Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Before ruling on the Prosecution's request for a subpoena, Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero asked the defense one final, nail-in-the-coffin question: "When did Sara Duterte and Mans Carpio get married?" Defense lawyer Atty. Michael Poa answered: "2007," adding that their properties are covered by the Absolute Community of Property regime.... show more

Princess Sara DuDirty

5,401 subscribers

197,624 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

“We hope the President gives consent to release the VP’s tax records” This is House Prosecutor Chel Diokno’s appeal to PBBM after Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero has formally granted the prosecution’s request to subpoena the confidential financial and tax records of VP Sara Duterte & husband, Mans Carpio from 2007-2021. In an interview with ABS-CBN News Channel #ANCHeadstart this morning before today’s oral arguments, Diokno said, “This is not about interference, tungkulin niya ito.. we do hope in the name of transparency he will grant this” NOTE: The late PNOY granted his written consent for release of Corona’s tax records during his impeachment trial in January 2012.

“We hope the President gives consent to release the VP’s tax records” This is House Prosecutor Chel Diokno’s appeal to PBBM after Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero has formally granted the prosecution’s request to subpoena the confidential financial and tax records of VP Sara Duterte & husband, Mans Carpio from 2007-2021. In an interview with ABS-CBN News Channel #ANCHeadstart this morning before today’s oral arguments, Diokno said, “This is not about interference, tungkulin niya ito.. we do hope in the name of transparency he will grant this” NOTE: The late PNOY granted his written consent for release of Corona’s tax records during his impeachment trial in January 2012.

Karen Davila

48,094 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

MATIBAG TELLS VINLUAN: 'ASKED AND ANSWERED' WATCH: A light moment unfolded during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte after NBI director Melvin Matibag told defense lawyer Mark Vinluan that his question had already been "asked and answered." Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero gently reminded Matibag that while he was correct, he could not make a ruling on his behalf. | Lance Mejico

MATIBAG TELLS VINLUAN: 'ASKED AND ANSWERED' WATCH: A light moment unfolded during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte after NBI director Melvin Matibag told defense lawyer Mark Vinluan that his question had already been "asked and answered." Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero gently reminded Matibag that while he was correct, he could not make a ruling on his behalf. | Lance Mejico

NewsWatch Plus PH

15,117 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

‘KAILANGAN MAKITA NG PUBLIKO AT SENATOR-JUDGES ANG TUNAY NA KULAY NG BISE PRESIDENTE’ WATCH: House prosecutor Chel Diokno defends the request to subpoena Vice President Sara Duterte’s bank and tax records, including those from when she was Davao City mayor and vice mayor, saying these are directly relevant to determining her fitness—or unfitness—to serve as Vice President, an impeachable position. “From 2007 to 2013, ayon sa records ng AMLC, lumampas sa P3 billion ang kanyang financial activity,” Diokno said, adding that the question is whether Duterte betrayed public trust and violated the Constitution by amassing unexplained wealth. Diokno also noted that the financial records of the late former Chief Justice Renato Corona, including those from before he became the country’s top magistrate, were examined during his impeachment trial. | Eimor Santos

‘KAILANGAN MAKITA NG PUBLIKO AT SENATOR-JUDGES ANG TUNAY NA KULAY NG BISE PRESIDENTE’ WATCH: House prosecutor Chel Diokno defends the request to subpoena Vice President Sara Duterte’s bank and tax records, including those from when she was Davao City mayor and vice mayor, saying these are directly relevant to determining her fitness—or unfitness—to serve as Vice President, an impeachable position. “From 2007 to 2013, ayon sa records ng AMLC, lumampas sa P3 billion ang kanyang financial activity,” Diokno said, adding that the question is whether Duterte betrayed public trust and violated the Constitution by amassing unexplained wealth. Diokno also noted that the financial records of the late former Chief Justice Renato Corona, including those from before he became the country’s top magistrate, were examined during his impeachment trial. | Eimor Santos

NewsWatch Plus PH

23,686 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

‘PWEDE PALAMPASIN ANG ALLEGED GRAVE THREATS KUNG MAY LEHITIMONG DAHILAN?’ WATCH: Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros questions the relevance of showing the video of Vice President Sara Duterte’s chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, during the cross-examination of a witness in relation to alleged threats against President Marcos, the First Lady, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. “Sinasabi ba ng depensa na yung mga alleged threats or alleged incitements ni VP Duterte ay prompted nung detention ni Atty. Lopez,” Hontiveros asks, referring to the chief of staff of the Office of the Vice President. Defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa replies in the affirmative, arguing that the alleged threats stemmed from what he described as the House of Representatives’ “systematic oppression.” Hontiveros then asks, “Position po ba ng depensa na pwede palampsin ang alleged grave threats kung may masasabing lehitimong dahilan para magbanta?” “That’s not the point,” Narvasa responds. Presiding officer Chiz Escudero then reminds senator-judges to avoid questions that would require counsel to draw legal conclusions, saying such arguments are more appropriate during closing arguments. | Eimor Santos

‘PWEDE PALAMPASIN ANG ALLEGED GRAVE THREATS KUNG MAY LEHITIMONG DAHILAN?’ WATCH: Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros questions the relevance of showing the video of Vice President Sara Duterte’s chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, during the cross-examination of a witness in relation to alleged threats against President Marcos, the First Lady, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. “Sinasabi ba ng depensa na yung mga alleged threats or alleged incitements ni VP Duterte ay prompted nung detention ni Atty. Lopez,” Hontiveros asks, referring to the chief of staff of the Office of the Vice President. Defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa replies in the affirmative, arguing that the alleged threats stemmed from what he described as the House of Representatives’ “systematic oppression.” Hontiveros then asks, “Position po ba ng depensa na pwede palampsin ang alleged grave threats kung may masasabing lehitimong dahilan para magbanta?” “That’s not the point,” Narvasa responds. Presiding officer Chiz Escudero then reminds senator-judges to avoid questions that would require counsel to draw legal conclusions, saying such arguments are more appropriate during closing arguments. | Eimor Santos

NewsWatch Plus PH

530,143 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

🔸The 2-Minute Snippet vs. The 2.5-Hour Tantrum of Sara Duterte. Atty Carlo Narvasa really thought he did something there yesterday, by demanding they play all 2.5 hours of Sara Duterte throwing tantrums and threatening the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House. It was an obvious, desperate stall tactic because the defense is terrified of the actual receipts. They wanted to drown out the most damning part; but Atty. Virgil Ligutan was not about to bite. He basically told Narvasa: “Kami ang prosecution, kaya kami ang masusunod kung paano namin ihahain ang ebidensya.” The prosecution only needed that highly relevant, chilling 2-minute and 18-second clip to prove the grave threats charge, and they were not going to waste time on fluff. Presiding Judge Chiz Escudero immediately sided with Ligutan again, and shut down the drama. Essentially, Ligutan forced the defense into a corner where they had to sit and watch their client's own taped words be forensically authenticated on record. Today, Narvasa will cross examine NBI agent Calilung and Ligutan will raise objections. Who will tune in?

🔸The 2-Minute Snippet vs. The 2.5-Hour Tantrum of Sara Duterte. Atty Carlo Narvasa really thought he did something there yesterday, by demanding they play all 2.5 hours of Sara Duterte throwing tantrums and threatening the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House. It was an obvious, desperate stall tactic because the defense is terrified of the actual receipts. They wanted to drown out the most damning part; but Atty. Virgil Ligutan was not about to bite. He basically told Narvasa: “Kami ang prosecution, kaya kami ang masusunod kung paano namin ihahain ang ebidensya.” The prosecution only needed that highly relevant, chilling 2-minute and 18-second clip to prove the grave threats charge, and they were not going to waste time on fluff. Presiding Judge Chiz Escudero immediately sided with Ligutan again, and shut down the drama. Essentially, Ligutan forced the defense into a corner where they had to sit and watch their client's own taped words be forensically authenticated on record. Today, Narvasa will cross examine NBI agent Calilung and Ligutan will raise objections. Who will tune in?

