Search This Blog

Sunday, January 23, 2022

When Can This Be Stopped: NY's Finest Jason Rivera and Wilbert Mora Shot In the Head While On Duty

 

Jason Rivera (left) and Wilbert More (right)
From Betsy Combier:

We believe in our nation's finest, the men and women who serve to protect us all. Defunding the police is nonsense, built up by hysterical people who in the end profited greatly from the sheeple who followed this insane road to social disorder.

Should officers of the law be given additional training? Absolutely, training in what to do in panic-driven situations where people with guns may be having mentally unstable episodes is a good place for taxpayer money. Let's do that, pronto.

Betsy Combier

They served us all: NYPD Officer Jason Rivera is dead and his partner Wilbert Mora is in critical condition because of an angry man with a stolen gun




First, we mourn. Angrily, we mourn. For a man wielding a gun stolen in Baltimore five years ago — a grotesque weapon with a high-capacity magazine holding up to 40 rounds — has cut down two of New York’s Finest. Jason Rivera, a 22-year-old rookie and son of Inwood who had written earnestly his desire to “better the relationship between the community and the police,” is dead. Wilbert Mora, just five years his senior, lies in critical condition at Harlem Hospital.

Two officers with careers of service ahead of them and a third partner were responding to a mother’s 911 domestic violence call about her son. As they headed down the hall after a brief conversation with her and another son, police say Lashawn McNeil came out shooting. The 47-year-old was on probation after a 2003 felony drug charge; he had four arrests in other states including assaulting a police officer in Pennsylvania and a North Carolina gun charge.

Fortunately, the third officer present shot and wounded the man who had just put bullets in his partners’ flesh.

There is a sickness in this city. Twenty-two days into 2022, Rivera and Mora are the fourth and fifth cops hit with gunfire. New York is awash with firearms, and crawling with people emboldened to believe they can squeeze the triggers and risk or take lives without facing serious, certain consequences.

And there is a still deeper sickness in this nation — when, even as there are already far too many weapons already in the hands of far too many criminals, the Supreme Court stands poised to invalidate New York’s strict gun laws, effectively allowing anyone to be legally armed anywhere.

As the city wipes its tears and channels its rage, it falls to Eric Adams, as suited to rise to this challenge as any mayor in recent memory, to lead the charge to staunch the flow of deadly weapons into the five boroughs — and, just as if not more critical, to ensure that those who demand those guns, who put bullets in their chambers and wantonly squeeze their triggers at civilians and cops, know that there will be hell to pay for the lives they destroy and the fear they instill. May his honor find willing, able allies in every quarter.


‘It’s a significant injury’: Surviving NYPD officer rushed to brain surgery after Harlem shooting, sources say
by Mary Murphy, PIX11, Jan. 22, 2022

HARLEM, Manhattan (PIX11) — Wilbert Mora, the 27-year-old police officer who was shot in the head Friday night, and survived the gunfire that killed a fellow officer, was rushed into surgery “to alleviate swelling in the brain,” two high-ranking law enforcement sources told PIX11 News on Saturday.

Both Mora and NYPD officer Jason Rivera were shot in the head, the sources said. Rivera, 22, died from his injuries.

The two young officers had been responding to a domestic incident involving a mother and son. Chief of Detectives James Essig announced Friday evening a Glock .45 was recovered near a back bedroom in the apartment where the shooting took place on West 135th Street in Harlem.

Rivera, a rookie officer and son of immigrants, was carried by fellow cops across the street to the emergency room of Harlem Hospital but was pronounced dead. Mora’s condition was grave, as well. Police described his condition on Saturday as still “critical.”

“He was rushed immediately up to the O/R,” a law enforcement official told PIX11 News about Mora. “It’s a significant injury. We hope he makes it through … It was a large-caliber bullet, a .45, which is a very significant, very powerful ammunition.”

Regarding the high-quantity magazine that was attached to the bottom of the Glock, the source noted, “It’s like a drum, a small drum. It can hold 40-50 bullets. It makes an ordinary handgun into a killing machine.”

Who was NYPD officer Jason Rivera? Rookie cop killed in Harlem shooting

Mora, who joined the NYPD in 2018, was with Rivera and another officer from the 32nd Precinct responding to a domestic incident at the home. A mother called 911 about her 47-year-old son, identified by police as Lashawn McNeil, an ex-convict with multiple arrests for narcotics and weapons possession. McNeil was on probation for a drug conviction in New York City.

When the police arrived at the apartment, they spoke to the mother and another son in the front room. Nothing was mentioned about McNeil being armed. That’s when Mora and Rivera approached the back bedroom.

Chief Essig said Friday night McNeil suddenly opened the door and ambushed them with rapid gunfire. The law enforcement official said the incident was a reminder that “Everything has the potential to turn deadly … quickly.”

