Category Archives: Muslim refugees

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
 

Shocking: This is England!

A protest on Regent St. in London, UK:

Kalergi Plan, any one?

See:

~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
 

Texas first state to opt out of federal refugee resettlement program

Syrian refugees (Photo credit: Lynsey Addario/NYT)

On September 26, 2019, President Trump signed Executive Order 13888 requiring federal refugee resettlement agencies to get written consent from state and local officials in any jurisdiction where they want to resettle refugees beyond June 2020. As the Executive Order on Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement stipulates:

In resettling refugees into American communities, it is the policy of the United States to cooperate and consult with State and local governments, to take into account the preferences of State governments, and to provide a pathway for refugees to become self-sufficient.

Not only must the Federal Government consult with State and local governments, they must be “be respectful of those communities that may not be able to accommodate refugee resettlement” because State and local governments are best positioned to know the resources and capacities they may or may not have available to devote to sustainable resettlement.

Trump’s executive order also cut the number of refugees allowed into the country for the 2020 fiscal year to a historic low of 18,000. About 30,000 refugees were resettled in the U.S. during the previous fiscal year.

Texas has large refugee populations in several of its cities and has long been a leader in settling refugees, taking in more than any other state during the 2018 governmental fiscal year, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Since the 2002 fiscal year, Texas has resettled an estimated 88,300 refugees, second only to California, according to the Pew Research Center.

Danielle Wallace reports for Fox News that yesterday, Texas became the first state to opt out of the federal refugee resettlement program — a move made possible by Trump’s executive order.

In a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Texas’ Republican Gov. Greg Abbott says Texas “has carried more than its share” in refugee resettlement. Since FY 2010, Texas has taken in more refugees than any other state — about 10% of all refugees resettled in the United States. But in accepting and resettling those refugees, Texas has had no help from the federal government, but “has been left by Congress to deal with disproportionate migration issues resulting from a broken federal immigration system.”

In addition, Abbott pointed out that, according to federal numbers, about 100,000 migrants have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border into Texas since May 2018, who included migrants from China, Iran, Kenya, Russia and Tonga.

Citing “a responsibility to dedicate available resources to those who are already here,” including refugees, migrants, the homeless, and “all Texans,” Abbott says Texas “cannot consent to initial refugee resettlement for FY 2020.” But Texas’ opting out of the initial refugee resettlement program for the 2020 fiscal year does not deny any refugee access to the U.S., nor does it prevent any refugee from later coming to Texas after initially settling in another state.

However, the Democrat mayors of major Texas metropolitan areas, including San Antonio, Dallas and Houston, sent the federal government letters saying they remain willing to welcome refugees despite the state action. As an example, Democrat mayor of Houston Sylvester Turner said in a statement: “Regardless of where someone is from, who they are or what they believe, there is a home for them in Houston. Our welcoming spirit has led to our city becoming the national leader in refugee resettlement.”

Governors in 42 other states have said they will consent to allowing in more refugees, according to the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which works with local agencies throughout the U.S. to resettle refugees. The governors not yet on the record are all Republicans — from Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina and Wyoming.

Abbott’s letter enraged Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Somali immigrant, who earlier in the week had decried a similar move by county-level officials in her home state of Minnesota that was also facilitated by Trump’s executive order. Omar tweeted the Statue of Liberty’s “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,” and vowed “We shall overcome!”.

~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
 

Rotten fruit of Europe’s open-door policy: New Year’s Eve riot in EU capital Brussels

For some time now, Fellowship of the Minds hasn’t posted much on Muslim shenanigans in Europe, but that doesn’t mean all is peaceful and quiet.

Here’s a recent whopper of an incident when some 50-60,000 people took part in the New Year celebrations at the Atomium, a landmark building in Brussels, originally constructed for the 1958 Brussels World Expo. Brussels is the capital of Belgium and the de facto capital of the European Union (EU).

