VIDEO: D.C. police knock man in wheelchair to the ground!

http://www.chicagonewsreport.com/2011/05/video-dc-police-knock-man-in-wheelchair.html

Washington D.C. — Two officers, identified as Washington D.C. cops, were caught on camera slamming a wheelchair bound man to the ground.

The video entitled “DC police abuse homeless man in wheelchair”, was uploaded to Youtube on May 19, 2011, by someone using the screen name ChrisWhite313.

At the beginning of the footage, two cops can be seen wrestling with a man riding what appears to be a motorized wheelchair, and instructing him to “get on the ground”. Which is a little difficult to do if you can’t walk.

Then the officers throw the seemingly disabled man onto the concrete, causing his head to bleed. A person at the scene said the alleged suspect’s head was “bust wide open”.

When a bystander asked one of the arresting officers why the man was being taken into custody, the cop said the injured man “assaulted a police officer”. Angry eyewitnesses openly disagreed with the officer’s version of what happened and told him that his reasons for arresting the man “weren’t true”.

A woman in the background can be heard saying the bleeding suspect lives on the block where the incident occurred.

TSA Backs Down from Prom Night Grope

http://www.infowars.com/tsa-backs-down-from-prom-night-grope/

Last week it was announced that TSA goons would conduct a grope-down of students during prom night at a Santa Fe high school. The TSA promised to move from airports into the New Mexico high school after two girls said security personnel groped them and a federal judge ruled the TSA should conduct pat-downs at dances or graduations.

The judge’s ruling indicates the federal government and the TSA believe they should be conducting searches. The TSA has moved from airports to train and bus stations. TSA boss Napolitano has said she envisions the agency ultimately groping citizens at malls and hotels.

Am I About To Be Labeled a “Domestic Terrorist”?

There is some reason to believe that I may soon be portrayed as a “domestic terrorist”.  This article is intended to blunt that portrayal.

•  Last Friday, I received notice from the TV program 60 Minutes that today, Sunday, May 15^th, A.D. 2011, (about 35 minutes from now)  they’d air a segment that includes me.  I haven’t seen the segment, so I don’t know how I’ll be portrayed—but I have reason to believe that I may be cast in a false light and/or defamed by tomorrow’s program.

The cause for my concern is the 60 Minutes description of the segment on their “Up Next” webpage:

“Sovereign Citizens - Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer.”

http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf

In March, I’d spent my 2-hour interview with 60 Minutes trying to rationally explain that the concept of individual sovereignty was the fundamental principle that animated the American Revolution, was the cornerstone for American liberty, and could be traced to our God-given, unalienable Rights.  In the end, sovereignty is a spiritual (rather than political) concept.  Judging from the 60 Minutes description (above), the segment may be more akin to a sensationalized witch-hunt than an objective investigation into the subject of individual “sovereignty”.

Apparently, I am being being linked to Jerry Kane who (with his son, Joe) died in a recent shoot-out with police.  So far as I can recall, I’d never heard of Jerry Kane until after he died.

These kinds of express or implied associations (between me and anyone who’s died in a gunfight with the police) are dangerous to me in that they place me at risk any time I interact with police.  Insofar as police are led to believe that I’m cut from the same cloth as Jerry Kane, they may believe that I’m “armed and dangerous” (I’m not) and therefore increase the probability that I might be shot without cause.

I don’t know what the net effect of the 60 Minutes segment will be.  I probably won’t know the full effect of the program for weeks or months after the program airs.

But judging from the description and video preview (above), 60 Minutes may be promoting (or at least implying) the idea that I’m a “domestic terror threat”.  If so, that’s untrue and I have a well-publicized track record for at least 20 years to show that the only “violence” I’ve advocated is reading the law, educating yourself, and using your knowledge of the law and paperwork to defend against governmental oppression and to hold governmental officials and employees accountable for their misdeeds.

As big government becomes increasingly tyrannical, I can understand that its agencies might want to define any dissident who accuses the almighty gov-co of criminal or treasonous acts to be a “domestic terrorist” (especially if the accusations against gov-co are true).  But, hopefully, reasonable men and women will insist that a “domestic terrorist” is one who commits actual acts of unjustified violence for political purposes.  If so, that label does not apply to me.

