Never forget! #Sheriff's stood by like pu$$ie$ for the last 7 years of #riots and #DomesticTerrorism.
The #blue never backed you.
They helped shut down businesses.
They helped governors kill the young and old.
They helped kidnap and extort you for not wearing a mask. #BackTheBlue
The #DomesticTerrorists would actually be completely powerless, if "#LawEnforcement" wasn't aiding and abetting, hindering prosecution, and failing and refusing to do their duties as the law dictates.
Interesting to think about... who's the real #EnemyOfThePeople here? 🤔
I wouldn't be facing false charges or be maliciously prosecuted to attempt to hide their embarrassing criminal conduct(already exposed for all to see), if #LawEnforcement did their duty.
I wouldn't have even been able to expose the widespread corruption, had they done their job.
At this point, based on the misconduct, criminal activity, and blatant disregard for the law and constitution, I have far more than "reasonable belief" and in fact have multiple articulated facts documented on public record according to the ORICO/FED racketeering definitions.
Having all of those elements and their value being exculpatory regardless of their willingness to acknowledge them and them having notice of all I've just mentioned and my future intentions, means they have to knowingly and intentionally attempt to kidnap me to try me illegally.
Then they still can't even get rid of all of the documented evidence, because I'm not the only one with it, which really means I'm irrelevant in the end when it comes to whether or not they're held accountable to the evidence. Getting rid of me does nothing for them.
🐸⚔️🇺🇲⚔️🐸
Cops, DA's, judges, defense attorneys. All must act according to law.
Attorneys must act on *informed consent* and in accordance with law and RPC.
That means, if you demand they defend you according the laws that incriminate them for their conduct leading to arrest, they can't.
If attorneys *know or reasonably should know" how to defend you according to law and rules, then they cannot defend you outside of those restraints, nor can they prosecute, nor demand you follow their unlawful orders(including court orders deemed unlawful by law/ precedent).
Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys all have the same rules of professional conduct.
There is no law/ rule that dictates *only* law enforcement and BAR members are capable of comprehending and therefore presenting as justification, the laws or Rules of prof. Conduct.
The plaintiff is receiving federal financial assistance through the PPP, at the same time breaking federal law with a long standing pride in so doing. And will continue, with the @EugenePolice helping her due to their own embarrassment and incompetence, Extorting the innocent.
lanecounty.org/government/cou… @LaneCountyDA Patricia, your policy documents are online and your office didn't even follow the charging policy.
Video 1: officers self incriminate.
Video 2: incriminated officers then hinder prosecution.
^Those are discriminatory wordings on signage against Conscientious Objection and Religious Preference, as they infer/imply that you will be denied access or rec. negative actions in some form, which is a violation of ORS 659A.030 >>
The creation of these signs in obvious conflict with 659A.030, makes any/every OR employee and employer de facto guilty of 164.075, extortion of rights(intangible property) by implying legal or otherwise negative consequence, if your rights are not submitted.
ORS law leaves NO ROOM for these kind of errors, and by def. creates de facto criminals out of Off.Misconduct, BECAUSE EVERY1 SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ CLEAR AND SIMPLE WORDING, AND FOLLOW POLICY AND LAW.
If you cannot, you by admission of self, do your job as you are incompetent.
Use this example. Start draining the state budget through hate crime lawsuits and charges until the sheriff's act. IT'S THE LAW.
@WCSOOregon You guys catching on yet? @ClackCoSheriff@MCSOInTheKnow@MultCoSO
The same ORS applies to all of you.
All employee and employer is criminally liable for hate crimes until YOU ACT SINCE YOU WONT LET ME. Which is a violation of HINDERING since I AM JUSTIFIED 161.195.