Sarah Crew reports for The Bulletin that on New Year’s Eve, Dec. 31, 2019, “disturbances” in Brussels involved:

  • The throwing of projectiles.
  • A tram that had its windows broken.
  • A damaged bus shelter.
  • 82 bins, 19 cars, two mopeds, and 9 apartments set on fire.
  • A collapse balcony in Schaerbeek while people were standing on it.
  • 165 emergency calls for medical assistance; 50 to homes and 115 to public streets.
  • A 21-year-old man with a serious knife wound.
  • During the firework display at the Atomium, there were 23 responses and 10 ambulance transfers. This was in addition to 60 interventions and five ambulance transfers during the celebrations at Palais 10 and 12 in Heysel.
  • Police made 185 administrative and 26 judicial arrests.
  • By the next (New Year) morning, six people were charged by the Brussels prosecutor — three were accused of theft, the other three were charged with domestic violence.
  • Police had set up a taskforce to identify the perpetrators of the “disturbances” and called on the public, media and local businesses to share any images they have. Spokesperson Denis Goeman said, “The aim is to identify as many rioters as possible and to prosecute them in order to send the message that such acts are unacceptable and will not go unpunished.”

The New Year’s Eve violence was actually better handled and coordinated by the police, after criticism of police handling of New Year’s Eve violence in 2019, which included riots in Molenbeek.

Brussels-Ixelles police spokesperson Olivier Slosse said police coordination worked well, “Fire services were able to work in total security. These are dramatic figures, but police quickly intervened in very different areas. The situations did not have time to gain momentum in the same place. We have the impression that we managed to prevent the situation from escalating to the point of last year.”

@DVATW tweeted this video of the New Year’s Eve “disturbances” in the EU capital:

The tweets in response to the video all say the rioters were Muslim “immigrants”. Below is a sample of the comments:

“When this same Mob were at the gates of Vienna in 1529 & 1683 it was called INVASION. Now it’s call the Diversification of Europe. Wake-Up!!!”

“Invite the 3rd world…….”

“Europe will crumble Europeans will perish Stringent border controls are a necessity in order for any chance of survival.”

“It is a problem all across Europe, and North America unfortunately and people need to reclaim the rights that are being eradicated by Globalist Government Officials by voting them out at each and every opportunity. The next step they will use against us is ‘declaring martial law’.”

“No doubt the MSM will be all over this tomorrow, no? Oh well”

~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
 

Virginia Democrat bill will eliminate suburban single-family housing zones

This is Democrat socialism-retribution and Agenda 21 all rolled into one tyrannical bill.

Elections have consequences.

Since last November 6’s election that gave control of Virginia’s entire state government to Democrats, the victors have been on a tear to impose gun control. See “Virginians form sanctuaries and militias against governor & state legislature gun grab“.

To the growing list of Virginia Democrats’ tyranny and malice should be added a bill that will change the character of quiet suburbs by overriding local zoning officials to legalize multi-family housing in every neighborhood currently zoned for single-family homes. 

On January 8, 2020, Virginia Assemblyman Ibraheem S. Samirah introduced House Bill no. 152 (HB-152), “A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a  section numbered 15.2-2292.2, relating to zoning two-family development on single-family lots,” which will change the suburbs by overriding local zoning officials to permit multi-family housing in all neighborhoods now zoned for single-family housing.

Born in Chicago, IL, of Palestinian parents, Ibraheem Samirah is a Democrat who was elected in February 2019 in a special election to the Virginia House of Delegates for the 86th district, which includes parts of Fairfax and Loudoun Counties in suburban Washington, D.C. Samirah was re-elected to a full-term in November 2019.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the U.S. government had banned from the U.S. for a decade Samirah’s father, Jordanian refugee Sabri Samirah, in part because of his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group. (Daily Caller)

Below is the available text of HB 152:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 15.2-2292.2 as follows:

12§ 15.2-2292.2. Two-family development allowed on lots zoned for single-family use.

