"I can tell you from personal experience that if somebody comes to me (as a police officer) ranting and raving like a lunatic, throwing things out like "Constitution" and court cases and other things that you mentioned in your post, I will not really listen to what you are saying. I will basically just hear "blah blah blah blah". I'm not saying that to be dis-respectful, but I am saying this so that you know about human nature and more specifically, the police."

I bookmarked the whole don-tiggre site. Geez. Here it is again. in whole:

Liberty Round Table

Unbelievable link. It would be funny except it's becoming not only COMMON to be arrested for silly assed shit; but COMMON to be convicted for silly assed shit.

Friend of mine was convicted for 'possession of bomb making materials'. Duh, please explain, occifer ? "... empty bottles, a jug of kerosene, and a box of rags ... oh yes, and we found a used candle in a corner". Duh, gee, occifer, I know about 4 people in the county who don't have those things in their homes. "... yes, but these were all in the same room". Duh, gee, occifer, what room would that be ? "... his garage." Duh, gee, occifer, about 80 per cent of the people in this county use kerosene as a stand by heating source in this county. " ... but they don't store empty bottles, rags, and candles in the same room with their kerosene". Duh, gee, occifer, how do you know these things ? "... they just don't, alright ? Do you want to be arrested for consorting with known felons ?" Duh, gee, occifer, I guess I better stop associating with my neighbors. "... yes, I guess you better".

And now, another endless moment of silence for Officer Desmond Casey ... not just one moment, mind you ... not two ... not three ... but every fucking time you try to access this web site ... week after week ... month after month. [That's for the benefit of people who have never been here before. If you're too dense to look at where the redirect takes you and bookmark that page, that's your problem. Incidentally, I've reduced the refresh time from 20 seconds to 5 now since the story is getting old, which means that you won't have to wait as long if you can't figure out that redirect thing. --steve]

R/I/C... you have said that cops have no choice in
what they do and don't enforce. This is a perfect example
of...something. (Hopefully, the link will work this
time, if not, copy and paste.) I don't think that
I'll make any points or anything, people should
just read it.

STEVE, PLEASE post an e-mail address for
me...[legion@copkiller.org. Whatever you're using to post with (I'll have to go look at my logs) seems to be inserting random BR tags in your posts, which might have something to do with them being cut off. I'll look into it. --steve]

I've read every message on this board since March 1998 when it was referenced by the New York Times.

As near as I can figure, some long winded anti-rights activist has decided to bury any messages to/from you by inserting his own off-topic, lengthy, and non-sensical posts.

Interesting that some posters can publish something equivalent to the New York Times; but you're limited to 1/2 paragraph.

You're being purposely cut-off. If it's important or related to the subject matter, it gets ripped. or the poster gets banned. [Wrong. Ross is using Internet Exploder on a Mac PPC, which seems to be what's messing up his posts. Ross, Please try one post with another browser or machine and see if it helps. By the way, I ban people who sound like broken records and have nothing to contribute. As I've said, start your own anti-cop site if you don't like the way I run mine. --steve]

Steve's not running the site anymore. Case in point, that crappy poem below your message has been posted about 100 times so far. Steve always got tired of seeing it and deleted it. [Done. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that I haven't been around here in some time. Or did the fact that the site was inaccessible for at least a week elude you? Of course I wasn't running the site--no one was. That's what happens when you have to take care of real-life matters. --steve]

For now, I guess we have to accept that this is the official Officer Desmond Casey Memorial Web Site with nothing but 'cops are wonderful' crap. [Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out any evidence of "cops are wonderful" here. Thanks in advance. --steve]

We are the Mapultians, the Malputians, the Lilliputians ... one for all ... all for one ... what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too.

Should be of interest to visitors: href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/12/29/
jamal/index2.html">an article about Mumia Abu
Jamal (Wesley Cook), which I feel is nicely
balanced. Heh, whether or not he killed Faulkner
(sp?)... he should still get a fair trial.

Blue-haired Steve: yeah, I know. Reaction to your
hair is just one symptom of anal-retentive,
fascist, "conservative" assholes thinking that
everybody should be like them... I hope to have my
hair died bright red, soon. Can't wait.

We are a very benevolent and philanthropic group of gentlemen from all over the world. Sure, we're going to take over, but it'll be for the best ... trust me.

Meanwhile, view a list of some of our members, many of whom are in all three organizations; the Council on Foreign Relations (only walking distance from the White House [about 100 yards] ... nice view of the White House, too), the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergers.

New World Order members from the US of A

... and be nice to these policeman; they work for us. Sure, they shoot and kill a few innocent civilians now and then, but overall, they're a pretty good bunch. Remember, target practice at the range is nice; but every now and then you have to go out and kill a few people just to keep your hand in. Consider it a good investment in the New World Order.

Your friend and leader of the world,

Pete G. Peterson

Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations

58 East 68th Street

New York, New York, it's a wonderful town.

(212)734-0400

Our membership includes POTUS William Clinton, VPOTUS Al Gore, Richard Thornburgh, former US Attorney General, now Assistant Secretary for the Administration of the United Nations, and Anthony Lake, National Security Advisor.

That "new generation of a politically correct regime," otherwise known as the fraudulent New World Order, is complete treason against the people and sovereignty of this country and the ultimate perpetrators of that treason, as well as their agents such as judges and attorneys, can legally be prosecuted as the traitors that they are.

That "weak D.A. prosecuting you for defending your own" is a perfect example of the agents of that treason I just described. Such trash definitely need to be prosecuted for their crimes.

Everyone who cares about the United States, what it has become, and where it is headed needs to immediately begin seeking out and getting the assistance of those "old school cops" you referred to in your posting of Tue Dec 21 23:09:36 1999, so that the traitors I referred to above, can be prosecuted for their treason. If you personally know any of those "old school cops," please let me know immediately and please email me directly, considering that the webmaster of this page is the loser that he is. The email address that I have provided above is valid.

As far as his demanding that I leave this webpage, I have as much right to post here as anyone else. But of course, freedom of speech means nothing to R/I/R when the person in question doesn't go along with his charade. For that matter, people's God given rights mean nothing to R/I/R either.

"Almost Retired---What should we do now? Neither of us are qualified to be police officers. Does that mean all of the people we arrested should be released from prison? All of the tickets we have written dismissed? All of the people we have assited and the lives we have saved, should those people now be dead? The salary that we have earned we have to give back? Wow, this really created problems for us doesn't it? We're just a bunch of punks--I feel so bad now."

As far as the tickets go, they should all be dismissed. It is common knowledge that tickets are big business and revenue, and that protection of the people has nothing to do with the writing of tickets. As I said before, the entire practice of writing tickets is part of the fraudulent New World Order and needs to be eliminated immediately.

Regarding the people R/I/R supposedly assisted and the lives he supposedly saved, that doesn't begin to offset the fact that he is part of and that he is protecting a system that is waging war against the people of this country. In other words, R/I/R is causing harm to a lot more people than he is supposedly assisting and saving. Then R/I/R said: "All of the people we have assited and the lives we have saved, should those people now be dead?" Sounds like a statement that a punk who has taken hostages would make.

As far as the "salary" is concerned, R/I/R certainly has nothing of it "to give back." My position is: keep the "salary," and remove himself, and the fraudulent New World Order he is a part of, away from the people of this country, so that they can have a life.

Indeed, that would be just awesome at this point. But, it will never happen until ugly bullying liars, thieves, traitors, spies, saboteurs, and trash like R/I/R that attempt to protect them, butt their ugly noses out of people's lives and allow people to have a life.

That means:

Throw out the fraudulent money system in this country and eliminate all of the contrived expenses that derive from it. This includes bank payments and the income tax.

Eliminate the fraudulent courts and the aristocracies (State Bar and American Bar Associations) that control them.

Throw away all of the corporate policy, including all revenue collecting such as so called vehicle registration, that those courts, and that corrupt legislatures and a corrupt Congress, have created.

But, because it is so important that no one get taken in by his lies and because the possibility of that does exist, let me make one thing clear. I never said or implied:

"• His response: This web page is his "home" which has been invaded by an "organized crime syndicate"."

No, R/I/R, I am not talking about the web page being my home and I am not talking about an organized crime syndicate having invaded this web page. I am talking about the United States of America being my home and an organized crime syndicate having invaded the United States of America, and you know fully well what I am talking about.

You are simply reacting as if I am being vague in the desperate hope that the people reading this guesbook will think that I am "whacko, crazy, etc," despite the evidence that I have brought forth, thus, further demonstrating to everyone your punk attitude.

• I offer a very simple solution to Alec's problem: leave the web page, and don't come back---problem solved!

• His response: This web page is his "home" which has been invaded by an "organized crime syndicate"

• I remind Alec how disconnected from reality he is, and how far off "the deep end" he has once again gone.

• Alec responds, saying that I have a "punk attitude" (as if he's never said that before) because I have a desparate hope of getting the people reading this to think he's a whacko.

"What's this? A Rodney King memorial page. What a bunch of cow dung. As long as there are losers like the creators of this page, I will continue to own firearms. That way, when one of these militant losers breaks into my house, I can deal with it myself! I would suspect that these anti-cop types make their money in several ways:



1) Sponging off of the government

2) Selling crack cocaine

3) Home invasion robberies.

"Regarding your comment about the courts deciding that the police have no legal duty to act---you're 100% correct. A couple of quick things about that (for the benefit of the reader's--not Alec because he doesn't listen). First of all, that decision came from the courts--not the cops. So the complaint should be directed at the appropriate group." (Italics added for emphasis).

