Occupy Wall Street Primer: Uniformed Thugs Are Not Legally Police

Oakland Use of Illegal Force

Why Wall Street Is Not Enough, This is War

By Gordon Duff
Veterans Today

The disease is police forces in a nation of laws violating those laws, those who are supposed to protect the public safety making it more than clear to us here at VT that they are willing to stoop to criminality to work for the 1%.

My point?  It isn’t just the banks.  We are no longer a nation of civil law, no longer a nation of accountability, and those who would limit OCW (Occupy Wall Street) to demonstrations against banks may very well be working for the other side.

Expect it, this is how it has always been.  We are going to be producing a series of documents which are meant to be genuinely educational.  There is no secret that, at some point, millions in America, Europe, Israel and around the world began finally looking around, too many for the first time.  We’ve been here all  along and are glad to be onboard with you and have you onboard with us.  We saw it all coming and have been literally screaming for years.

Today, we are going to have a minor discussion about police.  My “day job” is training intelligence and special operations forces.  Long before that, I trained police.  The staff I have worked with includes senior FBI officials and the former heads of two of Europe’s largest police agencies.  Crowd control, “riot control” and counter-terrorism is an areas of expertise where I have been consulted at the highest levels by  more than a few nations.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that police are more often than not the actual “rioters” during legitimate demonstrations.

More often than not, police agencies, some of whom receive training from very questionable sources, (the competition) are taught to use illegal surveillance, infiltration and actually commit acts of terrorism in order to gain public support for crackdowns on political movements that threaten control by the wealthy and corrupt.  This is the generally the case, not the exception.

This is as much a part of police training as lying in court.  One problem in America is that many police departments are trained by Israeli groups, competent in their own way, that typically use police and military against Palestinian protesters who have no legal protections.  This training is inconsistent with American law, police procedure and basic human rights.  The situation in Oakland, California with Scott Olsen, is such a situation and there are reports that police used illegal training and illegal methods of the Israeli Defense Forces, methods that have subjected them to nearly 200 votes favoring UN sanctions for “brutality” on peaceful American citizens involved in legal protests.

“NON LETHAL WEAPONS ARE A LIE”

The actual term for projectiles, be they “rubber bullets, “bean bags” and, especially the grenades launched from the 40mm and 37mm launchers, be they tear gas, “flash bang” or smoke are technically “less lethal” munitions.  They kill all the time.

The M79 Grenade Launcher, one of the typical police devices, was responsible for as many deaths of American troops in Vietnam, what we call “friendly fire.”  What killed our Army and Marines?  They died when hit by tear gas rounds, parachute illumination rounds, practice rounds, the kind of things used in Oakland.

Carrying, loading and firing such a weapon without legal standing, an open “field of fire” and clear visiblity assuring the public is protecting is a crime in every state in America.  When done by a police officer, it constitutes a bevy of criminal acts.  Simply put, you can’t shoot a half pound of hardened aluminum with an explosive device into the head of any passerby you choose without expecting consequences, which should included prison sentences of 5 years, uniform or not.

This is what hit Marine Scott Olsen:

Maximum accuracy is obtained at ranges up to 219 yards (200 m). Area targets may be engaged up to 437 yards (400 m).

This projectile can penetrate window glass or up to 3/4 inch (19 mm) thick pine at 656 feet (200 m) and still release CS. The projectiles will also function against other materials such as earth, gravel, brush, sandbags, and bamboo. Following impact, a cloud of CS is emitted for approximately 25 seconds. Area coverage: approximately 144 square yards (120 square meters).

Two cartridges effectively placed will incapacitate 95% of unmasked personnel in an enclosure of 15 by 30 by 20 feet within 60 seconds after functioning.

The weight of the projectile is .45 pounds, roughly that of a baseball but as they are made of hardened aluminum alloy, the same alloy we are told cut through the 3 inch thick beams of the World Trade Center, projectiles shaped for penetration, they are considered, not “less lethal” but fully lethal if impacting a human body.

Their lowest speed is close to 200 miles per hour, twice as fast as any professional baseball player can pitch.  Speeds can well exceed that.  Not only that, we are warned that these rounds, the exact same rounds used illegally by Oakland Police, often malfunction and explode on impact much as with the high explosive rounds used against fortified positions in military combat, the actual purpose for the weapon itself.

POLICE AS CRIMINALS

Police are not allowed to fire projectiles, throw grenades or “flash bangs” at protesters.  These weapons can only be used on felony suspects.  Otherwise their use is a violation of “procedure” and their use is “illegal.”  The accusations against OCW protesters was “trespass.”  Thus those attacked were not armed felons.  The methods used are restricted only to armed felons.

Police actions were, in actuality, criminal assault, reckless at minimum and blatant attempts to murder innocent civilians on behalf of financial institutions that have been privately and quite illegally funding individual police, in all likelihood.