All localities adopting a zoning ordinance under the provisions of this article shall allow development or redevelopment of middle housing residential units upon each lot zoned for single-family residential use. For purposes of this section, “middle housing” means a two-family residential unit, including duplexes, townhouses, cottages, and any similar structure by whatever name it may be known. Such structures shall not require a special use permit or be subjected to any other local requirements beyond those imposed upon other authorized residential uses. Localities may regulate the siting, design, and environmental standards of middle housing residential units, including setback requirements, provided that the regulations do not, individually or cumulatively, discourage the development of all middle housing types permitted through unreasonable costs or delay. Nothing in this section shall prohibit local governments from permitting (i) single-family dwellings in areas zoned to allow for single-family dwellings, or (ii) middle housing in areas not required under this section.

What HB 152 doesn’t say is that its definition of “middle housing” as any two-family residential unit, includes public housingIn a tweet on December 22, 2019, Samirah telegraphed his intention to put public housing units in single-family housing zones:

Important Q [question] about new social/public housing programs: where are we going to put the units?

Under current zoning, new low-income housing is relegated to underinvested neighborhoods, concentrating poverty more.

Ending exclusionary zoning has to be part of broader housing reform.

Samirah’s purpose for HB 152 is two-pronged:

(1) Retribution against “most white and wealthy” Virginians who are not aligned with the Democratic Party:

Samirah told the Daily Caller, “Single-family housing zones would become two-zoned. Areas that would be impacted most would be the suburbs that have not done their part in helping out…. Those are the areas that the state is having significant trouble dealing with. They’re living in a bubble.”

(2) Socialism — racial and class equality:

In response to a question about whether people who bought homes in spacious suburbs have valid, non-discriminaton reasons for preferring to live that way — including a love for nature and desire to preserve woods and streams — Samirah wrote on Facebook: “Caring about nature is very important, but the more dense a neighborhood is, the more energy efficient it is. Because middle housing is what’s most affordable for low-income people and people of color, banning that housing in well-off neighborhoods chalks up to modern-day redlining, locking folks out of areas with better access to schools, jobs, transit, and other services and amenities. I will certainly get pushback for this. Some will call it ‘state overreach.’ Some will express anxiety about neighborhood change. Some may even say that the supply issue doesn’t exist. But the research is clear: zoning is a barrier to more housing and integrated communities.”

Tim Hannigan, chairman of the Fairfax County Republican Committee, told the Daily Caller HB 152 “could completely change the character of suburban residential life, because of the urbanization that would develop. So much of the American dream is built upon this idea of finding a nice quiet place to raise your family, and that is under assault. This is a power-grab to take away the ability of local communities to establish their own zoning practices … literally trying to change the character of our communities.”

Other cities and states have passed bills similar to Virginia’s HB 152, including Oregon; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Austin, Texas; and Seattle, Washington.

H/t John Molloy

~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
 

Ain’t multiculturalism grand? Grooming ‘epidemic’ as almost 19,000 children identified as sexual exploitation victims in England

The faces of multiculturalism in England…

From The Independent: Almost 19,000 children have been sexually groomed in England in the past year, according to official figures that have prompted warnings of an “epidemic”.

Campaigners say the true figure is far higher and accused the government of failing to tackle child sexual exploitation, despite promises made after high-profile cases in Rotherham and Rochdale.

More than 18,700 suspected victims of child sexual exploitation were identified by local authorities in 2018-19, up from 3,300 five years before.

Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, said the figures show that grooming “remains one of the largest forms of child abuse in the country”.

“Too many times, government has said it will ‘learn lessons’, yet 19,000 children are still at risk of sexual exploitation,” she told The Independent.

The government has singularly failed to tackle this issue head on. Its approach has been piecemeal and underfunded.”

Sajid Javid promised a review into the characteristics of grooming gangs in 2018, saying high-profile cases included a “high proportion of men of Pakistani heritage” and that “cultural reasons” could be at play.

The Independent understands that the Home Office started internal analysis of data from police and other agencies, and will use it to inform policy development and prevention strategies.But the findings may not be published and the Queen’s Speech, which set out Boris Johnson’s legislative agenda, did not include any mention of a public review.

Several grooming gang investigations and prosecutions are ongoing across the country, including in Huddersfield where several abusers have already been jailed in a series of linked trials.

