Police beat up entire wedding party, ruin pro baseball player’s career A dozen wedding guests were beaten, tased, pepper sprayed, and arrested. Posted on April 19, 2014 by Site Staff in News Amanda Lankford and Gil O’Balle (Source: ABC-13)
GALVESTON, TX — More than a dozen wedding guests were brutalized by police officers during a raid on a wedding party at a hotel. Cops fired tasers, used batons, and generously applied pepper spray to the guests of a bride and groom hours after their wedding. Among them was former pro-baseball star Brandon Backe, who said the shoulder injuries that he received from police caused his pitching career to end.
After causing a gaping head wound, bruises, hair pulled out, a broken nose, and pepper spray on numerous individuals, the only reprimand any of the officers received was a paperwork violation. Interestingly, none of the 3 dozen cops reported any use of force.
Wedding Crashers
An event that should have been happy and memorable turned into violence and chaos when the Galveston Police got involved. A couple had just exchanged their vows and were celebrating with friends and family at the San Luis Hotel.
Everything was fine until an off-duty police officer thought that he had witnessed the bride’s brother, Daniel “Cole” O’Balle, 19, walking outside with an alcoholic beverage in his hand. Suspecting an under-aged adult had consumed a beverage without government permission, and violated the “open container” prohibition law, he phoned the police department for backup.
“I never thought I would have to go into a room and pray for my brothers life within hours of getting married.” Police officers arrived to confront Mr. O’Balle. Joe and Shannon Belluomini, guests of the wedding party, witnessed the altercation and said that O’Balle was complying with security. Nonetheless, “out of nowhere, mayhem started,” explained Joe Belluomini to KTRK.
When the Belluominis tried to defuse the situation, they became targets themselves. Shannon Belluomini explained to KTRK that her husband was grabbed by the throat as Mr. O’Balle was assaulted. “The officer that had a baton in his hand started beating Cole with it. And then there just seemed like there were more and more officers.”
As Shannon Belluomini witnessed Cole O’Balle getting pummeled with baton strikes, she tried to intercede to protect his head, which was gashed open and bleeding. “That’s when they grabbed hold of me and threw me backwards and basically encased me with mace. It felt like acid being poured over my face and my eyes and my chest.”
Cole O’Balle’s head wound. (Source: ABC-13) As the commotion ensued, the wedding party came out to see what was the matter. Police lashed out violently to all who came within striking distance.
A total of 34 officers stormed the scene, prepped to handle what was described as a “riot.” Witnesses said the officers swarmed into the bar swearing at patrons and beating, pepper spraying, and tasering people without provocation.
Gil O’Balle, the father of the bride, saw that the police had split his son’s skull open and was attacked himself just for asking what had happened. Gil was then tased, pepper sprayed, and arrested
“I never thought I would have to go into a room and pray for my brothers life within hours of getting married,” said the bride, Amanda Lankford to KTRK.
Cole O’Balle had to be flown via helicopter to a hospital for immediate medical care. Cops arrested 13 people for ‘resisting arrest.’
Baseball Career Ruined
Brandon Backe received a broken nose, bruising, and permanent shoulder injuries. Brandon Backe, a pitcher for the Houston Astros, was in attendance to the wedding since he was a childhood friend of the groom. As a pro-baseball player he had appeared in the World Series in 2005. The injuries he endured during the commotion would ultimately lead to surgeries, permanent pain, and a ruined career.
“I heard a frantic voice saying, ‘They got Cole.’ I could tell by the tone of the voice that something wasn’t right,” explained Backe in court.
Brandon Backe pitching for the Houston Astros in 2008. (Source: J. Meric / Getty Images) When Backe and others went outside to see the horrific head injury that Cole O’Balle had sustained, they were told by Officer Nicholas McDermott “back the f— up!” according to Backe.
But Backe said there was no more room to back up. “Chill out, we can’t back up. You’ve got enough room,” Backe replied. He says at that point several officers attacked him. He says he was struck until he fell to the ground and received a beating until his face was bloody. He said one officer kicked him in the face, breaking his nose.
Backe said that officers slammed his body into a concrete curb and then piled on top of him, beating him continuously. His shoulder took a hard blow from the concrete. “I hit the ground hard and they just got on top of me,” he said.
That pain in that shoulder never subsided, Backe said in court. After surgeries and prolonged pain, his baseball career was forced to an early conclusion. “You want to be able to hang it up yourself, not let someone else hang it up for you,” he said.
The incident occurred over on October 5th, 2008, but is still being worked through the court system. The incident caused twelve people to join a lawsuit against the Galveston Police Department for allegations of brutality. Brandon Backe is seeking damages for his career being destroyed.
Here is a brief video that was recorded during the incident. Note the use of taser as individuals — including the bride’s father — were not resisting.
