Get an Affordable VPN Service - Free Trial
Beet Foundation Newz

on this page
Page Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

Protests push back pays off? Colorado law enforcement reforms SB20-217

Section: newz
Source: Jopa - Beet Foundation
Published: 2020-06-24
From: source url
Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity SB20-217 was signed into law by Governor Jared Polis on Juneteenth, Friday June 19th 2020.

Nationwide protests have pushed many States to make law enforcement reforms, Colorado is among the first to pass reforms to qualified immunity while also restricting protest suppression, refining body camera code, require officers to intervene if they see another officer using excessive force, enhancing violent officer reporting with a State database of officers who have been decertified, fired, not truthful, ...

You can view the bill here:

Amanda Pampuro at reported on 06/19/20

Created by the Supreme Court in 1967, qualified immunity is a commonly used affirmative defense shielding government officials from civil suits for actions taken in the course of their job. Because it is a federal policy, Colorado’s move only impacts police officers accused of violating state law.

“Colorado didn’t necessarily revoke qualified immunity because the state can’t,” explained Ben Levin, associate professor at Colorado Law. “What Colorado did in this in this bill, which I think is really creative, it creates a state cause of action in Colorado State courts, for people whose rights have been violated under the Colorado State Constitution.”

Critics of Colorado’s change say police need qualified immunity in order to protect the difficult split-second decisions required by the job. Supporters, however, say the law only creates an avenue for citizens to bring their grievances and does not guarantee the outcome.

Brooke Seipel at The Hill reported on 06/19/20.

“By facing the cold hard truth about the unequal treatment of Black Americans and communities of color, we can and we will create real change that will materially improve the lives of countless Americans of this generation and future generations,” Polis said before signing the bill. “And we can bend the moral arc of the universe toward justice.”

The sweeping Colorado bill also requires all state and local police wear body cameras by 2023 — with footage being made public — and bans chokeholds, shooting fleeing suspects and using deadly force unless a life is in immediate danger. It also requires officers to report every time they stop someone they suspect of a crime and record that person's ethnicity, race and gender.

The bill also asks cops to report their colleagues for wrongdoing, and will make officers personally liable for up to $25,000 in damages if they violate someone's civil rights.

The bill was led by State Rep. Leslie Herod (D) and sponsored by fellow Democrats state Sen. Leroy Garcia, state Rep. Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez and state Sen. Rhonda Fields. All lawmakers are people of color, and they worked alongside the American Civil Liberties Union to craft the legislation.

Sandy Malone at The Police Tribune site reported a more critical view, voicing some officer concerns.

Removal of the qualified immunity protections allows officers to be personally sued even when they didn’t break the law.

This leaves officers with no due process to avoid fines outside of their police department’s review. A police department may offer a large settlement to a plaintiff and then force the officer to pay 5% of it.

The legislation calls for officers to lose their Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) board certification permanently after having pleaded guilty to an inappropriate use of force, failure to intervene to stop excessive force, or after having been found civilly liable for excessive force or failure to intervene.

Going forward, the law requires all law enforcement agencies to track all of their contacts with the public and report it to the state for use in a statewide searchable database, including use of force resulting in serious injury or death, stops, unannounced entries, and use of firearms, along with the race and ethnicity of the person contacted.

SB 217 also gives the Colorado Attorney General the authority to go after persistently bad police departments and officers.

In response to recent concerns about how violent protesters were handled by authorities in Denver, the new law bans the use of tear gas against protesters without first warning them and giving them an opportunity to clear the area, the Denver Post reported.

After looking over the bill myself, and reading the opinions above, which I really don't agree with much on either side of the argument. I will just say the red flags (top down centralized data/control, bottom up administrative/management loopholes) look outweighed by perceived improvements (decentivized brutality, more remedies/recourse).

We are still allowing tear gas domestically after all, why? Many modern tactics are shady and beastly, don't get me started on the lying and deception. Hopefully this will bring more humane enforcement methodology or at least start the trend.

Many of the changes are already in effect as of the passing of the bill though some will take effect on September 1, 2020 or July 1, 2023.

