Los Angeles, California
LAURACK D. BRAY, M.S., M.P.A., J.D.
April 30, 2015
(Today's date)
October 22, 2013
(Original Date)
*(Denotes a change or new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE(Denotes NEW information added after the original blog was published)
****This blog is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California
When 9th Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder in September, 2013 wrote a panel decision affirming the conviction of major league baseball player Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice, it was a case of one criminal judging another criminal for the same crime. This is so because judge Schroeder herself has been charged, through a federal civilian criminal complaint, with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the only reason that she likely hasn't been convicted and sentenced like Bonds, is because the U.S. Justice Department has refused to prosecute her, while, at the same time, prosecuting Bonds for the same crime. The Complaint against Schroeder is still pending, and was pending at the time that she decided Bonds' appeal.***
In 2007, I, a Black lawyer, and on behalf of two clients, one a white male, Harold Griffith, and one, a white female, Jeanette Andrews, filed a multi-party criminal-civil rights complaint in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles charging multiple individuals, including several (and mostly) judges, both state and federal, with a range of criminal violations or crimes associated with the conduct or misconduct of those individuals in the treatment of our cases, at both the state level (my case only) and the federal level (all our cases). Schroeder was one of those charged. See my "ICR" blog for other individuals charged in the complaint. Although each individual named in the Complaint was charged with and for his or her own individual action, the general theme of the Complaint was racial discrimination directed at me (likely in part because I had charged several state court judges with racism or racial discrimination) which ultimately affected my clients, resulting in my clients being denied relief when they should have received relief. One vivid example was Ms. Andrews' case (a disability discrimination case), where, after the Navy defaulted and a default had been entered against the Navy (which was brought about, in part, by and through actions of a panel of judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals through a writ of mandamus), the final panel of Ninth Circuit judges (the so-called merits panel) refused to order that a default judgment be entered (and the entering of the judgment should have been done as a matter of course--and my client would have been provided relief), for no legitimate reason (only offering a boilerplate statement of denial). This was a simple default.
At the time Schroeder was charged in the criminal Complaint, she was the Chief Judge or former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Alex Kozinski took over as Chief Judge during this time period, 2006-2009), at least, she was charged in the Complaint based on her position and actions as Chief Judge of the Court. And because the Chief Judge is the chief, and ultimate, administrator of the Court, she was charged with the administrative actions of the Clerk of the Court at the time, Cathy Catterson (Catterson was also charged in the Complaint).
***NOTE : Schroeder is also listed on my premiere "1st Annual List of Racist Judges and Other Public Officials in California", which is being published concurrently with this blog.
Before I proceed further, I should comment on the merits of the overall criminal Complaint. As some evidence that our criminal complaint had merit and was not frivolous, the George Bush FBI took actions against several of the named individuals in our complaint. While the U.S. Attorney's Office refused to prosecute any of the individuals, including Schroeder, the FBI, apparently utilizing its own authority, took action against at least six individuals, whom (together with another individual who ultimately resigned) I designated the "Judicial
Seven". At least two of the individuals, state court judges Steven Hintz and Barry Klopfer, whom I had charged with racial discrimination, were made to step down from the state court bench (Ventura County, CA). Others, including two district court judges and a Ninth Circuit Clerk (Cathy Catterson), were made to retire or resign. However, even with the FBI actions (which were conducted quietly and secretly), neither I nor my clients were provided with any relief for the Defendants' misconduct.
Among other things, we charged Schroeder with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, which, like the affirmance of Barry Bonds' conviction on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, was based, in part, on Schroeder refusing to answer questions that were central to proof of illegal actions by her and other Ninth Circuit judges. To summarize the obstruction for this blog: we charged that a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit acted illegally (and without authority) in purportedly making a ruling (which ultimately resulted in my being denied the right to seek en banc or full court review of my case), which they had no authority or legal basis to make. In an effort to obtain proof or evidence of the illegal activity, and through a memorandum directed to Schroeder as Chief Judge of the Court, I asked three questions. Two of which were :
1. May a three-judge panel usurp the authority of an en banc court and address a motion directed specifically to the en banc court, thereby denying the en banc court itself of an opportunity to review or consider the motion?
2. May a three-judge panel, rather than an en banc court, deny a plaintiff the right to an initial rehearing (sic) en banc?
Schroeder, as chief judge, refused to answer either of the questions. Thus, in addition to other matters regarding Griffith and Andrews that went to obstruction of justice, we charged Schroeder with, among other charges, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the denial of constitutional rights under color of law (with the racial component). As alluded to above, the Complaint against Schroeder is still pending.
As I explain more fully in my ICR blog (#61), Schroeder is a criminal because she has committed a crime, in violation of federal criminal law (and the crime was witnessed and/or experienced, either directly or indirectly, by a victim of the crime), but, she has not been processed through the criminal justice system, like Bonds was (i.e., he was indicted); therefore, she has not been cloaked with the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" that the criminal justice system provides. So, she remains a criminal until she is so-processed.
THE IRONY OF OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
It is ironic that the Justice Department in attempting to shield Schroeder from prosecution for her crimes, while prosecuting Bonds for his, has likely caused the perhaps valid prosecution of Bonds, although questionable at best, to be placed in jeopardy or question. Where, if it had prosecuted Schroeder for her crimes, as it should have, and as it did Bonds for his, Schroeder, likely, would not have been available to decide Bonds' appeal; therefore, she could not have placed Bonds prosecution in jeopardy.
It is also ironic that the Justice Department, in providing favorable treatment to Schroeder which was meant to help keep her out of trouble, while providing Bonds with unfavorable treatment meant to keep him in trouble, may see its objectives reversed because Schroeder heard and decided Bond's appeal. That is, with a finding that Schroeder should not have decided Bond's appeal, the results may be that Schroeder ends up in trouble and Bonds ends up out of trouble.
THE INJUSTICE OF OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS "FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY"
So, why did the Justice Department prosecute Barry Bonds and not prosecute Mary Schroeder, when they both committed the same crime (obstruction of justice)? :
1. Could it be that Schroeder's obstruction was less serious or less severe than Bond's obstruction? I think not. First of all, even though Bonds waivered in answering a specific question (which was the basis of his conviction for obstruction of justice being affirmed on appeal), he eventually answered the question. Yet, he was still convicted of obstruction of justice, and Schroeder affirmed that conviction on appeal, stating that nonetheless, "The statement was. . . evasive" and "The statement was also at the very least misleading." However, Schroeder, when the above-stated questions were posed to her, refused to answer the questions altogether . Clearly, the refusal to answer a question at all is more serious and/or severe than waivering prior to answering the question. At least Bonds answered the question that was asked. Schroeder did not. Schroeder's violation was clear and absolute obstruction of justice, because she refused to answer the question at all, while Bonds' obstruction, if obstruction at all, was merely "temporary".
Moreover, Bonds obstruction of justice only affected Barry Bonds himself, while Schroeder's obstruction and other misconduct affected other parties, and more specfically, other litigants, i.e., Mr. Griffith, Ms. Andrews, and myself. Further, while Griffith, Andrews, and myself turned to the Court to protect our rights, Schroeder instead destroyed our rights, through the obstruction and other misconduct.
In fact, Schroeder's obstruction of justice was done for the specific purpose and with the specific intent to deny me my due process right to have a full court (en banc) consider whether my case could be re-heard and decided by the full court. And, through her actions, I was finally denied that right.
As a footnote to this discussion, I think there is a serious question as to whether Bonds could legally be convicted of obstruction of justice after answering the question that was asked. But that's a discussion for another time perhaps. However, had I been Bonds' appellate attorney, I would have raised this issue on appeal. I would have argued that even if bonds had temporarily obstructed justice in fudging on answering the question initially, he repaired or corrected the obstruction when he finally answered the question. I am a federal appellate attorney. Furthermore, if every witness who "fudged" or avoided answering a question before finally answering it (during a criminal or civil proceeding) was charged with obstruction of justice for "misleading" the Court, criminal courts nationwide would be overwhelmed with obstruction of justice cases and trials. Witnesses (a few) do this all the time, when they do not wish to answer a certain question. Sometimes judges are called upon to make them answer the specific question that was asked. But, the witnesses are not charged with obstruction of justice. Bonds was charged with obstruction of justice because Bonds is Bonds.
2. Could it be because Bonds' obstruction occurred during a grand jury investigation, while Bonds was on the witness stand before a grand jury? Again, I think not. Because the statute that Schroeder relied on to affirm Bond's obstruction of justice conviction is the same statute that applies to her obstruction crime, and that statute, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1503, applies to, among other proceedings, all judicial proceedings, including grand jury, trial, appellate proceedings (which is the focus of Schroeder's obstruction of justice charge), etc.. The statute simply states, in part, "Whoever. . . corruptly. . . obstructs. . . or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided . . . ." Therefore, "That portion of the statute, known as the omnibus clause, is comprehensive. We have described it as being 'designed to proscribe all manner of corrupt methods of obstructing justice.'" (Citation omitted). United States v. Bonds, NO. 11-10669, September 13, 2013, 9th Cir., (Slip Opinion). In fact, per Schroeder herself (who authored the opinion), "The essence of the statute is that it criminalizes conduct intended to deprive the factfinder (one of whom was myself) of relevant information." Id., at 10. Moreover, "Section 1503 punishes any 'endeavor' to obstruct." Id., at 13. That is, "It 'procribes all manner of corrupt methods of obstructing justice.'" (Citation omitted). Id.
3. Could it be because Schroeder is a judge and Bonds is just a professional baseball player? Probably. But, it's neither legal nor constitutional. Unlike conduct occurring during civil actions, which is usually protected by judicial immunity, judicial misconduct which amounts to a crime (or is criminal) is not protected by judicial immunity, therefore, the Justice Department cannot refuse to prosecute Schroeder because she is a judge. Again, it's neither legal nor constitutional (in terms of due process and equal protection of the law). And, as some proof that Schroeder was not prosecuted because she is a judge, I cite the recent case of an ex-BP engineer who was convicted of "obstructing an investigation of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico." L.A. Times, "Ex-BP engineer convicted in gulf oil spill case", December 19, 2013. According to the Times, "A former BP engineer has been convicted of obstructing an investigation of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, in the first criminal trial to result from environmental disaster." Id. "(A) drilling engineer who formerly worked for the oil giant, was convicted Wednesday of obstructing the investigation of the massive spill. . . ." Id.
So why was a BP engineer prosecuted for obstruction of justice, but Schroeder wasn't? ANS: Because, at least in part, Schroeder is a federal judge and the engineer is just an engineer. Furthermore, according to the Times, Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice's Department's Criminal Division, stated (after the verdict was returned in New Orleans) "This prosecution shows the commitment of the Justice Department to hold accountable those who attempt to interfere with the administration of justice." Id. So, why isn't the Justice Department holding Schroeder accountable, as compared to the engineer ? ANS: Because she is a federal judge (and because the Complaint against her was brought by a Black male). But, she is not legally protected from prosecution.