Operating As Trained
For all the brutality and wanton attacks committed that night, no officers were fired. As far as the chief was concerned, every instance of force was justified. The only complaints that Galveston Police supervisors had was that the incident wasn’t documented properly. According to the Houston Chronicle:
An internal police investigation completed in March 2009 found that officers followed department policy in making arrests and applying force but that 13 officers failed to properly document the incident. Nine officers were suspended without pay, and four were issued written reprimands.
No “use of force” forms were filed at all, despite a gaping head wound, hair pulled out, a broken nose, pepper spray on numerous individuals, and obvious signs of bruising and beating on the arrested wedding guests.
While these omissions were themselves upsetting, many were shocked by the lack of acknowledgement of the brutality, and the lack of discipline following it.
“Split a skull open — bleeding on the brain — and its a paperwork violation?!” remarked Gil O’Balle.
Guest Guest
Subject: No warrant shall issue? Fri May 09, 2014 1:29 pm
'A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”'
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA HIGH COURT VACATES STATE CONSTITUTION: RULE OF LAW COLLAPSES INTO RULE OF MEN
Retrieved from Map of World by Jack Mullen
The State of Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that probable cause is all that is required to search an automobile during a traffic stop. The decision effectively ends the process of requiring a warrant to search a vehicle unless there is probable cause and exigent circumstances.
Further the Pennsylvania High Court’s decision overrides Pennsylvania’s own Declaration of Rights in State Constitution Article I, Section 8. Article 8 stating :
“The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed by the affiant.”[A]
In Contrast to the Constitution for the United States, the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights adds further protections stating people shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures in their persons, houses, papers and possessions. Further the Pennsylvania Constitution states no warrant shall be issued to search any place or seize any person or things without describing them as nearly as may be and without probable cause.
Contrasting with the Constitution for the United States, Article 4 of the Bill Rights states :
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[F]”
The Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 8 of the Declaration of Rights, is considered to provide even greater protections of privacy than the Constitution for the United States; “Commonwealth v. Waltson, 724 A.2d 2 89, 292 (Pa. 1998) (citing [J-5-2013] - 6 Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 897-98 (Pa. 1991)” [1]
The high Court acknowledged in its recent ruling :
“As a general rule, for a search to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 8, police must obtain a warrant,supported by probable cause and issued by an independent judicial officer, prior to conducting the search. This general rule is subject to only a few delineated exceptions, including the existence of exigent circumstances. See Horton v. California, 496 U.S.128, 134 n.4 (1990) (“[I]t is a cardinal principle that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment -- subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted);[A]”
However the court later cited Federal Government rulings stating that “exigent” circumstances are automatically in place because an automobile or vehicle is mobile and therefore the evidence is easily and naturally moved when the vehicle is moved. Recent United States Supreme Court rulings now permit searching on probable cause alone, without exigent circumstances, even if the car were immobile or impounded.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." - Justice Learned hand
Thus the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, following the federal lead, carefully crafted a legal word-salad argument building a bridge around the Pennsylvania Constitution and its Declaration of Rights in favor of the vastly pro-government and anti Individual rights positions of the Federal Government and its Supreme Court.
In fact the Court stated :
“At the outset, it is important to recognize that this Court may extend greater protections under the Pennsylvania Constitution than those afforded under the U.S.Constitution. However, we should do so only where our own independent state constitutional analysis indicates that a distinct standard should be applied.” [A]
In concluding the Pennsylvania Supreme court noted :
“no compelling reason to interpret Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as providing greater protection with regard to warrantless searches of motor vehicles than does the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, we hold that,in this Commonwealth, the law governing warrantless searches of motor vehicles is coextensive with federal law under the Fourth Amendment.”[A]
While saddling up with the Federal Government, the State of Pennsylvania has short circuited the “spirit and intent” of the Pennsylvania State Constitution and Declaration of Rights, while ensuring the ruling cannot be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States.
It is evident and abundantly clear, the Federal Government’s egregious attack on the organic fourth Amendment of the Constitution for the United States is consistent with an agenda of curtailing individual liberties, while massively increasing Federal Government powers and control over “We the People.”
This technique of vacating State Constitutional protections to become aligned with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is a means by which State Supreme courts can diminish rights strongly protected under State Constitutions while seemingly appealing to a higher authority on rights and Liberty.
However, as the history of the United States Federal Government has demonstrated, there is and has been a clear agenda to undermine the limits and restraints on the size and scope of the federal government at the cost of liberties and rights of Citizens of America since the Constitution was narrowly ratified in 1790.
