MIKIVERSE LAW

LITIGANT PESTS COST $6.2M

2012-02-29T21:05:00.001-08:00

by:Carly Crawford
From:Herald Sun
September 11, 2007

VICTORIA'S litigant pests–hoons etc, the-Murdoch owned-H.S is not above name calling– have bled millions of dollars from taxpayers–fake outrage– with more than 400 hopeless legal claims.

While genuine victims wait years to find justice, 14 troublemakers have clogged the courts with hundreds of futile actions.–Did these so-called troublemakers get a V.I.P type quick service that was denied to ‘genuine victims’ or is the H.S attempting to manipulate you emotionally??–The state has been forced to spend up to $6.2 million fighting off their claims, which have been described by judges as scandalous, contemptuous and irrelevant.–Yeah, and, So What. What else would an employee with a vested interest say?

The Department of Justice confirmed there were 14 declared vexatious litigants in Victoria, who have pursued police, politicians, judges, banks and even relatives with a range of complaints, from fanciful conspiracies to imagined debts.

The parliamentary Law Reform Committee–only the public can change a law–has launched an inquiry into how they affect the justice system.–How much are they spending on an inquiry into the activities of FOURTEEN PEOPLE OVER SEVENTY SEVEN YEARS? Is there better things to spend the ‘taxpayer dollar' on? How much money is being spent on this inquiry?

Available figures show they have launched more than 400 proceedings in various courts.

A Herald Sun analysis reveals:

MASS murderer Julian Knight cost taxpayers $250,000, launching 16 claims in just three years. Only three of those had legal merit. Notice that they start with a particular type of person? This is an attempt to embed into your mind, what type of person they are talking about, a criminal.

JILTED divorcee Ian Kay, who was involved in 53 cases over a decade, boasted in court of the financial burden he had imposed on the state.

THE most recently declared vexatious litigant, Brian William Shaw, tried to bring 35 criminal charges against 20 people including the Prime Minister whom he accused of treason for altering laws that referred to the Queen.

The Supreme Court has the power to declare someone vexatious if they consistently launch action without proper legal grounds.

It bans them making further claims without court permission. Victoria's foremost expert on the subject, Monash University scholar Simon Smith, found there has been a 190 per cent increase in the number of vexatious litigant orders made nationally since 2000. Selective facts? Remember that there are only 14 vexatious litigants (v.l). If there was 7 v.l’s in 2000, we have had a 100% increase. Typically in this situation, the corporate media refers to a percentage increase when they want to manipulate you into thinking that something is developing, or growing quickly, and, they refer to a number increase if they wish to downplay the growth. It is one of the oldest journalistic tricks in the book. The real issue here is why have courts increased their censorship over people seeking justice by 190% in just 8 years, and, why does the same business that is being sued or charged, get to adjudicate the claim?

Is the Australian colony a free country or a plantation?

"The large numbers of courts and the explosion of laws has increased the potential for vexatious litigation in recent time," he said. Can you believe this shit? Seriously. The large number of courts? How many more courts are there in 2008 than 2000? The explosion of laws? Given that there was no referendum between 2000-2008, there were no law changed, never mind an explosion, but, to be fair, this so-called expert is referring to legislation, or Acts of Parliament. Legislation is created, voted on, and enacted by politicians, so it would seem it is the politicians fault there was a 190% increase in v.l’s....sounds fair, but is that the point that our so-called expert was trying to make?? Of course you are supposed to be emotionally caught up in this drama, demanding that the Government do something about it....
Yes, it is the Hegelian dialect at play again, just like Port Arthur, Bali, London, the Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbour and most famously, 9/11.

Mr Smith said litigants made an average of 20 claims each. But they soaked up few resources compared to lost-cause corporate claims such as Seven Network boss Kerry Stoke's failed bid to sue over football broadcast rights, which racked up $200 million in legal fees.

Victoria is among the states most plagued by court pests, eclipsed only by Queensland, which has so far declared 17.

The Department of Justice was unable to estimate their financial impact on the system, but–that hasn’t impeded the H.S deciding the figure and publishing it in a headline dressed as a fact–each of Julian Knight's claims cost the department an average of $15,652 to fight in legal fees and labour.

Most of the 400-plus claims made by Victoria's vexatious litigants were levelled at public figures or institutions, taking the potential cost to taxpayers towards $6.2 million.

