A Soros toady named Jody Armour made the mistake of spiking the football where I was watching. Jody is a professor of law at the University of Spoiled Children (aka Southern California), a Soros Justice Senior Fellow of The Open Society Institute’s Center on Crime, Communities and Culture, and an apologist for Black Lives Matter. His mere existence is circumstantial proof that Burn Loot Maim is a terrorist front operated by Palpatine but I got better evidence coming.
He’s awfully cracker to be rocking a ‘fro. *checks* mixed-race parentage. We’ll be discussing his father at length soon.
How being ‘tough on crime’ became a political liability
Kamala Harris recently dropped out of the presidential race after months of attacks from the left for her “tough-on-crime” record as San Francisco’s district attorney and as California’s attorney general.
Her liberal supporters were understandably upset that Kamala was smoking dope at the exact time she was handing out harsh sentences for smoking dope. Hypocrisy brought her down, not her harsh sentencing… although how any liberal can get upset about hypocrisy is beyond me.
Oh, right. They’re hypocrites.
A few years ago, the idea that being tough on crime would be a liability – not an asset – was unthinkable for both Democrats and Republicans.
Bill Clinton, during the 1992 presidential race, interrupted his campaign so he could return to Arkansas to witness the execution of a mentally disabled man. During Harris’ 2014 reelection campaign for attorney general, she actively sought – and won – the endorsements of more than 50 law enforcement groups en route to a landslide victory.
The ‘mentally disabled’ should be preferentially put to death. Why force them to live like that? In addition to their inability to improve their behavior.
But something has changed in recent years. Harris’ failure to gain traction as a presidential candidate has coincided with a growing number of “progressive prosecutors.”
In the past, I would have scoffed at the notion of a progressive prosecutor. It would have seemed like a ridiculous oxymoron.
In the past, Armour were determined to become a progressive prosecutor… and a little devil settled on his shoulder to make it happen.
But in one of the most stunning shifts in American politics in recent memory, a wave of elected prosecutors have bucked a decadeslong tough-on-crime approach adopted by both major parties. These prosecutors are refusing to send low-level, non-violent offenders to prison, diverting defendants into treatment programs, working to eradicate the death penalty and reversing wrongful convictions.
A little devil named Soros, who has that exact agenda, who invited Jody to join a League of Extraordinary
toads Gentlemen yeah, toads.
In 1968, when I was 8 years old, my father was sentenced to 22 to 55 years in the Ohio State Penitentiary for the possession and sale of marijuana. During the trial, the district attorney had repeatedly assured the jurors that he hadn’t promised the state’s principal witness – then serving a long sentence – leniency in return for testifying against my father.
In truth, they had struck that very bargain. After studying the warden’s own law books, my father appealed the conviction, representing himself. He was ultimately vindicated by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after proving that the district attorney had deliberately lied to the jury.
Had. Deliberately. Lied. To. The. Jury. About. Promising. Leniency.
Segue THAT, oh hell yeah.
Fred Armour v. W. D. Salisbury, Superintendent, 492 F.2d 1032 (6th Cir. 1974)
Filed 20 February 1974
1 In May of 1968 the appellee [Jody Armour’s father, Fred] was convicted in an Ohio state court on counts II and IV of a four-count indictment charging various narcotics violations. He was given an indeterminate sentence under count II, charging illegal possession of marijuana, of 2-15 years, and a sentence under count IV, charging an illegal sale of the same drug, of 20-40 years. The sentences were to run consecutively. After exhausting state remedies, appellee petitioned the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The present appeal is from the grant of that writ.
That confirms the 22-55 year sentencing. Nearly all of it was for drug dealing, not drug possession. It was a troubled prosecution, seeing as Fred skated on at least two counts.
Jody, you grew up in a drug house. Thanks for telling us and how could you be surprised that police eventually raided it?
2 In May of 1967 Richard Lee Sees was contacted by an undercover agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs who asked him to purchase marijuana for him. On July 15 Sees and the agent drove to the vicinity of the apartment building in which appellee lived. Later, Sees testified at appellee’s trial that he had gone inside the building and purchased from appellee seven or eight ounces of marijuana– five ounces of which he sold to the agent. Although appellee was indicted for this alleged sale, the jury found him not guilty.
In 1973, the BNDD was merged into the newly formed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Now that’s interesting. Per wikipedia, in December 1970 the BNDD’s director was so convinced that his department was corrupt that he sought help from… the Central Intelligence Agency?!? Which might have already been running covert operations within the BNDD?