In Fact, since 1819 when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion in McCulloch v Maryland which “turned the Constitution on its head”[B], limited government scholars and advocates have realized the United States Constitution could not hold the power and growth of the Federal Government in chains. Government’s growth is proportional to the powers collected from its Citizens and given the power to write law, and more specifically to interpret laws, define authority of government branches, agencies and set the line between the State and Federal Government’s power, the Supreme Court has essentially unlimited power and influence over the American union of States.
According to Bernard H. Siegan in “The Supreme Court’s Constituition":
“The United States Supreme Court is an unusual institution for a nation that proclaims its dedication to democratic processes. An unelected body whose nine members have been appointed for diverse reasons, it has the power to set aside laws that the vast majority of people support. Under our system, the Court is considered the guardian of the Constitution; yet that document does not not specifically empower it to exercise judicial review over either federal or state legislation.”[B]
In Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court is clearly interested in supporting the Federal Government’s egregious and growing intrusions into the lives and privacy of American Citizens. Recent revelations regarding the extent to which Americans are being spied upon using color of Law and ultra high tech technology, while ignoring, completely, the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution, is clearly an ominous sign of a serious balance of power shift away from privacy and the rights of individuals to be secure from government intrusion to a “borg” State having unlimited powers over the Citizen.
George Orwell once imagined :
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever” 1984
The Pennsylvania decision was 60 plus pages of building arguments to circumvent the Pennsylvania State Constitution: the Supreme Law of the land in Pennsylvania. Upon reading the decision, it is easy to see the court could have as easily and vehemently argued to support the Pennsylvania Constitution and the 225 year history of the Law and will of the people of Pennsylvania. In fact, Justice Debra McCloskey-Todd in a dissenting opinion wrote:
"the decision “heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure which our people have enjoyed as their birthright."
According to Bernard H. Siegan in the “Supreme Court’s Constitution” :
“.. constitutional law, is quite frequently the rule of persons and NOT of law -- a situation that, ironically, a constitutional system is supposed to preclude”
Like Marshall, ignoring the intent of the founders as recorded in the record of the Constitutional Convention, in McCulloch v Maryland, the Pennsylvania Justices ignored the history of the State of Pennsylvania’s strong support of the right of privacy and due process before search and seizure.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has effectively done a great disservice to the Citizens of the State; Citizens depending on the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution of the State against encroachments by the State itself .
Pennsylvania joins many other States saddling up with the Federal Government and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Constitution to dismantle the rights and privacy of the Citizens, while supporting the outrageous growth of totalitarian power of the Federal and State Governments.
Money and Corruption Are ruining the land Crooked politicians Betray the working man, Pocketing the profits And treating us like sheep, And we're tired of hearing promises That we know they'll never keep -Ray Davies : The Kinks
Several possible reasons exist for the State of Pennsylvania and other States to reduce the power of State Constitutions in the area of privacy and warrantless searches: Civil Forfeiture and the corruption of a private prison industrial complex.
Pennsylvania is ranked among the worst in the Union for Civil Forfeiture law. According to the institute for Justice :
“Pennsylvania has terrible civil forfeiture laws. The government can civilly forfeit property by a preponderance of the evidence showing that the property is related to a crime and subject to forfeiture, a standard significantly lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard required for a criminal conviction. And property owners, not the government, bear the burden of proof in innocent owner claims, making property owners effectively guilty until proven innocent. Worse still, all of the money seized by law enforcement agencies and forfeited ultimately makes its way back into their hands. The money is first distributed to the district attorney and state Attorney General, and, under the law, they must use it for enforcement of drug laws. Pennsylvania law enforcement officials take advantage of the commonwealth’s broad forfeiture laws. In just a three-year period (2000-2002), more than $20.2 million in currency, vehicles, real estate and other property was forfeited.”
The State of Pennsylvania makes a living on pirating property from captive State residents and, as of 2011, was in the top 10 states showing increasing prison populations year over year for the previous three years.
Just googling Pennsylvania and Civil Forfeiture will produce pages of horror stories of Pennsylvania Pirates preying on property of the people. Pennsylvania is one of 28 states with so-called ‘3 strike’ laws mandating life sentences to people convicted of certain crimes more than two times. These ‘3-strike’ laws are horrendously unfair and often result in someone going to jail for life for some minor infraction of the law. For example, let say a two time felon is stopped on the highway and police using ‘probable cause’ is searched and a few leaves of a marijuana plant are discovered - this guy may be heading for life in jail for some plant he happen to have in his possession.
Even more interesting is this fact: Pennsylvania is also listed with Arizona, South Carolina and South Dakota as having the largest increases in private prison populations with at least 17% more inmates in private facilities in 2011 than in 2010. [D] MOHRE@LEINK
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: 9-Po lice-11 State is rogue! Fri May 09, 2014 1:37 pm
Subject: 9-Po lice-11 State is rogue! 
Fri May 09, 2014 1:26 pm
