Category Archives: Millennials

Bossy liberals: Don’t wear red, white & blue on Fourth of July because #allcountriesmatter

The result of public indoctrination (NSFW due to language):

I got news for you bossy broads: This Fourth of July weekend, we’re heading to the gun range. I’m gonna wear my favorite pink t-shirt:

I’m gonna wear my standard go-to range hat:

And I’ll be thanking GOD for our great country while I’m exercising my Second Amendment right:

I’ll wear WHATEVER I want. My body, my choice, right girls?

And since you don’t like the Red, White and Blue, here’s a special one just for you:

DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

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
 

We’re Being Played: BLM “Good Cop” vs. ANTIFA “Bad Cop”

Cross-posted with trevor loudon.com

One need not be a cynic to observe that media-propelled street demonstrations over the killing of a Black occur, with suspicious correlation, during the months preceding elections: Trayvon Martin in 2012; Michael Brown (Ferguson, MO and Oakland, CA) in 2014; Sylville Smith (Milwaukee) and Keith Lamont Scott (Charlotte) in 2016. And now in 2020, across the nation after the death (murder?) of George Floyd.

This is not to say that outrage over the death of George Floyd is to be dismissed as inauthentic, nor unwarranted. While there is much we don’t yet know, the now-infamous video is certainly prima facie evidence of police abuse. Still, there is much that must be to be determined before we can reach legitimate conclusions: was the knee on the neck accepted procedure in that department (doubtful), used on Whites and Blacks alike, or did the officer go out of bounds? Was he disciplined before, or even did the department try to fire him before, but was unsuccessful due to union contract protections?

We still have much to learn.  In time, we will know. What we do know now is that the matter has the full attention of state, local and federal prosecutors, and justice will be done, and in the daylight of media coverage. In turn, a salutary deterrence effect of rogue police behavior will be advanced.

At the same time, it’s also worth noting that the same folks who are quick to condemn all police, and indeed our entire country for “systemic racism,” are the first ones to dismiss the rioting and looting as coming from a “few bad actors” while the “overwhelming majority of protestors are peaceful.”

Well guess what? The overwhelming majority of police are upstanding and brave individuals, performing a ever-more difficult and dangerous jobs (and so they do deserve robust job protections, just not at the expense of preventing the removal of those who do not deserve to wear a badge).

Before we proceed however, it must be stated unequivocally that the entire premise of “police slaughtering Blacks” and “systemic racism” in this country is a big lie – one worthy of premier propagandists like Edward Bernays and his spiritual protégé, Josef Goebbels. Don’t take my word for it – it’ll be dismissed as coming from a White male, in Progressive-speak meaning that it is to be summarily dismissed. So instead, consider the words of intellectually honest Blacks, such as Candace Owens (here  and here) and Larry Elder (here and here).

When you have big lies developed, distributed and adhered to, notwithstanding contrary evidence, you have an underlying agenda – one that may be shrouded even from the public operatives perpetuating the big lies.

Continue reading

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

5 reasons why Prince Harry is stupid

Prince Harry, 35, is not the brightest bulb.

Reporting for The Guardian on May 10, 2005, Steven Morris wrote:

Former teachers of Prince Harry at Eton College helped him cheat in his A-level art course because he was such a weak student, a tribunal was told yesterday.

One teacher allegedly prepared explanatory text to go with images produced by Harry while a second helped the prince insert the lines into a project.

The head of art at Eton also allegedly completed work for Harry which was later published in newspapers around the world.

As the prince began army officer training at Sandhurst yesterday, one of his former teachers, Sarah Forsyth, was claiming that his art exam result, which helped him get into the elite college, was flawed.

Ms Forsyth told an employment tribunal, where she is claiming unfair dismissal, that the evening before a moderator was due at the school to look at the students’ AS-level work – which counts towards their A-level grade – she was asked by the head of art, Ian Burke, to prepare text to go with some of Harry’s work for his Expressive Project, in which a pupil is required to explain some of his work and relate it to that of great artists.