Thea Tan

41,610 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

The impeachment complaint is fully compliant with the constitution and the rules of the House It doesn’t take the most brilliant of mind to know that the argument of Chiz Escudero, Bato dela Rosa and Alan Peter Cayetano are the exact argument of VP Sara’s Defense in their Supreme Court petition —- so I think they should forgive us for thinking they are actually acting like lawyers for defense, not senator judges. In his desperate attempt to justify the delay on the proceedings despite the constitution saying that the trial must proceed “forthwith”; Senate President Chiz Escudero keeps saying that the House of Representatives did not follow its own rules concerning the first three impeachment complaints. In a press conference, public prosecutor Congresswoman Atty. Bel Zamora schooled the Senators saying that the confusion might be rooted from not fully understanding the rules of the House. As per Congw. Zamora, the constitution says that the impeachment complaint should be included on the order of business within 10 session days and must be referred to the appropriate committee within 3 session days —- session days are different from 10 calendar days. On the 10th session day, February 5, all impeachment complaints were referred to the plenary and since the 4th complaint has more than ⅔ vote of the members… the House immediately transmitted it to the Senate, all others were archived. Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero keeps saying that they will follow rules and precedents — Former Impeachment Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile ruled that the verified impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate must be dealt with presumption of regularity and legality.

The impeachment complaint is fully compliant with the constitution and the rules of the House It doesn’t take the most brilliant of mind to know that the argument of Chiz Escudero, Bato dela Rosa and Alan Peter Cayetano are the exact argument of VP Sara’s Defense in their Supreme Court petition —- so I think they should forgive us for thinking they are actually acting like lawyers for defense, not senator judges. In his desperate attempt to justify the delay on the proceedings despite the constitution saying that the trial must proceed “forthwith”; Senate President Chiz Escudero keeps saying that the House of Representatives did not follow its own rules concerning the first three impeachment complaints. In a press conference, public prosecutor Congresswoman Atty. Bel Zamora schooled the Senators saying that the confusion might be rooted from not fully understanding the rules of the House. As per Congw. Zamora, the constitution says that the impeachment complaint should be included on the order of business within 10 session days and must be referred to the appropriate committee within 3 session days —- session days are different from 10 calendar days. On the 10th session day, February 5, all impeachment complaints were referred to the plenary and since the 4th complaint has more than ⅔ vote of the members… the House immediately transmitted it to the Senate, all others were archived. Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero keeps saying that they will follow rules and precedents — Former Impeachment Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile ruled that the verified impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate must be dealt with presumption of regularity and legality.

Just

12,967 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Senate President Chiz Escudero said they can dismiss the impeachment complaint with just the majority vote It is as if Escudero is laying out the predicate — testing the waters and public clamour when the possibility of them dismissing the impeachment complaint actually happens. After the whole remand of the articles fiasco, we can see right through him and who is with him on this. It doesn’t take the most brilliant of minds to say that the constitution specifically says “TRY AND DECIDE” —- it is the mandate of the impeachment court for the actual trial to happen. Legal luminaries and even framers of the Philippine constitution call him out on this! I am beginning to believe what they say, that this is not about Sara Duterte anymore— this is about his Senate presidency. To decide whether or not the impeachment complaint is constitutional is not within the mandate of the Senate nor the impeachment court. Senate President Escudero is also trying to dilute the exclusive power granted by the Constitution to the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings — saying they can decide to dismiss the case even before trial. One very dangerous precedent if you ask me. We haven’t heard a decent explanation nor defense from Sara Zimmerman Duterte, not one from formal or informal set-up. The Vice President kept diverting the issue into technicalities and accusations. Where did all the money go? I am not a fan of Atty. Fortun but I respect what he can do but not even his law firm can give good defense. Sara Duterte’ ad cautelam even cited rulings that are no longer valid. Please watch the explanation of Atty. Bucoy from his press conference earlier this afternoon.

Senate President Chiz Escudero said they can dismiss the impeachment complaint with just the majority vote It is as if Escudero is laying out the predicate — testing the waters and public clamour when the possibility of them dismissing the impeachment complaint actually happens. After the whole remand of the articles fiasco, we can see right through him and who is with him on this. It doesn’t take the most brilliant of minds to say that the constitution specifically says “TRY AND DECIDE” —- it is the mandate of the impeachment court for the actual trial to happen. Legal luminaries and even framers of the Philippine constitution call him out on this! I am beginning to believe what they say, that this is not about Sara Duterte anymore— this is about his Senate presidency. To decide whether or not the impeachment complaint is constitutional is not within the mandate of the Senate nor the impeachment court. Senate President Escudero is also trying to dilute the exclusive power granted by the Constitution to the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings — saying they can decide to dismiss the case even before trial. One very dangerous precedent if you ask me. We haven’t heard a decent explanation nor defense from Sara Zimmerman Duterte, not one from formal or informal set-up. The Vice President kept diverting the issue into technicalities and accusations. Where did all the money go? I am not a fan of Atty. Fortun but I respect what he can do but not even his law firm can give good defense. Sara Duterte’ ad cautelam even cited rulings that are no longer valid. Please watch the explanation of Atty. Bucoy from his press conference earlier this afternoon.

Just

19,826 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Remember his iconic statement by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano from the CJ Corona impeachment trial? “If your client cannot explain, I cannot abstain. If you did not disclose, we have to depose. If you are not fit, you should not sit as the CJ of our Supreme Court.” Cayetano meant that if Chief Justice Renato Corona couldn't explain or disclose these hidden financial assets, the Senate was legally and morally obligated to remove ("depose") him as he was unfit to hold office as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Back then, Cayetano was all about absolute financial transparency. He famously pushed to scrutinize Corona's bank records. Fast forward to the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte. The prosecution is calling on those exact same thing: to subpoena her financial records. Interestingly, Cayetano recently admitted, “I can tell you honestly right now, I don't know what to vote for...". Ah, really? Why don’t you watch this clip? Let’s see how he will vote in regards to the issuance of a subpoena for these financial records. Will he stick to his old battle cry, or nag-iba ang ihip ng hangin? Is it a yea or a nay?

Remember his iconic statement by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano from the CJ Corona impeachment trial? “If your client cannot explain, I cannot abstain. If you did not disclose, we have to depose. If you are not fit, you should not sit as the CJ of our Supreme Court.” Cayetano meant that if Chief Justice Renato Corona couldn't explain or disclose these hidden financial assets, the Senate was legally and morally obligated to remove ("depose") him as he was unfit to hold office as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Back then, Cayetano was all about absolute financial transparency. He famously pushed to scrutinize Corona's bank records. Fast forward to the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte. The prosecution is calling on those exact same thing: to subpoena her financial records. Interestingly, Cayetano recently admitted, “I can tell you honestly right now, I don't know what to vote for...". Ah, really? Why don’t you watch this clip? Let’s see how he will vote in regards to the issuance of a subpoena for these financial records. Will he stick to his old battle cry, or nag-iba ang ihip ng hangin? Is it a yea or a nay?

Thea Tan

172,453 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen

$The dude laid out the absolute blueprint for how to handle a traffic stop. He destroy the officer's strategy of fishing for violations just by staying calm and silent. The officer originally pulled the driver over for minor equipment violations: a dead left taillight and an unlit registration plate bulb. But as we see so often, the initial violation quickly took a backseat to a barrage of casual, probing questions designed to dig for something bigger. The officer started checking boxes—asking where the driver was coming from, where he was going, and if there were any weapons, drugs, or alcohol inside the vehicle. Instead of getting defensive, argumentative, or nervous, this driver completely flipped the script by invoking his constitutional rights with absolute precision: "I don't really wanna answer all these questions." When the officer made it clear the driver was being detained for the traffic infraction, the driver didn't panic. He just set a firm boundary: "So I can remain silent... I'm gonna remain silent." By refusing to take the bait, the driver effectively shut down the officer's strategy. Without any verbal missteps, nervous stumbles, or conflicting stories to build "reasonable suspicion" on, the officer had absolutely nothing extra to work with. Even when the officer exercised his right to order the driver out of the car for a standard safety pat-down, the driver remained cooperative but quiet. He handed over his physical ID, showed his proof of insurance on his phone, and let his silence do the heavy lifting. The result? The officer's tone stayed professional, the boundaries were respected, and the driver walked away with nothing but a verbal warning for the lights. Before cutting him loose, the officer even tried one last ditch effort, asking for consent to search the front of the vehicle. A simple, calm "No" put the final nail in the coffin. You don't need to argue on the side of the road to protect your rights. Know the law, stay calm, keep your mouth shut, and let them drive away empty-handed.$

