumstances, then you should cite them your rights and the immunity you have because you believed in good faith your actions were lawful under constitutional grounds, FSS. 934.10(2)(c).

Even the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) knows public photography is not a crime in lobbies, publishing a memo documenting such in 2010. Therefore, it makes no sense that HPD would believe otherwise in 2017. Further, Florida has its own Government in the Sunshine and Open Government provisions to its laws and Constitution. This means they can restrict your rights much less on state property, such as a police department.

We have a First Amendment right to video record, audio record and/or photograph in publicly accessible places, subject only to intermediate scrutiny. The sign shown above which HPD presents when first walking into their lobby is an affront to our liberties, demonstrates their lack of concern for following the Constitution and laws they swore an oath to uphold, and would chill the man of ordinary firmness from exercising his rights. HPD’s sign violates the Florida and US Constitutions. It further punishes speech before it happens and not after thus creating a prior restraint, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart.

[P]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.

I would hope this article would shame HPD and their Chief Alexander Rolle into correcting these problems. However, Rolle has repeatedly shown himself to be shameless, which explains a lot in terms of the sign at the new police station. Rolle probably had this sign put in place because I recorded him before, and obtained evidence of him committing a few felonies.

You can follow updates, and see more of the history on Homestead’s rights violations on Facebook @ True Homestead.

Lastly, If such an affront to the First Amendment upsets you, you should consider exercising your right to petition, contacting Homestead, and telling them PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME!

City of Homestead; phone: (305) 224-4433

Homestead Police Department; phone: 305-247-1535

The Mayor Jeff Porter; email: jporter@cityofhomestead.com.

The City Manager George Gretsas; email: ggretsas@cityofhomestead.com.

Homestead Chief of Police Alexander Rolle; email: arolle@homesteadpolice.com.

The post Homestead PD Still Doesn’t Know Photography Is Not A Crime appeared first on PINAC News.

A Florida man won the right to surreptitiously record police officers while making internal affairs complaints without the threat of prosecution when he defeated the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office (SAO) in a federal appeals court ruling.

Prosecutors tried to censor the citizen, who published his incriminating recording of a police chief.

A lower court erred by agreeing with Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle when she sent a written threat of prosecution under Florida’s wiretapping statute to Dr. Eric McDonough, for making a secret recording and publishing it on to YouTube, in a video which you can see below.

Federal judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said “the government’s threatened prosecution has no basis in the law,” vindicating an important right to record for the public.

Nineteen million Floridians will benefit directly from the published ruling.

And a police chief just lost his “get out of jail free” card from the local prosecutor with whom his department works.

The Homestead Police Department’s Chief Alexander Rolle, and internal affairs Officer Antonio Acquino, were under a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) investigation which stalled, when the SAO’s letter declared Dr. McDonough’s recording unlawful, and therefore inadmissible in court.

Now, criminal investigators will have to re-open the case against a Chief of Police desperate to cover up the crimes his department committed, by committing, even more, crimes against a citizen whose only crime, was filing a legitimate grievance over his treatment by a uniformed public official.

Even Miami’s largest police union boss thinks that the Chief belongs in jail:

“We are hoping to see some arrests out of this,” said John Rivera, president of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association, the union that represents Homestead’s rank-and-file officers. “The chief should go to jail. The captain should go to jail. And [Aquino] should go to jail.”

Since then Dr. McDonough founded the True Homestead page on Facebook where he regularly posts videos of that Florida municipality’s war against the rule of law, and contacted PINAC News and eventually began writing stories on this website.

It all started when Dr. McDonough was falsely arrested by a Homestead officer, Alejandro Murguido, and after a series of problems, his police Chief invited him into his office to make a complaint, which they promptly destroyed.

So, Dr. McDonough used Florida’s public records law – to request a copy of his own complaint, which the police claimed not to have – and later released his cell phone recording of the conversation.