Deep State fingerprints EVERYWHERE. I might have to look into that while on vacation.
3 Sees also testified that on July 26, 1967 he again purchased marijuana from appellee and again sold it to the agent. Sees, himself, was arrested and charged on this transaction. His testimony led to the conviction of appellee for the sale of marijuana on that date.
So he wasn’t yet an informant.
4 One Glenn Allen Vance was arrested on September 2, 1967 on charges of publishing a forged instrument and possession of marijuana. He was repeatedly interrogated by police officers between September 2 and September 5. At the conclusion of the questioning, he was given a twenty dollar bill, the serial number of which was recorded, and was told to go to appellee’s residence and purchase marijuana. Vance followed a part of his instructions: he went to appellee’s apartment and brought marijuana, but he did not return to the police station.
A forger was caught and the (I presume local) police used him to catch his dealer.
5 As a result of the information which the police now had, a raid was planned on appellee’s apartment building. Shortly before midnight on September 5, Detective Newman and the prosecutor prepared the following affidavit for a search warrant:
6 Ray Newman, being first duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he believes and has good cause to believe that unknown quantities of cannabis sativa (marijuana) or other narcotic drugs are being concealed in or about the building and individual apartments numbered 1, the office, 2, 3 and 4 and other vacant apartments under the custody and control of Fred Armour and located at 279 Park Street, Akron, Ohio, also known as the Armour Apartments.
Fred was the landlord of his drug house.
7 The affidavit further says that he believes and has good cause to believe that the said cannabis sativa is in the possession and control of Fred Armour, the manager and custodian of the building located at 279 Park Street, Akron, Ohio, and the above named articles should be seized along with Fred Armour who will be charged with violation of 3719.20(A) Revised Code of Ohio.
8 This knowledge is based on the following facts:
9 Information from a reliable informant whose name the affiant has and will reveal to this court if requested and whose information in the past has proved reliable, that:
10 1. He, the said informant, purchased a quantity of cannabis sativa from the above named Fred Armour at 279 Park Street, Akron, Ohio, on or about 3:00 a.m., September 2, 1967.
11 2. Fred Armour is the manager and custodian of the apartment building located at 279 Park Street, Akron, Ohio, and known as the Armour Apartments.
12 3. The informant has personally observed Fred Armour in apartment number 1, the office of the said Armour Apartments; apartment number 2, the residence of Fred Armour and his wife, Addie Armour; apartment number 3, wherein the informant negotiated the purchase of the cannabis sativa from Fred Armour; apartment number 4, the room through which Fred Armour passed to gain access to the other vacant apartments, over which Fred Armour has custody and control, wherein the cannabis sativa is stored.
13 4. The informant has purchased quantities of cannabis sativa at 279 Park Street, Akron, Ohio, on several occasions, and on each occasion Fred Armour has left the informant isolated in one apartment and entered another apartment for the purpose of obtaining the cannabis sativa.
14 The reliable informant referred to in the affidavit was Glenn Vance.
15 Based on this affidavit a warrant was obtained and executed in the early morning hours of September 6, 1967. Seized in the search were a bag of marijuana and the twenty dollar bill that had been given to Vance by the prosecutor, evidence used to convict appellee on the possession charge. The police found Vance at the residence in a stupor, apparently caused by his use of some the marijuana he had bought.
Not just a spokesman, Fred was also a customer! Jody didn’t mention that his dad was stoned when the cops came.
16 On September 8, 1967, Vance signed a written confession that he had purchased marijuana from appellee on or about September 1. However, at appellee’s trial, Vance said that the September 1 purchase was not from appellee but from another person. Furthermore, he stated that he had never bought marijuana from appellee. Consequently, the charge against appellee for the sale to Vance was dismissed for lack of evidence, but appellee was convicted for possession of the marijuana seized in the raid.
Changing his story like that was a crime in itself, so one suspects that Vance was afraid of Fred Armour. He wouldn’t have been the first drug house operator to carry a few grudges.
17 Appellee’s conviction was affirmed by an Ohio appellate court, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied review.
Appellate court section omitted for brevity, concerning the validity of the search warrant that was based on Vance’s written confession. TL;DR The warrant was valid because the police acted in good faith with the information they had at the time.
