Are you being gaslighted at work?

 

Gaslighting at work? Too many times to count. People have stolen credit for my work and one even bragged to me about winning an award. For the work I did. Infuriating. Best to leave, I help people make their exit plan and find a new opportunity. Would love more videos like this Dr. Ramani, excellent work.

 

I went through hoop after hoop for what they promised.after I did everything they asked and more because they piled on the demands,they filled my position and said that I “did not fit the big picture” of who they were looking for.i wasted so much time and money on this job.they fired me and I am glad.i have a new job in a healthy environment.blessings and love to all of you

 

 

An Off-Duty Cop Pulled a Gun on Teen Waiting for a Bus, How Will the City Respond?

The nearly deadly encounter between an unarmed teen and an off-duty Baltimore police officer still haunts the family, but the recent controversy involving the city’s civilian review board may leave them with nowhere to turn

A cop tried to keep him from recording a traffic stop, but now he’s fighting back to change the law

The battle over the right to record police is far from over. That’s because a case pending over a routine traffic stop in Lakewood, Colorado, where police interfered with a citizen journalist recording, could have a huge impact on a controversial legal precedent which shields cops from legal liability.

End Qulified Immunity Protections, & Civil Asset Forfeiture. Hold Cops Accountable.

Cops who break the law must be held accountable for their illegal actions !!!

This is also why you need to tell the cop that he is about to violate your rights and will lose his qualified immunity. Otherwise he can claim he didn’t know that law or right and use the qualified immunity as a defense.

Get it right in your heads people. “To protect and serve” means themselves.

Qualified immunity isn’t a matter that will be addressed by police reform. It’s part of the holding accountable of elected officials.

If cops didn’t break the law. These people who record them would not need to record the cops

In “this day and age…” Why do cops NOT know the law?

That cop who try to obstruct them from recording definitely has more issues under the radar and he’s a ticking bomb.

this is America cops should lose their pensions three strikes and they’re out!!😎

That would be three justice systems.
One for police, one for the wealthy, one for the rest of us.

And PlEASE leave a comment for copwatcher Abade aka Liberty Freak, his law suit may become case law that protects your right to record the police! So make sure to give him some kindness and support as he will be turning himself into law enforcement and will be incarcerated for a few months. So this is your chance to share your thoughts with him before he goes inside. Thank you! -taya

What an incredible episode!!!​​ I especially love it when you break things down and illustrate clearly​ how our system has “run amuck” and been abused to undermine & sabotage itself.

“Qualified Impunity” is such a clever, creative and accurate play on words. I would love to see that term widely adopted because I would hope that this shift might become a catalyst for reform by bringing a better understanding of just how broken our system is; and how close we may be to losing our democracy itself! It is being attacked and undermined in so many ways right now from so many sides…

If ignorance of the law is no excuse for civilians ignorance of our rights should be no excuse for the law!

Since this video was from Colorado it would make sense to mention that, at the time of this report, a new police accountability law was about to go into effect. Since then several cops, notably Loveland PD, have been held accountable with this law. As for my opinion I would like to say, no one has done more to end qualified immunity than corrupt cops all over the US.

If cleaning up neighborhoods changes the culture by changing the way people feel, then cities have an interest in leaving them neglected to justify dumping more money into police presence. It’s business as usual.

There are three types of versions of laws, the one for the poor aka the “criminal class” and then the one for government officials/LEOs, and finally the one for the elites/the rich who line the pockets of said govt officials & LEOs

I think we now know why the police are no longer required to learn the law before claiming to “enforce the law”.
Not knowing the law lets the police officers claim “I didn’t know the law” and the courts say it was an “honest mistake” and let them off with a warning to do better.

Oh and…….”qualified immunity” sounds like a “Jim Crow” law. It’s sickening that such a perversion of our Constitutional Rights is allowed!

Something to keep in mind. Until privatized, for profit, publicly traded prisons are done away with none of this tyranny will end.

I’ve always said that one of the main goals of 1st Amendment auditor’s is to remove the sovereign from the state 👍💯👍

Driver: I’m just defending myself here. You really have nothing to fear from me. I’m not out to get you. So can you kindly just cite or warn me and we can go on our way?

Wait, qualified immunity gets it’s power by proving that the law enforcement officer was ignorant of the law? Make it make sense somebody please.

Is It Okay To Defend Against An Unlawful Attack From A Cop?

Original video credit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3kz…

This is what happens when cops are not held accountable for their illegal actions and violent behaviour !!!

NEVER open your door to a cop. Make them show you a warrant first.

Cops NEVER see cops as a “viable threat”. This is a technicality that will be used against you in a court of law. You would have to spend a fortune in legal fees in order to gain any leverage.

I wish James would’ve asked “what if they aren’t allowing me close my door at 1am in the morning”. He did ask “if a cop was trying to illegally enter the home….”. But the sheriff’s answer may have been different if asked about not allowing the homeowner shut their door.

This is blatant harassment and it’s all on video. Charge the cops and use the video. Game over. These dirty bullies must be held accountable. Minable time ( 6 months behind bars. )

Would love to hear sheriff Grady’s opinion of this video, seeing that be loves to be on camera. He brags about putting his own deputies in jail for breaking the law, and this video is a perfect example of his deputies breaking the law. What say you sheriff?

