#EndPoliceBrutality #Truth #BalanceOfPower #Ferguson #MichaelBrown #TamirRice #Justice #BreakUpThePolice #L #O #V #E

[Jay Blas Jacobo Cabrera]

#EndPoliceBrutality #Truth #BalanceOfPower #Ferguson #MichaelBrown #TamirRice #Justice #BreakUpThePolice #L #O #V #E

Introduction: 

With All the recent police shootings of young unarmed black americans by white officers getting media coverage, and then most of the officers, if not all of them, getting a slap on the wrist, it is important to take a more in-depth look at certain perspectives and the connection of these issues to the broader social movements. Note: This posting is long (15+ pages) so we have created a table of contents here so you can skip around if you'd like.  Also if you would like to vote for some of the ideas explained here, feel free to vote for as many as you want, but if you vote for all of them, that doesn't help us to actually prioritize, so please vote for your top priorities, we can't do everything at the same time.  Thanks for your support :)

Table of Contents:

Introduction

Police Brutality

Societal Racism

When to Call (or Not call) the Police

Introduction to Deeper Ideas

ONE LAW for all Citizens & Government Officials

Make ALL Violence illegal

Institutional Separation of Each Aspect of Criminal Enforcement: 

Break Up the Police

Break Up the Executive Branch and Department of Justice

Court Rules for and by People

Umbrella Truth Movement

Police Brutality:

On a surface level we can easily see excessive use of force by police, and that needs to change.  Many people are calling for new training systems, where police are taught how to treat citizens as equals first, and only see threats when imminent danger is present, like someone actually shooting a real gun at you.  In our country, even having a loaded gun is not a crime, so it doesn't make sense that police allow white people to have guns, but if you are black you get shot dead, just for having a gun, which is completely legal, let alone a fake gun.  On a surface level this is corruption because the law is not being applied to everyone equally, and every officer knows when they take the job, there is danger involved and you are putting your life at risk to protect others.  If you can not keep your cool and treat people as equals, then you shouldn't be a cop.  

End Police Brutality Vote Link:  http://goo.gl/nIZCZ3

Societal Racism:

Yet we must go deeper and understand the social issues with these problems, but remember this are still deeper superficial issues.  First of all racism is alive and well, and although it may be hard to prove that a single individual or police officer is racist (no one wants to be racist), we need laws on the books that can take action on the factual discrepancies of the black population of america in relationship to the black population in prison.  It is statistically significant that there is a 34.9% black population in prison and only 12-13% of the US population is black.  That is almost 3 times more!  At the same time there is no statistical or factual evidence that shows that black people commit any more crimes than white people, just that they are different types of crimes, and that black people get longer/harsher sentences that keep them in prison longer.  Additionally crime has been going down, yet prison populations are still increasing.  Currently there are primarily laws on the books that criminalize racism towards individuals primarily by individuals, but again this is very hard to prove on an individual level.  We need laws on the books that make it illegal for our entire social systems to have intrinsic racist processes functioning within them.  This will take work and unity, but together we can re-create our political systems to work for the people, all people.  Because race is based on perception, it is also a superficial issue, although a deeper level, and this will only help solve our problems, but will not be the deciding factor. Even if we took the hard and difficult routs to change laws in a few places, we will still find ourselves loosing on an individual case by case level.  Again, on a deeper surface level, this is corruption, because the system is not treating all people equally.

End Societal Racism Vote Link: http://goo.gl/jHYwt1

When to Call (or Not call) the Police: 

It may be very difficult to change the system, we can and will do it though, it will take time. So it also makes sense to initiate a campaign where you can actually make an immediate difference, directly towards citizens.  It is essential to mention one minor component of all these police shootings of unarmed black men and boys that is most definitely a taboo issue, and is mostly ignored.  And that is that citizens are calling the police for a lot more reasons that are not justified in the context of how it effects black citizens.  In over half of the recent incidents, normal everyday citizens, have called 911 (the police), and it ends up with an unarmed black man being shot dead for no reason.  In other words the police did not take action on their own, they were told to come for some reason or an other by normal everyday citizens.  Currently in the national protests of the Michael Brown shooting, we are protesting almost exclusively against the police and government, which is not wrong, we just want to make sure we are looking at ALL possible components of the problem.  Obviously we all know the police are responsible for these deaths, but realistically they are not the only ones who have some responsibility.  Lets review a few of the more high profile cases starting with Tamir Rice, the  unarmed 12-year old black boy who was shot dead after just 1-2 seconds from when police arrived. 