The dude laid out the absolute blueprint for how to handle a traffic stop. He destroy the officer's strategy of fishing for violations just by staying calm and silent. The officer originally pulled the driver over for minor equipment violations: a dead left taillight and an unlit registration plate bulb. But as we see so often, the initial violation quickly took a backseat to a barrage of casual, probing questions designed to dig for something bigger. The officer started checking boxes—asking where the driver was coming from, where he was going, and if there were any weapons, drugs, or alcohol inside the vehicle. Instead of getting defensive, argumentative, or nervous, this driver completely flipped the script by invoking his constitutional rights with absolute precision: "I don't really wanna answer all these questions." When the officer made it clear the driver was being detained for the traffic infraction, the driver didn't panic. He just set a firm boundary: "So I can remain silent... I'm gonna remain silent." By refusing to take the bait, the driver effectively shut down the officer's strategy. Without any verbal missteps, nervous stumbles, or conflicting stories to build "reasonable suspicion" on, the officer had absolutely nothing extra to work with. Even when the officer exercised his right to order the driver out of the car for a standard safety pat-down, the driver remained cooperative but quiet. He handed over his physical ID, showed his proof of insurance on his phone, and let his silence do the heavy lifting. The result? The officer's tone stayed professional, the boundaries were respected, and the driver walked away with nothing but a verbal warning for the lights. Before cutting him loose, the officer even tried one last ditch effort, asking for consent to search the front of the vehicle. A simple, calm "No" put the final nail in the coffin. You don't need to argue on the side of the road to protect your rights. Know the law, stay calm, keep your mouth shut, and let them drive away empty-handed.

Giggling Ganon

315,081 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The Supreme Court just proved to all of us that the ICC case against Rodrigo Roa Duterte is necessary It all made sense now! There’s a reason for the remand, there’s the reason for all the unnecessary delays — they are waiting for this decision.I feel like we’re being robbed of the truth by the very institution we tasked to uphold the constitution. Why are they trying so hard for us not to know the truth? All these layers of protection are telling me that there are a lot of things Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hiding and she will do whatever it takes for a no-trial scenario. Justice Leonen claims that their duty is just to protect the rule of law – to protect fairness or due process. But it feels like they are just protecting the accused, as trial doesn’t mean conviction. And all the four impeachment complaints have the same goal — to impeach Sara Zimmerman Duterte. I don’t understand! How was directly transmitting the impeachment complaint wrong? 215 congressmen signed the complaint! That is more than the required ⅔ votes of the constitution. I have read the decision, in my simple mind — THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT PROTECTION FOR THOSE ARE IN POWER. A very dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court single handedly tipped the balance away from the people by overturning the ruling in 2003 — the Francisco vs the House of Representatives reiterating that only the House holds the constitutional authority to initiate impeachment. More than ⅔ of the members signed the impeachment complaint and they are just throwing it away because of technicality. The response of the House of Representatives is available online, they explained how they counted the session days —- it is rules of procedure, the Supreme Court doesn’t concern themselves with the rules of a co-equal branch. How was that unfair for the accused? I heard the rumor that this might happen days before the announcement of the Supreme Court — still, this ruling hit me hard. I have no good words to say at the moment. It is comforting that the House of Representatives released a statement today that they will seek all legal matters: Atty Princess Abante said: “The House will exhaust all remedies to protect the independence of Congress and preserve the sanctity of our constitutional role. This is not defiance. This is constitutional fidelity.” I cannot consider the statements of the Senators as good news for now, just as long as Chiz Escudero is the Senate President —- the very reason for all the delays until this happened. I have no faith in them.

The Supreme Court just proved to all of us that the ICC case against Rodrigo Roa Duterte is necessary It all made sense now! There’s a reason for the remand, there’s the reason for all the unnecessary delays — they are waiting for this decision.I feel like we’re being robbed of the truth by the very institution we tasked to uphold the constitution. Why are they trying so hard for us not to know the truth? All these layers of protection are telling me that there are a lot of things Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hiding and she will do whatever it takes for a no-trial scenario. Justice Leonen claims that their duty is just to protect the rule of law – to protect fairness or due process. But it feels like they are just protecting the accused, as trial doesn’t mean conviction. And all the four impeachment complaints have the same goal — to impeach Sara Zimmerman Duterte. I don’t understand! How was directly transmitting the impeachment complaint wrong? 215 congressmen signed the complaint! That is more than the required ⅔ votes of the constitution. I have read the decision, in my simple mind — THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT PROTECTION FOR THOSE ARE IN POWER. A very dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court single handedly tipped the balance away from the people by overturning the ruling in 2003 — the Francisco vs the House of Representatives reiterating that only the House holds the constitutional authority to initiate impeachment. More than ⅔ of the members signed the impeachment complaint and they are just throwing it away because of technicality. The response of the House of Representatives is available online, they explained how they counted the session days —- it is rules of procedure, the Supreme Court doesn’t concern themselves with the rules of a co-equal branch. How was that unfair for the accused? I heard the rumor that this might happen days before the announcement of the Supreme Court — still, this ruling hit me hard. I have no good words to say at the moment. It is comforting that the House of Representatives released a statement today that they will seek all legal matters: Atty Princess Abante said: “The House will exhaust all remedies to protect the independence of Congress and preserve the sanctity of our constitutional role. This is not defiance. This is constitutional fidelity.” I cannot consider the statements of the Senators as good news for now, just as long as Chiz Escudero is the Senate President —- the very reason for all the delays until this happened. I have no faith in them.

Just

69,219 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨DHS lied again about a Border Patrol shooting in San Bernardino. U.S. citizens were illegally stopped, their windows smashed, and then shot at fourteen times while trying to DRIVE AWAY… with a TEENAGER inside the car. After the shooting, DHS tried to flip the story and charged the driver, Francisco Longoria, with assault on a federal officer. That charge collapses immediately on video. There were no agents and no vehicles in front of the car. No one was being threatened. No officer was in danger. On August 16, Border Patrol agents unlawfully detained a U.S. citizen traveling with his teenage son and his daughter’s boyfriend. Agents demanded identification without legal cause. When the family did not comply, agents smashed the vehicle’s windows… an unlawful escalation and destruction of property. Francisco drove away in fear. As the car was fleeing, agents opened fire 14 times. DHS later claimed the shooting was “self-defense,” saying the driver “forced a CBP officer to discharge his firearm.” That is a lie. The videos clearly show no imminent threat, no officer in the vehicle’s path, and no legal justification for deadly force. Fleeing is not a capital offense. Law enforcement is not allowed to shoot people for driving away. The charges against Francisco were eventually dropped. But, the agents who illegally detained U.S. citizens, smashed their windows, and fired 14 rounds at a car carrying a teenager? They faced no consequences. So, the question isn’t whether DHS lied… The question is: how many citizens have to be shot at before federal agents are held accountable for violating the Constitution?

🚨DHS lied again about a Border Patrol shooting in San Bernardino. U.S. citizens were illegally stopped, their windows smashed, and then shot at fourteen times while trying to DRIVE AWAY… with a TEENAGER inside the car. After the shooting, DHS tried to flip the story and charged the driver, Francisco Longoria, with assault on a federal officer. That charge collapses immediately on video. There were no agents and no vehicles in front of the car. No one was being threatened. No officer was in danger. On August 16, Border Patrol agents unlawfully detained a U.S. citizen traveling with his teenage son and his daughter’s boyfriend. Agents demanded identification without legal cause. When the family did not comply, agents smashed the vehicle’s windows… an unlawful escalation and destruction of property. Francisco drove away in fear. As the car was fleeing, agents opened fire 14 times. DHS later claimed the shooting was “self-defense,” saying the driver “forced a CBP officer to discharge his firearm.” That is a lie. The videos clearly show no imminent threat, no officer in the vehicle’s path, and no legal justification for deadly force. Fleeing is not a capital offense. Law enforcement is not allowed to shoot people for driving away. The charges against Francisco were eventually dropped. But, the agents who illegally detained U.S. citizens, smashed their windows, and fired 14 rounds at a car carrying a teenager? They faced no consequences. So, the question isn’t whether DHS lied… The question is: how many citizens have to be shot at before federal agents are held accountable for violating the Constitution?

