Archive for the ‘law and order’ Category

Employers who lie about why they fire people

Sunday, September 25th, 2011

Here is an example of a Philadelphia crime family boss (living in South Jersey) who was let off on bail and found work – but who then lost the work AFTER the factory was contacted and told about his history.

Their comment :

The work schedule and his skill set didn’t fit

The work schedule and the skill set fit perfectly fine – until you were “warned” via a phone call about behavior which you found unflattering. Then, and only then, did the previously non-existent “business reasons” come into play.

Sounds like wrongful termination to me. The company should be sued.


Race Card Played as Mexicans Riot over Immigration Bill

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

The link
Take note of the way the race card is played here. “Racism” is charged so that the issue ceases to be a legal issue and becomes only an issue of ethnic conflict. Therefore Mexicans are using their alleged “race” to avoid responsibility.

CHICAGO (AP) – Angered by a controversial Arizona immigration law, tens of thousands of protesters – including 50,000 alone in Los Angeles – rallied in cities nationwide demanding President Barack Obama tackle immigration reform immediately.

“I want to thank the governor of Arizona because she’s awakened a sleeping giant,” said labor organizer John Delgado, who attended a rally in New York where authorities estimated 6,500 gathered.

From Los Angeles to Washington D.C., activists, families, students and even politicians marched, practiced civil disobedience and “came out” about their citizenship status in the name of rights for immigrants, including the estimated 12 million living illegally in the U.S.

Police said 50,000 rallied in Los Angeles where singer Gloria Estefan kicked off a massive downtown march. Estefan spoke in Spanish and English, proclaiming the United States is a nation of immigrants.

“We’re good people,” the Cuban-born singer said atop a flatbed truck. “We’ve given a lot to this country. This country has given a lot to us.”

Public outcry, particularly among immigrant rights activists, has been building since last week when Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the legislation last week. The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The law’s supporters say it’s necessary because of the federal government’s failure to secure the border, but critics contend it encourages racial profiling and is unconstitutional.

“It’s racist,” said Donna Sanchez, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen living in Chicago whose parents illegally crossed the Mexican border. “I have papers, but I want to help those who don’t.”

Organizers estimated about 20,000 gathered at a park on Chicago’s West Side and marched, but police said about 8,000 turned out.

The event resembled something between a family festival – food vendors strolled through with pushcarts – and a political demonstration with protesters chanting “Si se puede,” Spanish for “Yes we can.” A group of undocumented students stood on a stage at the Chicago park and “came out” regarding their immigration status.

Juan Baca was among those students. Baca, 19, whose parents brought him from Mexico illegally when he was 4 months old, said he has had to drop out of college and work several times already because he can’t qualify for financial aid.

“It’s been a struggle,” he said. “I missed the mark by four months.”

Obama once promised to tackle immigration reform in his first 100 days, but has pushed back that timetable several times. He said this week that Congress may lack the “appetite” to take on immigration after going through a tough legislative year. However, Obama and Congress could address related issues, like boosting personnel and resources for border security, in spending bills this year.

At the White House, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, was among 35 people arrested in a demonstration of civil disobedience against the Arizona law.

In Dallas, police estimated at least 20,000 attended a Saturday rally. About a dozen people there carried signs depicting the Arizona governor as a Nazi and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his tough illegal immigration stance, as a Klansman. Organizers were asking sign holders to discard those placards.

Juan Hernandez, the Hispanic outreach coordinator for Arizona Sen. John McCain’s unsuccessful presidential run, attended the Dallas rally. He said Arizona was once considered by those south of the border to be a model state with particularly close ties to Mexico.

“It went beyond what most states do,” he said. “Now they are a state that goes beyond what the Constitution says you should do.”

Juan Haro, 80, was born and raised in Denver, where about 3,000 people rallied. He said he thinks Arizona’s new law targets Mexicans.

“This country doesn’t seem to be anti-immigrant,” said Haro, whose family is originally from Mexico. “It seems to be anti-Mexican.”

In downtown Miami, several hundred flag-waving demonstrators – many with Cuban and Honduran flags, but mostly American ones – called for reforms.