In Rotherham, where revelations over the abuse of an estimated 1,500 victims sparked a national scandal in 2012, the National Crime Agency has identified more than 190 suspects.

Sammy Woodhouse, a Rotherham victim who helped expose the scandal, said she is still receiving reports of current abuse in parts of the country. “You hear this bulls*** line, ‘lessons have been learned’, but they haven’t learned anything,” she told The Independent.

I still hear a lot about the authorities aren’t doing things as they should. It’s not very often I hear something good and for all different reasons – if the police won’t act on reports, people feel they’re not being listened to or supported properly, or information not being shared.”

Read the whole story here.

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
 

George Soros banned from 6 countries

Though he is 89 years old, George Soros — through his Open Society Foundations, to which he’s donated more than $32 billion — continues to foment turmoil, unrest and mischief across the world.

In the United States, Soros has/had his hand in the Antifa, the Ferguson race riots, the “caravans” of Central American “migrants,” and the “whistleblower” who ignited the Demonrats’ current efforts to impeach President Trump. In Europe, Soros is behind the flood of “refugees” and “migrants,” Ukraine, “climate change” activist Great Thunberg, and the Brexit chaos.

Some countries, however, have taken steps to expel and ban Soros, his operatives, and his Open Society. In chronological order, the six countries are:

  1. Pakistan
  2. Poland
  3. Turkey
  4. Russia
  5. Hungary
  6. Philippines

While not outright banning him, the Israeli government has said Soros is not welcome there.

The only question is why Soros still has not been banned from the United States.

Since August 2017, there is a “White House petition to declare George Soros a terrorist and seize all of his related organizations’ assets under RICO and NDAA law,” which has been signed by 197,385 people — enough to get a response from the White House. To sign the petition, go here.

~Eowyn

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

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Charges against Muslim man who killed Jewish teacher while chanting verses from the Koran are dropped because he was high

Sarah Halimi

There are so many aspects of this story that are just wrong. Just so wrong.

From Daily Mail: A Muslim man who killed a Jewish kindergarten teacher has had murder charges against him dropped after it was ruled he suffered a psychotic episode by smoking cannabis.

Kobili Traore, 29, is believed to have tortured Sarah Halimi with beatings for hours in her Paris apartment while reciting lines from the Koran on April 4, 2017.

The Mali immigrant then shoved the 65-year-old mother-of-three from the eleventh arrondissement building before reportedly yelling: ‘I’ve killed the Shaitan (devil)!’

Earlier this week (last week when this story was published) he admitted killing her but said he did not recognise when he broke in and claimed he was not aware of his actions.

‘I felt persecuted. When I saw the Torah and a chandelier in her home I felt oppressed. I saw her face transforming,’ he said according to The Jewish Chronicle.

Prosecutors disagreed over how to deal with the killer, with local ones initially calling for him to be tried but the senior procureur général saying he should be put in hospital.

Psychiatric examinations of the defendant, who claims to smoke up to 15 joints per day, found his mental functioning was impaired due to his cannabis intake.

Although three assessments determined Traore’s long-term drug habit had not inflicted him with mental illness, their verdicts differed insofar as his mental capacity during the killing.

A hearing on Wednesday heard Traoré shouted ‘a woman is trying to kill herself’ before he threw her from the balcony.

Lawyers for Ms. Halimi’s family claimed this proved he was mounting a defence from the beginning.

The defendant’s lawyer Thomas Bidnic said: ‘This is Sarah Halimi’s tragedy, her family’s tragedy and this boy’s tragedy, although I’m not comparing the two. Sending him to hospital is not ideal nor sending him to prison.

He admitted Traoré is ‘still a threat’ while he remains in a hospital getting limited medication.

A ruling on if he should face trial will be decided on December 19.

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
 

Italian government gives 3,700% more aid to ‘migrants’ than its own disabled citizens

Have you wondered why the Left support and ally with radical Islam, including working actively to promote and facilitate the importation of Muslim “refugees” into Europe and the U.S.?