"The cops are required to follow the laws and have no say in the matter, other than doing the same things that any citizen can do in an attempt to change laws. (Note to Alec---If you're so concerned about this, why don't you quit whining on a web page and go out and form a group of people to collect signatures and get something on the ballot?)." (Italics added for emphasis).

But, if everyone does look at the previous postings that I made to this guestbook, they will see that it is the court system that I have been mainly focusing on when I said that the government is a fraud. Furthermore, they will see that I had also brought forth evidence that proves that I had already "taken my complaints" to them (the courts), and that they had responded by not following their own laws that they profess to obey.

When I made my postings to this guestbook and brought the evidence against the court system to R/I/R's attention, his reaction was attacks on my character and total defense of the courts to the point of absurdity. Here are a few examples from his previous postings:

Alec wrote:

"the entire court system in the United States is a fraudulent court system of attornment and is a communist aristocracy owned and controlled by foreign nationals! "

"The attempt was made by 2 people who were robbed of a $5,000,000.00 estate by the Southern California Conference of 7th Day Adventists Church."

"Just as soon as Mr. Molano became aware of the presence of the 8 individuals, he immediately stood up, ran out of the courtroom, ripped off his robes, hid in his chambers and called a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff (whose mentality Retired/Injured Cop, User3665@aol.com no doubt shares) to arrest all 8 individuals"

"....... whereupon 1 of the 2 people making the felony complaint stood up and stated: "Yes, I have a felony complaint against Mr. Ira Reiner". (note by Retired/Injured here: For those who don't know, Ira Reiner at the time was the district attorney for Los Angeles County).

"Mr. Mills stopped that individual and said: "get out of my court or I will have you arrested for contempt.."

I think those are enough quotes for all to understand where Alec is coming from. Alec--please get counseling before you hurt someone. The longer you let this go, the more dilusional you will get. Life's too short.

Retired/Injured Cop <User3665@aol.com>

Bay Area, CA USA - Thursday, August 05, 1999 at 18:58:15 (MDT)

"2)You are obviously a person who knows nothing about case law decisions, as well as the "spirit of the law" and how it applies itself in real life. You quote all of these laws like everything is followed in black and white just becuase it's written. There is the fantasy-land of reading the law books, and there is the reality of actually applying those laws in real life. I'm just telling you this since you obviously live in fantasy-land. Basically, you don't know what you're talking about. And there is no way I'm going to take the time to justify why. There isn't room for two people in your strange little world."

"Every single arrest I ever made I feel 100% confident about it. No person ever went to jail that didn't deserve to go--not deserve to go because I thought they deserved it--but deserved to go because of the crimes they committed."

"..., this coming from a person who wants ME to fly to Los Angeles (??) and arrest the former elected District Attorney of LA County, this coming from someone who has one of the strangest and most confusing web pages on the Internet......Okay--you must be right. I guess I did admit to the brainwashing of police. (How did you EVER get to be so misled and confused??)..."

Anyway.......Alec---welcome back! I was beginning to get depressed without having a daily dose of humor from you. And you sure did a whammy today! Oh man, I love it. Always going back to the same tired, boring gibberish. I won't even comment on it--I'd be wasting mine and everyone else's time.

Regarding your comment about the courts deciding that the police have no legal duty to act---you're 100% correct. A couple of quick things about that (for the benefit of the reader's--not Alec because he doesn't listen). First of all, that decision came from the courts--not the cops. So the complaint should be directed at the appropriate group. The cops are required to follow the laws and have no say in the matter, other than doing the same things that any citizen can do in an attempt to change laws. (Note to Alec---If you're so concerned about this, why don't you quit whining on a web page and go out and form a group of people to collect signatures and get something on the ballot?).

The important thing to look at as to why the court ruled this way, is to look at the reasons behind it. For the example that is on the web page that is referenced in the posting below (the women in the apartment complex), that was a horrible tragedy that never should have happened. But the ruling that police do not have to act in certain situations would not have changed a thing in that case---not one single thing. There were other mistakes that were made in that referenced case. The dispatcher who took the call made a fatal mistake of not classifying the call as a high priority. The watch commander made the mistake of not keeping an eye on the computer screen of the calls pending and reading the text of the calls to see exactly what the person is reporting. Maybe the cops even made a mistake by not pulling up the pending calls on their computers and reading the pending events (if that's even possible for that particular agency). There are all sorts of fingers that can be pointed at different people as to WHY the police did not respond to that call. Things like this are just like statistics---if anyone understands stats and how they work, almost any statistic can be used either against OR for almost any topic. Numbers can be manipulated very easily, and they ARE manipulated all the time for the benefit of whoever is reporting the numbers. A similar circumstance is happening here with that web page. It's only telling part of the story, and connecting apples and oranges together to come up with an answer. The average person doesn't understand how all of this stuff works, so they may read that and actually believe it. But as I pointed out, in the specific example used on the web page that talks about the women in the apartment and the police not responding, not one single thing would have been different if the courts (prior to that) had said that the police DO have a legal obligation to assist. Because the procedures would have been exactly the same---calls are priortized all the time, calls are pending ALL THE TIME. Right now in any large city--Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and so on----there are two or three computer pages of pending calls. How did they get in there, and how did they get placed in the order of priority that they are in RIGHT NOW? Simple--a dispatcher or call-taker did it. If the dispatcher messed up and did not prioritize the call correctly, then some very serious results will happen as a result of that error.

Getting back to the issue of the courts saying that the police have no duty to act (or whatever the legal wording is), there are very good reasons for them coming up with that decision. First of all, consider the legal definition of "special relationship" as it relates to the police and the public. Police departments have to be VERY careful to NEVER establish a "special relationship" with somebody because that opens up the door for huge liability concerns. Just as a small example of what a special relationship would be: Suppose a woman calls the police department and expresses concern to the watch commander that her daughter works at a fast food restaurant in a bad part of town. And this woman also says that her daughter works the late shift and has to close the business. The mother is concerned because the daughter has to walk out to the parking lot by herself when she gets off work, and it's 2 o'clock in the morning and she is concerned that her daughter might become a victim of a violent crime. For that reason, the mother asks if the police can just patrol the area of the restaurant around 2AM when her daughter gets off work just to make sure she gets to the car safely every night. If the officer she is talking to does not understand the term "special relationship" (and many do not), and he says, "Okay ma'am, we'll be sure to keep an eye on that area for your daughter and someone will drive by there around 2AM". Just by those casual words, the police department just engaged in a special relationship with that woman. Now, if the daughter gets off work at 2AM and walks out to her car and gets raped, where were the police?? Can and should they be expected to go to that restaurant 5 nights a week to escort this girl to her car? Of course not. The officer can certainly drive over that way if he has time. But what if he's tied up in someone's house on the other side of his beat investigating a different incident? What I'm trying to say here is that the police should not engage in special relationships with people because the courts have said that it opens them up to huge liability. That particular circumstance of a "special relationship" is the only circumstance that I know of where the police can be held liable for not responding to and not handling a certain call. If a special relationship has NOT been established, then that is where the court's decision comes into play of the police not having to act or respond to a call for help. Just looking at that on the surface seems pretty wild--I agree. However, I have NEVER met a police officer that would not respond to a call for help. The ONLY reason that decision was made was strictly for officer safety reasons. A good example of this was a news video that lots of people have seen before. I'm referring to a news camera that was overhead filming a VERY large gang fight involving at least 100 gang members. Their cars were everywhere, and people were everywhere. Gun shots could be heard, and it was a huge melee. As the news camera is recording this incident, the first police car to arrive pulls up with his lights and siren turned on. As the police car turns the corner and sees what he is faced with (one officer versus 100 gang members), the officer throws the car in reverse and gets the hell out of there. He retreats to a safe location while he is calling for lots and lots of backup officers to respond. That's the reason the courts have said that---so that somebody can't come back and sue that officer for not taking action in certain incidents. The courts have said that the police do not have an obligation to respond to a call for help, and that is a classic example of why that ruling was made. If the officer would have gone into that scene by himself, he would have been killed. He also would have been introducing serious hazards to the public--such as giving gang members access to a police car, a police radio, a police computer, and so on. When 100 gang members are up against one officer, it's fairly obvious who is going to win. So the officer is legally allowed to get out of there and NOT respond to the call for help until it is safe to do so.

The system, and especially the courts, is fraud and does not work! Of course no one would believe that from R/I/R's posting of Wed Dec 15 06:28:10 1999. Just because some cops sometimes get prosecuted does not mean that the system works. Does anyone reading this know that the courts in this country have decided that the police are not even legally obligated to protect the people? Read all about it here.

By the way, Steve, you are a fraud!

I've been told that, even before I had begun my postings about the connection between the New World Order fraud and police brutality, you were clearly informed about that connection and chose to ignore it.

Statements such as...

[No, and I don't have to. If I were to sink so low as to put on a badge and someone came to me demanding that I arrest bankers and politicians, I'd think he was a kook too. --steve]

[Don't worry. If you did have one, you wouldn't be babbling about some economic violation that has no bearing whatsoever on the subject of cops killing people. --steve]

"I can tell you from personal experience that if somebody comes to me (as a police officer) ranting and raving like a lunatic, throwing things out like "Constitution" and court cases and other things that you mentioned in your post, I will not really listen to what you are saying. I will basically just hear "blah blah blah blah". I'm not saying that to be dis-respectful, but I am saying this so that you know about human nature and more specifically, the police."

