WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT IN 2020 by Lord Serious

I am sick and tired of Black leaders trying to reason and talk our oppressors into treating us more humanely. It's just too bad your Black inferiority complex won't allow you to see Black people as a separate nation within this nation.

I'm tired of Black leadership selling us out. You don't talk to the man who has a thirst for blood. You cannot reason with someone who is irrational and blinded by hate. Nations do not continue to try using diplomacy after the members of their envoy are slaughtered while offering peace. There's no more talking after that, because that has been universally recognized as an act of war. The only words said after that are either "charge!", or "attack!". Both of which are a call to arms.

I'm tired of seeing Benjamin Crump talking about civil rights convictions are needed to secure justice for the victims family. If I'm the next one who gets taken out, don't let him anywhere near my family talking that nonsense. The only lawyers I want consulting my family or doing press conferences on their behalf is the ones talking about human rights violation.

Show me an attorney with enough balls to take the U.S. before the International Courts of Justice and the intelligence and qualifications needed to effectively articulate our plight as Blacks living in America, and I'll show you our new spokesperson for the era of mass incarceration and police brutality.

But we don't want to hear that same rhetoric from Benjamin Crump or anyone else. Especially when all you can offer us is a solution that can't solve our problems. As I exposed in my book APOTHEOSIS LORD SERIOUS HAKIM ALLAH'S HABEAS CORPUS APPEAL. The Civil Rights Act is an unenforceable piece of legislation.

Why do I say that you ask? I was sent to prison for 38 years on a less stringent burden of proof. All it took was for the state to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which never actually happened in my case).

However, to secure a civil rights conviction you must prove the shooter had a "specific intent" to deprive the victim of their civil rights. This is a much more difficult burden to prove, because it practically requires you to prove what the shooter was thinking at the moment they pulled the trigger.

In a combative situation like Mr. Arbery's the murderers will just say they feared for their lives. Which as we've seen is the affirmative defense. They'll just say the Black guy was beating one of them up and they shot him out of fear of what would have happened if he would've taken the shotgun away from his pursuer. Now do you see the dilemma?

Since Trayvon Martin every case represented by Mr. Crump involving the shooting of an unarmed Black person by a White person has resulted in no indictment or a not guilty verdict for the accused more often than not.

It is a fact that since that 2012 case Benjamin Crump has a losing record in these types of cases, and no one wants an attorney with a losing record. I'm not knocking his entire civil rights record or his record in criminal defense or civil law. He may very well be a lot more successful in that field. But if that's true someone needs to tell that brother to stay in his lane. Because when it comes to pursuing Civil Rights violations against the shooters of unarmed Blacks his efforts help the White shooter more than the Black victim.

If you're not advising the victim's family to take the U.S. before the International Courts for the unlawful murders of Black men by government agents and former government agents. Then we've seen enough of your dog and pony show. Peace!