NYPD officers shot: Suspect Lashawn McNeil was on probation, previously arrested for assaulting cop, police say

On Saturday afternoon, PBA President Patrick Lynch released a statement from his police union, saying, in part, “In the coming days, New Yorkers will get to know these heroes. What they’ll find is they know them already. They are your sons. They are your husbands, fathers, and brothers. They are your neighbors. They walked these city streets beside you.”

On Friday night, Lynch had asked the public to come to Rivera’s funeral to show support for the men and women in NYPD Blue, who are trying to stem the gun violence in New York City. He repeated that call Saturday.

“We respectfully ask you, once again: please join us to mourn Police Officer Jason Rivera as if he was your own flesh and blood. And please pray hard for our injured brother, because he is your brother, too.”



Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Judicial Watch Uncovers Ineligible Voter Registrations Throughout the U.S.

 

Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch

The Advocatz team are fans of Tom Fitton and his Judicial Watch Group for many years.

He is responsible for uncovering a lot of the hidden secrets of corruption and fraud in America, and we applaud his efforts to give us a clear view of what is going on.

Here is an Amici Curiae Brief recently submitted to the Supreme Court:


and we urge you to read his book The Corruption Chronicles.


Exclusive: Judicial Watch Uncovers Dirty Voter Rolls, 
Fights for Election Integrity
 
In a high-impact case of potential voter fraud you’ll learn about only from Judicial Watch, a new investigation reveals likely ineligible voter registrations around the country.

In November, Judicial Watch’s election integrity team sent letters to officials in five states warning of apparent serious violations of the National Voter Registration Act. The NVRA is a critical election integrity measure that directs the states to make “a reasonable effort” to remove from voting rolls “the names of ineligible voters” who have been disqualified from voting due to death or failure to provide notification of change of residence.

Dirty voter rolls matter. Leaving the names of inactive voters on registration rolls creates opportunities for fraud, such as dead people voting or double voting. Sometimes it takes only a few votes to swing an election.

The numbers of potentially ineligible voters identified in the new Judicial Watch probe are staggering. The NVRA requires states to remove registrations of voters who fail to respond to an address confirmation request and then fail to vote in two consecutive elections. States are required by federal law to report to Congress how many ineligible voters are removed from their rolls for this reason. Judicial Watch mined the statutory reporting data for some astonishing revelations: over the most recent four-year reporting period, large counties in powerful states such as New York and California reported few or no removals of ineligible voters from voting roles.

For example, in the heart of New York City, Manhattan, with 1.2 million registered voters, state authorities removed a grand total of two ineligible voters from voting rolls for failing to respond to a notice and vote, according to data New York itself provided to Congress.

In Brooklyn, with 1.7 million registered voters, the number removed for this reason: zero. In Queens, with 1.3 million registered voters, the number removed as ineligible: zero. In the Bronx, with 867,000 voters: one ineligible voter removed. In Staten Island, with 344,000 voters: zero.

The story is the same in California. Large counties show impossibly small number of ineligible voters removed from voting rolls for failing to respond to a notice and vote. In San Bernardino County in Greater Los Angeles, with a county population of 1.2 million registered voters, a total of fourteen ineligible voters were removed from the voting rolls for the entire four-year reporting period, according to data the state provided to federal officials. For Sacramento County, with over one million registered voters: zero removed. In Fresno County, with more than 500,000 registered voters: two ineligible voters removed.

“About 10% of Americans move every year,” notes Robert Popper, Judicial Watch’s director of voting integrity efforts. “Those counties should generate hundreds of thousands of cancelled registrations. There is simply no way to comply with federal law while removing so few outdated registrations under its key provision.”

Judicial Watch sent warning letters to state election officials in five states—New York, California, Oregon, Arkansas, and Illinois—noting the impossibly low numbers of statutory removals. The warning letters give the state 90 days to correct the record. “If the data are incorrect,” the Judicial Watch letters note, “please provide what you believe to be the correct numbers.” If the numbers are not corrected or otherwise resolved within 90 days, “we will commence a federal lawsuit.” Read the letters here.

Judicial Watch supporters know that this is not our first rodeo.

In California, we uncovered 1.6 million inactive voters on electoral rolls in Los Angeles County and sued, forcing LA to clean up its act.

We sued Pennsylvania for failing to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters from their rolls. Pennsylvania revised its numbers, admitting it had reported incorrect information to a federal agency on the removal of ineligible voters. But even the new figures are too low. Pennsylvania now admits that in eighteen other counties—which together contain twenty-five percent of the entire state’s registered voters—it removed a grand total of fifteen inactive, ineligible voters in a two-year period.

We went to court in Colorado, where studies have shown that a majority of the state’s counties have registration rates that exceed 100% of the voting-age population. Our lawsuit charges “an ongoing, systemic problem with Colorado’s voter list maintenance obligations.”

