Speaker 1: Keep on riding with us, says, we continue to broadcast
Speaker 1: the balance and defend the discourse from the Hip Hop
Speaker 1: Weekly studios. Welcome back to Civic Cipher. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Rams's job. Big shot out to my brother from another mother,
Speaker 1: q Ward, who will be back with us next week.
Speaker 1: He has assured me and all of us that he
Speaker 1: will be back. But in the meantime, we are in
Speaker 1: the company of the lovely the Great Amy Owen aka
Speaker 1: Pineapple Lawyer. For those who don't know, she's a civil
Speaker 1: rights attorney. She has worked major civil rights cases alongside
Speaker 1: Ben Crump. She's known for working alongside professional athletes and
Speaker 1: celebrities and other high profile and individuals. And again, you
Speaker 1: can find her online at Pineapple Lawyer on all platforms.
Speaker 1: I got that right, yep, okay, And that's where you
Speaker 1: want to go if you want to get some more
Speaker 1: game that you got in the first part of the show,
Speaker 1: or some of this game that you're about to get
Speaker 1: right now. So we're going to be talking about some
Speaker 1: anti white discrimination and how that happens to be a
Speaker 1: thing now, So stick around for that so much more.
Speaker 1: But before we get there, it's time to be Aba
Speaker 1: become a better allied baba and today's baba. We are
Speaker 1: shouting out Julo Shop, Julo dot Shop. I want you
Speaker 1: to remember that Julo dot Shop one Black woman owned.
Speaker 1: They offer four hundred and fifty over four hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty unique products from more than seventy five black owned brands,
Speaker 1: from pantry to beauty, home care, kids, gifts and more.
Speaker 1: And Julo they're more than just a platform. They're a
Speaker 1: movement towards change and they're inviting everyone to join them
Speaker 1: to Julo Shop. It's more than a store. It's a celebration,
Speaker 1: it's the giving and receiving of amazing. Julo means more
Speaker 1: than and that's what they promise. This is not just
Speaker 1: another retail shop. It's an opportunity to try something new,
Speaker 1: to discover or rediscover your new favorite products from truly
Speaker 1: amazing black owned brands. Their product partners are dynamic, passionate,
Speaker 1: but most importantly, they are people like you. Their goal
Speaker 1: is to make these brands household names. The names you crave,
Speaker 1: the names you demand, the names you love. Their promise
Speaker 1: to you is to always keep searching for the new,
Speaker 1: the awesome, amazing brands. They will always provide quality convenience
Speaker 1: and selections. So go ahead, discover experience and joy again.
Speaker 1: Www dot Julo dot shop. That's ju l O dot shop,
Speaker 1: not dot com dot shop. Okay, now I want to
Speaker 1: talk to these people on this show. I think that
Speaker 1: this is fantastic. As I mentioned, I am exceptionally petty
Speaker 1: and I hold grudges quite well. This means that I'm
Speaker 1: not shopping on Amazon anymore. You know. This means that
Speaker 1: I'm not shopping at Walmart. This means that I'm not
Speaker 1: you know, it's a lot of people that's not getting
Speaker 1: this money target. I'll see you. I saw that black
Speaker 1: square on Instagram where you at? Now, right, that's how
Speaker 1: it's going. Yeah, but but they can get it too,
Speaker 1: anybody here. I go to eBay. It's not a problem
Speaker 1: getting next day, I'll tell you what. But but it's
Speaker 1: worth it for me. And now guess where I go
Speaker 1: Julo dot shop. Check them out? All right, love it?
Speaker 1: Let's gold you low. So I just kind of want
Speaker 1: to get your thoughts on a couple of stories. Yeah,
Speaker 1: just talk to me, all right. I'm going to share
Speaker 1: a bit from NPR dot org. A federal system oh sorry, yeah,
Speaker 1: a federal system for doing background checks on law enforcement
Speaker 1: officers has gone offline thanks to an executive order signed
Speaker 1: by President Trump when he returned to the White House
Speaker 1: on January twentieth. The National Law Enforcement Accountability Database was
Speaker 1: launched in twenty twenty three as a central repository of
Speaker 1: the professional records of federal law enforcement officers. The main
Speaker 1: purpose was to allow perspective employers, other federal agencies, or
Speaker 1: local police to check their backgrounds from his conduct. The
Speaker 1: system is now offline. Why did President Trump decommission the database?