Yes, I have long-recognized that violence against an established government may ultimately be necessary to stop tyranny and despotism (witness the American Revolution, WWII and the recent “Arab Spring”).  The very concept of using violence to “throw off” despotic governments is enshrined in the “Declaration of Independence” that we celebrate every 4^th of July.  Our Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that the people would always have the means (firearms) to “throw off” a despotic government.  Both the Declaration and the 2^nd Amendment anticipate the probability that even the American government would one day again grow despotic and that the people would need both the principles and means to “throw off” that despotism.

I have advocated that people be prepared for the possibility that violence may one day become necessary.  But I have not advocated that people commit violence—except as a last resort.  And I have never advocated that people start shooting now.

My reason for advocating firearm ownership is not to incite violence but to prevent it.  An unarmed people are easily oppressed and subjected to genocide by their own government.  Witness Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia.  When a government confiscates the people’s firearms, genocide is usually imminent.

Lots of people advocate the ownership of firearms.  I go a step further and advocate that the people be “armed” with both firearms and the reason for owing firearms.  That reason is not to go duck hunting in the Fall.  The reason for owning firearms—as found in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the 2^nd Amendment—is to overthrow a despotic or treasonous government.

It was my advocacy of the reason for owning firearms that brought me to 60 Minutes’ attention.  I suspect that my advocacy of understanding the reason may be twisted by 60 Minutes to falsely suggest that I advocate violence.  We shall see.

However, yesterday, I sent an email to Clem Taylor and Jessica Haddad at 60 Minutes advising them that I do not consent to be cast in a false light and/or defamed by 60 Minutes.   That notice may have legal consequence, but I doubt that it will have any effect on tonight’s broadcast.

Here’s a copy of the text of the email:

Re: This Sunday on 60 Minutes NOTICE OF NO CONSENT

Hi Jessica & Clem,

I received Jessica’s email (below) about 3:45 PM CST.  It announced that you intend to broadcast a 60 Minutes segment this coming Sunday, that will include me.

I was initially excited.

Then I visited the 60 Minutes website and read the following description on the “Up Next” webpage:

“Sovereign Citizens - Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer”

Judging from that description, it appears that the people at 60 Minutes may intend to use my interview to produce a segment that expressly says or implies that I am a violent extremist and/or domestic terror threat–and/or that I knowingly associate with violent extremists and/or domestic terrorists.  Both descriptions would be false.

If 60 Minutes does “cherry pick” a couple of my offhand remarks out an interview that lasted nearly two hours to describe me as violent or any kind of terrorist, that description would be false and defamatory.  Given your journalistic obligation to fully research your segments and given my extensive public background (including my A.D. 1992 candidacy for the Texas Supreme Court), such defamation would be knowing.  I have a documented public history that extends at least back to A.D. 1990.  This history has been expressed my radio shows, my magazine, my blog and a number of mainstream media reports.   That history demonstrates that my position has always been to seek a civil solution to our problems with government.  While I have always recognized that violence against government might be justified by government’s own institutionalized tyranny (as it was for our Founders in A.D. 1776), I have never advocated violence as an objective, but only as a last resort in defense of liberty.

Nevertheless, during the interview Mr. Pitts asked me repeatedly about a particular radio broadcast I’d done at some time in the past.  In that one radio  program, I explained that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people of The United States of America against governmental tyranny by shooting, if necessary, politicians and governmental employees who engage in tyranny.  I attempted to explain to Mr. Pitts that my position on the 2nd Amendment was justified by the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights.  If 60 Minutes chooses to take my words out of context and without reference to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, I might be defamed and falsely portrayed as an advocate of violence.

Here’s an article I wrote on the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights and first published on or about April 14th, A.D. 2011:

http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/preamble-to-the-bill-of-rights/

As you may know, my landlord (a middle class businessman) at Utopia (where the interview was conducted) warned that 60 Minutes might edit my interview so as to not only defame me, but attract so much adverse government attention as to cause in a “Ruby Ridge-” or “Waco-” style raid on my landlord’s property.  In fact, even though my rent was paid until the end of April, my landlord was so fearful of a possible government “raid” that he ordered me to vacate his property on Sunday, March 13th, and I did in fact leave on March 16th, right after the 60 Minutes interview.

After the actual interview, I mentioned my “eviction” to Mr. Pitts and Mr. Taylor.  They both seemed shocked that anyone would distrust 60 Minutes journalistic integrity.  Both men assured me that 60 Minutes had a reputation for fair and objective journalism and that I need not fear being falsely depicted on the final segment.  Until now, I have trusted in Mr. Pitts’ and Mr. Taylor’s assurance and in the 60 Minutes reputation for fairness and objectivity.