Similar to what Tim said,

Immediately after the shooting, numerous people started pouring out of their homes and apartments and were extremely hostile and violent towards the officer. The usual racist comments immediately began, as the white officer had just shot a 19 year old black man. One of the people in the violent crowd that did not witness anything tries to get the crowd into more of an uproar and shouts out that the cop yelled "nigger motherfucker" before he shot him. The officer is still by himself at this time as only seconds have passed since all of this has happened. The driver of the vehicle that the suspect jumped out of is still in the car and he is not secure, and the officer can not see his hands. For safety reasons, the officer picks up the weapon on the ground (the suspect's weapon) and secures it. He also handcuffs the suspect who has been shot which is standard procedure. During the cuffing of the suspect, he notices two things. First of all, there is another gun on the suspect---a .357 revolver that is loaded and sticking out of his pants pocket. The officer secures that second weapon as well. Also, the officer can see that only 1 of his 2 shots hit the suspect, and the shot that hit him landed in the suspect's shoulder blade. So now this officer can see exactly what is developing before him---a white officer just shot a black man IN THE BACK. The officer obviously knows that the shooting was perfectly justified, but he can now see exactly what will happen. He is picturing in his mind the crowd seeing this and getting more violent. He can also see the news media coming and creating lies and propaganda about the shooting of a "an innocent black youth in the back" as he has seen so many times in the past. Panic starts to set in as he realizes instantly what is going to happen.

By now, he has already called for lots of backup assistance, as well as paramedics for the suspect that was shot. The suspect died within an hour of the shooting.

What followed next was an all too familiar set of circumstances. The crowd began making up blatant lies, doing everything they could to make the suspect look innocent and the police officer look like a rogue killer cop. The "witnesses" (who did not witness anything!) said that the officer was shouting "racial epithets" at the suspect before he shot him. In addition to that, the suspect had a tattoo of an Uzi on one shoulder, was on probation at the time of the shooting, has an extensive drug record, and was packing 2 loaded guns. The suspect's father got in front of the news cameras that showed up and said that his son "was not a criminal" and that he was only in the neighborhood to "visit his grandmother". All of the things that officer Gildo Tournour was afraid of were falling into place just as expected, and he could see his career and his life falling away before his eyes---knowing that he did nothing wrong and it was a textbook shooting.

The suspect's family hired a well-known civil rights attorney who often appears on the "Geraldo" TV show. The attorney said that this shooting was "another example of African-American males being shot in the back by white police officers." The lawyer characterized the police officer on national television as "a violent, pathological racist". He also stated that the story that the officer came up with on the shooting was a "fabrication to cover up illegal conduct.".

A memorial of flowers and giant placards were placed at the location where the shooting incident took place. Of course, the TV cameras had to take video of this to make it look worse for the police. They all zoomed in on one sign that said, "Plaintiff: Black Community. Defendant: Gil Tournour.".

The next to thing to follow of course was the civil rights lawsuit, in which the family demanded multi-millions for "wrongful death" and "exessive force". One of the plaintiff's, the suspect's father, accepted an out of court settlement for $200,000 of which HALF went to the lawyer. The other plaintiff, the suspect's mother (parents are divorced), felt that $200,000 was not enough and she pushed on to take it to trial.

As the trail began, a lot of steam quickly went out of the racial accusations that the defense had been making against the police officer. This is because the officer's wife was present in court every day as a sign of support for her husband. The officer's wife is black.

When the driver of the suspect vehicle got up on the witness stand to testify, he stated that when the police officer pulled them over, he gave the gun to the suspect to use on the officer. However, the driver was not familiar with the operation of a semi-automatic pistol and it was loaded incorrectly. It turns out that the dead suspect did indeed attempt to fire a shot at the officer, but nothing happened because of the weapon being loaded improperly. The driver's own statements knocked down the parade of witnesses that came through the courtroom stating that the suspect "never had a gun in his hand" and that the officer "shot him in the back because he is black".

The final blow to the case came when an expert witness was called to testify and explain to the jury what "action/reaction" is and how a suspect could very easily be shot in the back when just a moment prior to that, the suspect was indeed a threat and was facing the officer. This is part of the training that police officer's receive, but the public knows nothing about. This is something that I have talked about in the past, where many of the things that people get upset about with the police could easily be taken care of if more open communications were in place between police departments and citizens. Most of this "shot him in the back" stuff wouldn't even be controversial if people understood the simple concept of action/reaction. In the demonstration, the expert witness graphically explained how this works. In the demo, a suspect with a handgun in his waistband stands facing away from an officer who has his service sidearm up and pointed at the suspect. The suspect can consistently draw his weapon, twist his upper body around and fire a round back at the officer BEFORE the officer can get off a shot of his own. In other words, action is faster than reaction. Indeed, the suspect will usually be turned back around again, either partially or fully facing away from the officer, before the officer can complete his
initiated reaction to fire. The clear implication: This is how bullets justifiably end up in the backs of fleeing suspects who split-seconds earlier had posed a threat.

The cross-examination of the expert witness lasted last than a half hour. The jury deliberated for only 2 1/2 hours, and the plaitiffs did not win one single penny of the TEN MILLION dollars they were seeking. After a six year ordeal that changed the officer's life forever, it is now over and it has been proven that he did nothing wrong.

One of the reasons I have taken the time to go post this incident here is so that people can see, from a police officer's perspective, what really happens out on the street. When relying on the news media to report a "racial shooting", chances are you are getting totally wrong and fabricated reports. The next time you hear about a police officer shooting a suspect in the back, think about the "action/reaction" phenomenon and could it possibly be applied to that incident? Don't mis-understand me here---I'm not saying that this gives the green light for police to go around shooting people in the back. If you are thinking that out of what I just wrote, then you are not understanding what was just explained. It does NOT justify the police to go around shooting people in the back. However, it certainly does explain why an officer would make the decision to use deadly force (shoot) in a situation where the bullet may end up in the back of a suspect, and then appear to be "shot in the back" when that is not what happened at all. As a side-note to this, I have trained with the expert witness mentioned in these comments. He is an outstanding instructor, and the guy knows his stuff. He once testified on a similar case and explained the "action/reaction" scenario to the jury. The attorney that was suing the police officer for a "wrongful shooting" did not believe what the expert witness was saying, and he demanded to apply that test right there in the courtroom, this time with the LAWYER acting as the police officer. The lawyer wanted to prove that he could indeed get a shot off into the suspect so that the bullet would hit the front of the suspect, and NOT the back---which of couse would prove that the expert witness was wrong. Well, the lawyer made an ass of himself and only reinforced to the jury exactly what was explained to them. Because of action/reaction, there is NO WAY to get a round out of that gun without it hitting the back of the suspect. It's human nature, and we can't control that.

As if the long lists of unarmed people killed by
cops in the past two decades or so aren't enough,
here's a more recent thing. I copied this verbatim
from a post to slashdot.org, by a user. Tell me
that the police system is under control. Here ya'
go:

One local's opinions (Score:5, Informative)
by q[alex] (acidic@li.com) on Monday December 06,
@09:30AM EST (#19)
(User Info)
I was tear gassed three times, and never
participated in a single protest. Twice while
waiting for a bus (I work downtown and commute via
Capitol Hill) and once on the way to lunch. The
media weren't the only group that over-reacted to
the very small group of anarchists. The police
turned a blind eye to the wanton destruction caused
by a few (20-30) people on Tuesday, and then
responded by jailing hundreds of non-violent
protesters on Wednesday and Thursday. But the
jailing wasn't the worst. The worst was that
Seattle police turned on their own citizens.
Tuesday night they pushed an angry group of
protesters out of the predominantly commercial,
mostly non-residential downtown area into the
predominantly residential Capitol Hill area at
around 10pm. Then the police turned up the heat,
and began the storm-trooper like techniques
(banging their batons against their shin guards
while walking in groups, making 20 policemen sound
like 300 nazis marching in step, spraying tear gas
without warning, shooting rubber bullets from 5
feet away, hitting and kicking often confused
people who didn't move fast enough, firing
concussion grenades into large groups of people).
The terrible part is that I no longer feel safe in
my city. It took about 6 hours for MY local police
officers to turn from mostly decent people into
paranoid participants in a police state. I'm scared
to death of the people who are supposed to keep me
safe, and I've never committed a crime worse than
speeding. Am I supposed to trust these lunatics?
-- alex shepard acidic@li.com
[ Reply to This Parent ]

"I can tell you from personal experience that if somebody comes to me (as a police officer) ranting and raving like a lunatic, throwing things out like "Constitution" and court cases and other things that you mentioned in your post, I will not really listen to what you are saying. I will basically just hear "blah blah blah blah". I'm not saying that to be dis-respectful, but I am saying this so that you know about human nature and more specifically, the police."

I won't get into things in great detail because it's not necessary. Any sane person that has adjusted to society with minimal problems will take one look at his opinions and just laugh. So here is what I suggest you do---go ahead and look at his web page, and also look at his previous postings on the old Guestbook. This is what he wanted you to do, so please do it. Once you see what he believes, no comments from me will even be necessary.

"Alec" talks about people in this country being "innocent until proven guilty". I agree, that is a very important element in the criminal justice system. However, go back a few days and look at how quickly he tries and convicts a few unknown officers for crimes such as "kidnapping" and "mayhem" when those crimes don't even apply--even if the cops were wrong. However, in that specific incident, it's pretty obvious who was wrong and who was right---you will understand once you read it. Yet "Alec" had tried and convicted these cops without knowing the full story, without any evidence, without knowing the full set of circumstances, and without knowing what crimes to charge. This from a guy who talks about "The Constitution" and "innocent until proven guilty"? (The situation I'm referring to was posted under the header of "Battered Citizen" for reference).

