Category Archives: war on Christianity

George Floyd. 3 Minutes of resisting arrest. The video Fake News didn’t want you to see?

 

Video footage the MSM fake news conveniently kept out of their “breaking news story” has surfaced  of George Floyd resisting arrest for around three minutes .

Would this have stopped the riots? No. Fake news had made their minds up.  They were going do their part at destroying the country.  They were sticking to the plan.

*”One of the most obvious ways to tell I’f a event could be faked is paying attention to the news release. It’s  a dead giveaway when you see all the networks releasing the same exact story, at the same time.”

This video just adds to the long list  of events that fake news got caught at “faking news”.

There you have it.  Floyd did indeed resist arrest.  The entire fake news complex lied to you, again.  They specifically said Floyd didn’t resist arrest.

This is just another example why I quit believing everything the news media puts out..  Some might think that’s a little extreme.  No. It’s  the only logical, smart solution.  The days of me saying “they lie sometimes but usually they are pretty honest”  were gone long ago.  If you say you can tell the difference simply by using your best judgement, all you are really doing is selecting what you feel comfortable with. That does not make it true.

People saw the video.  They saw Floyd die.. Somebody mentioned in the comment section in a prior post of mine.  Something along the lines that “it’s  going to take more than different time stamps to change my mind”.

Five simple points, out of many.

  1. MSM lies all the time
  2. “Floyd is dead because the video shows it.”  Yes, the video looks like someone got killed or died of something. .. I get it, you’re convinced.  Now go turn on your TV or watch your favorite movie on the internet.   Why do you watch what you are watching?  It’s because the character’s seem real.  A block buster movie only becomes a hit if the movie is good.  This requires the actors  being skilled enough to convince you the roles the play are real..  Seeing is no longer believing.   If you believe Floyd is dead because it was captured on video, then you have to believe everything in all movies/videos  are true.
  3. If we wanted to use a video deposition in court, most states require the date/time to be burned into the video at the time of recording.  If the date is off/time is off, they cannot be used in court.  All the videos  times were different..  Floyd videos should not be legit evidence in court.  *Time/ date can be faked in any video.  Even when time of recording is hurned into video.
  4. To convict, there cannot be a reasonable doubt.   Time/date or  anything  else that’s  seemd wrong with this event causes reasonable doubt.  Innocent until proven guilty.
  5. Reliability of source of video.

I use the MSM as leads.  Then I investigate the story myself. But to each their own.

Fake ot not , some have come out ahead because of Floyd’s death.

  • Floyd family got millions in donations. Fame and fortune.
  • Black LIves Matter seemed to grow in numbers.  They assaulted and killed police officers which continues at this very moment.  They ignore   black on black deaths., or any other death in the black community..  They’ve actually got people giving in to their demands..  Some are actually kneeling for them, because BLM expects it.  .  Yes, they have been successful proving racism and bigotry exist in America.  BlM being perhaps the most openly racist group to ever exist in America..
  • Let’s not forget the 35 million and more BLM has received  in donations..  Unfortunate for them,  the people handling their money, the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) has only spent  $200,000 of the money on bail money for protesters.  They haven’t  said where the rest of the money went.  MFF deleted the board members(which are almost all white) page on their site and they quit accepting donations.  They already admitted on Twitter that ” the donations are turned over to ACTBLUE.  ACTBLUE then give it to the democrats”.  That’s  because ACTBLUE is part of the Democrat party. Looks like the democrats hustled BLM.  Watch, BLM will still support democrats. Ok
  • Democrats have shown how much they love their voter base by allowing out of town rioters to destroy their cities, their  businesses, get assaulted, killed and have their whole lives destoyed.
  • Biden says Floyd is more important than MLK.
  • Science makes discovery that protesting will keep you safe from getting covid19 but attending church, working, etc, increases your chance to get the virus.
  • The first time in history that a transperson parent got to fight alongside their transchildren and transhgrandkids with their trans dog and trans bird. Take over American soil.  They did this through violence and   declared their own country.  Perhaps the #1 country of starving people because the homeless stole all the food the firds day.
  • The first time a unknown rapper declares himself the police after removing the police because they didn’t want police there.  He also declares himself to be leader of country by beating and who knows what.  Proving the people with guns win. Tupac  and biggie would be proud.
  • Floyd  so influential and important that he gets minute by minute coverage the day he is buried.  He gets second by second camera coverage from helicopter  of his car as it travels to his resting grounds. The man is treated like a Saint, even though he was a hardened thug who died while being arrested for committing a crime that is a violation of federal law , which can carry a sentence  of 20 years.
  • Police are getting replaced and now, just as I predicted, democrats are going after their weapons.
  • Muslims love the replacing the police with something like community police.  Perfect because to Muslims, community police is religion police or the morality police.  That gives them a chance to bring in Sharia  law.

Minneapolis is home to the largest population of Somali in the USA.  That means Muslim. You can be sure a Muslim controlled replacement for the police is ready to fill the spot.

I find it unusual that CUP FOODS is also the address of a Mosque.  Yes, they have a Mosque in the basement.  An “underground Mosque”. Now you know it’s  true.  They exist.

I mentioned earlier  about the video source being reliable. There is some evidence that the owner(from Palestine)of Cup Foods might have had some animosity toward the police.

That area of town is a hotspot for crime.  Cup Foods being a hotspot for drug trafficking.

The owners  son is a convicted felon who has been to prison. The business has been in trouble with the law in the past.  Both the owner and son have criminal records.

This document will explain the situation better than I.