However, because the “Up Next” description of the segment on “sovereign citizens” seems so sensationalized and  biased against “sovereign citizens,” I am concerned that my trust in Mr. Pitts, Mr. Taylor and 60 Minutes may have been betrayed.

I am therefore sending this email to you as a Notice that:

1) I do not consent to be defamed by 60 Minutes; and,

2) I do not consent or otherwise agree to have any of my statements or images broadcast on 60 Minutes if those statements and images are used to cast me in a false light and/or are defamatory.

As I explained to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Pitts, I don’t expect the 60 Minute segment to be flattering.  I recognize that the issue of “sovereignty” is controversial.  But the issue of sovereignty is no more controversial than the Declaration of Independence from which our sovereignty flows.  I therefore expect the 60 Minutes segment to portray me objectively and in a way that’s consistent with the overall impression of the 2-hour interview and with my 20 year history of political activism.  If 60 Minutes can’t do that, and has instead chosen to defame me, I do not consent to be portrayed in the 60 Minutes segment on “sovereign citizens”.

CREED: At all times and places, I have been, am and will be as our Father YHWH ha Elohiym made me:  An actual, physical man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.  Unless otherwise expressly and voluntarily agreed by me in writing over my actual hand-written signature:  I exercise my actual rights of religious and political freedom of choice to declare that the venue of all of my conduct, speech, writings, agreements, residence and domicile is: without the singular “United States” and actually on the soil within the physical boundaries of The County of Dallas located within the border of The State of Texas–one of the several member-States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; that all of my conduct is intentional; that all of my acts and intentions take place in a Year of our Lord; that I act at arm’s length and without prejudice to my capacity as a sovereign Dei gratia; that I do not consent to act as, or as part of, any “double personality,” “double capacity,” and/or “double character”; that my duty of obedience is only to that government that exists under the authority granted by our Father YHWH ha Elohiym as per Romans 13:1-7 and is consistent with the express charitable trust called “The Constitution of The State of Texas” and “The Organic Law of The United States of America”; that I have not knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily consented to be subject by virtue of mere statute, rule, regulation, emergency, or alleged moral or obligation to the authority of any unincorporated, implied charitable trust; that my purposes are at all times religious first and/or political second and dedicated to restoring understanding and respect for the spiritual principles which provide the foundation for the republican form of government guaranteed at Article 4 Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States ratified in A.D. 1788 and by Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas.
Alfred Adask a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK”
radio: American Independence Hour T-W-Th, 10-11 PM CST, www.wwfar.com & WWCR shortwave 3.215; simulcast on http://www.theamericanvoice.com/;

blog at http://adask.wordpress.com

Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/indiana-supreme-court-citizens-have-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry

In a move that flies not only in the face of the U.S. Constitution but defies common law dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that residents of the Hoosier state have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David, writing for the majority, expressed the view that

a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.

Short version: A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with the officer’s entry.

The ruling is a blatant assault on the Fourth Amendment, which—“modern jurisprudence” notwithstanding—states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The court’s decision arises out of a case in which a husband and wife were arguing outside their apartment. When police arrived to investigate, the couple retreated into their domicile. The husband attempted to close the door, but one officer forced his way into the apartment. The husband shoved the intruder against a wall, whereupon a second officer used a stun gun on the man and arrested him.

Speaking directly to the sequence of events in this case, Justice David stated that an individual whose home is illegally entered by police has recourse under the law to protest but only after, not during, the trespass.

Justice Robert Rucker, one of the two court members who dissented from the ruling, wrote:

In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally—that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances. I disagree. The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.

In his brief, Rucker added a clarification, stating that if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations he would have supported the prevailing view.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry – National Libertarian | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/indiana-supreme-court-citizens-have-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry#ixzz1Mc66ccsp

Teen Arrested For Asking Cop About Unwarranted Raids

Robert Wanek
You Tube
May 16, 2011

Officer Dustin Hill falsely arrested 17-year-old filmmaker Robert Wanek. Hill used the legal system as a weapon to retaliate against the Wanek for filming him. Hill would be the most honest cop in Philadelphia, where the pigs routinely rob, torture, frame, and otherwise victimize the taxpaying citizens who pay their salaries. Yes, Hill was wrong, but his offenses were minor by comparison!