Ms Forsyth said she was “profoundly shocked”, adding: “I was concerned that this was unethical and probably constituted cheating.”

She told the tribunal at Reading, Berkshire: “I assumed I had been asked to do this because Prince Harry was a weak student.”

Ms Forsyth, 30, said Harry’s failings as a student were well known at Eton and she had been told that a teacher who marked Harry’s entrance exam had been “desperate” to find points for which he could award marks.

She claims she was too frightened to disobey Mr Burke and did what was asked of her….

In a witness statement put before the tribunal, Ms Forsyth claimed Mr Burke finished off work for Harry which “featured in the newspapers”.

She did not specify in the statement which pictures she was referring to, but in June 2003 a photograph of Harry with two of his screen prints inspired by Aboriginal designs and colours was released to the media.

Prince Harry and Eton, of course, vehemently denied he’d cheated, but we now have clear evidence that he indeed is IQ-challenged.

Reason #1:

On New Year’s Eve, Harry was pranked by two phone calls from Russian hoaxers, Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov, pretending to be Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager whom the Left idolize as their new climate change guru.

How stupid must you be to believe that a man with a Russian accent is a Swedish teenage girl?

Reason #2:

In one of the phone calls, Fake Greta told Harry mining companies close to evil orange-man President Trump were exploiting a tropical island, Chunga-Changa.

Fake Greta: “Have you heard something about Chunga-Changa’s struggle. We’ve been there it is really terrible, have you heard something about it? Interesting.”

Harry: “I actually haven’t because I don’t really look at news anymore. That starts my day badly and finishes my day badly. I think it’s a very good idea.”

Chunga-Changa is the name of a Russian children’s song about a tropical island that doesn’t exist and where it is summer all year.

Reasons #3 & 4:

Harry was also pranked into promising to help move penguins from Belarus “to their native land, the North Pole” (The Sun):

Fake Greta: “Now we are dealing with an issue of moving penguins from Belarus to their native land, the North Pole. About 50 penguins were stuck at customs in Belarus. That’s terrible. And we are searching for some ship maybe to transport these poor penguins to their native land.”

Fake Greta’s fake dad: “North Pole…perhaps you have some contacts for people who can help us?”

Harry: “I do have a man who deals with the North Pole. He is in Norway, he can help as maybe he knows all the right people. I’ll give you the contacts on email.”

To begin, Belarus is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe. It has no sea port with ships that can transport the “poor penguins” to the North Pole or anywhere.

Then there is the matter of the penguins. The North Pole is not penguins’ native land. Penguins are native to Antarctica, which Harry should know because in 2013, he had participated in a charity trek to the South Pole. 

Reason #5:

In the hoax phonecall, Harry also trashed President Trump, calling Trump stupid, with “blood on his hands” because of his stance on climate change. He told fake Greta (Daily Mail):

“The mere fact that Donald Trump is pushing the coal industry is so big in America, he has blood on his hands. But Trump will want to meet you to make him look better but he won’t want to have a discussion about climate change with you because you will outsmart him.”

Although Harry thinks President Trump to “have blood on his hands” and his grifter wife Meghan Markle called Trump a misogynist and the pair had said they didn’t want to live in LA until Trump leaves office, that didn’t stop the opportunists from leaving Canada to settle precisely in Los Angeles.

Page Six reported on March 27, 2020, that the couple left their $14 million bolthole in Canada where they were couch-surfing and took a private jet to the Los Angeles area (where they are now couch-surfing in a mansion owned by director-producer Tyler Perry) after President Trump and Canadian PM Trudeau announced the borders were closing amid the coronavirus crisis.

Reportedly, the pair may need to ask Trump for “special help” for security protection because the UK taxpayer will no longer fund their guards following their decision to step down as senior royals. Had they remained part of the British royal family, they would have been entitled to protection from U.S. Secret Service agents during their time in America.

See “Prince Harry and Meghan quit Royal Family” and “Harry & Meghan Markle lose in duel with the Queen

How stupid must you be to trash-talk the President of the very country you’re moving to, from whom you hope to secure protective guards.

