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