4. Could it be because Schroeder is a (white) female and Bonds is a (Black) male? Yes. But, once more, it is neither legal nor constitutional (due process and equal protection of the law). While the Justice Department (U.S. Attorney Office in Los Angeles) has protected (from prosecution) both male and female Defendants in the 2007 Complaint, I believe that it has provided "extra" protection to Schroeder because she is a white female, here, being pitted against a black male, Bonds, for the same crime. Quite illustrative of this circumstance in Los Angeles is the case of Teresa Evans, a white female police officer, versus Christopher Dorner, a former (and deceased) black male police officer (who killed several people in pursuance of clearing his name) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). When the LAPD was faced with charging either Evans, the supervising officer (at the scene) or Dorner with kicking an arrestee, it chose to charge Dorner with lying about the kicking rather than charge Evans with the actual kicking, although it had significant evidence supporting the proposition that Evans actually kicked the arrestee. The LAPD chose to accept the word or position of a white female supervising officer, Evans (who denied doing the kicking), over the testimony (supported by substantial, including eyewitness-victim, evidence) of a Black officer, Dorner, to protect the white female officer from guilt or liability (even if it was at the sacrifice of Dorner losing his job). Here, when Obama's Justice Department received Schroeder's Complaint in 2008-2009, it decided that it would protect Schroeder from prosecution, notwithstanding evidence of an absolute obstruction of justice, because Schroeder was a white female federal judge (former chief judge). On the other hand, when Obama's Justice Department had to decide whether to prosecute Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice, after Bonds' grand jury testimony, it decided that it would not protect Bonds, notwithstanding his high profile and record-setting status and his questionable obstruction of justice, because he is a black male. It decided that it would treat Bonds like it does other Black males , and other Black males would be prosecuted for the questionable obstruction of justice, so Bonds would be too, notwithstanding the effect that it might have on his Hall of Fame future.
So, Schroeder was protected, at least in part, because she is a white female, and Bonds was not protected, at least in part, because he is a Black male.
5. Could it be because Schroeder is white and Bonds is black? Yes. But, it is neither legal nor constitutional (due process and equal protection). Even if there are other reasons for the Justice Department prosecuting Bonds and not prosecuting Schroeder, clearly the fact that Bonds is Black and Schroeder is white is one reason. "But much of the reaction to Bonds is simply bad old-fashioned racism. Not since Jack Johnson has an athlete become the repository for so much racial animus--and revealed broader gaps in Black and white perceptions--as Barry Lamar Bonds." Zirin, D., "The Unforgiven: Jack Johnson and Barry Bonds", International Socialist Review, July-August, 2007. "But the Black-white divide on Bonds is not about people being 'more concerned with race than right.' Rather, it represents a visceral response to the way Bonds has been subjected to criticism when white players with reputations of steroid use haven't gotten nearly the heat he has. For instance, suspicions have swirled around future Hall of Fame pitcher Roger Clemens, but he hasn't come close to receiving Bonds' level of media and investigative scrutiny." Id. But, again, prosecuting Bonds because he is Black, and not prosecuting Schroeder because she is white is neither legal nor constitutional. Clearly, it's a denial of equal protection of the law to Bonds.
Consequently, there are no legitimate or justifiable reasons for the Justice Department to have prosecuted Bonds and not prosecuted Schroeder for obstruction of justice, especially since both could have been indicted at the time Bonds was indicted, i.e., 2007.
Schroeder should have been prosecuted like Bonds was. Schroeder should have been prosecuted when Bonds was, i.e., 2007. And, she should be prosecuted now.
OBAMA'S "FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY" JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Clearly, Obama's Justice Department is "for white people only". That is, the Justice Department generally prosecutes cases or people that white people want prosecuted and, conversely, do not prosecute cases or people that black people want prosecuted. The prosecution of Barry Bonds, when placed in the context of our 2007 Complaint and the recent murders of Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, and now Miriam Carey, vividly illustrates the point.
A significant number of white people wanted Barry Bonds prosecuted for something, anything, as long as he was prosecuted. "This just wouldn't be America if somehow race didn't factor into things. And what jumps out is that blacks tend to be twice as likely as whites to support Bonds' grab for the history books. Going with a New York Times/CBS News poll, 57 percent of blacks are rooting for Bonds to break the record, with only 29 percent of whites showing similar support." NPR, "The Unforgivable Blackness of Barry Bonds", John Ridley, July 23, 2007. "Bonds has also earned the ample attention of the federal government that has joined the media in the Get Barry Brigade." International Socialist Review, supra. "Federal prosecutors have made it all too clear that they want to imprison Bonds for perjury, tax evasion, anything short of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. One writer cited an agent saying, 'He's our Capone.' The anti-Bonds cottage industry has become so bombastic, so disproportionate to his alleged offenses, that it is having an ugly and divisive effect on society." Id. "Mainstream radio is a veritable 'I hate Barry' parade." Id. "Countless black athletes have been adored and appreciated by fans of all races. Only difference : They were not Barry Bonds." USA TODAY, "Bonds' attitude, not his race, triggers fans' disapproval", Editorial/Opinion, April 4, 2006.
This desire for Bonds' prosecution was in large part based on Bonds' attitude and the white public's reaction to that attitude. "The amount of media detritus hurled at Bonds boggles the mind. As Jeff Pearlman, a writer for ESPN wrote, Barry Bonds is an evil man. A truly evil man. As a husband, he has cheated on both his wives. As a father, he has been absent and indifferent. As a role model, he has spit at autograph seekers and directed kids to 'f--- off'. As a Giant, he has held a franchise hostage and refused to help teammates in need. As a blatant abuser of steroids and human growth hormone, he has deprived the game of integrity and turned its record books into mush." International Socialist Review, supra. Very few Black people reacted to Bonds' attitude the way white people reacted to it. "(H)e generates animosity because he's a straight up, uh. . . jerk. He's a cocky guy with a bad attitude who does not care one thing for being liked, and I think that plays differently with some blacks ---some, in this case, being that divergent 28 percent. Why? Because likability has never been an issue with blacks." NPR, supra.
And so, because white people wanted Bonds prosecuted, the Obama-Holder Justice Department prosecuted Bonds.
On the other hand, Black people (including myself) wanted George Zimmerman, Johannes Mehserle, and Schroeder prosecuted, but the Justice Department has refused to prosecute any of them, because Black people want them prosecuted.
Thus, under the "black" leadership of President (Barack) Obama and Attorney General (Eric) Holder, the Justice Department, in some ways, has returned us to the days of the old Jim Crow South, where whites, at times, could mistreat blacks as they saw fit, and generally nothing was done. While Black people, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, have lost their lives and put their lives on the line (e.g.,Congressman John Lewis) to get rid of "for colored only" and "for whites only" signs of the early Civil Rights Era, our black leadership today is progressively taking us back there, beginning with the Justice Department. And, there's no attempt to disguise it. While Obama and Holder make civil rights speeches purportedly supporting Black rights, their actions are not supportive of the speeches. Rather, their actions are indicative of a new sign that should be placed in front of the Justice Department, "For White People Only."
BARRY BONDS HAVE A RIGHT TO A NEW APPEAL BEFORE A NEW THREE-JUDGE PANEL
The consequence of judge Mary M. Schroeder presiding over Barry Bonds' appeal must be a new appeal for Bonds before a new three-judge appeals panel. And there is a serious question as to whether Bonds new appeal should be heard before a different Circuit, because the Ninth Circuit judges may have a tendency to want to sustain the affirmation of Bonds conviction in order to support a colleague and demonstrate that Schroeder's ruling would have been the right one regardless of the inappropriateness of her presiding over Bonds appeal. But that's an issue for Bonds' attorneys to address.
Additionally, while I will leave it up to Bonds and his attorneys how they wish to approach the matter, I will offer the following based on some information that I am aware of:
I believe that Schroeder ought not have presided over Bonds appeal in the first place, because of the pending criminal Complaint against her; but especially, because of the identical claim lodged against her, obstruction of justice. I think it presented an appearance of impropriety, as well as a conflict of interest for Schroeder, based on the fact that Schroeder wasn't prosecuted by the Justice Department for the same crime or criminal offense. That is, it could easily be perceived that Schroeder had a personal interest in affirming Bonds' appeal of his conviction, to wit: she owed the Justice Department a favor for not prosecuting her for the same crime (and the rest of the crimes that she is charged with), while simultaneously, knowing (at least via press coverage) that the Justice Department wanted Bonds convicted of something, anything. So, she returned the favor and affirmed Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice. "Federal prosecutors have made it all too clear that they want to imprison Bonds for perjury, tax evasion, anything short of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby." International Socialist Review, supra. However, even without Schroeder's personal interest, the Justice Department had a duty, with knowledge of the Complaint against Schroeder, to not only investigate the Complaint while informing Schroeder, but to move for the recusal of Schroeder if Schroeder did not voluntarily recuse or self-recuse. So, the Justice Department is equally as liable as Schroeder for Schroeder presiding over Bonds' appeal. Actually, the Justice Department is more liable than Schroeder because the Justice Department's investigation and prosecution of Schroeder for her crimes would have prevented Schroeder from even being considered for assignment as a panel judge, thereby preventing Schroeder from playing any role in Bonds' appeal.
Schroeder should have recused herself from hearing Bonds appeal. Furthermore, under the circumstances, she was required to do so. In a similar case involving 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of judge Kozinski to recuse himself from presiding over an obscenity trial in which it could have been concluded that he had an interest in the subject matter and/or outcome of the trial, or that in someway his personal life's endeavors had a connection to the subject matter of the trial that might be prejudicial to one of the parties in the case. That case was U.S. v. Isaacs, District Court(D.C.). No. CR 07-732-GHK. Briefly, from Wikipedia :
Kozinski was assigned an obscenity case in which Ira Isaacs was accused of distributing videos depicting bestiality and other images, similar to the 1973 Miller v. California case. During the trial, on June 11, 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that Kozinski had "maintained a publicly accessible Web site featuring sexually explicit photos and videos" at alex.kozinski.com. The Times reported that Kozinski's site included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows, a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal, images of masturbation and public and contortionist sex, a slide show striptease featuring a transexual, a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear, and content with themes of defecation and urination. Kozinski agreed that some of the material was inappropriate, but defended other content as "funny". Kozinski initially refused to comment on disqualifying himself, then granted a 48-hour stay after the prosecutor requested time to explore "a potential conflict of interest." On June 13, Kozinski petitioned an ethics panel to investigate his own conduct. He asked Chief Justice John Roberts to assign the inquiry to a panel of judges outside the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. Also, he said that his son Yale, and his family or friends may have been responsible for posting some of the material.
On June 15, 2008, it was reported that Kozinski had recused himself from the case.
(End of Wikipedia information).
Kozinski, apparently (and based on my knowlege and information) did not provide any specific reasons for recusing himself. He simply stated that he was recusing himself from the case. But his recusal was clearly based on the connection between his personal life's endeavors (his website with the pornographic materials that could be questioned as "obscene") and the actual obscenity trial, where a defendant was on trial for distributing obscene materials.
Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit upheld Kozinski's recusal. Neither court determined that Kozinski should not have recused himself from the case. The District Court stated, "Under 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a) a judge must recuse himself if 'a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'" U.S. v. Isaacs, No. CR 07-732-GHK, Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment With Prejudice, September, 2008. And the Court went on to state, "The purpose of (sec.) 455 is to 'promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.' (Citation omitted). With that in mind, the question before us is not whether Judge Kozinski had any actual bias, either for or against Defendant or the Government, but whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." (Citation omitted). . . . Therefore, based upon the entire record, taken in context and its entirety, we find and conclude that Judge Kozinski's recusal was required by 28 U.S.C. (sec. 455(a)." Id.