President Trump lost no time in saying no to U.S. taxpayers paying for the toxic duo’s security protection. He tweeted on March 29:

“I am a great friend and admirer of the Queen & the United Kingdom. It was reported that Harry and Meghan, who left the Kingdom, would reside permanently in Canada. Now they have left Canada for the U.S. however, the U.S. will not pay for their security protection. They must pay!”

There is a petition that U.S. taxpayers not pay for Harry and Meghan’s $20 million security. The petition is aiming for 5,000 signatures; 3,539 people have signed. To sign the petition, go here.

There was also a White House petition to deny Harry a residency visa. Alas, the petition has received only 460 signatures and is now defunct.

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

 

More stupidity from social media: “Skull-Breaker Challenge”

There was the Tidepod challenge, the #cheesedchallenge (throwing cheese at babies), no lackin challenge, cinnamon challenge, condom snorting, among others.

Apparently there’s a new challenge, Skull-Breaker Challenge,” that involves two people tricking one of their friends into standing side-by-side with them and jumping. Then, they kick his legs out from under him and send him crashing to the floor.

As you can guess, this is very dangerous. Watch the video:

What a horrible thing to do to someone.

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

 

Poor Bernie Bro supporters are FORCED to participate in capitalism

Always the victim…

Heaven forbid one of the Bernie Sanders, socialist-loving fools think for themselves on how they can survive in America without being FORCED to participate in the system that so many foreigners flock to for a better life.

Here’s a couple hints on how to remove yourself from this FORCED system:

Ditch your capitalism-made Smartphone. You CAN survive without checking how many likes your most-recent Instagram post received. You DON’T need Facebook to filter #fakenews. No one will die if they don’t see your most recent tweet. The world will not end if you are cut off from social media. If you need to communicate electronically, use the community-owned computer at your local library.

Get rid of your fossil fuel car. Most of the Bernie Bros have probably already done this and use public transportation or Uber (no fossil fuel vehicles, of course). In order to better the community, one must eliminate the private-vehicle methods of transportation. Better yet, make sure your transportation method eliminates the amount of capitalism-made vehicles on the road: Use the “passenger-garbage-trucks” method that Venezuelans enjoys!

Venezuela’s efficient transportation method!

Get off the grid. What do you need electricity for anyway (you don’t need to power that capitalism-made Smartphone)? Don’t you want to save the environment? After all, if North Koreans can survive on only a few hours a day worth of electricity, can’t you do the same in socialist-solidarity with them?

North Korea doing their part to save the environment…

Embrace the Medicare for All: Since Obamacare didn’t solve America’s health care crisis, socialized healthcare MUST be the solution. Because you deem healthcare as a right, that means a socialized system will be better, correct? I know the capitalism-run healthcare industry isn’t perfect yet you Bernie Bros are resourceful folk. In order to benefit the community, make sure to plan for your next hospital visit and bring your go-to hospital bag: One that is ready, waiting and nearby stocked with pillows, sheets and medicine.

A lovely and beautiful socialized hospital in socialist Cuba

Learn how to grow a garden. Grow your own food instead of buying it at that evil WalMart! Plus with the inevitable mismanagement of a government-run economy, food will become scarce. Tilling and planting seeds will become a valuable skill. Better yet, in order to save the environment you can acquire a taste for bugs. Or zoo animals.

Then there’s always this option: MOVE. Take your socialism-loving butt to Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea. No one is holding you here at gun point. You’re free to leave whenever your heart desires.

You can survive dipsh*t, without being FORCED to participate in our capitalism. Get back to me after you’ve tried my suggested methods and let me know how much you enjoyed the socialist methods.

I eagerly await to hear about your enlightened experiences.