Victoria's 14 vexatious litigants were declared between 1930 and 2007.

They are: Julian Knight, Brian Shaw, Ian Kay, Gabor Horvath, Michael Weston, David Sjostrom Clemens Lindsay, Constance May Bienvenu, Edna Frances Isaacs and Geza Laszloffy, Kathleen Gallo, William Cousin, Abdul Madjil Ben Hemici, and former Fitzroy footy great Goldsmith Collins.

The first was Rupert Millane in 1930, who launched 200 actions in five years.

LAW SLAMS DOOR ON TONY MOKBEL'S ESCAPE

2012-02-29T19:51:00.001-08:00

Keith Moor
From:Herald Sun
February 28, 2012

Tony Mokbel's bid to get off drug charges will be thwarted by new legislation. Picture: Trevor Pinder Herald Sun

TONY Mokbel's bid to get off drug charges he has already admitted to will today be thwarted by rare retrospective legislation.

Attorney-General Robert Clark's new law–on what date was the referendum?–to fix up the problem of dodgy affidavits will also stop the hundreds of other convicted and accused criminals who were expected to follow Mokbel's lead.

Mr Clark's retrospective legislation–as opposed to law–should put an end to Mokbel's attempt to change his plea and he is likely to be sentenced as soon as he is well enough.

The Herald Sun last week revealed more than 9000 Victoria Police officers had confessed to illegally preparing affidavits used to get search warrants and other warrants going back at least 15 years.

Evidence gained from those faulty warrants stood to be excluded from more than 6000 pending court cases involving murders, sex offences, drug dealing and other major crimes.

His retrospective legislation covers every unsworn affidavit made before November, which is when the problem was discovered.The unsworn affidavit bungle was threatening to throw the justice system into chaos for years, which is why Mr Clark is moving to head off the problem.

It means evidence gained from warrants obtained with dodgy–read UNLAWFUL– affidavits can be used in court, including evidence in the Mokbel case.

THESE CRIMINALS/PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM OUR COMMUNITY FACE.

"The Victorian Coalition Government considers the potential consequences for the legal system arising from these affidavits remaining unremedied to be so grave that legislation is required," Mr Clark said yesterday.

"If this legislation were not enacted,–Victoria Police would be held accountable for their unlawful actions, which our government/business/crime syndicate cannot tolerate because we’ve worked hard to fool you into thinking that legislation applies to the community, rather than the public servants– there would potentially be a heavy toll on–profits–victims of crime, community safety–LMFAO– and our court system as a result of criminal proceedings being delayed, disrupted or unable to be determined on their merits solely because of procedural defects in the swearing or affirming of affidavits.”–It follows that if your case was thrown out because of a procedural defect, you can reactivate it.

Police are supposed to swear an oath or affirmation as to the truth and accuracy of the contents of affidavits.

But an investigation discovered thousands of police had just been signing them instead of swearing them.

MoorK@heraldsun.com.au

WA ’TENT EMBASSY' REMAINS DEFIANT

2012-02-19T05:29:00.000-08:00

Cortlan Bennett February 19, 2012 - 8:19PMAdvertisement Protesters at an Aboriginal "tent embassy" in Perth have vowed to defy authorities following an early morning police raid that led to angry scenes when vehicles and tents were removed.Police have warned they will return in force to the Heirisson Island site, on the central Swan River, if the protesters continue to camp there in breach of council by-laws.About 50 armed officers enforced a City of Perth notice on Sunday morning, ordering the removal of tents and cars from the public reserve.However, some protesters said they would re-erect their tents on the site, which they claim is sacred Aboriginal land.The "tent embassy" was set up earlier in the week in protest at the WA government's proposed $1 billion native title settlement deal with the Noongar people of the state's southwest.While the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, which officially represents traditional owners in the region, has agreed to the deal, some local Aboriginal groups have rejected it, saying they were not consulted.Police on Sunday claimed a "moral win" for their operation, which ended without violence, arrests or any charges.However, there were angry scenes when flatbed trucks arrived to load up protesters' cars and two columns of police marched in.Men, women and children protesters confronted the officers and hurled abuse, before eventually driving off.Inspector Bill Munnee later told reporters the protest "may escalate, it may not, but we are prepared to go back again"."What we didn't want was to have a tent embassy there for the next 40 years like in Canberra - that was never going to happen," he said.Insp Munnee said police were not trying to intimidate the protesters and had not sought a confrontation."Our intent was always to let the City of Perth do their job and look for a peaceful resolution," he said."We achieved that and we're very grateful. We respect everyone's right to protest peacefully."After the raid, about 60 protesters defiantly remained and declared they would stay at the site until the native title deal had been resolved."This embassy will remain here," said Greg Martin, a spokesman for the protesters."We have legal counsel, constitutional lawyers working on this case so we can assert our right to our land."Mr Martin said the protesters would be seeking an injunction this week to prevent further police and council action."Our only means of expressing our objection (to the native title deal) is to get in people's faces and tell them this is our land," he said.City of Perth chief executive Frank Edwards said he was satisfied with the outcome of the operation but disappointed the protesters had not cooperated earlier.He said the protest was a matter outside the council's authority.This story was found at: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-tent-embassy-remains-defiant-20120219-1tgr3.html

SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR OFFERING STATE/TERRITORY DEBT SECURITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE OF STATE AND TERRITORY BORROWING

2012-02-15T20:01:00.000-08:00

EX-99 4 ex-g.htm EXHIBIT G -- SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR OFFERING STATE/TERRITORY DEBT SECURITIES

EXHIBIT G

EXECUTION COPY

SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR OFFERING STATE/TERRITORY

DEBT SECURITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUSTRALIAN

GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE OF STATE AND TERRITORY BORROWING

This Supplement is entered into as of 14 October 2010, by and among Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays Bank PLC, Merrill Lynch International (Australia) Ltd and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (the "New Dealers"), the Commonwealth of Australia represented by the Department of the Treasury (the “Commonwealth”), Queensland Treasury Corporation (the “Issuing Entity”) and the Treasurer on behalf of the Government of Queensland (the “State”).

Reference is made to the Agreement for Offering State/Territory Debt Securities in connection with the Australian Government Guarantee of State and Territory Borrowing, dated as of 11 December 2009, by and among the Commonwealth, the Issuing Entity, the State and the Dealers named therein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Annex I (as amended or supplemented, the "Offering Agreement").

The Commonwealth and the New Dealers hereby agree as follows:

1. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used but not defined in this Supplement have the meanings assigned thereto in the Offering Agreement.

2. Joinder of New Dealers. Each of the New Dealers hereby joins in and agrees to become a party to the Offering Agreement with all right, title and interest as a Dealer thereunder and subject to all of the terms and conditions thereof as if each New Dealer were an original party and signatory thereto.

3. Notice. The New Dealers’ notice addresses for the purposes of the Offering Agreement are as follows:

Barclays Capital Inc.

745 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019

United States of America

Attn: Syndicate Registration

Telephone: +1-212-526-0015

Facsimile: +1-646-834-8133

Email: mtndskldn@barclayscapital.com

Barclays Bank PLC

5 The North Colonnade

Canary Wharf

London E14 4BB

United Kingdom

Attn: MTN Dealers

Telephone: +44-20-7773-9090

Facsimile: +44-20-7516-7548

Email: mtndskldn@barclayscapital.com

Merrill Lynch International (Australia) Ltd

Level 38

Governor Phillip Tower

1 Farrer Place

Sydney

NSW 2000

Australia

Attn: Debt Capital Markets

Telephone: +612-9225-6773

Facsimile: +612-9225-6551

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

One Bryant Park

New York, NY 10036

United States of America

Attn: High Grade Transaction Management / Legal

Facsimile: +1-646-855-5958

[Signature Page Follows]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Commonwealth, the Issuing Entity, the State and the New Dealers have executed this Supplement as of the date first set forth above.

Signed for and on behalf of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA represented by the Department of the Treasury
by

	Ken Henry	/s/ Ken Henry

	Name of Signatory	Signature

in the presence of:

	Sharon McCluskey	/s/ Sharon McCluskey

	Name of witness	Signature of witness

QUEENSLAND TREASURY CORPORATION

By:	/s/ Neil Castles
	Name:	Neil Castles
	Title:	Acting Chief Executive

THE TREASURER ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEENSLAND

By:	/s/ Andrew Fraser
	Name:	Andrew Fraser
	Title:	Treasurer

BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.