Jesus Freakin Congress

300,728 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

FULL HEARING: Karen Read and Colin Albert Motion To Compel Hearing (6/22/2026). Hearing notes: Judge Gildea was highly suspect of Colin Albert's lawyer after that lawyer suggested he "had done research" and "contacted the army 4 times" to determine if Colin Albert could be forced to sit for a deposition in a civil case while in basic training. "Did your research include what happens if the subpoena had already been served [before enlistment]?" Judge Gildea shot back. Later, Judge Gildea also scolded Albert's counsel for suggesting Colin's original deposition had been "cancelled": "You might not want to use the words 'the other side cancelled the deposition.' You should couch it in the terms that it is disputed." Karen's lawyers also announced that other witnesses -- including Brian Albert, Nicole Albert, Jennifer McCabe and Matt McCabe-- are attempting to avoid their depositions and, in turn, further motions to compel will be incoming. Shockingly Brian Tully, a state police officer in charge of the investigation of Karen for John's death, is also attempting to avoid being deposed by Karen's lawyers. Read's lawyers told Judge Gildea that Tully had agreed to be deposed on July 8th, 2026 and then, suddenly, last week, submitted a motion to the court seeking to quash (or cancel) the deposition without conferring with Karen's counsel before the motion was filed. Karen's lawyers told Judge Gildea that they wrote an opposition to Tully's motion to quash, and that those documents should hit the docket soon (Tully's counsel has to file them as a single Rule 9(A) package). Colin's lawyers said they disagree with the court about the validity of the subpoena served by Karen on Colin Albert. Then, Colin's lawyers said the parties would need to obtain the permission of Albert's commanding officer at basic training in order to make the deposition happen. "I've never done that before so I don't know how to make that happen," said Colin's befuddled lawyer. "I've called [the army] four times," Colin's lawyer said. "The reality is, neither we nor Mr. Albert have any authority to present him for a deposition during basic training. This is a 10 week program and, after that, we understand he will be available for leave," Colin's lawyer continued. "Given the burden this would impose..." Colin's lawyer tried to say, before being cut off by Judge Gildea, who noted; "Excuse me, the burden is self-imposed because there was a subpoena and, as I've said a number of times, a subpoena needs to mean something. And, also, there was an agreement between attorneys and an attorney's word needs to mean something." Colin's lawyers then tried to argue that Judge Gildea was wrong and the subpoena for Colin "is not valid." Judge Gildea did not take kindly to that argument, nor did Karen's lawyer Aaron Rosenberg. Rosenberg was furious that Colin's lawyer has refused to produce any documents and, also, that Colin's lawyer told the court a rescheduled deposition was somehow "cancelled." Rosenberg also had serious questions about whether Colin Albert disclosed his ongoing civil cases, and subpoenas, to the army before enlistment. "I would have a couple questions [about that process]: first, was Mr. Albert asked to identify this proceeding, and the subpoena that he had received, when he enlisted in the military? If he was, does that impact his ability to come back to Massachusetts to appear pursuant to the subpoena that was issued in this case?" Rosenberg began. "At the end of the day, everyone respects a person's decision to serve this country, but the timing of this [enlistment] is extremely relevant. We served the subpoena, we had the back and forth where we said we would reschedule, we waited three weeks for a response on the documents, we then got an email saying, 'Mr. Albert is available for the next 13 days and then he's gone.' That's not appropriate, and that's not in compliance with the subpoena that was issued by counsel through this court," Rosenberg continued. "And if there's something we can do to help make the taking of this deposition more possible, we're happy to do that, but there's been no proposal to do this. There is simply a response that says, '[Colin Albert] can't do [what you asked.]'" Karen's lawyer then noted that Colin's last-second request to extend a firm discovery deadline in the case is outrageous in light of Judge Gildea's firm enforcement of the end of the existing August, 2026, discovery period. Colin's lawyer than told Judge Gildea that, if the court orders Colin to appear for a deposition, Colin's lawyers will comply. During the hearing, Judge Gildea and Karen's lawyer Aaron Rosenberg also discussed the scope of discovery related to Colin Albert and Colin Albert's movements on the early morning of John O'Keefe's death (1/29/22). Colin's lawyer was allowed to participate in the hearing without being pro hac'd into the case (Colin's lawyer is from another state for some reason). Colin's lawyer objected to producing communications between Colin Albert and his parents that went beyond matters relating to the death of John O'Keefe, but Rosenberg pointed out to Judge Gildea that the case is about far more than John's death, as there are also allegations of conspiracy related to Karen's public narrative about her innocence. Karen's lawyer proposed to Judge Gildea that the parties could work together on a list of search terms related to those documents requests. Colin's lawyer than objected to providing information in the case about Colin's messages about Karen on his phone. Colin's lawyer suggested these documents should not be turned over because a journalist, Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney, is facing charges related to his coverage of the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case. Next hearing on motions to compel will be July 6th, 2026, at 2PM ET. Our next status hearing in this matter is on June 26th, 2026, at 9:45AM ET. Thank you to Canton Community TV (Canton Community TV) for the pool footage!

FULL HEARING: Karen Read and Colin Albert Motion To Compel Hearing (6/22/2026). Hearing notes: Judge Gildea was highly suspect of Colin Albert's lawyer after that lawyer suggested he "had done research" and "contacted the army 4 times" to determine if Colin Albert could be forced to sit for a deposition in a civil case while in basic training. "Did your research include what happens if the subpoena had already been served [before enlistment]?" Judge Gildea shot back. Later, Judge Gildea also scolded Albert's counsel for suggesting Colin's original deposition had been "cancelled": "You might not want to use the words 'the other side cancelled the deposition.' You should couch it in the terms that it is disputed." Karen's lawyers also announced that other witnesses -- including Brian Albert, Nicole Albert, Jennifer McCabe and Matt McCabe-- are attempting to avoid their depositions and, in turn, further motions to compel will be incoming. Shockingly Brian Tully, a state police officer in charge of the investigation of Karen for John's death, is also attempting to avoid being deposed by Karen's lawyers. Read's lawyers told Judge Gildea that Tully had agreed to be deposed on July 8th, 2026 and then, suddenly, last week, submitted a motion to the court seeking to quash (or cancel) the deposition without conferring with Karen's counsel before the motion was filed. Karen's lawyers told Judge Gildea that they wrote an opposition to Tully's motion to quash, and that those documents should hit the docket soon (Tully's counsel has to file them as a single Rule 9(A) package). Colin's lawyers said they disagree with the court about the validity of the subpoena served by Karen on Colin Albert. Then, Colin's lawyers said the parties would need to obtain the permission of Albert's commanding officer at basic training in order to make the deposition happen. "I've never done that before so I don't know how to make that happen," said Colin's befuddled lawyer. "I've called [the army] four times," Colin's lawyer said. "The reality is, neither we nor Mr. Albert have any authority to present him for a deposition during basic training. This is a 10 week program and, after that, we understand he will be available for leave," Colin's lawyer continued. "Given the burden this would impose..." Colin's lawyer tried to say, before being cut off by Judge Gildea, who noted; "Excuse me, the burden is self-imposed because there was a subpoena and, as I've said a number of times, a subpoena needs to mean something. And, also, there was an agreement between attorneys and an attorney's word needs to mean something." Colin's lawyers then tried to argue that Judge Gildea was wrong and the subpoena for Colin "is not valid." Judge Gildea did not take kindly to that argument, nor did Karen's lawyer Aaron Rosenberg. Rosenberg was furious that Colin's lawyer has refused to produce any documents and, also, that Colin's lawyer told the court a rescheduled deposition was somehow "cancelled." Rosenberg also had serious questions about whether Colin Albert disclosed his ongoing civil cases, and subpoenas, to the army before enlistment. "I would have a couple questions [about that process]: first, was Mr. Albert asked to identify this proceeding, and the subpoena that he had received, when he enlisted in the military? If he was, does that impact his ability to come back to Massachusetts to appear pursuant to the subpoena that was issued in this case?" Rosenberg began. "At the end of the day, everyone respects a person's decision to serve this country, but the timing of this [enlistment] is extremely relevant. We served the subpoena, we had the back and forth where we said we would reschedule, we waited three weeks for a response on the documents, we then got an email saying, 'Mr. Albert is available for the next 13 days and then he's gone.' That's not appropriate, and that's not in compliance with the subpoena that was issued by counsel through this court," Rosenberg continued. "And if there's something we can do to help make the taking of this deposition more possible, we're happy to do that, but there's been no proposal to do this. There is simply a response that says, '[Colin Albert] can't do [what you asked.]'" Karen's lawyer then noted that Colin's last-second request to extend a firm discovery deadline in the case is outrageous in light of Judge Gildea's firm enforcement of the end of the existing August, 2026, discovery period. Colin's lawyer than told Judge Gildea that, if the court orders Colin to appear for a deposition, Colin's lawyers will comply. During the hearing, Judge Gildea and Karen's lawyer Aaron Rosenberg also discussed the scope of discovery related to Colin Albert and Colin Albert's movements on the early morning of John O'Keefe's death (1/29/22). Colin's lawyer was allowed to participate in the hearing without being pro hac'd into the case (Colin's lawyer is from another state for some reason). Colin's lawyer objected to producing communications between Colin Albert and his parents that went beyond matters relating to the death of John O'Keefe, but Rosenberg pointed out to Judge Gildea that the case is about far more than John's death, as there are also allegations of conspiracy related to Karen's public narrative about her innocence. Karen's lawyer proposed to Judge Gildea that the parties could work together on a list of search terms related to those documents requests. Colin's lawyer than objected to providing information in the case about Colin's messages about Karen on his phone. Colin's lawyer suggested these documents should not be turned over because a journalist, Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney, is facing charges related to his coverage of the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case. Next hearing on motions to compel will be July 6th, 2026, at 2PM ET. Our next status hearing in this matter is on June 26th, 2026, at 9:45AM ET. Thank you to Canton Community TV (Canton Community TV) for the pool footage!