We filed a lawsuit in North Carolina for the same reason—large numbers of ineligible voters on the state voter rolls.

We’ve successfully taken on Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana as well. In Ohio, a Supreme Court decision upheld a voter-roll cleanup stemming from a Judicial Watch lawsuit. In Kentucky, we sued for a voter-roll cleanup and won. Indiana agreed to clean up its rolls after Judicial Watch launched an investigation.

The new warning letters put California on notice (again) and expand Judicial Watch’s electoral integrity work into New York, Oregon, Arkansas, and Illinois. “Once again, Judicial Watch is leading the charge for clean voter rolls and election integrity,” says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These letters are just the beginning of another sweep, in federal court if necessary, to clean voter rolls throughout the country.”

***
 
Micah Morrison is chief investigative reporter for Judicial Watch. Follow him on Twitter @micah_morrison. Tips: mmorrison@judicialwatch.org

Investigative Bulletin is published by Judicial Watch. Reprints and media inquiries: jfarrell@judicialwatch.org

Tuesday, January 11, 2022

Sarah Palin: Keep My 'Masked Singer' Appearance Out of My Defamation Case Against the New York Times

 

Sarah Palin

By NOAH GOLDBERG, NY Daily News, Jan. 11, 2022

You betcha Sarah Palin wants to keep her “Masked Singer” appearance out of the courtroom.

L-R: Host Nick Cannon and Sarah Palin in an episode of the Masked Singer. (Michael Becker/FOX / HANDOUT)

The former Republican candidate for vice president has asked a judge to keep her shocking March 2020 reveal as a contestant on “The Masked Singer” from jurors who will render a verdict in her defamation trial against The New York Times.

Footage of Palin singing “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mix-a-Lot while wearing a blue-and-pink fuzzy bear costume should not be shown to the jury because it would cause “unfair prejudice and confusion,” lawyers for the former Alaska governor argued in a Manhattan Federal Court filing Monday.

“The bear is part of my nickname growing up, and the whole mama bear thing,” Palin explained on the show after taking off her mask.

"Did you guys notice I changed the lyrics? it was all about men’s butts, not women’s!”

“The Masked Singer” footage was one of an assortment of exhibits Palin hopes to keep out of the trial. Other proposed exhibits include the politician’s website, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram pages, as well as a 2008 Wall Street Journal article about how her vice presidential candidacy was exposing “divisions among women.”

The Times has not yet responded to Palin’s request.

Palin sued the newspaper in 2017, claiming that an editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” defamed her by linking ads from her political action committee to the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)

The Times editorial said the ads put “Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.” But the crosshairs were actually over images of electoral districts rather than individual politicians.

The Times ran a correction. The Times and former Opinion editor James Bennet, who resigned in 2020, are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Palin’s trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 24. A lower court judge initially ruled that Bennet’s mistake did not meet the legal standard for defamation of Palin, who is a public figure. That decision was overturned by an appeals court.

Sarah Palin defamation suit against New York Times revived by appeals court on technicality

By DAVE GOLDINER and STEPHEN REX BROWN
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
AUG 06, 2019 AT 10:46 AM


Sarah Palin won a legal victory Tuesday with a federal appeals court revival of her defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over an opinion piece that tied her to the 2011 shooting of then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

The ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a decision by Judge Jed Rakoff, who had tossed Palin’s lawsuit on the grounds that an error in a June 2017 Times editorial was not “made maliciously.”

The panel made no judgment on the merits of Palin’s claim that the Times improperly accused her of inciting the shooting that wounded Giffords in a Tucson, Arizona strip mall. Instead, the ruling revolved around an unusual evidentiary hearing in which Rakoff heard testimony from the writer, editor James Bennet. The three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals determined the hearing did not follow proper protocol.

“District courts are not free to bypass rules of procedure that are carefully calibrated to ensure fair process to both sides,” Judge John Walker wrote.

The Appeals Court said Rakoff had let Bennet’s testimony influence a “negative view” of Palin’s allegations. The judge was also too dismissive of Palin’s claims that Bennet had a personal connection to the shooting through his brother, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, the panel wrote. The districts of some of Michael Bennet’s Democratic allies were targeted in Sarah Palin’s map.

“It is plain from the record that the district court found Bennet a credible witness, and that the district court’s crediting his testimony impermissibly anchored the district court’s own negative view of the plausibility of Palin’s allegations,” the appeals panel wrote.

Palin’s suit alleged the editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” defamed her by linking ads from her political action committee to the 2011 shooting. The editorial said the ads put “Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.” But the crosshairs were actually over images of electoral districts rather than of individual politicians. The Times ran a correction.

"We are disappointed in the decision and intend to continue to defend the action vigorously,” a Times spokeswoman said Tuesday.

Public figures like Palin generally face a very high legal bar when suing news organizations for defamation. They must prove not only that the material was false but also that the writers or editors acted with “actual malice” against them.