Category Archives: Planned Parenthood

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
 

Why does Melinda Gates wear an upside-down cross?

Melinda Gates, 55, is the wife of Microsoft co-founder and its former chairman, CEO, and president Bill Gates, 64. A former general manager herself at Microsoft, Melinda and Bill in 2000 co-founded the powerful Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest private charitable organization as of 2015. Melinda has consistently been ranked as one of the world’s most powerful women by Forbes.

The Gates are Democrats. Both were suggested as possible vice-presidential picks in the 2016 presidential election, according to an email from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, which was obtained and published by WikiLeaks. (Time)

Melinda Gates is also a Roman Catholic. In 2014, Bill told Rolling Stone magazine that he and Melinda raised their three children as Catholics, the family goes to a Catholic church, and that religious morality inspires a lot of his charity work.

Melinda Gates’ Catholicism goes against the Gates Foundation’s funding, until 2013, of abortion by donating $71 million to Planned Parenthood and affiliated organizations. In 2014, she said that the foundation “has decided not to fund abortion”, focusing instead on family planning and contraception in order to avoid conflation of abortion and family planning. (Wikipedia)

Then there is the matter of Melinda’s jewelry.

Longtime FOTM reader/commenter Lola sent me this pic of Melinda Gates wearing a necklace with a pendant that’s an upside-down cross.

The pic is a screenshot taken from a video of Melinda’s appearance on an NBC “Today” show on May 8, 2020:

The upside-down or inverted cross is a symbol that stems from the martyrdom of St. Peter the Apsotle. Catholic tradition is that when the Romans sentenced Peter to death by crucifixion, he requested that his cross be upside down, as he felt unworthy of being crucified in the same manner as his Lord and savior Jesus Christ. That is why there are images of the Pope wearing the inverted or Petrine Cross because the Pope is the successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome.

However, in our times, the upside-down cross has been co-opted by satanists to mock Christ’s crucifixion, just as the Black Mass is an inverted mockery of the Catholic Mass.

So the question is: Given the upside-down cross having become a satanic symbol, why would Melinda Gates, a self-professed Catholic, wear that as jewelry? Why not a regular, rightside-up cross instead?

There’s also something else that’s disturbing about Melinda’s appearance.

Twitterer @Inevitable_ET posted comparison pics of Bill and Melinda, past and present, which show Melinda looking very different from what she was before. She now has a bigger and fatter nose, which can’t be from weight gain. She also looks like a man in drag.

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
 

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
 

Coronavirus ‘superspreaders’ lick toilet seats & subway poles, cough on people, drink from bottles in supermarket

Never underestimate the human disposition to be stupid and evil.

Remember this Iranian man licking the Islamic shrine in Qom, Iran — a country that is a hotbed of the Wuhan virus, claiming he wanted to catch, and spread, COVID-19?

 

Here in the United States, people are encouraged by a new social media fad called the “coronavirus challenge” to lick toilet seats and other public surfaces in order to spread the virus.

As examples, on March 14, 2020, Ava Louise, a 21-year-old white woman who fancies herself a social media “influencer,” posted a video of herself licking the toilet seat on a plane, with the the caption “Please RT this so people can know how to properly be sanitary on the airplane.”

On March 19, this video was posted on Twitter showing a young black man licking a pole on a subway train while a white dude who was sitting nearby wearing a mask moves away.

On March 22, another video was posted on Twitter of a young white man licking items on a shelf in Walmart and saying, “Who’s afraid of coronavirus?”.

The man was later identified as 26-year-old Cody Pfister of Warrenton, Missiouri, who was arrested on terror charges. Court documents say Pfister “knowingly caused a false belief or fear that a condition involving danger to life existed” and accuse him of acting with “reckless disregard of the risk causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion”. (Metro)

On April 2, another video was posted to Twitter showing another young black male sipping from three different bottles of juice, then returning them to the supermarket shelf.

Other incidents of “super spreaders” include:

  • A Planned Parenthood worker in Pittsburgh, PA, intentionally coughed on pro-lifers praying outside the abortion clinic. (LifeNews)
  • In the UK, three teens were arrested for coughing at an elderly couple, leading to an altercation on the street. (Metro)
  • The manager of a grocery store in Wisconsin called police after a woman licked the door handle to a freezer. (Metro)
  • A man was arrested in Belgium for licking his fingers and wiping them on a vertical, public-transport handrail. (Metro)
  • A YouTuber who licked a toilet seat to “raise awareness” of coronavirus subsequently claimed he was hospitalized with COVID-19 before being banned by Twitter. (InfoWars)

~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
 

Pro-abort British actress claims that if it isn’t your uterus, it isn’t your opinion

Last May I told you about a British actress Jameela Jamil who took to Twitter to let everyone know that her abortion was “the best decision I have ever made.”