First of all, it is 100% legal for a person, albeit 18 or over, to have a gun.  Let me repeat, it is 100% legal for someone to have a gun, but when it is a black man, or black boy in this case, the cops shoot to kill with no other consideration.    Additionally it also seems that in our country that only white people can have guns, they can publicly display them in stores and malls across america, and have even pointed them at cops and not gotten shot.  Yet if your black, it doesn't matter if you have a gun, a toy gun, or are unarmed, you still get shot dead by cops.  Check out this video if you want a little bit of evidence: http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/06/dash_cam_footage_from_open_car.html

So back to Tamir Rice.   The boy was playing in the park, and an onlooker "sitting in the gazebo", in the same gazebo where the boy was eventually shot dead, the onlooker could see Tamir close by, and called 911 to report a boy playing in the park "with a gun".  First of all, obviously the 911 caller had no concern, was sitting within "range" of the boy playing.  If the 911 caller truly feared for their life, they would have been running away from the park.  Yet instead the caller, most likely an african american women, was sitting near by the boy when making the call. Furthermore the 911 operator failed to mention to the police officers that went to the scene that the caller said that the gun may be fake.  In the end it is up to the police to consider the environment and scene before taking action, especially violent action, but we also must remember that the role of the 911 operator, as well as the caller are also involved in the polices decision making at the scene.  In this situation you have a classic case of a story being distorted.  The original observer miss-interpreted what they saw, called 911 and escalated a seemingly harmless situation, and then the 911 caller further escalated the situation by not mentioning to the officer that the caller said the gun may be fake.  By the time the interpretation gets to the officer it has already been hugely exaggerated, and then the officer themselves can already be imagining terrible outcomes of a gunman on the loose in a neighborhood park and further escalates the situation to the point where the boy is shot within 1-2 seconds of the officers getting on scene.  If we truly want to change our system, we must change each and every part of how the situation escalates, maybe officers should have immediate and direct access to listen to 911 caller recordings so there is NO possible miss information between the caller and the operator in how it is relayed (if there is time for the police officer to listen on their drive to the scene.)  Lastly it is important to note that the officers who came to the scene initially lied when they stated that they got out of their car and reviewed the situation and saw the boy pull the gun out of his pants and point it at them before they shot.  The video released after their reporting shows that they lied and shot the boy dead within 1-2 second of arriving and left him there to die for 4.5 minutes before an FBI agent came to administer first aid. Here's a link for more info on Tamir's killing: http://gawker.com/the-smear-campaign-against-12-year-old-killed-by-cops-h-1664355755

Now lets look at the case of John Crawford III, who was shot in a ohio wall mart while holding an unloaded bebe gun that he was considering purchasing from the shelves of the store.  In this case a 911 caller named Ronald Ritchie, (white) said that a black man was "pointing" a gun at shoppers.  We can already assume what the 911 operator relayed to the police and what the police officer assumed when they came on the scene and shot the black man within seconds of entering the Walmart.  Yet again we have the same situation where the official police report says that the black man was "reaching for the gun and turning in an aggressive way".  But because Walmart had video of the entire event, and it is clear that the man did not reach for his gun, or turn towards the officer before they started shooting.  Additionally there is video evidence that the man did not ever point the gun at anyone in the store.  The question really comes down to weather or not the 911 caller, Ronald Richie may also have some liability in John Crawford III's death, along with the inability of the 911 operator to consider that the caller was not relaying the whole story, and the officer who did not review the scene and understand the situation for himself before just shooting to kill. Links to more info: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/30/police-officer-shot-john-crawford-walmart-lied-victims-mother-says

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/walmart-ohio-shooting-charges-911-calller-john-crawford

Now lets go to the Michael Brown case where no one would have died if a customer within a convince store had not called 911 and reported a "robbery".  In almost every news report of the Michael Brown shooting, the media reports that before he was shot dead by Daren Wilson, he robbed a connivence store of some swisher sweets.  To have committed a crime you MUST have been charged with a crime and convicted of that crime.  Michael Brown not only was not convicted of robbery, he was never charged with robbery.  Additionally the worker of the convenience store NEVER even accused Michael Brown of robbing his store. In fact there are some people who believe the video evidence even shows the two men paying for the swisher sweets before they left, and it was the store clerk who first made contact against the man in the video before being pushed back.  Additionally some people even say that wasn't Michael Brown in the video.  Anyway you look at it, it is all very odd that everyone says that Michael Brown robbed a store and the store clerk never reported a robbery.  So how did the cops even find out, an other citizen in the store, not the clerk, called 911 and reported what they thought was a robbery.  Was it actually a robbery? Well by all legal accounts of a robbery, it 100% was not a robbery in any way, because there is NO report from the store that anything was ever robbed, and still to this day the store will state they can not confirm a robbery or that it was even Michael Brown.  If you ask any insurance company or lawyer if you can make a legal claim that you were robed and want legal insurance from your losses, you will get NOTHING unless you file a report of the robbery itself.  You can not prove a robbery happened if nothing was ever reported as robbed.  Even if Michael Brown did steel from the convenience store, is that any reason to shoot an unarmed black man, no way.  Based on the other two stories, we can already figure that Daren Wilson's account of the shooting is at least embellished if not a lie, just like the other two police reports.  The only difference is that there is NO video evidence this time, but 90% of the eyewitness testimony all goes against Daren Wilson's story.  Here is a graphic of all the eyewitness testimony, and you can see that 90% of the eyewitnesses stated that Michael Brown had his hands up, which directly contradicts Daren Wilson.  http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/26/7295595/eyewitnesses-ferguson-grand-jury?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=article-share-top

So what these 3 stories tell us is that we have a systematic disconnect between reality and the process of citizens calling 911, that information being relayed to police officers, and then police officers taking correct action is not possible.  To top all that off, we have a system where there is NO need what-so-ever for police officers to tell the truth in their reporting, and at the same time we have a system that systematically believes police testimony and reporting over any citizen eyewitnesses.  The only way that citizens have anyway of protecting themselves is video recordings, and police do everything they can to prevent legal recordings by citizens.  Yet even when there is video evidence, the system still gives the benefit of the doubt to the police officers.  We all know that in court that all citizen eyewitness accounts can be completely ignored and easily discredited, especially when an officer account is in conflict. So then why do 911 operators and police believe whatever a citizen says when calling 911, and then exaggerate it further themselves beyond what is said if a black man is involved?  What we need is a system where police officers are NOT told to believe exactly what is going on according to witnesses, and to objectively evaluate the scene when they arrive and report back before making rash decisions.  Furthermore we need to encourage citizens to actively consider the outcomes of their actions, and only call the police if they truly believe that they are in danger, and have no other way to deal with the problem.  Most black people will tell you that they will only call the police as a last resort, most white people have a very different reaction to the police.  We wish that our police system didn't have the flaws it currently has, and that it could deal with the errors made by citizens when calling, but that is currently not the case, so call the police when needed, and lean on the side of safety, but also consider talking to other adults nearby and ask them what they think as well.  Sometimes a single persons point of view is biased and it is important to get other peoples perspectives before taking action.  An other way to think about it, is that every time police shoot an unarmed black man, it reduces the ability for 911 emergency services to protect our communities because citizens will choose not to call 911 because of their fear of the police, and the possibility they will just make the situation worse.  This is not good for us, its not good for the police, and its not good for our communities, but it is a reality we must accept, and use that to help catalyze political change.

When to Call (or Not call) the Police Campaign Vote Link: http://goo.gl/M9C26i

Introduction to Deeper Ideas:

So how can we  start re-thinking our social system and break out of the repetitive cycle of violence and corruption? There are two main areas of community power, political power, and new law implementation that could tip the tide.  What is important to note about these recommendations is that they are NOT superficial, and target the core of our social systems on EVERY level, not just at a local or national level, but EVERY level, inside and out.

ONE LAW for all Citizens & Government Officials

The first idea is simple. Everyone just follows the same law.  Thats it, update our laws in this country, and as a community, that we will not tolerate any individual, government or corporate officer to behave as if the law doesn't apply to them, or have the system ignore their crimes because of there government position.  This is the definition of corruption.  Basically that because of your government position, you are above the law, and the idea that there should EVER be a separate set of laws that effect government officials from citizens MUST BE STRUCK down.  In the context of police officers, Cops should enforce the Law BY EXAMPLE, they are NOT above the Law and should have NO different Laws that give them immunity from the laws everyone else follows.  Why should anyone follow the law, if the cops don't????!!!!  This is a significant change to our current government systems, as not only do police officers have a different set of laws, so do almost all government workers.  The same laws that citizens follow should be consistent and true with ALL government workers, even the President!  In no way am I saying that no one should ever break the law, as people do all the time every day, I'm just saying that everyone, no matter their position, should have to deal with the responsibility of breaking the law.  Obviously cops and government officials have more leniency to cross the line of stated laws for citizens, but then they still MUST reap the consequences of breaking those laws, even if it is still easier to get out of being punished for breaking the law, they still have to present justification, pay fines etc…  You break the law you go to court, and the evidence is presented, weather you are a police officer, or even if you are the president.  For anyone that believes that government leaders should have the power to break the law, then you also believe that corruption is not that bad, and that corruption doesn't lead to more corruption.  So if we want to limit corruption, we must limit anyone from begin above the law.  This will take a massive movement and unity between all peoples who believe that citizens are the foundation of law, NOT government officials and police officers, but we can do it if we work and collaborate together.  It may take years even decades, but every day we sit by while our rights are taken away, it becomes that much harder. The time is now.

ONE LAW for all Citizens & Government Officials Vote Link: http://goo.gl/g49tgs

Make ALL Violence illegal

The second idea is a little more complicated, but MUCH easier to understand how to implement it, and it goes a lot further to ensure justice for each and every persons death, no matter what the cause.  The simple idea is just to make ALL VIOLENCE ILLEGAL.  All incidence of violence goes to court.  No matter who the perpetrator is, from individuals to multi-national organizations.  An example of this would be for normal everyday citizens.  Violence is already illegal.  You can not legally go up to someone and punch them in the face, let alone kill them.  It is illegal for any everyday citizen to engage in any level of violence, including car crashes, or domestic violence.  If you get in a car crash and someone dies or gets hurt, it is going to court, that is just how it works, and usually your insurance works it out.  Domestic violence is more complicated because it is private behind doors, but it is still very illegal but requires reporting to be addressed.  Of course just because something is illegal does NOT mean that people don't break the law, there is nothing wrong with breaking the law and getting into a fight or getting into a car crash, but you know that you must take responsibility and deal with the consequences of your actions if you choose to break the law.  

Yet on a larger level when an organization or government commits violence, suddenly it is "justified" and ok.  Why should we as citizens not be allowed to be violent, but suddenly our governments can be??? It doesn't make any logical sense!!!  Violence in the 21st century is absurd.   If someone dies, it goes to court.  No ifs, buts, or excuses, it just does, especially when governments kill.  People talk all the time about weather or not a death was "justified".  Who cares if it was justified or not, the only place to make that justification is in court, and even if it was "justified" it should still be illegal.  Justification is merrily a matter of perspective and opinion, and always will be.  True justice is ensuring that all people take responsibility for their actions, and if you choose to kill someone, for any reason, then you must take on that responsibility, and go to court and present your case and justification for doing so.  The better legal justification that you have for why you killed someone, the more lenient your consequences will be.  Now lets clarify how this new law would address violence on a larger level.  

If you or your organization chooses to kill someone, the minimum possible consequence should be to pay a fine.  This may seem completely silly to reduce someones life to a monetary fine, but you MUST understand that just this little change would mean EVERYTHING in a legal context.  Suddenly killing and violence would go from something that takes no justification at all, to going directly to court no matter what, and would require full prove and justice just to get your consequences down to a fine, and from there the fine just goes UP and can extend to community service, parole, jail time and much more.  If you can't legally justify your actions of violence, then your going to get a lot more than a fine.  What is so important is that this would make the very act of killing illegal and make all violence a requirement to go to court and have transparency.  We can immediately see how this would completely change how police brutality and police killings of both armed and unarmed citizens are dealt with, building transparency and accountability into the system.  Would this end violence in our communities, NOT AT ALL as anyone, including the government, can choose to break the law at any time, they will simply have to reap the consequences of their actions.  With this law the police could never just write off a death as "justified" and move on, every death would have to go to court, and would cost their department and city/county substantial amounts of money to pay these fines.  This give an incentive to reduce violence on all sides, even though we all know that there is always a time for violence, that doesn't mean it should be legal.  So lets take this to the highest level, and show how this simple law would actually change everything and the very foundation of our society.

This same simple law that all violence and killing is illegal, would also apply to all government organizations, including nation states.  What would that do? This simple law would make WAR, on every level, illegal.  Some people might think that is simply CRAZY, to make WAR illegal, but in the context of the 21st century, it doesn't make sense for war to be legal at all.  By making all violence, killing, and war itself illegal, does that mean there won't be any wars in the world.  NOT AT ALL.  There will still be wars, and there still and always be wars, just like people fight in bars all the time even though it is illegal.  But all WARS will be illegal from the start.  This makes a lot of sense, especially in the 21st century and with globalization going so quickly.  Any and every war always effects individual citizens, and why should governments be allowed to engage in violence, when citizens can't.  All laws should be equally applied to all levels.  Of course a government could still go to WAR at anytime, the only change would be that they would minimally get a fine based on the number of people they killed and the violence that they engaged in.  Again it may seem a little silly to just slap a fine on a country for going to war and killing thousands if not millions of people.  But we have to realize that currently WAR is legal, and this change would for all acts of war to go to court and be made transparent and present evidence of justification.  If the actions of violence, killing, and war is justified, it is still illegal and the nation state or fractioning party will still get a huge fine based on the violence and death, but if it isn't justified, then it could be much worse including the leader/president going to jail.  We have to realize that these government leaders are no different than you or me, and that all citizens, regardless of their level of power in government positions MUST be required to follow the same laws, and we as citizens of the world should push to make all violence illegal to ensure that when it does occur that it is immediately sent to court to shine light, build transparency, and work to bring truth and justice to every level of our planet.  Anything less is not civilized.  Before moving on, for all you skeptics, I want to add enfaces that violence being illegal does NOT mean that you or anyone can't engage in violence, killing, or even war, there is no question that people will.  The difference is simply that you, and anyone who engages in violence which is brought to public light must deal with the consequences of your actions.  It is really the same as running a stop sign, or any other law that people know is illegal, but people break the law all the time, and go to court all the time.  Yet this is far from a complete picture, and does not address all the underling problems with our system, as there are still Many problems with how evidence and facts are presented in court, and how courts function and operate. Yet I hope we can all agree that courts are the best place to get justice, if they functioned correctly.  Together we can reduce violence, and improve our political justice system, it will take time, but if we work hard we can do it, but only if we stand together and unite. So everyone can see that violence and killing and war is a problem, yet connecting a solution like making all violence illegal is a fundamental change in how we perceive and function within our society, and this will indeed reduce corruption, but it is STILL NOT ENOUGH.  This is a deep and profound change that we can all make, but there is something that is even more profound but would be even harder to change, but we MUST do it…

Make All Violence illegal Vote Link http://goo.gl/xHnNcQ

Institutional Separation of Each Aspect of Criminal Enforcement:

This next idea is the most complicated and hardest to explain, and the hardest for people to understand and feel that it is necessary, but if you do understand it, and see how it would completely elevate our societies trust in our governments and institutions, you will understand why this is SO important to implement as soon as possible.  The easiest way to summarize this idea, is that the police/enforcers of the law must be systematically and institutionally separate from post-crime investigators, which must be systematically and institutionally separate from pre-crime active investigations, which must be systematically and institutionally separate from prosecutions.  In other words, our executive government has a monopoly on the execution of how crime is enforced, investigated, and prosecuted, and this MUST be broken UP!!!!  If this is the first time you have herd this, you probably won't understand, and may even feel like it simply isn't possible, but if you really open your mind up to this idea, not only will you see the benefits, but you should understand that it is an essential component to a free and just society to have a much more institutionalized balance of power within our social systems of crime prevention.  

Lets start with the example of Michael Brown being shot in Ferguson by Officer Darren Wilson.  If all violence was illegal, officer Daren wilson would immediately need to be processed and released on bale to ensure that he would be present in court when his case came up.  Yet violence in our current society is legal, and so instead the case was presented to a Grand Jury.  The problem regardless of weather the case would have gone directly to court or as it stands now where it goes to a Grand Jury is that the Prosecution that presents the case is biased under the current structure of our government institutions.  In this case the prosecutor was Robert McCulloch, who many people believed was not only biased but also had a previous history of corruption when it came to inequalities between white cops and black citizens dealing with police.  It is obvious from the evidence presented that Robert MuCulloch did not want to indite Officer Daren Wilson, but was forced to present some "version" of evidence because of the massive exposure of this case.  Based on our current system there is NO possible reason for a prosecutor to ever present unbiased evidence against a police officer.  The reason is simple, the prosecution is always reliant on police officers to gather facts and data to prosecute normal citizen criminals.  In other words police officers are a direct extension of prosecutorial employees. This is basic fact, and if you don't understand that then you need to do more research.  Here is an other way of looking at it.  

Daren Willson (the police officer) and Robert MuCulloch (the prosecutor) are all part of the same executive branch of government, regardless of weather it is the city, county, or state level.  HUH? you ask?  Yes police officers and prosecutors of every city and county in the united states are part of the same higherarchy.  But it gets worse than this.  To expand we must enphesise that if a police officer is involved in a potential crime, the only people who are immediately  involved in gathering and documenting evidence against this particular accused police officer are other police officers.  Yes other police officers, and what do you think the probability that fellow police officers have any interest or intention of collecting evince against their own?  This is an inherent conflict of interest and to make it even worse, the prosecutor is 100% reliant on police officers to not only gather evidence against a fellow police officer when one potentially commits a crime, but the prosecutor is also 100% reliant on police officers to gated evidence for ALL other cases they bring against normal citizens, so it again is in the best interest of the prosecutor to not effectively prosecute police officers to ensure there is a good relationship, as they are all part of the same government team. Again this is a blatant conflict of interest at every level. Next we will apply this principle to both local and national governance/policing.  Some of this can all be explained in this article http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/11/ferguson-police-misconductdarrenwilsongrandjury.html 

Break Up the Police:

To fix this we MUST systematically and institutionally break up the police into at least two separate branches.  1) Regular real time policing to keep the peace (pretty obvious) 2) post-crime documenters for facts and evidence (neutral unbiased documentation).  Additionally there are at least two additional branches that should be broken up as well.  One that would include active investigators for post-crime Research and Theories (biased investigators who theorize on what may have happened regardless of evidence), as well as active pre-crime investigations (ex. "under cover" operations), and lastly we also encourage peace officers or citizen officers who's role is to educate and support citizens rights and represent citizens on the streets (can be directly involved with mediating between the police and citizens).  If every police car had an unbiased documenter and a citizens officer there would be a lot more balance in how police conducted their activities, not just day to day, but how evidence would be gathered and presented to judges and jury.  Also this would completely change the relationship between the prosecution and the police, as they would no longer be dependent on everyday police officers who enforce the law to also document evidence or research/investigate/theorize how to catch bad guys post-crime.   

Just to make sure this point is completely clear, lets look at the example of entrapment.  Currently in our legal system you can have an undercover police officer(s), or agent, who can lead a citizen on to encourage them to commit a crime.  Then the same police officer(s) legally investigate both pre-crime, and post crime, as well as get to document all of the evidence of the crime.  To top it all off, the police and only the police get to present all the evidence to the prosecution, and the prosecution can't question any of it, or risk relationship problems on other cases.   There is just way to much power in a single branch of government to be able to entrap and try a citizen with no checks and balances.  The court and judges believe the police, because there is no alternative, and next thing you know the person who was entrapped is in jail, and there is nothing you can do about it. The whole idea that the same person who entrapped you, is also the same person who charges you with a crime, and then is the same person who collects all the evidence against you is an obvious conflict of interest.  If we want to make a difference in our communities we must be smart about the issues and interconnections of the issues that we are trying to fix.  We have to go deeper than just the superficial levels.  If we only fix the superficial levels, then nothing will change because it will eventually just go back to the way it was.  We can do it though, we just have to talk about these more complex ideas, educate each other, unite together, and work hard.  It isn't going to be easy, and it is going to take a lot of work, and a lot of time, but if we collaborate and focus on facts and be smart, and realize that every issue and problem is interconnected, we will prevail.

Break Up the Police Vote Link:  http://goo.gl/NPmo7k

Break Up the Executive Branch and Department of Justice

Unfortunately this is just half of the issue when it comes to conflict of interest, as this just addressed the local level.  Even with the mike brown case there is still a federal component of the investigation. When you take this issue of law enforcement and prosecution conflict of interest to the national level, it gets MUCH WORSE.  Simply stated the law enforcers and the prosecutor are all run by the same department and have the same super boss which is the department of Justice in the US government.  And if you go one step up, all of their bosses is the President, and there is nothing but conflict of interest at that level.  Before we go into examples it is important to note that we are not saying that previous national governments have been corrupt or not, we are simply saying that because of the structure of our government, it is almost impossible to know because of the conflict of interest between the FBI, department of justice and the White House.  We are going to use two examples of where federal investigations become a huge conflict of interest, and that is 911 and the JFK assassination, both of which had possible connections to the president and protocols not being followed within government agencies (aka government officials breaking the law).  Not much needs to be explained to show the conflict of interest, but you do have to open your mind and consider the possibility that a president or secret multi-national organization would purposefully or accidentally commit a crime against the people.  The reason why we even bring this up is because today in 2014 there are still over 60% of the US population who believe that there was some type of coverup related to the JFK assassination, and over 50% of the US (and global) population believe there was some type of coverup related to 9/11.  Regardless of weather or not there was actually corruption, we still MUST have a system that doesn't have built in conflict of interest, and ensures unbiased and transparent investigations, because everyone must follow the law equally including the president.  If you feel that the president is above the law and can break the law without consequences, then obviously you would not agree that there is conflict of interest with these statements and there is no need for you to read on.  Yet I feel like we can all agree that we need structural changes to our systems of national justice to ensure that when future events happen, that there are investigations that are sufficiently unbiased and open to reduce the % of people who feel that our government is not telling the whole truth.

So with 911, the investigation was conducted by the enforcers of national law, the FBI.  Who is their boss, the Justice Department, and who is the departments boss, the president.  Who conducted the investigation for the murder of JFK, the FBI, again the FBI is controlled by the Justice Department, and the justice department is controlled by the president.  So what happens if the FBI or an FBI agent, or the president themself broke the law, by either knowingly or unknowingly aiding and abiding the crime?  Currently there is no way to investigate the FBI, and FBI agent, or the president of the united states without a conflict of interest because the FBI can't investigate itself, and the Justice Department is run by the President and can't investigate itself without conflict of interest.  In other words there is a single organization (the executive branch of the US) that single handily enforces the law, investigates pre-crime, investigates post-crime, documents evidence, and prosecutes crimes, all with the same single boss.  This goes way beyond conflict of interest, this is easily corruptible. Currently the only way to have any type of independent investigation at the national level is for Congress to enact a separate independent committee to start an investigation.  It makes sense in name, but in practice it has little to no effect in preventing corruption.  First off a congressional investigation starts months if not years after the original crime is committed, so the investigators involved in no way can gather first hand evidence from the scene.  Secondly and because of the first reason, these congressional investigations rely almost exclusively on evidence gathered by the FBI.  In other words they are extensions of the executive branch investigation, and it is almost impossible after the fact to go back and find evidence that was not gathered to begin with.  So if there was any evidence destroyed by the FBI or executive branch at ground zero from 911 (The US Government sent it all to China to be destroyed: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm) then there would be no way to get that evidence back because the FBI, and white house have full autonomy and control of the entire investigation.  Again if there was any evidenced destroyed or suppressed by the executive branch or FBI in connection the JFK assassination (Lots of options to choose from: https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Destruction_of_Records) then there would be no way to get that evidence because the FBI, and white house have full autonomy and control of the entire investigation.  The only way to collect unbiased facts and evidence is to have the agency that does so be separate from the Justice department and the executive branch.  In the same way that we need balance of power and no chance of conflict of interest within our local governments and police, we also MUST have institutional separation within the executive branch between the white house, the Justice Department, and the FBI and insure that there is a real time independent investigative body, as well as a natural documentation and evidence collection institution so that crimes can be investigated even if they are committed by government officers.  There is no way to know or find out weather or not national crimes were committed by government officers on 911 or during the JFK assassination, but for the benefit of our country's future, we must evolve our governance systems to ensure that our society can exonerate our leaders and know in an unbiased way that they did or did not commit crimes, and with the current structure that is simply not possible.  These are very deep and interconnected concepts, and this may be too much for some to contemplate, but it is essential that we do everything in our power as a community of people in this country, and across the world to ensure that our systems are fair and are structured in a way to reduce and even prevent corruptions.  There are a lot of options from making them independent initiations, making them part of the congress (uff), or even electing separate executive leaders of the US like may states do.  It will take a lot of work and time, many decades even, but we can accomplish these goals if we work together and unite for all of humanity.

Break Up the Executive Branch and Department of Justice Vote Link: http://goo.gl/zjWyzD

Court Rules for and by People

Before we end here, there are still two, important but minor concepts to address.  The first is Judges and Courts themselves.  Even if we make violence illegal, and separate the conflict of interest between the prosecution and enforcers of the law, there is still the problem of our court systems.  The easiest way to address this is what we call Law By People.  In other worlds we support a governance and legal strutter of law that is written by, for, and of, the people, not politicians, lobbyist and lawyers.  Currently laws are written by politicians, lobbyist and lawyers, and this creates a revolving cycle of politicians being lawyers, and lawyers become lobbyists, and all of them writing laws that support more politicians and lawyers and lobbyists to get money and power.  We must insist that normal everyday people become representatives not just politicians, and that laws are written for and by normal every day people, not written for and by politicians, lawyers, and lobbyists. In just the context of the courts its a little more complicated because courts do not function based on law, they actually have their own internal judicial systems.  Here is how it works.  Lawyers become judges and judges get appointed to the Court rules committee.  This by relation means that all rules and systems that govern how courts function is governed by existing judges, who all used to be lawyers.  That means that all court rules are created by and for lawyers and judges.  That is ridiculous!!! Why would the people want an entire branch of government, the judicial branch, to be entirely controlled by lawyers, or people who used to be lawyers and are now judges?  This must change and we must ensure that not only are all federal and local laws written for and by PEOPLE!!! but that also the rules for how the systems and functioning of our courts work on a day to day basis is also written by and for PEOPLE!  This is just basic governing and we must demand these principles because otherwise we end up with what we currently have, a justice system that doesn't work for people, but against them.  The courts aren't dysfunctional because of a law that was passed by legislators, they are dysfunctional because the rules governing the courts is specifically written to benefit lawyers.  Imagine a justice system that was specifically written for People.  Every law, every process would be written in a way that any normal person could read and understand, and you could simply walk into a court and be treated as equal to lawyers and judges because everyone would be able to understand the system because it would focus on process that supported simplicity for people.  Although lawyers would not be as important as before, there would still be a place for lawyers within the justice system, people just wouldn't be dependent on them anymore.  I know this change seems huge, but it is possible, it would simply take a single law that would change who gets to oversee the rules of the court, which is currently only judges.  We need that body to be much more diverse, and ensure that normal everyday people are involved in creating a judicial system that functions in a way that people can easily navigate it without lawyers.

Court Rules for and by People Vote LInk: http://goo.gl/PAA6rq

Law By People Vote link: http://goo.gl/eKsYPa

Umbrella Truth Movement:

Lastly it is important to spend a moment to connect these daily issues of police violence and societal racism, to a much bigger and broader movement. Obviously anything involved in racism is a civil and human rights issue, but is that the only umbrella movement it can connect to? We feel that it is essential that the police brutality, corruption, and societal racism campaigns also connect into the Truth Movement ( or Awen Movement).  Of all the social movements that exist across the world, the Truth Movement is one of the largess and most fragmented movements.  On the surface level it may seem that police brutality, societal racism, and corruption are all separate issues or sepreate movements from the umbrella Truth Movement, but really they are just different aspects of the same thing.  Yes each issue has its own components and connect to other umbrella movements including human rights, but they are all also connected to the Truth Movement and this is why.  What we are all asking for is the Truth, we are all asking for transparency of the truth, we are all asking for our society to accept the facts as they are, and see the truth that is in front of them.  Police brutality is an issue of not just the violence, but also how that violence is systematically covered up and ignored.  To get justice in police violence cases, we need the truth to be documented in an unbiased and neutral way.  To get justice for societal racism against black people and other minorities, we need our society to accept the truth of systematic racism in our criminal and prison systems, as well as many many other social systems, and to take action by first ensuring that everyone is presented the truth, and creating new laws that force these systems to change and see this truth. To get justice against corrupt government, we need the truth to be opened up and exposed, and for laws to be enacted to separate institutions that have conflicts of interest both at the local and national levels.  In the end all of these issues are related, and they are all related to truth.  Although these issues may fall under other umbrella movements as well, it is important for people to also see the similar fights that other movements you may not typically connect to yours, and start realizing that we all must work together if we want to find and protect truth for the benefit of all.

Here are just a few of the other movements that could be considered under the Truth Movement umbrella.  Lets unite!

Truth Movement (Awen Movement)

Stop Police Brutality Movement

End Societal Racism Movement

Peace & Justice Movements

Anti-Corruption Movement

911 Truth Movement

UFO Disclosure Movement

Whistle Blower Protections Movement

NSA Leeks and Edward Snowden

Wikileaks

Journalistic Rights Movement

Independent Journalism & Indy Media

Stop the Corporate Media Manipulation and Propaganda Movement

and many more. . .

The Truth movement is working to ensure that our governments are open and transparent, and this is one of the most essencial rights to support all other movements.  Yet the Truth movement is currently not unified and does not have a unifing symbol to bring all of these seemingly unrelated movements together.

 

One possible symbol, and there will be others, is the Ancient Awen Symbol.  As an ancient symbol and thousands of years of interpretation, Awen has lots of meanings and definitions just like all old symbols.  It can be summed up as an artistic and inspirational symbol that allows `Spirit energy in flow is the essence of life'.  WIthout openness and transparency it is very difficult to allow artistic energy to flow through you.  In a more pragmatic sence the symbol chosen is the Neo-Druid version as an emblem, and has a very specific meaning. Various Neo-Druidic groups and individuals have their own  interpretation of the Awen. The three lines relate to earth, sea and air; body, mind and spirit; or love, wisdom and truth. It is also said  that the Awen stands not simply for inspiration, but for inspiration of truth; without Awen one cannot proclaim truth. The three foundations of  Awen are the understanding of truth, the love of truth, and the maintaining of truth. To Repeat:

The Awen emblem can stand for the Inspiration of Truth and without it one cannot proclaim truth.  The 3 foundations are:

1) The Understanding of Truth

2) The Love of Truth

3) The Maintaining of Truth

Link to Wikipedia Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awen#Neo-Druidism

Link to Neo-Druid Awen Symbol: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Awen_symbol_final.svg

Truth Movement Vote Link: http://goo.gl/l9QXQ4

Vote Link to Vote for Awen symbol in Unity Flag: http://goo.gl/U7HDV1

Link to disscussion page about Awen Symbol in Unty Flag: https://wctc.titanpad.com/AwenTruthOptions

Link to More Unity Flag Symbols and Voting: http://unity.network.wc.tc/FlagPrioritizationVote.html

In conclusion, if we want to accomplish any of these essential goals and truly change our society at every level, and go from violence, corruptions, manipulation and oppression, to openness, transparency, truth and love, we must understand we cannot do this in fragmented movements and fragmented communities, we must work together and unite.  It may seem odd to consider that police brutality and racism issues should unite under a Truth Movement umbrella, but I encourage you to look at the facts, and look at what we are asking for as solutions, and go deep inside yourself to contemplate it all.  To end police brutality we must demand the truth, and have neutral and unbiased documentation be presented to the world.  That is what truth is.  To end racism we must educate people and base our laws on the truth, not hide the truth, and that truth is that the criminal and prison systems in our country are based on racism, and that is just the beginning.  Only with the truth exposed and accepted by the government in documentation and the truth shared and understood by the people can change come.  Right now the truth is being systematically covered up and distorted to benefit those in power to keep everything the same.  The time has come to take a step, not as fragmented movements, but as a united whole where we are all taking that step together.  With all of us that step is powerful, and we can accomplish anything we put our minds to. And remember, even if we do Unite the Truth Movement, it is still just one of hundreds of other movements that need to unite together to accomplish all of our interrelated goals.

Thank You for listening and good luck with your endeavors.

Jay

Jay Blas Jacob Cabrera

831-332-2486

jay(at) jayslife (dot) net

PO Box 20175

Stanford CA 94309

http://UnityNet.info

If you want to get involved and help unite the movements together: 

http://wc.tc/GettingInvolved

Note: 

Coming very soon: 

We will be starting our Pre-Launch of the Unity Network and people can start plugging into participatory meetings and volunteer. Stay tuned and connect into the Unity Network update streams if your not already:

Unity Network Updates Stream:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UnityMOE

Twitter: https://twitter.com/UnityNet

Email List: http://groups.google.com/group/unitynetwork

You can also sign up for updates on the blog or website where you can request updates on a specific temporal frequency.

http://UnityNet.info/blog

Http://UnityNet.info

Preliminary Google Calendars of activities and meetings: http://padhtml.wc.tc/wctc/all-pads/UnityNetCalendars.html