Speaker 1: It appears to be a casualty of Trump's flurry of
Speaker 1: first day executive actions, which included the revocation of a
Speaker 1: long list of President Biden's executive orders. One of those
Speaker 1: Biden orders was a package of police reforms signed on
Speaker 1: May twenty two, the second anniversary of the murder of
Speaker 1: George Floyd. The database was just one item among many
Speaker 1: in Biden's order, and since sorry and the Trump administration
Speaker 1: has not criticized it specifically, though in the preface to
Speaker 1: the revocation it criticized the Biden policies in general over
Speaker 1: what it called unlawful and radical DEI ideology. So I
Speaker 1: want to make sure that I mentioned this states individually
Speaker 1: can still keep databases, but you know, what are your
Speaker 1: thoughts on that? And I guess what do people do
Speaker 1: if they encounter police misconduct? Now, maybe you don't have
Speaker 1: the answer for that, but that feels like a tremendous loss,
Speaker 1: especially since you know, those of us that have been
Speaker 1: kind of fighting this fight since twenty twenty, where police
Speaker 1: accountability was really all we were asking but the main
Speaker 1: thing we were asking for us should say, you know,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on this? And you know, maybe
Speaker 1: a couple of words for people that are concerned about that.
Speaker 2: Sure, it feels like we're taking steps back, right, like
Speaker 2: big giant steps back. You know, the George Floyd case
Speaker 2: was a big deal, and so to have the federal
Speaker 2: records completely offline now and how do you how do
Speaker 2: you hold those police forces accountable? At this point, I
Speaker 2: already feel like there's so much that happens in these
Speaker 2: cases that families aren't given, you know, the unredacted video tapes.
Speaker 2: I have clients and families who reach out to me
Speaker 2: all the time when they say, you know, this happened
Speaker 2: to my family member, and we've been asking for the
Speaker 2: video tape for two years. Why aren't they releasing it
Speaker 2: to us, why can't they give it to us? And
Speaker 2: so in a in a system that's already broken, to
Speaker 2: have even more roadblocks put up is very scary, and
Speaker 2: I think you just have to continue to be persistent.
Speaker 2: You have to keep asking. You know, we have rights
Speaker 2: that are undeniable rights in this country, and one of
Speaker 2: those is to make public records requests to these organizations,
Speaker 2: and they do have to eventually give those videotapes and
Speaker 2: those records to people who have loved ones who are involved.
Speaker 2: I don't have the answers. I think the main thing
Speaker 2: would be to continue to fight. I mean, it's not
Speaker 2: a new fight, right and I think that having, you know,
Speaker 2: an administration that feels like they can do this and
Speaker 2: nobody's going to say anything is also a big deal.
Speaker 2: So I think people like you who are saying something
Speaker 2: about it, who are shining the bright light on it,
Speaker 2: are so important. So your work is actually going to
Speaker 2: hopefully help revert that or fight it somehow.
Speaker 1: Well, Listen, I appreciate you saying that, but the truth
Speaker 1: of the matter is that right now it's lawyers that
Speaker 1: are kind of holding up what's left of democracy. You know,
Speaker 1: all the levers of government are in the hands of Republicans.
Speaker 1: And this is a further right government than I've ever
Speaker 1: seen in my lifetime. This is you know, there's there
Speaker 1: is I don't even consider him to be a decent person,
Speaker 1: like a decent human being. Even this very thing that
Speaker 1: we're talking about right now. You can you can look
Speaker 1: at as nears makes no difference. Forty million people in
Speaker 1: Unison more or less about their grievances at the hands
Speaker 1: of the police. Forty million United States citizens more than that.
Speaker 1: But you know, let's just you know, for the sake
Speaker 1: a round numbers, this is not just a black issue.
Speaker 1: This is a police issue. And there's often been this
Speaker 1: narrative that it's just a few bad apples, just a
Speaker 1: few bad apples, right, And that's been the narrative that
Speaker 1: they've used to push back against the progressive policies that
Speaker 1: we've wanted to see implemented with respect to police. Listen,
Speaker 1: we don't have to have, you know, wide scale police reform.