The explanation for that strange and unholy alliance goes beyond the adage,  “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. As pointed out by Dr. Abdessamad Belhaj, a highly regarded scholar of Islam, the Left and Islam share affinities that are structural, not accidental:

  • For the Muslim migrants, the West is a source of economic goodies, including welfare.
  • For Western political elites, Muslim migrants are a means toward political power (via votes); a minimum-wage immigrant workforce with “an impulse” for consumerism, which is the opiate used by the state to control the masses; and globalization, which is why the elites denigrate and oppose nationalism, especially President Trump’s championing of America First and Make America Great Again.

See my posts, “Why the Left encourage the cancer of Muslim migrants” and “UN admits ‘refugees’ are ‘replacement migration’ for Europe and other low-fertility countries”.

Here’s yet another example and illustration of of the unholy alliance of the Left and Islam: Italy’s government gives 3,700% more welfare money to “migrants” than to its own disabled citizens.

Muslim migrants in Italy

Luca Sablone reports for il Giornale.it, January 11, 2019 (Google translation into English here), that each “migrant” is given about 20 Euros (U.S. $22.04) a day — €600 or $661.11 a month — whereas disabled Italian citizens get only 54 cents (€o.54 or $0.60) a day (€16.2o or $18 a month).

Note: By my calculation, “migrants” receive 3,700% more financial aid than disabled Italians.

There are about 3 million disabled people in Italy, 2 million of whom receive disability benefits or a pension. “In some cases, a monthly disability benefit of €1,000 does not allow us to lead a dignified life.”

According to the Jan. 11, 2019 edition of Libero, the government’s draft Budget Law included a Disability and Self-Reliance Fund, which allots €50 million for the year 2020, €200 million for 2021, and €300 million per year beginning 2022. Dividing this figure by Italy’s 3 million “non-ambulatory” disabled, that means the financial aid for every disabled person is 54 Euro-cents per day (€16.2 a month), which is insufficient to pay for even basic needs like transport or clothing.

Although Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, a Euroskeptic and member of the Northern League political party, reduced the welfare given to “migrants” from €35 to €21-22 a day, the gap between the financial aid given to “migrants” and that given to disabled Italians is still “truly absurd”.

Note: On 24 September 2018, Italy’s Council of Ministers approved the “Salvini Decree”, which contained a series of hardline measures, including the abolition of key forms of protection for migrants, making it easier for them to be deported; as well as the suspension of the refugee application process of migrants who are considered “socially dangerous” or who have been convicted of a crime. On September 5, 2019, Matteo Salvini stepped down as Deputy Prime Minister after announcing a motion of no-confidence against Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. Political analysts see Salvini’s motion as a move to force a snap election where Salvini could become the next Prime Minister of Italy. (Wikipedia).

H/t Paul Joseph Watson of Summit News

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
 

Returning from vacation, Amsterdam businessman found his property occupied by 40 migrants

The Dutch-language AT5 reports, August 19, 2019, that returning from vacation last week, Salih Ozcan, a businessman in Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands, got a big surprise.

First, he found piles of garbage in front of his business property in Westpoort, a borough of Amsterdam.

Inside was an even worse surprise.

Some 40 “migrants” of We Are Here — a group of failed or refused asylum seekers — were squatting inside the property that Ozcan intends for his car company. He had first rented out the space, but “a bad tenant” used it for growing weed. After he evicted the tenant, he had the building refurbished.

When Ozcan tried to enter his property, one of the migrants blocked his entrance, told him to leave the premises, and threatened to call the police.

Ozcan exclaimed incredulously: “Do I have to leave my own building ?!”

A bewildered Ozcan told AT5I am a small entrepreneur who uses this property for his business. Because of them, I now don’t have a business. It’s a very bad feeling. I have no words for it at all. I can understand those people somewhat, but they don’t understand me at all. Unbelievable that this is possible in the Netherlands.”

Referring to the piles of trash outside, Ozcan said: “This is too crazy for words. Only rats and mice come here.”

The police said the squatters would not be evacuated “as a matter of urgency” and that on average, a property owner has to wait six weeks to evict. 

Ozcan meanwhile has hired a lawyer.

H/t Paul Joseph Watson of Summit News

~Eowyn

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