23 Appellee was also convicted for a sale of marijuana on July 26, 1967 to Richard Sees. At trial Sees gave crucial testimony against appellee. Commenting on this testimony, the prosecutor, in his closing argument, made the following statements:
There were parallel local and Federal investigations into Fred Armour. Feds let the locals handle it until a couple charges were tossed because the informant changed his story, then they stepped in to ensure he wouldn’t be back in circulation soon. Law enforcement realpolitik; if he’s already going away for 20-50 years then the expense of further prosecution is hard to justify. But when said convictions are unexpectedly dropped…
25 Sees had been convicted and was sentenced in the fall of 1967 to a term of ten to twenty years in the Mansfield, Ohio, Reformatory. The prosecutor visited him in the reformatory and solicited his testimony against appellee. During the meeting the prosecutor told Sees that while testifying he might be asked whether any promises were made to him in return for his testimony. He further stated that while no promises could be made specifically in consideration for Sees’ testimony, he would help Sees receive probation whether or not he testified. Shortly before the trial Sees was transferred to the county jail and never returned to Mansfield. Five months after trial he was released from jail pursuant to Ohio’s shock probation statute. Ohio Revised Code 2947.061. As a consequence he served less than one year out of a sentence of ten to twenty years.
So in fact, no promises were made; the fact of his helping a prosecution would be considered by the parole board, is all. And only one of Fred’s two convictions hinged upon this.
26 The district court found that, contrary to the statements of the prosecutor, Sees did have something to gain from his testimony. He was awaiting a decision on his petition for probation, and he had a sentence of up to twenty years hanging over his head. Although the prosecutor told Sees that he would help him either way, the prior statements of the prosecutor about the questions that would be asked at trial and also the motivation for the visit– to discuss the possible testimony– could, according to the district court, reasonably have caused Sees to conclude that the vigor of the prosecutor’s efforts for probation would be determined by whether Sees testified. Upon this basis the district court held that the prosecutor’s statement to the jury was deliberately misleading and that appellee in consequence was denied due process of law.
Of course he had something to gain! But not guaranteed payment. This is the kind of procedural thwarting of justice that gives progressive lawyers their well-deserved reputation as lying dipshit traitors against God and Country. To wit:
27 In Giglio v. United States, [citations of judicial precedents omitted for brevity.]
29. It is true that there is a factual distinction between the situation in Giglio and that now before us. Sees was not asked at trial whether promises had been made to him to testify.
THANK YOU! Remember Jody’s above statement? “[Daddy] was ultimately vindicated by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after proving that the district attorney had deliberately lied to the jury.” You’re the lying dipshit, Jody, not the prosecutor… treason still to come!
But the basic tenent of Giglio does not depend on whether misleading information was given to the jury in the form of a closing argument by a prosecutor rather than through the testimony of a witness.
30 We need not decide whether the prosecutor on the particular facts presented here had an affirmative duty to disclose what he had told Sees about helping him.
TL;DR We’re tossing his conviction because the jury wasn’t specifically told the currently-incarcerated witness had a personal reason for cooperating with the prosecution. If the defense lawyer couldn’t be bothered to mention that blatantly obvious fact then the prosecutor should have questioned the reliability of his own witness for the jury’s consideration.
Whew! But worth it.
That was in 1974. I went on to become a lawyer and law professor. During the years I spent teaching and studying the relationship between race and the law, the prison population exploded, and my distrust toward government prosecutors only deepened. Too often, it seemed like they were bringing excessively punitive charges in order to force defendants into plea deals. Too often, their approach seemed to reflect a longing for retribution and revenge rather than rehabilitation.
Face it, Jody, your father was a drug addict and drug dealer who had earned his prison cell. Please tell me you eventually outgrew your 8-year-old crying spell over the strange men who took your daddy away.
In 2017, law professor John Pfaff was able to show that mass incarceration was due, first and foremost, to the nearly unchecked power of district attorneys.
As Fred’s case DIDN’T prove.
With reported crimes and arrests steadily declining in the 1990s and 2000s, you might have expected incarceration rates to also fall. Instead, they soared. Pfaff traces this perplexing trend to one key statistic: Between 1994 and 2008, the probability that a district attorney would file a felony charge against someone who’s been arrested roughly doubled, from about 1 in 3 to nearly 2 in 3.
Yeah, that happens when you traitors succeed in “diverting” petty crime. Most of the convictions start to be felonies.
This is “broken window” policing in reverse. If you punish criminals early for the little stuff then they generally don’t graduate to the nasty stuff. Here, Jody & Cronies are preventing prosecutions for the little stuff and then wondering why the big stuff is now a worse problem.
Welcome to the world you wanted, Komrade. Was it worth selling your soul for?
More than stiff drug laws, punitive judges, overzealous cops or private prisons, prosecutors had been the main drivers of a prison population that had quadrupled since the mid-1980s.