Speaker 1: It's just a few bad apples. Once we weed them out,
Speaker 1: everything will be fine. You guys, calm down, right, So
Speaker 1: this has been their approach. But this maneuver by Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to wipe out the database that accounts for the
Speaker 1: transgressions of those bad apples. It's almost like the presumption
Speaker 1: is that all police are perfect, they are above accountability,
Speaker 1: and all forty million of those black people are just
Speaker 1: imagining it or they are not even worth hearing. And
Speaker 1: that's the part that feels like, like when I said,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't even feel like this is a
Speaker 1: decent person. That's where that comes from, and again where
Speaker 1: we are right now. And I appreciate you saying so,
Speaker 1: because you know, there are many people who have said, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, a show like this is more important than ever,
Speaker 1: you know, especially now on the other side of that election.
Speaker 1: This is going to get really bad and it's going
Speaker 1: to stay bad for a long time, and we need
Speaker 1: somebody to keep talking. Hey, look, I got you. I'm
Speaker 1: not giving up. I am not ague. There's no quit
Speaker 1: in me. My heart doesn't know how big my body is,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. And I run it. I
Speaker 1: was born it down from Compton, right, so you know
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. I've had such a fantastic life that
Speaker 1: if I round the next corner and that's it for me,
Speaker 1: somebody's waiting on me. So be it right. But this
Speaker 1: fight is taking place in the courtrooms. These fights are
Speaker 1: taking place in courts around the country, and your work
Speaker 1: and your work with Ben and Crump is more important
Speaker 1: than ever. And so I guess, you know, just sharing
Speaker 1: these stories is something that kind of helps the public
Speaker 1: know kind of what's going on. But you know, if
Speaker 1: something occurs to you, of course reach out to us
Speaker 1: at Civic Cipher to reach out to Pineapple Lawyer as well.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about it. I want to share another story
Speaker 1: too here. This one's from the Washington Post. Marlene Ames
Speaker 1: was distraught in twenty nineteen when she was bumped from
Speaker 1: an administrator position at the state agency overseeing youth corrections
Speaker 1: and replaced by a gay man who she says was
Speaker 1: less qualified. Ames was demoted and her pay was cut
Speaker 1: more than forty thousand dollars. A few months later, she
Speaker 1: lost a management job she had applied for to a
Speaker 1: woman who had not sought the position initially. According to
Speaker 1: a lawsuit, Ames would soon file that woman, too, was gay.
Speaker 1: Ames's job discrimination lawsuit makes an unusual claim that could
Speaker 1: up end how many any of the nation's courts have
Speaker 1: handled such cases for decades. The department, she says was
Speaker 1: biased against straight people like her. Straight discrimination. This is
Speaker 1: what she's alleging. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in
Speaker 1: Ames's bid to revive her case, which was stymied in
Speaker 1: the lower courts because of past rulings that set a
Speaker 1: higher legal bar for men, straight people, and whites to
Speaker 1: prove bias in the workplace than for groups that have
Speaker 1: historically faced discrimination. That higher standard is unconstitutional, her suit says.
Speaker 1: The case is being closely watched by corporations and employment lawyers,
Speaker 1: many of whom expect the High Court's conservative supermajority to
Speaker 1: side with Ames now sixty and make it easier for
Speaker 1: members of majority groups to sue. So here we are
Speaker 1: now on the other side of the first Trump presidency,
Speaker 1: where the Supreme Court was decidedly conservative. Democrats didn't stack
Speaker 1: the courts. Democrats didn't do any of the things that
Speaker 1: you know, I'm sure Republicans would have gladly done, because
Speaker 1: we've seen that there is no When they make radical
Speaker 1: changes to how we fundamentally live our lives in this country,
Speaker 1: they call it fighting for America right. But the reason
Speaker 1: that Democrats don't do it is because historically it's never
Speaker 1: been done right. But the long and the short of
Speaker 1: it is that Joe Biden had four years with a
Speaker 1: decidedly conservative Supreme Court. Now Donald Trump is back in office,
Speaker 1: and as it turns out, there are people suing because
Speaker 1: they feel they're being discriminated against because they're straight. There
Speaker 1: are people suing because they feel they've been disc eminated
Speaker 1: against because they're white. And this is a mischaracterization and
Speaker 1: in some instances a bastardization of what these laws, the
Speaker 1: premise of these laws. Now, this is just my thoughts here.
Speaker 1: You're an actual lawyer and these things have to hit
Speaker 1: closer to home for you. What are your thoughts hearing
Speaker 1: stories like these?
