Discover Top Posts Tagged with #christopher armitage

Call This Number to Have Jonathan Ross Arrested

One County Attorney Has The Power To Change Everything

Christopher Armitage

(https://open.substack.com/pub/cmarmitage/p/a-minneapolis-prosecutor-can-arrest)

Jan 16

The DOJ has written to Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty

Most Americans have never heard of Mary Moriarty. She’s the Hennepin County Attorney in Minneapolis. Her job has always been important. Now it’s nationally important. She has the legal authority to issue an arrest warrant for Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who killed Renee Good. If she does, everything changes. One local prosecutor, one warrant, and suddenly every federal agent in America learns they aren't above the law.

So many of our readers (and me) called Attorney General Keith Ellison's office, telling them to charge Ross, that eventually his staff reportedly started telling people: that's Mary Moriarty's job, call her. So now we call her.

Call the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office: 612-348-5550.

You have seen most of the details of this case in ten different places by now. Let's get them in order before moving forward.

Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good three times as she drove away from him on a Minneapolis street. He was filming her with his phone in one hand when he drew his weapon with the other.¹ Her last words, captured on his own recording: “That’s fine, dude. I’m not mad at you.” A male voice on that same recording, seconds after she crashed: “fucking bitch.”¹

Five separate video angles exist. Bellingcat synchronized them.² The New York Times concluded Ross was not being run over.³ CNN’s 3D reconstruction shows Good turning her steering wheel away from Ross as she accelerated.⁴ Thomas Warrick, former deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at DHS, told CBC News that deadly force was not required: “it doesn’t look like anybody has hostile intent.”⁵ Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara called the shooting “predictable and entirely preventable” and said Ross’s actions were “at best, very, very questionable tactics.”⁶ A former senior DHS official told CNN he would have been “livid” if one of his officers behaved the way Ross did.⁴ Three former prosecutors from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division published an opinion piece this week calling the shooting “inexcusable,” writing that Good “posed no danger, had not threatened officers and was already retreating.”⁷

The legal authority to prosecute exists. Vice President Vance claimed Ross has “absolute immunity.” That is false. Lawfare published an analysis this week by Carolyn Shapiro, former Illinois solicitor general, confirming he has no such protection.⁸ Under Supremacy Clause immunity, established in In re Neagle in 1890, federal officers are protected only when they act in a “necessary and proper” fashion.⁹ When they act unreasonably or unlawfully, states can prosecute.

Mary Moriarty has video from five angles, expert testimony from former federal officials saying the use of force was unjustified, and the precedent of a law enforcement officer prosecuted for murder in this exact jurisdiction. She has opened a portal for citizens to submit evidence.¹¹ As if we need more. She and Ellison are conducting an independent investigation because the Trump administration kicked state investigators off the case within hours of the shooting.¹²

We have been talking about this for years. We saw federal overreach coming. We discussed what happens when agents beat and kidnap people in our streets. Trump called it the revenge tour himself. The escalation was predictable, and we aren’t at the apex yet. He prefers ICE to the National Guard for a reason: they answer to him, not governors, and the Guard has higher standards. A lack of accountability invites more violence, it confirms that their tactics are working. That is why this moment matters.

Some will say charging Ross risks escalation. That’s backwards. Holding him accountable shows the public that prosecutors are here for them, not to protect the people terrorizing their streets.

This isn’t only about justice for Renee Good, though it is certainly that. This is about whether local prosecutors will use the authority they have to hold federal agents accountable when the federal government is fully corrupted. This is the test case for whether states will cede their power to Trump, just like Congress and the Judicial Branch have.

If a federal agent can kill someone on video, while filming her himself, while five other cameras roll, while experts line up to say it was unjustified, and face no charges because the federal government controls the investigation and refuses to share evidence, then there is no rule of law. There is only rule.

Mary Moriarty can change that. We need her to do her job and put out an arrest warrant. There's enough evidence for a trial, let a jury sort this out like they would for anyone else. Want to calm the situation? Show the public that you won't allow murderers to walk free just because Trump sent them.

Call the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office at 612-348-5550. Tell them you want Mary Moriarty to issue an arrest warrant for Jonathan Ross. Tell them that if she won’t use the authority she has, she should resign and let someone else do the job. If you get voicemail, leave a message. If the line is busy, call back. If you can’t get through by phone, email [email protected] or write to 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487. Find Moriarty on social media at @MaryMoriarty or the official office account @HennepinAtty. The office is also on Facebook at facebook.com/HennepinAttorney and Instagram at @HennepinAttorney.

One prosecution won’t fix everything. But it plants a flag. It proves there’s still a rule of law. Not just a ruler.