NsaneSk8er007

1. Officer Dustin Hill is a former SEMCA Narcotics agent downgraded to a K-9 Unit officer
2. Police Report Indicates I was arrested for standing within FIVE feet of Hill, when I am clearly 15 feet away.
3. Police Report states that ” He said he was filming a story for MAKEACHANGE.ORG and I could tell he was becoming more upset” I was never even remotely upset.
4. It is 100% legal to Film any officer in Public in the state of North Dakota
5. He engaged me, I was not bothering him I was on a public street.
6. I was not interfering with anything, officers should be proud to be seen doing their work in the community, not something to hide.
7. Law enforcement states they were ‘unable to pull up the surveillance footage’
8. I was in violation of ZERO laws.
9. I did not serve as a threat to the officer
10. Dustins Sergeant interviewed me without reading me any miranda rights, while I remained cuffed behind my back in a room monitored by 2 officers Like I was a serious threat to the department. I had been patted down.

Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

A story in today’s Philadelphia Daily News shows why it’s so important that citizens be allowed to videotape cops – it can be citizens’ only way to fight back against police abuse of power.

This incident happened several weeks ago in Philadelphia to Mark Fiorino, a 25-year-old IT worker who carries a gun on his hip at all times for self defense. He got the gun after several friends were mugged.

But he didn’t count on attacks by police:

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: “Yo, Junior, what are you doing?”

Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing – openly carrying a gun on the city’s streets – was against the law.

“Do you know you can’t openly carry here in Philadelphia?” Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip.

“Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms,” Fiorino said. “It’s Directive 137. It’s your own internal directive.”

Fiorino was right. It was perfectly legal to carry the gun. But that didn’t matter to the cop:

Fiorino offered to show Dougherty his driver’s and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees.

“Excuse me?” Fiorino said.

“Get down on your knees. Just obey what I’m saying,” Dougherty said.

“Sir,” Fiorino replied, “I’m more than happy to stand here -”

“If you make a move, I’m going to f—— shoot you,” Dougherty snapped. “I’m telling you right now, you make a move, and you’re going down!”

“Is this necessary?” Fiorino said.

It went on like that for a little while, until other officers responded to Dougherty’s calls for backup.

Fiorino was forced to the ground and shouted at as he tried to explain that he had a firearms license and was legally allowed to openly carry his weapon.

“You f—— come here looking for f—— problems? Where do you live?” yelled one officer.

“I’m sorry, gentlemen,” Fiorino said. “If I’m under arrest, I have nothing left to say.”

“F—— a——, shut the f— up!” the cop hollered.

The cops discovered his recorder as they searched his pockets, and unleashed another string of expletives.

Fiorino said he sat handcuffed in a police wagon while the officers made numerous phone calls to supervisors, trying to find out if they could lock him up.

When they learned that they were in the wrong, they let him go.

But only temporarily. Fiorino posted the audio recordings on youtube, and now they are harassing him again:

A new investigation was launched, and last month the District Attorney’s Office decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct because, a spokeswoman said, he refused to cooperate with police… He’s scheduled for trial in July.

If one listens to the audiotapes, it’s hard to imagine how a reasonable person could charge Fiorino (and not the cops) for disorderly conduct.

1984 movie

George Orwell’s novel of a totalitarian future society in which a man whose daily work is rewriting history tries to rebel by falling in love.

Red-light camera complaints continue in Brevard

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110509/NEWS01/105090320/Red-light-camera-complaints-continue-Brevard

A statewide ban on red-light cameras died in the Legislature, but the issue of whether the cameras are legal remains very much alive across Florida — and now, in Brevard County Circuit Court.

While a complete repeal of the red-light statute failed to pass, the full Legislature approved Friday, as part of the state’s transportation budget, what amounts to a moratorium on new red-light cameras. An amendment proposed by Rep. Richard Corcoran, a New Port Richey Republican, says the Department of Transportation must conduct a study to determine if an intersection has a disproportionate number of crashes. Without that, no new enforcement cameras can be installed by the state, counties or cities. The amendment also prohibits issuing infractions for right-on-red turns.

But in local court, as well as at protests countywide during the past month, complaints abound.

On April 12, attorney Stephen Koons of Melbourne filed a complaint against the city of Cocoa Beach for plaintiff Mary Lombardo, an 82-year-old Cocoa Beach resident who received a red-light violation ticket in September 2010 and paid the $158 fine. Koons, 63, who last year received a ticket for a violation at A1A and the entrance to Fischer Park, chose to take his case to court in early April. The judge dismissed the case, Koons said, “because the city could not overcome my hearsay objections to the process and granted my motion for involuntary dismissal.”

Koons calls the red-light cameras “nothing more than a ‘traffic trap’ much like the speed traps we witnessed back in the late ’60s and ’70s.”