She’s still yapping on about her abortion for some reason. This time she’s making it clear that you will listen to her choice yet are not entitled to have an opinion because it’s HER uterus.

Wrong.

Girlfriend needs a Cambridge dictionary. Opinion, noun: A thought or belief about something or someone; A judgment about someone or something.

Here’s another definition for ya, honey:

From the pro-abort’s January 22 Instagram post:

My abortion saved MY life. And MY life is my priority. And I am not in the tiniest bit sorry. I wasn’t emotionally, physically or financially stable enough to undergo pregnancy and birth, nor was I ready to go through the trauma of forced motherhood or the potentially extremely traumatic experience of giving a baby away. So I had an abortion, which was painless, quick and I have remained nothing but RELIEVED ever since.

I had a fetus interrupted before it was able to grow into a person, and I took my life back. As a result I am a happier and more stable human, in better physical health for my decision. I also have my independence and sense of complete autonomy. We have to protect this absolute right for those with uteruses. We are not ovens to bake humanity in. We have dreams, we have needs, we have lives of our own to navigate that are hard enough without this HEIGHT of oppression. If we roll back on this, birth control will be next, and then we are on a slippery slope back to the dark ages.

I can’t f*cking believe we are still having this conversation when 77% of Americans say they don’t want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. (No link provided to backup that stat.)

The new short film “Ours to Tell” is a call for compassion and shows us the world we’re fighting for — one where ALL people have FREEDOM over their own bodies.

Watch. Share. And stand up for abortion access. Full film: ourstotell.org — link in bio. #OursToTell #ROEvsWADE TAG THESE HANDLES: @PPFA @WeTestify”

I know the concept of free speech may be tough for some Brits to grasp. Since she’s decided to make a career in America, I got a quick history lesson for her:

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
 

Olay teams up with pro-aborts to #MakeSpaceForWomen

Olay, owned by the progressive-run Procter & Gamble, has teamed up with several liberals to promote a Super Bowl ad that advances women in space. Biased journalist Katie Couric tweeted the following ad promotion:

“I’m so excited to be teaming up with @BusyPhilipps @TherealTaraji @Lilly @Astro_Nicole for @olayskin’s female-led #SuperBowl ad! Olay is making an impact by donating $1 to @girlswhocode for every tweet that uses #MakeSpaceForWomen! #ad”

So how do the women participating in this Olay ad “make space for women?”

By promoting the murder of innocent girls in the womb.

Actress Busy Philipps has long been a proponent of abortion. Last year she discussed how she was “genuinely really scared for women and girls all over this country” because of Georgia’s abortion bill. She had an abortion at 15 and “can not [sic] sit idly by while women’s rights are stripped away.”

Kind of hard to #MakeSpaceForWomen while stripping their right to life away from them in the womb.

Katie Couric (l) and Cecile Richards (r)

Back in 2017, long-time left-wing “journalist” Katie Couric fawned over then “badass” Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. From Newsbusters:

Katie Couric unabashedly abandoned her “journalist” cover earlier this week to show solidarity for America’s largest abortion provider. On Wednesday, anchor Katie Couric interviewed “badass” Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards and author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie on “How to Raise a Feminist” at the Women in the World Summit held in New York City. Much of the conversation focused on Planned Parenthood, now “under siege” and “assault” in the political world.”

The irony from the introduction at this summit on how to define a feminist? “A child given every opportunity to pursue his or her dreams regardless of gender norms.”

Kind of hard to #MakeSpaceForWomen to be given an opportunity to pursue her dreams if she’s murdered in the womb.

But that’s liberal logic for ‘ya: It’s not 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
 

Fall of the West: Christian graffiti in Russia, while NY art museum hosts exhibit glorifying abortion

When the Communist Party came to power in 1917, Christianity was suppressed in the officially-atheist Soviet Union.

But after the collapse of communism, the people of Russia have brought back Christianity in the form of the traditional Russian Orthodox Church.

In Moscow and elsewhere, unlike the ugly rubbish graffiti that blight American cities, Russian graffiti artists like Aleksandr Tsypkov and Anton Belikov are spray-painting bridges and underpasses with beautiful Christian icons because they believe that everyone, not just church-goers, should be able to see religious art. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)

For a video of the Russian graffiti from which I took the above screenshots, go here.

Meanwhile, the Arsenal Contemporary Art museum in Brooklyn, New York, is hosting an “art” exhibit titled “Abortion is Normal,” with proceeds going to Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider.

As reported by LifeSiteNews:

Proceeds from the event will go to Planned Parenthood’s 2020 campaign spending as well as “voter education and advocacy” efforts….