James, there’s a video out there showing the 50 going OVER a locked farm gate, along with a sign of no tresspassing, and getting into a shootout with the homeowner. The homeowner was charged and convicted. Even though the dash cam of the cops car shows him climbing over the locked fence. The cop did not have a warrant…he was trespassing on the property illegally but the homeowner was convicted. This video does not do your watchers justice.

It only takes a single court case to set precedence that it’s ok.

Imagine what would happen if they didn’t have a camera!!!!

Make enough noise at the department depicted in this video and those employees will probably go elsewhere. Best way to hurt rotten public services is in their pockets and their resources. As much as physical violence is the most satisfying response, psychological incapacitation will keep you from ending up in prison.

Whether your on the right or left, I would hope you would agree with James on this. Police are abusing their power and are very rarely held to account for their actions. Just because someone wears a badge doesn’t make them a bastion for good. Law enforcement has done a poor job of rooting out the bad cops. The blue code of silence only protects the bad cops. Great job on the video James!

1:30 in the morning at my house, in my neighborhood, those cops would be out numbered and under armed in seconds. They would not think for more than a few seconds about “officer safety” before the situation was realized that they are way past that scenario!

Main point here. A civilian entering your home illegally can be defended against. If it cops doing the same thing it’s a grey area. Better to be abel to prove it she said. Double standard right there. Cops are above the law.

Outward opening doors are great for hurricanes and door kicks… But once open, too easy to hold open.

“We have over aggressive, gung ho, cops. They’re young and want to get their guy. More power to em.” Really? You’re proud of that? That’s terrifying😢

You guys are more patient than I am after the 2nd time this happened I wouldn’t even enter the door door I don’t know what else to say just can’t believe it

I knew they were going to grab him the minute he tried to close the door they were just waiting, I am sorry I would have been going to jail you are not going to stick your foot in my door and not leave.

I would like to see the settlement the city or state will have to pay out on this case because it was 150% illegal and the officers invoved should be charged fired and put on the Brady list so they cant become officers elsewhere

When people settle out of court no precedents can be set

> Laws and precedent mean nothing in a system where the rulers are immune to the law.

 

James i have a question, why do cops want your ID even when they know you have nothing going on with you they can lock you up for? Why? I dont understand

> They want to be able to ID whoever they want. It allows them to check for warrants and get your name on a report, even if you didn’t do anything wrong. Helps them build a background and keep tabs on you. Some officers are even willing to lie and tell you you HAVE to ID even when they know don’t. Some are just ignorant of the law. Either way, they are trying to violate your 4th amendment right. That’s why it’s so important for people to know their rights

> Power and precieved authoritay. Do as I say,. I’m trained knuckle dragger on roids

One thing I learned no one says you have to answer the door when someone’s knocking or open it.
Do not open your door. “I have nothing to say. Do you have a warrant?” Should be the only words heard out of your mouth. I have nothing to say talk to my attorney. That’s it.
As always never open the door, if they say they have a warrant tell them to put it somewhere outside so you can retrieve it with them backed away, as the cop did once they put there foot in that door it’s over…. I hope the family gets paid, end qualified immunity, cops have to carry personal insurance like doctors…
External doors should always open inwards. That way, someone has to cross the threshold to block the door. The cop would have to “enter” the house in order to keep the door open.
Thank you so much for doing this video. In my country police would be punished more severly for this illegal activity than “private citizen”
The bad thing about those arrest even though they were dismissed is that stays on your record
James, thanks for doing a video about Polk county and Grady Judd. I used to live in Polk and I’m a right of center conservative libertarian who owns guns and is a staunch believer in the constitution and the 2A bigtime. That said, Grady Judd and LE in POLK are not good guys, they regularly violate people’s constitutional rights that they claim to care so much about, they love to lie to people and target them and throw the book at people for minor stupid things that they could simply ignore or write a ticket for. The problem is most people in Polk think because he goes on tv and beats his chest Grady is some kind of right wing hero, there truth is the total opposite. From what I’ve seen, he care’s more about locking up middle-class college kids who have a little bit of marijuana and aren’t bothering anybody and ruining their lives and making money on the deal than catching murderers or rapists. He and his deputies get away with what they do because no one ever takes him and his dept. to task for it. FYI his deputies don’t wear body cams, if they’re so honorable and do everything above boards why wouldn’t they want to wear them, what do they have to hide? Thanks for what you do, please don’t let Grady Judd and his dept. off the hook, please keep scrutinizing them and keep the heat up, there’s a lot of real criminals in Polk who are getting away with real crime and a lot of ordinary people being victimized by Polk LE.

Show less

It can be and it can’t be, if the police have probable cause like they’re in pursuit of an active criminal and see him/her go in a house they don’t need a search warrant.

Biden’s Student Debt LIES Fully Exposed | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

Krystal and Saagar compare the past statements President Biden has made about cancelling some student debt to what the White House plans on doing about it now

Supreme Court Justices Make a Surprising Proposal in Torture Case

Twenty years after the Sept. 11 attacks, three justices said it was time to hear from the first detainee subjected to brutal interrogation by the C.I.A.