Elsewhere, an estimated 7,000 protesters rallied in Houston, about 5,000 gathered at the Georgia state Capitol in Atlanta and at least 5,000 marched in Milwaukee. About 3,000 attended a Boston-area march.

And in Ann Arbor, Mich., more than 500 people held a mock graduation ceremony for undocumented immigrant students near the site of Obama’s University of Michigan commencement speech.

In Arizona, police in Tucson said an immigration rights rally there drew at least 5,000 people. Several thousand people gathered in Phoenix for a demonstration Saturday evening.

A smattering of counterprotesters showed up at rallies. In Tucson, a few dozen people showed up in support of the new law and Brewer. A barricade separated about two dozen counterprotesters from a pro-immigrant rights rally in San Francisco.

The counterprotesters there carried signs that read, “We Support Arizona” and “We Need More Ice At This Fiesta,” an apparent reference to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

May 1 – International Workers Day – is a traditional date for political demonstrations. Immigration advocates latched onto that tradition in 2006, when more than 1 million people across the country – half a million alone in Chicago – protested federal legislation that would have made being an illegal immigrant a felony. That legislation ultimately failed.


John Wayne Gacy Muse Music Video

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Socialist Jurisprudence

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

In his monumental legal work on the science of jurisprudence in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), entitled The Law of the Soviet State (1948), Comrade Andrei Vyshinsky (Procurator-General of the Soviet Union, Deputy People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs and later Minister of Foreign Affairs), reaffirmed the Marxist-Leninist concept of the law:

Law is the totality (a) of the rules of conduct, expressing the will of the dominant class and established in legal order, and (b) of customs and rules of community life sanctioned by state authority – their application being guaranteed by the compulsive force of the state in order to guard, secure, and develop social relationships and social orders advantageous and agreeable to the dominant class.

This simple thesis and observation was not new to Vyshinsky, but an objective characteristic of all legal systems, dating back to even the most primitive and ancient forms of historical jurisprudence.

But the difference between bourgeois jurisprudence and socialist legality is not only the necessary transition of state authority from one dominant class to the other (from bourgeoisie to proletariat), but is distinctively marked by the unity of theory and praxis. Unlike bourgeois “Constitutionalism,” as seen in Western liberal capitalist democratic states, the legal system of the Soviet Union was exemplified by this normative and descriptive cohesion. The most demonstrative evidence exists in the lack of so-called “Constitutional protections” that reflect vague or abstract principles whose validity exists beyond the realm of the material world, but a real-life reflection of the existing conditions prevalent in Soviet social relations.

Proceedings in 1945 trial of Polish nationalist-military conspirators

Proceedings in 1945 trial of Polish nationalist-military conspirators

The above characteristic serves as the fundamental basis for the social, economic and political transformation of jurisprudence from capitalism to socialism; further evidence to socialist jurisprudence as the most progressive, scientific and fundamentally correct application of the law to have ever existed in history.

FMP Condemns Swiss Anti-Islamic law

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Swiss voters on Sunday passed a hostile and antagonistic referendum sponsored by the ultra-reactionary “Swiss People’s Party” effectively banning the construction of minarets, the distinctive architectural designs atop the vast majority of Mosques, or places of worship for adherents of the Islamic faith.

Supporters of the ban claim the minaret is a so-called “symbol” of “militant Islam,” a repulsive and deceitful claim concocted in the minds of ultra-nationalist bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements among the Swiss ruling class.

Historically, the minaret served the practical purpose of a signal to the Muslim community, and traditionally, though less so today, served as the place for issuing the call to prayer (adhan) to believers.

Response to Sunday’s vote was largely negative – both domestically and abroad. Legal experts criticized the ban on its violation of freedom of religion and incompatible with Switzerland’s constitution. Foreign legal experts also criticized the ban on account of its violation of standing international conventions in Europe that guarantee religious freedom, of which Switzerland is a signatory.

Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Dr. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, issued a statement following Sunday’s vote, denouncing the ban on minarets as an “example of growing anti-Islamic incitement in Europe by extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians who reign over common sense, wisdom and universal values.”