By:	/s/ Pamela Kendall
	Name:	Pamela Kendall
	Title:	Director

BARCLAYS BANK PLC

By:	/s/ Gordon Youl
	Name:	Gordon Youl
	Title:	Director

MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) LTD

By:	/s/ Daniel de la Cruz
	Name:	Daniel de la Cruz
	Title:	Director

MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED

By:	/s/ Teresa Radzinski
	Name:	Teresa Radzinski
	Title:	Managing Director

cc:	UBS Limited
	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
	Citigroup Global Markets Limited
	Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch
	Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
	Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
	Commonwealth Bank of Australia
	J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.
	J.P. Morgan Securities Limited
	Macquarie Bank Limited London Branch
	Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc.
	National Australia Bank Limited
	Nomura International plc
	Nomura Securities International, Inc.
	Royal Bank of Canada Europe Limited
	The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
	The Toronto-Dominion Bank
	Westpac Banking Corporation

Annex I

[Copy of Offering Agreement]

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/805157/000134100410001939/ex-g.htm

MARK MCMURTRIE SPEAKING IN MELBOURNE

2012-02-14T20:54:00.000-08:00

THURSDAY 16TH FEBRUARY 2012
Trades Hall Building, Carlton 6.00 P.M
$10/$5
USB Sticks of Mark’s research available $30
DVD’s of Mark’s work available $5

FRIDAY 17TH FEBRUARY 2012
Occupy Melbourne Workshop, City Square 5.00 P.M

SUNDAY 19TH FEBRUARY 2012
11.00 - 1.30 PM

Tyabb Community Hall, 1535 Frankston-Flinders Road, Tyabb

Out of the fires of discontent rises the determination to create a network of mutual support, recognition, and affirmation of the Sovereign Rights of the country's Original Peoples.

A major purpose of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation is to unite Original societynationally. This purpose comes about through the vision to re-dignify relations with self and between genders and clans.

"National unity through the OSTF provides a foundation for practical, ethical and cultural practices from which to reach out to non-indigenous society."

The Original Sovereign Tribal Federation is poised on an intercultural boundary, rich in possibility for the development of modern Original culture as an integral part of a holistic vision for all Australians.

Mark McMurtrie has 20 years experience in uncovering the fraud of the Crowns' claim to Sovereignty or dominion over the land and Tribes of this continent. Mark has a broad and in depth knowledge of how the parliaments of the UK and Australia have fraudulently tried to claim ownership over Tribal lands and people and has been instrumental in exposing the actions of the Crown Corporations' enslaving of Australians without Australians even knowing by using legal processes such as Capitus Dominutio Maxima.

The invaluable information offered will include exposure to the documents which prove the nature and extent of the fraud being perpetuated by the Crown and its parliaments and how the Australian parliaments are now trying to claim ownership of both the land AND people of this continent as slaves.

Information will also include how to respectfully present yourself before the Crowns' paid judges and deny them any right to treat you as a slave.....etc.
You will hear a summary of how the UK came to be, where their statutes come from and what legality there is (or more appropriately ISN'T) in the Crown and its' minion Australian parliaments claims.

Find out why the only people on this continent that own land are the Tribal people, and why people who think they own land here are called land HOLDERS and not land owners....and much more...

Mark is speaking at Tyabb Community Hall this Sunday 19th of FEB

1535 Frankston-Flinders Road, Tyabb
Melways Ref: 148 J10

CATCH TRAIN TO FRANKSTON THEN SWAP TO STONY POINT LINE.

$10 waged, $5 unwaged. (or donation) DVD's with Mark's work available for $5

UNENFORCEABLE CONTACTS: WHAT TO WATCH OUT FOR

2012-02-14T19:43:00.001-08:00

What kinds of contracts might not hold up in court?

Since a contract is a legally binding agreement, in the typical scenario, once you enter into a contract with another person or business, you and the other party are both expected to fulfill the terms of the contract. But it's possible for an otherwise valid contract to be found unenforceable in the eyes of the law, and this article looks at some common situations where that might be the case.

Lack of Capacity

It's expected that both (or all) parties to a contract have the ability to understand exactly what it is they are agreeing to. If it appears that one side did not have this reasoning capacity, the contract may be held unenforceable against that person. The issue of capacity to contract usually comes up when one side of the agreement is too young or does not have the mental wherewithal to completely understand the agreement and its implications. The general idea here is to prevent an unscrupulous person from taking advantage of someone who lacks the ability to make a reasoned decision. To learn more, check out Nolo's article Who Lacks the Capacity to Contract?