--------------

References

1. NBC News. (2026, January 9). New cellphone video shows victim interacting with ICE officer moments before fatal shooting in Minneapolis. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cell-phone-video-deadly-minneapolis-shooting-rcna253207

2. Godin, J. (2026, January 13). Analysing footage of Minneapolis ICE shooting. Bellingcat. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2026/01/13/analysing-footage-of-minneapolis-ice-shooting/

3. The New York Times. (2026, January 9). Video analysis: What footage shows about the ICE shooting in Minneapolis. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/09/us/ice-shooting-video-analysis.html

4. Mackey, R., & Browne, M. (2026, January 9). Cell phone footage raises new questions about ICE agent’s tactics before fatal shooting. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/us/ice-shooting-minneapolis-renee-good-cell-phone-invs

5. Crawley, M. (2026, January 9). What ICE agent’s phone video reveals about Renee Good’s shooting death in Minneapolis. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ice-agent-shooting-video-minnesota-renee-good-9.7040480

6. Montemayor, S. (2026, January 13). In NY Times interview, Minneapolis police Chief Brian O’Hara rails against ICE tactics. Star Tribune. https://www.startribune.com/in-new-york-times-interview-minneapolis-police-chief-brian-ohara-rails-against-ice-tactics/601562616

7. Coe, C., Chamblee-Ryan, K., & Kent, P. (2026, January 15). Opinion: We are ex-DOJ officials. Here’s why Renee Good’s shooting was inexcusable. MS NOW. https://www.ms.now/opinion/renee-good-shooting-ice-doj-civil-rights-division

8. Shapiro, C. (2026, January 15). Minnesota can prosecute Jonathan Ross—but it may not be easy. Lawfare. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/minnesota-can-prosecute-jonathan-ross-but-it-may-not-be-easy

9. In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890).

10. Minnesota Office of the Attorney General. (2023, April 17). Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin sentenced to 21 years in federal prison. https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2023/04/17_Chauvin.asp

11. PBS News. (2026, January 10). Hennepin County prosecutor asks the public to share Renee Good shooting evidence with her office. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/hennepin-county-prosecutor-asks-the-public-to-share-renee-good-shooting-evidence-with-her-office

12. Star Tribune. (2026, January 13). How Mary Moriarty could approach prosecuting ICE agent Jonathan Ross for killing Renee Good. https://www.startribune.com/how-mary-moriarty-could-approach-prosecuting-ice-agent-jonathan-ross-for-killing-renee-good/601562618

#renee good #jonathan ross #murder #ice #abuse of power #prosecution #christopher armitage #minneapolis

Christopher Armitage Examines How Organizations Interpret Rules When Situations Change Over Time

Every organization depends on rules.

Whether those rules exist as formal policies, governance frameworks, operational procedures, professional standards, or institutional guidelines, they provide the structure that allows organizations to function consistently over time. Yet one challenge remains universal across nearly every institution: circumstances change faster than rules do.

Technology evolves. Industries transform. New situations emerge that previous generations never anticipated. As organizations encounter these shifts, they are often forced to answer an important question: how should existing rules be interpreted when the environment surrounding them has changed?

In his essay, Unenumerated Rights or Constitutional Receipts for Raw Dog Freedom, Christopher explores broader questions surrounding interpretation, institutional reasoning, and the relationship between written frameworks and changing realities. While the article discusses constitutional concepts, the underlying ideas extend well beyond legal systems and into the challenges faced by modern organizations across every sector.

The issue is not simply whether rules should change. The deeper question is how institutions maintain continuity while adapting to circumstances that the original framework may never have specifically addressed.

Why Organizations Depend on Stable Frameworks

Organizations function because people share expectations.

Policies define responsibilities. Procedures establish consistency. Governance structures provide direction. These frameworks allow individuals working across different departments, locations, and responsibilities to operate within a common system.

Without shared rules, coordination becomes difficult.

This is one reason why Christopher Armitage frequently explores institutional systems through the lens of structure and implementation. Organizations rely on frameworks because frameworks reduce uncertainty and help people make decisions within complex environments.

The challenge is ensuring those frameworks remain effective as the world around them changes.

Why Rules Cannot Anticipate Every Future Situation

No organization can fully predict the future.

A policy written ten years ago may not account for modern technologies. A governance framework created during one period of growth may encounter entirely different challenges later. Even internal organizational structures can evolve in ways that change how existing rules function.

As a result, institutions inevitably face situations that fall outside the exact conditions envisioned by the original authors.

This does not necessarily mean the rules are flawed.

In many cases, it simply means interpretation becomes necessary.

Organizations must determine how existing principles apply to circumstances that did not exist when the framework was originally created.

What Does Institutional Interpretation Actually Mean?