The Ninth Circuit stated, "Judge King did not err in ruling that Judge Kozinski properly recused himself from Isaacs's case under 28 U.S.C. (sec.) 455(a). In analyzing (sec.) 455(a) recusals, we ask 'whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.' (Citation omitted)." U.S. v. Isaacs, No. 08-50423 (9th Cir. 2009)(unpublished Memorandum). Most importantly, "We find that a well-informed observer may reasonably have questioned Judge Kozinski's ability to act as an impartial judge in Isaacs's trial. Thus, we affirm Judge King's determination that the recusal was proper under (sec.) 455(a).'" Id.
Schroeder's connection in the Bonds' appeal : Schroeder's personal life and judicial endeavors were (1) she exercised conduct or misconduct as Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit that amounted to obstruction of justice (judicial); (2) she was charged (by Complainants) with obstruction of justice (centered on her response to questions on appeal related to illegalities) and other charges by multiple parties (personal); (3) she was not prosecuted by the Justice Department (personal); and (4) Bonds and his lawyers were probably not aware of this information when Schroeder presided over Bonds' appeal (and Schroeder and/or the Justice Department had at least an ethical duty to disclose the information, particularly information that there was an unresolved criminal Complaint against Schroeder charging her with racial discrimination directed against a Black male (like Bonds), to Bonds and his lawyers)(personal/judicial). Schroeder's endeavors were connected to Bonds' appeal because Bonds' appeal was from a conviction for obtruction of justice (which is the same crime Schroeder was charged with) and it was centered on Bonds' response to a grand jury question (like Schroeder's obstruction was centered on Schroeder's failure to respond to an appellate question).
Moreover, an additional reason why Schroeder was required to recuse herself was because of the above-mentioned charge of racial discrimination lodged against her via 18 U.S.C. sec. 242, that is, violation of a constitutional right under color of law and based on race or color. Again, this was an unresolved claim of racial discrimination exercised against a Black male that was brought against Schroeder in the criminal Complaint. At minimum, because it was unresolved, the charge or claim created an appearance of impropriety and impartiality for Schroeder to preside over and decide the appeal of Barry Bonds, who is a Black male. If Schroeder had been prosecuted, tried, and found guilty of the racial discrimination charge, it would be beyond an "appearance" of impropriety, and it would have been absolutely improper for Schroeder to preside over Bonds' trial, because it would have been proven that she was prejudiced against Black males. If Schroeder had been found not guilty of the racial discrimination charge, then, with respect to Bonds being a Black male, it would not have presented an appearance of impropriety or impartiality for Schroeder to preside over Bonds' appeal. However, since Schroeder has not been prosecuted and tried for the racial discrimination charge, and since the charge is so serious (and, in fact, a felony), and so prejudicial (to Bonds, if true), it created an appearance of impropriety and impartiality for Schroeder to have presided over Bonds' appeal. Criminals are ordinarily, and generally, arrested based on criminal complaints alone. Especially, when the complaints are based on eyewitness testimony and/or documentary evidence (which was the case for Schroeder). In fact, there would be an appearance of impropriety and impartiality for Schroeder to preside over the appeals of any black males until the pending racial discrimination charge against her is resolved.
Plus, Schroeder was charged with other offenses, such as : either through participation or approval, (1) allowing the Clerk to fraudulently change the true title of a case to a false title (and false District Court case number) in order to coverup misconduct by the Clerk herself (who was actually named in the true title, and she removed her name in the false title)(and we can see the effects of utilizing false documents and fraud by way of two convicts serving life sentences who were able to escape or leave prison relying on false documents and fraud--see the L.A. Times article, "Police recapture two Florida prison escapees", October 20, 2013, where "The bogus paperwork, complete with case numbers and the forged signature of a judge, duped prison officials. It purportedly reduced the men's sentences to 15 years"); and (2) causing Griffith (a Social Security disability claim appellant) to be denied a due process appeal by inappropriately and invidiously removing his case from an oral argument calendar (or deciding the case without oral argument after it had been calendared for argument), and subsequently denying him relief, because neither Griffith nor I, as his counsel of record (and only counsel on appeal), would accept a white lawyer designated by the Court (through the Clerk) to either join the appeal and/or argue the appeal of Griffith's case.
NOTE: The Ninth Circuit had no problem with me arguing a criminal, no-money, case alone (while representing a black client), see Jackson v. Giurbino, 364 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004)(I was retained by Jackson's parents and when I entered the case, Jackson was proceeding pro se and had already filed his Opening Brief--which is why there were so many issues raised in the case--so I had to file a Supplemental Brief, and it was the Miranda issue that I raised in my supplemental brief that caused the vacation of Jackson's murder conviction), but because the Griffith case potentially involved a substantial amount of money (perhaps $2 million), the Court decides it wants to force a white lawyer on both my client and I. We rejected the offer. The act of attempting to interject a white lawyer into our case unsolicited was both racism and racial discrimination. Yet, we received no relief for this conduct either (with the court intentionally denying Griffith relief--without putting it's intent in writing--because we refused to accept a white lawyer as part of our case).
Therefore, it appears that, under the circumstances of Schroeder's conduct or misconduct and the connection of that conduct to Bonds' appeal, Schroeder was required to and should have recused herself from hearing and deciding Bonds' appeal. Bonds must be given another appeal before a new and different three-judge panel.
BONDS HAS A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE HIS CONVICTION; AND THAT SHOULD BE HIS PRIORITY
Bonds also has a right to challenge his lower court conviction, based on selective prosecution and/or denial of equal protection of the law. And, it appears, this challenge would present Bonds with his greatest potential for exoneration of the obstruction of justice charge; therefore, this should be his first priority with respect to challenging the appeal. Because, if he is successful in challenging the conviction itself, he may not need to exercise his right to a new appeal. Moreover, a new appeal would still leave the possibility of the conviction being affirmed again; while, a successful challenge of the conviction would foreclose this possibility. Moreover, if Bonds has any desire to be admitted to the Hall of Fame, and he should have, based on his accomplishments, i.e., he's earned it, he must at least try to rid himself of the felony conviction. I know of no Hall of Famer admitted with a felony conviction on his record. And, for those searching for reasons to keep Bonds out of the Hall, the felony conviction is the easiest and best one. That is, "They didn't get him on the perjury counts, but they got him on something, and that's enough to keep him out of the Hall of Fame." A current example of the effect that a felony conviction might have on the prospect of Bonds entering the Hall of Fame is the case of Jameis Winston, the Black quarterback of Florida State University, who was faced with a rape charge and conviction and who is a prospect for being awarded the Heisman Trophy (for being college football's best player). The Florida state attorney has now decided not to bring charges against Winston, so his Heisman prospects should not be affected. But, its clear that a felony conviction would have had a near lethal, if not lethal, effect on his Heisman prospects; if not for this year, for future years (Winston is a redshirt freshman). "No charges for Winston. . . he still has a shot at the Heisman", L.A. Times, December 6, 2013. "Winston, had he been charged with a felony, would immediately have been ruled ineligible by Florida State and his Heisman chances would have been gravely imperiled." Id. "Because Winston was not charged, . . . (m)any Heisman voters had their consciences cleared enough to pull the lever for Winston in advance of next Monday's voting deadline. One Heisman voter, on the fence before Thursday's ruling, said he was now leaning toward casting his first-place vote for Winston." Finally, "Thursday was a good day for Florida State and Winston. It was also a good day for Heisman voters, who won't have to worry about voting for a player who may end up convicted of a felony." Id. UPDATE: Jameis Winston has now won the 2013 Heisman Trophy!
But, entrance into the Hall of Fame should not be the most important reason for Bonds challenging the felony obstruction conviction. The most important reason should be his own integrity and dignity. Bonds did not obstruct justice, and he now has a second opportunity to demonstrate that. Once the door is opened by the selective prosecution and/or equal protection of the law defense, Bonds can again challenge the sufficiency of the evidence which was used to convict him. I believe that he would prevail in his challenge.
Lastly, if Bonds does not challenge his conviction when he has an opportunity to do so, it would reveal a level of lack of self-respect and weakness that would be embarrassing to Bonds and an injustice to the men, women, and children of the civil rights movement, who significantly helped produce the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and particularly so for those who lost their lives, in order for Bonds, as a Black man in America, to have the right to exercise this challenge. Further, it would also ignore the contributions of those who lost their lives on the way towards erection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I will submit a copy of this blog to Barry Bonds and his appellate attorneys, or at least notify them in some way.
**UPDATE--August 15, 2014
Thusfar, I haven't heard anything about Bonds' response to my blog, or to his appellate situation. That is, I haven't heard of any actions taken by Bonds in response to my blog, and I sent him a copy of the blog (addressed to him and his attorneys at the address of the law firm of his appellate attorneys).
If he doesn't take any action, I will absolutely lose respect for him, and I will have no sympathy for him regarding his conviction, his appeal, or the Hall of Fame. Any negative outcomes that he receives will be his own doing for not fighting for his civil and/or constitutional rights and likely listening to white lawyers, who generally, though not always , are part of the system themselves, that is, the white establishment, as far as challenging the system (in this instance, the court systems)in an assertion of civil/constitutional rights involving race and Black people.
In earlier years, Bonds was rebellious and anti-establishment, and was generally ostracized for it (as noted above). But, generally, he didn't care, and maintained his autonomy, which the white establishment characterized as an "attitude". I respected him for being himself.
Now, after baseball and his conviction, Bond has appeared to take a "new" attitude. He says, for instance, whatever the Court of Appeals decides is fine with him (in so many words). He agreed to serve his time and has done so. He purportedly stated earlier, "I went through the system. And that's what it is." ESPN.com news services, May 28, 2012.
But, now, he has an opporunity to challenge the system in the protection of his constitutional and/or civil rights, not only for himself, but for others, especially other Black men who have been denied their constitutional rights at trial and on appeal.
So, now the 9th Circuit, after the publishing and re-publishing of this blog, has decided to grant Bonds a rehearing of his appeal. How convenient! But, Bonds has a right to a new appeal now, and a right to challenge his conviction, regardless of the grant of a rehearing. However, Bonds must pursue those rights. Otherwise, he must wait and rely on the 9th Cir. to decide his justice. The same Ninth Circuit that affirmed his conviction with a judge who ought not have been on the appellate panel.
On OBAMA'S "FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY" JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
We can now add to the list of people that Black people want prosecuted based on recent events. Black people now want the racially motivated killers of Eric Garner of New York, Michael Brown of Missouri, and Ezell Ford of California prosecuted for civil rights violations involving and resulting in death. Black people also want the California Highway Patrol Officer that beat the Black woman, Marlene M. Pinnock, near or on the Santa Monica Freeway in Los Angeles, California prosecuted for civil rights violations resulting in bodily harm.
Let's see how many, if any, are prosecuted federally, or by the federal Justice Department. And, the Justice Department need not wait for state action in order to conduct its own investigation and to bring its own prosecution. And, with the multiple eye witnesses who have appeared and given statements, there clearly is sufficient probable cause evidence to make an arrest for civil rights violations, with or without a hate crime element.