 

CUP Foods, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and its President Samir Hamaden Abumayyaleh, Relators, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent. C2-01-399, Court of Appeals Published, September 11, 2001.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C2-01-399

CUP Foods, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and its President Samir Hamaden Abumayyaleh,

Relators,

vs.

City of Minneapolis,

Respondent.

Filed September 11, 2001

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

G. Barry Anderson, Judge

City of Minneapolis

Docket No. 9-2110-12612-3

Ronald I. Meshbesher, Jonathan M. Peck, Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd., 1616 Park Avenue, Minneapolis, MN  55404 (for relators)

Jay M. Heffern, Minneapolis City Attorney, Scott Reeves, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney, 300 Metropolitan Centre, 333 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN  55402 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by G. Barry Anderson, Presiding Judge, R.A. Randall, Judge, and Robert H. Schumacher, Judge.

S Y L L A B U S

If an agency adopts the findings and conclusions of an administrative law judge, but rejects or significantly deviates from the recommendations of that judge and does not make findings explaining the deviation, the decision is arbitrary and capricious, and the case should be remanded for the agency to make findings explaining its decision to deviate.

O P I N I O N

G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge

Respondent city stayed revocation of relator’s business licenses subject to store closure for six months and compliance thereafter with several conditions.  Relator argues that respondent’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that the sanction was arbitrary and capricious.  Relator also argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) abused her discretion by denying his motion to strike testimony concerning controlled drug buys.  We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support respondent city’s finding of good cause for adverse license action against relator.  In addition, because relator did not make a timely motion to strike, we conclude that the ALJ acted within her discretion by denying the motion.  But because respondent deviated from the ALJ’s recommendations when imposing its sanction, without making findings explaining the reasons for doing so, we reverse and remand.

FACTS

In 1989, relator Samir Abumayyaleh opened a convenience store at the northeast corner of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue South in Minneapolis.  The store sold groceries and the usual convenience items.  Eventually, relator added numerous goods and services to the store, including a delicatessen, cellular phone and pager sales, tobacco products, and off-sale 3.2 beer.

Respondent City of Minneapolis issued CUP Foods (Chicago Unbeatable Prices) four licenses: (1) grocery store; (2) food manufacturer; (3) tobacco dealer; and (4) off-sale 3.2 beer vendor.  Respondent first issued the licenses in 1989 and each is subject to annual renewal.  Relator’s family, including his father and two younger brothers, work at the store, but relator also employs other workers.  Relator’s younger brother Nabil, known as “Billy,” one of the store employees, has a prior felony conviction for auto theft.

CUP Foods is located in a high-crime area of Minneapolis and, not surprisingly, experienced problems with loitering and drug activity in and around the store.  In 1991, relator complained to respondent about the loitering problem, and at a city crime specialist’s recommendation, relator placed two yellow “no trespassing” signs outside his store.  Respondent conditioned relator’s licenses on reduced hours of operation.  On several occasions, however, the store remained open after the designated closing time.

In 1993, after receiving additional complaints about loitering and drug activity near CUP Foods, respondent scheduled a committee meeting to consider adverse license action.  As a result of the meeting, relator agreed to remove public pay phones, hire off-duty police officers for security, reduce hours of operation, hire older employees for evening shifts, report drug activity to police, and remove signs blocking store windows.  Relator understood that failure to comply with the agreed-on conditions could result in revocation, suspension, or non-renewal of his licenses.  Relator complied with the conditions, including the employment of off-duty police officers as security guards.  But approximately one-year later, relator discontinued their employment because of the cost and because “things got a lot better at the intersection.”

As time went on, however, the crime problem at 38th and Chicago became worse.  In 1996, neighborhood residents formed a task force to improve safety and reduce drug-dealing activity in the neighborhood.  In 1998, the number of complaints concerning CUP Foods prompted police community crime specialists to open a file on the store.  Crime-prevention specialists visited CUP Foods and relator signed a Minneapolis “no trespassing” affidavit and received two new “no trespassing” signs.  The specialists advised relator to call 911 to report trouble, and he and his employees did so.

On July 13, 1998, a shooting took place near CUP Foods.  Shortly thereafter, relator attended a task-force meeting and asked for a greater police presence at the intersection.  A few months later, two more shootings took place near CUP Foods.

Beginning in October 1998, police conducted surveillance of CUP Foods.  Police observed loitering and hand-to-hand exchanges outside the store and in the store entryway.  Using confidential informants, police made several “controlled buys” of either crack cocaine or apparent crack cocaine inside CUP Foods.

Based on the results of the controlled buys, police obtained a search warrant for CUP Foods and executed that warrant on November 18, 1998.  Police recovered: stolen cell phones; a bullet-proof vest; live ammunition; a stolen bicycle; ephedrine, an ingredient in methamphetamine; glass tubing; baggies of what appeared to be crack cocaine (but later proved to lack cocaine base); postal scales; and three firearms.  Police also observed bullet holes in a door.  The state charged Nabil Abumayyaleh with unlawful possession of a firearm, but later dismissed that charge.  Police did not link any of the stolen items to relator, and did not charge him with any crime.

Police continued to make controlled buys in CUP Foods during 1999.  On one occasion, the participants completed a transaction in plain view of Nabil Abumayyaleh as he worked as a cashier.  On November 9, 1999, a Minneapolis police officer recovered crack cocaine from a CUP Foods shelf during the course of answering a call reporting an armed man in the area.

In November 1999, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office commenced a nuisance-abatement proceeding against CUP Foods.  That proceeding was stayed pending the city’s resolution of appellant’s licensing issues because, on November 19, 1999, respondent filed a notice of hearing concerning all CUP Foods licenses.  Respondent filed amended notices on February 25, 2000, and again on March 27, 2000.