You will see such weapons used during, not peaceful protests, but riots.  If shots are fired at police or Molotov cocktails are thrown, all of which are easily documented on the dozens of videos as never having occurred, despite wild conjecture that some present may have been armed, use of force restricted to felony arrests, when used against people exercising legal rights that require court adjudication, are actually victims of assault or worse.

Also note, that in many states, any private citizen can be armed and in states such as Arizona, prostesters can openly carry any legal weapon up to and including assault rifles.

In fact, federal authorities can and should arrest all police involved including command authority up to and including the major and city council of Oakland, California. Law requires it.  Here is a legal opinion on that:

Also, you will eventually be confronted with the “immunity” defense. Any legal “immunity” which government personnel may rightly claim derives ONLY from their compliance with their delegated authority(s). Immunity is a tricky legal concept, worth knowing in advance how to rebut:

  1. Absent any of the requisite credentials, no government “personnel”can claim ANY immunity whatsoever, because they are thereby impersonating either an officer or employee, which is a crime, typically a FELONY!
  2. EVEN IF they have all requisite credentials, government personnel are still personally liable for criminal misconduct and criminal malfeasance;local government personnel are typically NOT insured or bonded for criminal conduct, because insurance underwriters typically refuse to indemnify criminal conduct (cf. Risk Management Departments for the specific terms and conditions of their general liability insurance contracts);
  3. Treaties are supreme Law pursuant to the Supremacy Clause and,EVEN IF they have all requisite credentials, jurisdiction and authority, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights still makes government personnel liable for courts on which they preside have proceeded without original jurisdiction: Stump v Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-357
    • (a) A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority, but rather he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction,” Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351. Pp. 355-357. [435 U.S. 349, 350]

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court, 4 holding that the “crucial issue” was “whether Judge Stump acted within his jurisdiction” and concluding that he had not. 552 F.2d, at 174.

He was accordingly not immune from damages liability under the controlling authorities.The Court of Appeals also held that the judge had forfeited his immunity “because of his failure to comply with elementary principles of procedural due process.” Id., at 176.

REAL POLICE, IF YOU CAN FIND SUCH THING

Real police can arrest you at a protest. They cannot “disperse” crowds whose ideas they don’t agree with. These people are no longer acting as police and have no legal standing.Marching around with a bullhorn announcing plans to violate the civil rights of protesters is more an admission of criminal culpability, much as with the autobiography of President Bush being used to charge him with war crimes.Police were only admitting they were planning criminal acts outside their authority.Police have procedures for arresting trespassers. They can approach a trespasser. A bullhorn can be legally considered “notification” of trespass but no more.

At which point, police are required to approach a “trespass suspect” and may take that individual into custody, one at a time, using minimal force. This requires asking the individual to accompany the officer. Police may use restraint devices but never in a way to inflict discomfort. Police may never use choke holds, batons, flash bangs or other devices. They may never draw their guns.If you physically resist police by fighting back, expect serious charges and serious injuries.You may “go limp” or “lock arms” with others requiring police to carry you away.

This is your legal right.Any use of force against you, including physical violence, threats of violence, or use of tear gas or “flash bangs” are considered, minimally “reckless endangerment,” assault, “assault with intent to do bodily harm”or “gbh” as with Scott Olsen, “great bodily harm.”Police at Oakland should expect sentences of between 90 days to up to 5 years for the use of grenade launchers, which constitute the illegal use of lethal force.

Videos show use of flash bank devices to inflict injury, those responsible for these acts and those supervising them are guilt of felony assault.None of these acts is legal and those performing them, once they began, sacrificed all immunity, all arrest powers, and had begun to function as a criminal organization as outlined in RICO statutes.

ADVICE

Lawyer up. Begin lawsuits now.

Petition the courts to force arrests of police and officials guilty of criminal acts. This is allowable and there are legal procedures for this.Minimally, the federal government was required to have US Marshals on site who would have been forced to arrest the Oakland Police.Every legal action needed must be pursued until all police who have violated laws are arrested and allowed to defend themselves in court.They are not, however, allowed to use public funds for an attorney, once they begin acting outside the legal scope of their very limited authority.

POLICE

Some police are veterans. Many are professional. Too often, when in groups, police seem to lose their minds. There is a long history of this and failing to take this into account is in itself actionable. Civil suits need to be filed against all elected officials who chose to misuse police forces when they knew there was a likelihood of criminal activity to occur at their direction.Criminal charges apply as well.These are issues for the courts and lawyers should be coming forward to handle these cases. Where are you?

One response to “Occupy Wall Street Primer: Uniformed Thugs Are Not Legally Police

  1. You sir are using questionable references in order to add credibility to your very poor and ill informed advice. I find this morally reprehensible, and irresponsible. True, everyone has the right to their opinion, but be aware, when you do so with an air of credibility that itself is questionable, that credibility can, and will (has) itself come under question, and will be subject to open challenge. Fare well. Speak with truth and wisdom when advising in such delicate and vital matters as your words may well be taken as such. Any repercussions caused by your advice to those who seek it, shall be your responsibility, and should weigh heavily upon your conscience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s