Islam is Switzerland’s second largest religion, behind only Christianity. Muslims make up approximately 4 per cent of Switzerland’s population.

Free Media Productions wholeheartedly and unambiguously condemns this blatant and provocative ban against minarets as an inexcusable and prejudiced attack against European Muslims, and demands an immediate end to the propagation of aggressive, malignant and antagonistic Islamophobic policies.

A thing (or two) about Interrogations

Friday, September 4th, 2009

Modern police interrogations in the United States rarely have to rely on physical pressure in order to get a suspect to comply with investigators. Modern interrogators will employ what’s now-known (and a registered trademark) the so-called “Reid Technique,” which rests on psychological manipulation through a number of different tactics that help investigators elicit a confession from a suspect.

However successful the Reid Technique may be, there are two very basic ways to protect yourself against this method of interrogation.

First: Invoke your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Law enforcement agents are required (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966) to explicitly and clearly advise any suspect of his Fifth Amendment (right to remain silent) and Sixth Amendment (right to an attorney) rights. A suspect’s right to remain silent exists throughout the entire duration of a criminal proceeding, including arrest, interrogation and even the suspect’s criminal court case (in other words, you don’t have to testify in your own court cases – and prosecutors are NOT  allowed to ask jurors to infer this as a sign of guilt).

Remember, the only thing you are legally required to tell any law enforcement agency is your name and address.

Second: Invoke your Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

As soon as you find yourself confronting detectives hoping to extract information that will inevitably be used to incriminate you – you should immediately ask for counsel. US federal law stipulates that everyone has a right to an attorney, even if they can’t afford one. Though an attorney can often times give poor or ill-conceived advice, nonetheless they “should” know how to assist you in navigating the process and make sure your rights are protected throughout all stages of the criminal investigation.

During an interrogation there are a lot of things working against you. For instance, the rapid pace for which events occur (from arrest to interrogation), the “shock” of being arrested, the atmosphere of an interrogation room (inherently constitutes a source of “pressure” on detained suspects) and even the way investigators communicate with you are all intended to help make the jobs of law enforcement agents that much easier.

Therefore, understanding the process behind police interrogations will help you better prepare and protect yourself (in the event you should ever find yourself in such a position in the first place) from doing or saying anything that may work against your interests.

Environment: Most interrogation rooms are small and bare. This is intentional in order to play upon the suspect’s sense of discomfort and isolation. This will make most people feel uneasy and overwhelmed with a sense of loss of control. There’s almost always a one-way mirror with other detectives watching the interrogation and taking notes of how you respond to questioning, either a hidden or explicitly placed video camera and a table with three chairs. Usually the suspect will be positioned towards the end of one side of the table, with one interrogator across from him and another on the other end/same side. This is meant to make the suspect feel as though he’s being “trapped” and again adds to the level of discomfort.

Questioning: At the beginning of the interrogation police will begin by asking you simple questions that serve two important functions: 1) to get you to begin talking and 2) to judge how you respond to memory and creative inducing interrogation.

Police know that building a rapport is an easy way to get a suspect to begin talking, and once you start, it will always be harder to sop. Likewise, once you start telling the truth it will also be harder to begin lying.

In the early stage of the interrogation process, police will also ask you questions that both induce your memory and your creative thinking. Investigators will attempt to use this as a means of identifying how you respond to these respective questions and try to determine how “truthful” your answers are later on when the real interrogation begins. The problem with this is that its far from scientific, and many investigators have been led to believe that when a suspect’s eyes shift to the right, that must mean he/she is “constructing” information (i.e. lying or inventing). However, several psychologists and neurological-linguist scientists have dismissed this as unfounded, since (on a certain biomechanical level) all memories are “re-constructed” and thus could be interpreted as a physical indication of a suspect’s not telling the truth.

More sophisticated interrogators will pay attention to more “telling” indicators of whether or not a suspect is telling the truth. Some involuntary physiological responses commonly used to detect if someone is lying include pupil dilation, breathing patterns, changes in muscle tone, flushing of the skin and even the size of your pores.