Alamosa, CO June protests cooled down after the shooting, it is not over

Section: newz
Source: Jopa - Beet Foundation
Published: 2020-06-22
From: source url
On Thursday June 4th the protests in Downtown Alamosa, CO over police brutality and the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, took a turn to the worse, a man with a concealed weapon shot another man in the back of the head through his truck window in the middle of an intersection central to the protest.

As reported by Meg Colwell at Alamosa News two days after the incident.

"Thursday night’s peaceful protest, as well as, two previous protests, were organized by community member, Emily."

Emily asserts that the protesters were making efforts to keep it peaceful, that she did not recognize him from the days before and that he seemed separate and more aggressive than most protesters. Read the Alamosa News report here.


Then on June 16th Susan Greene at Alamosa News reported.

“It doesn’t look good,” his sister, Candace, said Thursday. Marshall ran from the scene with his wife. The couple drove separately to their home on Bonney Drive, where Marshall was arrested a few hours later. By that time, his own defense attorney, Randy Canney, had arrived at the house from Salida and Marshall had changed from the jeans and a black T-shirt he wore to the protest to a lawyerly dress shirt.

The detective noticed that the beard Marshall had during the protest had been shaven, and asked Marshall why. Marshall told him that “if he was going to jail he wanted a clean shave.”

He was released from Alamosa County Jail Friday on $6,000 bail – for a $60,000 bond – apparently without an ankle monitor or restrictions about leaving the state or possessing a firearm. He is scheduled to appear in court the morning of Monday, June 15 to be formally charged with attempted 2nd-degree murder, 1st-degree assault, reckless endangerment, felony menacing, criminal mischief, illegal discharge of a firearm and prohibited use of a weapon. District Attorney Robert Willett has asked the court to issue a ruling that morning prohibiting Marshall from possessing guns or ammunition. Canney, on Marshall’s behalf, won’t oppose that request.

Earlier this week, Chief Judge Gonzales signed an order disqualifying all judges in the 12th Judicial District from presiding over the case because Marshall has appeared before them in his law practice and they might have – or appear to have – a conflict of interest. The judge has asked Colorado’s Supreme Court to appoint a judge from outside the district.

Neither Marshall nor Lorraine could be reached this week for comment about the shooting. In the meantime, flowers, two stuffed bears and an American flag have been left in Pruitt’s honor around a planter at the intersection where he was shot.


On June 15th CBSN Denver reported after Marshall appeared before a judge via Webex video conference.

Marshall, 27, faces seven charges: Attempted 2nd Degree Homicide, 1st Degree Assault, Reckless Endangerment, Felony Menacing, Criminal Mischief, Illegal Discharge of a Firearm, and Prohibited Use of Weapons.

Alamosa Combined Courts Clerk Jennifer Pacheco told CBS4 that Marshall waived his right to an advisement Monday morning as he, his attorney, and the 12th Judicial District Attorney Robert Willett appeared before a judge via Webex video conference. Marshall is scheduled to return to court August 28th for a preliminary hearing; whether remotely or in person is yet to be determined.

In his police interview, Marshall said he and his wife entered the crosswalk as eastbound and westbound traffic was stopped at a red light. When Pruitt’s truck crept forward among the protesters, Marshall said “he went to the passenger side of the truck.”

Marshall then told officers he thought he saw the truck come in contact with his wife, who was still in front of the truck.

“James said he was in fear for his wife’s safety of being run over and he fired a shot into the truck,” the affidavit reads.

Marshall obtained a conceal-carry weapons permit in Boulder County in 2017, according to the document.

The June 4th protest was in response to the police-related death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and was conducted outside Marshall’s downtown office. He told investigating officers he knew of the event in advance and had planned to attend.

A June 6th update on a GoFundMe page raising money for Pruitt’s medical expenses states the bullet is still lodged in Pruitt’s brain, and that he is in critical condition and on life support. The page desribes Pruitt as a disabled veteran. A message sent to the page organizers requesting more recent information has not been returned.


Carie Canterbury at the Cañon City Daily Record reports on the Gofund me page for the victim and mentions the hearing on August 28th.

According to the Alamosa County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page, Marshall’s bond originally was set at $50,000. During a hearing on June 5, the judge increased the bond to $60,000, which Marshall later posted and was released.

A GoFund me page set up for Pruitt by a family member states that he was on his way to pick up dinner when he was shot. He is a single father and a disabled veteran.