Interpretation is often misunderstood.

Many people assume interpretation means changing the meaning of a rule. In reality, interpretation is often the process of understanding how an existing framework applies to a new situation.

The purpose is not to abandon the original structure. The purpose is to understand how that structure functions under different conditions.

This distinction is important because institutions depend on continuity. Stakeholders expect organizations to remain connected to their foundational principles even as they adapt to changing environments.

As discussed throughout Unenumerated Rights or Constitutional Receipts for Raw Dog Freedom, interpretation often involves understanding both the language of a framework and the purpose behind it.

How Do Organizations Balance Consistency and Adaptation?

One of the most difficult challenges in institutional management is balancing stability with flexibility.

Too much rigidity can prevent organizations from responding effectively to new circumstances. Too much flexibility can weaken consistency and create uncertainty about how decisions are made.

Successful organizations often focus on preserving principles rather than preserving every procedural detail.

The goal is not simply maintaining old processes. The goal is maintaining the purpose those processes were designed to serve.

This allows organizations to adapt operationally without losing their broader institutional identity.

Why Historical Context Matters During Interpretation

Rules do not emerge in isolation.

Every policy, framework, or governance document is created to address specific concerns that existed at a particular moment in time. Understanding that historical context often provides important insight into how a framework should be applied when circumstances change.

Questions frequently include:

Why was this rule created?

What problem was it intended to solve?

What assumptions influenced its design?

Which principles remain relevant today?

Historical understanding helps organizations evaluate whether a new situation aligns with the original purpose of a framework, even if the specific circumstances differ.

This perspective often improves decision-making by encouraging institutions to think beyond literal wording and consider broader objectives.

How Does Language Influence Interpretation?

Rules operate through language.

The words used in policies and governance documents provide structure, but language alone does not always determine meaning. Context, institutional history, organizational practice, and operational realities all influence how language is understood over time.

The same phrase may carry different implications depending on the environment in which it is applied.

Christopher Armitage frequently explores how language interacts with systems, institutions, and decision-making processes. His work often highlights that written frameworks are only one part of a larger organizational structure.

Interpretation becomes the process through which language, purpose, and context are brought together.

Why Do Different Organizations Interpret Rules Differently?

Organizations vary widely in culture, leadership style, operational needs, and risk tolerance.

As a result, two institutions may approach the same challenge differently even when working from similar frameworks.

Some organizations prioritize procedural consistency. Others emphasize adaptability. Some rely heavily on precedent, while others focus on outcomes.

These differences do not necessarily indicate that one approach is correct and another is wrong. Rather, they reflect the reality that interpretation occurs within larger institutional systems.

The way a framework functions often depends on the environment in which it operates.

What Role Does Communication Play?

Interpretation only works when people understand it.

When organizations apply existing frameworks to new circumstances, communication becomes essential. Employees, stakeholders, and leadership teams need to understand not only what decisions are being made but also why those decisions are being made.

Clear communication helps:

Reduce confusion

Improve consistency

Strengthen trust

Support accountability

Align organizational expectations

Without communication, interpretation can appear arbitrary. With communication, it becomes part of a transparent institutional process.

How Can Organizations Adapt Without Losing Credibility?

Credibility depends on consistency.

Organizations build trust when stakeholders believe decisions are connected to established principles rather than short-term convenience. This is why interpretation must remain tied to the broader purpose of a framework.

Institutions that explain how decisions connect to their foundational goals are often better positioned to maintain legitimacy during periods of change.

Adaptation becomes more effective when it is understood as an extension of organizational principles rather than a departure from them.

Looking Beyond the Written Rule

Modern organizations often focus heavily on compliance, procedures, and operational requirements. While these elements are important, they represent only part of the larger institutional picture.

Rules provide structure, but interpretation provides continuity.

Through essays, interviews, and long-form analysis—including discussions featured through platforms such as the Thom Hartmann Report—Christopher continues examining how institutions navigate complexity, communication, governance, and systems-level decision-making.

His work highlights an important reality: organizations do not remain effective simply because they have rules. They remain effective because they develop the ability to understand how those rules function as conditions evolve.

In a world where change is constant, interpretation becomes one of the most important tools institutions have for maintaining both stability and relevance over time.

#government #organization #christopher armitage

#secession #US politics #public policy #Christopher Armitage #Channel5 #Medium

The news today? What’s the real story? - A poem states the complaint.

A poem by Professor Armitage of North Carolina University

Many people are depressed by turning on Radio 4’s daily news of disasters, crimes and war. It would seem that the UK is not the only place where bad news is the norm in a world where the norm is really the story of daily human achievement, cooperation, caring and happiness.

#Christopher Armitage #poem #poem about the news #war or peace?