However, it is likely that the only thing that's going to happen is the Justice Department is going to pretend to investigate (that is ,give the appearance of investigating--some investigation will clearly be done, but, the Justice Department knows, at the time, that it has no intention of bringing a federal prosecution. In other words, it's for show only. While Obama and/or Holder will give speeches on how the country needs to come together, but not get violent, while nothing gets done in terms of prosecuting the white police officers who murdered the young Black males. And, without a federal prosecution of any of the white police officers who murdered or assaulted/battered the Black males and/or female, i.e., Garner, Brown, Ford, and Pinnock, or otherwise deprived them of their constitutional rights under color of law and based on race or color, Obama's Justice Department continues to be "for white people only".
Finally, although Obama and Holder are Democrats, it took a Republican, Sen. Rand Paul, to address the issue of racism and racial discrimination head-on with respect to the murder of Michael Brown and the criminal justice system as applied to minorities, particularly black and brown men and women. "Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention." "Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth." Quotes by Paul, according to the L.A. Times, "No law-and-order Republican", August 15, 2014. Race and racism is clearly a part of the murder of Michael Brown, and if the Justice Department would acknowledge that, maybe it would do something or work for Black people as it does for whites.
UPDATE--April 25, 2015
A few days ago, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc decision in the Bonds' case. Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice has now been reversed. Surprise!! Please.
It was quite expected. *This provides Bonds with positive relief without implicating (or discussing) Judge Schroeder; and Bonds need not pursue the matter further (which might also implicate judge Schroeder).
And, as I stated and forecasted above, the en banc Court found that there was insufficent evidence with which to convict Bonds of obstruction of justice. See above where I stated, "Once the door is opened by the selective prosecution and/or equal protection of the law defense, Bonds can again challenge the sufficiency of the evidence which was used to convict him. I believe that he would prevail in his challenge."
The en banc Court found, in its Per Curiam decision, "A reversal for insufficient evidence implicates defendant's right under the Double Jeoppardy Clause. (Citations omitted). His conviction and sentence must therefore be vacated, and he may not be tried again on that count."
But, the Justice Department and Judge Schroeder got off the hook, because Bonds refused to assert his constitutional rights. And, for this, I disrespect Bonds.
More later.
**UPDATE--April 30, 2015
WHY WASN'T JUDGE SHROEDER A MEMBER OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT EN BANC PANEL?
Judge Shroeder, who wrote the Bonds' panel decision, was not a member of the en banc panel. This is unusual. Ordinarily, the author of the three-judge panel upon en banc review is usually a member of the en banc panel. That was not the case here. I wonder why or why not? Could it have anything to do with my blog?
More next time.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
THE KILLING OF MIRIAM CAREY: ANOTHER RACIALLY-PROFILED MURDER BY POLICE; THIS TIME IT OCCURRED IN THE BACKYARD OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; BUT, DON'T EXPECT MUCH FROM THEM, OTHER THAN SPEECHES (IF THAT); IF THIS WAS A STATE CRIME, IT WOULD BE FIRST DEGREE MURDER .
Los Angeles, California
October 15, 2013
*(Denotes a change made or new information added to the original blog)
**(Denotes NEW information added to the blog after publishing of the original blog)
***This blog is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in America, and it is dedicated to Miriam Carey and the Carey family especially, and also to Chris Dorner, Aaron Alexis, Trayvon Martin, and Oscar Grant.
Several days ago Miriam Carey was shot to death by police (or secret service agents--term "police" will apply to all officers, including secret service agents, Capitol police, or D.C. police, or police who took part in the killing or who were in any way associated with the killing on the day of the killing), after leading police on a short police chase in her automobile after having run into a White House barricade. It is unknown why or what caused Ms. Carey to run into the barricade, and now that she's dead, we will never know.
The mass-media have already started with their clean-up efforts: discuss the mental history record of Ms. Carey, including a purported obsession that she had with President Obama. Then, discuss the problems she may have had with past employers or landlords (she apparently has no criminal record, i.e., convictions, so they can't go there), and finally, question why she didn't stop immediately after running into the White House barricade. Further, the government thereafter conducted a thorough search of Ms. Carey's residence to try and recover more evidence; but, nothing they can recover at her residence is going to provide justification for killing her at the scene of the murder. Because even if they find that she was a paid assassinator or killer, with an assortment of weapons, it would not excuse or justify the police handling of the incident in Washington, because the police would not have known those facts at the time that they killed Ms. Carey. Therefore, all of the clean-up efforts are submitted with the intent of steering the public away from the real issue : police misconduct.
But, here's what I know, or believe from the news reports that I am aware of, and why I believe what happen to Ms. Carey was nothing more than another racially-profiled murder of a black citizen:
1. Ms. Carey is a Black American. The mass media, in their news reports, especially the print media, specifically avoided informing the public that Ms. Carey is Black (although some television stations did display a picture of her, whereby you could ascertain that she was black). As if it makes no difference, or as if race in America makes no difference. Race or color in America does make a difference, and it is that difference that caused Ms. Carey to be killed or die.
2. Ms. Carey apparently was not violating any laws prior to the police chase (where she failed to stop and obey police officers). And this includes her running into the police barricade. At most, she would have been civilly liable for any damage to the barricade, but, at this time there is no proof that the barricade was damaged by her collision.
3. There is no evidence that Ms. Carey's collision with the barricade was not an accident. And now that she's dead, we will never know if it was an accident or not. And, because she's dead and cannot tell her side of the story, we (the public) have the right to assume that it was an accident (and there's no proof that it was not).
The public is not required to accept the government's version of the incident that Carey "rammed" the barrier, as opposed to simply running into the barrier.
4. Ms. Carey had her one-year old daughter in the car with her at the time of the collision and the murder. If she had bad intentions, or intentions that she believed might place her life in danger, would she have left her daughter in the car with her? I think not.
5. Ms. Carey only began to run from police when she became frightened from the police drawing weapons on her and her daughter. She likely did not know why the police felt a need to draw weapons because she did not believe she had done anything wrong, or at least anything that would provoke a drawing of weapons. So, when she saw all the police with weapons drawn, she panicked, and fled (likely in an attempt to protect both herself and her daughter).
6. After Ms. Carey finally stopped, after apparently colliding with an object on the sidewalk, she did not exit the car with a weapon (and she had not displayed a weapon before or during the chase). So, why did the police (or secret service officers--one report says that it was secret service officers in pursuit, but, the same thing would apply if it was them) have to shoot her? Why couldn't they just apprehend her or at least give her a chance to surrender? ANS: Because she was Black (and because of the assumptions and conclusions drawn about black people--race or skin color--in this country ). If Ms. Carey would have been white, does anyone truly believe she would have been slaughtered the way she was (thusfar, I am not aware of how many bullets were used to kill her, but because it has not been revealed, you can bet there were several bullets used to kill her)? With a white child in the car? Please! Does anyone with an ounce of common sense and reality in America believe that a white woman with a white child in the car would have been murdered by white (or black) police officers simply because she ran into a White House barrier and refused to stop in a short car chase?
7. The police had no justification for drawing their weapons in the first place, even after Ms. Carey's collision with the barricade. Since there were several police officers (as opposed to only one--but one should not have acted that way either without more evidence of a threat to safety), so they could have simply surrounded the car and ordered Ms. Carey out of the car, without guns drawn. And, without guns drawn, she likely would have obeyed them, especially with her daughter in the car.
8. Ms. Carey was apparently shot after she exited the car (and this I perceived from a picture of the car after it had careened off the road, with the driver's side door opened--there was no signs of bullet holes on the car or windows shattered by bullets)(also there were no signs of damage to the front of the car--that may have come from a major collision with the barrier. Ms. Carey didn't have a chance. It was the same as hunting an animal, and killing it at the first opportunity to do so. The only positive thing about the scenario was that the the baby was protected. They allowed Ms. Carey to get further enough away from the car so that the baby was not harmed. The mass media broadcast that "they were taking the baby to safety" (after "they" had killed her mother). Safety from "who"? The Police?
9. The fact that the incident took place around or near the White House made no difference as to the approach of the police because they know that American citizens are the predominant group utilizing the facilities around the White House, therefore, they are required to respect the rights of U.S. citizens (unless there is some real and observable threat) before adopting some notion of a foreign threat, if such a notion arose, and reducing the constitutional rights of citizens and taking a person's life. Even with heightened scrutiny around the White House, it does not excuse racial profiling.
These are just some of the facts, notions, or inferences (and some of the information I saw firsthand from the video that was shown of parts of the incident) that I believe leads to the conclusion that the Capitol Police, or whatever police (e.g., secret service officers) did the shooting, conducted a racially-profiled murder of Ms. Carey. From the time the police first recognized that Ms. Carey was black, they operated differently towards her than they would have if she was white. They assumed that her collision with the barricade was in bad faith (or up to no good), i.e., "ramming", rather than an accident. They had no right to assume that she was a criminal, rather than a clumpsy person (even with a so-called "heightened scrutiny", based on the location and protection of the President). And their further pursuance of her proceeded on the same basis, i.e., their assumption that she was proceeding in bad faith. Ms. Carey was killed because she was black and racially-profiled.
This murder took place in Washington, D.C., near the White House, and not far from the Capitol. So it happened in the backyard of the President and the U.S. Attorney General (whose office is not that far from the scene of the killing).
But, don't expect the President and the Attorney General to pursue any justice for Ms. Carey, other than give speeches, if they do that (and thusfar, they haven't even done that). We are still waiting on a decision for the murders of Oscar Grant and Trayvon Martin, so why is Ms. Carey's case going to be any different, notwithstanding the fact that the police has now taken the baby's mother from her? Carey's child will now have to grow up without a mother. And, if the father or other family members don't step up to the plate, the little girl may end up in a foster home. For what? Because Carey ran into a barrier and lead the police on a chase?
IF THIS WAS A STATE CRIME, IT WOULD BE FIRST DEGREE MURDER--THERE WAS PREMEDITATION, DELIBERATION, AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.
Although this is a federal crime, which must be prosecuted under federal law, if it was a state crime, it would be first degree murder. The cops (or secret service agents) that first confronted Ms. Carey at the White House after she ran into the barrier decided at that point that it presented a circumstance that might allow them to use their weapons (which is why the weapons were drawn)(some of them may not have ever used their weapons in the line of duty before). When Carey did not get out of the car (after weapons were drawn), the cops then decided that at the first opportunity, they would use their weapons, using the failure to stop and the automobile as their excuse. This was the premeditation.
Next, from the site of the collision with the barrier until Carey's second collision onto the sidewalk, the cops decided that whenever the automobile finally stopped that they would fire into the vehicle. But, because they saw the baby in the vehicle, they were hesitant. However, Carey didn't allow them to act beyond the hesitation, because she bolted from the car when the car came to a halt. This was the deliberation period. They (the cops that started at the White House barrier only) thought about what they would do from the White House to the point of the killing.
Finally, the malice aforethought. Once the cops saw that Carey was black, and it didn't matter that she was a woman and a mother, they decided that they would utilize the opportunity brought about by the circumstances of the encounter to use deadly force to kill a criminal, who happened to be black (whose life, to the police, had less value than a white person, and therefore, they could act more recklessly). And, the devaluation of the black life, together with the decision to use deadly force was the malice aforethought.
So, if the killing of Ms. Carey was a state crime, the police officers actually doing the shooting and killing should be charged with first degree murder and a hate crime.