Grant Smith Ellis

30,206 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

“Tama na po, may test pa ako bukas.”—Kian delos Santos, extrajudicial killing victim. This is just one of the thousands of lives lost in Duterte's fake war on drugs—murders that you and your ilk have shamelessly cheered on. Trixie Angeles, the problem with you is that you defended Duterte’s bloody regime as if nothing happened, justifying the slaughter of Filipinos by branding them criminals and drug addicts—stripped of their humanity, their rights, and due process. You have also hurled baseless accusations against President Marcos, with your camp even labeling him a drug addict—yet you have failed to present a shred of incontrovertible evidence. Worse, you defended the blatant threat against President Marcos issued by the entitled and corrupt Vice President Sara Duterte—and you were present when she made that threat. Perhaps it is time you reap what you sow. And let’s not forget—you have been suspended twice from the legal profession, with one instance being a lengthy suspension, all due to unethical and dishonest practices that violate the very principles of the law. Worse still, you now cower from congressional inquiries, evading accountability for the disinformation you so eagerly spread. You have no credibility, Trixie. None.

“Tama na po, may test pa ako bukas.”—Kian delos Santos, extrajudicial killing victim. This is just one of the thousands of lives lost in Duterte's fake war on drugs—murders that you and your ilk have shamelessly cheered on. Trixie Angeles, the problem with you is that you defended Duterte’s bloody regime as if nothing happened, justifying the slaughter of Filipinos by branding them criminals and drug addicts—stripped of their humanity, their rights, and due process. You have also hurled baseless accusations against President Marcos, with your camp even labeling him a drug addict—yet you have failed to present a shred of incontrovertible evidence. Worse, you defended the blatant threat against President Marcos issued by the entitled and corrupt Vice President Sara Duterte—and you were present when she made that threat. Perhaps it is time you reap what you sow. And let’s not forget—you have been suspended twice from the legal profession, with one instance being a lengthy suspension, all due to unethical and dishonest practices that violate the very principles of the law. Worse still, you now cower from congressional inquiries, evading accountability for the disinformation you so eagerly spread. You have no credibility, Trixie. None.

The King

39,347 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

VIDEO: Woman who threw speeding ticket toward Hurst Police officer brings complaint to city council FOX 4 NEWS ... HURST, Texas - A Hurst woman and the local police department are telling different sides of a story involving a traffic stop and a thrown speeding ticket. On Jan. 16, Taneisha Thompson was stopped by a Hurst police officer after allegedly speeding in a school zone. Hurst Police released body camera footage of the incident on Tuesday. In the video, an officer issues Thompson a traffic citation after a brief conversation. Thompson is seen throwing the ticket back at the officer, who then placed Thompson under arrest with the help of another officer. Officers pulled Thompson out of her car and onto the ground before arresting her. Thompson's child was present in the passenger seat of the vehicle at the time of the incident. Thompson has hired civil rights attorney Lee Merritt as she considers legal action against the Hurst Police Department. She says she suffered a black eye, a lip injury that required stitches and several bruises on her body from the incident. Thompson read a statement to reporters on Tuesday evening during a press conference before sharing her story with Hurst City Council. "I am here today because this is bigger than me—this is about all of us. It is about ensuring de-escalation, about prioritizing the safety of every citizen, so that no one else endures what I did. I am deeply grateful for all the support I have received from around the world—this is a call for justice, for humanity, and for safety. I will not be silenced," part of Thompson's statement read. Merritt answered questions during the presser. When asked about Thompson's throwing of the ticket, Merritt said: "I tell my clients, I tell the public in general, it’s not best to litigate a case on the side of the road. If you’re upset about a police encounter, hold your peace, hire an attorney, file a complaint with the police department later." He also stated: "I let the public know, just because this is the law, that you actually have every right to be rude to law enforcement. Not best practice, but you have every right to be rude." Hurst Police are standing by the officer. "Corporal Morgan acted in full accordance with the law and with our department’s policies and the department stands firmly behind his actions," Hurst Police Chief Billy Keadle said. The department conducted an investigation into the incident after Thompson filed a formal complaint claiming excessive use of force. The investigation determined the claims were unfounded. Alex del Carmen, a criminologist at Tarleton State University, viewed the footage and said the officer's actions were lawful. "What I said after reviewing the entire footage was that the woman was very disrespectful of the office during the entire exchange. Further, that the officer, up to the point of handing the ticket to her, was very respectful, professional and showed restraint," del Carmen said. "However, when the woman threw the citation out the window, the officer had the choice of either giving her another citation for loitering, ignoring it, or asking another officer to step in. Instead, he chose to issue a verbal command for the woman to get out of the vehicle, and she refused." "At that point, the officer used physical force. Although this was awful, it is lawful, for the woman refused to get out of the vehicle and ignored the officer’s commands."