In commenting about the Seattle incident, he talks about the police acting as "stern parents" with their children. Again, this goes to show what a warped and distorted world this man lives in. The Seattle police have been praised by both sides---the mayor, the citizens, the protest groups (AFL-CIO), and so on. The police are doing a fantastic job up there, and the proof is on video on the nightly news. They are making arrests not because they are acting as "parents", but because law violations have been made. Business have been vandalized with the glass broken out, graffiti has been left all over the place, fires have been started in the street, and things are a complete mess. The opening ceremonies of the WTO Conference (regardless of how we feel about it) were cancelled because the dignitaries from other countries were confined to their hotels and could not leave for safety reasons because of the riot that was going on in the streets. And "Alec" calls the police "stern parents"?? Wow, how can anyone possibly have a mind so incredibly corrupted as this man?

"Police officers put their lives on the line- everyday- to try to keep my street, your street, and all the streets safe. As unfortunate as "I" may think it is, they also protect you! Or have you focused on the negetive? How many times have police officers saved you without you knowing? How many times have they not been recognized for that?"

First, look at the entries of the older guestbook. You can find the link to that guestbook at the top of this guestbook. Pay special attention to the postings that I and Citizen Target have made. You should then be able to see a systematic pattern of the police attacking the people. Then, add in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Can you call any of this "keeping the streets safe?" Think, something similar could happen to you, even though you are associated with them. In essence, what I am trying to say here is that, regardless of what good the police may occasionally do for the people, there is something fundamentally wrong with the police, as an institution, in this country today. And that something needs to be corrected, immediately. This brings me to my next point.

Second, my main problem with the police is that they protect the fraudulent court system in this country. Have you ever been in court? I suggest that you visit a courtroom or two and sit in on the "proceedings" and see how those arrogant aristocrats, otherwise known as judges and attorneys, behave. In particular, observe their blatant disregard for human rights. Don't give me any garbage about "how their behavior is warranted because they deal with low-lifes." Do understand that:

(1) a person is innocent until proven guilty.

(2) two wrongs don't make a right. Those judges and attorneys could do their job of properly prosecuting criminals and of protecting the people, and still be respectful of everyone, including those that they prosecute, as a person. Yet, they routinely disrespect people because they are, quite simply, possessed by demons. Perhaps, one of the most common ways that they disrespect people is by playing God. Given the oaths that they took to gain their positions, that alone is a crime.

(3) those judges and attorneys routinely violate the rights of people who are not "low-lifes."

(4) those judges and attorneys are doing all of this ultimately to enslave everyone and not at all because they want to protect anyone's rights. Look here to see what their ultimate goal is.

(5) their masters are ultimately responsible for the crime and low-lifes that they now profess to want to protect us against. Look here for proof.

Third, R/I/R (Retired Injured Cop), true to his nature, said in his posting of Wed Dec 1 21:52:28 1999: "And look at the great work they have been doing in Seattle these last few days. It could have been much worse, and they could have made many more arrests on the first day. They were very tolerant with the shenanigans that were going on" (Italics added for empahsis). R/I/R's entire attitude here is that of the "stern parent disciplining his children." The problem with that attitude is that R/I/R, and any other police officer for that matter, have no business "playing parent" to anyone. Their job is to enforce the law and protect people's rights, something that they are not doing (see my website). In other words, R/I/R's entire unconscious attitude is that the people are supposed to serve him and please his whims. And, he slickly attempts to cover up that attitude by adopting this "stern parent role." How convenient!

Neither law nor morals exist today and, until both are restored, the violence will continue. The government, or rather, the fraud that calls itself our public government, as it exists today in this country, is the exact opposite of morals and law. Consequently, a necessary condition of restoring law and morals to this country is the eradication of this fraud that calls itself our public government. This fraud needs to be replaced with a government that obeys the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and accordingly respects the rights of the people. In particular, the aristocracy, of judges and attorneys, that controls the court system needs to be abolished. Those judges and attorneys need to be replaced with God fearing officials who respect the people, and the court system itself needs to be put under the control of trial and grand juries drawn from responsible citizens.

How, in detail, this is going to happen, I can't say. But I can say that, in order for a solution to be reached, the problem must first be defined. That is why my website is so important. Everyone in this country needs to be made aware of it and of the real problem facing them today. Only then, can they begin to work towards this solution that I just described.

As to your other comments regarding the officers involved in the multiple arrests of the 16 year old, you were not there and neither was I. All we have is a very brief, one-sided comment on what happened. I would be interested in hearing the full story before I make my determination as to who was wrong. And again, I thank God that I live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. Whereas you, Alec, enjoy going after people and playing judge and jury on them before the full story is even told! If you prefer that type of justice, you can certainly have your way. Move to a communist nation and that is exactly what you will have. I'll even pay for your plane ticket. **IF** the police did break the law by committing "assault under color of authority" or something similar, then yes, of course charges should be brought against them. By the way, your "kidnapping" charge is not applicable because the 16 year old was under arrest--kidnapping does not apply in that case. And "mayhem" does not apply either---the corpus delecti has not been met for that particular crime. You are very good at just throwing out charges, making people guilty, and sentencing them aren't you? Who is the Orwellian punk? I suggest you re-think your comments.

"Last time I checked it wasn't justifiable to drag a 16 yr. old 1-night a week consumer face down on a gravel road for about 5 ft. before throwing him in a cop car for 2 hrs. and then letting him go. I consented to their tickets and still received this treatment,..."

I, R/I/R, wrote the following to a person who goes by the name "Citizen Target" (NOT to Alec)
many months ago in response to some comments that he (Citizen Target) made. Because I
am part of a huge conspiracy that is out to get Alec and other citizens, I had to make those
comments. The secret agents of the Federal Reserve, and my cohorts, and my ilk, were
keeping an eye on me to make sure I was properly following procedures for the ad-hoc New
World Order. I am heavily involved in these secret tactics, and I report to directly to my leader
whose name is Ira Reiner. Mr. Reiner is the former elected District Attorney of Los Angeles
County, and he is the CEO of our secret illegal organization. Because of all of this, here is what
I said:

"I can tell you from personal experience that if somebody comes to me (as a
police officer) ranting and raving like a lunatic, throwing things out like
"Constitution" and court cases and other things that you mentioned in your post,
I will not really listen to what you are saying. I will basically just hear "blah blah
blah blah". I'm not saying that to be dis-respectful, but I am saying this so that
you know about human nature and more specifically, the police."

Regarding Larry Klayman, he is part of the same fraud, that you are a part of, for two reasons: he is sponsored by Mellon, one of the owners and stockholders of the Federal Reserve and he does not attack the court system for the fraud that it most certainly is. Regarding his "uncovering of Filegate, Chinagate, etc.," all of that is a diversion to lead people away from the fact that the United States is an invaded and occupied nation controlled by a foreign power, or, that, in other words, the United States has been conquered!

I'm surprised that you made the comments about Larry Klayman that you did---actually very surprised. I know that you hate lawyers and you think they belong to a private club (your words, not mine) that is used for subversive purposes. Fine--think whatever you want to, that's your right. Larry Klayman has done more for this country in the last four years than any Independant Counsel has ever done. He has exposed mass corruption and mass crimes at the highest levels of government, and he currently has over 40 lawsuits filed against the government. If it was not for Larry Klayman, this country would never know the truth about "Filegate". The country would also not know about the missle technology that has been transferred to China. I could go on and on---Klayman has been absolutely amazing at what he is doing. He only started four years ago, so it's still too early to see the full results of his work. He has chosen to take the very system of lawsuits and other garbage that the government criminals have created, and turn around and throw it right back in their face and use it against them. He is sticking with the legal channels and doing everything "by the book". I can't remember if it was you or someone else that made the comment about him using Johnny Chung as a witness in the DNC fund-raising scandal. Whoever made those comments about Chung, their ignorance is greatly showing through because of their blatant lack of knowledge of the facts. If people choose to get their daily news and information from the mainstream news media (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Time, Newsweek, etc), then of course you will have a jaundiced view of who Johnny Chung is. That's part of the propaganda crap that they are putting out to protect Clinton and his croanies. You can always stop by www.judicialwatch.org and read the facts for yourself. They have the actual legal court documents and are posted on that web site where you can get the full story of what has been done---not the filtered story as it trickles down through the biased news media outlets. Klayman is going after hardcore, tangible and real crimes, with extremely damaging evidence that includes people such as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George Stephanopolus, and so on.

Regarding your statements about the ACLU and all of those other "lawyer's groups," such as Larry Klayman, Martin Mawyer (phwat a joke of a last name!), Gary Kreep (another joke of a last name!), and ad-vomititum, no doubt, wanting to make a name for themselves by seeking to expose the fraud if it exists as I truly say it does, they are part of the problem. All they want to do is collect FRAUDs (Federal Reserve Account Unit Debts, i.e. so called "money") and fatten their cushy existences. To do that, they need to perpetuate the fraud. They are nothing but low-lifes leeching off of the people of this country, and their extremely large quantities of drivel are quite nauseating.

Lesson 1: The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Bravo! You at least said the correct thing, even if you don't believe it.

Lesson 2: The government belongs to the people and is supposed to serve the people. The people do not belong to the government. The government does not have the power to just do anything it wants. The United States Constitution so states.