But, because the crime is a federal crime, it will have to be prosecuted pursuant to federal criminal-civil rights law, which also includes hate crime law. But, I won't go into the particulars of the appropriate federal civil rights statutes, because its clear that they were violated. There was a violent and unjustifiable death, based on race, and under color of law.
MS. CAREY'S MOTHERLY INSTINCT AND LOVE SAVED HER DAUGHTER'S LIFE; SHE GAVE HER LIFE TO SAVE HER DAUGHTER
When Ms. Carey (who had an A.A. degree in dental hygiene and a B.S. degree in health and nutrition science, and who was a working mother) first ran into the barricade at the White House and was suddenly surrounded by government officers with drawn weapons, she panicked. Her human and personal intuition and gut reaction suggested to her that the best way to avoid her and her daughter being shot at or killed at the time was to flee in the car. At least in that way they had the protection of the car, including the windows, and maybe by the time they stopped, somehow and someway, they would have greater protection (because perhaps it would become more public and draw more people and the police would not shoot them at that time).
However, because of her erratic driving, she eventually careened off the road to a sidewalk. This is where her motherly instinct and love for her daughter kicked in (and only a good mother would think this way--a poor mother would only think of herself). She instinctively, and automatically (within seconds) thought to herself, "I can stay in the car with my daughter , with the windows rolled up, and just wait and do nothing (which would endanger both our lives if the officers decide to shoot into the car) or, I can bolt from the car and leave my daughter behind and hopefully, the officers with the guns will pursue me and not my daughter, so that she will be saved". Ms. Carey bolted, and she paid the ultimate price, her life. But, she saved her daughter's life. She was her daughter's "hero".
I believe that had Ms. Carey stayed in the car, the officers would have shot into the car, even with the baby in the car. I believe that when the car first careened into the sidewalk, because of the baby, the officers had a "moment of hesitation" (and Ms. Carey used this moment of hesitation to bolt from the car). But, if Ms. Carey had not bolted immediately (during this moment of hesitation), and had remained in the car, and especially if she would have made any "movement" in the car with her hands(even to place them on the steering wheel, one at-a-time), the police officers would have opened fire into the car, notwithstanding the baby's presence. And don't say "that would never happen". It happened here in Los Angeles to a Hispanic man and his baby girl, while he was holding the baby in his arms. Purportedly, the man had a gun, but, nevertheless, the LAPD did not let the fact that the man was holding the baby in his arms stop them from firing and killing both the baby and the man. The LAPD and SWAT didn't wait until a time that they could possibly disarm the man by shooting him in the legs or waiting the man out, so that he could be talked into releasing the baby. The LAPD fired on the baby and the man, killing them both. And I believe the same thing would have happened here with Ms. Carey had she not bolted away from her daughter.
So, the Carey family should tell Carey's daughter when she is old enough to understand that her mother loved her, so much so that she gave her life so that "you" could live. There is no greater love.
**UPDATE--October 15, 2013
It's now up to the Carey family to pressure the government into seeking justice for Miriam.
October 15, 2013
*(Denotes a change made or new information added to the original blog)
**(Denotes NEW information added to the blog after publishing of the original blog)
***This blog is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in America, and it is dedicated to Miriam Carey and the Carey family especially, and also to Chris Dorner, Aaron Alexis, Trayvon Martin, and Oscar Grant.
Several days ago Miriam Carey was shot to death by police (or secret service agents--term "police" will apply to all officers, including secret service agents, Capitol police, or D.C. police, or police who took part in the killing or who were in any way associated with the killing on the day of the killing), after leading police on a short police chase in her automobile after having run into a White House barricade. It is unknown why or what caused Ms. Carey to run into the barricade, and now that she's dead, we will never know.
The mass-media have already started with their clean-up efforts: discuss the mental history record of Ms. Carey, including a purported obsession that she had with President Obama. Then, discuss the problems she may have had with past employers or landlords (she apparently has no criminal record, i.e., convictions, so they can't go there), and finally, question why she didn't stop immediately after running into the White House barricade. Further, the government thereafter conducted a thorough search of Ms. Carey's residence to try and recover more evidence; but, nothing they can recover at her residence is going to provide justification for killing her at the scene of the murder. Because even if they find that she was a paid assassinator or killer, with an assortment of weapons, it would not excuse or justify the police handling of the incident in Washington, because the police would not have known those facts at the time that they killed Ms. Carey. Therefore, all of the clean-up efforts are submitted with the intent of steering the public away from the real issue : police misconduct.
But, here's what I know, or believe from the news reports that I am aware of, and why I believe what happen to Ms. Carey was nothing more than another racially-profiled murder of a black citizen:
1. Ms. Carey is a Black American. The mass media, in their news reports, especially the print media, specifically avoided informing the public that Ms. Carey is Black (although some television stations did display a picture of her, whereby you could ascertain that she was black). As if it makes no difference, or as if race in America makes no difference. Race or color in America does make a difference, and it is that difference that caused Ms. Carey to be killed or die.
2. Ms. Carey apparently was not violating any laws prior to the police chase (where she failed to stop and obey police officers). And this includes her running into the police barricade. At most, she would have been civilly liable for any damage to the barricade, but, at this time there is no proof that the barricade was damaged by her collision.
3. There is no evidence that Ms. Carey's collision with the barricade was not an accident. And now that she's dead, we will never know if it was an accident or not. And, because she's dead and cannot tell her side of the story, we (the public) have the right to assume that it was an accident (and there's no proof that it was not).
The public is not required to accept the government's version of the incident that Carey "rammed" the barrier, as opposed to simply running into the barrier.
4. Ms. Carey had her one-year old daughter in the car with her at the time of the collision and the murder. If she had bad intentions, or intentions that she believed might place her life in danger, would she have left her daughter in the car with her? I think not.
5. Ms. Carey only began to run from police when she became frightened from the police drawing weapons on her and her daughter. She likely did not know why the police felt a need to draw weapons because she did not believe she had done anything wrong, or at least anything that would provoke a drawing of weapons. So, when she saw all the police with weapons drawn, she panicked, and fled (likely in an attempt to protect both herself and her daughter).
6. After Ms. Carey finally stopped, after apparently colliding with an object on the sidewalk, she did not exit the car with a weapon (and she had not displayed a weapon before or during the chase). So, why did the police (or secret service officers--one report says that it was secret service officers in pursuit, but, the same thing would apply if it was them) have to shoot her? Why couldn't they just apprehend her or at least give her a chance to surrender? ANS: Because she was Black (and because of the assumptions and conclusions drawn about black people--race or skin color--in this country ). If Ms. Carey would have been white, does anyone truly believe she would have been slaughtered the way she was (thusfar, I am not aware of how many bullets were used to kill her, but because it has not been revealed, you can bet there were several bullets used to kill her)? With a white child in the car? Please! Does anyone with an ounce of common sense and reality in America believe that a white woman with a white child in the car would have been murdered by white (or black) police officers simply because she ran into a White House barrier and refused to stop in a short car chase?
7. The police had no justification for drawing their weapons in the first place, even after Ms. Carey's collision with the barricade. Since there were several police officers (as opposed to only one--but one should not have acted that way either without more evidence of a threat to safety), so they could have simply surrounded the car and ordered Ms. Carey out of the car, without guns drawn. And, without guns drawn, she likely would have obeyed them, especially with her daughter in the car.
8. Ms. Carey was apparently shot after she exited the car (and this I perceived from a picture of the car after it had careened off the road, with the driver's side door opened--there was no signs of bullet holes on the car or windows shattered by bullets)(also there were no signs of damage to the front of the car--that may have come from a major collision with the barrier. Ms. Carey didn't have a chance. It was the same as hunting an animal, and killing it at the first opportunity to do so. The only positive thing about the scenario was that the the baby was protected. They allowed Ms. Carey to get further enough away from the car so that the baby was not harmed. The mass media broadcast that "they were taking the baby to safety" (after "they" had killed her mother). Safety from "who"? The Police?
9. The fact that the incident took place around or near the White House made no difference as to the approach of the police because they know that American citizens are the predominant group utilizing the facilities around the White House, therefore, they are required to respect the rights of U.S. citizens (unless there is some real and observable threat) before adopting some notion of a foreign threat, if such a notion arose, and reducing the constitutional rights of citizens and taking a person's life. Even with heightened scrutiny around the White House, it does not excuse racial profiling.
These are just some of the facts, notions, or inferences (and some of the information I saw firsthand from the video that was shown of parts of the incident) that I believe leads to the conclusion that the Capitol Police, or whatever police (e.g., secret service officers) did the shooting, conducted a racially-profiled murder of Ms. Carey. From the time the police first recognized that Ms. Carey was black, they operated differently towards her than they would have if she was white. They assumed that her collision with the barricade was in bad faith (or up to no good), i.e., "ramming", rather than an accident. They had no right to assume that she was a criminal, rather than a clumpsy person (even with a so-called "heightened scrutiny", based on the location and protection of the President). And their further pursuance of her proceeded on the same basis, i.e., their assumption that she was proceeding in bad faith. Ms. Carey was killed because she was black and racially-profiled.
This murder took place in Washington, D.C., near the White House, and not far from the Capitol. So it happened in the backyard of the President and the U.S. Attorney General (whose office is not that far from the scene of the killing).
But, don't expect the President and the Attorney General to pursue any justice for Ms. Carey, other than give speeches, if they do that (and thusfar, they haven't even done that). We are still waiting on a decision for the murders of Oscar Grant and Trayvon Martin, so why is Ms. Carey's case going to be any different, notwithstanding the fact that the police has now taken the baby's mother from her? Carey's child will now have to grow up without a mother. And, if the father or other family members don't step up to the plate, the little girl may end up in a foster home. For what? Because Carey ran into a barrier and lead the police on a chase?
IF THIS WAS A STATE CRIME, IT WOULD BE FIRST DEGREE MURDER--THERE WAS PREMEDITATION, DELIBERATION, AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.
Although this is a federal crime, which must be prosecuted under federal law, if it was a state crime, it would be first degree murder. The cops (or secret service agents) that first confronted Ms. Carey at the White House after she ran into the barrier decided at that point that it presented a circumstance that might allow them to use their weapons (which is why the weapons were drawn)(some of them may not have ever used their weapons in the line of duty before). When Carey did not get out of the car (after weapons were drawn), the cops then decided that at the first opportunity, they would use their weapons, using the failure to stop and the automobile as their excuse. This was the premeditation.
Next, from the site of the collision with the barrier until Carey's second collision onto the sidewalk, the cops decided that whenever the automobile finally stopped that they would fire into the vehicle. But, because they saw the baby in the vehicle, they were hesitant. However, Carey didn't allow them to act beyond the hesitation, because she bolted from the car when the car came to a halt. This was the deliberation period. They (the cops that started at the White House barrier only) thought about what they would do from the White House to the point of the killing.
Finally, the malice aforethought. Once the cops saw that Carey was black, and it didn't matter that she was a woman and a mother, they decided that they would utilize the opportunity brought about by the circumstances of the encounter to use deadly force to kill a criminal, who happened to be black (whose life, to the police, had less value than a white person, and therefore, they could act more recklessly). And, the devaluation of the black life, together with the decision to use deadly force was the malice aforethought.
So, if the killing of Ms. Carey was a state crime, the police officers actually doing the shooting and killing should be charged with first degree murder and a hate crime.