Meanwhile, black Americans continued to be disproportionately incarcerated. In 2017, there were 1,549 black prisoners for every 100,000 black adults – nearly six times the incarceration rate for whites and nearly double the rate for Hispanics.
Either the system is still prejudiced against blacks after it was openly prejudiced in favor of blacks, or you blacks simply don’t belong in a First World country. Don’t blame me for noticing; blame yourselves for not behaving.
This prosecutorial approach wasn’t punished at the ballot box; instead, racking up convictions and plea deals seemed to bolster the political careers of district attorneys.
That’s their job.
Since 2013, roughly 30 reform-minded prosecutors have been elected. A few now preside over prosecutorial staffs in some of the nation’s biggest cities, like Philadelphia’s Larry Krasner and Boston’s Rachael Rollins. But they also include chief prosecutors of smaller municipalities, like Satana Deberry, who was elected district attorney of Durham County, North Carolina, in 2018, and Parisa Dehghani-Tafti, the commonwealth’s attorney of Arlington County, Virginia, who won on a platform of ending mass incarceration in 2019.
In a traditional race for district attorney in Philadelphia, Michael Untermeyer and Joe Khan would be at the head of the pack while the other five candidates in the May 16 Democratic primary election would be trying to catch them.
Untermeyer, a former city and state prosecutor, would have been big news. Finance reports filed Friday show he loaned his campaign $400,000 in late April, bringing his overall investment since December to $950,000. And Khan, a former city and federal prosecutor who has led in fund-raising from individual donors, reported $435,955 in his campaign account as of last Monday.
That all was overwhelmed by a $1.45 million check, written by billionaire George Soros on April 28 and reported Friday, to fund an independent political action committee backing Larry Krasner.
Rachel Rollins, who received campaign funding from Soros-funded PACs, will take office as the district attorney for Suffolk County [Massachusetts] in January. She is planning to decline prosecution of crimes that include resisting arrest, drug possession with intent to distribute, threats, wanton or malicious destruction of property, breaking and entering vacant properties, receiving stolen property, larceny under $250, shoplifting and more. Retailers are worried their businesses will be looted and police are concerned about more violence as there will be a rise in resisting arrest. She also plans to eliminate cash bail and to stop racial disparity in who does and doesn’t go to jail.
Four years ago, Craig Stephen Hicks, a mentally unstable man prone to terrorizing his neighbors in a Chapel Hill condo, regardless of race and creed, shot three of his neighbors.
The three neighbors whom he shot over a parking dispute were Muslim.
Hicks, a mentally unstable leftist, was a militant atheist, but no hater of Muslims. In a post about the Ground Zero Mosque, he wrote, “I’d prefer them to most Christians as I was never coerced in any way by the Muslims to follow their religion, which I cannot say about many Christians.”
Hicks had confessed to the murder. And the killings had been caught on video. Nor did he try to put up much of a defense. There was no chance that he might escape justice and no need for the feds. But Islamist pressure groups had been lobbying aggressively to treat the murders as a hate crime or, even, as an act of terrorism, despite the absence of a single piece of supporting evidence for such a charge.
The only two pieces of evidence that Hicks had been acting out of hatred for Muslims when he shot his neighbors over a parking dispute was that he was a militant atheist and that they were Muslim. …
[Chapel Hill Police Chief Chris Blue tried] to appease Islamist groups without deviating too much from the facts, by imputing Islamophobia.
But the trial became a circus when Satana Deberry, a leftist pro-crime candidate allegedly backed by George Soros, defeated her credible predecessor to become the DA of Durham County.
District Attorney Roger Echols had wanted the death penalty. Satana ruled out the death penalty. The new radical DA had a very political agenda in mind. Not to punish Hicks, but to prove he’s a bigot.
“It is about cold-hearted malice and murder,” Satana Deberry insisted. “It is not about parking.”
Liberal billionaire George Soros picked up two wins in Virginia this week when two prosecutor candidates he backed ousted incumbents in local Democratic primaries — after he poured nearly a million dollars into their campaigns.
Soros, known for backing left-wing causes across the globe, used his Justice and Public Safety PAC to boost two liberal candidates against incumbent Democrats.
He backed Parisa Dehghani-Tafti to beat Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos, and supported former Justice Department employee Steve Descano in his race against Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Raymond Morrogh. Campaign finance reports show Dehghani-Tafti received $583,000 and Descano received $392,000 just from that PAC. Meanwhile, Stamos and Morrogh raised $162,000 and $242,000, respectively, for their entire campaigns.