Lesson 3: There is nothing in the United States Constitution that says that I don't have a right to operate a car. Therefore, I have that right, and the government does not have the authority to tell me that I don't have that right. This principle also applies to anything else you might claim that I don't have a right to do or have, because the United States Constitution didn't explicitly say that I have that right. I am sure that you will not believe me on this point and that you will try to label me as a "whacko" for making this point. But, you have no choice but to believe the 9th and 10th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Further, this point that I am making here derives from the very principles on which the United States was founded such as: the government must serve the people; the government must protect the rights of the people; and the government that governs best is the one that governs least. Obviously, given the crap you spewed out in your posting of Sun Nov 28 09:06:59 1999, you don't believe in those principles. As a result, you are a danger to the people of this country and are what I call an Orwellian punk. Did you ever read 1984 by George Orwell? It might serve your sorry self to go back and read that book.

Lesson 4: All of these so called taxes, including vehicle registration and the income tax, do not go to fund the highway system or anything like that. Instead they all go to "pay back" a fraudulent "national debt" that has been created out of nothing and for which the people of this country received nothing in return. The evidence on my website proves this. Go look at it. In other words, all of these so called taxes, including vehicle registration, are exploitation of the people by the government. That is treason and is definitely prohibited by the United States Constitution.

Lesson 5: Understand that you are part of that system that is fraud and treason against the people of this country. If you wish to serve the people, as you, like every other punk of your type, are so eager to profess to want to do, you will need to seek to get this system, which you are very much a part of, eradicated. Somehow, I get the impression that you are too attached to your fraud and treason, and that you will instead try to bury this response that I just posted with a bunch of your cheap comebacks.

Let me use a simple example to try and explain a point. I will use the case of paying registration fees since that is one that was already brought up and you had an experience with it. If I understand this correctly, you do not believe that paying annual registration fees for your car are Constitutional. I do not recall seeing anything in the Constitution that talks about vehicle registration fees, but that's okay--that's not my point here. But the way the system has been set up to work here in this state (Calif), each person that wants to use the public highways must pay for a portion of it's maintenance, upkeep, etc. One of the ways that they accomplish that is through fees that car owners pay each year to get a new sticker that is good for the next year. Your money, according to the pie chart that comes with the renewal notice, goes towards these things that I just mentioned. So everybody is equally paying their fair share of the cost since we all share the same roads. I mentioned this before, but you did not comment on this and I would like you to if possible. The officer that pulled you over (in Torrance) I'm sure has at least one car that he personally owns. That officer has to follow the same vehicle registration laws that you do and that I do. If the officer is part of the New World Order, why would he be paying the same fees that you are? Wouldn't he be exempt or something which would elevate his status above you? All I'm saying here is that there is no such exemption, and we all must pay the same fees. I have seen people come up with all sorts of excuses why they won't pay their annual registration fees, but the bottom line is, it's usually because they don't have the money to do it. I'm just interested in your opinion on the officer also being required to pay the same fees for the violation that you were pulled over for.

Back to the "cushy existence" thing, I sort of went away from that topic before I was done with it. You have to understand that all of the things that you are talking about (the paperwork that you showed the Torrance officer) are not taught in any police classes---anywhere. An officer is required to do certain things, including pulling you over and giving you a ticket for not paying your registration. I think you are being very unreasonable by saying that all police officers should quit their jobs (which puts their family in danger without an income) because they do not like the laws that they are enforcing, or that they do not agree with the laws that they are enforcing. That just happens to be one of the things that comes with the job of being a cop---it doesn't matter if the officer agrees or disagrees with laws and/or policies. He can do the same thing that any citizen can do to try and change them. He can write letters to Congressional Representatives, he can attend City Council meetings, and so on. But by saying that the officer should quit because of that is extremely unreasonable. I realize this is your opinion, but I disagree completely. Can I assume that if your previous claim of being an officer in the military is correct, that you will someday (if not already) be receiving some sort of monetary compensation as a result of that? (Whether it be in the form of retirement money or whatever.) If this is the case, do you intend to not accept those checks and instead send them back and write "REFUSED" on each check that they send you? Because after all, the military has been involved in some very questionable incidents in recent years. It's not the soldier's faults---it's the high ranking officials and the Commander In Chief that have made the decisions to send military units to far away countries where we have no business being there, as we murder innocent men, women, and children (Yugoslovia is a recent example of this). Again, if I understand what you are saying correctly, even though it is not the soldier that is responsible for making the decision to send the USA onto these foreign lands, it is the soldier that is "pulling the trigger" and killing those people. Therefore, the whole system is corrupt and they have become brainwashed workers. And if you accept money from that system, then you become a traitor as well. I'm just asking--not accusing.

Regarding your contact with the Torrance officer, you believe that once you showed him your paperwork that explains these things that you are talking about, he should have stopped his enforcement efforts on you immediately, and let you go without a ticket. I again completely disagree with you. You have to pay a fee to the DMV to get your license plates. Ths officer that stopped you did not come up with this law. This is a law that has been on the books longer than I've been alive. Not only are license plates needed for vehicles to show that people have paid their fees for the privledge to drive, but they are required for other reasons as well. Suppose your car got stolen. I assume you would want it back, right? Well, in order for the police to look for your car, they have to have the license plate number. Because there are millions of cars in California, and so many of them look just like the other one---same model, same year, same color, etc. The one thing that is different is the license plate number. So that is another reason why a license is required for your car. In my opinion, these are all pretty basic things that make a lot of sense and are in no way connected to the New World Order. Also, I assume that the New World Order is exactly that---"New". If it's new, then why are you saying that the DMV/Vehicle Code law for registration is part of this new thing? That law has been around for decades, long before there was any talk of a "New World Order". I am having a difficult time understanding what you are saying. Can you understand why I am having a difficult time? I'm trying my best to write out very clearly and specifically why.

In response to the second question, you said that you believe that the officer was choosing to enforce an illegal body of corporate policy on you (Vehicle Code). If that's your opinion, then I assume it is your opinion also that all of the other thousands of police officers in California that enforce the Vehicle Code every day are also doing illegal acts. Am I making a correct assumption, or am I wrong? If I'm wrong in that assumption, let me know. Now, if that is what you believe, those are obviously some very serious charges. You are saying that the entire Vehicle Code is illegal, as well as (I assume) all of the other State Codes (I believe there are something like 26 different codes in California--my number is most likely wrong, but it's somewhere around there). With California having the highest per-capita rate of lawyers in the country, and groups like the ACLU and other citizen's right groups, and the extremely liberal and cop hating mainstream news media, why do you suppose that none of these groups or organizations has made this information known to the public, and why have they not tried to take some sort of action against it? I know how you feel about lawyers and the bar association---that's not my point. My point is that all of those people that I just mentioned must also follow the laws in those books. They pay the same registration fees as everybody else. Actually, the lawyers pay more because they're driving around in expensive cars so their share of the DMV fees is much greater than the average blue collar worker. So these laws effect those people just as much as they effect you. In your opinion, why have none of these groups brought this topic to the forefront? Why isn't some hot-shot lawyer out there tying to make a name for himself by exposing such huge, fraudulent and treasonous items?

You said that that Torrance "officer" probably had less contact with the various elected representatives than I had. Fine. I showed him, or rather, attempted to show him, my file of correspondence that I had with them and their various "responses" proving their bad faith and illegal behavior that I described in my posting prior to this one. In other words, I put him on notice and informed him of the fraud he was attempting to enforce on me. From the point of view of the law of this country, he should have stopped his enforcement efforts right then. But, he didn't. Therefore, he is intentionally a part of the fraudulent New World Order.

You also said that I said that that "officer" knowingly violated the United States Constitution when he pulled me over. No, I said that he violated the United States Constitution when he continued his enforcement efforts against me after I had attempted to inform him about the fraud that he was a part of. This answers your first question.

Regarding your statements about how he has to "follow departmental policy," "please his boss," "feed his kids," "preserve those benefits," etc., it is back to what I said in my previous posting: all he cared about was his cushy existence and, to preserve it, he was even willing to use deadly force on behalf of the powers who gave him that cushy existence, no matter how immoral or illegal they might be. As I stated above, a police officer's first duty is to the real law of this country. If that means giving up a cushy existence, then, so be it. Obviously, just like you, he chose his cushy existence and to hell with the country and the people! And, again like you, he engaged in all kinds of misleading and confusing rantings and ravings, coupled with judicious character attacks, in an attempt to "justify" his behavior and make himself appear "moral."

Regarding, "following updates," and "obeying what he has been taught," "making sure that the rules are uniform for everyone," etc., again I say: the entire system is fraud and exploitation of the people from the get-go. In this country, by virtue of the United States Constitution, that is treason. That entire system needs to be trash-canned, and fast.

Your second question to me, in your posting of Sun Nov 28 2:37:38 1999, was: "why do you blame the officer?" My answer is simple. He intentionally chose to enforce an illegal body of corporate policy on me, in direct violation of his duty to enforce the law of this country. Why do I say that? Because I attempted to make him aware of what he was doing, with plenty of legal evidence to back me up, and he chose to fluff me off in exactly the same manner as you have done. He intentionally chose to become part of the same crowd of criminals as those so called representatives I wrote to in order to get heard. It matters not at all that he has kids to feed. No one has the right to commit crimes against another person in order to feed their kids!

First of all, I noticed that not only do you continue again and again to refuse to verify your occupation through very simple means, but you also have not taken any follow-up action in response to your challenge to ME to prove who I am. Very interesting. You're the one that keeps saying I may not be a cop and so forth, yet I continue to offer verification to you. Even when you ask for it and I offer it, you drop it like a lead balloon. Actually, you go beyond that and say, "Ain't it a bitch to not be able to prove what you say?". I don't have any idea what you are referring to, but I have said many times now that I am more than willing to prove everything I say. I have nothing to hide, unlike you.