An ALJ conducted evidentiary hearings on March 28, 30, and 31, and on May 5 and 15, 2000.  Respondent presented testimony from police and neighbors, and argued for revocation of relator’s licenses.  Relator presented favorable testimony from neighbors and customers, testified to his own compliance with recommendations, and explained that he, too, sought to end the criminal activity near the intersection.

The ALJ concluded that respondent had shown good cause for taking adverse action against CUP Foods, but recommended that the city council consider placing conditions on CUP Foods licenses, rather than revoking the licenses outright.  On December 29, 2000, the Minneapolis City Council adopted the ALJ’s report but, rather than placing conditions on relator’s business licenses, it revoked all the licenses, stayed on the conditions that CUP Foods (1) close for six months and (2) take additional specified crime-prevention measures upon re-opening.  The council, however, waived 90 days of the closure period, upon relator’s payment of a $10,000 administrative fine.  The mayor approved the decision on January 4, 2001.  Relator now proceeds by writ of certiorari.

ISSUES

I.                    Was respondent city’s decision to stay revocation of relator’s business licenses, subject to conditions, a denial of due process, arbitrary and capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence?

II.                 Did the ALJ violate relator’s right to due process of law by denying relator the opportunity to cross-examine confidential informants who made controlled buys at CUP Foods?

ANALYSIS

I.

            Appellant first argues that respondent city’s decision to revoke his business licenses is arbitrary and capricious, is unreasonable, is irrational, and not supported by substantial evidence, and that it violates his due-process rights because neither relator nor his employees had direct knowledge that drug activity took place inside CUP Foods.

Generally, decisions of administrative agencies, including cities, enjoy a presumption of correctness and will be reversed only when they reflect an error of law or where the findings are arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence.  Cable Communications Bd. v. Nor-West Cable Communications P’ship,356 N.W.2d 658, 668 (Minn. 1984); see alsoMinn. Stat. § 14.69 (2000) (setting forth the scope of judicial review).

 Where the evidence is conflicting or more than one inference may be drawn from the evidence, findings must be upheld.  City of Minneapolis v. Richardson,307 Minn. 80, 88, 239 N.W.2d 197, 202 (1976).  If the agency engaged in reasoned decision-making, a reviewing court will affirm its decision even though the court may have reached another conclusion. State by Khalifa v. Hennepin County,420 N.W.2d 634, 639 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. May 4, 1988). 

A.         Due Process

            Relator argues that respondent’s decision denies him “due process of law.”  To determine what process is due, this court first determines whether a property interest is implicated.  Humenansky v. Minnesota Bd. of Med. Exam’rs,525 N.W.2d 559, 566 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied(Minn. Feb. 14, 1995).  Relator correctly points out that he has a property interest in his business licenses.  See Bird v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety,375 N.W.2d 36, 42 (Minn. App. 1985) (finding property interest in automobile dealer’s license).  Our second inquiry requires weighing the particular interests involved. Humenansky,525 N.W.2d at 566. 

Sufficient due process generally requires reasonable notice and a hearing.  In re License of W. Side Pawn,587 N.W.2d 521, 522 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 1999).  Although relator argues that he was denied due process, he does not allege that he was denied either reasonable notice or an opportunity to be heard.  The record shows relator received initial notice of the hearings approximately four months before the license proceedings, a five-day trial-type hearing, representation by counsel, an impartial decision-maker, and a decision based solely on the record.  This is sufficient to satisfy the due-process requirement.  See Humenansky,525 N.W.2d at 565 (describing the process due when property interests are implicated).

B.         Substantial Evidence

Relator argues that respondent violated his due-process rights because revocation

extinguishes [relator’s] property interest and deprives [relator] from making a living without a factual finding that either [relator] or any of his employees permitted, encouraged, or had any direct knowledge of the alleged controlled buys.

In essence, relator alleges that respondent lacked substantial evidence of “good cause” to take adverse license action against relator’s business.

 Substantial evidence, for the purpose of appellate review of an administrative agency’s decision, is: (1) such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (2) more than a scintilla of evidence; (3) more than some evidence; (4) more than any evidence; and (5) evidence considered in its entirety.  In re Friedenson,574 N.W.2d 463, 467 (Minn. App. 1998) (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr. 30, 1998).  We defer to the agency’s fact-finding process and it is the challenger’s burden to establish that the findings are not supported by the evidence.  In re Lakedale Tel. Co.,561 N.W.2d 550, 554 (Minn. App. 1997).  Unless manifestly unjust, inferences must be accepted even though it may appear that contrary inferences would be better supported by the record.  Id.  Thus, relator must show that the evidence, considered in its entirety, and drawing inferences in favor of the decision, is not substantial, and, therefore, does not adequately support respondent’s finding that good cause existed to take adverse action against his business licenses.

The Minneapolis Code of Ordinances provides that “[a]ny license granted under this chapter may be revoked by the mayor or the city council as in the city charter provided.”   Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 188.350 (1999).  The city charter provides:

Section 16.  Licenses May Be Revoked.  Any license issued by the authority of the City Council may be revoked by the City Council at any time upon proper notice and hearing for good cause * * * .

Minneapolis, Minn., City Charter ch. 4, § 16.