In short, your best means of defense is to keep your mouth shut and only momentarily end your silence with a request for counsel.

Quotes from the People’s Procurator

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

“Suppression and the use of force by the state are still essential during the transition period [from capitalism to communism] – force, however, exerted by the exploited majority upon the exploiting minority, different in type and new in principle.  The indispensability of this force necessitates a special apparatus, the special machinery, to crush enemies and all elements hostile to socialism.

The new Soviet state is a machine to crush the resistance of exploiters, to do away with exploitation and class domination by exploiters, to reinforce the class dominance of the proletariat and its leadership of the rest of the toiling masses to the end of finally liquidating classes in general and passing into communism.

- A.Y. Vyshinsky, ed., The Law of the Soviet State

“The dictatorship of the proletariat solves the problems of the proletarian revolution both with the aid of law and with the assistance of measures strictly defined by statute, through administrative and judicial organs.  The dictatorship of the proletariat is authority unlimited by any statutes whatever.  But the dictatorship of the proletariat, creating its own laws, makes use of them, demands they be observed, and punishes breach of them.

- A.Y. Vyshinsky, ed., The Law of the Soviet State

“Law – like the state – will wither away only in the highest phase of communism. … Until then, however, there is necessity for general control, firm discipline in labor and in community life, and complete subordination of all the new society’s work to a truly democratic state.

- A.Y. Vyshinsky, ed., The Law of the Soviet State

“[The] Soviet government is the expression of the most complete and most fully developed democracy.  At the same time, it is the expression of the dictatorship of the working class, which secures the very possibility of democracy for the people.  Soviet democracy and proletarian dictatorship are two aspects of one and the same phenomenon.

- A.Y. Vyshinsky, Lenin and Stalin: The Great Organizers of the Soviet State

Marxism teaches the necessities of using law as one of the means of the struggle for socialism – of recasting human society on socialist bases … It is invoked to meet the problems of the struggle with foes of socialism and the cause of building a socialist society.”

- A.Y. Vyshinsky, ed., The Law of the Soviet State

Lynching of Cynthia McKinney urged by ‘journalist’ trained and paid by FBI

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Cynthia McKinney joins Bay View publisher Willie Ratcliff at a,
gathering Friday, Aug. 21, at the Black Dot in West Oakland

Lynching of Cynthia McKinney urged by ‘journalist’ trained and paid by FBI

Hal Turner called her ‘a violent, black, racist, bitch’ whose lynching would teach other Blacks that ‘white people are tired of your bullshit, behave or die’

by David Swanson

Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney sent an email around on Sunday in which she wrote:

“It has just now come to my attention that a ‘journalist’ who suggested that I be lynched was actually being paid by our own government to say that. Now, when I reported it to the FBI, how in the world was I to know that he was at that time on the FBI’s payroll?”


McKinney wrote in her email: “Interesting that charges stem from his comments against Connecticut lawmakers and Illinois judges, but not from the threat made against me, a sitting Member of Congress at the time!” And apparently the threat against McKinney was made when Turner admits to having been on the FBI payroll.

Link to sfbayview.com story here

This is clearly a Civil Rights violation. The FBI should be investigated to determine exactly what part they had in this unethical, racist attack on Rep. Cynthia McKinney.

*special thanks to Chapaev for the heads up on this story

The “no-knock” warrant

Monday, August 24th, 2009

In an effort to continuously harness the organs of class oppression, the bourgeois government of the United States (US) has historically employed what’s known as a “no-knock warrant,” which, unlike a traditional warrant, stipulates that law enforcement agents can enter an individual’s property without knocking and identifying themselves as police.

According to the website for the US Department of Justice:

Federal judges and magistrates may lawfully and constitutionally issue “no-knock” warrants where circumstances justify a no-knock entry, and federal law enforcement officers may lawfully apply for such warrants under such circumstances.

The underlying constitutional justification for the “no-knock” warrant is the concern that suspects may destroy the desired evidence between the time that agents identify themselves and have conducted their “search and seizure” of the property in question.