Duress

duress, or coercion, will invalidate a contract when someone was threatened into making the agreement. In an often cited case involving duress, a shipper (Company A) agreed to transport a certain amount of Company B's materials, which would be used in a major development project. After Company B's project was underway and Company A's ship was en route with the materials, Company A refused to complete the trip unless Company B agreed to pay a higher price. Company B was forced to pay the jacked-up rate because there was no other way to get the material, and not completing the job would lead to unsustainable losses. The court ultimately found that this agreement to raise the price was not enforceable, because it came about through duress. Another common example of duress is blackmail.

Undue Influence

If Person B forced Person A to enter into an agreement by taking advantage of a special or particularly persuasive relationship that Person B had with Person A, the resulting contract might be found unenforceable on grounds of undue influence. In general, to prove undue influence, Person A would have to show that Person B used excessive pressure against Person A during the bargaining process, and that for whatever reason Person A was overly susceptible to the pressure tactics -- or that Person B exploited a confidential relationship to exert pressure on Person A.

Misrepresentation

If fraud or misrepresentation occurred during the negotiation process, any resulting contract will probably be held unenforceable. The idea here is to encourage honest, good faith bargaining and transactions. Misrepresentations commonly occur when a party says something false (telling a potential buyer that a house is termite-free when it is not) or, in some other way, conceals or misrepresents a state of affairs (concealing evidence of structural damage in a house's foundation with paint or a particular placement of furniture).

Nondisclosure

Nondisclosure is essentially misrepresentation through silence -- when someone neglects to disclose an important fact about the deal. Courts look at various issues to decide whether a party had a duty to disclose the information, but courts will also consider whether the other party could or should have easily been able to access the same information. It should be noted that parties have a duty to disclose only material facts. But if Party A specifically asks Party B about a fact (material or non-material), then Party B has a duty to disclose the truth.

When contract disputes involve fraudulent dealings like misrepresentation or nondisclosure, and one side of the agreement has already suffered financial losses as a result, a lawsuit for breach of contract might be filed over the matter. Learn more in Nolo's article Breach of Contract: Material Breach.

Unconscionability

Unconscionability means that a term in the contract or something inherent in or about the agreement was so shockingly unfair that the contract simply cannot be allowed to stand as is. The idea here again is to ensure fairness, so a court will consider:

whether one side has grossly unequal bargaining power
whether one side had difficulty understanding the terms of the agreement (due to language or literacy issues, for example), or
whether the terms themselves were unfair (like sky-high arbitration costs; read more in Nolo's article Arbitration Clauses in Contracts).

If a court does find a contract unconscionable, it has options other than just voiding the agreement altogether. It may instead choose to enforce the conscionable parts of the contract and rewrite the unconscionable term or clause, for example.

Public Policy

Contracts can be found unenforceable on grounds of public policy not only to protect one of the parties involved, but also because what the contract represents could pose harm to society as a whole. For example, a court will never enforce a contract promoting something already against state or federal law (you can never enforce a contract for an illegal marijuana sale) or an agreement that offends the "public sensibilities" (contracts involving some sort of sexual immorality, for example). Other examples of contracts (or contracts clauses) that are against public policy and therefore unenforceable include:

an employer forcing an employee to sign a contract that forbids workers from joining a union
an employer forcing an employee to sign a contract forbidding medical leave
a landlord forcing a tenant to sign a contract forbidding medically necessary companion animals such as seeing eye dogs, and
contracts for child custody are invalid in California if their terms are not in line with the child's best interest.

Mistake

Sometimes a contract is unenforceable not because of purposeful bad faith by one party, but due to a mistake on the part of one party (called a "unilateral mistake") or both parties (called a "mutual mistake"). In either case, the mistake must have been about something important related to the contract, and it must have had a material (significant) effect on the exchange or bargaining process.

Impossibility

In some cases, a contract is deemed unenforceable because it would be impossible or impracticable to carry out its terms -- too difficult or too expensive, for example. To claim impossibility, you would need to show that:

you can't complete performance under the contract because of some unexpected event that's not your fault
the contract didn't make the risk of the unexpected event something you needed to shoulder, and
performing the contract will be much more difficult or expensive now.

For example, if Company A contracts to sell 20 barrels of its flour to Company B and a natural disaster wipes out Company A's entire stock of flour before the sale can be completed, Company A might be able to have the contract ruled unenforceable on grounds of impossibility.