The ALJ’s memorandum explained that relator’s employment of his brother Nabil Abumayyaleh, a convicted felon, and the handguns found during the search of CUP Foods, did not warrant taking adverse license action against relator because relator legally employed his brother and legally possessed the handguns for protection.  Similarly, the ALJ found that, because respondent failed to link any of the stolen items recovered during execution of the 1998 search warrant to relator, that evidence alone did not support adverse license action.  Further, the ALJ found that the three shootings near CUP Foods had no connection to the store and were simply a “by-product of the gang violence that is prevalent in this south Minneapolis neighborhood.”

But respondent, through the testimony of police officers and neighbors, presented evidence of: (1) chronic loitering at CUP Foods; (2) numerous hand-to-hand exchanges, an indication of drug dealing, taking place in and outside the store; and (3) controlled drug buys inside the store.  Respondent also presented evidence that despite the earlier license conditions, the store’s windows remain obstructed by advertising, signs, and shelving, and that the lack of visibility inside the store hampers law-enforcement efforts.

For these reasons, the city council adopted the ALJ’s conclusion that

[respondent] has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that drug dealing and loitering have occurred on a frequent basis on and near CUP Foods’ premises.  * * * [Relator’s] failure or inability to prevent or meaningfully control the sale of drugs occurring inside his store constitutes good cause for taking adverse action against CUP Foods’ licenses. While [relator] testified that he routinely asks loiterers to leave, substantial credible testimony from neighborhood residents and police officers established that there is an ongoing pattern of loitering and drug dealing both inside the store and outside the store’s front entrance.  And, despite some measures taken by [relator] to increase visibility in his store, the record established that the majority of the store’s windows remain obstructed by shelving, advertisements, and other signage.  The inability to see into the store’s windows encourages loitering and criminal activity in general at CUP Foods.

Although there is no direct evidence that relator or his employees observed drug transactions, there is ample evidence, including the evidence of the controlled buys, that such transactions took place in and around CUP Foods and that relator knew that crime in and near the store was an ongoing problem.  Although relator made efforts to improve security and reduce crime, he failed to decrease the height of store shelves or remove window advertisements, and, until very recently, relator had abandoned the use of security guards.

Drawing inferences in favor of respondent city’s decision, as we must, and viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the evidence, though hardly overwhelming, is reasonable, “more than a scintilla,” “more than some,” and “more than any” evidence.  The evidence, therefore, is substantial and supports the conclusion that respondent had “good cause” to take adverse license action against relator.[1] 

C.        Arbitrary and capricious

Relator also argues that the adverse license action is arbitrary and capricious.  Reviewing courts may reverse an agency’s decision if the decision is arbitrary or capricious.  Minn. Stat. § 14.69(f) (2000).  An agency decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is an exercise of the agency’s will, rather than its judgment, or if the decision is based on whim or is devoid of articulated reasons. Friedenson,574 N.W.2d at 467;Mammenga v. State Dept. of Human Servs.,442 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Minn. 1989).  “Where there is room for two opinions on the matter, [an agency’s choice of one course of] action is not arbitrary and capricious * * * .”  Friedenson,574 N.W.2d at 467 (citing Brown v. Wells,288 Minn. 468, 472, 181 N.W.2d 708, 711 (1970)).     

The problems at CUP Foods illustrate the collision between two important principles of United States jurisprudence: the reasonable public safety expectations of citizens and the preservation of private property rights, which, in this case, take the form of business licenses.

A city council may affirm, reject, or modify an ALJ’s findings or conclusions.  See Hymanson v. City of St. Paul,329 N.W.2d 324, 326-27 (Minn. 1983) (a city council may make new findings or decide contrary to the hearing examiner’s recommendations).   Despite this authority, when an agency significantly deviates from a reviewing authority’s conclusions, it must explain the deviation.  Beaty v. Minnesota Bd. of Teaching,354 N.W.2d 466, 472 (Minn. App. 1984).  Failure to do so “evidences the agency’s desire to exercise its will and not its judgment.”  Id.see also Burnett v. Stearns County Welfare Bd.,370 N.W.2d 452, 455 (Minn. App. 1985) (holding county welfare board acted arbitrarily and capriciously by rejecting without comment merit system council recommendation to grant relator a merit increase).  But see Friedenson,574 N.W.2d at 467-68 (holding revocation of relator’s medical license not arbitrary and capricious, even though board failed to explain its reasons for deviating from ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, because reviewing court was satisfied penalty was the product of “careful and prudent judgment”).  

Respondent adopted the ALJ’s findings, as well as the conclusions supported by those findings.  But respondent did not adopt the ALJ’s recommendations to place conditions on relator’s business licenses, and instead stayed revocation on the conditions that CUP Foods close for six months and, upon re-opening, comply with numerous crime-prevention measures.  Respondent significantly deviated from the ALJ’s recommendations without explaining why the ALJ’s recommendations were rejected or making additional findings to support this disposition.  At a minimum, a business owner with property rights in the form of government licenses is entitled to know the reasons for adverse action by the city council.  We therefore hold that the absence of such findings renders the respondent city’s decision arbitrary and capricious, and we reverse and remand for additional proceedings and to permit respondent to make appropriate findings explaining its decision.

We caution respondent, however, that any additional findings or conclusions it may adopt on remand, to explain its reasons for significantly deviating from the ALJ’s recommendations, must be limited to the issues raised in the earlier proceedings.  See Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Bd. of Comm’rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, 580 (Minn. 2000); Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton, 513 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Minn. 1994) (reviewing board “must confine its inquiry to those issues raised in [the] earlier proceedings”); White Bear Rod & Gun Club v. City of Hugo, 388 N.W.2d 739, 742 (Minn. 1986) (city council not required to make formal findings but, at a minimum, must “‘have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion’” (quotation omitted)). 