Your comment about me being an EMT/Firefighter and the "not passing the academy" thing---huh??

Regarding me not being able to prove that it's you writing the things in this Guestbook, and not an aunt, uncle, brother, sister, etc.....You're exactly right, I couldn't possibly prove it. But proof is irrelevant here. Proof is not needed, as this is not a court case or a deposition or anything legal. It's an internet bulletin board, and the standards for evidence are, um, "lower". If your claim is that "my aunt is writing these things, not me"---fine, whatever. But the Chief still needs to know about it. It's a reflection on his department, since his cops are technically representing the department 24 hours a day. As far as a civil lawsuit, good God, you people drop right down into the lawsuit thing as a threat when things don't go your way. As I have stated before, go ahead and do anything and everything you want to---I'm more than ready for it.

In reference to your comments about the types of government systems that are commonly used, again Tim, your arrogance is really making you look stupid. You're dealing with someone here that has been deeply involved with a city government for years and I know it's inner workings extremely well. You only know what you learned in civics class and from what you read in the daily paper. Since you are not involved as a city employee, you are not aware of certain things and you also speak as a complete amateur which again shows me how much your are not a cop. But look at your own words here--you said, "By the way, the Chief of Police usually reports to the City Council or a designated member of the council". Yes Tim, that is correct. And as I stated in my comments, the Chief of Police (depending on which city it is and how they operate) reports to the Mayor. In the case of my city, the "designated member" (your words) is the Mayor. While the Mayor is technically not a city councilman, he runs the show and runs the city council. The Chief reports to him both verbally at the monthly council meetings and in written form when addressing the Mayor's concerns. The "chain of command" so to speak begins with the Mayor, and trickles down from there. In my city's case, the Chief also reports to the city manager. But the city manager reports to the mayor and council, so the Mayor is the ultimate "big cheese". And who is the Mayor's "supervisor" or who does he report to? He reports to the citizen's of the city---they are his boss. He is an elected politician, and the citizens control things by the power of the vote.

Finally, you said, "Don't insult my intelligence and that of everyone else by pretending to be something that you are not and then accusing others of the
same."

Since the topic of the Torrance incident has been mentioned, I'll use that as an example again. I understand that you believe in these things that you speak of---fine, no problem. I also understand that you have written to your representatives to tell them about your beliefs. Again, fine, no problem. However, I am failing to see the connection between you bringing these items to the attention of your elected officials (Congress, Senate, etc, I assume?) and the officer that pulled you over that day. A police officer that works a regular assignment and is assigned to a beat does not have any contact at all with the representatives to which you wrote your letters. There is no contact at all---direct or indirect. That officer has the same amount of contact (actually less) than you do with those people. Can you see what I'm saying here? You can write all you want to the elected representatives about any topic you want---but unless that person decides to take action and notify that police department and/or that officer, how in the world is that Torrance officer supposed to know anything about this? Again, this is where I fail to see your logic. In the answer to my question, you stated that when the officer pulled you over, he was knowingly trying to violate the Constitution. How in the world can somebody knowingly do such a thing if nobody tells him he's doing it? So your argument that he absolutely knew he was violating the Constitution when he turned on that red light to stop you is flawed. Do you see why I am saying this? This is not an attack on you Alec. I'm trying to take the time to carefully, step by step, explain to you why I am saying the things that I am. Again, if nobody told that officer any of these things, how in the world could he possibly know anything that you are talking about? It's impossible--he couldn't possibly know. As you very well know, these things that you speak of are not taught in any police academy or in any police training classes. Again, if the officer is not taught any of these things, how could he have willingly and knowingly be doing the things that you say if he was not aware of them? What part of this don't you understand? I'm serious---please explain to me what part of this you think I am wrong on. I haven't even gotten to the part yet where he contacts you, and you and him have your discussion over this. I'm not even to that part yet--I'm still at the part where he is just turning on his red light to stop you. How in the world can you think that he is doing these things that you accuse him of when NOBODY has EVER told him any of this??? Please explain this to me. I would like to know the answer to this. Maybe if I take things very slowly, and tear them apart into incredibly small pieces and hold a microscope up to them, then I might be able to see what you are talking about. Obviously, the other method is not working. So that is basically the first question I have----how could the officer have known these things at the time that he turned on the red light? That is question number one.

Now, I will move up to the point where the officer and you are actually discussing these things. Apparently, according to you, you had about a 45 minute discussion about this. I want to make sure you know something about how the job of a police officer works. An officer is required to go to a police academy and pass many different exams. If he does not pass these tests, then he is fired and does not have a job. Then, when the new officer gets into actual street training with a training officer just after he completes the academy, he is evaluated daily with written reports showing what good things he did, and what bad things he did. He is also tested, both verbally and in writing, his knowledge of laws and department policies and procedures. Again, at any time during this training, the rookie officer can be fired if he does not know the answers to those basic questions. Then, when the rookie officer successfully passes all of his training after about 1 to 1 1/2 years, he is on his own working as a police officer. During this time of his employment, he must continue to follow department policies, procedures, and the laws. The officer, unfortunately, does not have any input as to what these laws are that he is supposed to enforce. Actually, he has the same power as any other citizen with those laws. He can vote on voting day, and he can contact his Senators, Congressman, etc, and let his opinions be known. But beyond that, the officer has no control at all as to what the laws will and will not be. Every year, the officer receives a judicial update class so that he knows what the new laws are that took effect on January 1st of that year. And again, if this officer wants to keep his job and not be fired, he must continue to follow department policies, procedures, and the laws. I can't imagine many people that would be willing to give up a career because of their personal disagreement with a law or policy. I suppose it could happen, but it would be rare. Especially if that officer has a wife and kids to support--the income and benefits are very important. So the incentive to do his job the way his Chief requires it is a very strong incentive. Now, with all of that said, let's go back to that officer who was talking with you in Torrance. Let's suppose that you were not talking about the Constitution or whatever the topic was that day. Let's suppose that you had a document from the DMV that has a newer date on it than the documents that the officer is carrying. And let's also suppose that the document that you have says that you do not have to register your vehicle. Therefore, you are correct and the officer is wrong. After all, you have the more current information from DMV and he does not, right? So logic would dictate that the officer not give you a ticket and instead send you on your way, right? Well, no, that's not right. The officer has an obligation to follow the laws and policies as he is taught in training. If a ticket was issued in error, he will discover that and then send you a citation amendmant that basically says you can rip up your ticket and throw it away because the citation is dismissed. There are proper channels to be followed for these various things. Unfortunately, the officer does not have the power to just enforce the various laws and make these big decisions the way that he personally sees fit. There has to be uniformity and there has to be standards. And these standards can not vary from officer to officer, or from department to department. The whole state has to get it's act together and follow, for example, the same DMV registration laws. So that way, when you drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento, the laws are the same and you are being legal no matter where you go. You won't run into one officer that interprets the laws one way, and another officer that interprets them another way. That is not fair to the people that live here, nor is it fair to the officer doing the job. There has to be one standard to follow, and everybody has to be trained that same way. So, again, in the case of the Torrance officer and you---assuming you were 100% correct in what you were saying, that officer is not going to do anything different. You are still going to get a ticket for expired registration---because everybody gets treated the same way for the same law. If you disagree with the entire basis for that law, that's okay---you were doing the right thing by contacting your representatives. But if they do not answer you or respond to what you are saying, why would you take that out on the officer and blame him? This is my question number 2. Again, I am being serious here and I am honestly attempting my best to understand what you are saying. Since the other way is not working, I'm hoping that by picking this stuff apart, bit by bit and piece by piece, I might gain a new understanding of what you are trying to explain. Again, my question here revolves around your blame on the officer. If he is trained to do things a certain way, and those things are totally and completely beyond his control, and he needs to do these things so that he can feed his kids, then why are you blaming him? What is he doing wrong? He is doing his job the way his boss expects him to do it. If he does not do it that way, then he will not have a job any more. Please explain to me what your feeling is on this.

Was that "officer" KNOWINGLY trying to violate the United States Constitution and KNOWINGLY trying to do wrong things? ABSOLUTELY, HE WAS! Why? Because, he continued to enforce his will on me even after I had presented to him the evidence proving the illegality of what he was attempting to enforce on me. Do understand that this "traffic stop" occurred long after I had gone to all of my so called elected representatives in an attempt to get heard. R/I/R, EX LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, for the record, the United States is a republic! Among many other things, that means that I do not belong to the government! Yet, none of the issues I brought forth were ever addressed by the so called representatives of mine that I contacted! Most of the time, I never even received a reply! Where is my representation? But, those so called representatives of mine are most certainly demanding that I do certain things and pay certain fees. That is not being treated as if you are property? R/I/R, you are so full of it!

The reality is that that "officer" couldn't care less about whether he was or wasn't violating the United States Constitution. Just like you, all he cared about was his cushy existence and, to preserve it, he was even willing to use deadly force on behalf of the powers who gave him that cushy existence, no matter how immoral they might be. Attempting to explain to him that, what he was attempting to enforce on me, was in fact an illegal body of corporate policy and thus legally unenforceable, was about as impossible as trying to explain the same to you. In virtually every manner, that "officer" is exactly the same thing as you, a pre-programmed robot designed to push this "United States is the bastion of the free world and everyone must do their part" crap on everyone they come in contact with.