Jody Armour is celebrating George Soros’ acts of treason against the United States Constitution… committed with his assistance.
Progressive prosecutors, according to U.S. Attorney General William Barr, are “undercutting the police, letting criminals off the hook, and refusing to enforce the law.” In a December rally, President Trump singled out Krasner, calling him “the worst district attorney,” one who “lets killers out almost immediately.”
The experience of Aramis Ayala, the state attorney for the 9th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, is a classic example of the obstacles these new prosecutors can face. After being elected in 2016, she announced that she would no longer seek the death penalty for any defendants tried by her office. Florida Gov. Rick Scott responded by reassigning 24 aggravated murder cases to another state attorney who was amenable to the death penalty.
Ayala sued to have the cases returned to her jurisdiction. She lost.
Did you hear about the prosecutor who decided to put the death penalty on all crimes? The governor quietly reassigned some of his cases to other prosecutors instead of kicking his ass to the curb for insubordination and refusal to obey the law.
That there’s a postcard of why Republicans are worse than totalitarian Marxist guerrillas.
George Soros bought his favorite flavor of justice, like ice cream.
Progressive prosecutors would have never attained power in the first place if their views didn’t resonate with voters.
Yeah, about that:
Michelle Alexander’s 2010 book, “The New Jim Crow,” deserves some credit for changing the way activists thought about crime and punishment. Alexander cast mass incarceration as a civil rights crisis by showing that people didn’t simply end up in jail because they were bad people who made poor choices. Nor did prison populations explode simply because there were more crimes being committed. Instead, mass incarceration was closely intertwined with race, poverty and government policy.
Using the pretext of commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, the New York Times Sunday Review published what Alan Dershowitz fittingly described as “one of the most biased, one-sided, historically inaccurate, ignorant and bigoted articles ever published by that venerable newspaper.” The article, “Time to Break the Silence on Palestine,” is an unhinged anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian rant.
Ooh, this one is saucy!
The essay’s author, Michelle Alexander, served as “a Soros Justice Fellow” in 2005. She was among the first recipients of the Soros Justice Program, with a stipend of $35,000 to $97,000, “to complete a book called The New Jim Crow … about the so-called war on drugs and mass incarceration as the defining racial justice issues of our time.”
Since then, Alexander has been affiliated with numerous Soros-funded organizations, such as The Ella Baker Center for Hunan Rights, which promote “color justice” and “nationally organize[s] and coordinate[s] demonstrations for illegal-alien amnesty and manage[s] voter-registration campaigns for Democratic candidates.”
She was hired by the NYT in the fall of 2018, shortly after Soros invested more than $3 million in the paper.
Among civil rights activists, issues like affirmative action in higher education had been consuming a lot of time, energy and resources. Alexander’s book helped redirect attention to racialized mass incarceration as a main battlefront in U.S. race relations.
Since its formation in 2013, the Black Lives Matter movement has made criminal justice reform a centerpiece of their activism. In Los Angeles, for example, the local chapter has led weekly demonstrations for over two years in front of the Hall of Justice. They’re protesting Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey for failing to adequately address police misconduct.
Blacks Love Misery is a political quasi-terrorist front for Soros. The author of their ideology is a literal Soros Fellow and his funded prosecutors work to keep them out of jail.
Lacey, who is up for reelection, faces two opponents. Both of them – former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón and former public defender Rachel Rossi – are running on progressive platforms.
In March, we’ll see if the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office – the nation’s largest county-wide prosecutorial agency – will be the latest to join the progressive prosecutor movement.
San Francisco DA George Gascon, backed by Soros and “considered one of the most progressive law enforcement officials in the nation,” said he’s going to leave San Francisco and move to Los Angeles to run for DA.
The incumbent is Jackie Lacey, the first African-American and woman elected to that office. She said she welcomed debate and discussion.
But the Globe said Hanisee “wrote that those backed by Soros aren’t interested in having an open debate about the criminal justice system; they yearn to circumvent the entire process and elect candidates that will refuse to enforce laws already in place.”
Hanisee described it as an “odd approach” for Soros, whose Open Society Foundations purportedly want vibrant and inclusive democracies with governments are accountable to their citizens.
The report said Soros long has meddled in governments around the world, triggering a number of bans on him and his operations. One Macedonia official described his efforts as the “hijacking of civil society.”
Jody Armour claims America is moving beyond “tough on crime” but in fact, is selling out his own people to the George Soros plantation.
[Edit: revised this post to be slightly less inflammatory than originally intended. Must be Christmastime]