Chief Rolle took the YouTube video to Miami-Dade’s State Attorney and demanded that McDonough should be prosecuted.

Katherine Fernandez Rundle’s office – under fire for censorship of her critics and the Darren Rainey case – replied by giving the Chief the retaliation which he was seeking.

The letter from Assistant State Attorney Jackie Seskin tells Dr. McDonough that any future recording activities will invite prosecution, so he sued the Miami-Dade SAO in the federal southern district of Florida court seeking injunctive relief.

Dr. McDonough filed the federal civil rights lawsuit afterward.

Here’s the letter: 

During the trial, the state of Florida decided to transcribe the lengthy recording of Chief Rolle admitting to massive impropriety in the Homestead Police Department, which is now public record.

After losing at the trial level, Dr. McDonough ran out of money to pay counsel and decided to continue the litigation pro se, ie. as his own attorney.

His detailed knowledge of the subject matter defeated Florida’s Attorney General who defended the SAO, which in Miami-Dade is itself a 300+ lawyer operation.

The three federal judges issued a split ruling on the case, two along the grounds of a limited reversal of the lower court’s Summary Judgement for the SAO, and one dissented arguing that in the light of the illegal retaliation letter’s lack of legal basis in the law, that the court should issue a First Amendment ruling, as doing otherwise stands in violation of the 11th Amendment.

The parties still have a little time left to ask for a rehearing en banc (by the 11th Circuit’s entire court) or a clarification of the ruling.

Meanwhile, the FDLE now has ample reason to continue with its criminal probe into Chief Rolle’s illegal destruction of records, for which he had no good answers when confronted with Dr. McDonough’s recording, and felony official misconduct.

“I feel vindicated,” said McDonough, who is now known in his community as Doc Justice.

Here’s the decision, the video is below:

McDonough vs. Katherine Fernandez Rundle by Grant Stern on Scribd

The post Miami-Dade Prosecutor Loses Landmark Right To Record Case In Federal Court appeared first on PINAC News.

Portland Oregon where journalists are arrested for attempting to interview Portland Police Officers and District Attorney.  Oregon Journalists Bob West and Eli Richey both have a colorful history as it relates to documenting the employees of Oregon Law Enforcement agencies, both have been arrested multiple times for various phony charges only to later have the charges dropped by the DA’s office sadly this is not the case this time.

As of Friday, July 21, 2017, Eli Richey is in custody with a $250,000.00 bond for six misdemeanors and Bob is free on his own recognizance with a promise to appear on Tuesday next week for a first appearance. I expect that Eli will be released early next week as well because the bail amount is purely punitive and simply a result of the staff at the county jail politicking and plotting revenge against Eli for documenting the Portland Police Bureau employees, a 100% lawful and legal act.

Video report from Mike Bluehair captures the whole event.

Portland Police are Targeting cop watchers for arrest to silence them!

These Kind of punitive arrests are having a chilling effect on our ability to continue our vital accountability work in our community. Please contact the ACLU and ask them to help us! 503-227-6928

Follow me on steemit 

Support My Work by donating BitCoin!

donate umkay?

Bluehair’s Bitcoin QR code

1AbHui25TKmKbk5pm4BKLbZrriSazj26G3

Here’s a link to that Sweet Ear Candy

*DANCE WITH THE DEAD – Horizon

These Motherfuckers Kick 9 miles of Ass!  You should check them out on facebook here’s that link

I spoke With Bob West on Sunday here is the audio.

The post Journalists Arrested for Interviewing Portland Police Officers and Local District Attorney appeared first on PINAC News.

A federal judge in Virginia’s Eastern district court has ruled that a Loudon County elected official censored a citizen by blocking them on Facebook in a First Amendment protected public forum.

Brian Davison is trying to keep the Loudoun County School Board accountable but has faced a prolonged campaign of censorship and retaliatory claims by Board Members with serious financial conflicts of interest in the charter school industry and who have voted on issues that impact pay for family members.