Marshall is scheduled to appear for a preliminary hearing at 9 a.m. Aug. 28.".


James Edward Marshall IV the accused shooter is a defense attorney as reported at KRDO and the ABA Journal among other sources.

KRDO Footage of the event from a shop at the intersection:


The accused apparently owns a business called Marshall Law LLC. in Alamosa. Sounds like a B rate screen play.

With a website that was working days after the event, but is disabled now.

You can still view at least one page of the website on

We will see what happens on August 28th.

Calendar Check

Section: newz
Source: Jopa - Beet Foundation
Published: 2020-06-21
From: source url
That feeling you get when your sun and moon memos start triggering at the same time.

New Moon @ Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:41am - 1:41am (MDT)
Annular Solar Eclipse @ Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:40am - 1:40am (MDT)

May the waning commence, be the change...

Government protection from being sued for COVID-19 response

Section: newz
Source: Jopa - Beet Foundation
Published: 2020-06-20
From: source url
On March 17th 2020 the document cited 85 FR 15198 appeared from the Health and Human Services Department on an authorized service of the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).

To summarize, it looks like immunity from liability has been secured so that the response plan and most all involved are protected from being sued. Even State courts appear to have no recourse.

This includes so many people, companies, agencies, etc. that it would be hard to list (see below).

The questions I feel need to be asked are:

1) If this is safe why all the immunity protection?

2) Are we just guinea pigs?

Here is a brief rundown of this document and what it asserts.

A Notice by the Health and Human Services Department on 03/17/2020

Notice of declaration. SUMMARY:

The Secretary is issuing this Declaration pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to provide liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.


The Declaration was effective as of February 4, 2020.

Note: It was publicly published 03/17/2020 and backdated to be effective on 02/04/2020. This looks like it would violate ex-post facto law for anything that happened between 02/04/2020 and 03/17/2020.

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act. This Declaration is subject to amendment as circumstances warrant.

Note: This means that the PREP Act authorizes this declaration to provide liability immunity to "Covered Persons" and "Covered Countermeasures" which I will explain more in depth below.

Section IV. Limited Immunity

These liability protections provide that, “[s]ubject to other provisions of [the PREP Act], a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under federal and state law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a Declaration has been issued with respect to such countermeasure.”

Note: Federal and State immunity against being sued for harm.

Section V. Covered Persons

Section V of the Declaration describes Covered Persons, including Qualified Persons. The PREP Act defines Covered Persons to include, among others, the United States, and those that manufacturer, distribute, administer, prescribe or use Covered Countermeasures. This Declaration includes all persons and entities defined as Covered Persons under the PREP Act (PHS Act 317F-3(i)(2)) as well as others set out in paragraphs (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (8)(B).

The PREP Act's liability immunity applies to “Covered Persons” with respect to administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure. The term “Covered Persons” has a specific meaning and is defined in the PREP Act to include manufacturers, distributors, program planners, and qualified persons, and their officials, agents, and employees, and the United States. The PREP Act further defines the terms “manufacturer,” “distributor,” “program planner,” and “qualified person” as described below.

A manufacturer includes a contractor or subcontractor of a manufacturer; a supplier or licenser of any product, intellectual property, service, research tool or component or other article used in the design, development, clinical testing, investigation or manufacturing of a Covered Countermeasure; and any or all the parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and assigns of a manufacturer.

A distributor means a person or entity engaged in the distribution of drugs, biologics, or devices, including but not limited to: Manufacturers; re-packers; common carriers; contract carriers; air carriers; own-label distributors; private-label distributors; jobbers; brokers; warehouses and wholesale drug warehouses; independent wholesale drug traders; and retail pharmacies.

A program planner means a state or local government, including an Indian tribe; a person employed by the state or local government; or other person who supervises or administers a program with respect to the administration, dispensing, distribution, provision, or use of a Covered Countermeasure, including a person who establishes requirements, provides policy guidance, or supplies technical or scientific advice or assistance or provides a facility to administer or use a Covered Countermeasure in accordance with the Secretary's Declaration. Under this definition, a private sector employer or community group or other “person” can be a program planner when it carries out the described activities.