However, there is no official authorization for the use of “no-knock” warrants in US Federal Law, and instead, this peculiar style of warrant differs little than a traditional warrant, with the notable exception of providing for an immense expansion of police powers (assuming qualifying circumstances). So essentially, the “no-knock” element of a given warrant is determined by the issuing judge or magistrate, whose decision is based upon evidence and “circumstances” outlined by a law enforcement agent.

Since being utilized, the “no-knock” warrant has come under intense scrutiny, notably by libertarian and petty-bourgeois civil rights groups, who charge that the “no-knock” authorization violates the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which clearly 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.

On numerous occasions, the United States Supreme Court (which serves to validate the legal adventurism of the bourgeois ruling class and its state organs) has upheld the “no-knock” warrant as constitutional. In the Supreme Court’s own words:

A number of States give magistrate judges the authority to issue “no-knock” warrants if the officers demonstrate ahead of time a reasonable suspicion that entry without prior announcement will be appropriate in a particular context. The practice of allowing magistrates to issue no-knock warrants seems entirely reasonable when sufficient cause to do so can be demonstrated ahead of time. But, as the facts of this case demonstrate, a magistrate’s decision not to authorize a no-knock entry should not be interpreted to remove the officers’ authority to exercise independent judgment concerning the wisdom of a no-knock entry at the time the warrant is being executed (Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997))

Furthermore, the issue of “no-knock” warrants has substantially increased over the last twenty years: from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 in 2005, according to a study by Peter Kraska at the Eastern Kentucky University. It goes without saying that the increasing obsession with the so-called “war on terror” has greatly increased the expediency and effectiveness of the “no-knock” warrant, as investigators and national intelligence and security services have witnessed an exponential expansion of authority and power in recent years.

Grand Juries

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

In the American legal system, the purpose of the grand jury is to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to move forward with a criminal prosecution. The grand jury is a useful tool in the system of class oppression by the bourgeois state, and has a long, if not tainted, history of serving to terrorize, intimidate and last of all incarcerate social movements on all sides of the political spectrum, ranging from communist, socialist, environmentalist, anti-war, neo-nazi, white nationalist, etc.

Most people are relatively informed when it comes to a trial by jury in a criminal court case, but far less is known about the equally fateful grand jury process.

Typically, a grand jury is made up of anywhere between 12 to 23 people, and usually serve for 18 months collecting and presenting evidence, witnesses and information relevant to a case in order to determine if an alleged crime has been committed. In some jurisdictions the members of the grand jury aren’t picked at random, but rather the prosecution. In practice this has turned grand juries into little more than a rubber stamp for the state to carry though the prosecution of political dissenters.

Grand juries are held in closed session, meaning that the public at large (by way of an audience or the media) are strictly forbidden from observing what goes on inside. Violating the secrecy of the grand jury can result in a charge of criminal contempt.

Unlike a criminal court case, a grand jury allows only the prosecutor to present evidence and witnesses. In the last century federal grand juries have also experienced an expansion of powers that now allows them not only to review evidence, but also actively seek it out against a suspect in an investigative manner. This power is manifested in the grand jury subpoena, which can call upon anyone to testify, which often times leads to more subpoenas and increased pressure to cooperate with authorities.

Grand jury sessions also seek to restrict those present. Under standing Federal law, only the prosecutor representing the interests of the state, witnesses under examination, and select court staff (stenographers, interpreters, bailiffs).

Witnesses called to testify before a grand jury can, and often are, prosecuted afterwards based on their evidence – so there is a natural tendency for the prosecution to pressure witnesses to incriminate themselves. Likewise, members of the working class who lack the funds to hire an attorney are NOT provided one by the court. Similarly, hearsay evidence, or statements made outside the grand jury hearings, is permissible.

If your issued a subpoena to testify before a grand jury, you have the option of not cooperating, but this will land you a charge of criminal contempt. As punishment, you may be imprisoned for the duration of the grand jury, upwards of 18 months. Sound legal advice from a professional is perhaps the best option when confronted with a grand jury subpoena.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor