“Craigslist Proved My Innocence Against A Felony Charge”

06 May

A West Point graduate and former Army officer sees a woman being abused by cops.   He hollers to tell them stop. He video-records the cops.  The cops rough him up, arrest him and charge him with a felony.

He advertises on Craigslist for anyone who witnessed the event and, amazingly, someone replies who also video’d the same event.  That second video causes the grand jury to refuse to indict him for a felony.  He becomes involved in the “Peaceful Streets” project that, in part, encourages people to carry cameras for the principle purpose of video-recording cops while they stop, arrest and sometimes abuse, private people.  Peaceful Streets has now spread to several other cities.

This remarkable video doesn’t merely show how a man avoided being charged with a felony.  It shows how all of us can help curb the police state by simply using cellphone cameras to routinely record police activities.  We live in a surveillance society.  There’s no reason why cops should be exempt from that surveillance. When the cops know that they may be being video-recorded at virtually every moment they’re on duty, their inclination to abuse people will be inhibited and their conduct should improve dramatically.

Applause, applause!

video     00:06:39


Tags: , , ,

27 responses to ““Craigslist Proved My Innocence Against A Felony Charge”

  1. Jim

    May 6, 2013 at 6:51 PM

    Here in Ohio the police are paid witnesses . These witnesses have discovered it is more rewarding to fail to appear as the paid witness .

    • Adask

      May 6, 2013 at 7:21 PM

      That’s a very nice insight. If cops are “on the clock” and being paid when they testify on the witness stand, then they would seem to appear in a capacity much like that of an “expert witness” who is allowed to testify to general principles and general personal knowledge of the subject matter–but without direct knowledge of the facts of the case. In other words, experts are allowed to testify as “witnesses” even though they didn’t actually witness any of the facts of the actual event. I wonder if the similarity between cops (as paid witnesses) and expert witnesses (also paid to testify) is more real than coincidental.

      Given that cops are paid by the gov-co, don’t they have a fiduciary obligation to their employer to do whatever is best for the employer’s benefit? Does this explain the “testi-lying” that some cops are taught?

      What if I were a defendant and I brought in a witness who was not an “expert” but nevertheless paid for his testimony? Would my paid witness be allowed to testify? I don’t think so. So, why should the government’s paid witnesses (cops) also be allowed to testify since the payment they received could not only be presumed to bias their testimony, but might also be evidence of a fiduciary obligation to the employer/prosecution that might even be a basis for excusing cops’ lies?

      • Yartap

        May 6, 2013 at 8:13 PM

        Al, those are great points. One could ask the cop, “If all crime stopped, would you be employed, if all revenues stopped funding the police?” If he affirms. Then ask if he would like losing his job. He’s boxed. This could show a bias by the part of the police.

        But, this is the one I have used and like: In front of the jury, I request a motion be granted by the court that I be allowed to influence the jury as much as the state does by paying each juror the same and equal amount of money that the state pays for jury duty. I will always see smile come upon the juror’s faces. Oh course the judge rejects my motion. The judge must reject it because, if the judge accepts my motion, then this would prove that the state was issuing a bribe to the jurors. So, I look towards the jury and say, “Oh well, I tried to get you all more money.” After the judge’s scolding of me, I place a feather in my hat with the jury.

      • Adask

        May 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

        Y’know, that’s another good point. The jurors are also paid by the “state”. Does that payment constitute evidence of “employment”? I know that all “employment” is a fiduciary relationship where the employee is deemed to be a fiduciary with a fiduciary obligation to serve the best interests of the employer (who is the beneficiary in the employment relationship). So, does it follow that, by virtue of being paid by “this state,” that jurors are deemed to be “employees” of “this state”–even for just a few hours or days? And if the jurors are deemed to be employees of “this state,” does it follow that they have a fiduciary obligation to support the best interests of “this state” and therefore convict the defendant rather than approach both the prosecution and defendant on an impartial basis?

        And what about the form of payment to jurors and police? They’re paid in checks redeemable in Federal Reserve Notes–they’re paid in a legal tender that I strongly suspect is only legal within the territories. If the cops, prosecutors and judges are paid in legal tender, and if my notions about legal tender and “this state” are roughly correct, then the court may be situated “in this state”. As a defendant my only hope might be to reach out to a jury that was not paid at all, or was at least not paid in legal tender (fiat currency) but was instead paid with gold or silver coin.