The case filed for Lombardo seeks to get the city to stop the program and “a refund of all revenue collected by the city because of the red-light program,” he said.

The testimony of an officer who was not present when the picture was taken — by a camera owned by a vendor in Phoenix — doesn’t pass muster with Koons.

“The whole system doesn’t comply with the Florida evidence code relating to hearsay. You get this notice in the mail from a company in Phoenix,” he said. “Then they send the reviewing police officer to these traffic infraction hearings. It’s completely hearsay. They’re not records custodians. They don’t have any personal knowledge of the situation, other than what they’re being told by a company in Phoenix.”

Officials for Cocoa Beach were not available for comment Friday. The city has four red-light cameras in three locations. The only other Brevard city with red-light cameras is Palm Bay, which has five of the devices.

Koons also said that his investigation of the timing of the yellow light at the spot where he allegedly ran the light showed it does not always meet national or Florida Department of Transportation standards for the transition from green to red.

Lombardo, a Cocoa Beach resident, said she was turning left onto State Road 520 from North Atlantic Avenue when her violation allegedly occurred. The light was neither red nor yellow when she began the turn, she said.

“I paid the fine because I thought somebody would probably come after me,” she said. “But what bothers me, too, is people in Phoenix taking money for something happening here in Florida. I feel it was an extremely unfair ticket. I’ll be 83 in June. I don’t run red lights. I have no objection to testifying in court because I think it was wrong.”

Contact Kennerly at 321-409-1423 or bkennerly@floridatoday.com.

 

Korean police raid Google offices over location tracking

On the heels of a recent controversy involving the alleged tracking of sensitive user location data on Apple’s iPhone and Google Android, the South Korean police raided Google’s Seoul offices Tuesday on suspicions that the company had collected personal data without consent.

Reuters reports that South Korean police have initiated a probe into Google’s AdMob advertising arm, resulting in Tuesday’s police visit to the company’s offices.

“We suspect AdMob collected personal location information without consent or approval from the Korean Communication Commission,” a South Korean police official said.

A Google spokesman confirmed that the police visit to the company’s offices had indeed occurred and promised the company’s cooperation with the investigation.

As it has grown, Google has faced increased scrutiny over its privacy policies, including several privacy investigations in South Korea and the U.S. After evidenced surfaced suggesting that Google had collected private data with its fleet of “Street View” cars, investigations were opened. Last month, South Korea’s top Internet portals lodged a complaint with anti-trust regulators alleging unfair competition from Google in the mobile Internet search market, according to the report.

Late last month, the Mountain View, Calif., search giant, along with Apple, was called to testify at a U.S. Senate hearing on May 10.

Several weeks ago, security researchers claimed that Apple had been storing an unencrypted log of user’s locations. South Korean officials promptly indicated that they were investigating the alleged practice.

Apple broke its silence last week with a statement reassuring users that it was not tracking the location of iPhones. Instead, Apple identified the log in question as a “crowd-sourced database” of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers meant to help the iPhone more rapidly and accurately calculate its location.

The iPhone’s “crowd-sourced database” | Source: O’Reilly Radar

According to Apple, iOS bugs resulted in data being stored longer than necessary and updates to the database even when Location Services are disabled. A fix to the bug is expected in an upcoming release of iOS 4.3.3, which will reportedly come in the next two weeks.

In a rare interview, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs acknowledged that more could be done to inform consumers about new technology and declined to comment on Google’s privacy policy.

“As new technology comes into the society, there is a period of adjustment and education,” Jobs said. “We haven’t, as an industry, done a very good job educating people, I think, as to some of the more subtle things going on here. As such, (people) jumped to a lot of wrong conclusions in the past week.”

Annual year-end block party at Western Illinois University ends with riot police

New video and photos provide evidence to suggest that ROTC students assisted in initiating the fire that was the reason for the extreme force used by the multi-jurisdictional task force at the annual Wheeler Block Party. Julio Rausseo provides the update regarding the evidence and the planned student anti-police state demonstration at the University Union.

Annual year-end block party at Western Illinois University ends with riot police. Students attending the Wheeler Block Party were met by a Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force who used tear gas, LRAD sound weapons and crowd suppression tactics to force students into their homes. Gary Franchi is joined by eyewitness and victim of the raid, Julio Rausseo to review video footage and recount the abuses against the students. Establishment media and law enforcement have begun to spin the story ignoring the rights abuses. Please spread the word of this report and help get this story out.