The present lawsuit started when Brian Davison’s fight against government corruption took him to a joint town hall meeting with the Loudoun County School Board and the County Board of Supervisors on February 2016, where he asked Commissioner Randall if she thought the School Board’s officers should take an ethics pledge, after she campaigned on ethics during her recent run for office.

She dodged the question calling it a “set up question.”

Brian Davison speaking about the Loudoun County School Board in Virginia

“Our County Chairperson who campaigned on ethics, would not even recommend an ethics pledge for the [Loudoun County] school board, who have taken votes about their own business associates, without disclosing it,” Davison said, noting that he can document each instance. “Four School Board members voted on teacher pay without disclosing that their spouses are employees of the district. (Hornberger, Morse, Turgeon and Eric DeKenipp)”

Davison then commented on an official Facebook page run by Commissioner Randall.

Randall only blocked Davison for 12 hours.

The former Naval officer sued Loudon County Commission Chair Phyllis J. Randall and won a 44-page ruling by Judge James C. Cacheris whose declaratory opinion clearly designates the public official’s Facebook page as a public forum.

The judge’s finding in Brian Davison’s favor is sure to find its way into numerous legal actions across the country by aggrieved citizens who have been censored by their local governments on Facebook:

(1) Defendant acted under color of state law in maintaining her “Chair Phyllis J. Randall” Facebook page and banning Plaintiff from that page; (2) Defendant’s actions violated Plaintiff’s right of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 12 of the Constitution of Virginia;

“The only reason that Chair is in court, is because she claimed the right to do it the whole time,” says the 44-year-old former submarine officer, who today works as a federal software consultant and contractor, “and her attorney also represents the five Loudoun County School Board members who are still blocking me today.”

US district court tells Loudoun @ChairRandall free speech is still protected, even in @LoudounCoGovt

— Virginia SGP Data (@FreeThatData) July 28, 2017

“In all of the pleadings, they maintained their position that their Facebook pages are not public forums,” says Davison, who to this day maintains a government Top Secret clearance, “They’re completely private and they can ban anybody for any reason they want. They say they’re transparent, they ask questions, they leave the praise up and ban the critics.”

Brian Davison is a parent trying to hold his child’s school board accountable

Davison said that five Loudoun County School Board members are still blocking him on social media today, going all the way back to October 2015, and he originally filed a lawsuit first against them, along with other issues.

Loudoun School Board Member Eric Hornberger works for the billionaire who started Imagine Schools, a large for-profit charter school network that recently became a non-profit schools operator. Hornberger, says Davison, never disclosed the charter school relationship and began to push charter schools in Loudoun County.

Davison spoke out, so Hornberger issued a retaliatory trespass warning that impaired his ability to take his child to school.

In just the last three years, Imagine Schools has paid a seven figure fine in Ohio and has had forced school closings. One of their Florida Imagine Schools recently folded. A Kansas City charter school run by Imagine Schools also got nailed with a million dollar fine.

After surviving a major embezzlement scandal in 2011 leading to school closings in St. Louis, the state of Missouri put Imagine Schools on statewide notice this year. Then another St. Louis Imagine Schoolsofficiall just admitted to stealing $1.6 million dollars in a federal court.

Imagine Schools is based nearby in Arlington, Virginia.

Loudoun School Board Member Debbie Rose filed a criminal complaint against Davison for his criticism in a public forum because he said she committed fraud.

Davison remains blocked on Socia media by Loudoun School Board Members Joy Maloney, Jill Turgeon, and current Chairman Jeff Morse.

His original gripe with Loudoun County was over their failure to comply with data reporting requirements from the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

After the town hall meeting, Commissioner Randall responded by deleting Davison’s comments and blocking him from the page that night, then thought better of things and restored his access the following morning to her page.

That’s when Brian Davison brought suit in federal court under 42 USC 1983, which is a civil action for deprivation of rights under color of law.