The Abortion Is Normal website, a Bloomberg highlight video, and a Daily Beast report display and describe several examples of the event’s “art,” much of which is sexual in nature. There are nude photographs and paintings, figures bearing “Thank God for Abortion” shirts, paintings of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and various simple displays of rudimentary written slogans and buzzwords, like “Choice” and “Dear Judge Kavanaugh, if you don’t like abortions don’t get one.”

Below is one of the “art” exhibits:

To sign a petition telling Arsenal museum that abortion in NOT normal, go here. The signature call in 20,000. As of this morning, 15,125 people have signed the petition.

~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
 

The liberal logic of Gov. “Coonman” Northam

Last night I decided to checkout Coonman’s Twitter timeline to see what he was saying about gun rights in Virginia.

Instead I was given an opportunity to see some of his liberal logic on display regarding abortion and children.

He retweeted his wife’s tweet (from 1/2019): “For the next four years @RalphNortham and I look forward to working to make a difference in the lives of children. To me that is what #TheWayAhead is all about. Let’s start at the beginning with our greatest treasure. Our children.

Following that, Coonman retweeted Senator Saslaw’s tweet: “As my friend, @RalphNortham, would say. There’s no excuse that a group of legislators, most of whom are men, should be telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. In response to a retweet of this: NARAL Pro-Choice VA @NARALVirginia: “.@SenatorLocke and @JennMcClellanVA bills to repeal some TRAP restrictions were rolled together by the Education & Health Committee and will now be voted on as one. @SenatorLocke: “Women know what they’re doing.” #REPEALAct

I guess the only children we should treasure are the ones women deem are #TheWayAhead.

Liberal logic: It’s not designed to make sense.

See also “VA anti-gun rights Gov. Northam (D) declares state of emergency

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
 

Pregnant pro-abort actress Michelle Williams calls on women to “vote in your own self-interests”

I thought libtards were all about the “greater good?”

But now we should be voting for our own self interests? I practice that as I vote for less taxes, smaller government and against ANYONE who wants to limit my Second Amendment rights.

But that’s really not what actress Michelle Williams is advocating for in her Golden Globes award acceptance speech. What she is really advocating for is Planned Parenthood and their golden goose of abortion.

She starred in a movie called, “This is Jane,” which was based on the book ‘The Story of Jane: The Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service.’

The book is about how an illegal clinic was set up by a group of ladies who learned how to perform abortions and ran from 1968 to 1973 to help women who need safe terminations, whilst also providing counseling and emotional support. From Amazon (no details of the actual content of the book are provided, just reviews):

“During the four years before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973, the 100 members of Jane helped some 11,000 women end their pregnancies….There is more in this remarkable book that will further raise eyebrows….Kaplan’s engrossing tales of the quiet courage of the women who risked their reputations and freedom to help others may remind many readers of other kinds of outlaws who have resisted tyranny throughout history.”—Chicago Sun-Times

“[Kaplan] draws on her personal recollections and interviews with Jane members and clients and the doctors who performed the abortions to provide a well-written, detailed history of this radical group.”—Publisher’s Weekly

FYI: This womyn is PREGNANT. She basically says she wouldn’t have won this award if she hadn’t had an abortion in order to get her career started. You know, that “self-interest” thing.

This is why we despise the hypocritical and sanctimonious Hollyweird.

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
 

Gloria Steinem: Hanoi Jane’s TDS-infected, pro-abort hypocrite buddy

First it was libtard Sally Field joining Hanoi Jane at her Friday DC protests. She’s a critical part of the fight for green jobs, y’all.

Now feminist Gloria Steinem is the latest to join Hanoi Jane in her environmental protests PR stunts in DC. Apparently she believes we need government action on the environment and a reduction in fossil fuel production.

Steinem lives in NYC. Along with being in DC to get arrested on Friday, let’s take a look and see where the pro-abort Gloria Steinem has been lately, shall we?

According to her Instagram posts, Steinem has been in the following locations:

November 22: In Bellingham, WA at the Mount Baker Theatre for some event associated with Planned Parenthood
November 7: At a women’s center at Vanderbilt University for a Bumble event in Nashville, TN
November 1: A book “celebration” at The Theater at Ace Hotel DTLA in Los Angeles, CA
October 31: Receiving the Freedom Award from The National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, TN

Committed to fossil fuel reduction: Steinem’s book tour travel schedule

And here’s part of the reason Steinem recently traveled across the country:

October 18: On the road again… Then, it was to cover Governor Rockefeller for NYMag; this time it is to promote my new book, The Truth Will Set You Free, But First It Will Piss You Off! I will be traveling across the country and speaking with friends along the way. The tour kicks off with an official book launch on November 5th at @pioneerworks in NYC, where I will be joined by @ronanfarrow and @vibetheater. Hope to see you there.”

Wonder how much of that fossil fuel production Steinem used in her travels across the country to promote her book?

Typical leftist hypocrite.

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