II.

            Relator also argues that the ALJ abused her discretion by denying relator’s motion to strike testimony concerning the confidential informants who completed “controlled buys” inside CUP Foods, contending that by failing to strike that testimony the ALJ denied him his right to confront the informants.  Evidentiary rulings in administrative proceedings are subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard.  See Lee v. Lee,459 N.W.2d 365, 369 (Minn. App. 1990) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to appeal of evidentiary ruling on hearsay evidence made during an administrative child-support hearing conducted under Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act rules), review denied(Minn. Oct. 18, 1990).

During the license hearings, respondent’s counsel questioned Sherry Appledorn, the police officer who arranged the controlled buys, about her conversations with the confidential informants.  Relator’s counsel objected on hearsay grounds.  The ALJ sustained the objection, but permitted the officer to testify concerning matters within her own knowledge.  At the close of the hearings, relator moved to strike all testimony concerning the controlled buys on the basis that he was denied the right to confront the informants.  The ALJ ruled that the request was untimely.  Respondent argues that this court need not reach the issue of confrontation because relator’s motion to strike was untimely.  We agree.

The rule that an objection to the admission of evidence must be made at the time the evidence is offered is well established.  Eilola v. Oliver Iron Mining Co.,201 Minn. 77, 79, 275 N.W. 408, 409 (1937); see also Minn. R. Evid. 103(a)(1) (providing that there is no error unless an evidentiary ruling affects a substantial right of a party and a timely objection or motion to strike is made).  Although relator objected to out-of-court statements made by the informants as hearsay, relator did not (1) bring any motion to compel respondent to disclose the informants’ identities, even though the initial notice of hearing indicated that the controlled buys would be part of respondent’s evidence, or (2) object to the admission of Appledorn’s testimony concerning her knowledge of the controlled buys until the close of the hearing in May 2000, more than one month after she testified.  We therefore conclude that the ALJ acted within her discretion by denying relator’s motion to strike, and we decline to further address relator’s confrontation claims.

D E C I S I O N

Respondent’s conclusion that there is good cause to take adverse license action against relator is supported by substantial evidence.  Respondent’s decision to deviate from the sanctions recommended by the ALJ, however, is arbitrary and capricious because the deviations are significant and respondent did not make findings explaining its decision to deviate.  Finally, the ALJ did not abuse her discretion by denying relator’s motion to strike testimony concerning controlled drug buys because the motion was untimely.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

[1]Relator devotes more than three pages of his brief to a discussion of Saxon Coffee Shop, Inc. v. Boston Lic. Bd.,407 N.E.2d 311 (Mass. 1980).  In Saxon,a license-revocation action, criminal activity inside a store and the non-cooperation of the store’s management did not meet the substantial-evidence test.  Id at 319.  We reject Saxon’sreasoning because City of Mankato v. Mahony,542 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. App. 1996), suggests that a city may take adverse-license action in response to criminal activity if the licensee does not cooperate to prevent future violations.  Id. at 692 (reversing revocation of landlord’s license where landlord acted responsibly to prevent further violations of city noise codes). 

Source

Perhaps Floyd and the business was doing a drug deal.  When Floyd was on the ground, leaning against Dragon Wok, an officer leaned over and picked something up off the ground and put it in his pocket.  Maybe it was just a dime or something.

False Flag or not, the whole situation has the Democrats name written all over it.  It’s  only going to get worse until election  day.

Respectfully

Deplorable Patriot.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Useful Idiots, Inc.

“Today’s ‘woke’ corporate executives – along with academics and media personalities and many Democrat officeholders – are incurious and unquestioning lemmings following big lies over a cliff, after which they’re destined to experience a hard-landing into totalitarianism.  For many, if not most, that will prove fatal.”

Cross-posted with trevorloudon.com

Corporations – with furloughed employees from sea-to-shining-sea – are falling all over themselves to massively expand their woke budgets and throw money at “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) and similar “social justice” organizations. 

And massively means MASSIVELY: $565 million as of June 11, 2020, according to one report.  But as we’ll see, this money is not going toward addressing “systemic racism,” nor “inequality.”

But first, just imagine what all that money could accomplish if invested toward addressing the root causes, in a spirit of Black lives mattering, instead of hollow symbolism and racial jingoism of BLM.

Such as: monetarily supporting pro-life groups, that by definition oppose Planned Parenthood – which probably snuffs-out more Black lives in the average month than there have been police shootings since the founding of this country (including justified and non-justified police shootings).  Abortion is the leading root cause of premature death among Blacks.

Such as: monetarily organizations promoting the restoration of the nuclear family, including faith-based institutions, since illegitimacy has become rampant in the Black community, and is one of – if not the – single greatest root cause of future poverty.

Such as: monetarily supporting organizations providing vouchers or scholarships to private schools for Black youth – so that they can access to quality education that will help position them for future prosperity, instead of being trapped in the public education system. Lack of access to high quality education is a root cause of continued poverty among Blacks. (See the documentary “Waiting for Superman” for a heart-wrenching depiction of Black mothers desperately seeking better educational opportunities for their children.)

It’s not genuine concern for Black lives mattering that’s driving the dollars from the woke corporations, but cynical racial virtue signaling – merely a variation of a traditional PR or marketing campaigns intended to burnish the image of the corporation.