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

 

When a Bernie Bro tweets…

From the Twitter timeline of a Bernie Bro supporter in their early 20s. This is an apparent attempt at humor yet I don’t think it makes the point they are hoping it makes…

Shot:

Chaser: (tweeted right before the above tweet):

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

 

Protester says ban assault weapons, including “any gun that isn’t a pistol”

A reminder from a couple years ago of the major STUPIDITY coming from those who know NOTHING about firearms.

Skip ahead to the 1:36 mark to hear one protestor’s brilliant solution.

I can’t even with these people…

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

 

Are they on crack? Elle Magazine writes, “I Only Want To Dress Like Bernie Sanders From Now On”

Elle Magazine tweeted this yesterday with an adoring article entitled, “Grandpa Slacks Are the New Dad Jeans.”

The author of this crap is Justine Carreon, Market Editor for Elle. She starts out as follows:

“When you think of style icons, Bernie Sanders is probably low on your list. I’m not referencing campaign trail Bernie, with his hypebeast parka and sleek navy suit. I’m all about Bernie off-duty: the one who visits Ariana Grande concerts or walks around in stained button downs. His style should be dissected with the same fervor we approach female politicians. Feel the Bern, because at a second glance, his style is, looks at notes, cool. Canceling student debt is nice and all, but let’s praise his presidential crusade for the next it-pant: grandpa slacks.”

More of this garbage:

“But let’s talk about his slacks. These are of the pleated-front variety, much to the dismay of modern menswear enthusiasts. Fabrics vary, but they are often itchy wool or military-grade gabardine. The color of said pants should be muted, nothing garish or loud; stay in the range of easy-to-chew shades and by that I mean oatmeal, meatloaf, or roasted squash. These are not, and I cannot stress this enough, sexy. These tailored trousers are perfect, but they aren’t exactly flattering. The wide-leg fit should flow away from the body, and in no way will your ass be supported. Grandpa would never.”

You can read the whole amazing article here.

There’s only one reason for this nonsense: A socialist-loving millennial is so delusional about all the “free” stuff Bernie is promising, that their sense of fashion style has been “berned.”

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

 

Bernie Sander’s effect on millennials: Doomsday, economic warfare and MASSIVE stupidity

I don’t know why I do this to myself. Sometimes I get on Twitter and peruse the tweets of Bernie Sanders supporters.

It’s hysterical at first, then dumbfounding and then you realize it’s really, really sad. It’s a reflection of our government indoctrination system and the cesspool that is social media.

It’s also a reflection, I think, of a couple other areas: 1) Demorat’s desire to be stuck in perpetual victimhood mode, 2) a lack of personal drive and responsibility for creating your own wealth and happiness, 3) a fanatical interest in being able to control how other people use their money and 4) when you combine the first three factors you have to come up with a fourth: envy.

So I stumbled upon the Twitter account the other night by a millennial who goes by the name of “electronic piss.”

Here’s her gem of a tweet: “2020 the year we make it completely socially unacceptable to stan/look up to people who are literally committing genocide by choosing not to redistribute their wealth.”

en

“Electronic piss” had retweeted a Time editor’s tweet with the following pictures and caption, “Nothing more needs to be said:”

Pro tip: Don’t go to the “electronic piss” Twitter timeline unless you are willing to read extremely sexual tweets and a serious amount of stupidity.

First of all, can you demorats pick a firm number of years for when we are to expire without a complete redistribution of everyone’s money? Is the world ending in 12 years or 20 before rich people cough up enough money for your scam? I’d like to mark the end date on my calendar, thanks.

Secondly, there’s a LOT of demorats on the list of the richest folk in the world. There’s even one white, demorat man running to be your president! Why aren’t you demanding those demorats give up all their monies in the name of your climate emergency cause?

Third: Since there’s a lot of Chinese people on that list of the evil rich who must redistribute their wealth to save the planet, when are you (and take that selective-mute Greta with you) going to go to Hong Kong to protest climate change?

If Bernie Sanders and his supporters truly believe in the “great planetary crisis we now face,” then how do they justify his owning three homes? By his “offsetting” carbon emissions?

Remember: Any answer given will be mental gymnastics because liberal logic isn’t designed to make sense.

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