Speaker 2: Well, constitutional law was one of my favorite classes in
Speaker 2: law school, and constitutional law is where you learn about
Speaker 2: all of the tests for large cases like the type
Speaker 2: that you're describing about disparate treatment. So there are tests
Speaker 2: that every court is supposed to apply when someone says, hey,
Speaker 2: I was discriminated against her I was treated differently, and
Speaker 2: it would be fact fact based which tests they apply.
Speaker 2: But hopefully our court systems are not so broken and
Speaker 2: that every single judge is not in the pocket of
Speaker 2: our administration, and that they apply the correct tests to
Speaker 2: every situation and figure out was this person treated fairly
Speaker 2: regardless of I guess if she was straight or she
Speaker 2: was gay or something like that. And that's a unique
Speaker 2: you know, that's a unique case. I haven't had any
Speaker 2: clients that had that exact circumstance, right, but those constitutional
Speaker 2: law tests and things that have been around for you know,
Speaker 2: decades and decades should come into play. It's what's scary
Speaker 2: about it is that a lot of these judges have
Speaker 2: been appointed by the current administration, so by Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: and so whether or not they apply the law as
Speaker 2: it should be applied is yet to be I think
Speaker 2: I've seen a couple of things come across that I'm like,
Speaker 2: oh my gosh, even from our Supreme Court, right, And
Speaker 2: you think, why are intelligent people who obviously went to
Speaker 2: law school and went to the same constitutional law classes
Speaker 2: that I went to, why are they applying the law
Speaker 2: so differently? And it's because every single mind works in
Speaker 2: a different way. So you can almost go down that
Speaker 2: gray path and figure out a way to say, Okay,
Speaker 2: this is why I'm gonna side with the conservatives. This
Speaker 2: is why I think that you know, the left wing
Speaker 2: is correct in this case, and it's so great, the
Speaker 2: law is so great that there.
Speaker 1: Are ways to.
Speaker 2: Find good and bad in both sides. Right, nothing is
Speaker 2: ever just black and white. That's where lawyers live. We
Speaker 2: live in the gray, right. But I'm just hopeful that
Speaker 2: the these principles that we know to be, you know,
Speaker 2: solidified in both case law, in history, in constitutional law,
Speaker 2: that they are applied across the board. But you never know.
Speaker 2: I think this woman who is making this claim, I
Speaker 2: don't know what the circumstances are. I would have to
Speaker 2: read her case and see what the facts are before
Speaker 2: I could make a, you know, an educated comment on it.
Speaker 2: But it does worry me that groups that have not
Speaker 2: been marginalized and don't have the power. So racism obviously
Speaker 2: it's a power thing. Right, Like groups that don't have
Speaker 2: the power, we're gonna be more subject to racism and
Speaker 2: discrimination and things like that. So for the majority to
Speaker 2: think that they're now being discriminated against, or emboldening them
Speaker 2: to feel like, oh, I can sue too, is a
Speaker 2: slippery slope and I'm not excited about that at all,
Speaker 2: And I think that it's dangerous and I hope that
Speaker 2: the court systems cannot least, you know, make some of
Speaker 2: the decisions on the right side.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we need some standardization here. Yeah, I know what
Speaker 1: you mean. And I think that you make a good
Speaker 1: point because if let's say that this woman, what's her name,
Speaker 1: Marlene Ames, Let's say Marlene Ames's name is Ramses, Right,
Speaker 1: so this is me and this actually happened to me, Okay,
Speaker 1: I would have a tough time arguing that two instances,
Speaker 1: one where I was demoted and someone who was less
Speaker 1: qualified replaced me, and the second where someone who didn't
Speaker 1: seek a job was hired in front of me. I
Speaker 1: would have a tough time proving to any court that
Speaker 1: that was based on racism. Right, if it was two
Speaker 1: white men, two white women, to whatever, I'd have the
Speaker 1: toughest time trying to argue that in court this is
Speaker 1: flat overt racism because I got demoted this one time,
Speaker 1: and then this other time someone got hired. It wasn't
Speaker 1: even seeking the job. Okay, okay, But she again, now
Speaker 1: with a conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court, has a
Speaker 1: fighting chance, as illustrated by the fact that everybody's waiting.