        So what do you suppose would happen if you offered to pay each of the jurors with, say, one silver dollar rather than FRNs? What would happen if, before you ever reached the courtroom, you moved or demanded that cops not be paid while they were on the witness stand, and the jurors not be paid with FRNs? What if you demanded that the jurors (as per Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution of the United States) be paid in gold or silver coin?

        It would be interesting to discover the year when the government first started to pay jurors to sit in the jury box.

  2. Yartap

    May 6, 2013 at 7:50 PM

    What are the things that make police officers and federal agents go bad?

    I think that it is the authority and power of the job. Further, I believe that it is their lack of knowledge and understanding in Constitutional law and being taught improper law to enforce. I know that they are taught to “control a situation,” but their intimidation of people is an improper tactic as a peace officer. Who has taught them that it is an “us verses them” mentality which makes them into nothing more than a street gang. It is their duty to show respect towards the public, even in an arrest.

    It saddens me that some states have made it a crime to video the police, and these states are usually the so-called liberal state governments (really fascist).

    I know that any officer who throws around the F-word when dealing with the public would be out of my agency!

    We don’t have a crime problem. We have a revenue-generating crime industry!

    • Adask

      May 6, 2013 at 8:20 PM

      I believe the principle cause for police abuse and government corruption is IMMUNITY. Most of these bastards know that, thanks to “official immunity” and “de facto officer” immunity, they can get away with assaulting innocent people because–assuming the case if ever investigated by the DA or whoever–they’ll still get off thanks to their “immunity” unless their assault is both “egregious” and witnessed by a number of people other than members of the same street gang of cops.

      In other words, because of various forms of “immunity,” the cops know they are “above the law” and therefore they feel entitled to assault or take whoever/whatever pleases them.

      In truth, our judicial system is so unpredictable and corrupt that it’s about as friendly as a meat grinder. Injustice is the norm. I doubt that anyone would dare work that racket or work close to it who didn’t have immunity from being caught in that meat grinder.

      Government is a racket–a criminal enterprise.

      • Yartap

        May 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM

        Your right!!!!

      • Anon4fun

        May 6, 2013 at 9:12 PM

        Adask said, “Government is a racket–a criminal enterprise.”

        Hence the description of government used by the founders of this country’s government: “a necessary evil”.

        The question for the American people is: How much more evil are you going to let your government become by continuing your negligent management style concerning your hired help in government?

        The American people’s extended vacation in TV Land has allowed the Founder’s creation to decline considerably into organized crime. Now our country needs us to return to reality and fix the situation, which will be easily doable when enough Americans are motivated to get it done.

      • Steve Christoph

        May 6, 2013 at 11:12 PM


        May 6, 2013 at 8:20 PM

        I believe the principle cause for police abuse and government corruption is IMMUNITY

        Yes they believe/brainwashed into that…but does the “Clearfield Doctrine” not state that any gov’t agency/administration descend into a mere corporation on its demand/use of commercial paper?

        And so all gov’t administrations/agencies/offices are all corporations, and their employees/agents/officers are private contractors and therefore can be sued in their individual capacities!

        Equal protection under the law!

        Persuading the courts and hanging them out to dry is another monster all together!


      • Anthony Clifton

        May 7, 2013 at 5:49 AM

        do “we” have a choice…as free agents ?

        For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

        “we” have the Elijah option….and the Shadrack Meshack & Abednigo option.

        question is who is “we”…?

        and per Matthew 7….What Deity do “we” actually serve..& Worship ?

        in the Richard Simkanin Trial the Idiot Representing Satan when asked by Arch McColl as to the actual definition of “Employee”….replied – “Actually there are 17 different definitions…”

        “Omnium rerum quarum usus est, potest esse abusus virtute solo excepta.”

        and curiously shortly before 28Feb93 while Marshalling @ Riverchase in Coppell – on the 17th green I heard an unusual aircraft {jet} and looked up…it was a MIG…the Pilot {owner} had a “License” to own & operate a MIG in Texas [US] airspace…

        now what if some “super Patriot” {Texan} had all the High Tech hardware and Military equipment and behaved as the “Jewish” state and attacked the REAL TERRORISTS in Self Defense ?

        maybe use a little social media to acquire more comrades and compatriots to oppose the legions of satan posing as “government” in Christian “Nations”…


      • Brent

        May 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM

        But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put in his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?