But, because the crime is a federal crime, it will have to be prosecuted pursuant to federal criminal-civil rights law, which also includes hate crime law. But, I won't go into the particulars of the appropriate federal civil rights statutes, because its clear that they were violated. There was a violent and unjustifiable death, based on race, and under color of law.
MS. CAREY'S MOTHERLY INSTINCT AND LOVE SAVED HER DAUGHTER'S LIFE; SHE GAVE HER LIFE TO SAVE HER DAUGHTER
When Ms. Carey (who had an A.A. degree in dental hygiene and a B.S. degree in health and nutrition science, and who was a working mother) first ran into the barricade at the White House and was suddenly surrounded by government officers with drawn weapons, she panicked. Her human and personal intuition and gut reaction suggested to her that the best way to avoid her and her daughter being shot at or killed at the time was to flee in the car. At least in that way they had the protection of the car, including the windows, and maybe by the time they stopped, somehow and someway, they would have greater protection (because perhaps it would become more public and draw more people and the police would not shoot them at that time).
However, because of her erratic driving, she eventually careened off the road to a sidewalk. This is where her motherly instinct and love for her daughter kicked in (and only a good mother would think this way--a poor mother would only think of herself). She instinctively, and automatically (within seconds) thought to herself, "I can stay in the car with my daughter , with the windows rolled up, and just wait and do nothing (which would endanger both our lives if the officers decide to shoot into the car) or, I can bolt from the car and leave my daughter behind and hopefully, the officers with the guns will pursue me and not my daughter, so that she will be saved". Ms. Carey bolted, and she paid the ultimate price, her life. But, she saved her daughter's life. She was her daughter's "hero".
I believe that had Ms. Carey stayed in the car, the officers would have shot into the car, even with the baby in the car. I believe that when the car first careened into the sidewalk, because of the baby, the officers had a "moment of hesitation" (and Ms. Carey used this moment of hesitation to bolt from the car). But, if Ms. Carey had not bolted immediately (during this moment of hesitation), and had remained in the car, and especially if she would have made any "movement" in the car with her hands(even to place them on the steering wheel, one at-a-time), the police officers would have opened fire into the car, notwithstanding the baby's presence. And don't say "that would never happen". It happened here in Los Angeles to a Hispanic man and his baby girl, while he was holding the baby in his arms. Purportedly, the man had a gun, but, nevertheless, the LAPD did not let the fact that the man was holding the baby in his arms stop them from firing and killing both the baby and the man. The LAPD and SWAT didn't wait until a time that they could possibly disarm the man by shooting him in the legs or waiting the man out, so that he could be talked into releasing the baby. The LAPD fired on the baby and the man, killing them both. And I believe the same thing would have happened here with Ms. Carey had she not bolted away from her daughter.
So, the Carey family should tell Carey's daughter when she is old enough to understand that her mother loved her, so much so that she gave her life so that "you" could live. There is no greater love.
**UPDATE--October 15, 2013
It's now up to the Carey family to pressure the government into seeking justice for Miriam.
Friday, October 4, 2013
AARON ALEXIS : ANOTHER LEADER IN THE WAR ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (WRD) IN AMERICA; HIS ACTIONS : ANOTHER WAKE-UP CALL FOR AMERICA ; I PREDICTED THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN AND I MAKE THE SAME PREDICTION NOW; ALEXIS NOW JOINS CHRISTOPHER DORNER; HOW MANY "LEADERS" WILL IT TAKE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES BEGAN A SERIOUS AND CONCERTED EFFORT TO ERADICATE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN AMERICA ?
Los Angeles, California
March 21, 2014
(Today's date)
October 4, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes a change or new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to the blog after the original blog)
***This blog is submitted and contributed as a part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California (and the United States). It is particularly dedicated to Christopher Dorner, the first leader of the WRD, and now, Aaron Alexis, a new leader.
When Aaron Alexis set out on his killing spree, he, like Christopher Dorner before him, declared war, and joined in the war, on racial discrimination in America. While he likely did not possess all of the qualities of a leader that Dorner possessed, he clearly possessed the most important two: he had no fear of death and he was willing and prepared to die. "There are indicators that Alexis was prepared to die during the attack and that he accepted death as the inevitable consequence of his actions." L.A. Times, "Alexis said he was 'driven' to kill", September 26, 2013. See my blog on Christopher Dorner as the first leader of the WRD. I do not know enough about Alexis to fully comment on whether or to what extent he possessed any of the remaining qualities of a leader, so I will place any further comment on his leadership qualities on hold until later. See Id. (the Christopher Dorner blog on Dorner's leadership qualities, i.e., no fear of death and ready to die).
While the white mass media has attempted to focus on such things as a suspect security clearance, mental problems, and gun control as contributors to Alexis's killing spree, while publicly stating that a motive for the killing is undetermined, I choose to focus on racial discrimination both as the cause and motive for the killings.
While the white mass media (and some of the Black press has succumb to the same indoctrination) has (and intentionally I believe) propagandized the fact that no motive has been ascertained for the killings (because unlike Chris Dorner, Alexis did not leave a "mainfesto" explaining his actions or what lead to the actions), and that it appears that Alexis was experiencing mental problems (which, through insinuation, caused him to "go off" as a crazy man and just start killing people, e.g., "Alexis had complained that he was hearing voices and being bombarded by microwaves", L.A. Times, "Navy didn't have full story on shooter", September 24, 2013), I choose to ignore the propaganda and focus on the bits and pieces of information that I have been abled to discover which sensibly (reasonably and rationally), together with America's racial history involving Black people, lead to the conclusion that Alexis's killing spree was the result of Alexis feeling and believing that he had been discriminated against at his job based on race, and more importantly, believing that he had no other recourse for relief, i.e., he had no confidence that he could obtain relief for the discrimination from the "system" (and he was probably right).
What little information that I have been able to acquire regarding the racial discrimination has generally come from the internet, not the mass media. Although one very important piece of evidence did come from television news, as an aside. See infra.
Here are a few of the "bits and pieces of information" that support a motive of racial (and/or employment) discrimination for Alexis's killing spree :
1. "Another friend said Alexis had complained of racial discrimination." Mail Online, September 16, 2013. "Mr. (Michael) Ritrovato, a 50-year-old government worker and New York native, said that Alexis, an African-American, had complained to him that he was the victim of racial discrimination." Id.
2. "Alexis also complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination during his time as a reservist from 2007 to 2011." Id.
3. (Ty)"Thairintr said Alexis told him he was upset with the Navy because 'he thought he never got a promotion because of the color of his skin. He hated his commander.'" Id.
4. "Aaron Alexis reportedly felt. . . that he was racially discriminated against." Breitbart Connect (breitbart.com), September 17, 2013.
5. "According to his best friend, Nutpisit Suthamtewakul, 31, who runs the Happy Bowl Thai restaurant, Alexis 'had been in the Navy but was unemployed. . . . He never got angry with us. He was always very nice to us. He had a couple of issues with being black. He felt he hadn't been treated right, not by the Navy, just generally. He didn't have a lot of friends - me, my wife and family, and people from temple." Id.
***6. "New information on the history and motivations of Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter who took the lives of 12 individuals, reveals that Alexis was fueled by what he felt was 'racial discrimination' during his top secret level job." Infowars (infowars.com), "Aaron Alexis Fueled By The Establishment's Race War", September 17, 2013.
***I principally rely on this asserted fact for the basis of my assertion and belief that Alexis was principally motivated by a feeling of racial discrimination for committing his killing spree.
7. "'He also felt racially discriminated against, and believed he had been financially "screwed" over a contracting job in Japan at the end of last year, friends said.'" Id.
8. "An African American, Mr. Alexis sometimes complained he was the victim of dicrimination and racial bias. Noticing that Mr. Alexis did not have steady employment, Mr. Suthamtewakul invited him to work at the restaurant, where Mr. Alexis, who spoke fluent Thai, made a positive impression on customers." Stormfront.org, "Did racial bias and discrimination drive Aaron Alexis to commit Navy Yard shooting?", September 16, 2013.
9. "Alexis was generally easygoing, she (Suthamtewakul) said in an interview at the family restaurant, the Happy Bowl in White settlement. But he bristled when describing his service in the Navy and the benefits he believed had been withheld. 'He just felt slighted by what he was getting each month,' she said." L.A. Times, "Disparate profiles emerge after attack", September 17, 2013.
***10. "Alexis seemed to hold grudges. He was upset over a salary dispute with his employer, a government subcontractor called The Experts, according to an official close to the investigation. Id.
***(see above)
11. "Ty Thairintr, 52, a Fort Worth tooling design engineer, said he met Alexis about five years ago, when Alexis was still in the Navy. 'He told me he believed he has superior abilities to his co-workers but he didn't get promoted,' he said. Id. "Alexis felt discriminated against because he was black, he said." Id.
12. "A Buddist convert who had also had flare-ups of rage, Alexis, a black man who grew up in New York City and whose last known address was in Fort Worth, Texas, complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination." L.A. Watts Times, "Gunman Navy Yard rampage had mental problems", September 19, 2013 .
13. Valerie Parlave, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office stated that Alexis "was involved in a 'routine' office disagreement the Friday before. . . ." L.A. Times, September 26, 2013 (above). Only Alexis knows for sure how Alexis interpreted that office disagreement and whether or not that "office disagreement" affected Alexis's motive for the killings.
***14. Finally, as reported on television, the killings took place at Alexis's latest workplace, Bldg. 197. This was not a coincidence; it was deliberate. Why did he choose his latest workplace to do the killings, if the killings were strictly random killings by a "madman"? Clearly, the workplace building was targeted, even if the particular people were not.
*** (see above)
So, Aaron Alexis's motive for the killing spree at the Naval Yard was retaliation for or reaction to racial discrimination that he believed he suffered at the hands of the Navy in prior years (i.e., a delayed response) and his last employer, The Experts, presently.
Aaron Alexis, like Chris Dorner before him, declared war on racial discrimination in America. And, as I indicated in my Dorner blog, some innocent people will nearly always die during a war. Regarding the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and Army Pfc. Bradley Manning providing classified materials to WikiLeaks, "Among the secret material that WikiLeaks obtained from Manning and posted on its site were combat videos of civilians being killed in U.S. airstrikes. . . ." L.A. Times, "Private's trial, government's test", June 2, 2013. And, "The government of Pakistan has consistently maintained that drone strikes are counterproductive, entail loss of innocent civilian lives, have human rights and humanitarian implications and violate the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and international law. . . ." L.A. Times, "Drone target accused of 'horrific attacks'", May 30, 2013.
"Obama acknowledged that drone strikes he has ordered have killed innocent people." L.A. Times, "Obama reveals conflicted thinking on drone strikes", May 24, 2013. "'For me and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq,' he (Obama) said."
If you review my Dorner blog, you will see where I predicted that "Of course, the method of Christopher Dorner will, necessarily, be one of the methods used in the war(WRD). But, as with Chris Dorner, it will be a method of last resort. But, there's no doubt that the method will ultimately have to be used again because the white majority generally sleeps on the other methods; again, review my case after the racially-motivated closure of my law office. It requires the Dorner method to wake them up, and clearly, Dorner woke them up." As did Alexis here.
When Dorner started the war, he killed about four or five people (and spared others) while wounding several others. Alexis surpassed Dorner and killed 12 people during the war. How many will the next leader kill ?