VIDEO: Woman who threw speeding ticket toward Hurst Police officer brings complaint to city council FOX 4 NEWS ... HURST, Texas - A Hurst woman and the local police department are telling different sides of a story involving a traffic stop and a thrown speeding ticket. On Jan. 16, Taneisha Thompson was stopped by a Hurst police officer after allegedly speeding in a school zone. Hurst Police released body camera footage of the incident on Tuesday. In the video, an officer issues Thompson a traffic citation after a brief conversation. Thompson is seen throwing the ticket back at the officer, who then placed Thompson under arrest with the help of another officer. Officers pulled Thompson out of her car and onto the ground before arresting her. Thompson's child was present in the passenger seat of the vehicle at the time of the incident. Thompson has hired civil rights attorney Lee Merritt as she considers legal action against the Hurst Police Department. She says she suffered a black eye, a lip injury that required stitches and several bruises on her body from the incident. Thompson read a statement to reporters on Tuesday evening during a press conference before sharing her story with Hurst City Council. "I am here today because this is bigger than me—this is about all of us. It is about ensuring de-escalation, about prioritizing the safety of every citizen, so that no one else endures what I did. I am deeply grateful for all the support I have received from around the world—this is a call for justice, for humanity, and for safety. I will not be silenced," part of Thompson's statement read. Merritt answered questions during the presser. When asked about Thompson's throwing of the ticket, Merritt said: "I tell my clients, I tell the public in general, it’s not best to litigate a case on the side of the road. If you’re upset about a police encounter, hold your peace, hire an attorney, file a complaint with the police department later." He also stated: "I let the public know, just because this is the law, that you actually have every right to be rude to law enforcement. Not best practice, but you have every right to be rude." Hurst Police are standing by the officer. "Corporal Morgan acted in full accordance with the law and with our department’s policies and the department stands firmly behind his actions," Hurst Police Chief Billy Keadle said. The department conducted an investigation into the incident after Thompson filed a formal complaint claiming excessive use of force. The investigation determined the claims were unfounded. Alex del Carmen, a criminologist at Tarleton State University, viewed the footage and said the officer's actions were lawful. "What I said after reviewing the entire footage was that the woman was very disrespectful of the office during the entire exchange. Further, that the officer, up to the point of handing the ticket to her, was very respectful, professional and showed restraint," del Carmen said. "However, when the woman threw the citation out the window, the officer had the choice of either giving her another citation for loitering, ignoring it, or asking another officer to step in. Instead, he chose to issue a verbal command for the woman to get out of the vehicle, and she refused." "At that point, the officer used physical force. Although this was awful, it is lawful, for the woman refused to get out of the vehicle and ignored the officer’s commands."

David Sentendrey

65,753 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

42,617 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

This is COMPLETE OVERUSE OF FORCE by the Miami-Dade Police against Fred Kerley. The same Fred Kerley, who just finished representing the USA and winning a Bronze Medal in the 100m at the 2024 Olympics in Paris. How do you represent your country and come home to unnecessary beat downs like this? Being an Olympian doesn’t exempt you from being held accountable when you break the rules or the law of the land, but every human being should be exempt from being jumped and tased by 4 Police officers when it’s not warranted. In this footage it is clear that Fred Kerley was going about his business and not the aggressor in the situation. It is clear that the first Police officer put his hands on Fred for no apparent reason. From that point on, the Police officer escalated the situation by pushing Fred extremely hard after Fred clearly asked him not to touch him and gently removed his hand from his chest. The Officer then charged Fred and Fred defended himself. In what world is it okay for a Police officer to unnecessarily push a civilian or charge them with violent intentions. Watch for yourself and you will see that NONE OF THIS WAS NECESSARY. Murderers and terrorist get treated better than Fred Kerley was in this situation. Murderers and terrorist get treated with more grace and patience than Fred Kerley was in this situation. Ask yourself where is the audio from before the fight broke out? Complying with the Police is always the best option, but American citizens should not be put in situations where they have to defend themselves from the Police. The Police are supposed to be helping us not harming or intimidating us. Was that accomplished here? No it wasn’t. Protect and serve the community, uphold the law fairly and ensure public safety. Is that what this is? No it’s not. This is ABUSE OF POWER. Fred Kerley didn’t deserve this. No one does.

This is COMPLETE OVERUSE OF FORCE by the Miami-Dade Police against Fred Kerley. The same Fred Kerley, who just finished representing the USA and winning a Bronze Medal in the 100m at the 2024 Olympics in Paris. How do you represent your country and come home to unnecessary beat downs like this? Being an Olympian doesn’t exempt you from being held accountable when you break the rules or the law of the land, but every human being should be exempt from being jumped and tased by 4 Police officers when it’s not warranted. In this footage it is clear that Fred Kerley was going about his business and not the aggressor in the situation. It is clear that the first Police officer put his hands on Fred for no apparent reason. From that point on, the Police officer escalated the situation by pushing Fred extremely hard after Fred clearly asked him not to touch him and gently removed his hand from his chest. The Officer then charged Fred and Fred defended himself. In what world is it okay for a Police officer to unnecessarily push a civilian or charge them with violent intentions. Watch for yourself and you will see that NONE OF THIS WAS NECESSARY. Murderers and terrorist get treated better than Fred Kerley was in this situation. Murderers and terrorist get treated with more grace and patience than Fred Kerley was in this situation. Ask yourself where is the audio from before the fight broke out? Complying with the Police is always the best option, but American citizens should not be put in situations where they have to defend themselves from the Police. The Police are supposed to be helping us not harming or intimidating us. Was that accomplished here? No it wasn’t. Protect and serve the community, uphold the law fairly and ensure public safety. Is that what this is? No it’s not. This is ABUSE OF POWER. Fred Kerley didn’t deserve this. No one does.

Robert Griffin III

1,508,870 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Man gets arrested for demanding to speak with chief of police in police lobby. Who was wrong in this situation? Christopher Young walked into the Springboro Police Department lobby demanding to speak directly with the Chief of Police. Young was furious over a traffic citation he had received the previous day for not wearing a seatbelt—a ticket he adamantly claimed was based on a lie by the citing officer. When department staff informed him the chief was unavailable and asked him to calm down or leave, Young refused, repeatedly demanding to see leadership. The tension escalated rapidly when an officer ordered Young to take his hands out of his pockets. Young refused and began backing away. Believing Young was non-compliant and trespassing, the officer grabbed Young’s arm to initiate an arrest. A physical struggle ensued. Young tackled the officer to the ground, prompting multiple officers and station staff to intervene, with one officer shouting to "tase him." Young was ultimately subdued, handcuffed, and charged with criminal trespass and obstructing official business. This footage highlights a critical friction point between citizen rights and law enforcement authority. Was this a lawful arrest or did this officer violate his rights and assult Chris? Perspective A: The Officer Assaulted a Citizen Doing Legitimate Business From a strict civil liberties standpoint, many argue the officer was the unlawful aggressor. Right to be There: A police lobby is a public building funded by taxpayers. Young was there on legitimate business—to file a complaint regarding what he believed to be a fraudulent ticket. You cannot simply trespass a citizen from a public space when they are attempting to engage with their government/ have official business. The "Hands in Pockets" Fallacy: Keeping your hands in your pockets is not a crime. Because no crime was actively being committed, the officer's command to remove them was merely a request, not a lawful order. Initiating Force: Young was backing away and not posing an active physical threat. By "laying hands" on him first, the officer unlawfully escalated a verbal grievance into a physical assault, making the subsequent struggle a reaction to police aggression. Perspective B: The Officer Executed a Lawful Arrest for Obstruction From a law enforcement and prosecution standpoint, the officer's actions were fully justified under existing legal precedents. Limited Public Fora: Courts have consistently ruled that government buildings and police lobbies are "non-public fora." While open for business, citizens do not have an absolute right to remain if their conduct becomes disruptive or interferes with operations. Once ordered to leave by authorities, refusing to do so converts the stay into criminal trespass. Officer Safety and Terry Precedent: Under Terry v. Ohio, officers have the authority to manage a scene for safety. In a high-tension dispute, unseeable hands are a statistical threat for concealed weapons. Refusing a direct safety command to show your hands during an escalating dispute constitutes active non-compliance and obstruction. Lawful Use of Force: Once a subject actively obstructs and refuses a dispersal order, officers are legally permitted to use proportional physical force to effect an arrest. This case perfectly illustrates the fragile balance between a citizen's right to demand government accountability without fear of physical detention, and an officer's duty to maintain order and safety within a secure facility. Did the officer overstep his authority and assault a frustrated citizen, or did the citizen's non-compliance and disruption turn a legitimate grievance into a lawful arrest? I'm very interested to hear the debates on both sides.