A qualified person means a licensed health professional or other individual authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures under the law of the state in which the Covered Countermeasure was prescribed, administered, or dispensed; or a person within a category of persons identified as qualified in the Secretary's Declaration. Under this definition, the Secretary can describe in the Declaration other qualified persons, such as volunteers, who are Covered Persons. Section V describes other qualified persons covered by this Declaration.

The PREP Act also defines the word “person” as used in the Act: A person includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association, entity, or public or private corporation, including a federal, state, or local government agency or department.

Note: All of the above "Persons" are immune to liability.

Section VI. Covered Countermeasures

As noted above, Section III of the Declaration describes the activities (referred to as “Recommended Activities”) for which liability immunity is in effect. Section VI of the Declaration identifies the Covered Countermeasures for which the Secretary has recommended such activities. The PREP Act states that a “Covered Countermeasure” must be a “qualified pandemic or epidemic product,” or a “security countermeasure,” as described immediately below; or a drug, biological product or device authorized for emergency use in accordance with Sections 564, 564A, or 564B of the FD&C Act.

A qualified pandemic or epidemic product means a drug or device, as defined in the FD&C Act or a biological product, as defined in the PHS Act that is (i) manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed or procured to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a pandemic or epidemic or limit the harm such a pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause; (ii) manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed, or procured to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by such a drug, biological product, or device; (iii) or a product or technology intended to enhance the use or effect of such a drug, biological product, or device.

A security countermeasure is a drug or device, as defined in the FD&C Act or a biological product, as defined in the PHS Act that (i)(a) The Secretary determines to be a priority to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm from any biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent identified as a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or (b) to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm from a condition that may result in adverse health consequences or death and may be caused by administering a drug, biological product, or device against such an agent; and (ii) is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be a necessary countermeasure to protect public health.

To be a Covered Countermeasure, qualified pandemic or epidemic products or security countermeasures also must be approved or cleared under the FD&C Act; licensed under the PHS Act; or authorized for emergency use under Sections 564, 564A, or 564B of the FD&C Act.

A qualified pandemic or epidemic product also may be a Covered Countermeasure when it is subject to an exemption (that is, it is permitted to be used under an Investigational Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption) under the FD&C Act and is the object of research for possible use for diagnosis, mitigation, prevention, treatment, or cure, or to limit harm of a pandemic or epidemic or serious or life-threatening condition caused by such a drug or device.

A security countermeasure also may be a Covered Countermeasure if it may reasonably be determined to qualify for approval or licensing within 10 years after the Department's determination that procurement of the countermeasure is appropriate.

Section VI lists medical countermeasures against COVID-19 that are Covered Countermeasures under this declaration.

Section VI also refers to the statutory definitions of Covered Countermeasures to make clear that these statutory definitions limit the scope of Covered Countermeasures. Specifically, the Declaration notes that Covered Countermeasures must be “qualified pandemic or epidemic products,” or “security countermeasures,” or drugs, biological products, or devices authorized for investigational or emergency use, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, the FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act.

Note: Note: All of the above "Countermeasures" are immune to liability.

XII. Effective Time Period

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(B)

Liability immunity for Covered Countermeasures through means of distribution, as identified in Section VII(a) of this Declaration, other than in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction and extends through October 1, 2024.

Liability immunity for Covered Countermeasures administered and used in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction begins with a Declaration and lasts through (1) the final day the emergency Declaration is in effect, or (2) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.

Note: Effective through October 1, 2024 or until emergency Declaration is revoked.

by Jopa Jones

Health Care sector grabs for more control

Section: newz
Source: Jopa - Beet Foundation
Published: 2020-06-05
From: source url
The Colorado Assembly is hearing this Sunday at 10AM during probable protests outside the Capitol.

How is it even legal to push this through with the right to assemble subverted (Section 24).

This bill attempts to subvert fundamental rights reserved in the Colorado Bill of Rights (Sections: 3, 28 and probably 4 and 25 among others).

Scandalous, I say. The timing should be entered into evidence.

Apparently the health sector wants to run government now. The have already usurped too much authority recently for my support.

I reserve my rights in hopes that you will too.

Section 28:

Rights Reserved Not Disparaged

The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair or disparage others retained by the people.

Section 3:

Inalienable Rights

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 24:

Right to Assemble and Petition

The people have the right peaceably to assemble for the common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, by petition or remonstrance

Page Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next