Speaker 1: This is kind of what people are anticipating that this
Speaker 1: is going to fundamentally change how that looks. And it's
Speaker 1: so crazy because where I would have a tough time
Speaker 1: even bringing that to a lawyer and just to even like, yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: I get laughed out of the office for that. Like dog,
Speaker 1: that's called being black dog, welcome to the club, Right,
Speaker 1: That's all I would hear. But for her, it's going
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court and in a fundament and if
Speaker 1: that's not the epitome of white privilege, I was just
Speaker 1: going to say that, I don't know what it is.
Speaker 1: How about that? Right, Well, look what's going on in
Speaker 1: the country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a reflection of that in my view, and
Speaker 2: it's a scary, scary time.
Speaker 1: Sure, sure, well we got one more. I don't know
Speaker 1: that we'll have enough time to really pontificate, but I
Speaker 1: did want to share it. These are some words from
Speaker 1: doctor Ebram x Kindy, who was a recent guest on
Speaker 1: the show. Here he says Trump's FBI plans to go
Speaker 1: after anti racist black leaders in organization. If history is
Speaker 1: any guide, Trump's FBI will exacerbate small rivalries and spread
Speaker 1: false allegations against organizations and leaders to undermine the reputations
Speaker 1: and support and or to justify jailing or silencing key leaders.
Speaker 1: The pervasiveness of anti blackness among people of all races
Speaker 1: eases this job of Trump's FBI and those unwittingly aiding
Speaker 1: the state due to petty, ideological or personal differences. Now.
Speaker 1: He said this in response to an article in titled
Speaker 1: Trump's FBI poised to focus counter terror strategies on things
Speaker 1: like BLM and Antifa, and that's I believe, a vanity
Speaker 1: Fair article that he was responding to. In other words,
Speaker 1: the FBI is now going to be turning its sites
Speaker 1: onto black organizations and treating the black organizations the same
Speaker 1: way that you would treat like a what's the one
Speaker 1: isis or you know, the kukus Klan or whatever. I
Speaker 1: don't boys, Yeah, I don't even think that they're they're
Speaker 1: really focused on proud boys and Kukusklan. I think that again,
Speaker 1: there there's a fundamental shift in how because again the
Speaker 1: Project twenty twenty five, all these people are appointees. All
Speaker 1: these people are you know, people that were competent at
Speaker 1: the job. Now they've fired and been replaced by people
Speaker 1: who were loyalists, right, and so this very well could
Speaker 1: be the way that this department goes and so it
Speaker 1: compromises our capacity to fight back, you know, like thirty seconds.
Speaker 1: Anything to add here, Well.
Speaker 2: I would say it's it's not the first time in
Speaker 2: our history, right, Okay, look at how the Black Panthers
Speaker 2: were treated.
Speaker 1: Historically.
Speaker 2: This has actually been a good thing at at some junctures,
Speaker 2: right to make people wake up and say, Okay, we
Speaker 2: want to fight for what's right. We want to you know,
Speaker 2: take back some of the power. So maybe this is
Speaker 2: what the Democrats and some of those on our side
Speaker 2: need in order to really get our stuff together. Because
Speaker 2: I feel like we had four years to get our
Speaker 2: stuff together while Biden was there, and this was all
Speaker 2: we had. This was the plan that we came up with.
Speaker 2: I think that we should, instead of being negative about it,
Speaker 2: turn it into a positive and really try to move
Speaker 2: forward and move upwards.
Speaker 1: Well sound advice. I think that's probably the only advice
Speaker 1: that we can take right now, and so we will
Speaker 1: take it and leave it right there. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for having me, for taking the time to come
Speaker 1: and talk to us. I know that we're asking big questions,
Speaker 1: and these big questions don't really have nice, easy answers,
Speaker 1: but I appreciate you giving us something, because as I say,
Speaker 1: something is is not nothing. Once again, our guest is
Speaker 1: Amy Owen, better known as Pineapple Lawyer. Be sure to
Speaker 1: follow her online at Pineapple Lawyer on all platforms. She's
Speaker 1: a civil rights attorney, has worked major civil rights cases
Speaker 1: alongside Ben Crump, has worked with a ton of athletes
Speaker 1: and actors and fami's important people, and she has come
Speaker 1: down from the mountains to hang with us today. So
Speaker 1: we again we can't thank you enough.
Speaker 2: My honor.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and be sure to follow us on all social
Speaker 1: media at Civic Cipher. Hit the website civiccipher dot com
Speaker 1: to download this in any previous episodes, and until next week,
Speaker 1: y'all peace.
Speaker 2: Thanks