Continue reading

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

U.S, Supreme Court Rules Against LGBTQ Discrimination in the Workplace

The U.S. Supreme Court today (June 15) ruled that employers may not discriminate against LGBTQ employees on account of their unconventional lifestyles. The 6-3 ruling appears to extend worker protections to a category that was specifically omitted in the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. The majority decision was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first nominee to the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal justices. Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Gorsuch wrote, “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh vigorously dissented, saying the majority had not ruled on existing law, but actually had created new law by judicial fiat.

Alito, writing more than 100 pages in dissent for himself and Thomas, accused the court’s majority of writing legislation, not law.

“The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed,” Alito said. “The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not.”

Writing separately, Kavanaugh said simply: “We are judges, not members of Congress. Instead of a hard-earned victory won through the democratic process, today’s victory is brought about by judicial dictate – judges latching on to a novel form of living literalism to rewrite ordinary meaning and remake American law,” he wrote. “Under the Constitution and laws of the United States, this court is the wrong body to change American law in that way.”

Federal appeals courts have been split on the question since 2017, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit became the first to rule that gay men and lesbians should be covered by the decades-old federal civil rights law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled for Zarda in 2018, but the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled against Bostock. The 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, ruled for Stephens.

Congress has debated the issue for decades but “repeatedly declined to pass bills adding sexual orientation to the list of protected traits” under the law, the Justice Department told the justices. The Democratic-controlled House passed the Equality Act last year, but the Republican-controlled Senate has not considered it.

Thank you, SCOTUS!

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

Petition against movie portraying Jesus Christ as a bisexual with a nose-ring

From Return to Order:

A new film, titled “Habit,” will give a portrayal of Jesus Christ played by a female. Paris Jackson, a “bisexual” musician and daughter of the late Michael Jackson, plays the part as a “gender- bending” Christ with a nose ring. Filming for the production has finished and is currently under development. According to reports:

“[Paris] Jackson …will play Jesus in the feature about a street-smart party girl with a Jesus fetish who gets mixed up in a violent drug deal and finds a possible way out by masquerading as a nun. Donovan Leitch, 852 Films, Martingale Pictures, Voltage Pictures, Cloudlight and Elevated Films are producing…

Jackson is the daughter of the late Michael Jackson…” (ScreenDaily.com; emphasis added)

The very person of Christ is portrayed not only in an immoral setting, but is also is a manner that is totally contrary to His human nature. Our Lord was always patient with even the lowest sinners. But He always called them to conversion and repentance. This portrayal makes Him unnatural and vulgar. Please sign our petition, urging Elevated Films to stop the release of the “Habit” film.

39,873 people have signed the petition. The goal is 50,000 signature.

To sign, click here.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

Canadian Prime Minister Bans All AR-15 Rifles – Immediately

This was Australia’s gun “buy back.” Canada is next.

In the latest “NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE” denial of civil rights, Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau yesterday (April 30) banned virtually ALL AR-15 rifles the country. Trudeau opted to immediately ban the firearms outright himself, which Canada’s current draconian gun laws allow, rather ordering a “gun buyback,” which would have to first be approved by Canada’s parliament. He did say that he would allow AR-15 owners to have two years to comply with orders to turn in their property. He also said that he would seek legislation at some later date on providing owners with some payment for their guns.

There is no grandfather provision in the new law. The ban is total. It prohibits buying, selling,trading, importing, exporting, OR USING, any military-grade assault weapons, anywhere in Canada.

Trudeau’s full announcement can be viewed at the following URL:

The announcement begins at 1:48

Trudeau has made no secret of his antipathy toward firearms. He announced his intention to ban AR-15 firearms in March, but delayed because of the Wuhan virus pandemic. In yesterday’s announcement, he indicated that banning AR-15s was just one more step toward even tighter restrictions on firearm ownership. I would not doubt but that his final goal is total disarmament of Canada’s civilian population. Such an event would leave Canada a socialist police state with no unalienable civil rights.

Already Canada has imposed fines and prison sentences for Christian preachers who teach from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin, or that marriage is only a union between a man and a woman. Canada has strict anti “hate speech” laws.

Unlike the United States Bill of Rights, which was part of our Constitution from the beginning, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not become part of Canada’s constitution until 1982. According to a Canadian governmental fact sheet, “The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada; all other laws must be consistent with the rules set out in it. If they are not, they may not be valid. Since the Charter is part of the Constitution, it is the most important law we have in Canada.

However, the rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography. Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by law so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.”

Canada is fast becoming a democracy in name only.

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

Americans aren’t going to put up with this for much longer

Churches across the country are being threatened with fines (and their parishioners) for holding services in their parking lots. People can attend church in their own cars with their windows rolled up (such as they do when they go do a drive-through restaurant) and listen to service via loudspeakers or radio.

Bureaucrats aren’t having any of that. It violates “stay at home” orders and helps save lives.

But Americans are fighting back.

On Saturday, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order filed by a church against Mayor Greg Fischer of Louisville, Kentucky, to allow drive-in services on Easter Sunday. Read that whole story here.

On Easter, parishioners gathered to hear service in a parking lot at Marysville Baptist Church in Kentucky. As reported by Sarah Ladd of the Courier Journal, they encountered nails thrown all over the entrances. Kentucky State Police showed up on church property and were putting notices on every car. NONE OF THE STATE PATROL OFFICERS WERE WEARING MASKS.

Guess the only way a church is allowed to hold a drive-in service right now would be to do this:

DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

Pentagon bans Bible verses on dog tags, while Pres. Trump upholds right to pray in public schools

No Bible Verses on Soldiers’ Dog Tags

The Pentagon caved in to (((Mikey Weinstein))) of the atheistic Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) again.