For more information on contracts, read Nolo's new book Contracts: The Essential Business Desk Reference, by attorney Rich Stim (Nolo).

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html

DEAN CLIFFORD-Q&A CLARIFYING THE FACTS–FULL LENGTH LECTURE

2012-02-11T18:17:00.000-08:00

“STOP RESISTING MOTHERFUCKER"--COPS BEAT MOTORIST IN DIABETIC SHOCK

2012-02-10T17:01:00.000-08:00

By Radley Balko
Here is what you’re seeing:

A Highway Patrol trooper enters the scene first, gun drawn, and kicks the driver’s window of Greene’s four-door sedan. After several moments, the trooper opens the door.

The trooper, his gun still raised, then gives Greene conflicting commands. He first tells him not to move, then tells him to come forward.

A second trooper quickly cuffs Greene’s wrist and pulls him from the car, which rolls forward until an officer stops it.

Greene flops to the ground, clearly dazed as five officers rush him. A sixth officer, with Henderson police, enters the frame late and delivers five well-placed kicks to Greene’s face.

“Stop resisting mother (expletive)!” one officer yells.

Greene doesn’t scream until a second Henderson officer knees him in the midsection — and then does it three more times. Greene was later treated for fractured ribs.

Police suspected Greene was intoxicated as he weaved among lanes about 4 a.m. on Oct. 29, 2010, and finally stopped his car near Lake Mead Parkway and Boulder Highway in Henderson.

But that wasn’t the case, which they soon discovered after they searched Greene.

“Call in medical,” one officer says in the video. “We found some insulin in his pocket. … He’s semiconscious.”

“Let’s get medical out here. He’s a diabetic, he’s probably in shock,” the officer later tells dispatch.

Greene’s lawsuit said officers then forced him to stand by a patrol car in handcuffs and blow into a Breathalyzer, despite being injured. Paramedics later arrived and treated him for low blood sugar.

Greene was released without a citation, and officers apologized to him for “beating him up,” the lawsuit said.

He immediately went to a hospital, where he was treated for the broken ribs and the bruises to his hands, neck, face and scalp, the lawsuit said.

One of the harsher moments in the video comes near the end of the clip, when one officer can be heard laughing loudly.

One officer notes that Greene “was not a small guy.” An officer laughs and says, “I couldn’t take him by myself.”

Several points:

This certainly isn’t the first time cops have mistaken diabetic shock for intoxication--and with similar results. We’ve also seen a number of incidents where cops have mistaken epileptic seizures for aggressive behavior, often resulting in a Tasering. The root problem here is the same as that with the cops who mistakenly mistake a bounding or territorial dog with an aggressive one, and then kill it. The cops get excused because they made “honest mistakes.” (Though in this case, the honest mistake ended with mistaking low blood sugar for intoxication.) But that means they haven’t been trained properly. At some point, enough of these stories should have made the news that departments across the country would begin to implement such training. That doesn’t appear to be happening.
Note that at one point in the video, after they’ve just beaten a helpless man, one cop asks his fellow officers if any of them are hurt.
Not only were none of these cops criminally charged, every one of them is apparently still protecting and serving the public. The story indicates one seargeant was “disciplined,” but we aren’t allowed to know what that discipline was. The department also claims to have changed some policies in response to the incident. But we aren’t allowed to know exactly what those changes are, either.
We also aren’t allowed to know the names of any of the officers in the video. This is inexcusable. It seems pretty clear that there’s a culture problem, here. Mistaking a diabetic for a drunk is bad enough. Beating him senseless when he clearly posed no threat is criminal. And yelling “Stop Resisting!” at a man who is clearly not resisting is indicative of a police culture in which excessive force is common enough that the officers know what to say as they’re beating someone to give them cover later. Laughing after you’ve just beaten a man, and after you’ve just discovered he was a diabetic is straight-up pathological. All of which means there’s plenty of reason to doubt this particular department’s internal review process. These officers names need to be released, so journalists and police watchdog groups outside of law enforcement can look into their histories on the job.
Greene and his family were given a $292,500 settlement, which of course will be funded by taxpayers, not the cops who beat him senseless. This too needs to change. The cops who beat green should be forfeiting a portion of their paychecks to him for the rest of their lives. And those paychecks should preferably be compensation for work other than police work.

MORE: Digby runs off a few other incidents in which police Tasered diabetics after wrongly assuming they were intoxicated.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=38321