My biggest regret about the killings is that Alexis did not target the real racists, because without knowing for sure, I do believe that several of the people he killed likely were "innocent" people, although some may not have been, and I do feel for innocent people dying, even during a racial war. But, for the racist or "racial" people who were killed, they got what they deserve.
Another regret I have about the Alexis killings is that Alexis did not leave a "manifesto" like Chris Dorner. All future WRD leaders should follow the leadership of Chris Dorner and leave manifestoes, so that it will be clear that any related killings are part of the WRD and not just random or unintended.
So, how many "leaders" will it take before America wakes up and decide to take drastic steps to eradicate racial discrimination in the country? How many more innocent people will need to die?
Although Dr. Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer of Medstar Washington Hospital Center *in Washington, D.C., indirectly addressed the issue of racial discrimination in the country when she stated, "There is something evil in our society that we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate", Press-Telegram, "There's 'Something evil in our society'", September 18, 2013, I will address the issue directly by stating that the "something evil in our society" is racial discrimination, and "we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate it". Dr. Orlowski continued, "There's something wrong here", Id., and I will state that the "something wrong" is racial discrimination. She continued, "The only thing I can say is we have to work together to get rid of it." Id. I will state, the "it" is racial discrimination. Finally, she stated, "We've got to figure this out". Id. I state directly, we have got to take immediate steps to eradicate racial discrimination. I think the country knows about the problem of racial discrimination, so there's no figuring it out needed. What is needed is implementation of the solution (stop the discrimination on the basis of race--either voluntarily or through civil and criminal prosecution).
I realize that at points Dr. Orlowski may be referring to mass killings by gunshots in general. However, I am convinced that the "evil" she refers to in our society that we have to work to eradicate is racial discrimination, because unlike the several other mass killings (which really arose from personal problems, usually associated with mistreatment of some kind, of the individuals doing the shooting), the Alexis killings, like the Dorner killings, arose from societal problems, stemming from racial discrimination.
So, I predict that there will be other "leaders", because it's clear that the U.S. government (including the white mass media which projects the government's voice), at this time, instead of trying to address the problem of racial discrimination in the country, is trying to cover it up, e.g., broadcasting to the American people that there is no motive for Alexis's killings when they know that there is at least some evidence that the motive is racial discrimination at the workplace, and that there is no indication of a workplace dispute (knowing that there was), and emphasizing such things as a security clearance, Alexis's past disciplinary record, or mental problems as reasons for the killings, in order to divert attention away from the real problem, which is racial discrimination.
Nothing the Government would have done regarding Alexis's security clearance would have prevented what happened. These types of mass killings cannot be prevented by any security methods because they are brought by surprise and they would thwart any type of security mechanism, e.g., if a building has a security setup like the federal buildings and airports, a determined shooter would simply do his shooting before or without entering the building.
Further proof that the Government has no intention of trying to quell or eradicate racial discrimination at this time is the Justice Department's refusal to issue a decision regarding the prosecution of George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle for violating the civil rights of Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, respectively.
Any proof to the American people that the Government is intending to try and eradicate racial discrimination will have to initially come from the Justice Department, with a showing that it is earnestly prosecuting civil rights cases, both civil and criminal. Thusfar, on the whole, it is not doing so.
I believe that the relatives of the "innocent" killed victims will have to play a major role in the pursuance of the eradication of racial discrimination in the country. They suffer the greatest immediate loss, and they would have the most influential voice with the Government. President Obama and Attorney General Holder pay no attention to the pleas of Black people in this country, e.g., the prosecution of George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle, but they would likely pay attention to the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of the killed victims of the racial discrimination war and crusade, especially if they are white. It would be unusual for the relatives to charge the government with "doing nothing to stop racial discrimination" (which caused the deaths of their loved ones), but it would be justified and probably, most effective in trying to prevent further loss of life in the future. It was racial discrimination (and the lack of confidence that anything was being done about it) that caused the loss of the 13 lives lost in the Navy Yard killings.
Finally, although Alexis did not possess all of the leadership traits of Chris Dorner, he did possess most of them. From the seven identified traits, see the Chris Dorner blog, Alexis possessed the following :
(1)Strength- it took strength to do what Alexis did, knowing that he would probably die in the end. A weak person could not have and would not have done what he did. He or she might have thought about it, but the follow-through wouldn't have been there.
(2)Courage- it took courage to do what Alexis did because he realized that the probable consequences of his actions would be to give up any hope of pursuing happiness or the so-called "American Dream", e.g., a family, a home, a future, or any other ventures that he may have wanted to entertain in the future, because , again, he knew that he would probably die. There are many Black men who want to do what Alexis and Chris Dorner did, trust me, but they don't have the courage to do it; especially when it comes to dying. Rather, like me, some of them choose to rely on the non-Dorner methods to try and obtain so-called "justice", which rarely work.
(4) Character- Alexis revealed some attributes about himself that indicated he possessed at least some good character. Even though I believe that Alexis believed that he was the victim of racial discrimination, Alexis himself, like Chris Dorner, apparently, was not a racist. He did not target only white people to kill. He killed both black and white people. He was simply targeting people at his worksite, whoever they were. His anger was worksite-related rather than racially- motivated. Again,"Mr. Alexis, who spoke fluent Thai, made a positive impression on customers." Stormfront.org. How many non-Asian Americans, not to mention Black Americans, can speak fluent Thai? And to travel to a foreign country and learn the language of that country, and a Black man too? Please! And then communicate with Asian people in Thai in an American restaurant. Please! That's character. "He was a very nice person", (Afton) Bradley said in a phone interview. 'It kind of blows my mind away. I wouldn't think anything bad at all.'" MailOnline. Moreover, "Alexis was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal prior to his discharge (from the Navy)." MailOnline. And, (H)e attended Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and worked as a network technician at SinglePoint Technologies." Id.
(6) No fear of death- Alexis, like Chris Dorner, had no fear of death, apparently.
(7) Ready to die- as alluded to above, Alexis, like Chris Dorner, was ready to die when he began his killing spree, knowing that he would probably lose his life, and all of life's potential offerings.
I do not have enough information to solidly comment on Alexis's possession of traits or qualities (3)integrity and (5)honesty. I would need more information.
Rest in peace, Aaron. Your dying will not be in vain. The war continues.
**UPDATE--March 21, 2014
The white news media has produced another article trying to rationalize Aaron Alexis's shooting spree towards a mental health problem rather than a racial discrimination or employment discrimination problem, and continues to stress a "defective" security clearance as a possible cause of the shooting. The article cites a recent Navy investigation which suggests that the killing spree "might have been stopped if his employer had reported his strange behavior to the government." Sure, and his killing spree might have been stopped if his employers didn't discriminate against him also. The article also notes that the Naval investigation "concluded that the Navy and the Defense Department repeatedly failed to follow their own rules for monitoring Alexis". Yet another scapegoat excuse and refusal to face reality (that the people who discriminated against Alexis want to and intend to discriminate racially again in the future).
Again, Alexis went on his shooting spree because he was fed up and mad as hell, and was not going to take anymore. He had reached his breaking point and decided it was time to take some kind of action against his discriminating enemies. If he had any real mental problems, they only helped him to do what he did sooner. Without the mental problems, he might have delayed the shooting spree. But, it was the racial discrimination that prompted or motivated him to go on the shooting spree in the first place. And, it could not have been prevented, regardless of information about his mental state or security clearance, because no one knew it was coming (which demonstrates that his mental state was not that bad).
March 21, 2014
(Today's date)
October 4, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes a change or new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to the blog after the original blog)
***This blog is submitted and contributed as a part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California (and the United States). It is particularly dedicated to Christopher Dorner, the first leader of the WRD, and now, Aaron Alexis, a new leader.
When Aaron Alexis set out on his killing spree, he, like Christopher Dorner before him, declared war, and joined in the war, on racial discrimination in America. While he likely did not possess all of the qualities of a leader that Dorner possessed, he clearly possessed the most important two: he had no fear of death and he was willing and prepared to die. "There are indicators that Alexis was prepared to die during the attack and that he accepted death as the inevitable consequence of his actions." L.A. Times, "Alexis said he was 'driven' to kill", September 26, 2013. See my blog on Christopher Dorner as the first leader of the WRD. I do not know enough about Alexis to fully comment on whether or to what extent he possessed any of the remaining qualities of a leader, so I will place any further comment on his leadership qualities on hold until later. See Id. (the Christopher Dorner blog on Dorner's leadership qualities, i.e., no fear of death and ready to die).
While the white mass media has attempted to focus on such things as a suspect security clearance, mental problems, and gun control as contributors to Alexis's killing spree, while publicly stating that a motive for the killing is undetermined, I choose to focus on racial discrimination both as the cause and motive for the killings.
While the white mass media (and some of the Black press has succumb to the same indoctrination) has (and intentionally I believe) propagandized the fact that no motive has been ascertained for the killings (because unlike Chris Dorner, Alexis did not leave a "mainfesto" explaining his actions or what lead to the actions), and that it appears that Alexis was experiencing mental problems (which, through insinuation, caused him to "go off" as a crazy man and just start killing people, e.g., "Alexis had complained that he was hearing voices and being bombarded by microwaves", L.A. Times, "Navy didn't have full story on shooter", September 24, 2013), I choose to ignore the propaganda and focus on the bits and pieces of information that I have been abled to discover which sensibly (reasonably and rationally), together with America's racial history involving Black people, lead to the conclusion that Alexis's killing spree was the result of Alexis feeling and believing that he had been discriminated against at his job based on race, and more importantly, believing that he had no other recourse for relief, i.e., he had no confidence that he could obtain relief for the discrimination from the "system" (and he was probably right).
What little information that I have been able to acquire regarding the racial discrimination has generally come from the internet, not the mass media. Although one very important piece of evidence did come from television news, as an aside. See infra.
Here are a few of the "bits and pieces of information" that support a motive of racial (and/or employment) discrimination for Alexis's killing spree :
1. "Another friend said Alexis had complained of racial discrimination." Mail Online, September 16, 2013. "Mr. (Michael) Ritrovato, a 50-year-old government worker and New York native, said that Alexis, an African-American, had complained to him that he was the victim of racial discrimination." Id.
2. "Alexis also complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination during his time as a reservist from 2007 to 2011." Id.
3. (Ty)"Thairintr said Alexis told him he was upset with the Navy because 'he thought he never got a promotion because of the color of his skin. He hated his commander.'" Id.
4. "Aaron Alexis reportedly felt. . . that he was racially discriminated against." Breitbart Connect (breitbart.com), September 17, 2013.
5. "According to his best friend, Nutpisit Suthamtewakul, 31, who runs the Happy Bowl Thai restaurant, Alexis 'had been in the Navy but was unemployed. . . . He never got angry with us. He was always very nice to us. He had a couple of issues with being black. He felt he hadn't been treated right, not by the Navy, just generally. He didn't have a lot of friends - me, my wife and family, and people from temple." Id.
***6. "New information on the history and motivations of Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter who took the lives of 12 individuals, reveals that Alexis was fueled by what he felt was 'racial discrimination' during his top secret level job." Infowars (infowars.com), "Aaron Alexis Fueled By The Establishment's Race War", September 17, 2013.
***I principally rely on this asserted fact for the basis of my assertion and belief that Alexis was principally motivated by a feeling of racial discrimination for committing his killing spree.