Man gets arrested for demanding to speak with chief of police in police lobby. Who was wrong in this situation? Christopher Young walked into the Springboro Police Department lobby demanding to speak directly with the Chief of Police. Young was furious over a traffic citation he had received the previous day for not wearing a seatbelt—a ticket he adamantly claimed was based on a lie by the citing officer. When department staff informed him the chief was unavailable and asked him to calm down or leave, Young refused, repeatedly demanding to see leadership. The tension escalated rapidly when an officer ordered Young to take his hands out of his pockets. Young refused and began backing away. Believing Young was non-compliant and trespassing, the officer grabbed Young’s arm to initiate an arrest. A physical struggle ensued. Young tackled the officer to the ground, prompting multiple officers and station staff to intervene, with one officer shouting to "tase him." Young was ultimately subdued, handcuffed, and charged with criminal trespass and obstructing official business. This footage highlights a critical friction point between citizen rights and law enforcement authority. Was this a lawful arrest or did this officer violate his rights and assult Chris? Perspective A: The Officer Assaulted a Citizen Doing Legitimate Business From a strict civil liberties standpoint, many argue the officer was the unlawful aggressor. Right to be There: A police lobby is a public building funded by taxpayers. Young was there on legitimate business—to file a complaint regarding what he believed to be a fraudulent ticket. You cannot simply trespass a citizen from a public space when they are attempting to engage with their government/ have official business. The "Hands in Pockets" Fallacy: Keeping your hands in your pockets is not a crime. Because no crime was actively being committed, the officer's command to remove them was merely a request, not a lawful order. Initiating Force: Young was backing away and not posing an active physical threat. By "laying hands" on him first, the officer unlawfully escalated a verbal grievance into a physical assault, making the subsequent struggle a reaction to police aggression. Perspective B: The Officer Executed a Lawful Arrest for Obstruction From a law enforcement and prosecution standpoint, the officer's actions were fully justified under existing legal precedents. Limited Public Fora: Courts have consistently ruled that government buildings and police lobbies are "non-public fora." While open for business, citizens do not have an absolute right to remain if their conduct becomes disruptive or interferes with operations. Once ordered to leave by authorities, refusing to do so converts the stay into criminal trespass. Officer Safety and Terry Precedent: Under Terry v. Ohio, officers have the authority to manage a scene for safety. In a high-tension dispute, unseeable hands are a statistical threat for concealed weapons. Refusing a direct safety command to show your hands during an escalating dispute constitutes active non-compliance and obstruction. Lawful Use of Force: Once a subject actively obstructs and refuses a dispersal order, officers are legally permitted to use proportional physical force to effect an arrest. This case perfectly illustrates the fragile balance between a citizen's right to demand government accountability without fear of physical detention, and an officer's duty to maintain order and safety within a secure facility. Did the officer overstep his authority and assault a frustrated citizen, or did the citizen's non-compliance and disruption turn a legitimate grievance into a lawful arrest? I'm very interested to hear the debates on both sides.

Giggling Ganon

126,483 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Officer gets his ego damaged because guy on a bike asked the employees of white castle directions after the office already told him. So the officer takes him down arrested him and cost the city 9.3 million in a settlement. 20-year-old Luther Gonzalez-Hall was riding his bicycle home when he became lost. He flagged down Dearborn Police Officer Marvin Sanders to ask for help. Finding the officer’s demeanor hostile, Luther decided to ride over to a nearby White Castle to ask the employees inside for directions instead. Officer Sanders followed him into the restaurant, aggressively demanding to know why Luther was seeking a second opinion. As the officer began pulling on tactical gloves, Luther grew terrified and tried to walk away to de-escalate the situation. The moment Luther stepped outside, Officer Sanders pursued him, pulled him off his bicycle, took him down and placed him in a ch0ke hold to apprehend him. As a result of the encounter Luther now has a lifelong limp. (trying to keep X happy here) To justify his actions, Officer Sanders charged Luther with resisting and obstructing a police officer. However, an internal affairs investigation later found that Sanders had absolutely no legal basis to detain or arrest Luther in the first place, and his police report failed to provide a factual account of the incident. All criminal charges against Luther were completely dismissed. Despite the department's internal findings explicitly condemning the arrest, the city heavily protected Sanders during the ensuing litigation. Instead of facing criminal charges or being fired, public records and legal proceedings revealed that Sanders remained on the force—and was even PROMOTED to Detective while the civil lawsuit was playing out in federal court. Because the court stripped Officer Sanders of his qualified immunity for violating Luther's constitutional protections against unlawful seizure and excessive force, the case went before a jury. After watching this exact bodycam footage, the jury vindicated Luther Gonzalez-Hall and awarded him a $9.3 million verdict for the egregious civil rights violations and his permanent impairment. While municipal contracts typically ensure that taxpayers and city insurance absorb the financial brunt of these massive payouts rather than the officers themselves, verdicts like this prove that juries are growing increasingly exhausted by bully tactics and a lack of police de-escalation. Another bully officer costing tax payers millions. How do these folks keep their jobs and in this case get promoted?

Officer gets his ego damaged because guy on a bike asked the employees of white castle directions after the office already told him. So the officer takes him down arrested him and cost the city 9.3 million in a settlement. 20-year-old Luther Gonzalez-Hall was riding his bicycle home when he became lost. He flagged down Dearborn Police Officer Marvin Sanders to ask for help. Finding the officer’s demeanor hostile, Luther decided to ride over to a nearby White Castle to ask the employees inside for directions instead. Officer Sanders followed him into the restaurant, aggressively demanding to know why Luther was seeking a second opinion. As the officer began pulling on tactical gloves, Luther grew terrified and tried to walk away to de-escalate the situation. The moment Luther stepped outside, Officer Sanders pursued him, pulled him off his bicycle, took him down and placed him in a ch0ke hold to apprehend him. As a result of the encounter Luther now has a lifelong limp. (trying to keep X happy here) To justify his actions, Officer Sanders charged Luther with resisting and obstructing a police officer. However, an internal affairs investigation later found that Sanders had absolutely no legal basis to detain or arrest Luther in the first place, and his police report failed to provide a factual account of the incident. All criminal charges against Luther were completely dismissed. Despite the department's internal findings explicitly condemning the arrest, the city heavily protected Sanders during the ensuing litigation. Instead of facing criminal charges or being fired, public records and legal proceedings revealed that Sanders remained on the force—and was even PROMOTED to Detective while the civil lawsuit was playing out in federal court. Because the court stripped Officer Sanders of his qualified immunity for violating Luther's constitutional protections against unlawful seizure and excessive force, the case went before a jury. After watching this exact bodycam footage, the jury vindicated Luther Gonzalez-Hall and awarded him a $9.3 million verdict for the egregious civil rights violations and his permanent impairment. While municipal contracts typically ensure that taxpayers and city insurance absorb the financial brunt of these massive payouts rather than the officers themselves, verdicts like this prove that juries are growing increasingly exhausted by bully tactics and a lack of police de-escalation. Another bully officer costing tax payers millions. How do these folks keep their jobs and in this case get promoted?

Giggling Ganon

1,007,421 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

LONG POST AHEAD: An Open Letter to the Senate of the Philippines: In November 2016, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales issued an order to dismiss Senator Joel Villanueva from public office. On September 21, the Filipino people marched on the streets in many locations across the country, including key places like EDSA and Luneta, expressing their disappointment and anger toward all corrupt politicians and government officials while ASKING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND JUSTICE. The event was covered by the media and brought global awareness of how corruption thrives in the Philippines, involving almost the same high-ranking elected officials. It's not good optics for the country, especially for organizations and countries that have pledged support and aid to the Philippines over the years. I join millions of my fellow Filipinos who are not only asking for accountability and the return of these funds to us but also demanding real yet long-term actions that solve recurring issues. WE DEMAND JAIL TIME IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DEATH PENALTY LAW IN THE COUNTRY. WE REFUSE TO PLAY ALONG WITH YOUR GAMES. WE DEMAND JUSTICE. According to Ed Lingao's report, the Senate leadership back then ensured that the dismissal order for Joel Villanueva was not executed, as they argued that the Ombudsman had no power or jurisdiction over Joel Villanueva and his case. Therefore, the ongoing investigations of the ICI, which will then recommend and transfer its case to the Office of the Ombudsman if a decision comes, may also dissolve into thin air because the Senate will just protect Joel anyway? Paano kami makakaseguro na maipapatupad ng Senado ang mga magiging desisyon ng Korte sa mga darating na linggo o buwan? Sana man lang hindi na umabot ng taon. Nagmamatyag at PATULOY kaming magbabantay. The September 21 rally was about expressing our call for accountability and justice. Huwag ninyo nang paabutin na wala nang pagpipigil at paggalang sa batas ang gagawin ng napakaraming Pilipinong galit na galit na sa gobyerno. Huwag ninyong ubusin ang natitirang tiwala at paggalang sa inyo. Act like we can count on your institution and tigilan na ang pagprotekta sa mga kriminal sa inyong hanay. GIGIL AT GALIT NA, Good Governance (GGV Movement) 🇵🇭❤️‍🔥