        For still another reason they are neither our servants, agents, attorneys, nor representatives. And that reason is, that we do not make ourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is my servant, agent, or attorney, I necessarily make myself responsible for all his acts done within the limits of the power I have entrusted to him. If I have entrusted him, as my agent, with either absolute power, or any power at all, over the persons or properties of other men than myself, I thereby necessarily make myself responsible to those other persons for any injuries he may do them, so long as he acts within the limits of the power I have granted him. But no individual who may be injured in his person or property, by acts of Congress, can come to the individual electors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their so-called agents or representatives. This fact proves that these pretended agents of the people, of everybody, are really the agents of nobody.

        If, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress, the members of Congress are nobody’s agents. And if they are nobody’s agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts, and for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are exercising is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of nature – the highest of all laws – anybody injured by their acts, anybody who is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same right to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold any other trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right to resist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other trespassers.

        ~ Lysander Spooner

      • Joe L'Amarca

        November 6, 2013 at 11:50 PM

        frn’s is legal tender in other words the judicial department legalized counterfit for them and their co-oprate buddys look at kennedy’s E O he discovered that lawfull coinage of the United States is S=to silver and two verticle bars over the S = to bars of gold and that is the lawful emblance or logo of the United States coin .
        Now Kennedy had the federal burrow of printing and engraving print 5 billion in United States Notes , a U S Notes extinguish the debt but a frn’s it establishes a debt against the people and the country so guess what hapens when you try to abolish the frn’s ? if you dont know dont ask Kennedy !the elites that owns the printing machine of the ferns will come to claim their awards ( our country )…..
        the 11 Th amend. was proposedin 1789 and George Wa. said that it was in conflict with article 3 Sec. 2 . get a copy of the U S Constituion and check it out to see if you can find the conflict between the two of them .
        The problem is that Article 1 Section 10 clause 1 did not have a fixed standard of measurement that mesured anything for that you have to go to the Coinage Act of 1792 Section 9 thats constitutional money or lawfull money of account and Section 19 is the punishment to the employees , officers and counterfitters . Article 1 Section 10 clause 1 is like shooting a bird with no shells in the gun !!!

        Joe L’Amarca Capisce ?

    • David Baugh

      May 6, 2013 at 8:31 PM

      Yep, right on! It is in the best interest of the cops to lie because their predatory, parasitic job security depends upon it. Check out Briscoe v. Lahue where the court agreed that cops routinely lie under oath in the court, yet cannot be civilly prosecuted for doing so. So who is “serving & protecting” who?

      • Jim

        May 6, 2013 at 9:55 PM

        The court in Briscoe stated don’t use 1983 for perjury damages. Read the case again . The common law doesn’t protect false witnesses.

      • Les Fuchs

        May 6, 2013 at 10:09 PM

        Hi David Baugh
        I have read all,I think, of your earlier posts & your friend was a victim too,& HOW !! State Policeman shot him right, And for WHAT ??

        Re: So who is “serving & protecting” who?

        It’s obvious. And, the very ones who WERE supposed to serve us are the ones who come against us “criminally.” On the other hand, they do serve us, don’t they? I have been “served” many summonses,etc. I used to get “served” at least once a week on the average but I was “really standing firm” then. They do have an arrest quota to meet as well as revenue raising quota. Recently, a “whistle blower” affirmed this is true on the witness stand & it was posted somewhere on this blog. I don’t remember the thread, darn it.

      • Les Fuchs

        May 7, 2013 at 1:09 AM

        I remember I cut & pasted the following under my key word, quota

        NEW YORK (AP) — “Police brass were not concerned with whether patrol officers were saving lives or helping people, they were focused on one thing: numbers, said a New York City police officer testifying in a federal challenge to some street stops.”

        “Adhyl Polanco said his superiors told him that he needed 20 summonses, five street stops and one arrest per month. It didn’t matter whether the stops were done properly, he said.”