R/I/R, what you refuse to see is that the entire system that you support, including the so called requirement of vehicle registration, is fraud and exploitation of the people from the get-go. This fraud and exploitation of the people is what the New World Order fraud is all about. What proves this? The evidence that I have on my website about the Federal Reserve, and about other things. You just admitted that I have some valid points about the Federal Reserve. You profess to be a law enforcement officer. Why are you doing nothing about it? I know why. You are a fraud. Your past behavior towards me proves it.

What the police are brainwashed to do is to label as "whackos, crazies, mentally instable, EDPs, criminals, etc." anyone who attempts to bring forth the evidence against this New World Order fraud that proves it conclusively to be the fraud that it really is and that proves that its sole purpose for existence is to enslave and exploit the people. It is common knowledge that the government in this country is an extremely heavy burden on everyone. If the people realized that the burden on them is one of enslavement and exploitation, they would put an immediate stop to it. Obviously, you and your masters do not want that. Consequently, you, as well as many others, have been programmed to do everything in your power to keep the people from understanding the real truth about the government in this country. Your programming shows through loud and clear in your postings to this guestbook.

If you choose to believe that my "true agenda" is to "snitch" on you, again, that's your problem. My agenda has been clearly stated many times, and has been backed up by my words many times as well. And why did you stand on your soap box and tell me what your rights are as to free speech, using your own computer, on your own time, etc....? Did you read what i wrote? I already stated all of those things. As to your claim of being a supervisor, again, go ahead and claim whatever you want. It is well known that you are not a police officer, let alone a supervisor. And by your arrogant statement of "I AM the supervisor"---any police officer, no matter what his or her rank, knows that all employees have a supervisor. Even the Chief of Police has a supervisor. I stick with my original statement---if you actually are a cop (again, I am certain you are not), I'm sure your supervisor would be interested in reading your writings in this Guestbook. As you SHOULD know, police officers take an oath that applies to them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Police officers are held to a higher standard than non-LEO's. Your actions on this Guestbook are deplorable. In my 13 years in law enforcement, and in 4 years as an EMT/Firefighter, I have never run across ANYONE in the public safety business that acts as you do.

But I'm not worried---I know you're not in the business. If you were, you would have been happy to verify that by now. Your lack of that desire to do such a simple thing speaks volumes. As far as me proving my claim of my occupation, as I have stated to you two different times now, I would be happy to. All you have to do is ask, and so far, you have not asked. But I will take your comments as a request for proof--no problem. Give me a fax number, and I will send the proof. I will send you the exact same thing that I have been requesting from you but you refuse to present. I think I can safely assume that you do not desire to give out a home phone number, as I do not either. The solution is very easy---use your fax at work. Or, use a fax at a "Kinko's" or other such store. Or better yet, go to www.efax.com and register for a free personal fax number. Also, if you would like me to answer any questions that only LEO's would know, I would be happy to do that. You see Tim, I have nothing to hide. I have not lied on this Guestbook, as you continue to. I have absolutely no problem verifying my claims. But one must wonder why you do.

As to your final comment, expecting me to make an "arrogant remark", I will leave that to you.

Your recollection of the history of our conversations is skewed, to say the least. IIRC, I patiently listened to your explanation of things and I also checked out your web site. I said that I respect yours and other people's opinions, but that does not mean that I have to agree with them. If you feel that a person disagreeing with someone else is inappropriate, then there is not a whole lot more that I can say. People are people, and opinions will differ. We can not all think and act alike---we are only human.

Shortly after I disagreed with your opinions on things, I believe that is when you began calling me a "traitor", a "criminal", and said that I was guilty of fraud and all sorts of other things. I will not sit idle while somebody accuses me of being guilty of felonies---especially when I'm just sitting in front of a computer typing on an Internet "bulletin board" so to speak. Again, when I disagreed with you, the accusatory comments kept rolling in. You also seem to forget that I have stated a few times in the past that I (believe it or not) actually agree with you on a few small points. I agree that this country is going to shit, I agree the court systems are out of hand, I agree that the D/A's are over zealous in their prosecutions because they are trying to make "brownie points" to get promoted within their organization, and so on. There are many things that, amazingly, you and I agree on. I even told you once that I do seem to recall something I heard on a conservative talk radio station here (KSFO) about the Federal Reserve and some sort of illegal thing going on. I don't remember the details of it, but I do remember that the gentleman who wrote a book on that topic also discussed with the listeners how to legally get around all of the laws and requirements that you do not agree with (for example, paying your DMV registration, etc.). I don't remember what the process was, but it had something to do with making yourself an independent nation or something like that---I'm using the wrong terminology I know---but it was a way to get around the system. You would not have to pay taxes, you would not need a driver's license, and there are all sorts of things that you would no longer be required to do---and it's all perfectly legal. There was a down side to it, and I don't recall the specifics but if a person chose to do this, they would be giving up many rights that they now have as a citizen. I'm not the expert on this topic---I'm just going from memory of what I heard on the radio at least a year ago. All that to say, I believe that you do have a point about this Federal Reserve thing.

But where we continue to disagree are the areas that I have stated numerous times. For some reason, you feel that every single person that works in government today (from the postal carrier to the water meter reader) is out to get you, and that they are "cohorts" of the Federal Reserve. I just can't see that connection at all, and it does not even seem reasonable to make such a connection. Additionally, in your examples below where you talk about the DMV fees and the judges who all seem to be in on this thing that you talk about, have you ever stopped to think that the very judges that you are talking about are also required to pay the exact same portion of DMV fees that you are? They are not exempt from the laws. Neither are the police officers. The police officer that pulled you over in Torrance was not saying "Do as I say, not as I do". Not at all---that officer has to pay the DMV to register his car, just like you do. The money that is being paid to the DMV (I know this is just one example) is not going into the personal pockets of the judges or of Congress. It's going to help build and maintain roads and highways. With your annual DMV renewal in California, they have a "pie chart" that shows you exactly where your vehicle registration money goes. I am just not following you at all when you try to connect all of these things together. I have asked you questions before, and you flat out refuse to answer them. You call me a criminal, you claim so many different things, yet you refuse to answer really easy questions. I don't understand that. It's not like you're afraid to type---that's obvious. So why won't you answer questions? I have lots of things that I have asked you over the last several months, and you have answered maybe 10% of them--if that. And I mean a REAL answer, not an answer that says "look at my web site". Alec, has there been one single person that has come to this Guestbook since I have been here that has said to you, "Alec---your web site makes a lot of sense. It's very clear and easy to read. I understand it very well". No, not one single person has said that. Every single person either says they can't understand it, or they are just polite and tell you that it's very difficult to read. For that reason Alec, you can't keep saying "look at my web site" as an answer to questions. I have looked at it, and others have looked at it, and we don't get it. It's basically clear as mud.

I will say, however, that in the extremely off chance that you (Tim) actually are a police officer (and I just can't even begin to believe that), you are a disgrace to the badge. Why on earth would a police officer come into a web site such as this and verbally fight with another cop? Why would a police officer call another cop names, and make sick jokes against another cop? Why would a police officer make fun of and degrade another cop that was seriously injured on duty? None of these things make any sense at all. If, by some small chance, you are a cop, then I know exactly why you will not reveal your department. Because you know damn well I will contact your supervisor and show him what you have been writing on here. Will it get you in trouble at work? Highly doubtful---this is your own time and as long as it's not illegal and you're not representing your department, you can do whatever you want. However, just bringing this to their attention is my only interest. I would assume a person like you is on every supervisor's nightmare list, and they're just waiting to get enough ammo to terminate you. I have never run into an officer, EVER, that acts as you do towards another cop. For this reason alone, I doubt your claim as to your occupation. But of course, that is not my only reason. You have also given acronyms for things that you are not willing to explain, you claimed you had an ORI number which of course you don't, you refused to define any of the well-known acronyms that I listed. That is why I am confident that you are not an officer.

"...On a personal basis,I have to agree that I do not see the purpose of giving the state 65.00 or more a year for a sticker..."

"...I do not feel that the officers should be blamed for the enforcement, it is the legislatures that make these laws and punishments for violating them..."

"...I feel that your argument is with the DMV and State and Federal governments, not with the enforcers of the law,..."

"...Your arguments in reference to the Federal Reserve do have some good points, but they may be better received if guided in another direction..."

The entire point about this incident is not about how I want to "pull a fast one and get away without registering my car." It is about how vehicle registration is an example of the entire government, and especially Congress, the courts and the various State Legislatures having broken their oaths to serve the people of this country and exploiting the people instead. The United States Constitution requires that every state be a republic and it sharply and explicitly limits what powers Congress has. As a result, neither Congress nor the various State Legislatures have unlimited power to pass whatever they want as law. My entire argument here is that vehicle registration, along with a multitude of other fines and fees, is something that they never had the authority to pass, and especially because the entire intent in all of that is to exploit the people, something that they have been explicitly told not to do by the United States Constitution.

You have said that my argument is with Congress and the various State Legislatures. To that, I add: and, even more so, the courts. You have said: take your arguments to them. My answer is: I already have. To date, regarding the vehicle registration fraud, I have written the Director of the DMV, the State Attorney General, the Governor and the State Assemblyman. I sent all of my letters by registered mail, restricted delivery. For the most part, I received no reply to any of them. What few replies I did receive basically said: "pay up or else, and just what are you going to do about it anyways, flunkie." You see, from their point of view, I have no rights; I am instead property to be exploited! All of this occurred long before that traffic incident of 22 September 1995. All of it is part of Exhibit C of that Judicial Notice: Demand for Injuction against Torrance Police Department and demand for dismissal of above referenced case. You see, I have also taken it to their courts as well. And, true to their nature, the courts have responded in just as arrogant and illegal a manner. Nor, are these the only communications I have had regarding all of this madness. I have also been periodically sending the Attention Public Servant Letter to all public officials who supposedly represent me and I have also given that same document to every other public official, including judges and attorneys, that I have come across, for whatever reason.