The judge’s declaratory relief explains that while a public official may claim their Facebook page is private, in fact, it is a public forum for discussion:

Defendant maintains that she is permitted to administer this Facebook page as a purely personal page, whereas Plaintiff correctly contends that he enjoys a First Amendment right to its use. This uncertainty regarding the legal status of Defendant’s “Chair Phyllis J. Randall” Facebook page may appropriately be resolved through the issuance of a declaratory judgment.

Accordingly, the Court will find and declare that (1) Defendant acts under color of state law in maintaining her “Chair Phyllis J. Randall” Facebook page as it is presently constituted, (2) Defendant’s “Chair Phyllis J. Randall” Facebook page, as presently constituted, operates as a forum for speech, and (3) engaging in viewpoint discrimination in the administration of that forum violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 12 of the Virginia Constitution.

“When we talk about actually draining the swamp, Loudoun County is the epitome of that.” Davison isn’t giving up though he says, “There are so many corrupt officials and they are so brazen.”

“Corruption is a bipartisan problem.”

He added, “I’d like to thank Fenlene Edrington for her assistance with the case.”

Editor’s Note: If you are upset about Loudoun County’s censorship problems, please let Commissioner Randall know on her Facebook or Twitter account, or let these Loudoun County School Board officials know through their public accounts here.

Davison vs. Loudoun County Commissioner Phyllis J. Randall by Grant Stern on Scribd

The post Federal Court Vindicates Virginia Man’s First Amendment Right To Criticize Officials On Their FB Pages appeared first on PINAC News.

A Texas sheriff posted to Facebook threatening criminal charges against the owner of a white pickup truck with an anti-Trump sticker decal displayed in the rear window.

Fort Bend Sheriff Troy E. Nehls, apparently unaware the First Amendment protects political speech, posted that he obtained permission from a prosecutor who informed him she would file criminal charges of disorderly conduct against the owner of the truck, which says “Fuck Trump. And fuck you for voting for him” on the back of it.

Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy E. Nehls.

“I have received numerous calls regarding the offensive display on this truck as it is often seen along FM 359. If you know who owns this truck or it is yours, I would like to discuss it with you. Our Prosecutor has informed us she would accept Disorderly Conduct charges regarding it, but I feel we could come to an agreement regarding a modification to it,” the post reads.

Several people replied to the post, which now has over 1,100 shares.

Some criticized the sheriff for his anti-free speech stance.

Others criticized him for not focusing on real crimes, for being petty and for not upholding his oath as sheriff.

“Sheriff Troy E. Nehls, if you don’t like free speech move to Iraq or North Korea,” Nathaniel Dimof wrote.

“Someone displays a “Fuck Trump” sticker and you want to charge the person with breaching the peace?! You took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. If you don’t do that, then you should be fired not holding up that oath,” Matt Giesler replied to the sheriff’s post.

Facebook poster Antonio Herrera used sarcasm, implying the sheriff probably had more important things to do with his time.

“I’m glad to see our government officials are concentrating on what’s important,” he wrote.

Sheriff Nehls took time out of his busy day of fighting crime to respond.

“It’s important to respond to calls from residents, yes. Glad we can agree on that.”

The sheriff also took the time to respond to the comments with the Texas disorderly conduct statute, although he didn’t mention anything about the First Amendment, which seems lost on him.

PINAC reached out to Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officers Bob Haenel and Caitlin Espinosa, but neither of them were available for comment.

According to Fort Bend County’s website, public information officers “assist news media on an on-call basis.”

We also attempted to contact the district and county attorneys’ offices, but our attempts to find the prosecutor who agreed to accept charges were unsuccessful.

Sheriff Nehls obviously thinks it’s important to respond to calls from concerned citizens.

The Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office can be reached at (281) 341-4704.

The post Texas Sheriff Posts to Facebook Threatening Criminal Charges against Driver with Anti-Trump Sticker appeared first on Photography is Not a Crime.