Caleb Parke reports for Fox News, Dec. 3, 2019, that for the past 20 years, U.S. military members have been able to wear dog tags with Bible verses on them, giving them light and hope in some of their darkest times. For some Gold Star families, this is one of their most cherished possessions to remember their loved one who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Founded by Kenny Vaughan in 1998, Shields of Strength is a Texas-based company that makes Christian jewelry, beginning with a dog-tag with a Bible scripture which Vaughan had made for himself. The company now makes dog-tags with Bible verses for military members and their family, as well as other Christian-theme jewelry and apparel.

After Fox News reported on Shields of Strength last July, Weinstein complained to the Department of Defense (DOD), demanding the DOD ban the Bible verses dog-tags. “Soon after,” each military branch pulled or threatened to pull the trademark licenses that had been issued to Kenny Vaughan from Shields of Strength.

Berry, a Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Afghanistan, told Fox News: “Just when I didn’t think Mikey Weinstein could stoop any lower, he pulled a stunt like that. He’d rather take it away from them just to raise his own publicity than support our service members … that’s pretty cowardly and that’s cruel.”

Vaughan said he’s seen soldiers, who have to leave their Bible behind, carry their Shields of Strength dog-tags with them; oftentimes, the soldiers would stand in line for hours just to get one: “The love of Jesus changed my life forever. It’s the most valuable thing I have to offer anyone is God’s Word. No one needs it more than a young man or woman fighting for our freedom and we’re going to fight for them.”

An acquaintance of mine who’s a Constitutional Law attorney, says:

“While I would absolutely oppose the military issuing such tags (even with a request from the servicemember) it is outrageous that servicemembers can’t voluntarily inscribe their own tags. From a legal point of view, if the military allows any inscriptions at all (like “I Love Mom”) then banning religious ones is content discrimination. That triggers strict (constitutional) scrutiny.”

Prayer in School

Meanwhile, on January 16, 2020, President Trump followed through on his promise to the Evangelicals for Trump rally in Miami on January 3 to “safeguard students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights to pray in our schools” through a directive from the Department of Education.

As reported by the AP and Christianity Today, the Department of Education issued a guidance on school prayer, the first updated guidance since 2003. The directive orders states to verify that school districts have no policies limiting constitutionally protected prayer, refer violators to the Education Department, and provide ways for making complaints against schools.

From the Department of Education’s press release of January 16, 2020:

[F]or the first time since 2003, the Department will …issue today updated guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. The Department is required by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, to update this guidance every two years. The guidance explains the ESEA’s requirement that states report which local educational agencies have not certified that they do not have any policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer. The ESEA also requires states to report complaints against a local educational agency that allegedly denies a person, including a student or employee, the right to engage in constitutionally protected prayer. The guidance clarifies that the ESEA requires states to provide a clear process for students, parents, and teachers to report violations of their right to pray. Under the ESEA, states must fulfill these reporting requirements by November 1 of each year.

Christianity Today reminds us that public schools have been barred from leading students in classroom prayer since 1962, when the Supreme Court said it violated a First Amendment clause forbidding the establishment of a government religion. Later decisions extended the ban to school graduation ceremonies and, under certain circumstances, school athletic games.

Civil liberties groups say the firewall protects religious minorities and ensures fair treatment of all faiths. But many Christians say courts and schools have pushed too far against the right to free religious expression. Surveys find that Americans remain largely in favor of prayer in public schools:

  • According to General Social Survey data analyzed by political scientist Ryan Burge, just 20–35% of Christians support a ban against requiring reading the Lord’s Prayer or the Bible in public schools, and the religiously unaffiliated are evenly divided on the question.
  • A 2019 Pew Research Center survey found 41% of teens in public schools, including 68% of evangelicals, said they view teacher-led prayer in class as appropriate. A majority of teens in general (82%) and evangelical teens (64%) say there are no religious support or prayer groups that meet in their school.

South Dakota’s Republican Governor Kristi Noem, 48, is also fighting back against the Left’s tyranny.

In March 2019, Noem signed a law requiring every public school throughout the state to display an “In God We Trust” sign on their premises beginning in the fall semester. The law went into effect last July. (H/t Tom Wigand)

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

How about NO: People say Santa should now be female or gender neutral

From Daily Mirror: Many will always think of Father Christmas a jolly white-bearded fellow with a penchant for wearing red and eating treats left beside the chimney.

But now people are wondering whether Santa needs an update for modern times, as one company has offered the possibility of Father Christmas becoming a gender neutral person.

GraphicSprings, a logo creation company, polled 400 people from the US and UK about potential ways to modernise Santa, using the top suggestions to poll a further 4,000 people on how they envision him.

In total over one quarter (27 per cent) of respondents reckon he should be rebranded as female or gender neutral, according to 6 ABC.

Over on social media the results of the survey have had mixed reactions, with some claiming the idea is “ridiculous”, while others don’t understand the point in arguing over a made up character.

But given Santa Claus is a fictional character designed simply to make Christmas fun for the kids, does it really matter what’s underneath his signature red outfit?

The issue of what gender Santa should be has taken on a new significance in recent times, as people on social media and even politicians are taking a stance on the issue.

Arun Chandran, an Independent councillor for Newton Aycliffe in County Durham, moved to ban female Santa Claus impersonators from taking part in an annual winter parade last month, after two women volunteered for the job. He said that the concept of a female Santa Claus was “a form of political correctness,” adding that it was “a male role”, according to Metro.

Piers Morgan also chimed in on the subject, saying on Good Morning Britain in response to the story last month: “He’s called Father Christmas! The world’s gone nuts.