7. "'He also felt racially discriminated against, and believed he had been financially "screwed" over a contracting job in Japan at the end of last year, friends said.'" Id.
8. "An African American, Mr. Alexis sometimes complained he was the victim of dicrimination and racial bias. Noticing that Mr. Alexis did not have steady employment, Mr. Suthamtewakul invited him to work at the restaurant, where Mr. Alexis, who spoke fluent Thai, made a positive impression on customers." Stormfront.org, "Did racial bias and discrimination drive Aaron Alexis to commit Navy Yard shooting?", September 16, 2013.
9. "Alexis was generally easygoing, she (Suthamtewakul) said in an interview at the family restaurant, the Happy Bowl in White settlement. But he bristled when describing his service in the Navy and the benefits he believed had been withheld. 'He just felt slighted by what he was getting each month,' she said." L.A. Times, "Disparate profiles emerge after attack", September 17, 2013.
***10. "Alexis seemed to hold grudges. He was upset over a salary dispute with his employer, a government subcontractor called The Experts, according to an official close to the investigation. Id.
***(see above)
11. "Ty Thairintr, 52, a Fort Worth tooling design engineer, said he met Alexis about five years ago, when Alexis was still in the Navy. 'He told me he believed he has superior abilities to his co-workers but he didn't get promoted,' he said. Id. "Alexis felt discriminated against because he was black, he said." Id.
12. "A Buddist convert who had also had flare-ups of rage, Alexis, a black man who grew up in New York City and whose last known address was in Fort Worth, Texas, complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination." L.A. Watts Times, "Gunman Navy Yard rampage had mental problems", September 19, 2013 .
13. Valerie Parlave, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office stated that Alexis "was involved in a 'routine' office disagreement the Friday before. . . ." L.A. Times, September 26, 2013 (above). Only Alexis knows for sure how Alexis interpreted that office disagreement and whether or not that "office disagreement" affected Alexis's motive for the killings.
***14. Finally, as reported on television, the killings took place at Alexis's latest workplace, Bldg. 197. This was not a coincidence; it was deliberate. Why did he choose his latest workplace to do the killings, if the killings were strictly random killings by a "madman"? Clearly, the workplace building was targeted, even if the particular people were not.
*** (see above)
So, Aaron Alexis's motive for the killing spree at the Naval Yard was retaliation for or reaction to racial discrimination that he believed he suffered at the hands of the Navy in prior years (i.e., a delayed response) and his last employer, The Experts, presently.
Aaron Alexis, like Chris Dorner before him, declared war on racial discrimination in America. And, as I indicated in my Dorner blog, some innocent people will nearly always die during a war. Regarding the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and Army Pfc. Bradley Manning providing classified materials to WikiLeaks, "Among the secret material that WikiLeaks obtained from Manning and posted on its site were combat videos of civilians being killed in U.S. airstrikes. . . ." L.A. Times, "Private's trial, government's test", June 2, 2013. And, "The government of Pakistan has consistently maintained that drone strikes are counterproductive, entail loss of innocent civilian lives, have human rights and humanitarian implications and violate the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and international law. . . ." L.A. Times, "Drone target accused of 'horrific attacks'", May 30, 2013.
"Obama acknowledged that drone strikes he has ordered have killed innocent people." L.A. Times, "Obama reveals conflicted thinking on drone strikes", May 24, 2013. "'For me and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq,' he (Obama) said."
If you review my Dorner blog, you will see where I predicted that "Of course, the method of Christopher Dorner will, necessarily, be one of the methods used in the war(WRD). But, as with Chris Dorner, it will be a method of last resort. But, there's no doubt that the method will ultimately have to be used again because the white majority generally sleeps on the other methods; again, review my case after the racially-motivated closure of my law office. It requires the Dorner method to wake them up, and clearly, Dorner woke them up." As did Alexis here.
When Dorner started the war, he killed about four or five people (and spared others) while wounding several others. Alexis surpassed Dorner and killed 12 people during the war. How many will the next leader kill ?
My biggest regret about the killings is that Alexis did not target the real racists, because without knowing for sure, I do believe that several of the people he killed likely were "innocent" people, although some may not have been, and I do feel for innocent people dying, even during a racial war. But, for the racist or "racial" people who were killed, they got what they deserve.
Another regret I have about the Alexis killings is that Alexis did not leave a "manifesto" like Chris Dorner. All future WRD leaders should follow the leadership of Chris Dorner and leave manifestoes, so that it will be clear that any related killings are part of the WRD and not just random or unintended.
So, how many "leaders" will it take before America wakes up and decide to take drastic steps to eradicate racial discrimination in the country? How many more innocent people will need to die?
Although Dr. Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer of Medstar Washington Hospital Center *in Washington, D.C., indirectly addressed the issue of racial discrimination in the country when she stated, "There is something evil in our society that we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate", Press-Telegram, "There's 'Something evil in our society'", September 18, 2013, I will address the issue directly by stating that the "something evil in our society" is racial discrimination, and "we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate it". Dr. Orlowski continued, "There's something wrong here", Id., and I will state that the "something wrong" is racial discrimination. She continued, "The only thing I can say is we have to work together to get rid of it." Id. I will state, the "it" is racial discrimination. Finally, she stated, "We've got to figure this out". Id. I state directly, we have got to take immediate steps to eradicate racial discrimination. I think the country knows about the problem of racial discrimination, so there's no figuring it out needed. What is needed is implementation of the solution (stop the discrimination on the basis of race--either voluntarily or through civil and criminal prosecution).
I realize that at points Dr. Orlowski may be referring to mass killings by gunshots in general. However, I am convinced that the "evil" she refers to in our society that we have to work to eradicate is racial discrimination, because unlike the several other mass killings (which really arose from personal problems, usually associated with mistreatment of some kind, of the individuals doing the shooting), the Alexis killings, like the Dorner killings, arose from societal problems, stemming from racial discrimination.
So, I predict that there will be other "leaders", because it's clear that the U.S. government (including the white mass media which projects the government's voice), at this time, instead of trying to address the problem of racial discrimination in the country, is trying to cover it up, e.g., broadcasting to the American people that there is no motive for Alexis's killings when they know that there is at least some evidence that the motive is racial discrimination at the workplace, and that there is no indication of a workplace dispute (knowing that there was), and emphasizing such things as a security clearance, Alexis's past disciplinary record, or mental problems as reasons for the killings, in order to divert attention away from the real problem, which is racial discrimination.
Nothing the Government would have done regarding Alexis's security clearance would have prevented what happened. These types of mass killings cannot be prevented by any security methods because they are brought by surprise and they would thwart any type of security mechanism, e.g., if a building has a security setup like the federal buildings and airports, a determined shooter would simply do his shooting before or without entering the building.
Further proof that the Government has no intention of trying to quell or eradicate racial discrimination at this time is the Justice Department's refusal to issue a decision regarding the prosecution of George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle for violating the civil rights of Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, respectively.
Any proof to the American people that the Government is intending to try and eradicate racial discrimination will have to initially come from the Justice Department, with a showing that it is earnestly prosecuting civil rights cases, both civil and criminal. Thusfar, on the whole, it is not doing so.
I believe that the relatives of the "innocent" killed victims will have to play a major role in the pursuance of the eradication of racial discrimination in the country. They suffer the greatest immediate loss, and they would have the most influential voice with the Government. President Obama and Attorney General Holder pay no attention to the pleas of Black people in this country, e.g., the prosecution of George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle, but they would likely pay attention to the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of the killed victims of the racial discrimination war and crusade, especially if they are white. It would be unusual for the relatives to charge the government with "doing nothing to stop racial discrimination" (which caused the deaths of their loved ones), but it would be justified and probably, most effective in trying to prevent further loss of life in the future. It was racial discrimination (and the lack of confidence that anything was being done about it) that caused the loss of the 13 lives lost in the Navy Yard killings.
Finally, although Alexis did not possess all of the leadership traits of Chris Dorner, he did possess most of them. From the seven identified traits, see the Chris Dorner blog, Alexis possessed the following :
(1)Strength- it took strength to do what Alexis did, knowing that he would probably die in the end. A weak person could not have and would not have done what he did. He or she might have thought about it, but the follow-through wouldn't have been there.
(2)Courage- it took courage to do what Alexis did because he realized that the probable consequences of his actions would be to give up any hope of pursuing happiness or the so-called "American Dream", e.g., a family, a home, a future, or any other ventures that he may have wanted to entertain in the future, because , again, he knew that he would probably die. There are many Black men who want to do what Alexis and Chris Dorner did, trust me, but they don't have the courage to do it; especially when it comes to dying. Rather, like me, some of them choose to rely on the non-Dorner methods to try and obtain so-called "justice", which rarely work.
(4) Character- Alexis revealed some attributes about himself that indicated he possessed at least some good character. Even though I believe that Alexis believed that he was the victim of racial discrimination, Alexis himself, like Chris Dorner, apparently, was not a racist. He did not target only white people to kill. He killed both black and white people. He was simply targeting people at his worksite, whoever they were. His anger was worksite-related rather than racially- motivated. Again,"Mr. Alexis, who spoke fluent Thai, made a positive impression on customers." Stormfront.org. How many non-Asian Americans, not to mention Black Americans, can speak fluent Thai? And to travel to a foreign country and learn the language of that country, and a Black man too? Please! And then communicate with Asian people in Thai in an American restaurant. Please! That's character. "He was a very nice person", (Afton) Bradley said in a phone interview. 'It kind of blows my mind away. I wouldn't think anything bad at all.'" MailOnline. Moreover, "Alexis was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal prior to his discharge (from the Navy)." MailOnline. And, (H)e attended Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and worked as a network technician at SinglePoint Technologies." Id.
(6) No fear of death- Alexis, like Chris Dorner, had no fear of death, apparently.
(7) Ready to die- as alluded to above, Alexis, like Chris Dorner, was ready to die when he began his killing spree, knowing that he would probably lose his life, and all of life's potential offerings.
I do not have enough information to solidly comment on Alexis's possession of traits or qualities (3)integrity and (5)honesty. I would need more information.
Rest in peace, Aaron. Your dying will not be in vain. The war continues.
**UPDATE--March 21, 2014
The white news media has produced another article trying to rationalize Aaron Alexis's shooting spree towards a mental health problem rather than a racial discrimination or employment discrimination problem, and continues to stress a "defective" security clearance as a possible cause of the shooting. The article cites a recent Navy investigation which suggests that the killing spree "might have been stopped if his employer had reported his strange behavior to the government." Sure, and his killing spree might have been stopped if his employers didn't discriminate against him also. The article also notes that the Naval investigation "concluded that the Navy and the Defense Department repeatedly failed to follow their own rules for monitoring Alexis". Yet another scapegoat excuse and refusal to face reality (that the people who discriminated against Alexis want to and intend to discriminate racially again in the future).
Again, Alexis went on his shooting spree because he was fed up and mad as hell, and was not going to take anymore. He had reached his breaking point and decided it was time to take some kind of action against his discriminating enemies. If he had any real mental problems, they only helped him to do what he did sooner. Without the mental problems, he might have delayed the shooting spree. But, it was the racial discrimination that prompted or motivated him to go on the shooting spree in the first place. And, it could not have been prevented, regardless of information about his mental state or security clearance, because no one knew it was coming (which demonstrates that his mental state was not that bad).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)