WASHINGTON — Twenty years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Supreme Court on Wednesday found itself struggling to address two issues stemming from that period: torture and government secrecy. Before the justices were done for the day, the proceedings had taken a surprising turn.

The basic question for the justices was whether the government could invoke national security to block testimony by two C.I.A. contractors who were instrumental in the brutal interrogations of the detainee known as Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded more than 60 times and is being held without charge at Guantánamo Bay.

Abu Zubaydah sought to subpoena the contractors in connection with a Polish criminal investigation. The inquiry was prompted by a determination by the European Court of Human Rights that he had been tortured in 2002 and 2003 at secret sites operated by the C.I.A., including one in Poland.

The United States government invoked the state secrets doctrine to bar the contractors from testifying in an apparent effort to avoid formally admitting what is common knowledge: that Poland was host to one of the so-called black sites.

Three justices proposed a novel solution: Why not let Abu Zubaydah himself testify in connection with the Polish inquiry? By allowing him to describe what he had endured, the justices suggested, the court could sidestep the question of whether the government had to allow the C.I.A. contractors to appear.

“Why doesn’t he testify?” Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked Abu Zubaydah’s lawyer. “He was there. Why doesn’t he say this is what happened?”

The lawyer, David F. Klein, said that was not possible. “He has been held in Guantánamo incommunicado,” Mr. Klein said of his client.

In the argument’s final minutes, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch urged the government’s lawyer to allow Abu Zubaydah to testify.

“Why not make the witness available?” Justice Gorsuch asked Brian H. Fletcher, the acting United States solicitor general. “What is the government’s objection to the witness testifying to his own treatment?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pursued the point. “Are you going to let him testify as to what happened to him?” she asked.

Mr. Fletcher would not give a direct answer. “I’m not prepared to make representations for the United States, especially on matters of national security,” he said.

But he promised to give the court a more considered response, presumably in a letter, after consulting with other government officials.

Justice Gorsuch seemed exasperated by the government’s position.

This case has been litigated for years and all the way up to the United States Supreme Court,” he said, “and you haven’t considered whether that’s an off-ramp that the government could provide that would obviate the need for any of this?”

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, participating in the argument remotely after testing positive for the coronavirus last week, asked the last question, and it was an even more fundamental one. It concerned the status of the 2001 law that approved going to war against those responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or A.U.M.F.

Is the United States still engaged in hostilities for purposes of the A.U.M.F. against Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations?” he asked, seeking to get at whether the United States still has a basis for holding Abu Zubaydah.

Mr. Fletcher said yes. “That is the government’s position,” he said, “that notwithstanding withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, we continue to be engaged in hostilities with Al Qaeda and therefore that detention under law of war remains proper.”

Most of Wednesday’s argument was devoted to an exploration of whether the government could invoke the state secrets doctrine to bar the C.I.A. contractors, James E. Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, from testifying about the torture of Abu Zubaydah, whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn.

He was the first prisoner held by the C.I.A. after the Sept. 11 attacks to undergo so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, which were based on a list of suggestions drawn up for use on him by Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen, both psychologists. It is undisputed that Abu Zubaydah was tortured at one or more black sites, and the justices frequently used the word “torture” to describe what he had endured.

Mr. Fletcher said Abu Zubaydah’s treatment was not a secret but that its location was. “Our nation’s covert intelligence partnerships depend on our partners’ trust that we will keep those relationships confidential,” he said.

That trust would be broken, he said, by confirming or denying the existence of an alleged C.I.A. facility in Poland.

That gave rise to a semantic puzzle. Was it possible to allow testimony from the contractors about what had happened but not where?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts said it seemed that the contractors could talk about many things other than the location of the events.

Mr. Fletcher disagreed. “You can’t take the location out of this proceeding because the whole point of the proceeding is to get evidence for a Polish investigation,” he said.

Mr. Klein, a lawyer for Abu Zubaydah, said he did not seek testimony about Poland, as a prosecutor there already had the relevant information. Rather, Mr. Klein said, he sought to provide the prosecutor with information about his client’s treatment by asking the contractors a series of questions.

“What happened inside Abu Zubaydah’s cell between December 2002 and September 2003?” he asked, giving the dates during which his client was understood to be held in Poland.

  • “How was Abu Zubaydah fed?
  • What was his medical condition?
  • What was his cell like?
  • And, yes, was he tortured?”

Justice Elena Kagan sketched out what she suggested was a gap in Mr. Klein’s argument.

The government has “conceded that Abu Zubaydah was tortured, but, because of relations with allies with cooperating intelligence services, they won’t say where it happened,” she said. “And you’re here saying: I need to know when it happened, and to know when it happened, the government would essentially be saying where it happened too.”

Abu Zubaydah, a Palestinian, was captured in Pakistan in March 2002 and was initially thought be a high-level member of Al Qaeda. A 2014 report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said “the C.I.A. later concluded that Abu Zubaydah was not a member of Al Qaeda.”