Negative opinions on the matter hasn’t stopped some people moving forward with a different take on the traditionally male character.

Ponsonby Central, a shopping complex in Auckland, New Zealand, unveiled a Santa Claus modelled on Mary Poppins, complete wearing knickers and fishnet stockings last month. According to Stuff.co.nz , the staff at Ponsonby Central and Blunt said their representation of Santa can be Mary Poppins or whatever race/gender/persuasion they prefer.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

2019 ‘Naughty or Nice’ Christmas Shopping List

American Family Association (AFA) has published the 2019 “Naughty or Nice” Christmas shopping list.

AFA only rates nationally-recognized companies, not local or regional businesses.

In rating how “Christmas friendly” a company is, AFA examined the company’s advertising in the print media (newspaper inserts), broadcast media (radio/television), website, social media (Facebook, Twitter), and/or personal visits to the store. If a company’s ads have references to items associated with Christmas (trees, wreaths, lights, etc.) and use the word “Christmas,” AFA considers the company to be “Christmas friendly”. If a company’s ads have items associated with Christmas, but do not use the word “Christmas,” then the company is considered as censoring “Christmas”.

Using those criteria, AFA classifies the companies into three groups:

(1) Nice — companies that are “Christmas friendly”:

  • 1-800-Flower.com
  • Academy Sports
  • Ace Hardware
  • AFA Online Store
  • Banana Republic
  • Bass Pro Shops
  • Bath and Body Works
  • Bed Bath & Beyond
  • Belk
  • Big Lots
  • Books-A-Million
  • Cabela’s
  • Cracker Barrel
  • Dillards
  • Do-It-Best Hardware
  • Dollar Tree
  • H.E.B. Stores
  • HSN.com
  • Hallmark
  • Harbor Freight
  • Harris Teeter Stores
  • Hobby Lobby
  • Home Depot
  • Hy-Vee Stores
  • JCPenney
  • JoAnn Fabrics
  • Kirkland’s
  • Kmart
  • Kroger
  • L.L. Bean
  • Lowe’s
  • Macy’s
  • Marshalls
  • Meijer
  • Menard’s
  • Michael’s Stores
  • Neiman Marcus
  • Pier One Imports
  • ProFlowers.com
  • Publix
  • QVC.com
  • Rite Aid
  • Sam’s Club
  • Scheels Sporting
  • Super D Drug
  • Toys R Us
  • True Value
  • Wal-Mart
  • Zappos.com

(2) Marginal companies:

  • Amazon.com
  • Best Buy
  • CVS Pharmacy
  • Dollar General
  • Safeway
  • Sears
  • Starbucks
  • Whole Foods

(3) Naughty — companies that are not recommended:

  • Barnes & Noble
  • Dick’s Sporting Goods
  • Family Dollar
  • Foot Locker
  • Gap, Inc.
  • Kohl’s
  • The Limited
  • Maurice’s
  • Nordstrom
  • Office Depot
  • Office Max
  • Old Navy
  • Pet Smart
  • Staples
  • Stein Mart
  • Supervalu
  • TJ Maxx
  • UncommonGoods.com
  • Victoria’s Secret
  • Walgreens

H/t Big Lug

P.S. A reader emailed me, pointing out the curious absence of Chick-fil-A from the list. See also my post, “The mask comes off: Chick-fil-A donates to anti-Christian, pro-abort, LGBT organizations”.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

Transvestites mock the birth of Christ with child-grooming ‘Drag Queen Christmas’ show

If you think Wichita, Kansas and Omaha, Nebraska to be conservative Middle America instead of playgrounds of the Left, you are sadly mistaken.

On December 15 (Wichita) and 16 (Omaha), the Orpheum Theater in the two cities will host “A Drag Queen Christmas” — a show that makes a mockery of the birth of Jesus with prancing men wearing hideous makeup and draped in clothes eschewed by real women.

TFP Student Action has issued this warning:

A “Drag Queen Christmas” show is scheduled to take place on December 16, 2019 at Orpheum Theater in Omaha, Nebraska [and Wichita, Kansas].  Such performances feature men dressed in scanty “drag” mocking Christmas, and often performing immoral behavior.  To make matters worse, while the performance warns of this “naughty” behavior, it also says that “all ages welcome”!

According to the description:

“A Drag Queen Christmas — The Naughty Tour. It’s a magical (and hilarious) evening of holiday performances featuring contestants from the reality television show on VH1. Here come the queens in their biggest holiday costumes with back-up dancers and a full stage production. All ages welcome. Warning — adult content (because they’re drag queens)…” (Omaha World-Herald, www.omaha.com, emphasis added)

This show insults the birth of Christ.  It blurs the lines established by God regarding sexuality and is a danger to our children and society.  Please sign your peaceful protest.  Urge Orpheum Theater to cancel “Drag Queen Christmas” immediately.

Not only are children (“all ages welcome”) invited to watch “A Drag Queen Christmas” even though the show admits it contains “adult content,” during a performance of the show in California, a transvestite had a little girl in the audience sit with him on the stage.

I took the above screenshot from a YouTube video of the show.

In fact, a transvestite who performs in “story hours” for children in public libraries outright admits that their intent is to “groom” the next generation. (See “Drag queen on library story hour: ‘We’re grooming next generation’“)

To “groom” is to prepare. For what are these men-in-women’s-clothes grooming or preparing children?

Pedophiles groom children. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “grooming” a child as “to become friends with a child, especially the internet, with the intention of committing a sexual offence.”

TFP Student Action has an online petition asking the Orpheum Theater in Omaha to cancel the show. To sign, go here.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0