The bottom line is that they now consider the people, that they are supposed to serve, to be exploitable "property" and "resources." And they believe that the ability to commit these crimes against the people with impunity is enough reason for them to do so. As a result, because the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, they have given up any kind of authority they may have had over the people. Amongst many many other things, that includes any kind of authority to require vehicle registration. Unfortunately, being the criminals that they are and the positions of power that they hold, they still have the physical means to enforce their illegal dictates on the people. And again, being the criminals that they are, they will not take "NO" for an answer, nor will they listen to any kind of morals or reason. Did any of those so called public officials, who supposedly represent me, listen to anything that I have said so far? I was not even replied to! Steve may, of course, cry about how this has nothing to do with police brutality or with his webpage. To that I respond: the intent of government officials wanting to exploit the people includes the intent to brainwash police into wanting to be brutal towards the people. My arguments here are, by no means, limited to vehicle registration, even though that is the specific example being brought forth now.

So, where do I go now to get these criminals brought to justice? I do know that I have the right to not be exploited by them in any manner whatsoever! That is why I brought this to your attention. You say you are a law enforcement officer. You appear logical and moral, unlike R/I/R, who is a perfect example of the arrogant and criminal public official I am talking about. As a result, if I prove my case against this fraud that calls itself our public government with enough legal evidence, you should act to get that fraud eradicated. That is where my website comes into play and why I asked you to look at it. So, I again ask that you visit my website and again look at the legal evidence there, in the light of this posting that I am making to you here. You might also want to communicate with an Mr. Jack McLamb, who is a police officer who knows about this madness. The organization that he is involved in is called Police Against the New World Order (PATNWO) and the particular document of theirs that you might want to look at is called Operation Vampire Killer 2000.

Regarding that heated discussion with that officer on 22 September 1995, he became heated when I attempted to explain this fraud to him and when he didn't want to listen and pulled an R/I/R on me instead. From the outset, he was not even remotely logical or courteous, as you are being here. I did not become heated or threatening. I merely "stood my ground" and kept sticking up for my rights.

"RIR,

Was that directed at you? Did I ask you for anything? No, but as usual you have to interject
your two cents worth of sarcasm and try to degrade someone. Piss off, when I want to hear a
fart, I'll ask you to speak.

Bear in mind that those documents on my website, that I personally created, reference attachments that might not be on the website, but which I do have in hardcopy format. Further, I have prefaced all documents on my website, that I did not personally create, with a disclaimer so stating. In many cases, I have, in hardcopy format, the attachments to those documents as well. I can
provide you copies of all hardcopy documents that I have at any time, and you are free to download or copy at will anything that is on my website.

The connection of the Federal Reserve to that traffic stop is as follows:

(1) The Federal Reserve is a private corporation (Lewis vs. U.S., April 19, 1982, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) owned solely by foreign nationals (Vultures in Eagle's Clothing, Lynne Meredith) and is an enemy of the people (reference1, reference2) of this country.

(2) The money in the United States is a fraud based on the Federal Reserve (Project 93: Exposing the Fed Scam).

(3) The money fraud in the United States has been used to create, out of nothing and for nothing in return, ever increasing expenses (also see Project 93: Exposing the Fed Scam) that, at this time, have become so onerous that many people are being deprived of basic necessities such as food and shelter. These contrived expenses essentially amount to theft and armed robbery, on an enormous scale. Examples of these contrived expenses are: the income tax; bank payments and all of their derivatives such as mortgage payments and rent; court fines and fees and other government fines and fees.

(4) The money fraud in this country has been used to usurp the United States Constitution and to create a fraudulent court system (reference1, reference2) in this country. That entire court system is an aristocracy, is in no manner accountable to the people of this country, and does not recognize anyone's rights. The officers of that court system, and especially judges and attorneys, are opposite in mentality and in spirit to the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded. Their entire philosophy is to exploit the people they are supposed to serve as if the people are resources and property!

(5) The fraudulent court system in this country, in cooperation with Congress and the various State Legislatures, have created a body of diabolical corporate policy, that serves their interests of exploiting the people, and that they have the nerve to call "the law of this country" (see Galvin vs. Dorsey, 32C296, 1867, California Court of Appeals; Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins, 1938, U.S. Supreme Court). In particular, it is critical to understand that the common law of this country, that the enemy overthrew with Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins, implicitly prohibited "victimless crimes."

(6) The California Vehicle Code is an example of that body of diabolical corporate policy that I just described. The fees that it imposes have been created out of nothing, give nothing in return, and are completely arbitrary, with no regard for how moral or ethical they are, or for the ability to pay of the person they are imposed upon. Further, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, the agency that administers the California Vehicle Code, has no license to do business in the state and thus has no accountability to the people it is supposed to serve. These days, the employees of that agency routinely flaunt their lack of accountability to the people by always being uncooperative and whimsical, and often vindictive (Exhibit C of Judicial Notice: Demand for injunction against Torrance Police Department and demand for dismissal of above referenced case).

(7) On 22 September 1995, I was stopped solely because my car was not registered as the California Vehicle Code demanded. In other words, I was a threat to no one and I had not damaged anyone. At the time of the stop, I attempted to explain everything that I just stated above, and more, to the officer who had stopped me. What resulted was a heated discussion, lasting about 45 minutes, where, in essence, that officer's entire response was identical in form and substance to R/I/R's ravings, except that, in
addition, that officer told me that "he was doing me a favor" by not robbing me of my car. Given that that incident occurred a little over 4 years ago, I obviously do not remember verbatim everything that was said during that heated discussion. However, I did make written notes of that heated discussion shortly after the incident. If you want, I can provide you with a copy of those notes.

"RIR you are good at manipulating people to feel sorry for you"

Regarding my injury, yes, it was from having a bad day. I am milking the system for all it's worth. And yes, you are correct as to what RIR stands for. Your intelligence is electrifying to say the least. And the thing about a suspect with a knife, and dousing them with gasoline and making a BBQ out of them---I'm the one who does that. It's a special SWAT tactic that I learned.

I, R/I/R, wrote the following to a person who goes by the name "Citizen Target" (NOT to Alec) many months ago in response to some comments that he (Citizen Target) made. Because I am part of a huge conspiracy that is out to get Alec and other citizens, I had to make those comments. The secret agents of the Federal Reserve, and my cohorts, and my ilk, were keeping an eye on me to make sure I was properly following procedures for the ad-hoc New World Order. I am heavily involved in these secret tactics, and I report to directly to my leader whose name is Ira Reiner. Mr. Reiner is the former elected District Attorney of Los Angeles County, and he is the CEO of our secret illegal organization. Because of all of this, here is what I said:

"I can tell you from personal experience that if somebody comes to me (as a
police officer) ranting and raving like a lunatic, throwing things out like
"Constitution" and court cases and other things that you mentioned in your post,
I will not really listen to what you are saying. I will basically just hear "blah blah
blah blah". I'm not saying that to be dis-respectful, but I am saying this so that
you know about human nature and more specifically, the police."

I will post these comments periodically so that you, the readers of this Guestbook, know that I am guilty of treason, fraud, and other terrible crimes. I am a traitor, and all Nazi's like me should be revealed for what I really am!

Steve, I find it very disturbing that you support R/I/R. He obviously supports those police you have said are your enemy. I am beginning to wonder if you are a fraud, or if this website is being controlled by someone other than yourself.

It looks like the time has come for me to step in and tell you to get a fucking grip, Alec. Quite frankly, I haven't been reading your tirades against him because they got old fast, but I can assure you that he doesn't defend the type of cops I want to see dead. If you don't like the way I do things, you're always free to put up your own cop abuse page and run it how you like. Incidentally, I notice more than a whiff of hypocrisy coming from you here, given your recent sucking up to Tim. --steve

"I can tell you from personal experience that if somebody comes to me (as a police officer) ranting and raving like a lunatic, throwing things out like "Constitution" and court cases and other things that you mentioned in your post, I will not really listen to what you are saying. I will basically just hear "blah blah blah blah". I'm not saying that to be dis-respectful, but I am saying this so that you know about human nature and more specifically, the police."

Regarding the way you do things, personally, I don't care. I simply want to know if you are for real about getting rid of police brutality or not. Based on your recent behavior, I now have serious doubts about you wanting to get rid of police brutality. [You mean the recent behavior of me trying to slap some sense into you? Or the recent behavior where I try to educate people about brutality? Or perhaps you were referring to my "moment of silence" for one of the only "good cops" (by all accounts) I've ever heard about? Please enlighten me. --steve]

Regarding me posting my own cop abuse page, I already have, in a manner of speaking. Did you ever visit it as I have asked you to many times now? [I certainly did, twice. I found it so convoluted and unrelated to anything I marginally care about that I didn't feel the need to comment on it. --steve] Did you ever consider that the police brutality you seek to eliminate, and with good reason, might be part of a much larger problem and that the only way to truly eliminate police brutality would be to eliminate that much larger problem? [I didn't consider it, and I don't plan to unless you care to tell me how the US declaring bankruptcy 50 years ago is connected with cops murdering people today. --steve]