        Who has not known the “message” above has been going on for years? Sounds like “To Protect & Serve” means fulfilling a quota.

      • Joe L'Amarca

        November 7, 2013 at 12:16 AM


    • Steve Christoph

      May 6, 2013 at 11:01 PM

      @yartap…”any officer who throws around the f-word”.

      This may be off the original topic, but not too far I hope…

      I was listening to a talk show on talkshoe and they were talking about the origin of the “F” word.
      I googled it of course,

      The “F” word was originally spelled with a “w” instead of a “u”…F.W.C.K….

      Which on google translated to “Fornicating Without Consent of the King”

      We all know all law, statutes, codes, rules, regulations, and ordinances are all commerce regulations.

      Fornicating is intercourse, and intercourse between men is….COMMERCE!

      Aren’t we all “Kings of our own castle?”

      And aren’t we all Lords of our own Land…our selves/bodies?”

      I would love to see the expression on the cop’s face when he throws the “F” bomb, and I come back with…

      “Are you trying to “Fornicate Without Consent of the King?”

      (“Don’t tase me, Bro!!!”)


      (Just a thought on the “F” word)

      • Yartap

        May 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM

        Hello Steve, that’s interesting. I did not know that. I was always told two different versions of how the F-word came about. One version is close to your googled version. It goes that the term was an abbreviation placed upon a court docket which stood for “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge,” in other words, a moral type crime.

        No matter what it stands for, I hate hearing the word. And as our standards and morals slip, I hear the term increasingly more and more. I have a past which I have used curse words, and I still do use some. But, I regret using many. I only ask myself to think before I speak.

        Thanks, Yartap.

      • Yartap

        May 7, 2013 at 11:42 AM

        I meant “immoral type crime” -Steve – I’m sorry.

  3. Damon

    May 6, 2013 at 7:59 PM

    Reblogged this on Awakestate.

  4. Les Fuchs

    May 6, 2013 at 9:29 PM

    Re: when enough Americans are motivated to get it done.
    t’s the “family” that is keeping most Americans from getting motivated,I believe. These “power battles” are not isolated events. I suppose in a way it’s good that only “one” every now & then pops up because if 10% “showed up, it would be overwhelming. Try to live free in a pred-a-tory society is not easy. You are crusin for a brusin.

  5. Les Fuchs

    May 6, 2013 at 10:24 PM

    Tell me your thoughts about the following “message” from the Briscoe case.

    There are two reasons why § 1983 does not allow recovery of damages against a private party for testimony in a judicial proceeding. First, § 1983 does not create a remedy for all conduct that may result in violation of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Its reach is limited to actions taken “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory. . . .”[6] It is beyond question that, when a private 330*330 party gives testimony in open court in a criminal trial, that act is not performed “under color of law.”[7]
    Second, since 1951, when this Court decided Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, it has been settled that the all-encompassing language of § 1983, referring to “[e]very person” who, under color of law, deprives another of federal constitutional or statutory rights, is not to be taken literally.[8 In the words of one 19th-century court, in damages suits against witnesses, “the claims of the individual must yield to 333*333 the dictates of public policy….”

    Not to be taken literally,AND,Public policy??? Huh??

  6. Les Fuchs

    May 6, 2013 at 11:27 PM

    Re:Equal protection under the law!
    It’s “equal.” Honest people don’t want or need immunity. it’s not the immunity,per se, it’s a matter of a seared conscience & power mad lust.Immunity is one of the benefits.

  7. gary lee, [Russell], sui juris

    May 7, 2013 at 2:23 AM

    Excellent post Alfred, and something of an inspiration to those who do stand up to the police state and say “no”, HELL NO!”

  8. Kerry Reynolds

    May 7, 2013 at 9:21 AM

    We all need to vigilant! Keep your camera phones ready. We the People need to do this for the good of the Country.

  9. Thomas

    May 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    Has anyone been able to implement their program into your own city/area? I tried to contact them and it ?appears? like the email was intercepted(if that’s the right word) by another entity and I tried to reach safe streets but have not gotten a reply back from them. This may all be just FYI and probably is attributable to the technological idiocy of the one who tried to contact safe streets (uh, duh, me ;-) LOL at myself here


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s