LONG POST AHEAD: An Open Letter to the Senate of the Philippines: In November 2016, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales issued an order to dismiss Senator Joel Villanueva from public office. On September 21, the Filipino people marched on the streets in many locations across the country, including key places like EDSA and Luneta, expressing their disappointment and anger toward all corrupt politicians and government officials while ASKING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND JUSTICE. The event was covered by the media and brought global awareness of how corruption thrives in the Philippines, involving almost the same high-ranking elected officials. It's not good optics for the country, especially for organizations and countries that have pledged support and aid to the Philippines over the years. I join millions of my fellow Filipinos who are not only asking for accountability and the return of these funds to us but also demanding real yet long-term actions that solve recurring issues. WE DEMAND JAIL TIME IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DEATH PENALTY LAW IN THE COUNTRY. WE REFUSE TO PLAY ALONG WITH YOUR GAMES. WE DEMAND JUSTICE. According to Ed Lingao's report, the Senate leadership back then ensured that the dismissal order for Joel Villanueva was not executed, as they argued that the Ombudsman had no power or jurisdiction over Joel Villanueva and his case. Therefore, the ongoing investigations of the ICI, which will then recommend and transfer its case to the Office of the Ombudsman if a decision comes, may also dissolve into thin air because the Senate will just protect Joel anyway? Paano kami makakaseguro na maipapatupad ng Senado ang mga magiging desisyon ng Korte sa mga darating na linggo o buwan? Sana man lang hindi na umabot ng taon. Nagmamatyag at PATULOY kaming magbabantay. The September 21 rally was about expressing our call for accountability and justice. Huwag ninyo nang paabutin na wala nang pagpipigil at paggalang sa batas ang gagawin ng napakaraming Pilipinong galit na galit na sa gobyerno. Huwag ninyong ubusin ang natitirang tiwala at paggalang sa inyo. Act like we can count on your institution and tigilan na ang pagprotekta sa mga kriminal sa inyong hanay. GIGIL AT GALIT NA, Good Governance (GGV Movement) 🇵🇭❤️‍🔥

Facts & Politics

150,261 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Just days after Claire Castro inaccurately and maliciously took Franco Cruz Mabanta's apology to the First Family out of context to allegedly help the narrative of nationally shamed former Martin Romualdez, the Presidential Spokesperson found herself on the receiving end of the verbal wrath of honorahle and patriotic Filipino protesters on the streets of Vancouver, Canada. The protesters did not hold back—directly calling her a liar, among a flurry of pejoratives. At a press conference this week, Castro deliberately spun a question from a reporter to make it look like Mabanta was spreading fake news about the First Family. However, PGMN has never once spread fake news about anyone. Moreover, although the PGMN Anchors are allowed to say whatever they want themselves, PGMN as a company itself has long made the strategic editorial decision to never attack President Bongbong Marcos, Vice President Sara Duterte, or Mayor Leni Robredo—a decision further concretized after Romualdez framed Mabanta in a fake extortion plot prompting PGMN to declare war exclusively against one enemy: Romualdez. This week at a Malacañang press conference, Castro was asked this question by a reporter: "Last week PGMN founder Franco mabanta posted a lengthy video. He apologized to the President and the First Lady for the past criticisms na ibinato ng PGMN against them and kasama rin din po doon yung kanyang paratang that Former Speaker Martin romualdez orchestrated the rift between the president and the vice president and also betrayed many of his political allies, including president Marcos. Your take on this?" Claire Castro responded: "Ang paghingi ng paumanhin ay pag amin ng kamalian. Ang pag amin ng kamalian papaano nila masasabi sa tao na totoo ang kanilang kwento taong aral dito. Wag gumawa ng intriga lalo na kung walang basehan. Ang pag iingay ng walang saysay ay nagiging biktima lamang ang mga Pilipino na walang malay. At ang paninira na walang basehan ginagawa lang na mangmang ang ating mga kababayan so iwasan ang mang intriga kung gagawa kayo ng anumang pag iimbestiga siguraduhin lamang ninyo na kayo ay may mga ebidensya. Hindi kailangan daanin sa pamilya. Hindi kailangan daanin kung saan saan kung mayroon kayong ebidensya, sampahan niyo na agad ng kaso." This entire answer from Castro was completely taken out of context. And was obviously perverse in intent. Mabanta did not apologize for criticism that never happened. Mabanta was apologizing for "feelings that had been hurt in the past", when he worked for the then-future First Couple back in 2017-18. A gesture that Mabanta felt was both "necessary" and "sincere" after having parted ways eight years prior. Instead of addressing the gesture truthfully, Castro twisted the message to supply ammunition for the hideously dishonest Romualdez camp, trying to make it look like Mabanta and PGMN's comprehensively accurate exposés against the former Speaker were fabricated. Planting loaded questions via corrupt reporters to be answered in a corrupt way by corrupt spokespersons while coordinating with corrupt media outlets to subsequently report a lie is a common practice in politics for governments around the world. Often this scheme is planned in the dark, without the knowledge of the principal.

Just days after Claire Castro inaccurately and maliciously took Franco Cruz Mabanta's apology to the First Family out of context to allegedly help the narrative of nationally shamed former Martin Romualdez, the Presidential Spokesperson found herself on the receiving end of the verbal wrath of honorahle and patriotic Filipino protesters on the streets of Vancouver, Canada. The protesters did not hold back—directly calling her a liar, among a flurry of pejoratives. At a press conference this week, Castro deliberately spun a question from a reporter to make it look like Mabanta was spreading fake news about the First Family. However, PGMN has never once spread fake news about anyone. Moreover, although the PGMN Anchors are allowed to say whatever they want themselves, PGMN as a company itself has long made the strategic editorial decision to never attack President Bongbong Marcos, Vice President Sara Duterte, or Mayor Leni Robredo—a decision further concretized after Romualdez framed Mabanta in a fake extortion plot prompting PGMN to declare war exclusively against one enemy: Romualdez. This week at a Malacañang press conference, Castro was asked this question by a reporter: "Last week PGMN founder Franco mabanta posted a lengthy video. He apologized to the President and the First Lady for the past criticisms na ibinato ng PGMN against them and kasama rin din po doon yung kanyang paratang that Former Speaker Martin romualdez orchestrated the rift between the president and the vice president and also betrayed many of his political allies, including president Marcos. Your take on this?" Claire Castro responded: "Ang paghingi ng paumanhin ay pag amin ng kamalian. Ang pag amin ng kamalian papaano nila masasabi sa tao na totoo ang kanilang kwento taong aral dito. Wag gumawa ng intriga lalo na kung walang basehan. Ang pag iingay ng walang saysay ay nagiging biktima lamang ang mga Pilipino na walang malay. At ang paninira na walang basehan ginagawa lang na mangmang ang ating mga kababayan so iwasan ang mang intriga kung gagawa kayo ng anumang pag iimbestiga siguraduhin lamang ninyo na kayo ay may mga ebidensya. Hindi kailangan daanin sa pamilya. Hindi kailangan daanin kung saan saan kung mayroon kayong ebidensya, sampahan niyo na agad ng kaso." This entire answer from Castro was completely taken out of context. And was obviously perverse in intent. Mabanta did not apologize for criticism that never happened. Mabanta was apologizing for "feelings that had been hurt in the past", when he worked for the then-future First Couple back in 2017-18. A gesture that Mabanta felt was both "necessary" and "sincere" after having parted ways eight years prior. Instead of addressing the gesture truthfully, Castro twisted the message to supply ammunition for the hideously dishonest Romualdez camp, trying to make it look like Mabanta and PGMN's comprehensively accurate exposés against the former Speaker were fabricated. Planting loaded questions via corrupt reporters to be answered in a corrupt way by corrupt spokespersons while coordinating with corrupt media outlets to subsequently report a lie is a common practice in politics for governments around the world. Often this scheme is planned in the dark, without the knowledge of the principal.

Peanut Gallery Media Network

20,607 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen