Homeless in Arizona

Source

Immigration backers plan U.S. marches

By Daniel González The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:49 AM

Supporters of immigration reform want to recapture some of the energy from the massive marches that took place in 2006 when they take to the streets again next Saturday in Phoenix and cities across the country.

Next Saturday’s marches are not expected to be nearly as large as those in 2006. But reform advocates still believe they will be big enough to grab the attention of lawmakers in Congress and spur them to pass a bill that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Supporters say they hope to tap into the mounting frustration over the slow pace of action in the U.S. House of Representatives, where immigration reform has stalled since the Senate passed its own bill in June that calls for billions in additional border-security spending along with a pathway to citizenship.

They also plan to mobilize people to protest the more than 1,000 people a day who are being deported, including immigrants who would be able to legalize their status if reform passed.

“This is about our mothers and fathers, about our children, about our brothers and sisters, about families being torn apart by senseless deportations, and we aren’t going to stop,” said Dawn Le, campaign manager for the Alliance for Citizenship, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C., that is helping coordinate the marches. “They haven’t seen anything yet. We are going to be relentless until they pass immigration reform this year.”

Still, next week’s marches risk fueling public opposition to immigration reform that until now has remained mostly dormant, analysts say.

“It may wake the sleeping giant,” immigration-reform opponent Rusty Childress said.

Reform advocates have scheduled marches and similar events in at least 90 cities. They expect tens of thousands of people to participate nationwide in the so-called National Day of Action.

In Phoenix, immigrant advocates plan to march from Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic Church on Washington Street through downtown to the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse.

Along the way, the marchers will make stops at the downtown campus of Arizona State University to call attention to young undocumented students known as “dreamers” and at the Maricopa County jail to protest local immigration enforcement that has contributed to record deportations.

“We need to send a very strong message to our lawmakers that this is very serious,” said Petra Falcon, director of Promise Arizona, a Phoenix immigration-reform advocacy group helping organize the march here. “Every day, I get a call from someone that a relative has been picked up and is going to be deported.”

Organizers expect 2,500 to 3,000 people to participate in the Phoenix march, said Raquel Teran, director of Mi Familia Vota, a program run by the Service Employees International Union, which works to increase Latino-voter participation.

To make sure that many people turn out, organizers are providing bus transportation for supporters who will caravan to Phoenix from Yuma and Tucson.

Smaller turnout expected

Teran acknowledged that next Saturday’s march will be nowhere near as large as the one on April 10, 2006, when as many as 200,000 people flooded streets in downtown Phoenix, marching to the state Capitol in support of immigration reform. More than a million immigration-reform supporters marched that same day in several U.S. cities in some of the largest demonstrations in U.S. history.

She said the marches won’t be as big because the immigration-reform movement is now more broad-based than it was back then. It includes writing letters to lawmakers, visiting them at their offices and registering voters.

“Our focus is not just mobilization,” Teran said.

Le, at the Alliance for Citizenship, said the marches are also intended to remind lawmakers of the growing power of Latino voters.

“If this Congress won’t (pass immigration reform), we also have the votes to change this Congress and elect a Congress that will,” Le said.

In addition to Phoenix, immigration- reform supporters plan to march across the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City, through the Little Havana neighborhood in Miami and through streets of downtown Los Angeles, Le said.

Some analysts, however, don’t think the marches will have much effect on lawmakers in Congress, where the Senate passed an immigration bill in June that has since stalled in the House.

“I think they are important to keep activists engaged in the process. I don‘t think they are going to have much influence at all on Congress,” said Louis DeSipio, a professor of political science and Chicano/Latino studies at the University of California-Irvine.

That’s because the holdup in Congress is not among members who can be swayed one way or another, DeSipio said.

Rather, there are 50 to 100 Republicans in the House who refuse to consider any bill that includes a legalization provision for undocumented immigrants, a feature of the reform bill passed by the Senate. They are not likely to be swayed by the threat of the growing political clout of Latino voters nationwide because they come from individual districts that don’t have many Latino voters, DeSipio said.

What’s more, some moderate Republicans are afraid that voting for immigration reform could make them vulnerable to losing primary challenges from more conservative members of their own party, he said.

Possibility of a backlash

DeSipio said the House will not likely consider any immigration-reform bills until at least November. That’s because lawmakers first have to deal with several major budget and spending issues.

“Things are not moving forward,” DeSipio said. “The House is not holding hearings, which would be a precursor to passing any major action, whether it’s a piecemeal bill or considering the Senate’s bill. They are not doing any work to prepare for substantive legislation.”

The marches also risk stirring up opposition to immigration reform, he said.

The 2006 marches, DeSipio said, “were incredibly successful at presenting a positive image of immigrants.”

“They kept the Mexican flags and other countries’ flags to a minimum,” he said. “They were all wearing white. It was all families. It was all very strategic about how they presented themselves.

“But, certainly, you risk a backlash if you begin to see angry immigrants, and angry could be manifested in many ways. Certainly, violence would not be good. Nationalism for countries other than the U.S. would be bad. So, there is always that risk. But I think the leadership of the 2006 marchers were very careful to avoid that, and I think that lesson is still out there.”

Childress, founder of Remember 1986, a Phoenix group that opposes immigration reform and supports immigration enforcement, said next Saturday’s marches could stoke public opposition to immigration reform the way the 2006 marches did.

The 2006 marches revealed the sheer number of undocumented immigrants in the country, and some Americans were also turned off by the sight of immigrants who had broken immigration laws demanding legal status.

“If they go back to their old ways (by marching), that would really inspire people to become politically active (against immigration reform),” Childress said. “People are going to be upset to see that on the evening news.”

Other immigration-advocacy groups are planning additional demonstrations in the coming weeks.

On Monday, about 30 young undocumented immigrants from Mexico who grew up in the U.S. will attempt to re-enter the U.S. through a legal port of entry in Laredo, Texas, to call attention to dreamers who have been deported or can’t return to this country.

On Oct. 16, the National Day Labor Organizing Network, based in Los Angeles, is planning an act of civil disobedience in Phoenix similar to the Aug. 21 civil disobedience at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters on Central Avenue.

Six people were arrested for chaining themselves to a gate or trying to prevent a deportation bus from leaving.

“The reason you are seeing a ratcheting up of pressure is that most people believe the window of opportunity in the House is late October or November,” after the debt and spending debates subside, said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration-reform advocacy group in Washington, D.C. “We think there is going to be an opportunity to get some action.”

Reach the reporter at daniel.gonzalez@arizonarepublic.com.

School board won't probe into $1.3 million loan to superintendent

Source

San Carlos school board won't probe into district's $1.3 million housing loan to superintendent

By Bonnie Eslinger

Daily News Staff Writer

Posted: 09/27/2013 08:12:33 PM PDT

Although a $1.3 million housing loan the San Carlos School District made to its new superintendent has caught some public flak, the school board balked Thursday from ordering an investigation.

Instead, board trustees called for a training session to review how the short-term transaction was handled before they got to vote on it.

Board President Beth Hunkapiller and Vice President Adam Rak sought a formal investigation but were rebuffed by their colleagues, particularly Trustee Seth Rosenblatt, who asserted that would be an overreaction to a simple mistake.

"If we had a board action or audit for every mistake we made, we'd run into a grinding halt," Rosenblatt said. "The action has to be proportionate to the mistake."

Hunkapiller said that despite believing the premature loan was an "anomaly," she thinks it's important to set the record straight for the public.

"I think it's a trust issue. And if we think it's OK to make mistakes, I think we have a problem," Hunkapiller said. "We have a lot of people thinking there's more to this than what may be."

According to district officials, the board agreed to give Superintendent Craig Baker the loan during a recent closed-session performance review so he could move from his Redwood City home into the San Carlos district.

Last week, district Chief Operations Office Robert Porter told The Daily News that staff made arrangements for the loan and scheduled a vote for the school board's Sept. 12 meeting after receiving a copy of Hunkapiller's July 12 letter telling prospective house sellers that the board intends to approve the loan.

Although escrow on the San Carlos home Baker bought was scheduled to close Sept. 13, the date was moved up and Porter wired the money on Sept. 11. One day later, the board unanimously voted in open session to approve the loan.

During Thursday night's discussion, Trustee Carol Elliott said there needs to be a balance between "accountability" and "moving forward."

When Hunkapiller suggested the board didn't know exactly how the loan was moved, Rosenblatt replied that he felt comfortable with the transaction and she should speak directly to Porter.

"I would like to make that public ... that you don't care to know," Hunkapiller said.

When Rosenblatt later said he trusts the school administrators, Hunkapiller interjected: " 'Trust me,' that's what I hear from adolescent boys and I'm beyond that, I'm an adult."

"To figure out what everyone did wrong is not frankly, terribly productive," Rosenblatt answered.

Some trustees expressed concern that public perception of how the loan was handled could cast a shadow on how they later to decide to spend bonds.

In the end, the board voted 4-1, with Rosenblatt dissenting, to have the County Counsel's Office -- which handles the district's legal affairs -- set up a training session for it and staff on how district funds are dispersed and the financial controls in place. The session is to include a chronological review of the loan, from June to September, as well as a discussion about district communications.

Last week, Baker told The Daily News he had already sold his Redwood City home and escrow was set to close around the first week of October. Although the promissory note approved by the board gives Baker up to a year to pay off the loan, the superintendent said as soon as his Redwood City home closes escrow, the district will get its money back with interest.

Email Bonnie Eslinger at beslinger@dailynewsgroup.com; follow her at twitter.com/ bonnieeslinger.

Mexican President Fox wants to legalize pot in Latin America

Source

Propone Vicente Fox legalizar la mariguana en Latinoamérica

El expresidente mexicano, consideró que legalizar el enervante traerá más beneficios que perjuicios a los países que despenalicen su comercialización con fines de uso social.

El ex presidente mexicano Vicente Fox dijo que para reducir el crimen en la frontera, Estados Unidos tiene que decidirse entre aplicar la ley o legalizar el consumo recreacional de la mariguana.

Fox, presidente durante el sexenio 2000-2006, consideró que legalizar la mariguana traerá más beneficios que perjuicios a los países que despenalicen su comercialización con fines de uso social.

El ex mandatario se ha declarado abiertamente a favor de la legalización de la mariguana como una alternativa para combatir la violencia que generan los carteles de la droga que operan en países de Latinoamerica como México.

"México no es productor ni consumidor de la mariguana... la producción fuerte de mariguana está aquí en California", señaló el ex funcionario.

Estados Unidos va en la dirección correcta al permitir el uso medicinal de la mariguana como primer paso hacia la legalización total de la droga, consideró.

Fox estuvo en Peoria el pasado 12 de septiembre para presidir una serie de eventos cuyo tema central fue el desarrollo económico binacional. El ex presidente fue invitado por el Instituto McCain de Liderazgo Internacional y Fundación United Peoria.

Durante una conferencia de prensa, Fox habló de la inmigración y la necesidad de que Estados Unidos apruebe una reforma para legalizar a 11 millones de indocumentados, así como del conflicto en Siria.

Sobre el tema de la legalización de la mariguana, declaró que México y Estados Unidos no han podido combatir el cáncer del narcotráfico.

"Estados Unidos es el principal consumidor de droga en el mundo, y debe reconocer que tiene dos opciones para frenar la violencia en sus fronteras, o aplica la ley o legaliza la mariguana", dijo Fox.

"La legalización de la mariguana y un control adecuado pueden abrir una oportunidad para una industria perfectamente legal", dijo.

En su opinión, al legalizar esta droga, los millones de dólares que genera su venta ilegal a los cárteles y narcotraficantes pasarán al gobierno.

El ex presidente, quien es agricultor en México, dijo que cuando la legalización de la mariguana ocurra, él quiere ser parte de su producción.

"Una vez que sea legal por supuesto puedo hacerlo, soy un agricultor", declaró.

La legalización de la mariguana, aseguró, ya está en proceso en varios estados de los Estados Unidos.

"Si Estados Unidos decide expandir la legalización para fines recreativos estará avanzando en una dirección correcta en la lucha para combatir el contrabando de drogas, tráfico sexual y muchos otros delitos que ocurren en la frontera", enfatizó.

Blaring block party raises noise concerns in Scottsdale

Source

Blaring block party raises noise concerns in Scottsdale

By Edward Gately The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:44 AM

A weekend block party in downtown Scottsdale generated dozens of noise complaints from nearby residents, and city officials now are evaluating how they will deal with a similar situation next time.

The Sound Wave Block Party in the entertainment district closed several streets in an area south of Camelback Road and east of Scottsdale Road from Saturday afternoon well into the night.

It featured outdoor live DJ music and included Maya Day + Nightclub and the W Scottsdale hotel.

Police Sgt. Mark Clark said his department received 37 noise complaints connected to the event.

There were no law-enforcement problems during the event, which attracted 5,500 people, police Cmdr. Jeffrey Walther said.

“We had zero problems other than noise events,” he said. “We had more (complaints) than a normal Friday or Saturday night due to the size of the stage and the level of the bass that was there.”

The Police Department will “tally the noise complaints and find out exactly what the issues were from the neighborhood and then we’ll move forward from there for any future events,” Walther said.

According to the special-event permit, the live DJ music was required to end at 11 p.m., he said.

The entertainment district is south of Camelback and north of Indian School Road, between Scottsdale and Miller roads. It has the highest concentration of bars in Maricopa County and attracts thousands of patrons every weekend from throughout the Valley.

Steve LeVine of Steve LeVine Entertainment received a special-event permit from the city for the block party. Developer Shawn Yari, who owns Maya and the W, submitted a letter to the city authorizing the event.

Mayor Jim Lane said that he is aware of the complaints and that “we are going to be taking a look at that process to make sure we are tending to the elements and guidelines of the special-event process.”

When contacted about the complaints, LeVine said, “I don’t know if that’s true or not, so I have no comment.”

Steve Venker, the city’s planning and design-services manager, said a group effort with city officials and LeVine took place to ensure that the event was “acceptable to the city.” The permit did not require City Council approval.

Councilman Bob Littlefield said he started receiving several calls around 9 o’clock on the night of the event from residents complaining about the loud noise. He said he could hear the noise from a residence near Highland Avenue and Granite Reef Road.

“It was clearly way louder than it should have been,” he said. “So then, all these people who called me had two common themes. One is that they called the non-emergency (police) number and were told there was nothing that could be done. And then the other thing that really annoyed me is they were told this was a council-approved event.”

In response to the complaints, Assistant Police Chief John Cocca sent a memo to all department employees stating that the “special event approval does not give a person/group/event the authority or permission to create excessive noise or disturb the peace” and that an officer should be dispatched or the event supervisor/officer should be notified when calls are received.

Rick Mauch, who lives near Minnezona Avenue and 75th Street in a neighborhood just north of Camelback Road, sent an e-mail to council members complaining about the noise from the event.

“The noise level generated by this event was clearly excessive and well over code limits,” he said. “I do not have a decibel meter, but any reasonable person would have considered the noise excessive. I called the Scottsdale Police Department to file a disturbing-the-peace complaint. They politely explained that nothing could be done ... except to track how many complaints were received.”

Sigrid Egan, who lives near Camelback and Hayden roads, said that she was awakened by the noise at about 10 p.m. and that it grew louder. She also sent an e-mail to council members.

“After about an hour I got up and went onto the balcony and could see above the roofs of the buildings the various colors of flashing lights and heard the blaring music, annoying beat and voices from loudspeakers,” she said.

Raun Keagy, the city’s neighborhood-resources director, said the city’s noise ordinance exempts special events from its provisions, so the 68-decibel limit isn’t applicable. Code-enforcement staff asked the event promoter to turn down the noise four times, he said. Each time, the volume was turned down.

The noise issue isn’t considered a violation of the special-event permit, Keagy said. A violation of the special-event stipulation “may be subject to civil penalties,” he said.

Bill Crawford, president of the Association to Preserve Downtown Scottsdale’s Quality of Life, encouraged residents who were disturbed by the noise to write to the mayor and council.

Crawford said he and other residents were bracing for problems.

“Even though we have been able to provide influence to bring about and strengthen many public-safety ordinances specifically targeting the bar district,” he said, “there is still work to do strengthening our weak noise ordinance in order to protect quality of life in downtown Scottsdale and the surrounding residential areas.”

Editorial: Ex-Chicago alderman scores corruption three-peat

Editorial: Ex-Chicago alderman scores corruption three-peat

5:43 p.m. CDT, September 25, 2013

"In a state that has earned a reputation for having its share of corruption, defendant Ambrosio Medrano stands out."

That's the first line of federal prosecutors' memo urging a judge to throw the book at the former Chicago alderman for his second public bribery conviction. On Tuesday, Medrano became even more outstanding, pleading guilty in a third scheme.

"Incorrigibly corrupt" is how Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Stetler described Medrano. Being forced from office in disgrace and spending time in prison didn't stop Medrano from re-offending. "Indeed, the tapes showed that Medrano was nothing but enthusiastic about pursuing another corrupt endeavor," Stetler wrote. "He commented on how he had been thanking God for giving him the corrupt opportunity."

Ald. Medrano first became defendant Medrano in 1996, when he was snared in the Operation Silver Shovel probe. He pleaded guilty to taking $31,000 in bribes while in office and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

In June he was convicted of conspiring to bribe a Los Angeles County official to rig a prescription drug contract. That earned him the distinction of being the first Chicago City Council alum convicted in two separate corruption cases. His guilty plea to wire fraud Tuesday sealed the three-peat.

In that case, he admitted to scheming with ex-Cook County Commissioner Joseph Mario Moreno and others to take kickbacks from the sale of bandages to public hospitals. Moreno pleaded guilty in July.

Medrano faces up to five years in prison for his second conviction, and prosecutors want the judge to sentence him to every minute of it. On Tuesday they indicated they'd ask for 20 years for the third conviction. Medrano's attorney thinks two years would be more like it.

Incorrigible indeed. The guy just doesn't get it. It took an Illinois Supreme Court ruling in 2007 to convince him that no, he could not be re-elected to the City Council after serving time for bribery. (He'd tried in 2003 and lost, but was back for another run when a legal challenge knocked him out.)

"To Medrano, the concept of paying a bribe to get a contract was not some foreign idea that caused reflection or apprehension, even after going to jail for accepting a bribe," the sentencing memo says. "Instead, to Medrano bribery was part of the government process, something that went without saying."

"Most Americans view government as a system that is meant to represent the interests of the public," it says. "To Medrano, however, government is meant to support powerful people who have connections and who pay public officials."

There's a lot of that attitude going around Illinois, and there has been for a long time. Before Operation Silver Shovel — which netted five aldermen besides Medrano — there was Operation Greylord, which exposed rampant case-fixing in the Cook County court system. Fifteen judges were convicted, along with dozens of lawyers, cops and court officials. Then there was Operation Safe Road, the licenses-for-bribes scandal that sent former Gov. George Ryan to prison. Operation Board Games sent his successor, Rod Blagojevich, to prison.

Right on cue, ex-Cook County Commissioner William Beavers — also a former Chicago alderman — was sentenced Wednesday to six months in prison for failing to pay taxes on money he'd removed from his campaign fund and used for gambling and personal expenses.

It seems like only yesterday that ex-U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife, Sandi, the former Chicago alderman, were sentenced to prison for supporting a lavish lifestyle with money taken from campaign accounts.

Then there are the disgraced governors — four of the last nine have gone to prison — and the 30 Chicago aldermen who have been convicted since 1972. Or is it 31? Or 32? It was hard enough to keep track back when each of them counted only once.

Put NSA in a narrower box

Source

Reach Robert Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8472.

Posted on September 26, 2013 4:28 pm by Robert Robb

Put NSA in a narrower box

The United States needs to put the National Security Agency into a much more narrowly defined box. It’s out of control. And it’s out of control in a way that violates civil liberties and harms U.S. national interests.

Brazil is Latin America’s leading economy and one of the most important countries in the developing world. The United States wants warmer relations with it and to facilitate that had invited President Dilma Rousseff for a rare full-spectrum state visit, with all the pomp and circumstance such occasions can be vested with. For U.S. diplomacy, it was a big deal.

Rousseff canceled the state visit. She did, however, come to the United States. She went to the United Nations to harshly denounce the United States.

Why? News came out that the NSA was intercepting her phone calls and emails. And those of her staff and government. And of Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil company.

The National Security Agency is supposed to be a “security” agency. It is part of the Department of Defense.

So, what threat to U.S. security do the Brazilian president, her government and the state oil company pose?

Earlier it was revealed that the NSA was extensively snooping on European Union officials. And what threat to U.S. national security were they hatching?

The NSA was looking at the emails of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto – before he was ever elected.

This gratuitous spying, with utterly no rational connection to protecting the United States against any conceivable security threat, has consequences.

Obviously, it put the kibosh on an important U.S. diplomatic overture to Brazil, to put it mildly.

Brazil is in the market for some new fighter jets. Boeing, a U.S. company, is a bidder. The NSA making sure there are no terrorist plots emanating from Rousseff’s office is thought to have damaged its prospects.

Brazil is also auctioning off deep-sea oil concessions, in which American companies have an interest. In Brazil, however, the question is whether NSA spying on Petrobras has irredeemably tainted the process.

The United States wants a free trade agreement with the European Union. NSA spying on EU officials has, unsurprisingly, cooled interest in Europe and raised questions about whether the integrity of negotiations for such a treaty could be protected.

Domestically, NSA is also out of the box. It’s not supposed to be prying within the United States. The Patriot Act increased the intelligence gathering power of the FBI, not the NSA. Yet it is the NSA that has the telephone records of virtually every U.S. resident.

The NSA has an important job to do. It’s supposed to gather intelligence about true national security threats. In so doing, it will need periodically to follow leads to sources in this country and in foreign governments.

But that’s not what the NSA is doing. Its indiscriminate collection of data is vastly outside its writ, violates civil liberties domestically and internationally, and is damaging U.S. interests.

It is also jeopardizing NSA’s ability to do its true national security job. NSA can tap so easily into Internet data because so much of it is routed through the United States. The NSA revelations, however, have caused other countries to become more interested in developing Internet routes that avoid the United States. They have also given impetus to calls to put the Internet under some sort of international control, which would be disastrous in numerous respects.

Yes, everyone spies. But no one spies as invasively as the NSA. The invasive capabilities we justifiably develop and use for national security shouldn’t be turned to gaining diplomatic or commercial advantage.

And yes, these rows wouldn’t be taking place except for the leaks by Edward Snowden. But it would be unwise for the United States, in today’s interconnected world, to assume that the agency it assigns to steal the secrets of others will be able to perfectly protect its own.

Microsoft outlines 66,539 account requests from law enforcement

Source

Microsoft outlines 66,539 account requests from law enforcement during first half of 2013

By Timothy J. Seppala posted Sep 28th, 2013 at 11:53 AM 18

We've covered various transparency reports before, but now the whole notion takes on a different feel in our post-PRISM world. Microsoft's latest report details that it received 37,196 requests from law enforcement agencies between this January and June, which impacted 66,539 of its accounts. Seventy-seven percent of those requests were for data like a user's name, IP history and billing address, and with 21 percent of requests, no data was disclosed at all. However, in 2.19 percent of queries by law enforcement, Redmond disclosed "at least some" customer content. What does that mean? Well, the company's definition includes the subject or body of an email, photos stored in SkyDrive and address book info. According to the document, the info was all obtained via lawful warrants and court orders.

While National Security Letters also fall under the guise of law enforcement requests -- which primarily come from the FBI in order to obtain records such as phone numbers and email addresses -- Microsoft is only allowed to publish these statistics on an annual basis. Hence, they're absent this time around, and will be published in the company's next Law Enforcement Requests Report. To see just how deep the rabbit hole goes, do check out the source. We suggest putting on a pot of coffee, though -- it's not a quick read.

NSA watchdog: Employees spied on lovers

NSA watchdog: Employees spied on lovers

Associated Press Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:44 AM

WASHINGTON — Some workers at the National Security Agency intentionally misused the government’s secret surveillance systems at least 12 times over the past decade, including instances when they spied on spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends, according to embarrassing new details disclosed by the agency’s inspector general. In nearly every case, the workers were allowed to retire before they could be punished. [While us civilians will get draconian prison sentences for trivial crimes, government employees rarely get more then a slap on the wrist for major crimes]

In addition to the 12 historical cases, authorities are investigating two other suspected violations and reviewing a third allegation for possible investigation, the inspector general, George Ellard, told Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, in a letter released late Thursday.

Senior national security officials and some U.S. lawmakers have said such cases were exceedingly rare considering the breadth of the NSA’s surveillance programs and reflect how seriously the government monitors use of its systems for potential abuses. [Yea, that's what they always say. The f*ck up never happened before and will never happen again!!!]

“Where (a media report) says we’re sweeping up the communications of civilians overseas that aren’t targets of collection systems is wrong,” the NSA’s director, Army Gen. Keith Alexander, told senators Thursday. “If our folks do that, we hold them accountable.”

At least six times the cases were reported to the Justice Department for possible prosecution, Ellard’s letter said. In some cases, U.S. prosecutors declined to take action but in nearly every case the employees were allowed to retire without punishment. [Yea, that's what usually happens - nothing] In one case, a worker was suspended without pay then retired; in another case, a worker’s promotion was cancelled; in two cases, military employees suffered a reduction in rank, extra duty and brief reduction in salary for two months.

Public concerns about how telephone and Internet surveillance data is handled by the NSA have intensified in the wake of leaks about the agency’s programs by former contract employee Edward Snowden. With the Senate readying to consider new limits on the NSA’s spying programs, national security officials have sought to boost confidence in their procedures. Senior officials have said they moved quickly to report and correct internal problems that led to the NSA’s accidental collection of 56,000 emails and other communications by Americans, and they insisted that willful abuse of surveillance data by officials is almost non-existent.

Grassley, who had asked Ellard last month to provide more information about the 12 violations, urged robust oversight of the secret programs. “We shouldn’t tolerate even one misuse of this program,” he said. [But our government masters will pretty much tolerate any all all crimes committed by the goons in the NSA]

Several cases clearly showed government officials using the surveillance system to probe for information about spouses or paramours. During a 2011 polygraph test, an official acknowledged tapping into surveillance data about his foreign girlfriend’s telephone number in 2004. The official also tried to retrieve data about his own phone but was prevented because internal mechanisms prevented queries on domestic phone numbers without authorization. The matter was referred to the Justice Department. The official retired in 2012 before internal disciplinary action could be taken.

In another case, the foreign girlfriend of a U.S official reported her suspicions that the official was listening to her telephone calls. An internal investigation found that the official had made internal surveillance queries on the phones of nine foreign women without authorization and had at times listened in on some phone conversations. The same official also collected data on a U.S. person’s phone.

The case was referred to prosecutors and the official resigned before internal discipline could be imposed.

Draconian prison sentences for trivial crimes???

Source

Posted on September 27, 2013 4:28 pm by Laurie Roberts

No pardoning Gov. Jan Brewer’s cowardly clemency policy

It was May 2009 and Shannon Connely was asleep in his southwest Valley home when suddenly the sound of squealing tires and barking dogs awakened him.

Worried because of a recent burglary attempt, Connely grabbed his holstered handgun and ran outside to find a police officer.

The officer, who was looking for a missing child, drew his gun and ordered Connely to drop his weapon. Connely cursed, pointed out that his gun was holstered and ordered the officer off of his property. The officer shouted at him to drop it and lie down and Connely complied. He was promptly zapped with a Taser, then arrested.

Connely, a real estate agent who had never before had a run-in with the law, was offered probation if he would plead guilty to a felony. Instead, he opted to take his chances with a jury. Big mistake. He was convicted of aggravated assault and disorderly conduct and because of Arizona’s harsh mandatory sentencing laws, he would pay for his crime. And pay and pay.

The judge, Maricopa County Superior Court Commission Steven Lynch, had no choice but to give him 10½ years in prison. Even Lynch called the sentence “clearly excessive” and issued an order allowing Connely to quickly petition for clemency.

During his clemency hearing, Connely acknowledged his mistake and apologized and in April 2011, the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency recommended that his sentence be commuted to the seven months already served. The vote was unanimous.

Gov. Jan Brewer turned him down flat.

Today, Connely sits in prison in Safford. His record shows one disciplinary infraction – a minor grooming violation two years ago. For his crime, he will remain behind bars until December 2020.

Our tax dollars – and our government — at work.

No mercy, no second chances and for many inmates, not even a fair opportunity to be heard.

This week, we learned that Brewer has been tampering with the supposedly independent clemency board. In a federal lawsuit filed by a death row inmate, five former members of the board say that Brewer Chief of Staff Scott Smith repeatedly pressured them not to send the governor recommendations for clemency. When they did it anyway, three of them were ousted. Two others quit.

One former member, Marilyn Wilkens, says she was called into Smith’s office last year after the board recommended a lesser sentence for Robert Flibotte. Flibotte is a 74-year-old Payson realtor sentenced to 90 years in prison in 2011 after child pornography was found on his computer.

The board in January 2012 unanimously recommended reducing his sentence to five years, letting him out when he is 79, and lifetime probation.

“Mr. Smith was face-to-face with me, with about five inches separating, us,” Wilkens wrote, in a sworn statement accompanying the lawsuit. “He was shaking his finger at me and told me in a raised voice, almost yelling at me, that I voted to let a ‘sex offender’ go. He became very agitated, refusing to accept the tenants of my explanation….”

Brewer denied him clemency and three months after the vote on Flibotte, three members of the five-member board were ousted: Wilkens, who had been appointed by Brewer in 2010; Ellen Stenson, a 2007 Janet Napolitano appointee, and Duane Belcher, who had been the board’s chairman for 20 years.

All three believe they were dumped because of their votes to recommend clemency for Flibotte and certain other inmates. Two other appointees have since resigned, saying they, too, were told how to vote, though one of the two, Jesse Hernandez. quit over allegations of impropriety.

Brewer’s office denied there is any pressure to keep clemency requests from reaching her desk. “The governor’s office does not intervene in cases,” her spokesman wrote in an e-mail to The Republic.

Well, five members of the board – including three Brewer appointees – say differently.

Clearly, Brewer cherishes her reputation as being tough on crime. What elected politician doesn’t?

But you can’t govern by bumper sticker. Or you shouldn’t.

There’s a reason that Arizona has had since 1913 a system that offers a way to cut sentences short in certain exceptional cases.

Few, if any, of us would advocate the wholesale release of ax murderers. But most of us, in our saner moments, recognize that there are times when the system doles out injustice, times when, because of our humanity or simple common sense, a little compassion is called for.

It takes courage for a governor to grant clemency.

But to pressure a board so you’re never put in a position of having to make the call?

That’s the opposite of courage.

FBI investigating shoot out at mall in Kenya

Source

U.S. Sees Direct Threat in Attack at Kenya Mall

By NICHOLAS KULISH and JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

Published: September 25, 2013

NAIROBI, Kenya — Viewing the deadly siege at a shopping mall in Kenya as a direct threat to its security, the United States is deploying dozens of F.B.I. agents to investigate the wreckage, hoping to glean every piece of information possible to help prevent such a devastating attack from happening again, possibly even on American soil.

For years, the F.B.I. has been closely watching the Shabab, the Somali Islamist group that has claimed responsibility for the Nairobi massacre and recruited numerous Americans to fight and die — sometimes as suicide bombers — for its cause. [Again since when was the FBI given the power to investigate crimes in foreign countries???? Sounds like the FBI is creating a worldwide jobs program for itself]

The Shabab has already attacked most of the major actors trying to end the chaos in Somalia — the United Nations, Uganda, aid groups, the Somali government and now Kenya. The United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars bankrolling anti-Shabab operations for years, and there is growing fear that the group could turn its sights on American interests more directly, one of the reasons the Obama administration is committing so many resources to the investigation in Kenya.

“We are in this fight together,” said Robert F. Godec, the American ambassador to Kenya. “The more we know about the planning that went into this, the way it was conducted, what was used, the people involved, the better we can protect America, too.”

Less than a day after the bloody standoff ended, more than 20 F.B.I. agents wearing flak jackets and helmets were combing through the wreckage strewn across the steps of the mall. Dozens more agents will be headed to Nairobi, American officials say. Some of them are members of the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force squad that investigates extremist groups operating in the Horn of Africa, a law enforcement official said.

Over the next few days, agents, including a full Evidence Response Team, will be collecting D.N.A., fingerprints and other biometric information, poring through surveillance footage and examining guns, laptops, cameras and computers — anything to gain insights into how the attack was carried out and the hierarchy, planning and structures behind the group, especially if they have any ties back to the United States.

American officials are mindful that Kenya, one of its closest allies in Africa, has become a precarious buffer zone between the United States and Islamist militants who have declared foreigners legitimate targets in their war.

The American government has learned the hard way what happens if it does not contain groups responsible for faraway attacks. In 1998, the then-relatively unknown group called Al Qaeda simultaneously attacked the United States embassies here and in Tanzania, killing hundreds and following up a few years later with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Shabab militant group, which has pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda and taken responsibility for killing more than 60 civilians at the mall, is considered an especially dangerous threat because more than two dozen young American men are already learning terrorist tactics in Somalia. So far, this has been a one-way pipeline, but the fear is that some battle-hardened militants could come home with their American passports to strike on American soil.

“You never know when a terrorist attack in a faraway place could be a harbinger of something that could strike at the United States,” said Daniel Benjamin, a former Obama administration counterterrorism official. On Kenya, he said, “It’s a country that has a long history of being attacked by terrorists that are of real concern to the United States.”

Compounding matters, relations between the United States and Kenya had grown frosty before the attack because Kenya’s president has been indicted on charges of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court. American officials here were trying to keep their distance from him, but now the two sides must work closely together.

As the mall attack showed, militants would not need to reach the United States to strike hard at American interests. Several Americans were injured in the four-day siege, though none were killed. French, British, Canadians, Chinese, Indians and many others died, most of them Kenyan.

The American government is concerned that the Shabab could target the thousands of Americans living in Kenya, working for companies like General Electric, the embassy or the enormous United Nations office here in the cosmopolitan capital. Tens of thousands of other Americans visit the nation’s game parks, beaches and other tourist attractions every year, according to the Kenyan government.

American officials say that several of the attackers may have escaped, posing as civilians and fleeing in the mayhem. The worry is that they may be planning future attacks here in Nairobi.

Wednesday was Day 1 of an investigation that may take weeks, even months, with the first priority establishing the identities of the 10 to 15 attackers who burst into the mall on Saturday with automatic weapons, shooting some people at random, questioning others about their religion and ruthlessly sorting individuals for execution.

Kenyan officials have said that some of the attackers may have been Somali-Americans, but Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Wednesday that there had been no confirmation of that. Another question is whether a British woman, Samantha Lewthwaite, known as the White Widow, was among the assailants.

Part of the mall was destroyed during the three-day effort to dislodge the terrorists, who had holed up in a supermarket with belt-fed machine guns that officials say were sneaked into the mall days before with the help of a colluding employee.

“The next phase really is making sure we know what’s under the rubble,” said a Kenyan government spokesman, Manoah Esipisu. “Forensic people need to be able to clear that rubble and examine the evidence beneath it.”

The massacre plot was hatched weeks or months ago on Somali soil by the Shabab’s “external operations arm,” according to American security officials. A team of English-speaking foreign fighters was carefully chosen for the target: Westgate, a gleaming upscale mall popular with expatriates and Nairobi’s rising middle class.

Kenya is considered one of the most promising countries in Africa and has become a hub for American interests, including the effort to contain Islamist extremism in the region, putting pressure on the United States to repair its strained relations with Kenya’s president, Uhuru Kenyatta.

“This incident has literally put Kenyatta and his deputy in the center stage of the war on terror,” said Peter Kagwanja, the chief executive of the Africa Policy Institute, a nonprofit research organization in Nairobi. “America and the world have to contend with the aftermath of Nairobi.”

The United States urgently wants to decode the tactics of the assault. There is growing concern about the ease with which a few determined militants armed with automatic weapons could storm into a crowded area, kill many people very quickly and hold off government forces for so long. After the Mumbai killings in 2008, the F.B.I. sponsored training sessions for the hotel industry and other groups that could be soft targets for such attacks.

“One of the misconceptions is that we can let Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups stay abroad and not fight them there, and that we would be safe at home,” said Katherine Zimmerman, senior analyst at the Critical Threats Project of the American Enterprise Institute. “That’s really proven not to be the case.”

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, and William K. Rashbaum from New York.

Cops falsely arresting medical marijuana patients for using hashish!!!!

Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act very specifically says that ALL forms of marijuana are legal for medical marijuana patients. But the cops have come up with a lame excuse to arrest patients who using hashish and other forms of concentrated marijuana saying it really isn't marijuana.

The original article can be found here.

Using government to put your competitors out of business!!!!

Source

Activist works to stop unlicensed contractors

By Joe Dana 12 News Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:52 PM

John Jackson has been labeled both a snitch and a hero in home-construction circles.

The 51-year-old tile craftsman from Casa Grande began a crusade two years ago to expose unlicensed construction after Jackson says it became impossible for him to secure flooring contracts on new-home sites. He said the going rate for tile work dropped to unrealistic levels because subcontractors were willing to take legal shortcuts to complete the work.

“The people that are willing to break the law are the ones who get the jobs,” Jackson said.

He has filed dozens of public complaints and invited 12 News to new-home construction sites where alleged unlicensed work was carried out, potentially done by untrained or undocumented workers. Although not everyone agrees with Jackson’s methods, public officials acknowledge that in many cases, he appears to be right.

Labor-law experts call the practice “employee misclassification.” Others call it “the underground economy” and say the problem is worsening in the Arizona construction industry.

“We’ve seen misclassification quite a while. However, we’ve seen trends lately that are very disturbing to us,” said Eric Murray, district director for the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division.

Contractors who hire laborers “off-the-books” don’t pay taxes, employment insurance and liability insurance. They save at least 30 percent on costs and therefore can bid for jobs at lower rates than subcontractors who play by the rules, labor experts say.

“The folks trying to abide by the law are at a significant, unfair competitive disadvantage,” Murray said.

The practice not only creates unlevel playing fields for business owners but deprives the state of revenue and quality jobs that are supposed to be by-products of a rebounding economy.

The Associated General Contractors of America on Sept. 20 reported that Arizona lost 3,100 construction jobs in August, despite a yearlong trend of steadily growing home-construction permits. The state reported 1,900 construction job losses during August, according to the Arizona Office of Employment and Population Statistics.

Murray said the job losses may be a result of construction employees being moved off the books by business owners.

“The department has a theory that misclassification is playing a role in these ‘job losses,’ ” he said.

Enforcing the laws

Jackson said his business has been crippled because he has not been willing to accept work for such low rates. He was forced to let go both of his employees. Some of his peers say his reputation also took a hit when he spoke up.

“He’s been blackballed,” retired tile-business owner John Williams said. “Sometimes you shouldn’t voice your opinion. You have to stand there and watch. And John refuses to do that.”

The ROC regulates residential and commercial contractors. In response to questions about enforcement, the agency provided 12 News with 30 cases it has investigated since 2011, resulting in license suspensions, revocations and financial penalties. Only one case, which the ROC says originated from a complaint by Jackson, involved work done on a new-home construction site.

Jackson said he blames the ROC for not being proactive against home developers.

“Until the Registrar of Contractors shows a presence on these job sites to show the builders they’re not messing around, that they’re trying to find out who are employees and who are not, then the builders aren’t gonna do nothing,” Jackson said.

Bill Mundell, director of the ROC, said his office vigorously enforces unlicensed “aiding and abetting” laws against licensed contractors who hire illegal labor. According to the ROC, 6 percent of the 773 citations issued to all contractors last year involved aiding and abetting, and the agency submitted 339 criminal cases involving unlicensed contracting.

But Mundell said the law prevents investigators from randomly visiting construction sites looking for violations. Very specific information is needed to investigate and prosecute complaints of unlicensed contractors, he said.

“These are very difficult cases to prove, and the courts have said so. So we are doing the very best we can with the staff that we have,” Mundell said.

On a federal level, the U.S. Department of Labor is in the second year of a misclassification initiative launched under Vice President Joe Biden’s Middle Class Task Force meant to prosecute companies and individuals found guilty of misclassification practices.

In the past fiscal year, the division’s Phoenix District Office focused on electrical subcontractors. The majority of companies investigated were found to have violated misclassification laws, Murray said.

“In Arizona, misclassification takes multiple forms,” he said. “Those include cash pay, workers not on the records, improper designation of 1099 independent contractors and K-1 partnership schemes.”

According to a June report by the Office of the Auditor General, auditors reviewed five cases of unlicensed contracting received between 2008 and 2012 and found that the ROC took between 11 and 99 days to handle the cases and submit for criminal prosecution.

Educating subcontractors

Mundell said he is focusing on the “carrot and stick” approach of enforcement by educating construction contractors and builders of their obligations.

For the first time in the agency’s history, the ROC in June posted a policy statement and checklist on its website to help contractors determine if they are complying with the law, Mundell said.

There are other efforts to educate contractors Valley-wide. Last week Valley employment attorney Julie Pace briefed more than 100 members of the American Subcontractors Association of Arizona about laws regarding independent contractors.

Pace said misconceptions remain among subcontractors about under what circumstances it is legal to hire licensed “independent contractors.”

Subcontractors began “a slippery slope” in an effort to remain competitive in 2007 after the housing market collapsed, she said. They began illegally hiring independent contractors, and many paid cash for their services. The practice is getting worse every year, Pace said.

“Homebuilders need to question who they are hiring, their subcontractors. The subcontractors need to relook at their wage and hour compliance and the things they are supposed to be doing,” Pace said. “Now is the time to clean it up, while the economy is getting back on track.”

Reach the reporter at jdana@12News.com.

Ex-EPA official pleads guilty to stealing $900K

Ex-EPA official pleads guilty to theft; he also had claimed to work for CIA

By Ann E. Marimow and Lenny Bernstein, Published: September 27

A former high-level official at the Environmental Protection Agency admitted Friday that he stole nearly $900,000 from the government by pretending to work for the CIA in a plea agreement that raised questions about how top agency managers failed to detect the scheme since it began in 1994.

John C. Beale duped a series of supervisors, including top officials of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, disappearing from the office and explaining his absences by telling his bosses that he was doing top-secret work for the CIA and its “directorate of operations.”

He lied about contracting malaria (he didn’t) while he served in Vietnam (all his military service was in the United States) to obtain a parking space reserved for the disabled that cost the EPA $8,000 over three years. He took personal trips to Los Angeles for which he charged the government more than $57,000, according to new court filings.

In all, Beale was paid for 21 / 2 years of work he did not perform since early 2000 and received about $500,000 in “retention bonuses” he did not deserve for nearly two decades, according to court papers and interviews.

“To our knowledge, prior to [current EPA Administrator] Gina McCarthy expressing her concerns, no one at EPA ever checked to see if Mr. Beale worked for the CIA,” said Assistant Inspector General Patrick Sullivan, who led the investigation that included interviews of 40 people. Only one, an executive assistant, suspected Beale’s story of working for the clandestine service.

Nor did EPA personnel compare Beale’s travel vouchers, which said he was in places such as Boston and Seattle, with hotel receipts for the same dates that showed him in Bakersfield, Calif., where he has family.

Even during the probe, which began in March, Beale continued to insist that he could not be interviewed because of his work for the CIA, Sullivan said. Only when investigators offered to question him in a secure room at the agency’s Langley headquarters did he admit he had no connection to the CIA, Sullivan said.

For reasons the EPA cannot explain, Beale continued to draw a paycheck until April 30, 19 months after his retirement dinner cruise on the Potomac River and 23 months after he announced he would retire, according to Sullivan and court documents. Beale and his attorney declined to comment after the federal court hearing Friday.

The case has attracted political attention, in part because Beale was defrauding the agency when he worked for McCarthy, the new EPA administrator, when she headed the agency’s Air and Radiation office.

McCarthy started her job in 2009 and told investigators she began to suspect Beale in March 2012, Sullivan said. McCarthy, who is identified as “EPA Manager #2,” in court documents, eventually discovered that Beale was still receiving a paycheck long after she helped celebrate his retirement. She became EPA administrator this year.

McCarthy referred the matter to the EPA general counsel’s office. Instead of being transferred to the inspector general, it was referred to the EPA’s Office of Homeland Security, which has no investigative authority. That delayed the IG’s probe for months, said people familiar with the investigation.

Repeated calls and e-mails to EPA representatives were not returned Friday.

The top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, David Vitter (La.), said Friday that the case highlights a “major failing within EPA” and that “no direct actions have been taken to guarantee this kind of abuse won’t happen again.”

The committee’s chairman, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) called Beale’s actions “outrageous” and praised the inspector general and McCarthy for “putting an end to his thievery.” Boxer has scheduled a briefing for Monday. Beale is scheduled to appear at a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing next week titled “Secret Agent Man?”

Beale, 64, was charged in August with stealing $886,186 in pay and bonuses. A senior policy adviser in the Air and Radiation office, he earned $164,700 when he retired in April. He has repaid the $886,186 to the EPA as part of his plea agreement but still owes a money judgment of $507,000. Beale, who until recently lived in Arlington County, faces up to three years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.

Even though court documents trace Beale’s conduct to 2000, the IG’s office found that Beale’s deception began in 1989, when he falsely wrote on his employment application that he had worked for former senator John Tunney of California, Sullivan said. Tunney’s name was misspelled on the form, he said. Beale said he began the CIA ruse in 1994, Sullivan said, because he missed the limelight from his work on the Clean Air Act reauthorization from 1990 to 1993.

Early on at the EPA, Beale’s air-quality expertise led to many legitimate overseas trips to places such as China, South Africa and England, said people familiar with the case. His frequent international travel also allowed him to cultivate an aura of mystery, his former colleagues said.

When Beale started disappearing from the office in 2001, he told a person identified as “EPA manager #1” that he was assigned to a special advisory group working on a project with the Directorate of Operations at the CIA, according the court filing.

The manager agreed to Beale’s request to be out of the office one day a week for the CIA work, according to the statement of the offense.

In 2005, court documents say the same manager approved a long-term research project that Beale had proposed. Beale took five trips to Los Angeles to work on the project, which prosecutors said did not require travel. Beale stayed in Bakersfield and visited nearby family members. He was reimbursed more than $57,000 in travel expenses for work that was never produced.

The inspector general’s office identified “manager #1” as Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who was head of the Office of Air and Radiation from 2001 to 2005, during the administration of George W. Bush. Holmstead, a lawyer in Washington, said in an e-mail that he had “no recollection of approving [Beale’s] requests.”

“He did tell me that he had an assignment with the CIA that would sometimes take him out of the office, but I was never asked to approve this arrangement. Career employees are sometimes detailed to work at other agencies, and I assumed that Mr. Beale’s work at the CIA was done pursuant to such an arrangement.”

In 2008, Beale did not show up at the office for about six months, telling his managers that he was either working on a research project or for “Langley,” a reference to the CIA.

Throughout the scheme, Beale was receiving a 25 percent retention bonus that should have expired after three years, in 2003. Instead, he continued to receive the bonus through 2013, according to the court documents, and was among the highest paid, nonelected federal government employees. A close friend of Beale’s, his supervisor Robert Brenner, put him in for the bonus twice, Sullivan said.

In May 2011, Beale announced his retirement. The next month, he told McCarthy that his CIA work would keep him out of the office for long periods. Beale sent e-mails to McCarthy and others at the EPA during that time, saying he was traveling overseas and doing CIA work. In reality, Beale was at home or at his vacation house on Cape Cod, according to the plea agreement.

N.S.A. Gathers Data on Social Connections of U.S. Citizens

Source

N.S.A. Gathers Data on Social Connections of U.S. Citizens

By JAMES RISEN and LAURA POITRAS

Published: September 28, 2013 58 Comments

WASHINGTON — Since 2010, the National Security Agency has been exploiting its huge collections of data to create sophisticated graphs of some Americans’ social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with officials.

The spy agency began allowing the analysis of phone call and e-mail logs in November 2010 to examine Americans’ networks of associations for foreign intelligence purposes after N.S.A. officials lifted restrictions on the practice, according to documents provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor.

The policy shift was intended to help the agency “discover and track” connections between intelligence targets overseas and people in the United States, according to an N.S.A. memorandum from January 2011. The agency was authorized to conduct “large-scale graph analysis on very large sets of communications metadata without having to check foreignness” of every e-mail address, phone number or other identifier, the document said. Because of concerns about infringing on the privacy of American citizens, the computer analysis of such data had previously been permitted only for foreigners.

The agency can augment the communications data with material from public, commercial and other sources, including bank codes, insurance information, Facebook profiles, passenger manifests, voter registration rolls and GPS location information, as well as property records and unspecified tax data, according to the documents. They do not indicate any restrictions on the use of such “enrichment” data, and several former senior Obama administration officials said the agency drew on it for both Americans and foreigners.

N.S.A. officials declined to say how many Americans have been caught up in the effort, including people involved in no wrongdoing. The documents do not describe what has resulted from the scrutiny, which links phone numbers and e-mails in a “contact chain” tied directly or indirectly to a person or organization overseas that is of foreign intelligence interest.

The new disclosures add to the growing body of knowledge in recent months about the N.S.A.’s access to and use of private information concerning Americans, prompting lawmakers in Washington to call for reining in the agency and President Obama to order an examination of its surveillance policies. Almost everything about the agency’s operations is hidden, and the decision to revise the limits concerning Americans was made in secret, without review by the nation’s intelligence court or any public debate. As far back as 2006, a Justice Department memo warned of the potential for the “misuse” of such information without adequate safeguards.

An agency spokeswoman, asked about the analyses of Americans’ data, said, “All data queries must include a foreign intelligence justification, period.”

“All of N.S.A.’s work has a foreign intelligence purpose,” the spokeswoman added. “Our activities are centered on counterterrorism, counterproliferation and cybersecurity.”

The legal underpinning of the policy change, she said, was a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that Americans could have no expectation of privacy about what numbers they had called. Based on that ruling, the Justice Department and the Pentagon decided that it was permissible to create contact chains using Americans’ “metadata,” which includes the timing, location and other details of calls and e-mails, but not their content. The agency is not required to seek warrants for the analyses from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

N.S.A. officials declined to identify which phone and e-mail databases are used to create the social network diagrams, and the documents provided by Mr. Snowden do not specify them. The agency did say that the large database of Americans’ domestic phone call records, which was revealed by Mr. Snowden in June and caused bipartisan alarm in Washington, was excluded. (N.S.A. officials have previously acknowledged that the agency has done limited analysis in that database, collected under provisions of the Patriot Act, exclusively for people who might be linked to terrorism suspects.)

But the agency has multiple collection programs and databases, the former officials said, adding that the social networking analyses relied on both domestic and international metadata. They spoke only on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified.

The concerns in the United States since Mr. Snowden’s revelations have largely focused on the scope of the agency’s collection of the private data of Americans and the potential for abuse. But the new documents provide a rare window into what the N.S.A. actually does with the information it gathers.

A series of agency PowerPoint presentations and memos describe how the N.S.A. has been able to develop software and other tools — one document cited a new generation of programs that “revolutionize” data collection and analysis — to unlock as many secrets about individuals as possible.

The spy agency, led by Gen. Keith B. Alexander, an unabashed advocate for more weapons in the hunt for information about the nation’s adversaries, clearly views its collections of metadata as one of its most powerful resources. N.S.A. analysts can exploit that information to develop a portrait of an individual, one that is perhaps more complete and predictive of behavior than could be obtained by listening to phone conversations or reading e-mails, experts say.

Phone and e-mail logs, for example, allow analysts to identify people’s friends and associates, detect where they were at a certain time, acquire clues to religious or political affiliations, and pick up sensitive information like regular calls to a psychiatrist’s office, late-night messages to an extramarital partner or exchanges with a fellow plotter.

“Metadata can be very revealing,” said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. “Knowing things like the number someone just dialed or the location of the person’s cellphone is going to allow to assemble a picture of what someone is up to. It’s the digital equivalent of tailing a suspect.”

The N.S.A. had been pushing for more than a decade to obtain the rule change allowing the analysis of Americans’ phone and e-mail data. Intelligence officials had been frustrated that they had to stop when a contact chain hit a telephone number or e-mail address believed to be used by an American, even though it might yield valuable intelligence primarily concerning a foreigner who was overseas, according to documents previously disclosed by Mr. Snowden. N.S.A. officials also wanted to employ the agency’s advanced computer analysis tools to sift through its huge databases with much greater efficiency.

The agency had asked for the new power as early as 1999, the documents show, but had been initially rebuffed because it was not permitted under rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that were intended to protect the privacy of Americans.

A 2009 draft of an N.S.A. inspector general’s report suggests that contact chaining and analysis may have been done on Americans’ communications data under the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants, which began after the Sept. 11 attacks to detect terrorist activities and skirted the existing laws governing electronic surveillance.

In 2006, months after the wiretapping program was disclosed by The New York Times, the N.S.A.’s acting general counsel wrote a letter to a senior Justice Department official, which was also leaked by Mr. Snowden, formally asking for permission to perform the analysis on American phone and e-mail data. A Justice Department memo to the attorney general noted that the “misuse” of such information “could raise serious concerns,” and said the N.S.A. promised to impose safeguards, including regular audits, on the metadata program. In 2008, the Bush administration gave its approval.

A new policy that year, detailed in “Defense Supplemental Procedures Governing Communications Metadata Analysis,” authorized by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, said that since the Supreme Court had ruled that metadata was not constitutionally protected, N.S.A. analysts could use such information “without regard to the nationality or location of the communicants,” according to an internal N.S.A. description of the policy.

After that decision, which was previously reported by The Guardian, the N.S.A. performed the social network graphing in a pilot project for 1 ½ years “to great benefit,” according to the 2011 memo. It was put in place in November 2010 in “Sigint Management Directive 424” (sigint refers to signals intelligence).

In the 2011 memo explaining the shift, N.S.A. analysts were told that they could trace the contacts of Americans as long as they cited a foreign intelligence justification. That could include anything from ties to terrorism, weapons proliferation, international drug smuggling or espionage to conversations with a foreign diplomat or a political figure.

Analysts were warned to follow existing “minimization rules,” which prohibit the N.S.A. from sharing with other agencies names and other details of Americans whose communications are collected, unless they are necessary to understand foreign intelligence reports or there is evidence of a crime. The agency is required to obtain a warrant from the intelligence court to target a “U.S. person” — a citizen or legal resident — for actual eavesdropping.

The N.S.A. documents show that one of the main tools used for chaining phone numbers and e-mail addresses has the code name Mainway. It is a repository into which vast amounts of data flow daily from the agency’s fiber-optic cables, corporate partners and foreign computer networks that have been hacked.

The documents show that significant amounts of information from the United States go into Mainway. An internal N.S.A. bulletin, for example, noted that in 2011 Mainway was taking in 700 million phone records per day. In August 2011, it began receiving an additional 1.1 billion cellphone records daily from an unnamed American service provider under Section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which allows for the collection of the data of Americans if at least one end of the communication is believed to be foreign.

The overall volume of metadata collected by the N.S.A. is reflected in the agency’s secret 2013 budget request to Congress. The budget document, disclosed by Mr. Snowden, shows that the agency is pouring money and manpower into creating a metadata repository capable of taking in 20 billion “record events” daily and making them available to N.S.A. analysts within 60 minutes.

The spending includes support for the “Enterprise Knowledge System,” which has a $394 million multiyear budget and is designed to “rapidly discover and correlate complex relationships and patterns across diverse data sources on a massive scale,” according to a 2008 document. The data is automatically computed to speed queries and discover new targets for surveillance.

A top-secret document titled “Better Person Centric Analysis” describes how the agency looks for 94 “entity types,” including phone numbers, e-mail addresses and IP addresses. In addition, the N.S.A. correlates 164 “relationship types” to build social networks and what the agency calls “community of interest” profiles, using queries like “travelsWith, hasFather, sentForumMessage, employs.”

A 2009 PowerPoint presentation provided more examples of data sources available in the “enrichment” process, including location-based services like GPS and TomTom, online social networks, billing records and bank codes for transactions in the United States and overseas.

At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday, General Alexander was asked if the agency ever collected or planned to collect bulk records about Americans’ locations based on cellphone tower data. He replied that it was not doing so as part of the call log program authorized by the Patriot Act, but said a fuller response would be classified.

If the N.S.A. does not immediately use the phone and e-mail logging data of an American, it can be stored for later use, at least under certain circumstances, according to several documents.

One 2011 memo, for example, said that after a court ruling narrowed the scope of the agency’s collection, the data in question was “being buffered for possible ingest” later. A year earlier, an internal briefing paper from the N.S.A. Office of Legal Counsel showed that the agency was allowed to collect and retain raw traffic, which includes both metadata and content, about “U.S. persons” for up to five years online and for an additional 10 years offline for “historical searches.”

James Risen reported from Washington and New York. Laura Poitras, a freelance journalist, reported from Berlin.

John McAfee reveals details on gadget to thwart NSA

Source

John McAfee reveals details on gadget to thwart NSA

By Tracey Kaplan

tkaplan@mercurynews.com

Posted: 09/28/2013 07:06:58 PM PDT

SAN JOSE -- John McAfee lived up to his reputation Saturday as tech's most popular wild child, electrifying an audience with new details of his plan to thwart the NSA's surveillance of ordinary Americans with an inexpensive, pocket-size gadget.

Dubbed "Decentral," the as-yet-unbuilt device will cost less than $100, McAfee promised the enthusiastic crowd of about 300 engineers, musicians and artists at the San Jose McEnery Convention Center.

"There will be no way (for the government) to tell who you are or where you are," he said in an onstage interview with moderator Dan Holden at the inaugural C2SV Technology Conference + Music Festival.

And if the U.S. government bans its sale, "I'll sell it in England, Japan, the Third World. This is coming and cannot be stopped."

The ambitious -- some would say quixotic -- project is the latest chapter of McAfee's colorful life.

The anti-virus software pioneer's antics have included his widely publicized flight last year from Belize, where he remains wanted as a "person of interest" in the shooting death of his neighbor.

Even so, he remains an icon in the annals of Silicon Valley's history of entrepreneurship. In 1989, he founded the anti-virus software company that still bears his name and once was worth $100 million. In 1994, he ended his relationship with the company and moved to Colorado.

During the interview, the 68-year-old with spiky black hair tipped blond, who wore light blue cargo pants and a black sweatshirt, remarked on a wide range of topics, from how quickly he gets bored once one of his creations comes to fruition (including the software security company he founded) to how yoga helped him 30 years ago to quit using drugs, including his favorite (psychedelic mushrooms).

It was a talk bound to appeal to the young audience, which broke into frequent applause. Among the group was his new 30-year-old wife, Janice Dyson. She said in a brief interview afterward with this newspaper that she is a former stripper. The couple met in Miami, where McAfee went after being deported from Guatemala.

"I keep him grounded," she said.

McAfee outlined what some might regard as a pie-in-the-sky plan to finish the first prototype of the Decentral in six months. He said the gadget is called Decentral because by communicating with smartphones, tablets and other devices, it will create decentralized, floating and moving local networks that can't be penetrated by government spy agencies.

The design is in place already for a version whose range will be three blocks in the city and a quarter mile in the country, he said. The device will be compatible with both Android and iPhones.

As far as consumers' appetite for such a gizmo, he said, "I cannot imagine one college student in the world who will not stand in line to get one."

Commuters will also find it useful, he said. Neighborhoods will be better able to fight crime because Decentral will include an option that sends an alert if there is a burglary or other crime.

McAfee said the idea for the device came to him well before computer analyst and whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked National Security Agency documents that exposed widespread monitoring of U.S. citizens' phone calls and Internet communications.

But with Snowden's actions, "it became the right time" to make it real, he said.

At the end of the 75-minute discussion, McAfee gamely took questions from the audience about everything from what advice he'd give teens (do what you love) to what he fears (his wife, he joked). In response to a question about marijuana, he made clear he doesn't embrace every aspect of the youth culture.

He said he liked pot users when he sold drugs decades ago because their "lives never go anywhere and they remain customers," adding, "Marijuana is a drug of illusion -- it creates the illusion that you're doing great things when all you're doing is sitting on the sofa growing a beard."

McAfee also reiterated that he never killed anyone in Belize and fled after angering the authorities by refusing to pay a $2 million bribe.

There seemed to be intense interest Saturday in McAfee's John McAfee, right, speaks with Dan Holden at the "Fireside Chat with John McAfee" during the C2SV Technology Conference + Music Festival at the McEnery Convention Center in San Jose, Calif., on Saturday, Sept. 28, 2013. (LiPo Ching/Bay Area News Group) ( LiPo Ching ) current plans. One man asked whether Decentral essentially creates a "dark Web," or part of the Internet that can no longer be accessed by conventional means.

Yes, he said.

Will the privacy it affords allow criminals and others to evade the authorities, another wanted to know.

"It will of course be used for nefarious purposes," he said, "just like the telephone is."

Contact Tracey Kaplan at 408-278-3482.

No. 2 U.S. Nuke Commander Under Investigation

Source

Vice Admiral Is Suspended in Gambling Investigation

By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ and RAVI SOMAIYA

Published: September 28, 2013

A vice admiral who is second in command at the United States Strategic Command, which oversees nuclear war-fighting forces for the military, has been suspended amid an investigation into his possible involvement in illegal gambling, officials said on Saturday.

The officer, Vice Adm. Timothy M. Giardina, is a highly decorated sailor with more than three decades in the Navy. The suspension occurred on Sept. 3, but was not announced publicly, said Capt. Pamela Kunze, the command’s spokeswoman.

Captain Kunze would not comment further on the circumstances surrounding the suspension, citing a continuing investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

The Strategic Command was first alerted about the issue in mid-July. A month earlier, Admiral Giardina became the target of an inquiry being conducted by the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation into possible use of counterfeit gambling chips at the Horseshoe Casino in Council Bluffs, Iowa, said David Dales, the head of the Southwest division of the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation.

Mr. Dales said the criminality in question involved poker at the casino, but said he could provide no further information. The agency’s investigation is still open and no state charges have been filed against Admiral Giardina, Mr. Dales said.

It was not clear whether Admiral Giardina’s actions compromised national security or the operations of the Strategic Command.

The commander of the Strategic Command, General C. Robert Kehler, has submitted a recommendation to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that Admiral Giardina be reassigned, Captain Kunze said. It has not been determined what, if any, additional actions will be taken. The leadership of the Strategic Command is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The Strategic Command, based at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, oversees a web of military efforts including the military’s space and cyberwarfare operations. It also controls the country’s nuclear arsenal.

Admiral Giardina, a career submarine officer, assumed his duties at the Strategic Command in December 2011. Before that, he was the deputy commander and chief of staff of the Pacific Fleet. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1979.

He was scheduled to rotate out of his position at Strategic Command later this year. In early July, President Obama appointed an Air Force general to replace Admiral Giardina.

Source

Tim Giardina Suspended: No. 2 U.S. Nuke Commander Under Investigation

By ROBERT BURNS 09/28/13 06:10 PM ET EDT AP

WASHINGTON — The No. 2 officer at the military command in charge of all U.S. nuclear war-fighting forces is suspected in a case involving counterfeit gambling chips at a western Iowa casino and has been suspended from his duties, officials said.

Navy Vice Adm. Tim Giardina has not been arrested or charged, Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation special agent David Dales said Saturday. The state investigation is ongoing.

Giardina, deputy commander at U.S. Strategic Command, was suspended on Sept. 3 and is under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, a Strategic Command spokeswoman said.

The highly unusual action against a high-ranking officer at Strategic Command was made more than three weeks ago but not publicly announced at that time. The command is located at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Neb.

Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, who heads Strategic Command, suspended Giardina, according to the command's top spokeswoman, Navy Capt. Pamela Kunze. Giardina is still assigned to the command but is prohibited from performing duties related to nuclear weapons and other issues requiring a security clearance, she said.

Kehler has recommended to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that Giardina be reassigned, Kunze said. Giardina has been the deputy commander of Strategic Command since December 2011. He is a career submarine officer and prior to starting his assignment there was the deputy commander and chief of staff at U.S. Pacific Fleet.

DCI agents stationed at the Horseshoe Casino in Council Bluffs, Iowa, discovered the counterfeit chips, Dales said. He would not say when the discovery was made or how much in counterfeit chips was found, only that "it was a significant monetary amount."

Council Bluffs is located across the Missouri River from Omaha.

"We were able to detect this one pretty quickly and jump on it," Dales said. He declined to give specifics on how authorities determined that casino chips had been counterfeited or how Giardina might have been involved.

Strategic Command oversees the military's nuclear fighter units, including the Navy's nuclear-armed submarines and the Air Force's nuclear bombers and nuclear land-based missiles.

Kunze said Strategic Command did not announce the suspension because Giardina remains under investigation and action on Kehler's recommendation that Giardina be reassigned is pending. The suspension was first reported by the Omaha World-Herald.

Kunze said a law enforcement investigation of Giardina began June 16. Kehler became aware of this on July 16, and the following day he asked the Naval Criminal Investigative Service to begin a probe.

The suspension is yet another blow to the military's nuclear establishment. Last spring the nuclear missile unit at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., pulled 17 launch control officers off duty after a problematic inspection and later relieved of duty the officer in charge of training and proficiency.

In August a nuclear missile unit at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., failed a nuclear safety and security inspection; nine days later an officer in charge of the unit's security forces was relieved of duty.

___

Associated Press writer Margery A. Beck in Omaha, Neb., contributed to this report.

Rihanna's slow loris photo leads to Thai arrests

Source

Rihanna's slow loris photo leads to Thai arrests

Bang Showbiz Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:15 AM

Rihanna may have landed two men in jail thanks to an Instagram picture of an endangered slow loris.

The pop star shared a snapshot of her cuddling the cute creature while partying in Phuket, Thailand, leading local authorities to track down the owners of the south-east Asian animal - listed as a protected species - and arresting them.

Rihanna's picture, which showed the big-eyed loris perching on her shoulder, was accompanied by the caption: ''Look who was talkin dirty to me! #Thailand #nightlife (sic)''

The men, aged 16 and 20, could now face fines of up to £800 and a four-year prison sentence for possession of the mammal.

According to the Metro newspaper, Phuket district police chief, Weera Kerdsirimongkon, said: ''Phuket authorities were alerted to the picture and last night police arrested the two individuals who brought out the loris as a photo opportunity for tourists.

''It's like a cat-and-mouse game. But this time it's bigger because a celebrity like Rihanna posted the picture and there were more than 200,000 'likes' from around the world.''

Rihanna has been getting closely acquainted with the local wildlife in Phuket while she takes time out from her Diamonds World Tour, as the 25-year-old singer also posted another picture of her posing next to a group of elephants.

Chicago gives felon 6-figure grant to open liquor store

Source

Chicago gives felon 6-figure grant to open liquor store

Watchdog: Store with ties to felon latest problem for blighted neighborhood

By David Jackson and Gary Marx Chicago Tribune reporters

11:57 a.m. CDT, September 28, 2013

With backing from the local alderwoman and money from City Hall, a new liquor store opened earlier this year in South Austin -- one more purveyor of alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets in a neighborhood desperate for something more.

Informing the original backer of the store that he would be getting $105,000 in city funds, a letter from the Department of Community Development exclaimed: "Thank you for reinvesting in the City of Chicago!"

Many residents weren't so enthusiastic. To them, the new business was an insult.

But what even they didn't know was that the store was bankrolled and launched by a convicted drug-dealer who has been tied to a street gang and is facing yet another narcotics charge.

A Tribune investigation unraveled the real origins of the controversial liquor store, pinpointing the lack of oversight that led to the business getting licensed and exposing the years of scattershot planning that undermines hope in one of Chicago's neediest neighborhoods.

"It's disturbing on so many levels," said South Austin resident Serethea Reid, who had implored city officials to reject the store's license application. "The concentration of liquor stores means more violence, more trash, more police activity. ... "Are liquor stores and pawnshops your idea of development?"

New law allows industrial hemp crops in California

Source

New law allows industrial hemp crops in state

Joe Garofoli

Published 4:08 pm, Saturday, September 28, 2013

California farmers could be growing industrial hemp - not marijuana, mind you - by spring after Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that would permit California farmers to grow the long-banned distant cousin of the trippy herb.

But only if the federal government lifts its hemp cultivation ban.

The new law permits the growing of industrial hemp - which contains trace amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, the active psychoactive component in cannabis - for the sale of seed, oil and fiber. Nine other states have passed similar laws.

There is a potential agricultural windfall in California, where $500 million worth of hemp products were sold in 2012, according to industry figures - but all the raw hemp was imported from China, Canada and eastern Europe.

But that windfall won't be realized unless the federal law is relaxed. Federal law regulates hemp in largely the same way it does its medicinal cousin. There hasn't been a commercial industrial hemp crop grown in the U.S. since 1957, hemp advocates say.

But state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the law's sponsor, feels that could soon change given recent statements from the federal Department of Justice.

In August, a memo from Deputy Attorney General James Cole clarified that the federal government would de-emphasize marijuana prosecutions in "states and local governments that have enacted laws legalizing marijuana in some form" and have "strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems."

Oversight structure

Leno believes his legislation sets up just such a structure in California.

It authorizes the California Department of Food and Agriculture and county agriculture commissioners to exercise oversight of hemp production, as they do with other crops.

On Monday, Leno will ask state Attorney Gen. Kamala Harris to seek clarification from the Department of Justice about whether its August memo gives a green light to industrial hemp crops now that the state has approved a regulatory process for them.

"I hope by next spring, this (planting) could be happening," Leno said.

"For (the federal government) to say it's OK for marijuana and not hemp would be ridiculous," Leno said. "It seems a given that hemp would be included in (Cole's) statement."

Leno scoffed at the notion that the new law is a back door to legalizing marijuana for recreational use in the state. Colorado and Washington are the only states that permit adult recreational use of marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is legal in California, 19 other states and the District of Columbia.

"Anyone who says that just shows a lack of knowledge," Leno said. "Unfortunately, hemp got wrapped up in the hysteria around marijuana decades ago." Federal measures

But John Lovell, a lobbyist for the California Narcotics Officers Association, which opposed the measure, said it "would take more than a letter signed by the Department of Justice to have weight. I'd like to see some legislative action" in Congress.

Two federal measures, one each in the House and Senate, tried to legalize growing industrial hemp this year, but got only a handful of co-sponsors.

Should Californians gain approval to begin planting industrial hemp, the retail market for hemp products could boom. It is used in everything from clothing to soap, and as a substitute for fiberglass in automobile parts.

"I think the market could double to $1 billion within five years," said Tom Murphy, a board member of Vote Hemp, an industry advocate. "It could be hugely influential. California is the largest agricultural state, after all."

Joe Garofoli is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @joegarofoli

Mississippi Judge abuses Sikh

Judge Ordered Sikh to Remove 'That Rag' from Head, Says ACLU

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN | Good Morning America

The ACLU has filed two complaints with Mississippi state officials, claiming that a Sikh truck driver was harassed by traffic cops for possessing a religious talisman and then further humiliated by a county judge who referred to his turban as "that rag."

"This is a disgrace and a clear infringement of religious rights," said Bear Atwood, a lawyer for the Mississippi office of the American Civil Liberties Union. "He was treated disgracefully by the Department of Transportation. Then he came back to Mississippi for his court date and was treated very badly by a judge whose behavior was despicable."

On Jan. 16, Jagjeet Singh, 49, a long-haul truck driver from California on his way to pick up chickens for delivery in Texas, was pulled over for driving with a flat tire in Pike County, Miss.

Officers at a weigh station operated by the Department of Transportation demanded that Singh turn over his "kirpan," a 3-inch ceremonial blade carried by all Sikh men and frequently sewed into the waistband of their trousers, according to the ACLU.

"Contending, wrongly, that his kirpan was illegal, the DOT officer demanded that Mr. Singh turn it over. Mr. Singh tried to explain that he was a Sikh and that the kirpan was a sacred religious article," the ACLU wrote in a letter of complaint to the DOT. "In response, however, the officer laughed at him and mocked his religious beliefs.

"One officer declared that all Sikhs are depraved and 'terrorists,'" the ACLU said in its letter. DOT officers then arrested Singh for "refusing to obey a command" when he would not turn over his kirpan to police, according to the ACLU.

A state DOT spokesman confirmed Singh's arrest and his agency's receipt of the letter, but would not comment on the allegations directly, calling them a "personnel matter."

"We just got the letter. We're looking into the allegations," said DOT spokesman Jared Ravencraft. "This incident happened in January and this is the first anyone has mentioned these types of allegations against our employees."

Singh appeared in court on March 26, when, his lawyers said, he was further demeaned by Pike County Judge Aubrey Rimes.

"Court officers told him he had to leave because he was wearing a turban and the judge wanted it removed. He was intimidated and horrified," said the ACLU's Atwood.

Rimes allegedly called Singh's turban "that rag" and insisted he remove it or his case would be called last on the docket after everyone else in the courtroom had left. Singh refused to remove the turban and was called last.

According to the ACLU, Singh pleaded guilty to the charge of refusing to obey a command and paid a fine.

Repeated messages left at the nursery Judge Rimes owns and at his chambers were not returned.

Pike County Administrator Andrew Alford referred ABC News to a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice agreeing to close an initial federal investigation if Pike County revised its nondiscrimination policy and implemented sensitivity training.

The ACLU called the DOJ's letter a "first step," but said action would have to be taken at the state level both at the Department of Transportation and by the Mississippi Judicial Commission.

Darlene Ballard, executive director of the commission, which investigates ethics violations by state jurists, said it could not comment on a specific case or confirm if a complaint had been made until and unless the commission recommended sanctions to the state Supreme Court.

Saudi Court Ups Gang-Rape Victim Sentence To 200 Lashes

Saudi Court Ups Gang-Rape Victim Sentence To 200 Lashes After Her Lawyer Protests Original 90-Lash Penalty

By Jonathan Vankin, Sat, September 28, 2013

The Saudi justice system is based on the Islamic religious legal code known as Sharia, but if a case that burst onto the international scene this week is any example, the word “justice” is a misnomer.

In 2007, A Saudi court sentenced a gang-rape victim to a 90-lash whipping for violating the ban on women having contact with men who are not their relatives.

When the woman’s defense lawyer protested the sentence, calling for some compassion for this teenager who was sexually assaulted by seven men, the Saudi General Court increased her punishment to 200 lashes and a six-month jail term.

The incident happened in 2006 in the Eastern Province city of Qatif. The “Qatif Girl," as she has become known in Saudi Arabia — her identity has not been made public — was then 19 years old. She got into a car with a teenage boy she knew in high school, intending to retreive a picture of herself from him.

She was soon to marry someone else, and she couldn’t have this former high school flame carrying her picture around.

That was her offense. What happened next was irrelevant to the court, at least as far as the Qatif’s girl’s punishment was concerned. Seven men kidnapped the pair, assaulting and raping both the woman and her male acquaintance.

The male rape victim was also sentenced to 90 lashes. The rapists received varying sentences, the harshest being five years in prison and 1,000 lashes.

Whipping is a common sentence in Saudi Arabia for crimes ranging from consuming alcohol to homosexuality.

The court cited the fact that the woman’s lawyer went to the media as a reason that her sentence was increased. But there may be other factors. Her attorney, Abdul Rahman al-Lahem, is a human rights activist who has defended critics of Saudi Arabia’s ruling royal family.

Also, the “Qatif Girl” belongs to the Shiite Muslim minority in a country dominated by Sunni Muslims.

Even the original sentence of 90 lashes was considered excessive within Saudi Arabia. The 200-lash sentence has set off international protests.

According to the New York-based Human Rights Watch, this sentence “not only sends victims of sexual violence the message that they should not press charges, but in effect offers protection and impunity to the perpetrators.”

Rabbi leads Glendale City Council’s inaugural prayer

Source

Rabbi leads Glendale City Council’s inaugural prayer

The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:10 AM

Rabbi Sholom Lew led elected officials and the public in prayer before the Glendale City Council’s meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 24, becoming the inaugural prayer leader since the council voted to replace its moment of silence with prayers.

Lew, a Glendale resident and director of Chabad of the West Valley, said he felt a particular challenge writing meaningful remarks for a non-denominational setting.

“I want to make sure that I don’t offend any sensibilities, because it is not our intention to proselytize or to try to encourage others to believe what we believe,” he said moments before the meeting started.

“Having said that, there are certain common themes that do unite humanity or mankind. My intent tonight in the couple minutes is to perhaps reflect upon and try to zero in on these common themes,” he said.

During the meeting, Mayor Jerry Weiers led those in attendance in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance as usual. Then he asked Lew to come to the front of Council Chamber, where he prayed while reading from a prepared script.

Lew asked God to guide city leaders in their pursuit justice and equality.

The crowd remained standing and respectful until he finished the presentation, which clocked in at just over two minutes. Then the government portion of the meeting began.

Weiers, a former state representative, initiated the idea of prayers several months ago to “solemnize” the proceeding, noting that prayers are typically offered before sessions of the state legislature. The council approved a 20-point policy on the prayers or invocations in a 4-3 vote earlier this month

Lew said Weiers contacted him about two weeks ago, asking him to lead the first prayer for the council. Lew acknowledged the pressure he felt in preparing the prayer.

“The responsibility of knowing you’re the first, obviously, makes you realize and appreciate just a little bit more that you have to be even more sensitive, because people are going to be looking and going over it with a fine-tooth comb,” he said. Put this EVERYWHERE email out every day for a week email out every week for 2 months

Arizona DUI tests are no longer required by law!!!!!!!

Arizona Mandatory DUI tests unconstitutional????

Arizona Supreme Court bars DUI blood tests without warrant

HOWARD FISCHER Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX -- Police cannot use the state's traffic laws to draw blood from suspected drunk drivers without a warrant absent their specific permission at the time of the test, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous decision, the justices rejected the contention by the Pima County Attorney's Office that all Arizona motorists give "implied consent" to having blood, breath or urine tests as a condition to be licensed to drive. They said that means, absent a clear -- and voluntary -- consent immediately prior to the blood draw, it is an illegal search without a warrant.

In a wide-ranging ruling, the high court also said that the ability of juveniles to give that voluntary consent is not absolute -- and not the same as an adult. Justice Scott Bales, writing for the court, said a trial judge must consider all the factors, including the age of the suspect and the failure to notify parents.

But the justices refused to rule that the absence of a juvenile's parents automatically means any consent is not voluntary.

Thursday's ruling most immediately means that charges of driving under the influence of drugs will be dropped against the youth, identified in court records only as Tyler B. because he was 16 at the time of the arrest.

But he is not out of the legal woods yet. Deputy County Attorney Nicolette Kneut said Tyler, who has since turned 18, still faces charges of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia in justice court as an adult.

Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall said Thursday's ruling will complicate the job that police statewide are required to do. She said the high court has provided no guidance.

"How is the officer supposed to know whether or not it's been an express consent," she said. "It just makes it really, really tough because there isn't any bright line." [Duh, the 4th Amendment you idiot!!!!]

LaWall said the ruling means that her office will advise police to get a court-ordered warrant whenever possible before drawing blood, even when a motorist -- and now, especially a juvenile -- gives approval for a blood draw. That, she said, eliminates any possibility of having that consent later ruled involuntary.

According to court records, Tyler and two friends arrived late to school. A school monitor smelled marijuana on the boys and also saw drug paraphernalia in Tyler's car.

The boys were detained in separate rooms while sheriff's deputies were contacted.

A deputy read Tyler his Miranda warnings against self-incrimination and the right to an attorney. But the court files said that Tyler, in the presence of several school officials, admitted he had driven his car to school after smoking marijuana and that he owned some of the paraphernalia in the car.

When the deputy placed Tyler under arrested, the youth became agitated and was placed in handcuffs while the deputy retrieved a blood-draw kit from his car.

On returning, he saw Tyler had calmed down and he removed the cuffs. He then read Tyler from the law which says that Arizona motorists must consent to blood or other tests and that refusal will result in automatic suspension of driving privileges.

Tyler agreed verbally and in writing to the blood draw. But when the case went to court, Tyler argued his consent was not voluntary and that, as a minor, he lacked capacity to consent.

When the court commissioner agreed and suppressed the evidence, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Bales said the issue has never been decided in Arizona.

Bales rejected arguments by prosecutors that "implied consent" law means there is no need to determine whether a consent at the time of the blood draw is voluntary.

"A compelled blood draw, even when administered pursuant to (the implied consent law) is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment's constraints," he wrote for the court. "Such an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual's most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy."

He said the law says only that an officer must ask a suspect to submit to the test -- and that if a person refuses, a warrant is needed and the suspect's licenses is suspended.

Bales said a motorist can allow a warrantless search "provided the consent is voluntary." But that, he said has to be decided by a court based on all the circumstances, including the suspect's age -- and even whether a parent is present.

In this case, Bales wrote, the court commissioner was correct in ruling that, based on the evidence she had, Tyler's consent was not voluntary.

He said Tyler was detained for about two hours in a room in the presence of school officials and a deputy, without his parents.

"Tyler initially was shaking and visibly nervous," Bales wrote, and placed in handcuffs until he calmed down. And he said that the law read to him about "implied consent" ended with the statement, "You are, therefore, required to submit to the specified tests."

It was only then, Bales said, Tyler consented to the blood draw.

Thursday's ruling drew a special comment from Justice John Pelander. He said his own review of the evidence leads him to believe Tyler did voluntarily consent.

But Pelander said Arizona law requires he and the other justices not to reweigh the evidence but only to consider whether the court commissioner abused her discretion in suppressing the evidence.

Sisters question fatal shooting in D.C. police chase

Sisters question fatal shooting in D.C. police chase By Larry Neumeister Associated Press Sat Oct 5, 2013 8:16 AM NEW YORK — The sisters of a woman who was fatally shot in Washington after trying to ram her car through a White House barrier say she was not a criminal and police should not have shot her. “We’re still very confused as a family why she’s not still alive,” Amy Carey-Jones said late Friday, speaking of her 34-year-old sister, Miriam Carey. “I really feel like it’s not justified, not justified.” Another sister, retired New York City police officer Valarie Carey, said there was “no need for a gun to be used when there was no gunfire coming from the vehicle.” The sisters spoke outside Valarie Carey’s home in Brooklyn Friday night after traveling to Washington to identify Miriam Carey’s body. Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department said in a statement Friday that its Internal Affairs Division is investigating the circumstances that led to the shooting. The Secret Service, Capitol Police and FBI are assisting, the department said. Secret Service agents and Capitol Police officers both fired shots during the encounter with Carey. Witnesses said Carey hit a Secret Service agent with her car at the White House. A Capitol Police officer was also injured. Both are expected to recover. A federal law-enforcement official said earlier Friday that Miriam Carey had been under the delusion the president was communicating with her. Her family said she had been suffering from postpartum depression with psychosis but was not dangerous. Carey-Jones said her sister had been on medication for postpartum depression but was being taken off the drugs under medical supervision. “They told her she could get off medication,” Carey-Jones said, adding, “There were no indications she was unstable.” But interviews with some of those who knew Miriam Carey, of Stamford, Conn., suggested she was coming apart well before she loaded her 1-year-old daughter into the car for the 275-mile drive to Washington on Thursday. Carey had suffered a head injury in a fall and had been fired as a dental hygienist, her former employer said. The federal law enforcement official, who had been briefed about the investigation but was not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity, said investigators were interviewing Carey’s family about her mental state and examining writings found in her condominium. “We are seeing serious degradation in her mental health, certainly within the last 10 months, since December, ups and downs,” the official said. “Our working theory is her mental health was a significant driver in her unexpected presence in D.C.” The official said Carey believed President Barack Obama was communicating to her. “Those communications were, of course, in her head,” the official said, adding that concerns about her mental health were reported in the last year to Stamford police. Valarie Carey questioned the characterizations of her sister’s deteriorating mental health and said her Miriam Carey “did not believe the president or any government official was going to do her harm.” After Carey rammed the barricades at the White House, police chased her down Constitution Avenue to the Capitol, where she was shot in a harrowing chain of events that led to a brief lockdown of Congress. Carey’s daughter escaped serious injury and was taken into protective custody. A lawyer for Carey’s sisters, Eric Sanders, attributed the shooting to the “siege mentality” that has developed because of terrorism. “We’re afraid of everything. We’re afraid of ourselves now,” Sanders said. He said the family would do its own investigation, beginning with an autopsy. Police have said they’re confident Carey’s actions weren’t an accident. Carey’s mother, Idella Carey, told ABC that she began suffering from postpartum depression after giving birth in August 2012 and was hospitalized but had no history of violence. Experts say symptoms of postpartum depression include lack of interest in the baby; mood swings between sadness and irritability; scary thoughts of something bad happening to the baby; and, in severe cases, suicidal thoughts, but not delusions. In contrast, a condition known as postpartum psychosis can come with hallucinations, paranoia and desires to hurt the child. But it is extremely rare and does not tend to last for a year, experts say. “If it’s just a case of postpartum depression, you usually don’t see people hurting others or getting aggressive,” said Dr. Ariela Frieder, a psychiatrist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center. She said that some women who appear to have postpartum psychosis actually have a different mental illness, bipolar disorder. Dr. Brian Evans, a periodontist in Hamden, an hour’s drive northeast of Stamford, said Carey was fired from her job at his office about a year ago but wouldn’t say why. He said Carey had been away from the job for a period after falling down a staircase and suffering a head injury and it was a few weeks after she returned to work that she was fired. Carey’s death was Washington’s second deadly incident involving an apparently unstable person in 2½ weeks. On Sept. 16, a man killed 12 people in a shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard before dying in a gunbattle with police. The gunman, Aaron Alexis, a defense industry employee and former Navy Reservist, had complained of hearing voices and said in writings left behind that he was driven to kill by months of bombardment with electromagnetic waves.

Use of force in Capitol Hill shooting debated

2) add to government and drugs Use of force in Capitol Hill shooting debated By Peter Hermann and Sari Horwitz, Published: October 4 E-mail the writers Federal agents trying to stop the black Infiniti speeding between the White House and the U.S. Capitol fired seven shots at an unarmed driver with a toddler in the car as it rushed away from them, an uncommon tactic that occurred during a highly unusual chase. A total of at least 17 shots were fired at two locations Thursday afternoon by two law enforcement agencies — the U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Secret Service. The final shots, near the Hart Senate Office Building, killed 34-year-old Miriam Carey of Connecticut, who police said had tried to ram through a security barrier at the White House, knocked over a uniformed Secret Service agent, hit cruisers and breached the outer security perimeter of the Capitol grounds. The vast majority of big-city police agencies — including in the District — prohibit or strictly limit their officers from shooting at moving vehicles. But it’s unclear whether the Capitol Police or Secret Service violated their policies during the chase or the shootings. Brian Leary, a Secret Service spokesman, declined to provide a copy of his agency’s use-of-force or chase policies. Lt. Kimberly Schneider, a spokeswoman for the Capitol Police, did the same. Leary and Schneider declined to comment on the incident at all, including whether their officers knew that Carey’s 1-year-old daughter was in the car when they fired into it, killing Carey. The toddler was unharmed and is in protective custody as authorities work with Carey’s family to properly place the girl. The shooting is being investigated by the D.C. police department’s Internal Affairs Division. The Secret Service and Capitol Police will determine whether officers followed their departments’ use-of-force policies. The U.S. attorney’s office will decide whether the agents broke any laws, a D.C. police spokeswoman said. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said investigators still do not know which agency’s officers fired at each location. Shots were fired at Garfield Circle, with the car moving, and again at the final spot, a guard shack on Maryland Avenue NE, with the car stopped. Video from bystanders and media captured several important pieces of the afternoon chase, including the shots fired by police near Garfield Circle. But no pictures have emerged of the final confrontation. Officials have not disclosed how or why agents opened fire after Carey crashed to a halt near the security booth. But several experts said the shooting was justified, given the intensity and uncertainty of the chase and the fact that Carey tried to breach security at two potential and high-profile terrorist targets — the White House and the Capitol. Other experts questioned whether lethal force was needed. Terrance Gainer, the U.S. Senate’s sergeant at arms who also has served as the chief of the Capitol Police and executive assistant chief of the D.C. police, noted the incident’s unusual circumstances. Particularly relevant, he said, was that Carey’s actions constituted a threat to the government. He also cited concerns about terrorism. “In general, you would not shoot at a vehicle unless it poses the types of threats that would lead you to believe that there was an imminent danger of death and bodily harm,” he said. “But the thing that’s distinctive about this is it was not your typical traffic violation.” Gainer described the erratic behavior and said Carey “refused at gunpoint to surrender. She posed a threat to people and a threat to the Capitol facilities as well as the White House.” He added, “We operate in an environment under the constant threat of attack from suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices. . . . Whenever there are bullets flying, there are risks. I think these officers minimized the risks to others.” Police typically are allowed to use deadly force in cases of imminent danger to themselves or others. In the District, police are not allowed to fire warning shots or to shoot into a crowd or solely to protect property. Officers in the District also are prohibited from shooting “at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the officer or another person.” The guidelines, implemented after 1998, further state that “a moving vehicle is not considered deadly force. Members shall, as a rule, avoid tactics that could place them in a position where a vehicle could be used against them.” Police in New York have had a similar policy since 1972, and the Police Executive Research Forum, which advises police agencies on standards, has long recommended bans on shooting at moving cars. It is generally considered dangerous and ineffective, and it could put police in jeopardy. But Chuck Wexler, the research forum’s executive director, cautioned that there are exceptions and that each case is unique. “I think that it’s very important to think, what did the officers know at that point in time versus what we know today.” He was referring to the toddler being in the car and reports of the woman’s diminished mental state, which could factor in motive. “This was clearly an out-of-control situation,” said Wexler, who did not know the shooting guidelines of the Capitol Police or the Secret Service. The latter’s guidelines may be shrouded in secrecy because it deals with security at the White House and for the president. William J. Bratton, a private security consultant who used to run the New York, Los Angeles and Boston police departments, cautioned against relying on the video to form opinions. He said the snippets shown on the news and the Internet omit the full context and do not show whether the driver disobeyed commands. “The first story is never the final story,” Bratton said. “The first story yesterday was that she was shooting at police, and that clearly was not the case.” He said that Washington poses “a different set of challenges than most police agencies. It’s truly an exceptional city with exceptional security circumstances. That has to be taken into account.” Still, it proved unnerving for those who saw the chase and gunfire along public thoroughfares and parks, just two weeks after the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard. Tourists holding maps dived for cover and then trained cameras on the bevy of police that descended on the Capitol, many wearing riot helmets and vests and toting assault rifles. Such sights have become more common after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that ushered in a new era of security alerts, checkpoints, barricades and threats of terror. Those scenes belie the fact that municipal officers across the country are shooting fewer and fewer people. In 1971, New York police officers armed with revolvers fired 2,113 bullets, hitting 221 people and killing 93 of them, according to the department. In 2011, 124 officers armed with semiautomatic handguns fired 416 rounds, hitting 19 people and killing nine. D.C. officers shot 32 people in 1998, killing 12. They shot nine people last year, four of them fatally. Joseph Pollini, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a retired New York police commander, questioned agents shooting at the vehicles and said he had concerns about the final, fatal shots. He said officers, under most circumstances, would take cover after the car came to a stop and order the woman out. “If she wasn’t using any physical force, I don’t know why they opened fire on her,” Pollini said. “Just because she didn’t get out of the car if they told her to get out of the car is not sufficient to use deadly force.” But he also said it is not known whether the officers issued commands and what precisely prompted them to shoot that final time. Sheldon Greenberg, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University police executive leadership program, said that Secret Service agents “are protecting the core fiber of the nation. This isn’t just dealing with a criminal on a highway. If something happens to the White House or if the Capitol becomes vulnerable, the world goes off its axis.” He said that “regardless of her circumstances, and what we know after the fact about her mental state and situation, the officers can only deal with what’s going on at the moment.” Clarence Williams, Carol D. Leonnig and Paul Kane contributed to this report.

The NSA is trying to crack Tor.

The NSA is trying to crack Tor. The State Department is helping pay for it. By Andrea Peterson, Published: October 5 at 11:28 am A deluge of information about the NSA's work to undermine the anonymity of Tor users hit the Internet on Friday thanks to documents from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The revelations highlight the government's internal struggle over how to react to anonymity online. While the NSA is working around the clock to undermine Tor's anonymity, other branches of the federal government are helping fund that same service. Tor is a service that lets people surf the Internet anonymously. My colleague Tim explains the basics here, but using names like MOTHMONSTER, EGOTISTICALGOAT and, most recently, EGOTISTICALGIRAFFE, the NSA has been reportedly waging an ever-evolving stealth campaign against the service for years. The campaign included searching for zero-day vulnerabilities, weaknesses the developers haven't discovered or patched yet, in new versions of the Firefox browser when old defensive cracks were fixed. But the 2007 documents released Friday suggest that the agency's efforts only allow them to unmask individual users. Mass surveillance isn't possible. That the agency was looking for ways to break Tor encryption isn't particularly surprising. While Tor is used by activists and journalists, it also allowed users to visit a seedy underbelly of the Internet where online drug markets like the recently shuttered Silk Road and child pornography sites are hosted. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a statement responding to the Tor reports, saying "the Intelligence Community’s interest in online anonymity services and other online communication and networking tools is based on the undeniable fact that these are the tools our adversaries use to communicate and coordinate attacks against the United States and our allies." But their interest in cracking privacy tools is in direct conflict with efforts in other parts of the U.S. government — especially the State Department, which supports the aforementioned activist and journalist Tor users. In 2013, the State Department and USAID awarded $25 million to groups working on Internet freedom issues, like "supporting counter-censorship and secure communications technology, digital safety training and policy and research programs for people facing Internet repression." During the Arab Spring, that meant training people to use tools like Tor to escape censorship and retaliation. In 2012, Time magazine reported that American-backed instructors were teaching bloggers covering the Syrian civil war how to use Tor and other counter-surveillance measures. The State Department is helping fund Tor. In fact, government funding through the Naval Research Laboratory helped privacy advocates develop Tor more than a decade ago, and federal sources pick up around 60 percent of the development tab today. During a talk at a Washington, D.C., church last month, former NSA and CIA chief Michael Hayden said the issue of anonymity was about our government's approach to the Internet. "Is our vision of the World Wide Web the global digital commons — at this point you should see butterflies flying here and soft background meadow-like music — or a global free fire zone?" he asked. And Hayden, who helped build the intelligence agency's response to the digital age, was pretty clear about how he viewed it, saying "the problem I have with the Internet is that it’s anonymous."

Secret NSA documents show campaign against Tor encrypted network

Secret NSA documents show campaign against Tor encrypted network By Barton Gellman, Craig Timberg and Steven Rich, Published: October 4 On Nov. 1, 2007, the National Security Agency hosted a talk by Roger Dingledine, principal designer of one of the world’s leading Internet privacy tools. It was a wary encounter, akin to mutual intelligence gathering, between a spy agency and a man who built tools to ward off electronic surveillance. According to a top-secret NSA summary of the meeting, Dingledine told the assembled NSA staff that his service, called Tor, offered anonymity to people who needed it badly — to keep business secrets, protect their identities from oppressive political regimes or conduct research without revealing themselves. In the minds of NSA officials, Tor was offering protection to terrorists and other intelligence targets. As he spoke to the NSA, Dingledine said in an interview Friday, he suspected the agency was attempting to break into Tor, which is used by millions of people around the world to shield their identities. Documents provided to The Washington Post by former agency contractor Edward Snowden show that he was right. Beginning at least a year before Dingledine’s visit, the NSA has mounted increasingly successful attacks to unmask the identities and locations of users of Tor. In some cases, the agency has succeeded in blocking access to the anonymous network, diverting Tor users to insecure channels. In others, it has been able to “stain” anonymous traffic as it enters the Tor network, enabling the NSA to identify users as it exits. Tor works by encrypting traffic repeatedly as it flows across a global network of servers, mostly run by volunteers. The traffic, which can include e-mails, information from a Web site and almost anything else on the Internet, is supposed to arrive at its destination with no identifying information about its origin or the path it took. The Snowden documents, including a detailed PowerPoint presentation, suggest that the NSA cannot see directly inside Tor’s anonymous network but that it has repeatedly uncloaked users by circumventing Tor’s protections. The documents also illustrate the power of the NSA to at least partially penetrate what have long been considered the most secure corners of the Internet. The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory first developed Tor more than a decade ago as a tool to allow anonymous communications and Web browsing. It was embraced by privacy advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and continues to receive substantial federal funding. Tor is now maintained by Dingledine’s nonprofit group, the Tor Project. The State Department trains political activists worldwide on how to use Tor to protect communications from the intelligence services of repressive governments. But the anonymity service also has become popular with criminals — especially dealers of illicit drugs, military-grade weapons and child pornography — and terrorists seeking to evade tracking by Western intelligence services. One of the documents provided by Snowden said an NSA technique code-named EGOTISTICALGIRAFFE had succeeded in unmasking 24 Tor users in a single weekend. The same operation allowed the NSA to discover the identity of a key propagandist for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as the group’s offshoot in Yemen is known, after he posted information and instructions on the group’s Web site. NSA anti-anonymity techniques are now also being used by law enforcement agencies. In August, civilian security researchers detected an FBI operation against an alleged child pornography ring that used a Tor-based Web server called Freedom Hosting. The FBI mounted a cyber­attack to unmask the location and owner of that anonymous server, using precisely the technique described as EGOTISTICALGIRAFFE. The Washington Post is not releasing certain details from the documents, including the name of the al-Qaeda operative. Documents about the NSA’s attempts to penetrate Tor were also shared with the British newspaper the Guardian, which published a report on the effort Friday. In a statement, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., who oversees the NSA and other intelligence agencies, said that the intelligence community “seeks to understand” tools that facilitate anonymous communication. He added that it does so because of the “undeniable fact that these are the tools our adversaries use to communicate and coordinate attacks against the United States and our allies.” The intelligence community “is only interested in communication related to valid foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes,” Clapper said. There is no evidence that the NSA is capable of unmasking Tor traffic routinely on a global scale. But for almost seven years, it has been trying. Since 2006, according to a 49-page research paper titled simply “Tor,” the agency has worked on several methods that, if successful, would allow the NSA to uncloak anonymous traffic on a “wide scale” — effectively by watching communications as they enter and exit the Tor system, rather than trying to follow them inside. One type of attack, for example, would identify users by minute differences in the clock times on their computers. Dingledine expressed no surprise that the NSA has tried to defeat efforts at anonymity. In the interview, he said the weaknesses in Tor described in the PowerPoint presentation likely could be exploited only against a relatively small number of individual users. That, he said, is reassuring. “If those documents actually represent what they can do, they are not as big an adversary as I thought,” he said. The Tor Browser Bundle, available for free at www.torproject.org, was downloaded 40 million times last year. Until a recent security upgrade to the Firefox browser, which is incorporated in the bundle, the NSA could trick the browser into leaking the real Internet address of a targeted user. One slide described these tactics as “pretty much guaranteed to succeed.” Mozilla, the nonprofit organization that develops Firefox, declined to comment. One document provided by Snowden included an internal exchange among NSA hackers in which one of them said the agency’s Remote Operations Center was capable of targeting anyone who visited an al-Qaeda Web site using Tor. “The ROC currently [operates] against certain extremist web forums at the moment,” the employee wrote. “I am under the impression that they can serve up an exploit” — hacker jargon for malicious code — “to pretty much anyone that visits the particular web forum, though.” “Like any tool, [Tor] can be used for something good, and it can be used for something bad,” said Garth Bruen, a Boston-based investigator who studies Internet crimes. “It’s all about how people are using it, and criminals have been using it to great advantage. . . . It’s a nightmare.” An FBI agent told an Irish court last month that Freedom Hosting, unmasked with NSA-devised techniques, was among the largest purveyors of child pornography in the world, according to news reports. Silk Road, an online marketplace some called “the eBay of illicit substances,” also relied on Tor — and was targeted by the FBI. Federal officials arrested the alleged founder and shut down the site Wednesday. Privacy advocates, however, say Tor is valuable and should be protected even if it is sometimes used by criminals. “Tor is networking technology,” said Christopher Soghoian, an American Civil Liberties Union technology expert. “It is no different from a postage stamp or a highway. Good people use highways, and bad people use highways.” The NSA documents portray a years-long program to defeat what the agency called “The Tor Problem,” with the agency repeatedly updating its tactics as Tor’s developers made changes to the network. The NSA also altered tactics as Mozilla introduced new versions of Firefox. In anticipation of a new release of Firefox, one agency official wrote in January that a new exploit was under development: “I’m confident we can have it ready when they release something new, or very soon after :).” In late 2006, when the NSA prepared a working paper on methods to defeat Tor, the anonymous network had an estimated 200,000 users and 1,000 servers. Among the secret NSA documents were lists of hundreds of servers the agency believed to be “nodes” on that network. Along with EGOTISTICALGIRAFFE, the agency’s cover names for Tor attacks have included MJOLNIR, MOTHMONSTER and EGOTISTICALGOAT. A similar program at Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters, the NSA’s close counterpart, was called STUNT WORM. One NSA PowerPoint presentation provided by Snowden is titled “Peeling Back the Layers of TOR with EGOTISTICAL­GIRAFFE.” The agency began identifying browsers that were using Tor by noting how the encryption program reset what’s called the ­BuildID — a 14-digit code representing the exact date and time when that version of Firefox was released. On versions using Tor, the BuildID is reset to “0.” That feature made it hard to distinguish one Tor user from another, but it also allowed the NSA to pick out Tor-enabled browsers from among all others in use at any given moment. “It’s easy!” a slide describing the technique said. Mozilla issued a patch to Firefox that would protect newer versions of the browser against such an attack, though the NSA documents make clear that research into new exploits remains active. One PowerPoint slide sums up a multistep method for learning the identity and location of Tor users and implanting NSA code in the browser. It ends with a final bullet point saying, “Win!” Ashkan Soltani and Julie Tate contributed to this report. Follow The Post’s new tech blog, The Switch, where technology and policy connect.

Protect and serve??? F*ck that if it means blowing your cover!!!!

Official: NY undercover cop present at bike rally By COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press Updated 9:53 am, Saturday, October 5, 2013 NEW YORK (AP) — Authorities are investigating whether an undercover police officer present at a motorcycle rally witnessed a violent confrontation between an SUV driver and a swarm of bikers and didn't immediately report it, a law enforcement official said Saturday. The officer came forward several days after the Sept. 29 rally to say he was present, according to the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. The officer has an attorney, and internal affairs detectives are trying to determine whether he witnessed the assault on the SUV driver, the official said. New York Police Department spokesman John McCarthy said a detective had been stripped of his gun and badge pending the outcome of an internal affairs investigation. McCarthy said internal affairs was investigating the case and looking into whether any off-duty officers may have been present. Undercover officers are required to immediately report being a witness to a crime. Uniformed officers are required to take police action if they see a crime occurring, but the rules are murkier for undercover officers who face blowing their cover, confusing civilians who don't realize the undercover is really a cop and ruining yearslong investigations. For example, Gescard Isnora, an undercover officer involved in the fatal police shooting of an unarmed man after his bachelor party in 2006, stepped out of his role and fired a shot as officers opened fire on Sean Bell and his friends. Isnora was fired and lost his pension after a departmental trial ruling that he should not have shot his weapon while undercover. Last weekend, dozens of bikers stopped the Range Rover SUV on a highway, attacked the vehicle, then chased the driver and pulled him from the car after he plowed over a motorcyclist while trying to escape, police said. The driver, Alexian Lien, needed stiches after being pummeled by the bikers. The motorcyclist who was crushed by the SUV, Edwin Mieses Jr., of Lawrence, Mass., suffered a broken spine and two broken legs and may never walk again, his family said. Some of the encounter was captured on a camera mounted on the helmet of one of the bikers and was posted online. Investigators have been interviewing dozens of bikers and witnesses, but it still remains unclear how many people attacked Lien. On Saturday, police said two other motorcyclists were taken into custody and released a photograph of another man they say they want to question in connection with the attack. Robert Sims, 35, of Brooklyn, was arrested on charges of gang assault and weapons possession. Police said he took part in the attack on Lien. There was no listed telephone number for Sims at the address where police said he lived. He is the third person to face formal charges in connection with the attack, though the case against one of those motorcyclists was subsequently dismissed when prosecutors said they needed more time to investigate. Police also detained another Brooklyn man Friday who they believed had participated in the attack. As of Saturday, formal charges had not been filed, authorities said. Lien has not been charged. His wife said in a statement this week they feared for their lives as they drove off. Mieses' family held a news conference Friday with their lawyer in which they said that he wasn't doing anything wrong when he was struck by Lien's SUV. They acknowledged that Mieses had stopped his bike in front of the family's vehicle but said he was trying to get the other riders to leave the family alone when he was hit.

Bill Macumber framed for murder by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

The article seems to say that Bill Macumber's wife who worked for the Maricopa County Sheriff processing evidence planted his fingerprints to frame him for a murder so she could cover up an affair she was having with some cops that worked for the sheriff.

Judge imposes conditions on Arpaio, Sheriff's Office

Racial-profiling lawsuit ruling: Judge imposes conditions on Arpaio, Sheriff's Office By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Oct 2, 2013 9:42 PM Four months ago, U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow ruled that Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s immigration-enforcement efforts had violated the constitutional rights of thousands of Latinos. On Wednesday, Snow issued a follow-up ruling that maps out the future for day-to-day operations of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. That future includes cameras in every deputy’s car, increased data collection and reporting, a community-advisory board, and a court-appointed monitor to ensure the agency is taking steps to prevent discrimination now and in the future. The Sheriff’s Office will appeal the ruling but continue to try to comply with the court order while the appeal is pending, according to Arpaio’s attorney. If an appeal fails, the agency will have to demonstrate complete compliance with the ruling — which will likely take at least a year for the Sheriff’s Office to achieve. The office then would have to maintain complete compliance for three consecutive years before the court-ordered oversight is lifted. A county supervisor said Wednesday that administrators will work to squeeze every dime possible out of the sheriff’s coffers before turning to other county budget funds to pay for the personnel, equipment and resources needed to reach compliance with the court order. Non-compliance would open the possibility that Arpaio and other sheriff’s officials could be found in contempt of federal court or, as has happened frequently in another lawsuit over jail conditions, ensure court-ordered oversight and associated expenses for years to come. Profiling complaint The case began when Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican tourist legally in the United States, was stopped outside a church in Cave Creek where day laborers were known to gather. Melendres, the passenger in a car driven by a White driver, claimed that deputies detained him for nine hours and that the detention was unlawful. Eventually, the case grew to include complaints from two Hispanic siblings from Chicago who felt they were profiled by sheriff's deputies, and an assistant to former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon whose Hispanic husband claims he was detained and cited while White motorists nearby were treated differently. The lawsuit did not seek monetary damages. Instead, plaintiffs asked for the kind of relief the Sheriff's Office has resisted in the past: a declaration that spells out what deputies may or may not do when stopping potential suspects, and a court-appointed monitor to make sure the agency lives by those rules. Snow delivered just about everything the plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, had asked for with the ruling that was issued Wednesday, said Dan Pochoda, the group’s legal director. The ruling included some immediate changes to sheriff’s policies that reinforce existing court injunctions against deputies detaining people based purely on a suspect’s “unlawful presence” in the country without any other violations. The ruling also prohibits deputies from engaging in “pre-textual” traffic stops to engage in immigration screening, such as stopping cars for broken taillights to question the driver and passengers about their status — a hallmark of Arpaio’s controversial immigration raids. Deputies will also need to articulate a reason for their traffic stops as soon as they pull the car over, unless there are “exigent circumstances,” Snow ruled in another nod to the ACLU, which argued that point with the Sheriff’s Office in a recent round of court filings. “The remedial order is terrific and adopts an overwhelming majority of the provisions we considered important,” Pochoda said. The ruling also followed the pattern of several recent federal-court cases involving local law-enforcement agencies that were found to have engaged in constitutional violations. It gives the monitor and community some oversight but leaves the ultimate authority with the judge, said David Harris, a University of Pittsburgh professor and national expert on racial profiling. But most of those lawsuits involved police departments with appointed chiefs instead of an elected sheriff, Harris said, so Arpaio’s commitment to complying with the order will determine how quickly the agency emerges from oversight more than anything else. “He came to this reform, if you want to call it that, as a very unwilling party. It’s a very big problem,” Harris said. “Will he drag his heels? Will he be a willing participant? Has he seen the light? Those questions, I think, remain to be answered. He has made mistakes that have put him where he is now. The question is whether he wants to correct them.” Long court fights A lawsuit that inmates brought against the Sheriff’s Office in 1977 offers a glimpse at the long road an agency must travel to gain compliance and the decades-long extension of court-ordered oversight that comes with a failure to heed rulings. The first judgment against the Sheriff's Office involved jail conditions and was handed down in 1981. Fourteen years later, the Sheriff's Office and inmates' attorneys entered into a negotiated agreement that stipulated changes in the jails. By 1998, the Sheriff's Office decided it had complied and tried to terminate the lawsuit. The matter languished for a decade before a federal judge took up the case and, in 2008, ruled that conditions in the jails still fell below minimum requirements. The 2008 ruling focused on a dozen specific areas, and the Sheriff's Office spent the next four years trying to satisfy the court by reducing overcrowding in holding cells, providing cleaning supplies for inmates in the Durango Jail, and modifying recreation areas so more inmates could be out of their cells. The sheriff's menu was also brought into compliance with federal dietary guidelines that required Arpaio to provide inmates with an average of 2,600 calories each day. Outreach ordered Snow expressed some skepticism in hearings this year about the need for him to order Arpaio to engage in some sort of community outreach, but the order included requirements that, within three months of the ruling’s effective date, the Sheriff’s Office needs to hire a bilingual deputy to serve as a community-liaison officer. In addition, the ruling creates a six-member community advisory board — three appointed by the Sheriff's Office and three by the ACLU — to meet at least three times per year to ensure dialogue between the Sheriff’s Office and community leaders. The ruling also notes that the court-appointed monitor will review sheriff’s operations to ensure that the federal court order is met. However, sheriff’s deputies can conduct operations in pressing circumstances as long as they follow the language of the court order. The roles of the monitor and the community advisory board were perhaps the most contentious issues to emerge from attempted negotiation sessions. The sheriff’s supporters depicted the monitor as someone who would usurp the authority that voters gave Arpaio and the advisory board as a politically motivated body intent on removing the six-term sheriff from office. But representatives of the two sides in the suit both said they were satisfied with the way Snow navigated those issues. “We never sought, for obvious reasons, for the monitor to be able to hold up a particular operation,” Pochoda said. “It’s generally approving a template and general plans for such activities. ... We’re not envisioning that the monitor would be able to rule thumbs-up or thumbs-down on a particular operation.” Arpaio’s attorney, Tim Casey, said Snow took a “measured approach” in limiting the role of the community advisory board and that Snow’s definition of the monitor struck a balance between the need for oversight and the independence of the Sheriff’s Office. “It does provide a check and balance,” Casey said. “The risk remains: If the plaintiff’s lawyers wish to put political activist on the (community advisory) board who wish to get rid of Arpaio, they’ll do that. If they’re interested in improving law enforcement in Maricopa County, they’ll put on conscientious citizens who are truly interested in improving the entire community.” Costs of compliance The focus for Maricopa County administrators will now turn to the costs of compliance. Some of the requirements laid out in Snow’s ruling will come with an obvious price tag, such as outfitting every patrol car with cameras. Others, such as the creation of an “implementation unit” within the Sheriff’s Office, could require accounting measures to move deputies around within the department. County officials will likely meet with sheriff’s administrators in coming weeks to determine exactly what needs to be purchased and the timeline for each item before presenting a budget proposal to supervisors for their approval, a county spokeswoman said. Snow, during a hearing in late August, made it clear that budgetary disputes between the Sheriff’s Office and county administrators will not be an acceptable excuse for the agency’s failure to comply with his ruling. “I am not going to be involved in relieving you from the requirements of that order because you can’t afford it,” Snow said at the time. “Be sure you understand that.” Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, who attended the trial last summer and most of the associated hearings, said the county should use all of the available sheriff’s funds to pay for the equipment, personnel and training required by the order before punishing other county agencies for Arpaio’s folly. “It’s not fair to the county to take it from other departments,” said Wilcox, who has been critical of Arpaio’s immigration-enforcement efforts from the beginning. “That’s not vindictive; that’s just what he caused by being stubborn,” she said. “When he first got sued and the first hearing was held and the judge said it appeared it could be racial profiling, he still continued with the raids. I think the blame lies squarely with him for continuing those antics.”

State Bar of Arizona files complaint vs. Pinal chief deputy county attorney

State Bar of Arizona files complaint vs. Pinal chief deputy county attorney By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Oct 2, 2013 9:33 PM The State Bar of Arizona, which licenses and regulates attorneys, filed a formal complaint on Tuesday against Chief Deputy Pinal County Attorney Richard Wintory for his conduct during a capital murder case he prosecuted while at the Arizona Attorney General’s and Pima County Attorney’s offices. Wintory is accused of making false statements of fact, being dishonest and engaging in conduct prejudicial to justice for inappropriately contacting a member of the defense team of a man he was prosecuting and then covering up the extent of his communication with that person to the court and his bosses. According to a spokesman at the state Bar, Wintory’s case will now go to a disciplinary hearing unless it is settled by consent among the various parties. “I’m confident that if we get before a hearing panel and lay the facts out, they will see I had no intention to mislead anyone on this matter,” Wintory told The Arizona Republic. The allegations stem from the Pima County murder case of drug dealer Darren Goldin, who was charged with first-degree murder for hiring someone to kill an associate named Kevin Estep in 2000. Goldin had already pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in a similar crime carried out in 2005 in Maricopa County. Wintory, who was a deputy Pima County attorney, got an indictment against Goldin in 2010 and was seeking the death penalty. And when he left Pima County for the Attorney General’s Office, Wintory took the case with him. As Goldin’s defense team was preparing its case, it discovered that Goldin was adopted, and so Goldin’s attorney hired a “confidential intermediary” to find Goldin’s birth parents and try to find information that could have helped with Goldin’s mitigation case if he were to be convicted of first-degree murder. The intermediary did locate Goldin’s birth mother, but then got into a disagreement with Goldin’s defense team as to whether the mother would testify and under what conditions. The intermediary quit — and then she contacted Wintory, and they had several conversations, which the state Bar alleges Wintory kept from his supervisors. It is unusual and generally inappropriate for prosecutors to have such secret conversations with anyone tied to the defense. Wintory was taken off the case in May 2012 after his supervisors became aware of the potentially inappropriate contact with the intermediary. In August 2012, prosecutors withdrew the death-penalty notice against Goldin, and in January, they allowed him to enter into a plea agreement to second-degree murder and an 11-year sentence. The state Bar investigative record states that the plea agreement was offered for reasons other than Wintory’s behavior. Wintory said it was because Goldin suffered from organic brain damage. But Pima County Superior Court Judge Paul Tang suggested during sentencing that the “apparent misconduct allegedly engaged in by the prosecutor” had contributed to the relatively light sentence he imposed. Tang referred Wintory to the state Bar for investigation. Wintory subsequently left the Attorney General’s Office and took the chief deputy position in Pinal County. Pinal County Attorney Lando Voyles did not immediately return calls for comment. In legal language, “misconduct” is something found by a judge; Tang did not make such a finding. The state Bar investigates violations of ethical rules, and in Wintory’s case, it focused on allegations of Wintory’s failure to fully disclose the extent of his contact with the intermediary to the court and to his superiors. “While it is plausible that respondent did not know that his initial conversation with the (intermediary) was inappropriate, he continued to engage in such communications, even after the court raised concerns,” the complaint said. Wintory told The Republic that he did nothing wrong in his contact with the intermediary or in his reports to the court and his supervisors. “I answered every question as honestly as I could,” he said. “I had no reason to want to conceal my contact with the intermediary. I’m at a loss at how this kind of honest misunderstanding rises to the level where we are accusing each other of lying.” If a disciplinary panel were to find that Wintory committed ethical violations, it could impose a range of sanctions, from an instructional letter to suspension or even disbarment. The Bar complaint does not make any such recommendations.

Want the monitor off quickly? That's up to you, Sheriff Joe

Want the monitor off quickly? That's up to you, Sheriff Joe By Editorial board The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Oct 3, 2013 5:52 PM A federal judge slapped an ankle bracelet on Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Now it’s up to Arpaio how quickly it comes off. He and his attorney said the right things after U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow set down requirements to prevent the further violation of Latinos’ constitutional rights. They said they would abide by the ruling. But they also plan to appeal. That sends a mixed message. It’s not the firm affirmation the community needs that Arapio is ready to repair the damage of a time when being brown was suspicious. Snow ordered several changes in sheriff policies. Deputies cannot use broken taillights to pull someone over and ask about immigration status. They have to immediately explain the reason for a stop. Cameras will be required in every car to document interactions with deputies. The department will need to give 24-hour notice before any immigration-related traffic enforcement activity, and report the results of any operation involving 10 or more pesonnel within 30 days. The judge will appoint a monitor to make sure his orders are followed. Here, he struck the right balance. The monitor will review and report on department activities, but have no control over them. That maintains the sheriff’s constitutional powers while ensuring checks are in place. Snow also is creating a community advisory board, with three members each appointed by the sheriff and the American Civil Liberties Union. The board will meet three times a year to ensure dialogue. That is the least helpful part of the order — nothing more than window dressing. The sheriff, if he really wants to change his image, needs to engage in more frequent and wide-ranging conversations than a three-times-a-year board can provide. Arpaio showed an interest in such dialogue when he sought to buy a booth for a Latina gathering in Phoenix. His reaction to being turned down, though, showed he still has a long way to go. It will take repeated, humble efforts to convince critics his overtures are sincere and not a charade to keep the judge happy. Arpaio will need to persevere and avoid insulting those he is reaching out to. For him, that’s a tall order. We hope he can achieve it and meet all the requirements of the judge’s order. It is the only way to rebuild trust in a sheriff’s department that squandered it with an overzealous and unhealthy crusade against illegal immigration. Too many innocents were ensnared. Bedrock American principles were ignored. That left a wound not easily healed. It will take time. The judge will lift the court order and unshackle Arpaio if he remains in full compliance for three years. If he accomplishes that, the community will have reason to believe he and his department have changed. It will have more reason to believe he is sincere if he drops his plans to appeal. His department infringed on civil liberties. Better to start making amends than to continue wasting taxpayer money on lawyers defending the indefensible.

Did Sheila Polk frame Steven DeMocker for murder???

Jury convicts Prescott stockbroker of killing ex-wife Associated Press Fri Oct 4, 2013 10:39 AM A jury convicted a Prescott stockbroker of first-degree murder on Friday in the golf-club bludgeoning death of his ex-wife. The Yavapai County Superior Court jury also found Steven DeMocker guilty of six other charges related to the 2008 death of Carolyn Kennedy. Prosecutors said DeMocker killed Kennedy at her home in 2008 because he was deep in debt and wanted to cash her insurance policy. They acknowledged not having a confession, eyewitnesses or evidence directly tying DeMocker to the crime. But they argued that circumstantial evidence should be enough to send him to prison. DeMocker’s defense lawyers told the jury that authorities did not properly investigate Kennedy’s death. They tried to deflect attention from DeMocker toward a man who lived with Kennedy at the time but has since died. DeMocker faces sentencing on Nov. 13. The maximum sentence on the murder conviction is life in prison. He could face additional time behind bars over the convictions for burglary, conspiracy, tampering with evidence, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and two counts of fraud. DeMocker had floated a story about a “voice in the vent” at the Camp Verde jail after his arrest that said his ex-wife was “killed by two guys from Phoenix.” Investigators concluded DeMocker concocted the account. After Kennedy’s death, DeMocker tried to claim a $750,000 life insurance payment but the carrier wouldn’t make the payout directly to him because he was a suspect. The insurer instead gave the payout to his daughters after DeMocker disclaimed it. Testimony indicated the money went to defense lawyers in a previous trial that ended abruptly when his legal team quit, citing a conflict of interest. The current trial began in mid-July.

Arizona Rulings Temper Sheriff Arpaio's Crusade

Arizona Rulings Temper Sheriff Arpaio's Crusade By TIM HULL (CN) - Federal judges in Arizona recently handed down two rulings meant to rein in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's highly publicized efforts to fight illegal immigration in the state's most populous county. U.S District Judge G. Murray Snow on Wednesday ordered a long list of reforms with which Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) must comply, including the appointment of a federal monitor, enhanced data collection, record keeping and training, and a video recorder in every patrol vehicle to record every traffic stop. The ruling comes in the wake of Snow's findings in May that the department violated the civil rights of Latino plaintiffs by racially profiling them and subjecting them to traffic stops and arrests without probable cause. That decision resolved a Phoenix trial last summer in which the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arizona, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, lead plaintiff Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres and others was pitted against the MCSO. In a separate ruling last week, U.S. District Judge Robert Broomfield enjoined Arizona's so-called Maricopa Migrant Conspiracy Policy, which allegedly inspired Arpaio to create the Human Smuggling Unit of the MCSO and to make immigration enforcement one the department's top priorities. Passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2005, the human smuggling law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319) allowed for the arrest and prosecution of immigrants for "conspiring to transport themselves within Maricopa County." Broomfield agreed with plaintiffs We Are America/Somos America Coalition of Arizona in its proposed class action against the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors that the statute was preempted by federal law. Since the law went into effect, the MCSO has arrested some 1,800 "non-smugglers" and has prosecuted 1,357, according to the ruling. Broomfield also certified a class of "all individuals who pay taxes to Maricopa County and object to the use of county tax revenues to stop, detain, arrest, incarcerate, prosecute, or penalize individuals for conspiring to transport themselves, and themselves only, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319." In addition to mandating the creation of a Community Advisory Board and the appointment of a community liaison officer to work with a full-time, on-site federal monitor, Snow's ruling prohibits deputies from "detaining any individual based on actual or suspected 'unlawful presence,' without something more." It also bars them from "initiating a pretextual vehicle stop where an officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a traffic or equipment violation has been or is being committed in order to determine whether the driver or passengers are unlawfully present." "MCSO shall deliver police services consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and State of Arizona, MCSO policy, and this order, and with current professional standards," Snow wrote. "In conducting its activities, MCSO shall ensure that members of the public receive equal protection of the law, without discriminating based on actual or perceived race or ethnicity, and in a manner that promotes public confidence." Arpaio hinted Tuesday that he would appeal Snow's ruling. "I have received a copy of the court order and I am in the process of discussing it with our attorneys," he said in statement. "We are identifying areas that are ripe for appeal. To be clear, the appointed monitor will have no veto authority over my duties or operations. As the constitutionally elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, I serve the people and I will continue to perform my duties and enforce all laws." Dan Pachoda, legal director for the ACLU of Arizona, said in a statement that the requirements, which must remain in place for at least three years, show "Judge Snow recognized that Sheriff Arpaio's years of discriminatory practices and unconstitutional policies required major change-including appointment of a federal monitor, data collection and video recording for every vehicle stop."

Florence inmate charged in crime ring

Florence inmate charged in crime ring By D.S. Woodfill The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Fri Oct 4, 2013 11:20 PM It was as much a love triangle as it was a crime ring, authorities said Friday, as they announced scores of charges against the accused actors in a criminal syndicate said to be run by a Florence prison inmate with the help of his wife, ex-wife and girlfriend, among others. Angel Lopez Garcia, 35, directed drug sales, extortion, fraud, and money laundering, among other criminal acts, from behind bars at Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, according to a Pinal County grand jury indictment of Garcia and 15 unnamed defendants. Authorities say Garcia is a leader within the Mexican Mafia. He faces 159 counts for crimes dating back to 2007, including solicitation of murder and assisting a criminal street gang. “This investigation involved gangs and drugs,” said Phoenix Police Chief Daniel V. Garcia. “It centered on one individual who, while incarcerated, was in control of an illegal enterprise and conspired to murder those in opposing criminal gangs.” Authorities said the wife and one-time criminal defense attorney of Angel Lopez Garcia, Carmen Lynn Fischer, assisted him with his criminal activity. Other alleged accomplices include his ex-wife, Rosemary Ann Garcia; girlfriend Rosio Robles Gonzales; his sister, Tanya Garcia-Ochoa; and his mother, Oralia L. Garcia. The women, who were indicted separately, were arrested at various locations and face about 150 counts, authorities said. According to court documents, such female associates — referred to as “ruca” by gang members — are used to distribute money, move drugs, pass messages and “act as go-betweens conducting some Mafia business to better shield it from law enforcement.” “(Gang) members routinely espouse love, affection, and attraction to females to gain trust and loyalty,” the documents said. “Members use these claims of affection to convince females, often using several females in this same way at any given time, to commit illegal acts for the benefit of members and the organization.” Fischer, whose law practice in Phoenix since the 1980s has included Mexican Mafia cases, faces multiple counts of money laundering, assisting a criminal street gang, and hindering prosecution by destroying evidence, according to the indictment. In 1999, Fischer was caught on tape engaging in sexual contact with a different client in a room for attorneys to meet with defendants in police custody. She was not sanctioned by the State Bar of Arizona after investigation because it didn’t break any rules. Court documents say Fischer “poured thousands of dollars into Garcia’s prison accounts” and accounts of other inmates in order to “conduct his Mafia business.” Fischer’s indictment said her role was “keeping the money and communication moving.” The indictment against Garcia paints a picture of a man who manipulated the women in his life to do his bidding. “Garcia ingratiated himself with (Fischer) and began to pull her into his way of thinking,” the document said. “In an effort to use (Fischer’s) abilities and access to information to his benefit and the benefit of all his associates, Garcia feigned affection for (her).” It goes on to say that Garcia eventually asked Fischer to marry him. They were wed in July 2011. Officials would not say what prompted the investigation. 1) link to main page 2) put in drugs and government 3) add will humbles photo

Court to debate right to grow own medicinal marijuana

Court to debate right to grow own medicinal marijuana

Posted: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 5:30 pm

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX — Medical marijuana patients could learn later this month if they have a constitutional right to grow their own weed.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper said Wednesday she will consider on Oct. 18 a bid by the Department of Health Services to have the lawsuit thrown out. Assistant Attorney General Gregory Falls hopes to convince her that nothing in the Arizona Constitution about the rights of patients to choose their own health care extends to making their own drugs.

If Cooper doesn't buy that argument, she is ready for the next step: She scheduled an Oct. 21 hearing to allow Michael Walz, the attorney for two medical marijuana patients, to tell her why she should order state Health Director Will Humble to let them have their plants.

If Walz ultimately succeeds, the implications go far beyond these two men. It would pave the way for similar rights for the approximately 40,000 individuals who already have been granted permits to possess the drug but now are required to purchase their supply from one of the state's nearly 100 state-regulated dispensaries.

At issue is what Walz said is a conflict between the Medical Marijuana Act that voters enacted in 2010 and a separate constitutional amendment, also approved by voters, two years later.

The 2010 law allows those with a doctor's recommendation to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. It also envisioned dispensaries around the state.

That law also allows anyone not within 25 miles of a dispensary to grow up to 12 plants at any one time. And since no dispensaries were operating, every cardholder initially got that right.

But Humble said that now virtually all Arizonans are within that 25-mile radius. So he is denying grow rights to individuals as they renew their annual permits.

Walz, however, points to a 2012 constitutional amendment which overrules any law that requires anyone to “participate in any health care system.” And that, he argued, means individuals can't be forced to give up the cheaper option of growing their own plants.

“People are legally entitled, if their doctor gives them certification, to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes,” Walz said Wednesday.

“Many people cannot afford the prices that are charged by dispensaries,” he continued.”Therefore, they need to be able to grow their marijuana for themselves.”

And Walz said that, for some patients, the strain of marijuana is crucial.

“A particular strain may be effective to treat their specific condition and they need that strain,” Walz argued. “They can't depend on a dispensary to make the effort of providing a specific strain for any particular person.”

Humble isn't buying the argument — and not only because he rejects the idea that the Arizona Constitution guarantees individuals the right to make their own regulated medicine. He pointed out that voters themselves approved the provision in the 2010 law, which says the right to grow disappears once there is an available dispensary.

Walz dismissed that as irrelevant.

“I don't know that the voters were aware of that specific provision,” he said.

“They clearly were aware that some patients would be able to grow,” Walz said. “As far as when and how many of those rights would be extinguished, I don't think the voters had a clue.”

Bend over a TSA agent is ready to help you!!!

Screening at Sky Harbor draws fire By Sean Holstege The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:39 PM An 82-year-old woman in a wheelchair reaches the front of the security-screening line at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport’s Terminal 4 as she waits to board a flight to London on a Friday evening in June of 2012. The metal detector beeps over her chest. She explains she has a prosthesis. She’d opted out of reconstructive surgery after breast cancer. Transportation Security Administration agents take the woman to a room and order her to take off her blouse. Then her bra. Then her prosthesis, which they examine. The elderly woman strips to her waist, with nothing to hide her scars. “At her age and physical capability, she posed absolutely no risk whatsoever to anyone’s safety and should not have been subjected to such invasive and (undignifed) treatment,” the woman’s grandchild wrote in a formal complaint. “This sort of degrading treatment is more appropriate for prisoners.” This was just one of 26 complaints filed on behalf of people with disabilities at Sky Harbor’s checkpoints in 2012, according to records recovered by The Arizona Republic under the Freedom of Information Act. The documents show that the number of such complaints at “America’s Friendliest Airport” more than doubled in 2012 from 11 in 2011. And the 2012 figure is about 21/2 times the national average of complaints from people with disabilities based on the number of passengers screened at Sky Harbor. There had been five similar complaints at the airport through mid-March in 2013. The government withheld the names of those who complained to protect their privacy. The Republic requested the complaints after a high-profile incident in March. A Marine who’d lost both his legs in an Afghanistan bomb attack said he was asked to stand up on his artificial legs to pass through the full-body scanner at Terminal 4. The TSA refuted that claim and showed partial airport video footage supporting the government’s version. However, the TSA did not release the unedited footage in response to the records request, saying the film belonged to the Phoenix Aviation Department. In March, airport officials said the government had the footage. Patterns emerge from the complaints. Eight of them since 2011 involved women who had survived breast cancer. Their stories were chillingly similar. One woman wrote that an agent ordered a pat-down of her prosthetic breast and refused to conduct the search in private, before a flight in May 2012 to Newark, N.J. “She made me pull it out in front of the world. When I got upset, I was told to shut up. I have never been so humiliated in my life,” the woman wrote. “The TSA has overstepped their bounds and ruined my vacation.” Two weeks earlier, another passenger wrote that TSA agents twice patted down her breast in as many weeks. “Since this has occurred at two different checkpoints on two different dates, TSA clearly must have a procedure in place (that) requires that women with breast prosthesis to be singled out and treated in this cruel and humiliating manner,” the woman wrote. There is no record that the TSA responded to the second woman. When it does, as it did for the Newark passenger, it’s usually a form letter. “Thank you for your recent e-mail,” most begin. “We apologize for any insensitivity or inappropriate treatment you experienced during the screening process.” Most cases were labeled “closed” without explanation of any action or discipline taken. It’s unclear how passenger screening at Sky Harbor stacks up next to other individual U.S. airports. A little more than 20 million travelers boarded planes at Sky Harbor in 2012. At that rate, the TSA took a complaint from passengers with a disability roughly once for every 770,000 travelers. Nationally, in a 2012 audit, congressional investigators found that the rate of complaints by people with disabilities was nearly 1.9 million passengers per complaint for the estimated 650 million U.S. air travelers who are screened each year. And Sky Harbor’s estimated rate doesn’t take into account the large number of departing passengers who transfer flights without being re-screened. TSA officials were unavailable for comment due to the ongoing partial shutdown of the federal government. The Phoenix Aviation Department declined to comment because passenger screening is a federal duty. ‘Nightmare’ stories It is not just breast-cancer survivors who shared their Sky Harbor horror stories. People with artificial joints, with insulin, with other lifesaving medication, with pacemakers and spinal-cord stimulators, and those using wheelchairs all reported mistreatment. They complained of being forced to stand, of medicine being seized with dangerous results and of painful or humiliating pat-downs. A man with an enlarged prostate, returning from a recent exam, complained that a TSA agent hit him in the genitals with the metal detector. One passenger described how he carried daily insulin shots and fast-acting booster shots onto a Denver-bound flight in 2011. Although the medicine was properly labeled and kept in a clear ziplock bag, TSA agents insisted on running the passenger’s bags through the X-ray machine twice. Diabetic passengers complained that X-rays can damage their insulin. That’s what the Denver-bound passenger complained of, noting that blood-glucose levels shot up to dangerous levels after the flight and could have resulted in a diabetic coma. The TSA’s website advises diabetic travelers that they can have their insulin screened by hand or by X-ray and that passengers with insulin pumps do not have to remove them and can request a pat-down instead of going through screening machines. The American Diabetes Association advises that, “under normal conditions, insulin can safely pass through X-ray machines at airport terminals,” but adds, “If you have concerns about X-rays, you can request hand inspection.” A woman on a layover in January described what she called a “nightmare.” She says she was in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank and was transferring between planes when agents drew their guns on her and called her a terrorist. Agents accused her of smuggling contraband. When she returned home, all of her prescribed pain pills had been confiscated, she reported. A 92-year-old man with childhood polio was ordered out of his wheelchair to stand up in the body-scanning machine. His grandson reported overhearing one TSA screener shout: “Find out if he has his knees and hips! If he does, then there is no reason he can’t stand!” The TSA’s policy is clear. “Passengers with prostheses can be screened without removing them,” the TSA advises on its website. Many passengers complained that screening was uneven from airport to airport. One wrote of being registered with the government’s “trusted traveler” programs. These allow people to pass through expedited passenger screenings after paying a fee, volunteering additional personal information, such as fingerprints, and undergoing a process to determine they are low risk. In July 2012, one such passenger was flying out of Sky Harbor and was told to pass expensive medicine through the X-ray machine, contrary to doctors’ advice. “I have never been asked to do this before at any airport,” the passenger wrote, describing how the TSA supervisor at Sky Harbor said it was standard policy. The passenger complained, “So, is it PHX policy? Clearly it’s not policy anywhere else I’ve been.” TSA reaction “These complaints reveal a disturbing pattern. TSA agents are entrusted to do an important job, but there’s a serious shortage of confidence that lessons are being learned. Examples like these show a recurring disregard for passengers, even in secondary screening situations, and a lack of basic common sense,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who first publicized the plight of the double-amputee veteran in March. From October 2009 to June 2012, the TSA’s Disability Branch received 920 written complaints about screenings from people alleging discrimination on the basis of disabilities and medical conditions, according to an audit last November by the Government Accountability Office. The GAO, which is Congress’ investigative watchdog agency, concluded that the TSA needed to standardize the complaint process. For the cases opened in which medical conditions were identified, 98 involved people with artificial joints, congressional investigators reported. People in wheelchairs or scooters accounted for 81 cases; insulin pumps, 78 cases; and issues with medical liquids, 64. Breast cancer was not identified as a category, but the TSA logged 31 complaints from cancer patients from 2009 to 2012. The TSA posts advisories on its website and explanations of its procedures on a blog site. The agency’s blog noted, for instance, that in late 2011, the agency launched TSA Cares, a hotline to advise passengers with special medical needs in advance of their travel. Other postings explained that agents inspect wheelchairs because they’ve found loaded firearms in them. In November 2011, after a passenger’s urine bag broke during a pat-down at Detroit’s airport, the TSA blogged: “When our officers are hired, they are given extensive training on screening passengers with disabilities, and they continue to receive recurring training throughout their career. TSA has established a coalition of over 70 disability-related groups and organizations to help us understand the concerns of persons with disabilities and medical conditions. These groups have assisted TSA with integrating the unique needs of persons with disabilities into our airport operations.”

Judicial overreach in Arpaio order

Posted on October 10, 2013 4:21 pm by Robert Robb Judicial overreach in Arpaio order Federal Judge G. Murray Snow’s final order in the Melendres civil rights case really sticks it to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. For many, that’s all they need to know. Arpaio, to them, is a destructive force. Anything that restrains him is good. That, however, is myopic. Snow’s order is a breathtaking act of judicial overreach. To anyone who cares about representative government, it should be deeply disturbing. Previously, Snow had credibly found that Arpaio’s office has violated the Fourth (search and seizure) and Fourteenth (equal protection of the law) Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by using race to initiate and prolong traffic stops. This is serious business. But the doctrine of judicial restraint says that what Snow orders should be directly relevant and necessary to stop the specific constitutional violations he has found. That obviously includes a prohibition on the use of race as a factor in traffic stops, subject to contempt penalties for subsequent violations. Arguably, it might include some additional data collection, but even that’s questionable. After all, existing information was sufficient for Snow to determine that violations had occurred. Snow’s order, however, goes well beyond that. It dictates new training policies and procedures for Arpaio’s supervisors and deputies. It dictates new disciplinary and personnel review policies and procedures. As a practical matter, no longer will the principal objective of employee reviews be to determine whether, overall, they are good or bad cops. The principal objective will be to determine whether there is any evidence of racial bias in their policing. Snow orders a restructuring of Arpaio’s office. The equivalent of two new units have to be established. First-line supervisors have to be on the job the same hours as their direct reports. A “community liaison officer” fluent in Spanish must be hired. Much of Snow’s order is ridiculously prescriptive. No more than 40 percent of the mandated training can be done on-line. First-line supervisors can oversee no more than 12 deputies. So, 45 percent of training done on-line would constitute an illegal search and seizure? Having supervisors handle 13 direct reports would be a denial of equal protection under the law? There is no more fundamental principle of representative democracy than that the power of the purse is in the hands of the legislative branch, in this case the Board of Supervisors. Snow usurps that power in a number of respects. The taxpayers of Maricopa County will be saddled with the cost of a monitor, his staff and consultants. All sheriff patrol vehicles must be equipped with recording equipment. The sheriff’s office must have a new electronic data entry system for field officers. Snow basically makes the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case, a partner in the running of the sheriff’s office. It has to be consulted on trainers, training curriculum and other matters. It has “full and direct access to all (sheriff office) staff, employees, facilities, documents and data relevant to this Order.” And it gets to appoint half of the mandated Community Advisory Board, which is Snow’s most egregious overreach. Snow orders Arpaio to engage in a detailed community outreach program, supposedly to “rebuild public confidence and trust.” Now this is a stupid thing to write about someone who has just won re-election to the office. The problem isn’t that the public has too little confidence in Arpaio. It’s that it has too much. But let’s assume that was a problem. What business is it of a federal judge? And what gives a federal judge the constitutional authority to tell a local elected official with whom he has to meet, how often he has to meet, and what the subject of the meetings will be? Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has documented what happens when street cops are subjected to a regimen such as this, where their every action is minutely inspected for potential racial bias. They start mailing it in, particularly in minority communities. Under this regimen, you don’t get in trouble for what you don’t do. I doubt that mailed-in law enforcement is what the people of Maricopa County want. Arpaio’s immigration sweeps were an assault on fundamental American principles and constitutional protections. Snow’s overreaching order undermines and usurps representative government in Maricopa County. (column for 10.11.13)

Cost of protecting Arpaio increases

Cost of protecting Arpaio increases By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Oct 6, 2013 10:08 PM It’s become increasingly expensive to protect America’s most notorious lawman. The taxpayer-funded security detail for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been spending more time guarding him during off hours, in addition to providing protection to Arpaio through the workday and at public appearances in the Valley. The unit’s overtime costs have increased dramatically in the past year, from about 120 overtime hours in June 2012 to more than 400 overtime hours this June. In May, the team accrued more than 600 overtime hours. Some of those were earned while deputies assigned to the detail were sleeping on the job outside Arpaio’s home, according to allegations that prompted an internal investigation this year. But sheriff’s investigators were unable to confirm that the deputies were actually asleep, said Arpaio’s chief deputy, Jerry Sheridan. The total overtime costs for the sheriff’s security detail from June 2012 through June 2013 exceeded $120,000. One deputy assigned to the unit made more than $24,000 in overtime earnings alone last year, according to the sheriff’s records. Sheriff’s officials say the need for Arpaio’s security detail is in part driven by the nature of the threats and, in part, by the nature of Arpaio. The increased expense, officials say, is the byproduct of a world where disgruntled critics can find contact information for the public figure they love to hate and fire off threatening messages in a matter of seconds. “It’s an easier outlet, but it’s also easier for us to identify, follow up on and make an arrest,” Sheridan said. Sheriff’s deputies and their counterparts in other jurisdictions have sought indictments and arrested a couple of suspects accused of threatening Arpaio, but those cases have had spotty outcomes. Sheridan said the total number of threats on Arpaio’s life has decreased, but they have become more serious in nature, and the agency has started to explore other ways to protect the sheriff without overtaxing his security detail, which was recently trimmed from six to five deputies. When a tip came in from federal officials earlier this year that a cartel-hired hit man was supposed to sneak through a southern point of entry in the back of a semitruck in order to kill Arpaio, round-the-clock security was ordered. But the agency used members of the SWAT team who were not assigned to other tasks to help supplement the sheriff’s security detail during those weeks, Sheridan said. “You can’t staff for threats because they’re sporadic,” he said. “The best way to deal with it is to use other units in the office that are specially trained to deal with those threats.” Threats from Arpaio critics via e-mail and the Internet have been more constant, and the follow-up investigations into those suspects have produced more results. When the window for the cartel-funded hit man to make his move had passed, the SWAT team went back to its normal duties, Arpaio’s security team returned to more stable hours, and the sheriff’s unit dedicated to investigating threats resumed pursuing leads on those who vent their feelings toward Arpaio online. Sgt. Angelo Calderone, the head of Arpaio’s security detail, said part of the job is investigating all the threats against the sheriff and separating those that might be protected First Amendment statements from those that are more overt. “We get threats constantly; if it’s a serious threat, we investigate it,” he said. “ ‘I hate you, I hope you don’t get re-elected.’ That’s not a threat. When people say, ‘I want to kill you, I want to bomb your house,’ that’s a very serious threat.” But it often takes a thorough investigation to make that determination. The Sheriff’s Office has touted the arrest of people suspected of making threats against Arpaio this year, one of whom pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of making threats for posting an online video that promised a “$2 million bounty” to be paid by a drug-trafficking organization for Arpaio’s murder. The 27-year-old Peoria resident who pleaded guilty has no criminal record in Arizona. Other recent cases the office has publicized: One suspect’s case is moving through the McDowell Mountain Justice Court; a man charged with making threats in California will not be arrested unless police encounter him in Arizona; and a Massachusetts man is the subject of a felony arrest warrant but has so far eluded police there, according to the Sheriff’s Office. Mary Rose Wilcox, the lone Arpaio critic on the Board of Supervisors, was shot in 1997 by a resident angry over her support of a county sales-tax increase. Wilcox doesn’t question the need for Arpaio’s security detail — or that of any other politician — but said the practice of publicizing threats could encourage more unstable people to seek the same publicity. “The more people who know, the more copycatters you get,” she said. “I don’t think you need security all the time, but each individual elected official has to balance it. It’s a real shame in this day and age that it was to be a top priority.” Wilcox said she has resisted a security detail since being shot, instead preferring a detailed assessment of her public schedule that allows her to request security when the need arises. Arpaio said he would prefer to operate without a security detail, as well, but he maintains one to offer some peace of mind for his staff and family over what are typically cyberthreats. “They’re lowlifes who don’t have the guts to go after me face to face; they have to hide behind these social networks,” Arpaio said. “I’m just doing it for my staff, because they want me to. I don’t like it.” The detail started, Arpaio said, after he was the subject of a supposed cartel hit emanating out of Yuma in 2007. The plot allegedly involved a reliable Yuma police informant who provided information about the plan that was verified through a polygraph examination. It resulted in round-the-clock protection for Arpaio at a cost of about $500,000 over a six-month period. Little, if any, information about the plot turned out to be true. The Sheriff’s Office has become accustomed to accusations that the agency is overzealous in pursuing and publicizing threats against Arpaio. That debunked 2007 plot came nearly a decade after sheriff’s deputies blew up a metal sculpture placed outside Arpaio’s home that was thought to be a bomb. It came nearly four years after a 22-year-old ex-convict was acquitted of his role in a plot to kill Arpaio; a jury also acquitted him of conspiring to murder the sheriff. The ex-convict claimed he was set up by sheriff’s deputies as part of a publicity stunt. Other investigations have proved more fruitful: A convicted killer was sentenced to six months in Tent City in 2003 after he made death threats to Arpaio at home using information he gleaned from a check the sheriff’s wife wrote. And last year, FBI agents raided the home of an Oregon man suspected of threatening Arpaio using an online message board after sheriff’s Deputy William Coleman was killed near Anthem. The poster, Clifton Dawayne Brooks, also called Coleman’s murderer a martyr, according to a federal search-warrant affidavit. Still, more cases remain under investigation, including one of the most serious to date: An explosive device addressed to Arpaio was intercepted at a U.S. Postal Service processing station earlier this year. Until those threats subside, the security detail will remain by the side of Arpaio, who, despite his resistance to the concept, concedes that the threats come with the territory he has staked out for himself. “I made my bed, you guys in the media helped me, but I’m high-profile,” Arpaio said. “I made my bed, and I’m not going to be scared.”

Killer executed for 1978 murder of Bisbee man

Killer executed for 1978 murder of Bisbee man By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Oct 9, 2013 12:08 PM FLORENCE - The oldest man on Arizona's death row was executed this morning after 35 years in custody. Edward Schad, 71, was sentenced to death for the 1978 murder of Lorimer Grove, 74, who was found dead in underbrush by the side of a road south of Prescott. A month later, Schad was arrested in Salt Lake City; he had Grove's Cadillac and his credit cards. Schad joked with the medical staff as they inserted the catheters that delivered the barbiturate pentobarbital into his veins. He was calm until the last, according to witnesses to the execution. When it was his turn to speak, Schad said, "Well, after 34 years, I'm free to fly away home. Thank you, warden. Those are my last words." The lethal drugs began to flow at 10:03 a.m. Schad was pronounced dead at 10:12. Last night, Schad had a last meal of a 12-inch meatball submarine sandwich, a large order of french fries with catsup, two ears of corn on the cob, two ounces of cranberry sauce, a slice of apple pie and a 20-ounce vanilla milkshake. He met with his attorney, Assistant Federal Defender Kelley Henry, Tuesday night as well and expressed his gratitude for the kindness of the correctional officers who guarded him during the last 35 days of his life, a period called "death watch," when the condemned prisoners are separated from the other inmates on death row. This morning, Schad met with his longtime spiritual advisor, a Lutheran pastor who administered last rites. The pastor told Henry that Schad was "doing well," and had not yet heard that the U.S. Supreme Court had denied the final requests for a reprieve. Then he went calmly to his death. Troubled upbringing Schad says he ended up on death row only because of a misunderstanding. He was a car thief and a forger, not a murderer, he told the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency a week before his execution. His earlier second-degree murder conviction had been a case of mistaken identity, as well, he said. The clemency board did not believe him; neither did the three juries that convicted him, nor a host of judges and justices right up to the U.S. Supreme Court over 34 years of appeals. Edward Schad was born in 1942 near Syracuse, N.Y. According to his pre-sentence report from 1979 and from his statements at his clemency hearing, he grew up in a troubled home. His father had never recovered from being held in a German prison camp during World War II. He was an alcoholic and abusive. Schad left home after high school and wandered the country, gathering criminal charges in four states, mostly for car theft and forgery. “I never knew right from wrong until I got in the service,” he said at his clemency hearing. And apparently even then, the lines between right and wrong were blurred. Schad was bounced out of the Army in 1962 after being convicted in civilian court of joyriding. He re-enlisted in 1966. The record and Schad’s statements vary as to whether he was stationed in Germany or at Fort Lewis, Wash. But, in July 1968, he was in Salt Lake City while on leave. A man named Clare Mortenson was found dead in his Salt Lake home. He was naked, with a white cloth around his face and neck; his hands were bound behind his back, and the autopsy showed he had been sodomized and had sodomized another person. DNA testing was not available. Based on that evidence and the word of Mortenson’s friends that he frequently engaged in dangerous sexual behavior, the medical examiner listed the cause of death as autoerotic asphyxiation. Investigators found a credit-card receipt for an airline flight to Germany booked in Schad’s name, and military police arrested him there. He had Mortenson’s jacket in his duffel bag. Schad was convicted of second-degree murder, sent to prison and paroled in July 1977. He did not stay out of trouble for long. On the last day of 1977, Schad rented a green Ford Fairlane in Salt Lake City for the weekend. He never returned it. Instead, he drove his girlfriend and her children to New York, Florida and Ohio. He dropped the girlfriend off in Ohio and then took to the road. Because he was on parole, his impromptu road trip made him an absconder and a fugitive. The murder Lorimer Grove set out from Bisbee in his new Cadillac on Aug. 1, 1978. He was on his way to Everett, Wash., to visit family. Where Grove encountered Schad remains a mystery. There was no physical evidence linking Schad to Grove’s body. Schad claims he never saw Grove. His story at his clemency hearing was essentially the same as when he was arrested. He said he was at the Roadrunner Truckstop, which was on I-17 just north of McDowell Road, when he ran into a car thief named Travis, whom he knew from prison in Utah. Travis was traveling with a French couple with backpacks in a Cadillac that didn’t belong to them, he said. “I told him he couldn’t just drive a car like that in here and leave it,” Schad told the caseworker who prepared his pre-sentence report in 1979. “I told him to take my car, which wouldn’t draw much attention.” Travis and the French couple graciously traded the Cadillac for Schad’s stolen Ford rental, Schad claimed. The checks and credit card were in an envelope under the seat or in the glove box, depending on when Schad told the story. He knew Grove’s name from the car registration. There was no money and no trailer, Schad said, though investigators found a mirror contraption in the abandoned Ford that Grove had fashioned to help him back up the trailer. Schad headed east, stopping near Bisbee to purchase gas with Grove’s credit cards. He forged a check in Des Moines, Iowa, and kept driving. On Sept. 3, 1978, he was pulled over for speeding in New York, but he told the police officer that he was transporting the car for a man named Larry. He drove back to Salt Lake and reunited with his girlfriend. While in Salt Lake City, he told his girlfriend’s roommate that he had a stolen car, and the roommate called police. Schad was arrested. The details came together between Arizona and Utah law-enforcement agencies. Schad was indicted on a charge of first-degree murder, and in March 1979, he was booked into a Yavapai County jail. Time almost up Schad’s first conviction for felony murder and the resultant death sentence were overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court because of a faulty jury instruction. Schad was convicted and sentenced to death again in 1985. His attorneys appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was a landmark case that determined that a jury did not have to unanimously choose one or the other alternative type of first-degree murder, but could split its votes between the two. His appeals have flitted between state and federal courts for decades. He was supposed to be executed in March, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of execution to determine if it mattered that his trial attorney had not presented his mental illness as a reason not to sentence him to death. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the stay on the day before his scheduled execution. The stay was lifted in June, and since his appeals had run out, the Arizona Supreme Court set today for his execution. In the last weeks, Schad’s attorneys at the Federal Public Defender’s Office challenged whether members of the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency had been improperly influenced by the Governor’s Office to deny clemency to prisoners. They also questioned the source of the drugs that the Arizona Department of Corrections had obtained for the execution. A U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix ordered the state to reveal the source of the drugs — the state begrudgingly complied in part — but she did not stop the execution.

Questions linger over teen killed at border

Questions linger over teen killed at border By Bob Ortega The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Oct 9, 2013 10:47 PM NOGALES, Sonora One year ago today, on Calle Internacional, under the shadow of the border fence, a teenage boy was riddled with bullets by one or more Border Patrol agents shooting through the fence into Mexico. Now, as that boy’s mother awaits answers to who the agent was who killed her son and why, she questions the U.S. investigation of this shooting, which she sees as secretive, opaque and exceedingly slow. “I want to look the agent who shot him in the face and ask him why he did it,” she said Wednesday. “The one time the Department of Justice attorneys met with us, they asked me and (her son) Diego hours of questions as though they were looking for some way they make it Jose Antonio’s fault he was shot.” The Department of Justice has declined to comment on its investigation. But Araceli Rodriguez said she knows they have interviewed at least one of two Mexican witnesses who have come forward. Those witnesses’ accounts –— along with a transcript of a Border Patrol agent’s call to Mexican state police — paint a different picture of the death than the version the Border Patrol has offered. Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez was 16 when he was shot. He was the sixth Mexican citizen to be killed since the start of 2010 by Border Patrol officers firing from U.S. soil into Mexico. In that time span, Border Patrol agents or Customs and Border Protection officers have killed 20 people. (A 21st death, in San Diego, is less clear cut, involving a man who died of an infection while hospitalized for injuries he received from Border Patrol agents.) In eight of those cases, including Jose Antonio’s death, agents said they were shooting at rock throwers. The Department of Homeland Security, which includes Customs and Border Protection, has not said whether any agents involved in any of the deaths have been cleared or disciplined. In every case, Homeland Security has resisted identifying the agents. Even in wrongful-death suits, the department has sought, not always successfully, to keep the agents’ names out of court records. Questions about how deadly incidents are investigated, and how agents are trained on when to use deadly force, surged after a PBS documentary a year ago. The film showed cellphone video of a group of CBP officers and Border Patrol agents beating and firing a Taser five times at an undocumented immigrant lying on the ground, his hands cuffed behind his back, at the San Ysidro border crossing in May 2010. Sixteen members of Congress demanded that Homeland Security’s Inspector General investigate that and other deadly-force incidents and Customs and Border Protection’s use-of-force policies. The Inspector General’s report, released last month, recommended additional training but didn’t examine any of the specific incidents that had led to the letter. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., one of the members of Congress who pressed for the report, said recently that he expects the members will continue to press for more answers. Neither Araceli Rodriguez nor her attorneys have been told the name or names of the agents involved in Jose Antonio’s death, they said. This evening, in Nogales, friends of the family and protesters will hold a march, intended to try to keep the case alive in the public mind, ending near the spot where the youth was shot to death on Oct. 10, 2012. According to his family, shortly before 11:30 p.m., Jose Antonio was walking from his grandmother’s house, a few blocks from the border, to see his older brother, whose shift was about to end at a convenience store off Calle Internacional, which runs just below the border fence. He had been keeping late hours after dropping out of school, though his grandmother Taide Elena said he was to start again the following Monday. At about that time, Nogales, Ariz., police and Border Patrol agents converged on the U.S. side of the fence, responding to reports of two men who had climbed over the fence with bundles that were presumed to be drugs. Nogales police and the Border Patrol reported that, as they tried to arrest two men climbing back over the fence into Mexico, rocks began flying over from the other side. At least one Border Patrol agent standing next to the fence fired as many as 14 rounds from a .40-caliber Heckler & Koch P2000 handgun. According to Mexican medical examiners, 10 of those hollow-point rounds hit Jose Antonio, all but one in the back. Border Patrol agents are allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury; as a matter of policy, the agency considers rocks to be deadly weapons. But one Mexican witness, Isidro Alvarado, who called the Mexican equivalent of 911 that night to report the shooting, said he was walking behind Jose Antonio when he saw two men run past from the other direction, saw shots from two spots along the fence, and saw the youth fall dead. A second witness, Jose Carlos Marques Zarate, who lives near the spot, told Mexican investigators that he saw four men, some with rocks in their hands, run past his house. Then he heard a series of shots, walked out, and saw Jose Antonio lying dead in the street. “The DOJ keeps telling us they’re investigating,” said Luis Parra, Rodriguez’s attorney, “but I don’t know how much legwork they’ve really done in Mexico.” Parra obtained a transcript of calls made to the Mexican emergency number the evening of the shooting. He provided a copy to The Republic on Wednesday night. In one of those calls, made six minutes after the shooting, a Border Patrol agent who gave the last name Lopez says someone had been injured on the Mexican side of the border. Under questioning, he eventually admits that the Border Patrol fired the shots, but he doesn’t say how many of the five agents at the fence fired. For her part, Rodriguez says she’s sure that U.S. officials know exactly what happened, since border-fence cameras would have captured everything on film. “I want justice,” she said. “I’m not begging for it. I’m not praying for it. I’m demanding it, as any mother would. I can’t and I won’t let this go.”

Border Patrol hit with abuse complaints

Border Patrol hit with abuse complaints By Bob Ortega The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Oct 8, 2013 10:11 PM Southern Arizona residents say Border Patrol agents are using excessive force, engaging in illegal searches and seizures, and stopping and detaining people without explanation while roving on patrols up to 60 miles north of the Arizona-Mexico border, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU says the scores of complaints it has received in Arizona are similar to ones raised in a lawsuit recently settled in Washington state. ACLU attorney James Duff Lyall, in Tucson, said his group is delivering an administrative complaint Thursday morning to the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, to the DHS’ Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and to the Department of Justice. Two weeks ago, the Department of Justice settled an ACLU lawsuit over roving Border Patrol practices in Washington’s Olympic Peninsula. Customs and Border Protection didn’t admit any wrongdoing, but under the settlement, it agreed to train agents at the Port Angeles, Wash., station on how to abide by Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures. The agency also agreed to provide the ACLU with traffic-stop information in that area for the next 18 months. “Meanwhile, we’re receiving increasing complaints about the same sorts of unlawful practices here in Arizona,” Lyall said. The DHS, CBP and Justice Department officials couldn’t immediately be reached for comment because of the government shutdown. But Chris Bauder, executive vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, rejected the notion that agents are acting unlawfully. “Everything agents do is based on case law,” he said. “Agents get training at the academy, again at the duty location, and they get updates whenever the case law changes. It’s the same with the standard for reasonable suspicion. “The hoopla from groups like the ACLU that this is something outside of our authority isn’t based on any change in case law; it’s due to political pressures or different ideas about how the border ought to be secured.” But the complaints are part of a longer-standing issue. Over the past 20 years, the Border Patrol, which is part of the CBP, has grown more than five times in size to more than 21,000 agents. Under the U.S. Senate’s most recent version of the immigration-reform bill, the Border Patrol would double in size again over the next decade. As part of an agency strategy to catch illegal border crossers and drug smugglers, Border Patrol agents mount checkpoints and engage in roving patrols as far as 100 miles from both the northern and southern borders. Agents also often respond in tandem with local law-enforcement officers on routine police calls. But civil-rights groups such as the ACLU argue that although the traffic stops and other activities ostensibly are focused on immigration status, Border Patrol agents often stop people and question them far more broadly without reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing. Among the incidents detailed in the Arizona complaint: On May 21, Border Patrol agents pulled over Clarisa Christiansen as she was driving to her home in Three Points, west of Tucson, with her 7-year-old daughter and 5-year-old son in the car. According to Christiansen, after she confirmed that she was a U.S. citizen, the agent told her to get out of the car so he could search it. She said she didn’t consent to a search and asked why she’d been stopped. She said the agent refused to say why he’d stopped her. Two other agents approached the car. One pulled out a retractable knife, threatened to cut her out of her seat belt if she didn’t get out of the car and took the keys from her ignition. Christiansen said she got out of the car and waited while the agents ran a background check. The agents handed back her license and left. Then, she noticed that one of her tires had been punctured, with a long cut along the sidewall, which she attributes to the agents. On April 15, about 50 miles north of the border, on the Tohono O’odham Reservation, Ernestine Josemaria passed a Border Patrol vehicle on Route 15 while driving toward Santa Rosa. She said the Border Patrol vehicle tailgated her into town and then pulled her over. The agents accused her of being a smuggler, pulled her out of her truck, twisting her arms, and handcuffed her. They searched her truck over her objections, damaging it. Josemaria, a U.S. citizen, said the agents never asked about her citizenship or legal status. Josemaria said she was forced to wait for an hour for a drug-sniffing CBP dog, which found nothing. More than an hour and a half after she was pulled over, she was allowed to go. On March 22, at the Fort Bowie National Historic Site in southeastern Arizona, Bryan Barrow returned from a hike to find a park ranger peering into his vehicle. When Barrow, a U.S. citizen, couldn’t immediately find his registration and insurance card, the ranger held him and called for a Border Patrol agent and canine. The agent and dog searched the vehicle without Barrow’s consent, damaging it. Barrow was detained for four hours without food, water or bathroom access. The Border Patrol denied a subsequent claim by Barrow’s insurance company, saying that federal law “bars recovery for property damaged by CBP employees while the property is under detention in CBP custody.” In the spring of 2011, Suzanne Aldridge was pulled over while driving back to Bisbee by a man in plainclothes who didn’t identify himself. He questioned her aggressively, and asked to search the car. She said “no” and then drove about 1,500 yards to a more public parking lot. There, Border Patrol agents dragged her out of her car, handcuffed her and pushed her to the ground, she said. Her car was searched without her consent. She was let go without any explanation. Efforts by Christiansen, Barrow and Aldridge to file complaints went nowhere, according to Lyall. The complaint asks the DHS to investigate the specific allegations and to review roving patrol practices to make sure agents comply with the Constitution, federal law and agency guidelines. “Many people don’t understand what their rights are with regard to their interactions with the Border Patrol,” Lyall said. “And it’s clear a lot of Border Patrol agents don’t understand the limits of their authority.” Bauder, of the National Border Patrol Council, disagreed. “The standard is clear,” he said. “And the idea we don’t have the authority to do our job is nonsense. We’ve always had the authority.”

Cop arrested on riot charges in SUV assault

6th arrest made in NYC motorcycle-SUV assault case Associated Press Wed Oct 9, 2013 8:26 AM NEW YORK — Another man has been arrested in connection with a fight that left a motorcyclist critically injured and an SUV driver badly beaten on a New York City street. Police arrested Clint Caldwell on gang assault and other charges Tuesday. He’s the sixth person arrested following the September melee. It’s unclear if he has a lawyer. There’s no phone listed for him at his Brooklyn address. An undercover detective apparently seen on video pounding on the SUV during the melee is among those arrested. Two people familiar with the case say the detective was on a motorcycle and was seen on video hitting and kicking the SUV when a biker rally spiraled into violence. They weren’t authorized to discuss the inquiry and spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity. A motorcyclist from Lawrence, Mass., suffered spinal injuries. Check back soon for more information ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Earlier story: An undercover detective who investigators said was off duty when he was recorded on video pounding on an SUV as a biker rally spiraled into violence was arrested late Tuesday. Wojciech Braszczok surrendered to face riot and criminal mischief charges, New York Police Department spokesman John McCarthy said. Braszczok was expected to make a court appearance Wednesday. There was no response to phone messages left with his attorney. The attorney, Phil Karasyk, had said Monday that the detective, a 10-year veteran of the police force, had only witnessed other bikers attacking the vehicle. But investigators discovered video evidence showing him punching an already damaged back window, then twice kicking the side of the SUV before leaving the scene, according to two people familiar with the case. The people weren’t authorized to discuss the inquiry and spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity. The arrest added to the complexities of the Sept. 29 episode, which authorities say began with a reckless motorcycle group ride on a Manhattan highway and ended with one motorcyclist run over and the driver dragged from his SUV and beaten on a street. Four bikers aside from Braszczok have been criminally charged; the latest was arraigned Tuesday on gang assault and other charges. NYPD internal affairs investigators had initially been looking into the undercover detective’s conduct because he didn’t report until three days later that he had been at the rally. The expectation that police officers will act if they see crimes isn’t the same for undercover officers. The encounter, captured partly on a helmet-mounted video that was posted online, began when about two dozen riders slowed down, swarming the Range Rover after it bumped a biker on the West Side Highway. Some riders dismounted and approached the SUV, and police said some bikers began damaging it. The SUV’s driver, Alexian Lien, took off, running over motorcyclist Edwin “Jay” Mieses Jr., who’s from Lawrence, Mass. The impact broke Mieses’ legs and caused spinal injuries that may leave him paralyzed. Lien’s wife has said he feared for their lives and the safety of their 2-year-old daughter and had no choice but to flee; Lien hasn’t been charged with any crime. The bikers pursued the SUV, which exited the highway and got stuck in street traffic. One biker used his helmet to shatter the driver’s window, and others pulled Lien out and beat and kicked him, police and prosecutors said. Lien needed stitches. The latest motorcyclist charged in the case, Craig Wright, punched Lien through the broken window and joined in stomping him on the street, Assistant District Attorney Samantha Turino said. A judge set Wright’s bail at $100,000. Wright’s lawyer, Mitchell Elman, cautioned against any “rush to judgment” in the highly scrutinized case. “Mr. Wright, obviously, has every right to fight these charges,” he said. According to the undercover detective’s account, he saw motorcyclists attacking the SUV but didn’t see anyone harm Lien, Karasyk said Monday. The detective also didn’t see the SUV hit Mieses, the attorney said. Carrying no badge or gun, and aware of cases in which officers had been suspended or dismissed for blowing their covers, “he had no other option, so he drove away,” said Karasyk, who works with the detectives’ union.

ACLU: Officials blocking book on ‘Fast and Furious’

ACLU: Officials blocking book on ‘Fast and Furious’ Letter: ATF fears agent’s work would be threat to morale By Alicia Caldwell Associated Press Mon Oct 7, 2013 8:47 PM WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is blocking a federal law-enforcement agent from publishing a book about the failed “Fast and Furious” gun-smuggling sting operation because of concerns that the book would negatively affect morale, the American Civil Liberties Union said Monday. The ACLU charged that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is worried that the book proposed by an ATF agent would hurt relationships with other U.S. law-enforcement agencies. In a six-page letter to ATF Deputy Director Thomas Brandon, the ACLU said the bureau’s decision to block the book proposed by Special Agent John Dodson was a violation of his First Amendment rights. The ACLU described Dodson as a whistle-blower. According to the letter, the ATF denied Dodson’s request to try to publish a book about his version of the Fast and Furious operation scandal because the bureau predicted it would have “a negative impact on morale in the Phoenix (Field Division) and would have a detrimental” impact on ATF relationships with the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The ATF did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A federal law-enforcement official said the government is still considering whether Dodson can publish his proposed book if he doesn’t make any money. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter, said federal law generally bars government employees from outside work that is based on their official duties. Dodson was an agent in the Phoenix field office, where the Fast and Furious investigation was run from, when he went to Congress with details about the sting operation in which the ATF allowed gun-runners to buy weapons in hopes of tracking the weapons and disrupting Mexican gun-smuggling rings. At least one of the guns was found at the scene of the 2010 shooting death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in southern Arizona. In the wake of the public revelations about Fast and Furious, many top bureau leaders were reassigned, forced out of the agency or retired, including then-Acting Director Kenneth Melson. In a statement provided by the ACLU, Dodson defended his book. “At the end of the day, we have a right to know and talk about what law-enforcement agencies do in our name,” Dodson said.

Cops think they are above the law???

Groups criticize NC officer's arrest in fatal shooting of car crash victim CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Hours after a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer fatally shot an unarmed man, the department made a rare move: It charged the officer with voluntary manslaughter. Most police departments, including Charlotte, usually take weeks — sometimes months — to complete an investigation of a police shooting. But the decision to quickly charge Randall Kerrick is now drawing sharp criticism from police groups and being followed closely by law enforcement departments across the country. Critics call the department's move a rush to judgment and say it will have a chilling effect on officers in the field. "What it does is it shakes their confidence because, like it or not, most cops like to think their department has their back," Randy Hagler, president of the North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police, told The Associated Press. "That's not to say the department is going to cover anything up. They just want the department to give them a fair shake. That's all we ask for. And officers in our community don't necessarily all feel that way." Ken Trelka, police chief in Waterloo, Iowa, said he's been following the case and warned that filing charges quickly could put officers at risk. "My concern is we're going to have an officer — any officer someplace in the country — hesitate when they are justified in taking action and lose their life," he said. Police shootings are generally high-profile stories in local communities. And when race is involved they often attract national attention. In Charlotte, the officer charged in the shooting is white; Jonathan Ferrell, the man who was shot and a former Florida A&M football player, is black. Ferrell's encounter with police was set in motion at 2:30 a.m. Sept. 14, when his car ran off the entrance road to a suburban neighborhood about 15 miles from downtown Charlotte. After crashing his car into trees, Ferrell kicked out the back window and headed up a hill to the first cluster of houses he could see. Police said Ferrell knocked on a door seeking help. The woman inside called 911, thinking he was trying to break into her home. Kerrick and two other officers responded to the call. They found Ferrell on a road that leads only to the neighborhood's pool. Ferrell ran toward the officers, who tried to stop him with a Taser. Police said he continued to run toward them and Kerrick fired 12 shots, hitting Ferrell with all but two. Ferrell died at the scene. At first, Kerrick — who has been with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police since April 2011 — and the two other officers at the scene were placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation into the shooting. But later that day, Kerrick, 27, was charged with voluntary manslaughter and released on $50,000 bond. Police Chief Rodney Monroe said that while Ferrell did advance on Kerrick, the shooting was excessive. Monroe said the department's investigation showed the officer didn't have a lawful right to discharge his weapon during this encounter. Kerrick's attorneys said the shooting was justified because Ferrell didn't obey verbal commands to stop. But the attorney for Ferrell's family said the shots were fired in such close proximity that they never gave Ferrell a chance to respond. Civil rights leader have praised the police for quickly filing charges. Ferrell's family said the 24-year-old moved to Charlotte about a year ago to be with his fiancee and was working two jobs. He wanted to go back to school to be an automotive engineer, they said. He had no criminal record. The North Carolina attorney general's office is handling the case. Experts say it usually takes weeks or longer for agencies to complete investigations into a police shooting and decide whether to file charges. Investigators usually give officers involved time before interviewing them at length so they can decompress and process information. But that didn't happen with Kerrick. "People are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and police officers are no exception. You don't check your civil rights at the station house door," said James Pasco Jr., national executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. He said most departments take their time with investigations because they want to be thorough. "They go very carefully. One thing to remember in the case of a shooting, generally speaking, the most accurate information will come out over a period of time," Pasco said. "Another thing is that participants in a shooting - whether they were the shooter, whether they were shot or whether they were just there - all tend to suffer to a degree from post-traumatic shock for at least a short period of time. And that's why the best and most accurate information is usually gathered from these folks 48 to 72 hours after the event." Hagler, who worked more than 30 years for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police department, agreed, saying investigators need time to interview witnesses and examine evidence. He said investigators have to consider in this case that at least one other officer at the scene believed there was a threat, which is why he used his Taser on Ferrell. In the wake of the 2012 Trayvon Martin case — in which the unarmed teenager was fatally shot by a neighborhood watch leader, who was later acquitted — some police departments may be feeling pressure. Sanford, Fla., police were accused of not investigating Martin's case quickly. But Lance LoRusso, an attorney and former police officer in Georgia, said investigators still need to take their time. "They need to take a step back because it's too important - too important to the family to get it right the first time. It's too important to the officers to get it right the first time," he said. Trelka said investigations have to be "slow and methodical." "This needs to go through its entire process, and maybe the officer is ultimately convicted," he said. "However, it's just unprecedented that an officer is charged this rapidly under these circumstances. It confounds me."

U.S. strikes al-Shabab in Somalia and captures bombing suspect

U.S. strikes al-Shabab in Somalia and captures bombing suspect By Ernesto Londoño and Scott Wilson,October 05, 2013 U.S. Navy SEALs carried out an overnight raid on the Somali seaside home of a leader of the al-Qaeda-linked group al-Shabab, U.S. officials said Saturday, an operation that suggests how worried Washington has become about the threat posed by an organization that recently launched an attack on a shopping mall in neighboring Kenya. A U.S. official said the aim of the raid, which took place Friday, was to take a “high-value” al-Shabab militant into custody, but the militant was not seized. “U.S. personnel took all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties and disengaged after inflicting some al-Shabab casualties,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a covert operation. “We are not in a position to identify those casualties.” Separately, another U.S. official confirmed that the United States was involved in an operation in Libya on Saturday to capture a member of al-Qaeda who is suspected of involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, a Libyan known by the alias Anas al-Libi, was detained in Tripoli. A second American official said Washington intends to bring Ruqai to the United States to stand trial. Libya’s government said Sunday that it had not been consulted ahead of the U.S. operation, which it deemed “a kidnapping” of a Libyan citizen, who it said, should have been tried on Libyan soil. “Since hearing the news, the Libyan government has been in contact with American authorities and has asked them to offer clarification,” the government said in a statement. Libya and the United States have a “strategic partnership,” the statement said. “The government hopes that this strategic partnership will not be at risk as a result of this incident, and that communication between the two governments will be sufficient to rectify this situation,” it added. Since the bloody 2011 revolution that toppled the regime of Moammar Gaddafi, Libya has been wracked by lawlessness, the growth of extremism, and sporadic outbreaks of violence between rival militias. The country’s now-elected government wields little authority across the country’s cities and open desert and mountains, where militias hold both the guns and the clout. Even Libya’s armed forces, which have received training and funding from the United States in an effort to develop its capacity to deal with terrorist threats, expressed surprise at Ruqai’s bold capture in their capital. “We found out from media outlets just like everybody else,” Aly Sheikhi, a spokesman for the Libyan armed forces chief of staff. He said he had no other information on the incident. Pentagon press secretary George Little said Saturday night that Ruqai is “currently lawfully detained by the U.S. military in a secure location outside Libya.” A brother of Ruqai told the Associated Press his brother was seized early Saturday after three cars pulled up next to his and their occupants smashed his window and forced him out of his vehicle. The brother described the abductors as foreign-looking “commandos.” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House intelligence committee, called Ruqai’s capture “a major blow against the remnants of al-Qaeda’s core.” The lawmaker said Ruqai was “thought to be in Libya to help set up new cells and recruit new members.” There was no sign that the two operations were related, but they underscored how active U.S. intelligence and military agencies remain in African countries with active cells of Islamic militants. In the first high-level remarks on the two operations, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said they show that “members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations literally can run but they can’t hide.” Kerry spoke Sunday in Bali, Indonesia, where he is attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in President Obama’s place. “Our personnel in the armed forces conducted two operations in order to continue to hunt down those responsible for acts of terrorism,” Kerry said. “We hope that this makes clear that the United States of America will never stop in it’s effort to hold those accountable who conduct acts of terror.” The operation in the Somali town of Baraawe was in response to the Sept. 21 attack on the upscale Westgate mall in Nairobi, which killed at least 67 people and significantly raised the profile of al-Shabab, which claimed responsibility for the raid. Al-Shabab fighters repelled Saturday’s assault, which killed at least one of the group’s fighters, a spokesman for the organization told the Reuters news agency. “Westerners in boats attacked our base at Baraawe beach,” said Abdiasis Abu Musab, the al-Shabab spokesman. “No planes or helicopters took part in the fight.” The use of Navy SEALs suggested that American officials had hoped to take members of the group into custody or collect physical evidence. Strikes on terrorism suspects that aim solely to kill are typically carried out with drone or missile strikes, so as to not put ground troops in harm’s way. The U.S. official said the raid was suspended before the targeted leader could be seized out of concern that a more aggressive assault may have resulted in civilian casualties. “The U.S. military attempts to capture terrorists when at all possible,” the official said. The U.S. Navy and allied navies maintain a robust presence along Africa’s eastern shore, where piracy has become widespread. Pentagon spokesman Little would only say that officials were not prepared to provide details of the raid, which he called “a counterterrorism operation against a known al-Shabab terrorist.” Western officials have grown alarmed that a group that was believed to have had limited ability to operate outside Somalia is now willing to call on supporters, including dual-national Somalis, to carry out attacks abroad. Officials did not say which leader was the target. The involvement of Navy SEALs in Saturday’s raid, which was first reported by the New York Times, appeared to mark the boldest U.S. strike in Somalia since a 2009 operation that killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a senior al-Qaeda figure who was running the network’s operations in Somalia. Al-Shabab, which means “the youth” in Arabic, emerged in 2006 after invading Ethiopian troops drove out the Islamic Courts Union, an Islamist group that once controlled large swaths of Somalia. Al-Shabab tapped into a widespread hatred of foreigners to build support across much of southern and central Somalia. But its popularity was short-lived because of the militia’s strict implementation of Islamic law, including public amputations, stonings and other harsh measures. Last month’s mall attack came as U.S. intelligence had assessed al-Shabab to be weakening in Somalia in the face of an expanded multilateral African military force and a new civilian government. The administration focused on the group within months of Obama’s 2009 inauguration, when senior Pentagon officials proposed targeting al-Shabab training camps in Somalia. Obama’s national security team rejected the proposal, arguing that the group was focused primarily on domestic attacks. At the same time, administration officials grew concerned that a number of young men of Somali origin, who had obtained U.S. or European passports, had returned to Somalia to join al-Shabab. There were no publicly disclosed U.S. attacks against al-Shabab figures in Somalia for two years after the strike that killed Nabhan, which was carried out by U.S. Special Operations forces aboard helicopters. Nabhan was believed to have played a leading role in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In early 2011, after noting what senior officials said were increasing ties between some of the al-Shabab leadership and the ­Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the administration partially changed course. In a new policy, top al-Shabab figures with links to the Yemen group were placed on target lists. Obama authorized the first drone strike against two senior al-Shabab figures in Somalia in June 2011. That remained the policy, and no further U.S. attacks had come to light until Saturday. In congressional testimony this year, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said that a weakened al-Shabab “remains focused on local and regional challenges” but is continuing to focus on “regional adversaries, including targeting U.S. and Western interests in east Africa.” Ruqai, the Libyan who was taken into custody, is listed as one of the FBI’s most-wanted terrorists. The State Department, through its “Rewards for Justice” program, offered a $5 million bounty for information that led to his capture. He has been indicted in the Southern District of New York for his alleged role in the bombing of U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi on Aug. 7, 1998. Saturday’s operation in Tripoli appeared to represent a coup for U.S. intelligence agencies in a country struggling to establish a civilian government after decades of authoritarian rule and a short civil war in 2011 that gave rise to powerful militias. Karen DeYoung and Sari Horwitz in Washington, Anne Gearan in Bali, Abigail Hauslohner in Beirut, Lara El Gibaly in Cairo, and Sudarsan Raghavan in Nairobi contributed to this report.

A gun and a badge means you are above the law??? Cops think so!!!!

Letter: ‘Defiant to a fault,’ time for Joe to go Posted: Saturday, October 5, 2013 9:55 am Letter to the Editor Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s response to being monitored comes as no surprise to those of us who know Joe. And it does not surprise his attorney. When Joe was first elected, he found himself in attendance at a federal court hearing where he and the county board of supervisors were being monitored under the terms of a consent decree involving his predecessor regarding jail conditions. Tent City was Joe’s response. But the idea was all his attorney’s. However Joe took the credit. I will never forget what Joe said to his attorney. “Where does this judge think he can order me around?” Defiant to a fault, it is high time this community sent Joe packing. Dale Whiting Chandler

Mom arrested for letting child walk on freeway!!!

Mom arrested over boy’s freeway punishment Associated Press Tue Oct 8, 2013 1:35 PM LEAGUE CITY, Texas — Police southeast of Houston say a woman has been arrested for punishing her 10-year-old boy by having him walk home along a busy freeway. League City police say 34-year-old Angela Graciela Garcia ordered the child from her car Monday evening after the two argued and she became frustrated. Authorities say he had walked on the shoulder of Interstate 45, also known as Gulf Freeway, for about 15 minutes before police stopped him. Garcia had another son in the car and both children later were released to the custody of their father. Garcia, a resident of League City, was charged with abandoning and endangering a child. She was held Tuesday at the Galveston County jail on a $7,500 bond. Online jail records did not indicate an attorney for Garcia.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs and tom horne F*ck those silly laws, they just apply to the serfs we rule over. I suspect that is how Tom Horne feels. Personally I suspect all the silly laws governing how much campaign contributions a person can raise are unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment, but that is another story. Last but not least I believe that Tome Horne is one of the vocal jerks trying to flush Arizona's medical marijuana laws down the toilet. http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20131017arizona-tom-horne-campaign-finance-evidence.html?nclick_check=1 Arizona AG again found to have violated campaign law By Alia Rau The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:40 PM Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and his political-ally-turned-staffer Kathleen Winn violated campaign-finance laws during his 2010 run for office and must repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations or face prosecution, the Yavapai County Attorney ordered today. Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk gave Horne 20 days to return nearly $400,000 to donors and amend campaign finance reports to reflect those donations, which were made to an independent expenditure committee, Business Leaders for Arizona. Winn ran that committee, which supported Horne in the race for attorney general, and following his victory Winn joined the Attorney General’s Office staff. “Business Leaders for Arizona and Kathleen Winn coordinated their activities with Tom Horne and the Horne Campaign in order to advocate the defeat of Horne’s opponent in the 2010 general election, Felicia Rotellini, resulting in violations of Arizona campaign finance law,” Polk said in a statement announcing the release of the order. Campaign laws forbid coordination between candidates and independent expenditure committees. Horne and Winn have long contended that they did nothing wrong, that authorities have misinterpreted evidence and have criticized their investigative techniques. Following the release of the order, Horne spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said, “This case will proceed to a hearing where it will be proven that there was no coordination.” Winn’s attorney Timothy La Sota said he and his client believe the order lacks merit and plan to contest it. The case landed in Polk’s office in June, after Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett sent a letter to Solicitor Rob Ellman, asking Ellman to notify the Secretary of State’s Office of the law-enforcement agency selected to investigate Horne. Ellman sent the case to Polk. In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Solicitor General and the Attorney General’s Office said Horne was not involved in the decision to send the case to Yavapai County. “To avoid any conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety within the AG’s Office, General Horne, Kathleen Winn, and their immediate staff were removed from the reporting structure, and they had no involvement in deciding who would evaluate the notification of reasonable cause,” Stephanie Grisham wrote in the statement. She indicated she was speaking on behalf of Ellman, not Horne. http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/laurieroberts/2013/10/17/tom-hornes-penalty-is-to-repay-the-money-really/ Posted on October 17, 2013 4:48 pm by Laurie Roberts Tom Horne’s penalty is to repay the money? Really? Attorney General Tom Horne has – once again – been found to have cheated his way into the state’s top law enforcement job. Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, like the Maricopa County attorney before her, found on Thursday that Horne violated campaign-finance laws during the 2010 election. This, by coordinating with Kathleen Winn, who ran a supposedly independent campaign that raised and spent more than $500,000 on ads attacking Democrat Felecia Rotellini in the waning days of the November 2010 election. Late in the campaign, Horne was out of cash in a close race, and there was only one way to raise big money quickly: an independent campaign, where there are no limits on what a donor can contribute. In just 10 days, Winn’s Business Leaders for Arizona raised $513,000 for last-minute attack ads. The problem – for Horne – is that it’s against the law for candidates to coordinate with independent campaigns and both Polk and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery have found that’s exactly what he did. Horne and Winn have long contended that they did nothing wrong and plan to contest the ruling, just as they did when Montgomery found Horne to be in violation of the law. Montgomery said he had the goods on Horne: phone records that show Winn engaged in e-mailing directions about the “independent” campaign while on the phone with Horne. But Montgomery’s “civil enforcement action” against Horne was tossed out on a technicality. So now comes Polk, saying the same thing and ordering Horne to repay $400,000 in donations made to that supposedly independent campaign. That’s going to leave a mark. Just not the appropriate one. Seems to me the penalty for cheating your way into office ought to be a forfeit of the office. Especially if the office happens to be attorney general, the person in charge of enforcing the law.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs, snowden, cia and govenrment The articles doesn't mention that these TSA searches are also a violation of the Fourth Amendment. http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20131016keep-compassion-along-safety.html Phoenix TSA agents are going overboard on searches Our View: Hard to be 'America's Friendliest Airport' with so many complaints By Editorial board The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:07 PM When The Arizona Republic’s Sean Holstege received copies of 32 complaints filed against Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport TSA agents, the names of those who complained were blacked out. The Transportation Security Administration said it wanted to protect their privacy — something its screeners hadn’t worried about when they dealt with these passengers. The agents patted down women’s prosthetic breasts in front of other travelers. “She made me pull it out in front of the world,” a woman traveling to Newark, N.J., wrote. Screeners took an 82-year-old woman in a wheelchair to a separate room, where they had her strip to the waist and remove her prosthetic for inspection. A 92-year-old man with polio was ordered out of his wheelchair to stand in the body-scanning machine. “Find out if he has his knees and hips! If he does, then there is no reason he can’t stand,” the man’s grandson heard a TSA screener shout. One such incident like this is inexcusable. But when people with disabilities file complaints against Sky Harbor’s screeners at 21/2 times the national rate, it suggests an intolerable situation. TSA screeners have a thankless job. Though they know practically all travelers merely want to get to their destination, they must view everyone as a potential threat. If they find weapons in one wheelchair, they have to inspect them all. But an abundance of caution shouldn’t wipe out common sense. Or the TSA’s own policies. “Passengers with prostheses can be screened without removing them,” the TSA says on its website. That policy needs to be shared with agents who forced women to remove prosthetics. TSA policy also advises diabetics they can have properly labeled insulin inspected by hand. Yet several complaints filed in Phoenix indicate TSA agents ran insulin through X-ray machines twice, and one passenger said his blood-glucose levels skyrocketed after the flight. Sky Harbor TSA screeners have routinely violated passengers’ privacy and their agency’s protocol. They have needlessly made air travel more unpleasant for people with disabilities. This requires a response more energetic than a form letter apologizing for “any insensitivity or inappropriate treatment you experienced.” Sky Harbor cannot be “America’s Friendliest Airport” as long as TSA screeners draw complaints from travelers with disabilities far beyond the national average. The agency’s leaders need to find out what’s wrong and fix it, whether through discipline of a few bad apples, additional training for the entire force, or both. We should be able to protect air travel in this nation without abandoning compassion.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs and govenrmemt The $2 million the cops claim to have saved ain't nothing to the $35 million that would have been saved by firing 700 cops as the study suggested. And when you consider that a huge percentage of the people arrested are arrested for victimless drug war crimes, firing 700 cops certainly wouldn't cause any safety problems. http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20131009phoenix-police-saved-money.html Phoenix police: We saved money without gutting force as proposed By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:31 PM The potential cuts were eye-catching and, to many, draconian when a consulting firm presented an efficiency study to Phoenix officials in 2011 that proposed eliminating and reallocating more than 700 Police Department positions, reducing patrols and gutting the department’s air-support and bomb squads. But two years later, the air-support division and bomb squad remain in place and police have avoided layoffs while saving an estimated $2 million annually, police officials told City Council members last week. The department was able to implement certain aspects of the recommendations from Berkshire Advisors Inc., but city officials worked with police administrators, labor groups and the community to make the changes without having a visible effect on police operations, said Police Chief Daniel V. Garcia, who was appointed about a year after the study was completed. “While not all the (proposed) changes were implemented, it gave me a great starting point to start looking at the process of what changes needed to be made,” he said. Most of the savings have come through eliminating some vacant management positions in the department, using civilian employees instead of sworn officers in the city’s central booking unit, transitioning more duties from sworn officers to civilians throughout the department, and implementing an online reporting system that allowed police to discontinue a unit devoted to responding to low-level cases such as property loss that do not require follow-up, police said. The changes seem subtle compared with some of the Berkshire recommendations, but the company’s focus during its study was on the bottom line and not on how police actually function in America’s sixth-largest city, said Officer Ken Crane, vice president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, a labor group that represents some Phoenix officers. The proposal that the department eliminate its air-support unit, in a city that spans nearly 530 square miles, made it clear that the study focused more on the department’s bottom line than practical concerns, he said. “They’re a civilian research company that comes in and looks at things from a bottom-line, dollars-and-cents perspective. What they’re doing is presenting options,” Crane said. “The client, the end user of the data, has to look at it and go, ‘What’s realistic here?’ ” A committee of police officers, city officials and a Phoenix resident studied the proposals for two years, focusing on five areas: communications; investigations; patrol; specialty divisions, including K-9 and air support; and support staff, including civilian employees. The committee’s meetings drew passionate input from officers, police administrators and community members, but the group kept in mind the intent of the study — to help a well-run organization work better — which allowed committee members to focus on their mission, said Richard Rea, the Phoenix resident who volunteered on the panel. “It had to be a balancing act of providing the kind of protection that the public not only needs but also demands in some cases, and still balancing that with the income stream we had available to match those things,” Rea said. Some of the antagonism between police officers and administrators centered on the report’s recommendation that police work five eight-hour shifts a week instead of four 10-hour shifts. Garcia said officers were committed to doing good work with the 10-hour shifts they are accustomed to, and as long as they’re committed to their jobs, he doesn’t want to change that. Some of the other factors cited in the report have also changed since the study was completed. The justification to reduce the number of patrol officers was based, in part, on a decrease in residents’ calls to police in the three years leading up to the study. They bottomed out at about 610,000 in 2010. Those numbers have since started to creep back up, with police receiving more than 648,000 calls for service in 2012 and officers on pace to respond to the same number of calls this year, according to a police spokesman.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs and govenrment http://www.azcentral.com/community/westvalley/free/20131015judge-overturns-zoning-law-medical-marijuana.html Judge overturns zoning law on medical marijuana Associated Press Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:27 PM PHOENIX — A judge has overturned Maricopa County’s zoning ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries, ruling that the ordinance appeared to be a “transparent attempt” to keep the businesses out of unincorporated areas of the county. Superior Court Judge Michael Gordon on Monday granted a pretrial verdict in favor of White Mountain Health Center, which plans a dispensary for Sun City, and rejected a similar request on behalf of the county. Gordon said the ordinance was written so dispensaries wouldn’t be allowed because marijuana remains illegal under federal law. He also noted there is no available property in Sun City with the zoning category required by the county. The county has zoning powers to protect public health, safety and welfare but it’s not permitted under the medical marijuana law to use those powers to categorically prohibit dispensaries, Gordon said. Unlike an earlier version of the zoning ordinance, the current version adopted in 2011 “suggests a transparent attempt to prevent the implementation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,” Gordon wrote. Gordon ruled in favor of White Mountain Health Center but told both sides that he’ll listen to further arguments on practical effects of his ruling Monday. County Attorney Bill Montgomery said Tuesday the ruling will be appealed but it was premature to discuss details because parts of the case remain pending. However, Montgomery said the part of Gordon’s ruling saying the ordinance appeared to be intended to prevent implementation of the medical marijuana law “assumes too much.” The case started over a dispute over whether Maricopa County had to approve zoning for a dispensary in Sun City. It grew to include the larger legal question of whether federal drug laws pre-empt Arizona’s medical marijuana law. Gordon last December upheld the constitutionality of the state’s medical marijuana law and ruled that federal drug laws don’t stand in the way of public officials implementing it.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in goverment, drugs, and mayor stanton Sadly it's "Government of the people, for the elected officials and government bureaucrats, by the elected officials, government bureaucrats and special interests that help get them into power" http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/laurieroberts/2013/10/14/the-fine-art-of-the-pension-spike-to-continue-in-phoenix/ Posted on October 14, 2013 3:20 pm by Laurie Roberts The fine art of the pension spike to continue in Phoenix So, Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton’s Pension Fairness and Spiking Elimination Ad Hoc Subcommittee has decided that the city should not do either. Not be fair — to taxpayers, anyway. And not end the pension spiking that has allowed certain high ranking city employees to reprise the role of pirates as they basically loot the treasury. This is, of course, surprising given the mayor’s longstanding promise. When he was campaigning for the job in 2011, he vowed to end this business of city employees using unused sick leave pay, vacation pay, deferred compensation and even car and cell phone allowances to artificially jack up their pensions. “My plan,” he said at the time, “will eliminate abuses like pension spiking.” Just last month, he repeated his vow after word got out that City Manager David Cavazos, 53, will depart this month with a pension easily more than $200,000 a year, thanks to the fine art of the spike. “As I’ve said before, pension spiking undermines the public’s trust that compensation for our employees is fair – it needs to end,” Stanton said. Now his ad hoc committee has voted to end most pension spiking … someday. Just not now. Or anytime soon. Oh, the committee took a few modest steps, which will be considered by the City Council on Oct. 22. It recommended an end to spiking for future employees and an end to the sweet little scheme that allows middle managers and executives to count their car and cell phone allowances as salary in order to jack up their pensions. (They still, however, would presumably be able to count their deferred compensation as pensionable income.) The panel also suggested no more spiking for police and firefighters, which was logical given that it’s already against state law. And it recommended a cap on the amount of unused vacation pay that civilian employees can use to spike their pensions. (The City Council last year put a similar cap on sick leave.) But the committee declined to recommend an end to spiking. Under its plan, the vast majority of the city’s employees still would be able to plump up their pensions with unusued vacation pay accumulated before July 2014 and with sick leave accrued before July 2012. It seems that Councilman Sal DiCiccio’s proposal – to eliminate all spiking when new employee contracts begin on July 1, 2014 – got the cold shoulder at city hall. Stanton didn’t return a call but his spokesman praised the committees recommendations, suggesting that it would be illegal to take away the spiking benefit employees have already earned. “What the recommendations do is eliminate it to the fullest extent allowed under the law,” Seth Scott, Stanton’s policy director, told me. “These are the recommendations made by a bipartisan panel and the bipartisan panel said the city should not break its agreement with employees. But it does eliminate spiking. It does not allow people to accrue vacation or sick time for the purposes of spiking pensions anymore. It eliminates that and it goes further by cracking down on an indefensible practice of allowing executive-level employees to receive a pension payment off of their cell phone and car allowance.” The city’s own attorneys, in a lawsuit filed by the unions last year to preserve spiking, say that Phoenix is not legally required to let employees spike their pensions with unused sick time. The lawyers, in their court filing, say that city management began the practice in 1996 and can change it at will. Union and city leaders, meanwhile, warn that eliminating spiking would have dire results, with scores of city employees calling in sick since they can’t use leave time to boost their pensions and waves of city executives retiring while they still can spike. Given the threat, DiCiccio says the City Council should immediately end spiking for high ranking, at-will employees – the ones who are not under contract. “Threats of mutiny, threats of using up their sick leave,” he said. “All these things are threats and from the same people who are hired to protect the taxpayers.” Speaking of the taxpayers, city spending on pensions has jumped 42 percent in the last three years – due in large part to the performance of the funds’ investments. Phoenix is now spending $253 million on pensions. Voters enacted some reforms last year but they don’t touch existing employees, who continue to contribute 5 percent of their pay to fund their pensions, as they have since Richard Nixon was president. Taxpayers, meanwhile, are now kicking in 20 percent. I’d ask Stanton – he of the Pension Fairness and Spiking Elimination Ad Hoc Subcommittee — if that’s fair. But strangely, he doesn’t seem to be taking my calls these days. (Column published Oct. 15, 2013, The Arizona Republic.) http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20131015phoenix-illustrates-need-real-pension-reform.html Robb: Phoenix illustrates need for real pension reform By Robert Robb, columnist The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:41 PM On pension spiking, the Phoenix City Council is apparently going to go timid. The money in spiking is in cashing out unused sick and vacation time and using that to increase the salary base on which an annual pension is calculated. A council subcommittee voted to eliminate the practice for new hires. Existing employees had their accumulated sick leave capped for pension purposes as of 2012. The recommendation is to do the same for unused vacation time as of June 2014. Essentially, existing employees are to be grandfathered in. Vote-counters believe the rest of the council will go along. That leaves more than 8,000 city workers who will still be able to spike. This is, understandably, being jeered in many circles. But there’s a rationale to the timidity. In 1998, state voters unwisely approved a constitutional amendment that said public-employee retirement benefits can’t be “diminished or impaired.” The city is already being sued over the capping of sick leave for pension purposes as of 2012. There’s a good chance the courts will find that, under the state constitutional provision, what is given can’t be taken away. The city will be lucky if the courts allow it to change the rules for existing employees on a going-forward basis. It would stand little chance of taking away what has been already accumulated under the old rules. So, why not cut off the accumulation of unused vacation and other spiking options now, rather than at the end of the city’s fiscal year? Union supporters on the council say the city either can’t or shouldn’t amend the terms of union agreements before they are renegotiated this spring. The better argument is that employees contemplating retirement shouldn’t have the rules changed on them without reasonable notice. So, while the council’s timidity is defensible, it is also illustrative. Serious pension reform will not come from City Hall. Phoenix city government is just too much of an insiders’ club for that. Spiking, while it enflames the public, particularly when done by high-ranking officials walking away with six-figure annual pensions, is a sideshow. In 2011 and 2012, the average city worker retiring increased his monthly pension by a little under $500 by cashing in unused sick and vacation time. That can add up. But it’s not the reason the city pension program has an unfunded liability of in excess of $1 billion. The real problem with the city’s pension program is that workers, without spiking, can retire with full benefits in their late 50s and early 60s. That’s a promise taxpayers can’t afford to keep. Right now, the city pension program has only enough assets to cover an estimated 62 percent of promised benefits. New, mandated accounting rules, which will kick in this year, will probably drop that to 50 percent or less. Yet City Hall doesn’t even think this is a problem. It’s not on the radar screen. And given the insiders’ club, it won’t be on the agenda until too late to do something sensible. That will require action from the outside. And that may be coming. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has taken out an initiative to change the city’s pension plan for new hires from one that promises a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan, similar to a 401(k). That’s the only reform that truly protects taxpayers by not putting them on the hook for investment-performance shortfalls. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is a serious organization of well-heeled fiscal conservatives. It wouldn’t take out the initiative for show or flash. It presumably has reasonable assurances of financial resources to get the initiative qualified and run an effective campaign on its behalf. San Diego voters surprised the political world by approving such a ballot measure in June 2012. Democrats dominate San Diego city politics even more than they do in Phoenix. In San Diego, supporters outspent opponents about 10-1. My guess is that unions will put up more of a fight in Phoenix. That, however, is a fight worth having. That’s real pension reform, not a sideshow. Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs, government and mayor stanton http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20131016phoenix-interim-city-manager-salary.html Phoenix’s interim city manager to make $258,939 By Dustin Gardiner The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:31 PM Phoenix city leaders voted Wednesday to approve a $258,939 salary for interim City Manager Ed Zuercher, a City Hall veteran who took the helm of the nation’s sixth-largest city at midnight. Zuercher will immediately make less than outgoing City Manager David Cavazos’ $315,000 annual salary. Cavazos retired on Wednesday to take a similar job in Santa Ana, Calif., a move that allows him to start collecting a pension from Phoenix while he earns the same salary. However, City Council members said Zuercher’s lower salary doesn’t mean the next city manager will necessarily make less than Cavazos, who received a controversial $78,000 raise last year. The salary range for the city’s chief executive remains $315,000 to $425,000, not including benefits and other perks. The city hired an executive headhunting company to conduct a national search. Political observers said Zuercher is considered one of the leading internal contenders.

xxx

Will Judge Joseph Kreamer do everything he can to get the jurors to railroad Johnathan Doody for murder??? While I suspect that Johnathan Doody is guilty of the murder, I certainly think he was railroaded by the government and had his civil rights violated and should be released. http://www.azcentral.com/community/surprise/articles/20131016doody-judge-quizzes-jurors-suggests-theyre-impasse.html Doody judge quizzes jurors, suggests they’re at impasse By Laurie Merrill The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:06 PM The judge in Johnathan Doody’s retrial for the 1991 Buddhist temple murders kept a controversial juror on the panel Wednesday and asked jurors to continue deliberations today. “I do have concerns at multiple levels,” Judge Joseph Kreamer said Wednesday after questioning the eight men and four women jurors in open court. “They have essentially communicated to me that they are at an impasse, but don’t know it.” Kreamer interviewed the panelists in Maricopa County Superior Court after they sent a note Tuesday saying they could not reach a verdict because one juror wouldn’t deliberate or follow instructions. It’s possible jurors don’t know they can conclude deliberations without a verdict, said defense attorney Maria Schaffer, who argued in favor of keeping the juror described as “uncooperative” by her fellow jurors. “What we have here is an individual who has a different opinion than the rest of the jury,” Schaffer said. “She has indicated ... that they are at an impasse.” When it was her turn to be questioned individually, the juror said panelists have “badgered” her, called her “stupid,” and forced her to repeat answers to questions “over and over and over again.” “I just shut down,” she said. She told Kreamer she has expressed her opinion and explained her position. A reconstituted jury has deliberated three days while the original jury deliberated nearly five. “Yes, I tried,” she responded. “It wasn’t good enough, but I tried.” One colleague said the juror grows quiet when passions run high and she feels she is being attacked. “She feels as if she is the one on trial,” another said. The juror was one of two who complained to Kreamer on Oct. 2. The first was replaced with an alternate after saying she was “too emotional” to continue, prompting a restart to deliberations the next day. The second, the juror now at issue, complained at the time that fellow jurors would not respect her opinion but that she could hold her own. Despite that, she has participated “just minimally” since the other juror departed, panelists said. “It’s like talking to a wall,” one said. Another said, “she told us she stopped listening,” one said. “She says she is not going to change her mind,” the jury foreman said. “We want to know why she feels that way.” He described the juror as emotional, speculative and unresponsive when jurors ask reasons for her opinions. After the foreman left the courtroom Wednesday morning, Kreamer said that the issue appears to be “a juror who has already made a decision and is no longer willing to discuss it.” On Tuesday, Kreamer cited the fraud case against former Gov. Fife Symington, which was overturned in 1999 over the dismissal of a holdout juror. Kreamer said he cannot dismiss a juror because she has a different opinion. A mistrial would likely result in a rare third trial for Doody, one of two men convicted of robbing and murdering six monks, two acolytes and a nun in the Wat Promkunaram temple in Waddell in what stands as Arizona’s worst massacre. Alleged co-conspirator Alessandro “Alex” Garcia confessed to the nine slayings plus a 10th murder in a deal to avoid the death penalty, and testified against Doody. The first jury convicted Doody in 1993. Doody won a second trial after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that his confession was illegally obtained.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs, govenrment, cia, snowden We are told the lie that the TSA thugs are illegally searching us at airports to protect us from terrorists. That's a lie. Over 50 percent of the people arrested as a result of TSA searches are arrested for victimless drug war crime. The next highest offense is for gun violations. Sue Willoughby, the author of this letter to the editor points out that the TSA thugs were mostly searching her looking for illegal drugs, not terrorist crimes. http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/free/20131014like-me-you-dont-fit-profile-terrorist-airport-just-smile.html Smiling helps makes screening bearable Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:50 PM Thanks for the interesting article regarding screening at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (“Screening at Sky Harbor draws fire,” Republic, Saturday). I am a 71-year-old woman who weighs 108 pounds, and I am a two-time breast-cancer survivor. Not exactly your standard terrorist profile! I always get the complete chest pat-down, legs, tummy and back because I, too, have to wear those fake prosthesis “helpers.” My luggage is almost always checked, and almost always I am selected for a free fingerprint check. During my last flight, the Transportation Security Administration clerk also checked my braid, which I wore that day. I started to get cranky, but she explained that some people actually smuggle drugs in their braids. Upon reflection, I realized this is the price we all pay in today’s world since 9/11; perhaps some more than others. But overall, I am happy they are doing their jobs to the best of their ability. Almost all the agents I met have been very courteous. So, if you have a disability, go early and smile a lot. It helps everyone! — Sue Willoughby, Phoenix

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in government and messy yard criminals American messy yard cops are just as bad as Vietnamese commies???? Sure sounds like it from this article where the Phoenix messy yard cops are shaking down Huong Van Nguyen for messy yard crimes. http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20131018phoenix-hoarder-volunteers-clear-property.html?nclick_check=1 Volunteers set to clear property, help Phoenix hoarder By Eugene Scott The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:35 PM Huong Van Nguyen spent six years in a cell while in a Viet Cong prison camp during the Vietnam War. When allowed to venture out, Nguyen began collecting things — anything — to sneak back in his cell to make it feel more like a home. “You find it, you take it and you use it,” he said. “Because in the camp, you have nothing.” Even after the 71-year-old refugee immigrated to the United States, he kept scavenging. It wasn’t long before his hunts got out of control. Books, bottles, cans and rocks now fill nearly every space in Nguyen’s south Phoenix home and backyard. Some of the garbage has seeped into his front yard, where he showcases his rock art. The rock sculptures, which Nguyen first began creating in college, often stand six feet tall. Reminiscent of a zen garden, the rocks often attract the attention of passers-by. But the line between art and trash has become fuzzy, so much so that Phoenix officials told him to clean his property up or face jail time and a fine. Nguyen has known he needs help with his hoarding problem for years. But he did not know where to begin. “I’ve tried to get over (hoarding) by myself four times, but I failed,” Nguyen said. “This time, I need people.” The people have come. Nguyen’s story has attracted the attention of neighbors, businesses and city officials, who planned to help Nguyen de-clutter his house today and Sunday. But the physical cleanup may only be the start of a long journey for Nguyen. Becoming a hoarder Nguyen spent his college years at a Vietnamese university studying eastern religions. He said the knowledge he gained studying Zen Buddhism helped him navigate some difficult times in his life, including the prison camp. After escaping from Vietnam, Nguyen made brief stops in Indonesia and Singapore before arriving in the U.S. more than 30 years ago. His only possession was a plastic bag containing one outfit, he said. Nguyen filled his days working in a factory making soccer balls. In his free time, he’d scour his neighborhood looking for objects to fill his home. George Rowley, 67, lives on a street just west of Nguyen. The men met about two years ago during one of Nguyen’s hunts. “I’ve got two German shepherds and every time Nguyen would come down the alley collecting cans, the dogs would naturally bark and raise all kinds of hell,” said Rowley, a Vietnam veteran. “So one day, I stood up over the fence to see what they were barking about. I got a little step ladder and looked over the fence and it was this Vietnamese guy.” Rowley and Nguyen soon became friends, discussing their years in Vietnam and their lives since. Last summer, Nguyen’s next-door neighbor called the city about trash accumulating near a carport in his backyard. The garbage was beginning to overflow into the neighbor’s yard. The strong odor had been noticeable for a while. In addition to being an eyesore, the garbage had become an environmental and safety hazard. The city initially gave him until Oct. 10 to clean up. But Nguyen did not stand a chance at meeting the deadline. He has no family and few friends. So the Phoenix Neighborhood Services Department contacted Angels on Patrol, a non-profit that serves families and children whom police encounter during their work. The non-profit had never faced a situation like Nguyen’s, executive assistant Leah Heathcoat said. But she said they’ve never turned anybody away. Heathcoat said Nguyen’s story was so compelling, the group’s board partnered with other organizations to get him the help he needs. “In my heart, I just feel so good about him and helping him do this. I want to see him have his dignity back,” she said. Community involvement One of the first businesses to get involved was Biopro, a Gilbert company that cleans up hoarding situations and crime scenes. Dale Cillian, founder of the company, reached out to 12 News. He began working with Angels on Patrol to prepare volunteers for the cleanup. “It’s like a two-week job, but we’re going to do it in three days, hopefully,” Cillian said. About 20 volunteers planned to use shovels and wheelbarrows to clean the property. “It’s not as simple as you would think,” Cillian said. “You’ve just got to be ready for people getting sick. People getting hurt. A lot of those people (have) never seen or smelled anything like that before.” The workers will have to tread lightly. The line separating art and chaos is thin in Nguyen’s garden. The workers may have to remove some of the rock sculptures. “We’ve got some issues there with those rock formations. Those weeds will all have to come out,” Cillian said. “I can’t have rocks falling on people’s heads, breaking their toes.” First step Nguyen said a doctor attributes his hoarding to mental illness, which stems from trauma he experienced in the prison camp. Nguyen did not speak specifically about his condition. Those familiar with Nguyen’s case said they know the solution to the hoarding is not simply throwing away his belongings. “Even though he’s real receptive now, I tell you when you start tossing their things away, it changes real fast,” Cillian said. Acclimating to a new life in the U.S. is a major challenge for refugees, said Nga Bui, president of Vietnamese Volunteers of Arizona, which helps Vietnamese refugees adjust. “There are a lot of difficulties — language, employment and transportation,” he said. “It takes time for us to adapt to the new country.” Depression is the most common mental illness among Vietnamese refugees, said Bui, who came to Arizona as a refugee 30 years ago. Adjusting to the reality that they will likely never see their families again is debilitating, he said. Many never completely recover. “When they come here, even though the U.S. government helps them a lot, they don’t help with everything,” Bui said. “And in some cases, we can not help them with anything because their depression is very big.” Angels on Patrol has contacted refugee assistance organizations to connect Nguyen with the services he needs. Representatives for the Arizona Refugee Resettlement Program said services are available for refugees dealing with mental illnesses. The group works with refugees who have post-traumatic stress disorder after experiencing rape, torture and the murder of friends and family. When meeting people like Nguyen, Saida H. Mohamed, refugee services manager for the program, said the most important thing is to be patient. “Try to take time to understand them and know where they are coming from, because these are the things that make a difference,” she said. “Be sensitive, because you never know what might be triggering that specific symptom.”

xxx

1) link to main page More of the old "Do as I say, not as I do" from our government masters!!! http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/articles/20131025pinal-county-attorneys-office-ex-worker-charged-fraud-abrk.html Ex-Pinal County Attorney’s Office worker charged with fraud By Justin Price The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:47 PM A grand jury has indicted a former Pinal County Attorney’s Office employee on charges of fraud, forgery and theft, officials said. Somer Fite, 44, of Prescott, was arraigned Friday in Pinal County Superior Court and faces one county of theft, one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices, and six counts of forgery, according to a County Attorney’s Office statement. Fite worked in the County Attorney’s Diversion Program from January 2007 through August 2012. She is accused of fraudulently obtaining $1,370 from the prosecutor’s office and JP Morgan Chase Bank by falsely making or altering six personal money orders to various banks and credit unions from May to August 2012. A special deputy attorney from Gila County presented the case to the grand jury due to Fite’s prior employment with Pinal County.

xxx

1) link to main page DWB or Driving While Black is still a crime. I guess we should change it to BWB or Breathing While Black. When I was in Chicago I was shook down by the rentacops in either a Borders or B Dalton book store for the crime of being a long haired hippie. http://www.azcentral.com/news/free/20131025black-actor-ny-macys-stopped-me-because-race.html Black actor: NY Macy’s stopped me because of race Associated Press Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:51 PM NEW YORK — A black actor on the HBO drama series “Treme” said Friday he was stopped by police because of his race while shopping at Macy’s — the third discrimination allegation made this week by a black shopper against a department store. Robert Brown, who sued Macy’s in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, said in his lawsuit he was detained by police at the flagship Herald Square store on June 8 after employees contacted authorities about possible credit card fraud. He said he was “paraded while handcuffed” through the store to a holding cell, where he was kept for nearly an hour while officers grilled him and searched his bag. He eventually was released without charges. The lawsuit, filed Thursday, said it was over sunglasses, but Brown said at a news conference Friday it was over a $1,300 Movado watch he had bought for his mother for her college graduation. “I believe that I was profiled,” said Brown, 29, who appears in the movie “Don Jon.” Brown’s lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages, but his lawyer John Elefterakis said, “This is about justice, not money.” Macy’s didn’t comment on the litigation but said in a statement it was investigating. The New York Police Department is accused in the lawsuit of violating Brown’s constitutional rights. The city’s Law Department said it would review the claims once it received a copy of the lawsuit. Earlier this week, two Barneys New York customers, Trayon Christian and Kayla Phillips, who are black, said they were detained by police after making expensive purchases. Police said they were already in the store when Christian was taken into custody and they were contacted by the store after Phillips used a temporary debit card. The profiling accusations prompted an outcry from civil rights groups, with the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network threatening to picket the store. Sharpton said he planned to hold a Saturday news conference at which other shoppers who felt profiled would come forward. Barneys said on Thursday it had retained a civil rights expert to lead a review of its policies and procedures and had reached out to community leaders to start a dialogue. The CEO of Barneys, Mark Lee, offered his “sincere regret and deepest apologies.” In the lawsuit against Macy’s, Brown, who also acted in “Finding Forrester,” said he tried to show police officers his identification to prove his American Express card wasn’t a fake but was told it was phony. He said he had recently obtained a new Social Security Card and had a birth certificate, passport and license on him at the time. Brown said the officers eventually cleared him and then one drove him to his mother’s graduation. He said he was coming forward because he didn’t want others to experience the same treatment. Earlier this week, Christian sued Barneys, saying he was accused of fraud after using his debit card to buy a $349 Ferragamo belt in April. Phillips said in a notice of claim filed with the city that undercover officers detained her after she bought a $2,500 designer bag at Barneys in February. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said it’s standard practice for retailers to call police if they believe crimes have been committed.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in government and drugs I don't agree with all of this. But pension spiking pretty much illustrates that government is government of the people, by the elected officials and appointed bureaucrats for the elected officials, appointed bureaucrats and special interest groups that helped get them into power. One of the biggest benefactors of pension spiking are the cops. The police budget in most Arizona cities of 40 percent of the total budget. After cops, firemen are second. In most Arizona cities the fire departments come in second after the cops, getting about 20 percent of the total budget. http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/robertrobb/2013/10/24/pension-reformers-should-rescue-mayor-maladroit/ Posted on October 24, 2013 4:25 pm by Robert Robb Pension reformers should rescue Mayor Maladroit The three council members who are serious about fixing the City of Phoenix’s pension program – Sal DiCiccio, Bill Gates and Jim Waring – shouldn’t have voted against the pension spiking recommendations that came out of a special subcommittee. The recommendations were, indeed, modest. But they weren’t meaningless. The money in spiking is in cashing out unused sick and vacation time. For new hires, the recommendations would have eliminated the ability to use that money to increase the salary on which pensions are calculated. The council capped unused sick leave for pension purposes for existing employees in 2012. The recommendations would have done the same for vacation time as of the end of this fiscal year, in June. That would have grandfathered in spiking for more than 8,000 existing employees. But it would have largely cut it off for new hires and capped the city’s liability for existing workers. That’s worth doing. Of course, eliminating spiking altogether would be better. But there aren’t the votes on the council to do that. And doing that is of questionable legality. A state constitutional amendment voters unwisely approved in 1998 says that public retirement benefits can’t be “diminished or impaired.” The city could argue that defining compensation under the city Charter for purposes of calculating a pension benefit isn’t the same as reducing the benefit. But it has that effect, and the counterargument is at least as likely to prevail in court. The city is already being sued over the cap on accumulated sick leave. What would eliminating spiking altogether consists of? It would calculate pensions strictly on base pay and exclude all extra contingent compensation, such as overtime, and expense reimbursements. Calculating pensions on anything other than base pay invites manipulation and distorts the purpose of a defined benefit program, which is to replace a portion of regular pay in retirement. Everyone knows that overtime tends to go disproportionately to those nearing retirement, precisely to spike their retirement benefit. The Arizona Republic’s Craig Harris and Dustin Gardiner calculate that pension spiking, properly defined, costs the city $12 million a year. Based upon the time the average retiree draws benefits, the overall cost is estimated at $192 million. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is. The Phoenix pension plan, however, is $1.1 billion underfunded. So, pension spiking isn’t the main event, substantively. But right now, it is the main event politically. Two members of the council – Michael Johnson and Michael Nowakowski – took the position that this was none of the council’s business. Pensions should be negotiated between city management and the city unions, all beneficiaries of the system. Nowakowski called it the “Team Phoenix way.” Others might call it a self-dealing insiders’ club and the way a pension system gets $1.1 billion underwater. If Johnson and Nowakowski are going to abdicate their responsibility to taxpayers, spiking limits can’t pass without the votes of the three pension true reformers. But that requires the reformers to accept what’s politically doable and stomach the flailing of Phoenix’s maladroit mayor, Greg Stanton. Stanton favors the modest subcommittee recommendations but didn’t have the political moxie to get the votes of Team Phoenix’s Nowakowski and Johnson. That left him dependent on the votes of the true pension reformers. The way an adroit leader coaxes reluctant votes is to give them plenty of political space to play and then be there with the best alternative that can actually pass. Instead, Stanton used parliamentary tactics to prevent DiCiccio from even offering his more robust alternative. And so, in the end, Stanton ended up with not enough votes for anything and an embarrassing political failure. For Stanton, pension funding is a political issue to be finessed, not a taxpayer problem to be solved. Letting him stew in his own political ineptitude would be tempting. But serving the taxpayers requires providing reluctant votes for limits that are worthwhile, if far from optimal.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drug war Life in prison for a victimless drug war crime??? http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/celebrities/free/20131025rap-promoter-life-prison-nyc-drug-case.html Rap promoter gets life in prison in drug case By Tom Hays Associated Press Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:33 PM NEW YORK — A hip-hop promoter was sentenced to life in prison on Friday on charges he moonlighted as a drug kingpin who made a fortune by smuggling vast amounts of cocaine into New York City, sometimes by concealing it in music equipment cases. James "Jimmy the Henchman" Rosemond was facing a mandatory life term following his guilty verdict on narcotics conspiracy and other charges at a trial last year in federal court in Brooklyn. Prosecutor Todd Kaminsky told U.S. District Judge John Gleeson that Rosemond, 48, brazenly demonstrated his disregard for the law by continuing his trafficking operation even after he learned he was under investigation. The defendant used the proceeds to buy multiple homes, luxury cars and a six-figure sound system for his Brooklyn loft. "About every stereotype you can think of about a drug kingpin was reflected in how he lived," Kaminsky said. Gleeson said he would have put Rosemond behind bars for life even if it wasn't required by law. "You chose that life and this is the punishment you get," the judge said. Both Rosemond and his lawyer declined to address the court before the sentence was announced. Prosecutors had accused Rosemond, founder of Czar Entertainment, of using a variety of methods to smuggle cocaine from Los Angeles to New York. Some of it was shipped in overnight packages slathered in mustard to throw off drug-sniffing dogs. Rosemond later devised a system that allayed his worries about using the overnight services by hiding the drugs in the music equipment cases and sending them to New York music studios, prosecutors said. The cases were then shipped back to Los Angeles packed with cash. In 2011, agents seized a road case containing $790,000 packaged in vacuum-sealed plastic in $100,000 bundles, prosecutors said. The seizure prompted Rosemond to switch tactics, stashing drugs in hidden compartments in cars that were transported from coast to coast. Lawyers for Rosemond claimed he was framed by members of his crew who pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against him. They included a Los Angeles dealer who admitted supplying more than 200 pounds to the ring over a two-year period. Before the sentencing, the judge denied a motion to give Rosemond a new trial. His attorney had argued that the jury was tainted by unsubstantiated reports linking the defendant to an unsolved shooting that wounded legendary rapper Tupac Shakur. Shakur survived the 1994 shooting, but was killed two years later in Las Vegas. The slaying remains unsolved. Rosemond was behind such hits as Salt-N-Pepa's "Shoop" and represented The Game and Sean Kingston, according his company's website. Another former client was Michael K. Williams, who played the ruthless outlaw Omar on "The Wire" TV series and now stars in "Boardwalk Empire." Rosemond still faces separate charges in Manhattan accusing him of arranging a murder as payback for an assault on his son.

xxx

1) link to main page Will the government attempt to frame Johnathan Doody for murder a THIRD time???? http://www.azcentral.com/community/surprise/articles/20130924judge-declares-mistrial-in-temple-killings-retrial-of-johnathan-doody-abrk.html Judge declares mistrial in temple killings retrial of Johnathan Doody By Laurie Merrill and Miguel Otarola The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:27 PM Before the judge declared a mistrial, jurors in Johnathan Doody’s retrial for the 1991 Buddhist temple murders were split 11-1 in favor of conviction, Doody’s attorney said Thursday. “I was told by some of the jurors that the final vote was 11-1, guilty,” defense attorney Maria Schaffer said. “I was also told that when they started out, it was (about) 5-6 guilty.” As deliberations continued, the lone holdout was a woman who had earlier told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer in a note, “I don’t believe some of the evidence.” Other jurors accused the holdout of using “feelings, not facts” in arriving at conclusions and said she seemed unresponsive and “shut down.” They blamed her when they announced an impasse Wednesday, saying it was due to “the inability by one juror to adhere to the judge’s instructions.” When Kreamer declared a mistrial Thursday, it set the stage for a third trial, which could start as early as November. The mistrial on what would have been the 13th day of deliberations brings an end to the second trial of one of two men convicted of robbing and murdering six monks, two acolytes and a nun in the Wat Promkunaram temple in Waddell 23 years ago. Third trials rare “We are going to have another trial,” Kreamer said. “That other trial is going to occur soon.” Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Jason Kalish had previously announced that Doody will be tried a third time in what stands as Arizona’s worst massacre. Doody, who has been incarcerated since his 1991 arrest at age 17, will remain in custody. “That’s a particular case where, if we do not get a verdict, we will seek a verdict again,” Maricopa County Bill Montgomery said this week, referring to the Doody trial. The likelihood of conviction and the enormity of the temple murders are likely factors that weigh in favor of a new trial, said Tempe attorney Mark Anderson, a former prosecutor. A third trial for a murder defendant is unusual, said Phoenix defense attorney Greg Parzych. “It is rare to have a third trial,” Parzych said. “It is rare for the deliberations to go on so long, and for an alternate juror to be brought in.” For Johnathan Doody’s parents, a third trial means a chance their son may some day be free from the jails and prisons that have housed him for more than two decades. “He has always maintained his innocence and believes he will one day come home,” his father said. Schaffer said the judge was right to call a mistrial. “It was time,” Schaffer said. “I am eager to try (the new case) as soon as possible.” However, retrials are challenging for the defense. “We put forth our best effort and used our best strategies” in the first retrial, Schaffer said. “Now we have to come up with even stronger strategy.” Twists and turns The mistrial and the planned third trial are the latest twists in a case full of surprises. Opening arguments were in August, and deliberations began in September. The jury was forced to start deliberations over on Oct. 3 after Kreamer replaced an overly “emotional” juror with an alternate. A second juror complained that her fellow jurors were not respecting her opinion but that she could hold her own. Three days of deliberations later, the other jurors complained in a note that the juror would no longer participate. The juror in question told Kreamer she felt “badgered” and was called “stupid.” After quizzing the jurors in open court Oct. 17, Kreamer sent them back to deliberate. On Tuesday, jurors sent more notes to the judge. The juror complained that she had repeated herself over and over and it was time for a vote. Four others complained she was not following the judge’s instructions. Before discussions Wednesday, the alternate juror, who replaced another juror on Oct. 2, sent a note to the judge complaining that the controversial juror did not follow Kreamer’s instructions to start deliberations anew on Oct.3. “I am concerned that (the juror) has let personal feelings interfere with her (making) rational decisions,” the note said. Twice on Wednesday, Kreamer asked jurors if they were at an impasse. At the end of the day, they admitted they were deadlocked and blamed the controversial juror. Historic case The mistrial comes 22 years after the brazen slaying of nine people in a Buddhist temple and 20 years after the first Maricopa County Superior Court jury convicted Doody in the crimes. Doody won a second trial after the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals determined that investigators under then-Maricopa County Sheriff Tom Agnos used improper tactics to coerce an involuntary confession. Detectives had already wrung confessions from four Tucson men, known as the “Tucson Four,” who were later found to have had nothing to do with the slayings. The highly publicized arrests and exoneration of the Tucson Four helped catapult Sheriff Joe Arpaio into his first term of office. Witness links Doody to killings Then and now, the chief witness in the case was Alessandro “Alex” Garcia, a 16-year-old high-school student when he was arrested. Garcia confessed to the nine temple slayings as well as a 10th murder he committed with his then-14-year-old girlfriend. It is Garcia who puts Doody at the scene of the temple, attorneys said. “It is a difficult case,” attorney and author Gary Stuart said. “If you believe in the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, than this is a tough case for the prosecutor.” No forensic evidence links Doody to the scene, only Garcia’s testimony and circumstantial evidence, said Stuart, who penned “Innocent until Interrogated.” Doody and Garcia were convicted in 1993, Doody by a jury and Garcia in a plea deal that spared him from the death penalty. Doody was sentenced to 281 years in prison and Garcia to 271 years. Doody faced the death penalty, but the sentencing judge ordered life in prison instead because jurors in the first trial weren’t certain whether Doody or Garcia fired the fatal shots.

xxx

1) link to main page Serial killer Jan Brewer strikes again - Robert Jones murdered by the state of Arizona!!!! http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131023arizona-execution-robert-jones.html Man who killed 7 in 1996 Arizona crime spree is put to death By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:51 PM FLORENCE-- Robert Jones never looked up at the families of the men and women he killed. He didn't apologize. He didn't explain himself. He just closed his eyes and went to sleep, media witnesses said, the second Arizona Death Row inmate to be executed this month. Jones, 43, was sentenced to death for the 1996 murders of Chip O' Dell, Tom Hardman, Carol Lynn Noel, Maribeth Munn and Judy and Arthur Bell during two armed robberies in Tucson, and was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Richard Roels in Phoenix. Jones met with his attorneys Tuesday night to reminisce about his life. He declined the traditional special last meal afforded to condemned prisoners. "It's just another meal and there's nothing special about the day to me," he told Assistant Federal Defender Dale Baich. Instead, he ate what the other inmates ate: a beef patty, mashed potatoes with brown gravy, a serving of carrots, two slices of wheat bread, a slice of glazed cake and a powdered juice drink. On Wednesday morning he was strapped to a gurney in Housing Unit 9, which is what prison officials call the death house. And when the execution medical staff had difficulty inserting the catheters that would deliver the barbiturate pentobarbital in his arm, Jones joked that if they let his hands free, he could do it himself. Unable to get two lines into his arms, the medical staff then surgically implanted a catheter in Jones' groin. The scheduled 10 a.m. execution was delayed because of those difficulties. "Love and respect my friends and family," Jones said as his last words, "and hope my friends are never here." The drug was administered at 10:35 a.m. and Jones was pronounced dead at 10:52. He never looked toward the witnesses on the other side of a window from him, and mostly kept his eyes shut, breathing heavily and then going to sleep. More than 20 relatives of the victims witnessed the execution and several spoke afterwards, their voices filling with emotion and anger. "Personally, I think this was too easy," said Carson Noel, the son of Carol Lynn Noel, referring to how easily Jones died. "This was the second hardest thing I've ever done," he said. "The first was putting my mom to rest." Christopher Bell, the son of Judy and Arthur Bell, said, "17 years is too long. And we still have a lifetime ahead to heal." Then he thought a moment. "And we're never going to heal." Several of the victims remarked that they would not get closure until Jones' accomplice in six of the murders, Scott Nordstrom, is executed as well. Jones and his accomplices killed ruthlessly. On May 30, 1996, two men burst through the doors of the Moon Smoke Shop in Tucson. A red-haired man, believed to be Jones, wearing a black cowboy hat and dark sunglasses immediately shot O’Dell in the head, killing him, survivors said. O’Dell was a customer in the store. Store employees dropped to the floor behind the counter as the gunman continued to fire. The gunman then chased Tom Hardman to a back room, where the gunman killed him, as well. Two employees fled; a third was wounded. One of the survivors saw a light-colored pickup truck speeding away from the scene with two people in it. Two weeks later, on June 13, 1996, four bodies were found at the Fire Fighters Union Hall, also in Tucson: Noel, the bartender, and club members Munn and the Bells. Noel had been beaten and shot twice; the others were apparently shot in the back of the head after being made to put their heads on the bar. Police believed $1,300 was taken from the cash register. Roels was killed more than a month later at his house in central Phoenix on Aug. 23, 1996. Phoenix police quickly tracked Roels’ stolen credit cards and found that they had been used in the hours after the killing to buy pizzas and a pair of cowboy boots. Then, as the killers tried to buy ammunition at a gun-supply store, a suspicious store clerk called police and turned over surveillance photos of the two men. The police then sent the photos to local hotels to see if anyone recognized the two men. Staff at a motel near Interstate 17 and Indian School Road identified them. Jones and an accomplice named Stephen Coats were leaving the motel as a police helicopter tracked them. The two men led police on a car chase through city streets that reached speeds of 80 mph. Then, the killers stopped at a car dealership, hot-wired a Corvette and sped down Camelback Road at 100 mph. They eluded police on Arizona 51 at top speeds of nearly 130 mph. The Corvette ran out of gas in Tempe, where Jones and Coats split up. Coats forced his way into an apartment at gunpoint; Jones hot-wired a Porsche that he crashed. When he was arrested, Jones was wearing the watch that Roels received from the newspaper on his retirement. The link to the Tucson murders came when a man named David Nordstrom went to Tucson police and told them that he had been with Jones and his own brother Scott Nordstrom on the day they robbed the Moon Smoke Shop. David, who was on parole and wearing an electronic-monitoring device, said he was driving the pickup truck when the first murders and robbery were committed. Jones fit the description of the gunman; for that matter, so did David Nordstrom. But David pinned the murders on Scott Nordstrom and Jones. He also said he knew of the other robbery and murders from what Jones and Scott told him. David Nordstrom was initially charged in some of the murders, but the charges were dropped in exchange for his testimony. Jones and Scott Nordstrom were both sentenced to death. Coats, who had nothing to do with the Tucson robberies, was sentenced to life in prison for Roels’ murder. Jones was born on Christmas Day 1969 in Tyler, Texas. Jones’ natural father was absent from the home during Jones’ childhood, according to court records. Jones’ two successive stepfathers beat him, and when he became big enough to defend himself at about age 15, he was kicked out of his mother’s house. Jones dropped out of school and began using cocaine and methamphetamine. His defense attorneys maintained to the end that the Tucson murders were a case of mistaken identity, pointing out that David Nordstrom resembled Jones. There was no physical evidence that linked Jones to the murders. However, he pleaded guilty to Roels’ murder. But in the last weeks, state and federal courts refused to grant a stay of execution. Jones and another death-row inmate, Edward Schad, filed a lawsuit against the state to get the Arizona Department of Corrections to reveal the source of the barbiturate pentobarbital, which would be used in both men’s executions. The two men appeared side by side on closed-circuit TV during the federal court hearings earlier this month. The judge ordered the Corrections Department to provide the information, which it did, although the inmates’ attorneys asked for more. Schad was executed Oct. 9. The suit will continue even after Jones’ death. Jones did not attend his clemency hearing last week, claiming that there was no chance that the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency would commute his sentence or grant him a reprieve. Ryanne Costello, the daughter of Richard Roels, was among the witnesses to Wednesday’s execution. She has spent much of the last 17 years wondering about her father’s murder and even tried to set up meeting with Jones to ask him what her father’s last words had been. She wanted closure. She wanted to understand why her father was dead and how he faced his last moments. “I was prepared for it,” Costello said. “He could have told me anything.” After the execution, Costello said, "I can't explain how relieved I am, because I feel I can move on."

xxx

1) link to main page http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/free/20131022northern-arizona-tribal-police-chief-arrested.html Northern Arizona tribal police chief arrested Associated Press Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:01 PM A tribal police chief in northern Arizona has been arrested on charges including domestic violence, assault and trespassing for shooting his estranged wife’s car with a high-powered rifle after being served with divorce papers, authorities said Tuesday. Samuel Lujan, 47, acting police chief for the Tonto Apache Tribe near Payson, was arrested early Monday at a home in Heber. He was held Tuesday on a $250,000 bond. Lujan was served with divorce papers sometime last week. On Sunday morning, he drove his patrol car, still wearing his uniform, to a home where the woman was staying in Heber, said Chief Deputy Jim Molesa of the Navajo County Sheriff’s Office. “He took out, we’re assuming, his department-issued AR-15 rifle and discharged somewhere between 15 and 20 rounds into her car,” Molesa said. Lujan then fired additional rounds into the vehicle with a semi-automatic handgun before leaving the scene. The car was unoccupied and no one was injured. Authorities eventually tracked Lujan down at a Heber trailer where they found his patrol car crashed into his personal car in the driveway, the rifle and a bottle of liquor on the hood of the vehicle and the door to his home ajar, Molesa said. “He apparently went inside and passed out,” he added. Authorities surrounded the home and attempted to make contact with Lujan, who eventually awoke but refused to come outside. About nine hours later, police tossed a pepper spray-like gas into the home. Molesa said Lujan emerged just after midnight and was taken into custody without incident. He was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence, assault, drive-by shooting, misuse of body armor for wearing his department-issued gear, and trespassing. A telephone message left for his public defender wasn’t returned Tuesday, and several phone numbers for his home were disconnected. The Tonto Apache Police Department referred questions to tribal administration. A tribal official said no one was available for comment.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs The only reason these robberies occur is because drugs are an expensive black market commodity because they are illegal. Legalize drugs and these robberies will stop overnight because Oxycontin tabs will be no more expensive then aspirin. Just like an pound of pot will drop in cost from $1,000+ to no more then what you pay for a pound of potatoes. http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/20131023phoenix-scottsdale-robber-targeting-pharmacies.html?nclick_check=1 Police: Robber targeting pharmacies in Phoenix, Scottsdale By D.S. Woodfill The Arizona Republic | 12 News Breaking News Team Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:04 PM A spree of robberies targeting pharmacies in north Phoenix and Scottsdale is about to enter its 11-month with no suspects or end in sight, officials say. The “OCD Bandit,” so dubbed by police due to his penchant for robbing pharmacies at gunpoint and demanding oxycodone, last struck Oct. 2. Since the first known robbery on Dec. 6 last year, police estimate the bandit has hit 20 pharmacies at locations including Fry’s Food Stores, Albertsons, Walgreens and CVS stores. Phoenix police Sgt. Darren Burch, who coordinates the Valley-wide Silent Witness program, said the urgency to identify the bandit grows with every new crime. “We’re thankful that he hasn’t escalated to violence or hurt anyone, but that could very well happen,” Burch said. “We need to get him identified and off the street. There’s no reason to think he’ll stop until we stop him.” Now, Phoenix police say, the bandit who was initially believed to be one man, could actually be two robbers working in tandem. “They might just be alternating, taking turns,” said Sgt. Steve Martos, a Phoenix police spokesman. “But it seems (as though) they are likely working together.” The bandit has recently become aggressive in his demands, causing concern among investigators that the hostility could escalate, Martos said. Jordan Russo, a supervisor at CVS near Bell Road and Thompson Peak Parkway in Scottsdale, said whoever robbed his store in July wore a hoodie and aviator sunglasses. Police said the bandit has tried to conceal his identity in the past by wearing a motorcycle helmet, fishing cap, landscape hat or baseball cap. Russo was not present during the robbery but saw it play out on the store’s security-video footage. He said the man seemed calm, never raised his voice and completed the robbery in about 30 seconds. “The guy just darted out the door,” Russo said. The suspect never showed a gun, but other employees said one protruded from the pocket of his sweatshirt. Officer Dave Pubins, a Scottsdale police spokesman, said five pharmacies in north Scottsdale were robbed of controlled narcotics from June to October. Two of them occurred on July 21, according to previous reports in The Arizona Republic. Pubins could not confirm whether Scottsdale investigators believe one or two men are behind the robberies. “I can tell you that it is likely that when this individual is caught, many of the most recent pharmacy armed robberies may be tied to him,” Pubins said. “It is not uncommon for a single individual to be involved in multiple crimes with the same M.O.”

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in sheriff Joe I guess Sheriff Joe's line is f*ck Judge G. Murray Snow, I got a gun and badge and I'm going to do whatever I feel like doing!!!! http://www.kpho.com/story/21812289/taxpayers-dole-out-more-than-7-million-in-arpaio-settlements Taxpayers dole out more than $7 million in Arpaio settlements Posted: Mar 27, 2013 4:46 PM Updated: Apr 10, 2013 9:18 PM By Allyson Blair - bio | email PHOENIX (CBS5) - On Wednesday, Maricopa County agreed to pay out $1,525,000 to settle two abuse of power lawsuits against Sheriff Joe Arpaio. That number is just a fraction of what Maricopa County taxpayers have already paid to keep those cases out of court. The board agreed to pay former Judge Gary Donahoe $1,275,000. A few moments later Sandra and Dennis Dowling were awarded $250,000. Today's votes stemmed from allegations that the sheriff's office abused its power going after judges, county leaders and political enemies. Some of those people were investigated and some were indicted with little or no probable cause. Every case was thrown out of court except for Dowling's, who pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge. Wednesday's settlements are just the tip of the iceberg. According to Maricopa County Communications Director Cari Gerchick, there were 12 cases in all. She told CBS 5 News that nine have been settled to the tune of more than $3 million. Two cases are still pending, including the one involving supervisor Don Stapley. Mary Rose Wilcox settled for nearly $1 million but hasn't seen the money because the case is stuck in appeals. So far, just the attorneys' fees on those three cases total more than $2.3 million. All total, well over $7 million of your money has been used to settle those lawsuits aimed at Arpaio. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2013-10-24/news/arpaio-s-sweep-of-the-west-valley-could-turn-judge-snow-s-order-into-a-paper-tiger/full/ Arpaio's Sweep of the West Valley Could Turn Judge Snow's Order Into a Paper Tiger By Stephen Lemons Thursday, Oct 24 2013 When it comes to duplicity, Lance Armstrong, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and the Roman god Janus got nothin' on Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Here's a for-instance: State Senator Steve Gallardo, a Democrat and fierce critic of Arpaio's, tells me that since April, one of the sheriff's latest hires, Miryam Gutier-Elm, has tried to get Gallardo to break bread with the octogenarian autocrat. Earlier this year, Gutier-Elm, a lobbyist by trade and daughter of Governor Jan Brewer's director of Highway Safety, Alberto Gutier, was brought on part time by the Sheriff's Office to perform outreach to the Latino community. According to the MCSO's own stats, Arpaio's beige-clad army of the night encountered (read: "harassed") 394 people during its recent sweep, in an area of the West Valley that's 68 percent Latino. Only eight of those stopped were booked into jail. According to the MCSO's own stats, Arpaio's beige-clad army of the night encountered (read: "harassed") 394 people during its recent sweep, in an area of the West Valley that's 68 percent Latino. Only eight of those stopped were booked into jail. And Gallardo is one of those to whom Gutier-Elm's been reaching out. "She's been coming to my office, trying to set up a lunch [with Arpaio]," says Gallardo. "And I ain't having lunch with him." In fact, during a recent visit by Arpaio to the Capitol, the sheriff himself buttonholed Gallardo, asking if they could do a meal at one of the sheriff's fave Italian eateries. "I laughed and blew him off," Gallardo says. A nearby reporter wanted to grab a photo of the two men. Arpaio was game. "He actually tried to get close to me," Gallardo says. "I said, 'Oh, no, no, no, no. There will be no photo-ops.'" The sheriff's attempt to schmooze him was the first thing to come to mind when Arpaio announced a major "crime-suppression" operation last week to take place in an area of the West Valley that encompasses Gallardo's district. Which just happens to be 68 percent Latino. "Here, this SOB is supposedly trying to make inroads with the Hispanic community," says Gallardo. "Then he does a sweep in my district. "This is the perfect example of why no one in the Latino community should be sitting down talking to this guy. Pisses me off." Gallardo witnessed one stop during the sweep, when the MCSO pulled over a Latino teen for a routine traffic violation. He said it was notable because he almost never sees MCSO vehicles in his district. That stop would have been one of 394 "contacts" with the public made by the MCSO during the two-day sweep, which Arpaio insisted had to do with gangs and guns and the August killing of an MCSO detention officer in the West Valley. Never mind that the Phoenix Police Department arrested the alleged shooter of that detention officer last month. This was Arpaio's excuse to engage in a sweep like the ones that brought on the ACLU's civil rights lawsuit, Melendres v. Arpaio, to begin with. The suit resulted in a trial in 2012 and a ruling in May of this year in which federal Judge G. Murray Snow found Arpaio and the MCSO guilty of racial profiling and widespread prejudiced policing toward Latinos, involving violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Snow ordered an end to it, then ordered both sides in the suit to come up with a plan to make his decision a reality and transform Arpaio's office — still riddled with unprofessional and illegal practices — into a legit law enforcement agency. The parties agreed on some issues, but not all, so Snow laid down the law October 2 with a 59-page final order, outlining in detail what Arpaio and the MCSO have to do to comply with the U.S. Constitution. This "permanent injunction" included everything from extensive retraining for deputies and posse members to cameras in patrol cars to a Community Advisory Board to an independent court-appointed monitor, who will oversee the radical changes that must take place if the MCSO is to wean itself off its addiction to bigotry. There also are specific instructions regarding any "significant operation . . . involving 10 or more MCSO personnel." The Sheriff's Office must develop a "standard template" for such operations as well as a detailed operations plan, both of which must be submitted for review by the monitor. Within 30 days after an operation, the MCSO must provide to the monitor and the plaintiffs extensive data on who was stopped by deputies and why. Specific data-collection methods are spelled out in the rest of the order, some of which the MCSO has not yet begun to practice. The MCSO also is supposed to hold a community outreach meeting, in cooperation with the community advisory board, no more than 30 days after an operation. None of these mechanisms are in place. There is no community advisory board. The MCSO has not undergone retraining. And, most importantly, there probably will not be a monitor appointed until sometime in December, at the earliest. Snow did allow for the possibility of a large-scale operation in the interim, assuming there were "exigent circumstances," a fancy term meaning an emergency involving "imminent threat of death or bodily harm." So what was the emergency? "I'm sending a message," Arpaio said at a press conference during the sweep. "You don't go around killing my officers." Actually, the real message Joe was sending was to Snow — letting the judge know who's boss. In neither case is "sending a message" an "exigent circumstance." Moreover, in a press release issued as the sweep started, Arpaio stated that the planning for it had been going on since August. Meaning, once again, there was no emergency. Arpaio lawyer Tim Casey did file "a proposed written protocol" under seal with the court. A couple of days following the sweep, the 64-page document was unsealed by Snow. Needless to say, there were no "exigent circumstances" described. "We did our operation to conform with the court's ruling," Joe claimed to the press. "I think we did a pretty good job . . . So I'm not concerned about being in violation [of Snow's order]." Arpaio also falsely claimed that the plaintiffs' lawyers [specifically the ACLU] were okay with the sweep. In fact, a few hours after the plaintiffs learned that Arpaio was going to do an operation, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, Stanley Young, filed a statement with the court saying Arpaio was "circumventing" the court's order. Young did not ask Snow for an injunction to stop the sweep before it began, but instead urged Snow to "carefully consider whether the planned operation complies with the court's order." When I asked ACLU staff attorney Dan Pochoda why the plaintiffs didn't go for an injunction, he told me they didn't have all the information on what Arpaio was doing at that time. Plaintiffs' attorneys are reviewing the situation, Pochoda said. The ACLU could ask that Snow find Arpaio in contempt of court. Interestingly, the plaintiffs' lawyers recently told the court that they estimate their fees and expenses will equal $7.3 million. That's a small part of the price tag we must pay because the MCSO racially profiled Latinos and lost a lawsuit brought because of it. Losers pay attorney fees in federal court. And, thanks to Arpaio, county taxpayers are the losers. Meanwhile, Arpaio is promising more sweeps, which, like this one, surely will sow fear and resentment in the Latino community and increase the county's liability. Pro-immigrant activist Lydia Guzman had several crews of legal observers out during both days of the sweep. She said most of those pulled over and intimidated were Latino families, not gang-bangers. Indeed, out of the 394 MCSO contacts, only eight people got booked into jail, while there were 127 citations. The MCSO's stats also suggest "37 arrests," but 29 of those individuals were cited and released, according to an MCSO spokesman. At a hearing before Snow this summer, Arpaio attorney Casey promised the court that the era of the sweeps was over. Now that they are back, Snow must bare his fangs or risk getting played by a two-faced tyrant, one who snuggles up to Latinos even as he's persecuting them.

DEA has lots of our tax dollars to waste on silly ads

I saw the following ad in the Arizona Republic the week of October 20 to 26, 2013.

DEA has lots of our tax dollars to waste on silly ads

In this weeks Arizona Republic the DEA or Drug Enforcement Administration ran what looks like a quarter page newspaper ad which I have attached to this email.

The ad says:

Got Drugs?

Turn in your unused or expired medication for safe disposal Saturday, October 26th 10 a.m. - 2 p.m.

Visit www.dea.gov or call 800-882-9539 for a collection site near you.

I guess the DEA doesn't any any REAL criminals to arrest, other then people for victimless drug war crimes so they are trying to figure out ways to justify their existence by running this ad which is attached to this email.

Source

Put all of these other articles in this series in this section which is You want a fair trial??? Don't make me laugh!!!! Also put all the other articles in this section which is aaa5_police.html#fairtriallaughs_1027

Prosecutorial misconduct alleged in half of capital cases

Prosecutorial misconduct alleged in half of capital cases

You want a fair trial??? Don't make me laugh!!!!

Prosecutorial misconduct alleged in half of capital cases By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:44 AM Coming Monday: Prosecutors seldom disciplined Part 1 of 4 Noel Levy was Arizona Prosecutor of the Year in 1990 when he convinced a jury to convict Debra Milke of first-degree murder for allegedly helping to plan the murder of her 4-year-old son. A year later, he convinced a judge to send her to death row. It was a scandalous case: Prosecutors charged that in December 1989, Milke asked her roommate and erstwhile suitor to kill the child. The roommate and a friend told the boy he was going to the mall to see Santa Claus. Instead, they took him to the desert in northwest Phoenix and shot him in the head. But neither man would agree to testify against Milke, and the state’s case depended on a supposed confession Milke made to a Phoenix police detective. Milke denied confessing. The detective had not recorded the interview, and there were no witnesses to the confession. When Milke’s defense attorneys tried to obtain the detective’s personnel record to show that he was an unreliable witness with what a federal court called a “history of misconduct, court orders and disciplinary action,” the state got the judge to quash the subpoena. “I really thought the detective was a straight shooter, and I had no idea about all the stuff that allegedly came out,” Levy recently told The Arizona Republic. But in March of this year, after Milke, now 49, had spent nearly 24 years in custody, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out her conviction and sentence because of the state’s failure to turn over the detective’s personnel record so that Milke’s defense team could challenge the questionable confession. The 9th Circuit put the onus on the prosecution. “(T)he Constitution requires a fair trial,” the ruling said, “and one essential element of fairness is the prosecution’s obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence.” The 9th Circuit judges ordered that Milke be retried within 90 days or be released. The chief circuit judge referred the case to the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to investigate civil-rights infringements. Under the 9th Circuit order, prosecutors must allow the detective’s personnel record into evidence if they use the contested confession. Prosecutors are responsible for the testimony of the law-enforcement officers investigating their cases. Cops and prosecutors are the good guys. They put criminals in prison, sometimes on death row. Juries tend to believe them when they say someone is guilty. They don’t expect them to exaggerate or withhold evidence. They don’t expect their witnesses to present false testimony. Yet The Arizona Republic found that, when the stakes are highest — when a trial involves a possible death sentence — that’s exactly what can happen. In half of all capital cases in Arizona since 2002, prosecutorial misconduct was alleged by appellate attorneys. Those allegations ranged in seriousness from being over emotional to encouraging perjury. Nearly half those allegations were validated by the Arizona Supreme Court. Only two death sentences were thrown out — one for a prosecutor’s tactics that were considered overreaching but not actual misconduct because a judge had allowed him to do it. Two prosecutors were punished, one with disbarment, the other with a short suspension. There seldom are consequences for prosecutors, regardless of whether the miscarriage of justice occurred because of ineptness or misconduct. In fact, they are often congratulated. Since 1990, six different prosecutors who were named prosecutor of the year by the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Committee also were later found by appeals courts to have engaged in misconduct or inappropriate behavior during death-penalty trials, according to The Republic’s examination of court documents. And when prosecutors push the limits during criminal trials, whether crossing the line into misconduct or just walking up to it, there are risks: Convictions like Milke’s get overturned, even if it takes 24 years, and innocent people, like Ray Krone, go to prison. In 1992, Levy helped send Krone to death row for a murder he did not commit. Krone’s conviction and death sentence were thrown out three years later because the court had allowed Levy to present a videotape about matching bite marks into evidence that the defense had not had time to review. In 2002, Ray Krone was exonerated by a true DNA match. Krone was dubbed the “Snaggletooth Killer” because of his twisted front teeth, and Levy found experts who said that those teeth matched bites on the victim’s breast and neck. “The State’s discovery violation related to critical evidence in the case against the accused,” the Arizona Supreme Court ruled when it tossed the case. “Discovery” refers to evidence that the opposing attorneys are supposed to make available to the other side before trial. At retrial, Levy got another first-degree murder conviction for Krone, though at the second trial Krone was sentenced to life in prison, where he spent another seven years. In 2002, Krone was exonerated by a true DNA match; another man was convicted of the murder. “It never came out that one expert said it (the bite mark) wasn’t a match,” Krone told The Republic. There were footprints that didn’t match, DNA that was sketchy. And, as Krone said, other evidence was disregarded: an eyewitness account about a man seen near the crime scene who turned out to be the real killer, for example. Krone sued Maricopa County and the city of Phoenix for his conviction and settled for more than $4 million. Levy retired from the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in 2009 for medical reasons while in the middle of another capital murder trial with accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. That was the trial of Marjorie Orbin, who was charged with killing her husband and cutting his body into pieces, one of which was found in a giant plastic storage tub left in a desert lot in north Phoenix. During Orbin’s trial, Levy was twice accused of misconduct by Orbin’s defense attorneys. The first allegation was for denying Levy had spoken at the sentencing hearing of a jailhouse snitch who testified against Orbin, when he had. Then, Levy was accused of threatening another snitch who had recanted her story; during a break in her testimony, while the judge and the jury were out of the courtroom, he asked her and her attorney if they knew the maximum penalty for perjury, according to appeals court records. Levy told the court that he was only “kibitzing” with the witness’ attorney and not actually speaking to the witness herself. The judge made a special instruction to the jury as a remedy, essentially telling them what had happened, and denied the motions for misconduct. Levy was stricken ill before the trial ended and another prosecutor took over. Orbin was found guilty, but the jury did not impose the death sentence. There were no repercussions for Levy in that case, just as there were none in the Krone or Milke cases. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office refused to turn over his personnel file to The Republic, despite a request under the state’s public-records laws, saying it was in “the best interests of justice.” “I just did my job, and I did it ethically,” Levy said. “I’m fully aware of my ethical obligation to present evidence. It’s up to the jury to make a decision.” As for how he feels now that a man spent 10 years in prison because of one of those jury decisions, Levy answered, “I don’t look back and judge myself to say I did something wrong to Ray Krone. “Did I commit some kind of sin? Should I go to confession and confess to you?” Prosecutors, not judges, not police, determine what, if any, charges to file, and they obtain indictments from the grand jury. They, more than a jury, determine whether a defendant acted in self-defense. They have enormous discretion over how the case unfolds, and judges grant them great latitude in their arguments. “Prosecutors wield an enormous amount of power, including the ability to seek someone’s death,” said former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley. Debra Milke spent nearly 24 years in custody before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out her conviction in March. “Considering the magnitude of this power, prosecutors have an obligation to exercise good judgment, and they must temper their powers with wisdom. Winning at all costs should play no role in being a prosecutor. Then and only then, will justice be ensured.” But that doesn’t necessarily happen, and Romley’s 16-year tenure as county attorney was not free of allegations of misconduct by his line prosecutors in capital cases: Krone’s and Milke’s, for example. The way the justice system really works is that if you are charged with a crime, you are likely to be found guilty of something. In Maricopa County Superior Court, for example, of 2,700 felony cases terminated in July of this year, 1,706 ended in plea agreements, according to sources. Only 2 percent of felony cases went to trial. Of the 65 trials that ended that same month, 59 ended in guilty verdicts, four in mistrial and two in acquittals. “You indicted somebody, now you’ve got to win,” said defense attorney and former Watergate prosecutor Larry Hammond. “Prosecutors really don’t take seriously the ministry of justice,” Hammond said. “They see themselves as adversaries.” And they often fight their battles in the gray areas of the law. On a recent afternoon, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge was talking about prosecutors. She drew a line on the table with her finger and then placed an eating utensil there to mark the line. “That’s misconduct,” said the judge, who asked that her name not be used. Judges are loath to comment on cases for ethical reasons — and because they need to remain impartial to the attorneys who come before them. Then she placed another utensil an inch away and parallel to the first on the table. “That’s reversible error,” she said, referring to the level of misconduct that can get a sentence or conviction thrown out. She put her finger in the space between the utensils and said, “That’s where a lot of prosecutors operate.” Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery had a quick counter. “If courts are not enforcing the Rules of Professional Responsibility as they pertain to the conduct of defense attorneys and prosecutors, they are then responsible for what goes on in court,” he said. “However, mere differences of opinion as to how a case should be tried cannot be the standard either.” attorneys,” he said. “I told the bench: Treat both sides equally.” As in any profession, there are tricks of the prosecutorial trade, ways to sway a jury without crossing the line. You ask compound questions and then demand yes or no answers, for example. When the witness can’t answer, you accuse him of being argumentative. When the defense attorney is making a good case, you might accuse her of unethical conduct. You make objections in the same way football coaches call timeouts to slow a drive to the end zone. Noel Levy was named Arizona Prosecutor of the Year in 1990, the year he convinced a jury to convict Debra Milke of first-degree murder. And sex not only sells, it convicts. “A good way to turn a questionable capital case into a definite capital case is to inject the sex component,” said Tucson attorney Rick Lougee, “very often with little or no proof of the allegation.” You might also drag your feet on disclosing evidence and witness lists. “Every piece of evidence is a fight, even if it doesn’t matter to them,” said Alan Tavassoli of the Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office. When does trickery become misconduct? The most frequently cited instances in appeals are withholding evidence that could aid the defendant, presenting false evidence, excluding jurors for racial reasons, making over-the-top statements, letting slip information that has deliberately been kept from the jury and disobeying a court order. There have been few studies of prosecutorial misconduct. The cases are hard to identify, because they are simply not tracked in court databases. Instead, researchers have to rely on prominent cases memorialized in case law or anecdotal information. According to a Pulitzer Prize-winning study by Ken Armstrong and Maurice Possley at The Chicago Tribune, between 1963 and 1999, at least 381 homicide convictions nationwide were thrown out for those infractions, including 67 where the defendant had been sentenced to death. And according to The Tribune, though the appellate courts frequently excoriated the prosecutors’ actions, only five were punished, but not by any state lawyer disciplinary agency. More frequently, The Tribune reporters wrote, the offending prosecutors were rewarded for getting the convictions. A similar study conducted in 2010 by Possley and Santa Clara University law professor Kathleen Ridolfi on behalf of the Northern California Innocence Project identified 707 instances of prosecutorial misconduct between 1997 and 2009 in California courts. But only 159 of those cases resulted in a mistrial or a reversed conviction or sentence. The study found that prosecutors were disciplined in only 1 percent of those cases. Ridolfi and Possley also took a look at Arizona and found 20 state and federal cases between 2004 and 2008 in which prosecutors were found to have committed misconduct. Only five of the convictions were reversed. No prosecutors were disciplined. attorneys,” he said. “I told the bench: Treat both sides equally.” In Arizona, all death sentences are subject to a mandatory “direct” appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Republic reviewed all direct appeals of death sentences issued by the court between 2002 and the present. Among those 82 direct appeals, there were 42 in which the defendants alleged prosecutorial misbehavior or outright misconduct, 33 of them from Maricopa County, which, as the largest county, has the busiest Superior Court. The Supreme Court justices found that impropriety or misconduct had occurred in 18 of those 42 cases. But only two were reversed and remanded because of the behavior (in one case characterized only as overreaching). Two prosecutors were disciplined. The offenses varied in seriousness from rolling eyes and sarcasm to introducing false testimony and failing to disclose evidence that might have helped the defendant. But, overwhelmingly, even when misconduct was found, the high court determined that it was “harmless error,” the defendant would have been convicted anyway, or the judge had cured the problem by making a jury instruction. Some of the most egregious instances do not show up in The Republic’s study because the misconduct triggered a mistrial or caused the prosecution to offer a sweetheart plea deal; for instance, when a prosecutor had improper contact with a disgruntled member of the defense team or when it appeared as if the state had been listening in on a defendant’s jail calls from his attorney. According to case law, in order to declare a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct, a trial must be “permeated” with bad behavior on the part of the prosecutor that “so infects the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Judges are reluctant to risk such drastic measures. If a judge or appellate court were to reverse a case because of misconduct, the defense could claim it amounts to double jeopardy, making it impossible to retry the suspect. Prosecutors are allowed great latitude during closing arguments, the justices wrote over and over in the death-sentence direct appeals. Or because a defense attorney didn’t object at the time of the alleged infraction, the defendant forfeited the option of appellate scrutiny. “There are no consequences,” said Susan Corey of the Office of the Legal Advocate, one of the county’s three indigent defense agencies. “There’s absolutely no repercussion.” The majority of attorneys disciplined by the state Bar are attorneys who handle money: divorce attorneys, probate attorneys, civil attorneys. More defense attorneys than prosecutors are referred to the Bar, partly because the County Attorney’s Office has an ethics committee. It was established by former Maricopa County Attorney Romley. His successor, Andrew Thomas, focused on attacking defense attorneys. Thomas was later disbarred. Montgomery said the ethics committee “only looked at possible referrals (to the disciplinary agencies) of judges and defense attorneys.” He said that it now looks at prosecutors as well, though he would not reveal any details or if anyone had been referred. “Sometimes defense attorneys are hesitant to file Bar complaints against prosecutors because they’re afraid for their next case,” said John Canby from the Maricopa County Office of the Legal Defender, another of the three county defense agencies. “Playing nice and getting a good plea is usually the way to go.” “Lawyers in general don’t like filing Bar charges,” said Karen Clark, who represents other attorneys charged with ethical violations and has served as a prosecutor for the Bar. “Nobody likes a rat,” Clark said. Filing a complaint, in fact, can have more repercussions for a defense attorney than unethical conduct has for prosecutors, as Rick Lougee discovered when he referred a prominent Pima County prosecutor named Ken Peasley to the state Bar. Peasley was Arizona Prosecutor of the Year in 1994, the year after he got death penalties imposed against two men and a teenager charged with murdering three people in a South Tucson mom-and-pop store called the El Grande Market. Photo by: Jim Davis/Arizona Daily Star In 2004, Ken Peasley was disbarred by the Arizona Supreme Court. During his career, Peasley prosecuted 140 murder cases, about 60 of them capital cases. He was a death-penalty machine, charming, forceful, well-respected — by judges and lawyers alike. Except that he cheated. “Prosecutors like Peasley have learned that you try people, not facts,” Lougee said. They go after the defense attorneys, the witnesses. They convince the jury that regardless of the facts, the defendant is a bad person and must be guilty of something. Peasley got all three of the El Grande Market defendants sent to death row, largely on the testimony of an informant. But Peasley misrepresented the informant’s knowledge, claiming that police knew nothing of the defendants until the informant brought them up. In fact, police were already aware of them. Nonetheless, Peasley lied to the judge and the jury and encouraged a witness to commit perjury. Two of the three convicted murderers were granted a new trial because the jury foreman in their joint trial wavered on whether he supported the verdict when the jurors were polled. The two defendants granted retrials were tried separately the next time. Peasley brought in the same perjured testimony during the retrials. One of the defendants was sent back to death row. Lougee got the other defendant acquitted in 1997, but he had figured out the deception. He filed his Bar charge that Peasley conspired to present false testimony and had repeated the perjury in the retrials. The complaint made no difference at first, and Peasley was promoted shortly after the complaint was filed. He was named Prosecutor of the Year again in 1996. Judges rallied around him. He traveled the state to train other prosecutors. He won national awards. Lougee said he was shunned by the legal community for having made the accusation. But the state Bar took the complaint and passed the investigation to Karen Clark. It took Clark seven years to work out the case, but it ended, in 2004, with Peasley being disbarred by the Arizona Supreme Court. He has since died. After his disbarment, the death penalty from the retrial was thrown out because of Peasley’s behavior. The third defendant remains in prison, though his death sentence was commuted to life in prison when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that killers cannot be executed for murders they committed before the age of 18. “Ken Peasley corrupted the system for 15 years,” Lougee said. “That puts the system at risk for more than just my clients.” Coming Monday, Part 2: Prosecutors under scrutiny You expect a fair trial???? Don't make me laugh!!!! The last article in the series seems to say that there is a "damn good system" in place to prevent the routine abuses that take place as described in the prior 3 articles. And of the prosecutors seem to say that because of that their is no need to change the system, despite the fact that the "damn good system" doesn't work and as the articles point out prosecutors routinely cheat people out of the fair trials the Constitution promises us. I myself was framed by corrupt DPS cops years ago on bogus drug war charges. Because of a number of circumstances I lucked out and escaped prosecution. But I suspect that if I went to trial on it I would have been framed by the DPS and prosecutors, convicted and spend some time in prison. http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20131027wintory-prosecutor-conduct-day-2.html Prosecutors under scrutiny are seldom disciplined By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:39 AM Richard Wintory was Arizona Prosecutor of the Year in 2007. Wintory had spent 20 years as an assistant district attorney in Oklahoma, another seven in the Pima County Attorney’s Office, and by 2010 had moved on to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, where he continued to try criminal cases, especially death-penalty cases. Now he is chief deputy in the Pinal County Attorney’s Office. He is also the focus of an investigation by the State Bar of Arizona because a Pima County Superior Court judge referred him to the State Bar of Arizona for improper contact with a member of a murder suspect’s defense team. Prosecutors are frequently accused of misconduct during criminal cases, and even if a trial judge or a court of appeals agrees that they acted badly, it rarely affects the conviction or sentence of the trial defendants. Wintory calls himself an “impassioned” attorney; others might say he pushes the envelope. “In the 30 years I’ve been a prosecutor, I’ve had many people file complaints and lawsuits against me, but I’ve never been disciplined,” he said. In Arizona, prosecutor misconduct is alleged in half of all capital cases that end in death sentences. Half the time, the Arizona Supreme Court agrees that misconduct occurred in those instances, but it rarely throws out a conviction or sentence because of it. The Arizona Republic reviewed all of the Arizona Supreme Court opinions on death sentences going back to 2002. Of 82 cases statewide, prosecutorial misconduct was alleged on appeal by defense attorneys in 42 and the court found improprieties or outright misconduct in 18 instances. But only two of those death sentences were reversed because of the improprieties, and only two prosecutors were disciplined. The offenses varied in seriousness from excessive sarcasm and vouching for the sincerity of witnesses to introducing false testimony and failing to disclose evidence that might have helped the defendant. But overwhelmingly, even when misconduct was found, the high court determined that it was “harmless error.” The most serious examples did not appear in those cases because the misconduct caused a mistrial or the prosecution offered a favorable plea agreement to avoid mistrial, as in Wintory’s case. It is rare for prosecutors to be referred to the Bar for misconduct, let alone be disciplined by the Bar or sanctioned by trial judges. And whether Wintory will be disciplined remains to be seen. Wintory had a history of allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in death-penalty cases before he came to Arizona. One death penalty he obtained in Oklahoma was thrown out because of Wintory’s closing argument, which included “yelling and pointing at the defendant as he addressed him directly,” according to a ruling by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Richard Wintory is the focus of an investigation by the State Bar of Arizona. “This Court finds that the prosecutor in this case committed serious and potentially prejudicial misconduct,” the opinion went on to say. Wintory says he learned from the experience. “Since that trial, I don’t point at defendants. I don’t do closings like that anymore,” he said. “The reason why is you don’t want to put (the victim’s) family through those kinds of cases.” In 2010, while at the Pima County Attorney’s Office, Wintory got an indictment against Darren Goldin, who was accused of hiring a hit man to kill a fellow drug dealer named Kevin Estep in March 2000. Goldin, the triggerman and a third accomplice had already been convicted of another drug-deal hit in Maricopa County. Goldin was sentenced to 16 years in prison on his conviction of second-degree murder. Wintory changed jobs before the case went to trial, but he took it with him to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, where he worked out of the Tucson office. He sought the death penalty in the Pima County case. Capital cases require that defense attorneys find mitigating evidence that may convince a jury to spare the defendant’s life. Goldin was adopted, so his defense team hired a “confidential intermediary” to track down Goldin’s birth mother. She found the mother and got her to tentatively agree to cooperate in Goldin’s case. But then the intermediary got into a disagreement with the defense attorneys over their decision not to tell the birth mother that Goldin was in prison, according to the state Bar investigative file. The intermediary withdrew from the case, and shortly after, the birth mother decided that she did not want to cooperate after all. Then the intermediary called Wintory and left a message. It is highly improper for prosecutors to have secret contact with members of the defense team. But Wintory called her back — at least eight times, according to the record — even after the judge in the case had told him to cease contact with her. Wintory’s supervisors questioned the number of calls between Wintory and the defense-team member, but Wintory was allegedly evasive. He claimed he had not learned anything about defense strategy, but he did know that the birth mother had also been adopted and knew nothing about her own family history that could help in the case. In May 2012, Wintory’s superiors at the Attorney General’s Office took him off the case. That August, the office withdrew its intent to seek the death penalty. With the case in a tailspin, Goldin was offered a plea agreement to second-degree murder and a prison sentence of 11 years, five years less than the presumptive sentence for that crime. The Bar investigative file says the death notice was dropped primarily because of case law from another Arizona county, but that the “apparent misconduct” figured into the decision to offer a reduced sentence. “Whatever I did or didn’t do had no influence on the plea,” Wintory told The Republic. When Pima County Superior Court Judge Paul Tang accepted the plea, he noted the “apparent misconduct allegedly engaged in by the prosecutor.” At Goldin’s sentencing, Tang told the defendant how lucky he was to have reaped the benefit of Wintory’s conduct; then Tang noted that he would report Wintory to the Arizona State Bar. Earlier this month, the Bar filed its formal complaint against Wintory, charging him with violating three ethical rules: knowingly making a false statement of fact or law or failing to correct a false statement; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. A Bar spokesman said a disciplinary hearing will be scheduled, unless Wintory reaches a settlement. “I’m confident that if we get before a hearing panel and lay the facts out, they will see I had no intention to mislead anyone on this matter,” Wintory said. The disciplinary process is not rapid. It took seven years to disbar Ken Peasley, a Pima County prosecutor who was caught presenting testimony he knew to be false. Disbarment, however, is extreme, and Wintory could be punished with lesser sanctions, such as a suspension. In 2004, Peasley was the first American prosecutor to be disbarred because of his conduct in a death-penalty case, according to The New Yorker magazine. Arizona has had two more prosecutors disbarred for ethical violations since then. Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and one of his deputies, Lisa Aubuchon, were disbarred in April 2012 for filing criminal charges and a civil racketeering lawsuit against Superior Court judges and Maricopa County officials to further Thomas’ political goals. Two other deputies received lesser sanctions for their participation in the affair. Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and one of his deputies, Lisa Aubuchon, were disbarred in April 2012. “The only people that got anything out of his ‘reign of error’ were judges and supervisors,” defense attorney Susan Corey said. Several of Thomas and Aubuchon’s targets received vindication — and tidy court settlements. Thomas and Aubuchon were not being charged criminally for their actions — prosecutors are prosecuted even less frequently than they are disbarred — but it took three years for the system to rein them in and cost the county more than $5 million to settle lawsuits from judges and officials and millions more in legal fees. “It’s a culture that’s set from the top,” said Karen Clark, an ethics expert who prosecuted Peasley. “If you have a bad apple prosecutor at the bottom, it’s not tolerated. But when it comes from the top, it’s rewarded.” During Peasley’s tenure, there were two other Pima County prosecutors who came under scrutiny by the state Bar; one of them was suspended. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery says he has beefed up prosecutor training to avoid misconduct and maintains an ethics committee to look into the actions of prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys alike. “I’m trying to create an environment where prosecutors hold each other accountable,” he said. But Montgomery admitted he was not aware of many of the instances of misconduct or improprities that are described over the course of this series, even those that occurred while he has been in office. That information rests with the middle-management supervisors, he said. Montgomery has spent much time this year on statewide issues, lobbying against the medical-marijuana law passed by voters, for instance, and defending an Arizona abortion law found unconstitutional by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He said he does not weigh in on how prosecutors try their cases. “The attorneys are trying the case, I’m not going to step in,” he said. “They’re on their own.” And if they need to be put in their place, “that’s the job of the judge. It’s the job of the defense attorney to object,” he said. Even when prosecutors do get called before the Bar, most sanctions are minor. --Thomas Zawada, a contemporary of Peasley and a fellow prosecutorial superstar in the Pima County Attorney’s Office, was disciplined in 2004 for misconduct during a murder trial 10 years earlier. According to an Arizona Supreme Court opinion, the state Bar investigation into his conduct found that Zawada’s “misconduct included (a) appeals to fear by the jury if (the defendant) was not convicted, (b) disrespect for and prejudice against mental health experts that led to harassment and insults during cross-examination, and (c) improper argument to the jury.” The Supreme Court justices thought that Zawada’s behavior was so egregious that it threw out the murder conviction and attached double jeopardy so that the alleged killer could not be retried. As punishment, the state Bar hearing officer recommended that Zawada be censured, put on probation for six months and told to seek continuing education in dealing with psychological testimony. Instead, the high court suspended Zawada from practicing law for six months and one day, meaning that he would have to reapply to the Bar afterward. According to the state Bar website, Zawada has never been reinstated. --Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Ted Duffy was suspended from practicing law for 30 days in 2009 after being referred to the Bar by a Superior Court judge for repeatedly disobeying a judge’s orders in a capital murder case to not mention evidence that had been precluded from trial, including the defendant’s prior convictions. The trial ended in a hung jury, and the defendant was acquitted when Duffy took him back to trial. But most findings of misconduct are not reported to the state Bar and have little or no consequence to the prosecutor involved. Even when they make findings of prosecutorial misconduct, judges do not necessarily report the offenders to the Bar, which would then investigate the offenses in light of the state’s rules of attorney ethics and determine whether to set to disciplinary hearings. Jonathan Mena Cobian, who goes by the name Alex, was at his mother’s house in Phoenix when a group of gangsters came looking for his half-brother John Mitchell Mena to take him to task for trying to leave their gang. According to court filings, they asked Alex to step outside to help them with a car problem, then attacked him, and when Alex knocked one to the ground, they told him that they would come back to kill him. Another brother had called 911; Alex talked to the dispatcher about the attack and the police officer who came to the house advised Alex that he would be within his rights to carry a firearm in case the gangsters returned. Alex went to get his guns, picked up John at the mall and returned to their mother’s house. According to motions filed by Alex’s defense attorneys, the gangsters pulled into the driveway behind him. Alex told them to leave, and when they advanced on him and John, the brothers shot two of them dead. Someone inside the house called 911 again. Alex and John were charged with first-degree murder. Court records show that the prosecutor, Deputy County Attorney Eric Basta, did not want to turn over evidence of the victims’ criminal past, a matter brought to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The case was remanded to the grand jury twice, and Superior Court Judge George Foster ordered Basta to play the potentially exculpatory 911 tapes for the grand jury. Basta had already been told to do so by another judge who had the case before Foster. When Basta refused, Foster threw out the indictment. He wrote in his ruling that Basta had denied due process to the two defendants. “The court further finds prosecutorial misconduct and that the appropriate remedy is dismissal without prejudice of the indictment as to both defendants,” Foster wrote. Then he sealed the order from the public record. When asked why he didn’t refer Basta to the Bar, Foster told The Republic that he felt that dismissing the indictment was sanction enough. Alex and John were subsequently reindicted on second-degree murder and aggravated assault charges, respectively, and their case is expected to go to trial this fall. Bill Montgomery said he was not aware of the case or of the finding of misconduct. Basta declined a request for an interview. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131028jodi-arias-juan-martinez-conduct-day3.html Objections raised to Juan Martinez's conduct in Jodi Arias trial Juan Martinez was Arizona Prosecutor of the Year in 1999, more than a decade before he became a media darling with his performance in the Jodi Arias murder trial. This year, Martinez convinced a jury to find Arias guilty of first-degree murder, but the jurors could not reach consensus on whether to sentence her to death or life, and Arias likely faces a new trial to make that decision. Martinez helped send seven other killers to death row since he was hired at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in 1988. He was accused by defense attorneys of prosecutorial misconduct in all but one of those cases; the Arizona Supreme Court characterized his actions as constituting misconduct in one of them, and cited numerous instances of “improper” behavior in another, but neither rose to the level where the justices felt they needed to overturn the cases. Allegations of misconduct by Martinez in the second case and at least two others are pending in state and federal courts. It is not uncommon for defense attorneys to allege misconduct against prosecutors. A study by The Arizona Republic determined that it was alleged in about half of all death-penalty cases since 2002, and validated in nearly one-quarter of them. But it is rare for Supreme Court justices to call out a prosecutor’s conduct in open court. One day in mid-2010, the Arizona Supreme Court was on the bench as lawyers presented arguments during the direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for a man named Mike Gallardo, who killed a teenager during a Phoenix burglary in 2005. Transcripts show Justice Andrew Hurwitz turned to the attorney representing the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the prosecutorial agency that handles death-penalty appeals. “Can I ask you a question about something that nobody’s discussed so far?” he asked. “The conduct of the trial prosecutor. It seems to me that at least on several occasions, and by and large the objections were sustained, that the trial prosecutor either ignored rulings by the trial judge or asked questions that the trial judges once ruled improper and then rephrased the question in another improper way. ... Short of reversing a conviction, how is it that we can ... stop inappropriate conduct?” The assistant attorney general struggled to answer. Justice Michael Ryan then stepped into the discussion. “Well, this prosecutor I recollect from several cases,” Ryan said. “This same prosecutor has been accused of fairly serious misconduct, but ultimately we decided it did not rise to the level of requiring a reversal,” Ryan said. “There’s something about this prosecutor, Mr. Martinez.” There had been multiple allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against Martinez in Gallardo’s appeal. Ultimately, in its written opinion, the court determined that Martinez had repeatedly made improper statements about the defendant. During the oral argument before the Supreme Court, the justices fixed on a question that Martinez asked three times, even though the trial judge in the case had sustained a defense attorney’s objections to the question. But in the end, the justices ruled that Martinez’s behavior still did not “suggest pervasive prosecutorial misconduct that deprived (the defendant) of a fair trial.” And, as the justices noted, it was not the first time that Martinez had walked away unscathed. “It’s his MO,” said Deputy Maricopa County Public Defender Tennie Martin when asked about trying cases against Martinez. “He’s kind of Teflon.” Retired Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fields, himself a former federal prosecutor, said, “You’re at war, almost nuclear war, the minute you come up against him.” Fields was one of several judges who sued Maricopa County and received settlements after being falsely targeted by the anti-corruption crusade of disbarred former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Martinez declined to talk to The Republic for this story. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office refused to turn over his personnel file despite a request made by The Republic under the state’s public-records law. The office said the denial was “due to the best interests of justice.” The National District Attorneys Association honored Martinez with its “Home Run Hitter Award for Outstanding Prosecution” for 2013 because of the Arias murder trial and conviction. The general public loved the trial, but Martinez’s live-streamed aggression in the courtroom, his pacing and arm-waving, his constant sarcasm raised concerns among legal pundits. Arias’ defense attorneys filed numerous motions for mistrial alleging prosecutorial misconduct. All were denied by the judge. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery denounced the circus atmosphere in the courtroom, though he did not criticize his prosecutor. “I do not believe the coverage of that trial furthered the understanding of the criminal-justice process,” Montgomery said. “I had no idea it was going to turn out like that.” Not counting the allegations of misconduct during the Arias trial this spring, Martinez has been called out in at least two other cases this year. The defense attorney in the Richard Chrisman trial, which ended in a hung jury on two counts last month, filed motions in January to protest Martinez’s failure to disclose an expert witness whom Martinez had retained a year and a half earlier. The judge ordered that the defense attorney be allowed to interview the tentative witness. Then, during the penalty stage of the trial, the defense attorney asked for a mistrial on the grounds of misconduct because he thought Martinez was trying to shift the burden of proof from the state to the defendant. The judge called it “close to the line of burden shifting,” but let the trial go on. Earlier this year, another attorney referred Martinez to the State Bar of Arizona after a dispute over whether he and the defense attorney had reached an agreement on preliminary court actions and for failing to file a pretrial statement. According to state Bar investigative files, Martinez denied there had been an agreement but acknowledged he “unknowingly failed to comply” with the deadline for the pretrial statement. The Bar closed the case in June; it did not sanction Martinez, but sent him an “instructional comment” on filing documents “in a timely manner.” Misconduct has to be “pervasive” for a judge to throw out a case or for the Supreme Court to throw out a conviction. It is rare for a prosecutor to be sanctioned by the court or disciplined on ethical grounds by the state Bar. A study by The Arizona Republic found improper behavior by prosecutors was alleged in half of all death penalties reviewed by the Arizona Supreme Court since 2002. The high court found that prosecutorial impropriety or outright misconduct had indeed occurred in nearly half of those allegations, but only twice found it rose to a level where the conviction was overturned. But other instances of misconduct do not appear among those numbers because the misconduct caused a mistrial or encouraged prosecutors to offer a plea deal to a lesser sentence to avoid mistrial. Former Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Noel Levy, who was Arizona Prosecutor of the Year in 1990, was never sanctioned, even though he helped put Debra Milke on death row that year based on a questionable confession. He and law enforcement were successful in blocking the defense attorney’s attempt to impeach the detective who said Milke confessed. And then two years later, Levy helped put an innocent man on death row as well. Ray Krone spent 10 years in prison before he was exonerated by DNA. Milke’s conviction and death sentence were overturned in March of this year. Courts acknowledged prosecutorial lapses in both cases and overturned the verdicts and sentences. Montgomery also refused to divulge Levy’s personnel file “due to the best interests of justice.” Levy told The Republic: “I just did my job, and I did it ethically. I’m fully aware of my ethical obligation to present evidence. It’s up to the jury to make a decision.” Sex and outrage often figure prominently in Martinez’s cases. In 2004, Martinez convinced a jury to send Wendi Andriano to death row for murdering her husband in an especially cruel manner. She poisoned him, and when that didn’t work fast enough, she stabbed and beat him to death. Photo by: Tom Tingle/The Republic The Arias trial won Martinez international recognition, but it has been rife with allegations of misconduct. Like Arias, Andriano claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse. On appeal, Andriano’s defense team argued that Martinez had unfairly prejudiced the jury because “he took every opportunity to infuse the trial with marginally relevant information about Andriano’s partying and man-chasing.” The Arizona Supreme Court pushed away the allegation, saying that closing arguments are not evidence and the jury would have known that because they had been so instructed. During a second-degree murder trial in 2005, Martinez accused the defendant of covering up prior crimes that the judge had ordered withheld from the jury. Martinez revealed them anyway, which the Arizona Court of Appeals deemed improper. Then, during his rebuttal, Martinez repeatedly compared the defense attorney, who is Jewish, to Adolf Hitler and his “big lie.” The trial judge told the jury to disregard the remarks but did not grant a defense request for a mistrial. The Appeals Court called the analogy “reprehensible” but did not overturn the case, because, “In recognition of the frequently emotional nature and sometimes rough and tumble quality of closing argument, attorneys, including prosecutors, are allowed wide latitude in their arguments to the jury.” Also in 2005, Martinez obtained convictions and death sentences against Cory Morris, who killed five prostitutes in 2002 and 2003 and dumped their decomposing bodies in alleys. Martinez told the jury that Morris took them to the camper bus he parked behind his aunt’s house in the Garfield neighborhood of central Phoenix, strangled them during sex, and then continued to have sex with their bodies until they rotted and fell apart. On appeal, Morris’ lawyers noted that Martinez and not the medical examiner had decided that Morris engaged in necrophilia. Once again, the Supreme Court justices wrote that prosecutors have “wide latitude.” “While the evidence in this case does not compel the conclusion that Morris engaged in intercourse with the corpses of the victims, the record includes sufficient evidence to permit the prosecutor to make such an argument,” the justices wrote when affirming Morris’ death sentences. Furthermore, they pointed out, Morris’ trial attorney had not objected to the allegations during trial. The high court did disapprove of Martinez singling out jurors in comments during his arguments, drawing comparisons to Morris and his victims, which it deemed misconduct. It found Martinez to have been inappropriate when at one point he took a jacket worn by one of the dead out of a plastic evidence bag for the jury’s “smelling pleasure.” The jacket filled the jury area with the smell of decomposition, but the justices said: “This single remark did not deprive Morris of a fair trial.” Morris’ convictions and death sentences were upheld, but the allegations of necrophilia are being debated in Morris’ ongoing appeals. In its filings, the state reiterates the words of the Supreme Court that Martinez had “wide latitude” to deduce necrophilia from the facts at hand; the appeals judge felt there was room for argument and set an evidentiary hearing. In 2009, Martinez tried Douglas Grant, who had been charged with first-degree murder in the drowning death of his wife, Faylene. It was another bizarre case. Grant, a dietitian who worked with the Phoenix Suns, had divorced Faylene and was dating at least two other women. Faylene, who was a self-described Mormon mystic, asked Grant to repent and remarry her because she had visions that she would soon die, and she needed to have a husband to be admitted into heaven. She also selected one of Grant’s interim girlfriends as a suitable mother to raise their children after her death, and she encouraged Grant to marry the woman when she was gone. Faylene wrote numerous letters to friends and relatives about her anticipated demise and filled her journals with her thoughts. On Sept. 24, 2001, while on a second honeymoon with Grant to a sacred Mormon site in Utah, Faylene fell from a cliff. Her visions told her that would be the day she died, but instead, she survived with injuries that were painful but not life-threatening. A relative sent to Grant’s house shortly afterward found many of Faylene’s prized possessions laid out and tagged with Post-it notes telling who she wanted to have them after her death. Two days later, Faylene drowned in the bathtub while impaired by pain medication and sleeping pills. At first, the death was ruled an accident; then, four years later, Grant was arrested and charged with murder. Grant was represented by Mel McDonald, a former Superior Court judge and a former U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona. The prosecutorial high jinks, which McDonald chronicled in motions, began in the pretrial stage. Martinez had to be compelled to turn over Faylene’s letters and journals in which she happily proclaimed that she would soon die and go to heaven. The court record shows that Martinez avowed that he had turned over all farewell letters from Faylene when he hadn’t. Martinez also denied having tape recordings of interviews with certain witnesses, though they eventually materialized. The judge ordered that the materials be turned over and threatened to dismiss the case “on the basis of ongoing discovery issues.” In pretrial hearings, Martinez grilled Grant’s new wife and another former girlfriend about intimate details of their sex lives, down to whether they wore thong underwear or had performed oral sex in cars. During his opening statements in the 2008-09 trial, Martinez claimed that Grant had lifted Faylene while she was unconscious and had placed her in the bathtub to drown her. In his closing arguments, he said Grant had her kneeling at the side of the tub and pushed her head underwater. He feigned surprise when a witness on the stand came up with a story of which McDonald had not been informed. The courtroom interaction was vicious. “Everything he does is attack,” McDonald said. “There’s a time to attack, but you don’t attack every witness on every point, every time. I couldn’t even ask a question without him objecting.” Grant was portrayed throughout the trial as a sex-obsessed Lothario, and the jury told the media afterward that they had convicted him because he was a “scuzzbag.” Martinez did not get a first-degree murder conviction, however. The jury found Grant guilty of manslaughter, and the judge sentenced him to only five years in prison. McDonald said he did not file appeals alleging misconduct to avoid the risk that Grant might be awarded a new trial and then be found guilty of a more serious murder charge. “If you go in on a murder one and walk out with only five years in prison, you would have to be brain dead to file an appeal,” he said. The Jodi Arias trial won Martinez international attention but, like other trials, it has been rife with allegations of misconduct. Arias’ attorneys filed numerous motions to protest Martinez’s actions, not just in trial, but in the years of discovery and evidentiary hearings between the 2008 murder and the 2013 trial. The two judges who handled the case over those four years repeatedly ordered Martinez to produce e-mails, photographs and social-media posts that fueled the salacious case. Martinez would repeatedly deny such materials existed. A month before the jury was picked, he was still fighting with defense attorneys over the whereabouts and contents of victim Travis Alexander’s computer. When Arias’ defense attorneys asked for more time to study the thousands of images in its drives, Martinez objected, saying that the defense had already had four years in which to analyze the computer. Arias admitted that she killed Alexander and claimed that she shot him after he attacked her. For four years, police and prosecution maintained that Arias first shot Alexander and then stabbed him and slit his throat. But days before jury selection, Martinez changed the facts of the case, saying that Arias had shot Alexander last instead of first; Arias’ attorneys, Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott, protested that the rationale for seeking the death penalty had been based on the first theory. They filed a motion for mistrial alleging prosecutorial misconduct when Martinez appeared on television, signing autographs and posing for photos with fans. Martinez verbally attacked Arias and her witnessess. He painted Arias as a sexual predator. He asked compound questions and then accused witnesses of being non-responsive when they would not answer yes or no. “I would not have let the cross-examinations go on for that long,” said Fields, the retired judge. “It was just badgering and bullying the witnesses in an attempt to ruin their credibility. It crossed the line.” As video and transcripts later showed, many of the trial’s most contentious moments took place in the judge’s chambers or at the bench, out of earshot of the rest of the courtroom and the cameras. Etiquette is a given during court proceedings. Martinez was frequently insulting. The first question he posed to Arias during cross-examination set the tone, when he displayed a photograph to the courtroom and described it to her as a “picture of you and your dumb sister.” One day at the bench, as the attorneys debated whether to admit a statement about whether Alexander wanted to kill himself, transcripts show Martinez said, “But the thing is that if Ms. Willmott and I were married, I certainly would say, ‘I f---ing want to kill myself.’” Willmott objected, and two days later at another bench conference, Martinez said to Willmott, “Well, then, maybe you ought to go back to law school.” Nurmi asked Judge Sherry Stephens to step in, but she did not. “In my view, that would have been a fine,” Fields said. “I probably would have reported him to the Bar. It shows his bias. It’s just inappropriate.” But it didn’t matter. Martinez became a rock star. He got the conviction. Whether he ultimately gets a death sentence for Arias remains to be seen. “All the young prosecutors want to be like Juan Martinez now,” said Alan Tavassoli, an attorney with the Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office. “He’s a role model. And so was Noel Levy.” http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131029prosecutor-conduct-can-system-curb-abuses-day4.html Can the system curb prosecutorial abuses? By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:19 PM For three days, The Arizona Republic has examined prosecutor conduct and misconduct, citing cases in which prosecutors stepped over the line without suffering consequences to themselves or the convictions they win. The question remains: What can be done about it? Options already are in place. When a prosecutor steps over the line, it’s up to the defense attorney to call it to the court’s attention, and it’s up to the judge to decide whether an offense has been committed and whether it affects the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Yet, neither likes to do so. Prosecutors are arguably the most powerful people in the courtroom: They file the charges and offer the plea agreements. They determine whether to seek the death penalty, and, given mandatory sentencing, predetermine the consequence of a guilty verdict. Defense attorneys worry that if they cross a prosecutor, future clients could be treated more harshly the next time they face that prosecutor in court. Judges worry about prosecutors who use court rules to bypass those judges who rein them in. Both know that prosecutors are rarely sanctioned by the court or investigated by the State Bar of Arizona for ethical misconduct. So overly aggressive prosecutors continue to have their way in the courtroom – as long as they win cases, experts say. “It comes from this ‘end-justifies-the-means mentality,’’’ said Jon Sands, the federal public defender for Arizona. “We’ll do anything we can to bring someone to justice.” Part of the problem of reining in prosecutorial misconduct is defining it. When a defense attorney does something wrong while defending a criminal client, it’s called “ineffective assistance of counsel.” When a judge does something wrong, it’s called “judicial error.” But when it’s the prosecutor who is under scrutiny, it’s called “prosecutorial misconduct.” It’s a fuzzy concept rooted more in constitutional law than in rules of professional conduct: A “term of art,” according to the American Bar Association. Prosecutors are human and will make mistakes,” said Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk. But what constitutes misconduct depends on a judge’s ruling. Even then, such rulings tend to blur the distinction among what is improper, “inartfully stated,” bad judgment or outright misconduct. “The vast, vast majority of prosecutorial misconduct claims go to inadvertent slip-ups rather than calculated interference with the wheels of justice,” said Judge Peter Swann of the Arizona Court of Appeals. It’s a view shared by defense attorneys and prosecutors as well. In 2009, the American Bar Association recommended that states amend their rules of court procedure to create a new term of “prosecutor error” to force judges to determine the intent of the prosecutor. “Prosecutors are human and will make mistakes,” said Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, who is president of the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Committee. “The judge needs to address it at the time, especially for a less experienced attorney. However, if an experienced attorney is playing with the rules and the judge knows it is deliberate (or has seen it before), then the court needs to address it. ... It simply cannot go unaddressed. That goes for defense attorneys as well as prosecutors.” When an allegation of misconduct is made before or during trial, judges have to think long and hard about whether to dismiss a case or sanction a prosecutor. That is the question facing Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sally Duncan in the case of Jeffrey Martinson. Martinson was found guilty of murdering his 5-year-old son, but in March 2012, before the jury could decide whether to impose the death penalty, his attorneys, Treasure VanDreumel and Mike Terribile, uncovered juror misconduct, and Duncan declared a mistrial. Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Frankie Grimsman then filed multiple motions to have the judge and the defense team removed from the case, all of which were denied by Duncan and by the court’s then-presiding criminal judge, Douglas Rayes. Grimsman also tried to dismiss the original indictment and reindict Martinson, this time without a notice to seek the death penalty, which intentionally or coincidentally, would result in a new judge and defense team. In the original indictment, Martinson had been charged with felony murder, meaning the child died during the commission of another crime, namely, child abuse. Grimsman was now alleging premeditated murder. Duncan refused to dismiss the original indictment, and pointed out in a ruling that through the first trial, Grimsman had said that she did not have evidence to charge Martinson with premeditation, but had argued it anyway. “The court further finds that the state either deliberately disregarded the court’s rulings or acted in a willfully blind manner,” Duncan ruled in October 2012. Grimsman appealed Duncan’s ruling in the Martinson case to the Arizona Court of Appeals for her right to dismiss the original indictment, and won — sort of. The Court of Appeals reversed Duncan’s ruling, but gave Duncan the option to determine if the state attempted to dismiss the indictment improperly. “The State has done nothing improper in seeking to re-indict this case,” Grimsman and another deputy county attorney wrote in a response to Terribile and VanDreumel’s motion to to dismiss the charges, alleging bad faith. “ Defendant has made numerous spurious assertions which have no basis in fact or reality.” Terribile and VanDreumel then filed a motion to dismiss the case altogether, alleging prosecutorial misconduct for charging Martinson with felony murder and then trying him for premeditated murder. They argued the motion case to Duncan on Oct. 3. Duncan took the case under advisement, and as of this writing, still has not ruled. The County Attorney’s office declined to comment on the case because it is ongoing. Karen Clark, a private attorney, not only defends lawyers against state Bar complaints, she prosecutes for alleged ethical lapses that could lead to disbarment. Clark, for example, prosecuted Deputy Pima County Attorney Ken Peasley, who was disbarred in 2004 for encouraging perjury during capital murder trials. She says systems are in place to control courtroom conduct without putting bad guys back on the street. “We are a self-regulating profession ... just because the other (checks and balances) aren’t working doesn’t mean you have to overturn convictions,” Clark said. “You get the other wheels working.” Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said that he is “trying to create an environment where prosecutors hold each other accountable.” Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said that he is “trying to create an environment where prosecutors hold each other accountable.” Montgomery told The Republic that his office’s ethics committee, which historically has filed complaints against defense attorneys and judges, now also considers prosecutor ethics. But Montgomery’s office has not responded to a request for details about the committee made July 30 under the state’s public-records laws. The request asked for the names of the people on the ethics committee and a list of judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys referred to the office ethics committee and a list of those whom the ethics committee referred to the state Bar. Polk said there is communication in Yavapai County among judges, prosecutors and public defenders to identify bad actors before they cause damage. But for a defense attorney to make a referral puts him or her in the crosshairs, according to David Euchner, the president of the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice and an assistant public defender in Pima County. “They’re afraid of the blowback they’ll get,” Euchner said. To combat the threat of reprisal, his organization of defense attorneys has recently created a panel to gather information and file Bar complaints against rogue prosecutors. It is intended to mirror the ethics committee of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. “That’s why we decided to put together our own panel to give attorneys a cover,” Euchner said, “so that a statewide association files the complaint, not the individual attorney.” Judges worry about “blowback” as well. “Once the prosecutors gained the ability to use charging decisions to shape sentences (due to mandatory sentencing), it was a huge power shift,” said Swann, the Appeals Court judge. “The Legislature empowers the prosecutors and defangs the judges.” Of the approximately 40,000 felony cases filed each year in Maricopa County, most end in plea agreements. Only 2 percent go to trial, and most of those result in guilty verdicts. So by filing charges or offering plea agreements, the prosecutor is, in effect, also deciding the punishment. Swann also took issue with prosecutors’ ability to make a “peremptory strike” against a judge they don’t want to appear before because of that judge’s courtroom practices. They are allowed one such strike without having to say why, and they use them to try to gain a tactical advantage in a case. If they want to strike a second judge, they must show cause. “When judges who take steps to manage their courtrooms are subject to peremptory strikes, it diminishes their control over the courtroom. And it can serve to chill the bench,” Swann said. Defense, prosecution and judges all agree that the final word on defining and curbing prosecutorial misconduct rests with judges. “The bottom line — judges must report conduct,” Polk said. “To sit from afar and paint a broad brush against prosecutors does absolutely nothing to help us all achieve our high standards of justice and due process.” Swann agreed. “When a judge thinks a lawyer’s conduct is questionable, the lawyer should be referred,” he said. Prosecutors don't like it when they are accused of being corrupt, incompetent tyrants who frame innocent people. If this article is true, then these prosecutors certainly wouldn't object to being personally, criminally and financially liable for any mistakes they make and people they frame. Of course if we try to pass a law forcing them to be accountable for mistakes they make and injustices they cause they will quickly say it will prevent them from doing their jobs. http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20131101attorneys-respond-gray-area-courtroom-conduct.html Hard-working prosecutors don't deserve this 'hack job' Attorneys: Let's set the record straight, in the interest of justice By County attorneys and city prosecutors Our Turn Fri Nov 1, 2013 2:55 PM Arizona Republic reporter Michael Kiefer opines in “The Gray Area of Courtroom Conduct” that the prosecutor’s enormous power to bring charges and (mis)perform in the courtroom commands more scrutiny. A prosecutor’s first duty is to justice, so we must respond. The criminal justice system is front-loaded with so many protections that it works perfectly in 99.9996 percent of the cases. Had the series offered more facts like this one, perhaps the smear-over to all prosecutors from the ostensible focus on death penalty litigators would not be such a worry for the public’s faith in the system. In many ways our two professions, journalism and prosecution, are the same. Both seek the truth through evidence upon which others pronounce judgment, with long-term impacts on society. But the similarities end where oversight begins. In an azcentral.com video, Kiefer suggests that prosecutor misconduct is a squishy thing to define; in the story he quotes an anonymous judge referencing “gray areas” and “pushing the envelope,” but concludes that whatever it is, prosecutors are missing the mark. Prosecutors are probably the most watched profession. Standards exist at every level: probable cause for arrest, charging based upon admissible evidence likely to convict, reasonable doubt at trial and multiple appeals. The system is designed for the defense in that there are ethical rules that apply only to prosecutors. The state faces challenges every step of the way: grand jury for indictments, defense counsel at trial, judicial rulings from the bench, appellate courts, interest groups and the public who have instant response and elect the top prosecutors in each jurisdiction. At least 22 outside groups constantly pick the criminal justice system apart. One, the Arizona Justice Project, like the California Innocence Project, catalogued alleged misconduct. Allegations are not facts; what proved out in both states is that most of the allegations are unsupported. The occasional violation is more likely a harmless error, the result of the human trait of passion. The 15-year-old national study of 310 cases overturned because prosecutors withheld evidence has no context; these are a tiny fraction spread over 30 years. More telling is that these cases were reversed, proving that the system works when a prosecutor blows the bright line. How is this relevant to 2013 Arizona? If merely to illustrate the dearth of research (likely because there simply is nothing to discover), that is not clear. Instead, the reader is left with an impression that identified misconduct barely scratches the surface. No discussion follows on the evolution of legal rules in 60 years of case law, which is how the system continuously learns to deal with the fact that everyone involved is human and imperfect, try as they might to be otherwise. In the face of unmatched critique, and for marginal compensation, prosecutors ply this trade for the public and the victims. Noel Levy has spent his career in public service. His reward? A modest pension check and a hack job in the state’s newspaper of record. Noel knows his contribution is sound and in the end that is what matters. As prosecutors, we invite fair critique, for it is axiomatic that our greatest fear is convicting an innocent person. Just like the journalist, our role protects the public; which begs the question: who watches the watchdog? This column was signed by Apache County Attorney Michael Whiting, Cochise County Attorney Edward Rheinheimer, Coconino County Attorney David Rozema, Gila County Attorney Bradley Beauchamp, Greenlee County Attorney Derek Rapier, LaPaz County Attorney Tony Rogers, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Mohave County Attorney Matthew Smith, Navajo County Attorney Bradley Carlyon, Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall, Pinal County Attorney Lando Voyles, Santa Cruz County Attorney George Silva, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, Yuma County Attorney Jon Smith, Glendale City Prosecutor P. Rob Walecki, Mesa City Prosecutor Jon Eliason, Oro Valley Town Prosecutor Tobin Sidles, Phoenix City Prosecutor Aaron Carreon-Ainsa, Tucson City Prosecutor Baird Greene and Elizabeth Ortiz of the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) add to drugs and government Prosecutors don't like it when a judge forces them to give a fair trial and cuts into the revenue they raise from DUI arrests!!! http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/20131101scottsdale-lab-dui-judge-challenged.html?nclick_check=1 Prosecutors challenge judge's tossing of Scottsdale lab's DUI findings Blood testing at Scottsdale crime lab at issue By JJ Hensley The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Fri Nov 1, 2013 11:24 PM A Superior Court judge’s decision to throw out blood evidence in nearly a dozen Scottsdale DUI cases because of concerns about the lab’s blood-testing equipment has done little to change the view among police and prosecutors that the lab is impeccable. In an August ruling, Judge Jerry Bernstein barred prosecutors from introducing blood evidence in 11 aggravated-DUI and extreme-DUI cases after defense attorneys successfully argued that the Scottsdale Police Crime Lab used faulty blood-testing equipment and that lab administrators did not meet scientific standards. At least one key lab worker has changed positions since the ruling, and the blood-testing equipment at the heart of the court challenge had been taken out of service prior to the ruling. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office filed a special action late this week challenging Bernstein’s ruling, saying that the judge misunderstood the state’s rules on the admissibility of evidence and that the handful of problem cases brought to light in the court challenge did not constitute a systemic problem on a machine that performed more than 20,000 tests during a two-year period. “A handful of errors among more than two years of tests and over 21,000 injections by the gas chromatograph at issue here do not a catastrophe make. This is particularly true when SCL safeguards are designed specifically to anticipate and account for errors,” the action stated. But defense attorneys arguing the cases have expressed doubts that lab employees would be aware of some of the errors without defendants hiring lawyers and experts to scrutinize the results. During the nine months of evidentiary hearings on whether the blood could be introduced, lab employees occasionally conceded that they were unaware of some errors until lawyers brought them to their attention, and the defense attorneys repeatedly stated that they, the attorneys, are left to serve as the lab’s quality control. The County Attorney’s Office, which is prosecuting the consolidated extreme-DUI cases in Superior Court, could not say on Friday whether the 31 problem tests noted in the appeal were just the bad cases that Scottsdale was aware of, or whether the lab had audited all 20,804 tests to determine that fewer than three dozen were flawed. “We are part of the quality control,” said Cliff Girard, an attorney representing one of the DUI suspects. “Without defense attorneys looking over the government’s shoulders, you would have this kind of incompetence,” he said. “Constant vigilance is the price of democracy.” All 11 of the cases involve serious DUI allegations, according to court documents. At least two suspects submitted themselves to preliminary breath tests, and their blood-alcohol content measured above 0.20 percent, more than twice the legal limit. At least eight suspects had prior DUI convictions, the documents said. One was supposed to have an ignition-interlock device in his car when he was arrested. Another had her 11-year-old daughter in the car when she was pulled over in late March 2011. Her preliminary breath tests put her blood-alcohol content at more than twice the legal limit. Prosecutors, in the appeal filed this week, noted that the outcome of these cases could have implications around the state. “This Special Action presents serious issues that could affect countless DUI prosecutions in Arizona beyond the eleven at issue here,” prosecutors wrote. “It is also a matter of statewide concern, not just for the victims of drunk drivers, whose rights this Court has a duty to consider and protect under the Arizona Constitution, but also for all of the citizens of Arizona who have the legitimate expectation to see impaired drivers prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” The cases are set for trial, without the blood evidence, in late January, pending the outcome of the county’s appeal. A Scottsdale police spokesman said the lab’s technical leader stopped doing alcohol testing at her own request. And the lab’s decision to stop using the dubious 4-year-old blood-testing machine, known as “2003,” was made because a drop in the number of cases has allowed the lab to rely solely on its other gas chromatograph, referred to as “2002.” Scottsdale police have averaged about six fewer DUI arrests each month this year compared with last year, according to the city’s online crime-reporting database. The machine can test blood samples from 48 suspects in each run. “The use of one instrument is not anything new. We do it all the time when there is only one scientist doing BAC (blood-alcohol concentration) testing at any given time,” Sgt. Mark Clark, a department spokesman, wrote in an e-mail. “It is easier for the court process to have one machine in use. That is what we are doing. We are choosing to use the 2002 machine at this point. We can start using the 2003 machine whenever it is needed.” The lab stopped using the machine at the heart of the court cases in May, Clark said. The lab’s employees insisted throughout 17 days of highly technical testimony that the equipment was fine and that any flawed blood-testing results were caught before they left the lab, ensuring that faulty information was not used in any prosecutions. But Bernstein found that the testimony of crime-lab employees was misleading, particularly after some of the e-mails from crime-lab employees were introduced following a public-records request and story in The Arizona Republic. “Given the errors or problems, and the refusal to determine the why or the basis for them, significant questions arise as to the reliability and confidence in this gas chromatography instrument,” the judge wrote. “Although there are policies and procedures that purport to act as safeguards, it is apparent they haven’t been sufficient.”

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs and government The cops and prosecutors hate Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act or Prop 203 because it cuts into the jobs programs that the "war on drugs" gives them. They have been falsely arresting medical marijuana patients for the bogus crimes of possession of hashish and other concentrated forms of marijuana. The lawsuit tries to stop that. The cops have also been falsely arresting medical marijuana patients for DUI, despite the fact that Prop 203 specify says the presence of marijuana marijuana metabolites doesn't automatically make a medical marijuana patient guilty of DUI or DWI. http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20131029arizona-medical-marijuana-use-extracts-lawsuit.html OK sought for medical marijuana use of extracts Associated Press Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:16 AM A lawsuit filed on behalf of a 5-year-old Mesa boy asks a court to rule that the state’s medical marijuana law allows uses of marijuana extracts such as resins added to baked goods and creams. The suit says Zander Welton experiences debilitating seizures but that his medical condition improved when he used marijuana extracts. However, his parents fear they’ll be prosecuted. The suit asks for a court to bar Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and state health officials from taking action against the parents, dispensary operators or others who provide marijuana extracts for medical use. Montgomery spokesman Jerry Cobb declined to comment Tuesday on the lawsuit filed Monday in Superior Court. A Phoenix police document attached to the suit said Montgomery’s office considers extracts illegal under Arizona criminal law.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in sheriff joe, drugs and government Look *sshole, I got a gun and a badge and can do anything I want. Sheriff Joe didn't actually say that, but I suspect that is how he feels. Sadly that's how most cops feel, even if they are not loud mouthed idiots who tell the whole world like Sheriff Joe does. http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20131101arpaio-appeal-order-appointing-monitor.html Arpaio files motion to appeal monitor in racial-profiling case Associated Press Fri Nov 1, 2013 11:49 AM Lawyers for Sheriff Joe Arpaio will appeal a judge’s October order that a court-appointed monitor oversee the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, among other things. A federal judge in Phoenix ruled in May that the sheriff’s office and Arpaio singled out Latinos and that deputies unreasonably prolonged detentions. In October, the judge ordered the appointment of an independent monitor and a community advisory board to ensure compliance with constitutional requirements. Arpaio’s lawyers in a motion filed this week say they will appeal the order. The May ruling came after a small group of Latinos sued the sheriff’s office for violating their constitutional rights, saying they were being detained simply because of their race. Arpaio’s office had opposed the appointment of a monitor, arguing it would undermine his authority. http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/ejmontini/2013/11/01/arpaio-from-monsoon-storm-to-dust-devil/ Posted on November 1, 2013 10:45 am by EJ Montini Arpaio: From monsoon storm to dust devil Sheriff Joe Arpaio used to be a force a nature, a monsoon storm rolling through the Valley, turning law enforcement and public policy and people’s lives upside down and leaving behind a trail of debris in the form of lawsuits and human misery. These days he’s barely a stiff breeze, a minor dust devil. It’s no surprise that the sheriff will appeal a judge’s October order that a court-appointed monitor oversee his office. The only surprise is how quietly Arpaio have gone about challenging the order of U.S. District Judge Murray Snow, who found that Arpaio’s office has engaged in racial profiling. When the order first came down Arpaio issued a press release in which he said, “I have received a copy of the court order and I am in the process of discussing it with our attorneys. We are identifying areas that are ripe for appeal. To be clear, the appointed monitor will have no veto authority over my duties or operations. As the constitutionally elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, I serve the people and I will continue to perform my duties and enforce all laws.” That’s not the Arpaio who was touthing his tea party-instigated investigation into President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. It’s not the Arpaio who defiantly condemned each multi-million dollar lawsuit award against his office. After all these years of that blustering, defiant Arpaio the sheriff’s office finally has been forced to get a monitor that his critics have been calling for. This new version of Aripaio, meek, almost (but not quite) humble, seems to want to convince the courts that it’s no longer necessary.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs, government, mayor stanton and NORML page Basicly "pension spiking" is a way for the members of the Phoenix city council to buy the votes of the 3,000+ cops that work for the city of Phoenix. Think of it as a polite way of bribing the cops to vote for them. In most Arizona cities the police budget is about 40 percent of the total budget and those 3,000 votes from cops can easily make the difference in a close election. Firemen follow the cops and their budge takes up about 20 percent of the Phoenix budget. http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20131031phoenix-pension-spiking-sham-editorial-prog.html Phoenix's pension-spiking 'reform' is a sham By Editorial board The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:51 PM A week ago, the Phoenix City Council gave up on the cause of ending pension “spiking.” Or at least they seemed to have given up. If only they had. Pension spiking is the practice of allowing soon-to-retire city employees to add unused vacation and sick time, as well as other benefits, to their salary base in order to increase their retirement payouts. An Arizona Republic analysis found the practice costs taxpayers at least $12 million a year. For years, the mayor and council have talked tough about ending the practice, and then found reason after reason to do nothing about it. A week ago — with a boisterous crowd of municipal union members on hand and with their leaders performing obnoxious agitprop for the cameras — the council voted 5-4 against taking weak steps toward ending spiking. Right before our eyes, a miracle seemed to have occured: Spines were turning to jelly. That was bad political theater. But at least we knew where the council stood. On Thursday, the mayor and council approved the “reforms” they rejected last week — and that can only be described as a sham effort to make it appear as though the council has taken action to stem pension spiking, while doing nothing of the sort. They added one provision that only adds to the sham. With municipal-union cheerleader Mayor Greg Stanton leading the way, the council voted 5-4 to have the city manager “address” the possibility of ending pension spiking, mostly for future employees, when contract negotiations commence next year. Closed-door negotiations between municipal unions and city management is exactly how pension-spiking came to be in the first place. Should any of the proposed changes actually take effect, it will be decades before Phoenix taxpayers actually begin to see any real effect. Thursday’s vote simply means that the various elements of pension spiking — adding vacation and sick days or including car and cellphone allowances — will become part of contract negotiations. That effectively obviates all the crowing from Stanton, et al, about having “voted to end pension spiking abuses.” They have done no such thing. They have voted to make spiking a part of next year’s contract negotiations, where people on both sides of the table stand to benefit from the practice. That’s it. Whether Phoenix taxpayers actually get a financial reprieve from this practice that Stanton himself deems “unfair and wrong” remains completely open to question. Councilman Jim Waring on Thursday proposed serious fixes to spiking. That included ending the particularly pernicious practice of doubling up on spiking benefits by giving both a cash payout for unused sick and vacation time and using the sum to boost pensions. The so-called reformers rejected that real reform once again. Too likely that it actually might do what the reformers claim to want to do. But, really, don’t. http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20131023pension-reform-adds-taxpayers-team-phoenix.html Phoenix's pension-spiking meeting was a charade By Editorial board The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:45 PM Tuesday was not Phoenix’s finest day. It featured a mayor squelching council discussion. City rules limiting deliberation. Union members treating a council meeting like a pro wrestling match, cheering their heroes and hissing their villains. And when it was all over, the council couldn’t make even a tiny reduction in the abundant opportunities city employees enjoy to spike their pensions. This was Exhibit 1 in why so many people see Phoenix city government as the ultimate insiders’ club. Taxpayers are barely a second thought, a point Councilman Michael Nowakowski unwittingly drove home in his call for a return to doing things the “Team Phoenix way.” That team plays behind closed doors, with management and union leaders negotiating contracts for their mutual benefit. That’s how pension spiking started in the first place, and why there is so much resistance to ending it now. That resistance was clearly on display Tuesday. It was obvious from Nowakowsi and Councilman Michael Johnson, who wanted no changes, and more subtly from Mayor Greg Stanton, who kept the council from discussing a complete ban on spiking. Leaning on an anti-democratic council rule that prohibits more than one amendment to any motion, he ignored Councilman Sal DiCiccio’s effort to offer a proposal to eliminate the practice by June 30, 2014. DiCiccio made another attempt after the council rejected a small reform, 5-4, but got nowhere when City Attorney Gary Verburg declared, “We’re done.” There were many options available to the council for further debate, which the attorney acknowledged Wednesday. This only gave credence to DiCiccio’s complaint that the fix was in. The only thing missing was the smoke. So what’s next? Council members Thelda Williams and Tom Simplot asked to bring their do-little proposal back before the council; Stanton expects to call a special meeting within the week for that purpose. The mayor should not restrict the discussion. DiCiccio and Councilman Jim Waring asked that the council be presented with a wider array of options, with potential savings included. They have the right idea. Let everyone see the options and the numbers that go with them. When that happens, the costs of spiking will be indisputable — and the argument for eliminating the practice irrefutable. Let’s have that complete conversation, not the charade that took place Tuesday, on the right thing to do for employees and especially for taxpayers. Every dollar spiked into a pension is a dollar not available to operate parks and libraries, fill potholes or hire more police and firefighters. That’s why responsible pension managers across the country are stopping the practice. It is part of California Gov. Jerry Brown’s 12-point pension reform plan. San Diego, spurred by scandal, is making spiking impossible by moving to a 401(k)-type plan. Arizona’s state retirement systems banned the practice nearly 20 years ago. In Washington, a state employees union is lobbying against spiking because it undermines the stability of the system. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “la-la-la-la,” as the Phoenix City Council did Tuesday night, will not make the problems created by pension spiking go away. The council needs to put an end to this practice. http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20131012phoenix-pension-spiking-wont-end.html Phoenix doesn't actually want to end pension 'spiking' By Editorial board The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:12 PM And so it is clear. Mayor Greg Stanton had no intention of eliminating “pension spiking” when he appointed the Orwellian-named Pension Fairness and Spiking Elimination Subcommittee. That group last week forwarded its recommendations to the full council, and they barely touch the ability of executives and other employees to boost their pensions. It would be unfair to do so, Councilwoman Thelda Williams said as she proposed recommendations that nibble at the abuses. Cellphone and car allowances, a tiny number, could no longer be counted toward pensions. Sick and vacation time, a huge number, still could. Stanton’s office defended the proposal. Real reform would chase away experienced executives, the mayor’s policy director said. The absence of real reform, though, means taxpayers will continue to bear the burden of an unsustainable pension system. Taxpayers will continue to pay the bill for a system that allows some executives to make more in retirement than they did while working. That is not fair. Pension spiking games the system. It was created and expanded over many years by city officials who put their interests ahead of taxpayers’. The state no longer allows it in its systems. The city should do the same. The full City Council should reject the recommendation and replace it with language that actually eliminates spiking. Like Stanton said he wanted when he appointed this committee. http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20131030phoenix-takes-modest-steps-fix-pension-spiking-rules.html Phoenix takes modest steps to fix pension ‘spiking’ rules By Dustin Gardiner The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Nov 1, 2013 9:15 AM Phoenix leaders corralled enough votes on Thursday to approve a plan to tackle pension “spiking,” but its narrow passage highlighted a sharp division between City Council members who called the changes minuscule and those who were concerned about the impact on employees. The council voted 5-4 for a package of modest reforms to combat spiking, generally seen as the artificial inflation of a city employee’s income toward the end of a career to boost retirement benefits. Some top managers have enhanced their annual pensions by tens of thousands of dollars because they were allowed to factor perks into the final pension calculation. Up until the time of the meeting, it was unclear if the council would once again be gridlocked over the proposal. It had rejected the same reforms during a contentious, hours-long meeting last week, where the council broke into three factions. This time, Mayor Greg Stanton and supporters of the plan mustered enough votes. Councilman Michael Johnson, who had been concerned about the impact on labor, proved to be the crucial swing vote. He said he was swayed when supporters added language stressing that the implementation will be worked out during upcoming contract negotiations with the city’s employee unions. “We needed to end pension spiking,” Stanton said after the meeting. “Both employees and taxpayers deserve a pension system that is fair and transparent — and we’ve made important strides toward that goal today.” Some critics, including council members, disagreed with Stanton’s suggestion that the proposal would end spiking. They said real reform may have to come from voters in the form of a ballot initiative overhauling the city’s pension system. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a conservative advocacy group, recently launched such a ballot-measure campaign. “It does not stop the spiking — it just does not do that,” Councilman Sal DiCiccio said, adding that the plan will be further watered down during union talks. “The council is going to be able to declare this huge victory today when, in fact, all it does is keep the spiking.” The plan, developed by the city’s Pension Fairness and Spiking Elimination Subcommittee, requires that, going forward, municipal employees no longer be allowed to include in pension benefits calculations cellphone and car allowances, which are often reserved for management, or lump-sum payments received for unused sick and vacation leave. Employees still could use pre-existing sick- and vacation-leave balances accrued in their pension calculations. Conservative-leaning Councilmen DiCiccio, Bill Gates and Jim Waring objected to the plan because they said it doesn’t go far enough to protect taxpayers from the costs of spiking. Typically, the most significant factor boosting employees’ pensions is the lump-sum payouts they receive at retirement for unused sick and vacation leave. The council voted 6-3 to reject a substitute motion by Waring that would have completely removed from the pension calculation all sick- and vacation-leave accruals and deferred compensation, another form of retirement pay. Supporters of the plan said it ends abuses in the pension system without breaking the city’s contracts with employee unions and risking a lawsuit on those grounds. Changes affecting union employees will be implemented when new agreements take effect July 1, and changes affecting non-union employees will take affect Jan. 1. “For those who say that it is not enough, it is what can be legally done,” said Councilman Daniel Valenzuela, dubbing the plan “morally and ethically right and legal.” The proposal, approved 5-4, was supported by Stanton, Valenzuela, Johnson and council members Tom Simplot and Thelda Williams. Councilmen DiCiccio, Waring, Gates and Michael Nowakowski cast dissenting votes. Council members who voted for the plan said it strikes the right balance by treating employees fairly, reducing costs and providing change promised to the public. They also said it helps Phoenix retain talented employees. Stanton’s office has warned that reforms affecting the pensionability of leave accruals could cause a wave of retirement-eligible managers to quit in the coming months. Employee union members opposed the plan, many saying they avoided using sick leave for years because they were told it would boost their pension down the road. Dozens of workers filled the council chambers for the 10 a.m. vote, including some who worked graveyard shifts the night before or took a vacation day to attend. It was the sixth pension meeting where employees, many wearing fluorescent union T-shirts, have turned out in droves. But several union leaders said the final proposal emphasizing labor negotiations was an improvement. Luis Schmidt, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2384, said the move was “the responsible thing to do” because it reaffirms the commitment to work with employees. Nowakowski was the only liberal-leaning council member to vote against the plan, saying, “I’m siding with our employees.” He pushed for the council to not give final direction on the subcommittee recommendations until after union negotiations. It’s unclear exactly how much the reforms might save the city. Stanton’s office said the anti-spiking measures are expected to save at least $130 million over the next 25 years, but city staff has yet to provide its own analysis of potential savings. Some council members said the vote shouldn’t have occurred without such projections. An Arizona Republic analysis shows that a broad definition of spiking could cost the city’s retirement system as much as $12 million per year. However, city officials rejected the analysis, saying it overstated the costs and included things like overtime and premium pay that most city leaders have said they don’t consider spiking. The city has been unable to provide its own figure showing the total cost of spiking. Spiking adds to Phoenix’s rising pension costs. The city this fiscal year is projected to spend nearly $124 million to fund the city’s pension plan and $129 million to fund its portion of the statewide public-safety pension plan. Employees also make contributions, though the contribution rates are much smaller for employees on the payroll before July 1. http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/laurieroberts/2013/11/01/an-end-to-phoenix-pension-spiking-really/ Posted on November 1, 2013 6:39 pm by Laurie Roberts An end to Phoenix pension spiking? Really? How absolutely fitting that the Phoenix City Council chose Thursday to, as Mayor Greg Stanton put it, “end pension spiking”. Chose Halloween, the day set aside for dressing up and pretending that you are somebody you’re not. You know … a witch, a ghost, a goblin … A champion of the taxpayer? Stanton and four other members of the City Council approved a series of modest recommendations designed to curb some pension spiking. The council voted 5-4 to ask the city manager to “address” the recommendations when he disappears behind closed doors to negotiate new labor contracts with the city’s employee unions. Note use of the word “address” – not implement. And in the same private setting that created the system that allows city employees to artificially boost their pensions, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars annually for some managers. This, we are told, is Stanton, keeping his campaign promise. “I’m fighting to end pension spiking for one simple reason: it is unfair and wrong,” he said, in an e-mail blast the day before the vote. “Making lifetime pension payments off unused vacation, sick leave or a cell phone allowance is indefensible, and it has to stop.” Just not right now. Or in next 20 years … Stanton and five of his colleagues rejected a proposal by Councilman Jim Waring to end all spiking in January for managers and executives, and in July when new two-year contracts kick in for rank-and-file employees. Waring’s proposal also would have eliminated the current system that allows employees to score a double bonanza at the end of their careers – both cashing out a portion of their unused sick and vacation leave then counting that lump-sum payment as pensionable income in order to boost their retirement pay. Union representatives and Team Stanton opposed Waring’s plan, saying it wouldn’t be legal or fair to employees who have long been banking their time in order to score an end-of-career jackpot. Union reps say they struck a deal with the city long ago to accept spiking in lieu of larger up-front pay raises. Waring, however, questions how decisions made in bargaining sessions decades ago can be forever binding on taxpayers. “To those who say it’s illegal or unfair, I’ve been on the council two years and I’m not wedded to every bad idea every councilman before me has had,” he told me, after Thursday’s vote. “Every two years, we get to change things and this is what I’d like to see changed.” Speaking of fairness or lack thereof, Phoenix residents this year will sink $253 million into the two pension systems used by city employees. That’s 57 percent more than five years ago and rising, despite reforms approved by voters in March. A cost that will continue to rise, despite the plan approved Thursday. (Voting for it; Stanton, Michael Johnson, Tom Simplot, Daniel Valenzuela and Thelda Williams.) That plan, assuming it survives contract negotiations intact, would end spiking for future employees, halt the designation of managers’ car and cell phone allowances as pensionable income and end spiking for police and firefighters, which is nice given that that’s already against state law. It would cap spiking for civilian employees, though they still would be able to boost their pensions with unused vacation pay accumulated before July 2014 and with sick leave accrued before July 2012. The plan also calls on city staff to “pursue possible implementation” of a new leave system – one that I would hope would stop this insane practice of allowing managers to walk away with a $100,000 or more for decades worth of unused sick days (or double that, if you happen to be David Cavazos.) Deputy City Manager Rick Naimark told me that management will work with the unions on a revamped system to replace the current leave policy during the upcoming contract negotiations. That is good news. Better news would be for the City Council to hire an outside expert to negotiate on behalf of taxpayers in the upcoming contract talks. In the past, city managers have represented taxpayers, resulting in where we find ourselves today – with spiking and sick leave jackpots, courtesy of taxpayers. Of course, the ones scoring the biggest jackpots of them all are the managers who negotiated these deals in the first place. The city’s employees deserve a fair deal. But so do the city’s taxpayers. The question is, who over at city hall is looking out for them? (Column published Nov. 2, 2013, The Arizona Republic.) http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/laurieroberts/2013/10/31/phoenix-declares-an-end-to-pension-spiking-just-not-really/ Posted on October 31, 2013 12:26 pm by Laurie Roberts Phoenix declares an end to pension spiking (just not really) I confess, I got kind of excited this week, when I saw Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton reconfirm his campaign pledge to end pension spiking. “I’m fighting to end pension spiking for one simple reason: it is unfair and wrong,” he wrote, in an e-mail blast on Wednesday. “Making lifetime pension payments off unused vacation, sick leave or a cell phone allowance is indefensible, and it has to stop.” Only just not right now – or in the foreseeable future, as it turns out. The Phoenix City Council this morning voted to ask the city manager to “address” the recommendations of the Pension Fairness and Spiking Elimination Ad Hoc Subcommittee as he disappears behind closed doors to negotiate new labor contracts. Address – not implement. I suppose it doesn’t much matter because the recommendations of the Pension Fairness and Spiking Elimination Ad Hoc Subcommittee don’t actually eliminate spiking. Not in the next couple of decades, anyway. The council rejected a proposal by Councilman Jim Waring to end all spiking in January, for middle managers and executives who don’t have contracts, and in July, when new contracts kick in for rank-and-file employees. Waring’s proposal also would have eliminated the current system that allows employees to score a double bonanza at the end of their careers – both cashing out a portion of their unused sick and vacation leave and then using that cash out to boost their pensions. (Waring, Sal DiCiccio and Bill Gates voted yes.) Instead, the City Council voted 5-4 to ask city management to “address” with union representatives the possibility of ending spiking for future employees, capping the sick and vacation leave payouts that current civilian employees can use to spike their pensions and stopping management from using their car and cell phone allowances to spike their pensions. The council also recommended an end to spiking for police and firefighters, though whether that will really happen is unclear. That recommendation now goes to the city’s public safety pension board. (Voting yes were Stanton, Thelda Williams, Daniel Valenzuela, Tom Simplot and Michael Johnson.) City leaders can’t tell you how much the city would save by implementing the subcommittee’s recommendations (if they really do implement them). In fact, they can’t tell you how much spiking even costs the city. (The Republic estimates $12 million a year.) What they will tell you is that they’ve done all they can legally do to end spiking. Don’t believe it. And don’t expect that this is over. Last week, an initiative was filed by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club to eliminate city pensions and create a 401(k)-type of program for future employees, a la San Diego.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs and government, snowden, NSA TSA thug assassinated at LAX!!! Damn, almost makes me want to cry!!! One of the Homeland Security thugs that routinely violate our Constitutional rights at airports by illegally searching us was assassinated at Los Angeles International Airport. Maybe the Homeland Security thugs that routinely illegally read read my emails, tap my phone calls and spy on my web pages will break you silence and comment on this???? I would if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were alive today if they would compare this assassination to them killing King George's Redcoats who terrorized the Americans in 1776, like the TSA terrorizes Americans today??? http://www.azcentral.com/news/free/20131101los-angeles-airport-shooting-report.html Associated Press Fri Nov 1, 2013 8:48 PM LOS ANGELES — A man pulled a semi-automatic rifle from a bag and shot his way past a security checkpoint at Los Angeles International Airport on Friday, killing a federal security officer and wounding at least two others in an attack that disrupted more than 700 flights across the U.S., authorities said. Officials said the gunman, who was wounded in a shootout with police and taken into custody, targeted Transportation Security Administration agents, who handle security checks at U.S. airports. The FBI and Los Angeles Airport Police identified the suspected gunman as Paul Ciancia, 23, of New Jersey. A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly, said Ciancia was wearing fatigues and carrying a bag containing a handwritten note that said he wanted to kill TSA employees and “pigs.” The official said the rant refers to how Ciancia believed his constitutional rights were being violated by TSA searches and that he’s a “pissed-off patriot” upset at former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Ciancia had at least five full 30-round magazines on him, said the official, who was briefed on the investigation. The official also said Ciancia was shot in the mouth and leg by two airport police officers. Officials told a news conference they saw no further threat Friday to the nation’s third largest airport, which is a major gateway for flights to Asia, Australia and New Zealand. A police chief in New Jersey said Ciancia’s father called him Friday saying another of his children had received a text message from Ciancia in reference to him taking his own life.” Pennsville Chief Allen Cummings said he called Los Angeles police, which sent a patrol car to Ciancia’s apartment. Two roommates there said they had seen him Thursday and that he was fine. Los Angeles Airport Police Chief Patrick Gannon said the gunman entered Terminal 3, pulled an assault rifle from a bag and began shooting, then fired more shots at a screening checkpoint, where a security agent was checking passenger documents, before entering the secure area of the terminal. Officers exchanged fire with the gunman and apprehended him. Police believe he was the only shooter, Gannon said. “As you can imagine, a large amount of chaos took place in this entire incident,” Gannon said. Panicked travelers dropped to the ground. Those who had made it past security fled onto the tarmac or sought cover inside restaurants and lounges. Xavier Savant, who was waiting in the security line where the shooting occurred, described it as a “Bam! Bam! Bam!” burst of gunfire. Another witness, Brian Keech, said he heard “about a dozen gunshots.” Tim Kauffman, a spokesman for the American Federation of Government Employees, confirmed that a TSA officer was killed. He said the union’s information came from their local officials in Los Angeles. The TSA identified the 39-year-old officer as Gerardo I. Hernandez and said he was the first officer killed in the line of duty in the agency’s 12-year history. The agency was founded in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. J. David Cox Sr., national president of the AFGE, said the officer was one of those stationed throughout the airport looking for suspicious behavior. Initially, Cox said at least three other TSA officers were wounded. Their conditions were not disclosed. Later in the day, the TSA said two other officers were injured. The Los Angeles Fire Department revised its total number of victims taken to the hospital from six to five, saying one had been double counted. Those numbers included the gunman, the slain TSA officer and one person who broke their ankle. Terminal 3 is home to Virgin America, AirTran, Horizon Air, JetBlue, Virgin Australia and other airlines. It remained closed Friday evening. The Federal Aviation Administration for hours grounded flights that had not yet departed for LAX. Airport officials said 746 flights nationwide were affected by the incident. Ben Rosen said he heard gunfire erupt and saw people start running in all directions and others crouching. He lay on the ground. Police, with their guns drawn, shouted, “This is not a drill, hands up.” “It was scary I’ve never experienced anything like this before,” Rosen said. It was not the first shooting at LAX. On July 4, 2002, a limousine driver opened fire at the airport’s El Al ticket counter, killing an airline employee and a person who was dropping off a friend at the terminal. Police killed the man.

xxx

1) link to main page Fair trial??? You don't deserve no stinking fair trial. Sadly that's how many prosecutors and cops feel. http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/free/20131101arizona-debra-milke-case-double-jeopardy-claim.html Milke attorneys claim retrial is double jeopardy Associated Press Fri Nov 1, 2013 8:56 PM Retrying a woman released from death row after an appeals court overturned her conviction in her son’s 1989 killing would amount to double jeopardy, her attorneys wrote in a motion this week. Debra Milke was released Sept. 6 on bond. She was convicted in 1990 based on charges that she had two men take her 4-year-old son, Christopher, into the desert outside Phoenix and shoot him in the back of the head. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Milke’s conviction in March. The panel cited the prosecution’s failure to turn over evidence that deprived her attorneys of the chance to question the credibility of the state’s key witness — a detective who told jurors she confessed. The court also found that Milke had not waived her right to have an attorney present during her interrogation by then-Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate Jr. Milke’s defense attorneys say that because her conviction was overturned, at least in part, because of the prosecution’s failure to turn over evidence of Saldate’s checkered past, a retrial violates her Fifth Amendment right against being tried twice for the same offense. “Saldate’s credibility was central at Milke’s 1990 trial, and the state’s failure to disclose impeachment evidence of his misconduct was a clearly improper method used to convict,” defense attorneys wrote in the motion. In its ruling overturning Milke’s conviction, the appeals court accused Saldate of numerous instances of previous misconduct, including several in which judges threw out confessions or indictments because Saldate lied under oath and others in which cases were tossed out or confessions excluded because the detective violated the suspect’s constitutional rights. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery has previously dismissed the appeals court’s findings as a “wild-goose chase” and insists it got the allegations against Saldate wrong. He called the court’s findings “patently false,” referring to them as “grandiose mischaracterizations.” Montgomery’s office declined comment Friday. Milke’s attorneys say that had Saldate’s record been revealed to jurors at her original trial, it “very likely could have changed the outcome of this case and kept Ms. Milke from serving 23 years in prison.” The two men convicted in the killing of Milke’s son did not testify at her trial and remain on death row. Saldate has not returned telephone messages from The Associated Press. His attorney previously told the judge that his client plans to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify at Milke’s retrial. A Dec. 6 hearing has been set during which Judge Rosa Mroz plans to hear arguments from attorneys and Saldate before determining whether to allow the former detective to assert his right against self-incrimination. Mroz made it clear that if Saldate doesn’t take the stand at Milke’s retrial, the purported confession, which was crucial to her original conviction, can’t be used. For now, Milke’s retrial is set for Feb. 2, 2015.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs and anti-war and government I wonder when the DEA will start using drones to assassinate suspected drug dealers on American soil???? Sadly the American government seems to now think that anybody on the planet can be assassinated by American drones after Obama's bureaucrats give them a fair, but secret trial and sentence them to death behind the closed White House doors. http://www.azcentral.com/news/free/20131101us-drone-kills-pakistani-taliban-leader-officials-say.html U.S. drone kills Pakistani Taliban leader, officials say Associated Press Fri Nov 1, 2013 4:09 PM PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A U.S. drone strike killed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban Friday, intelligence officials said. The death is a major blow to the group a day after the government said it started peace talks with the militants. Hakimullah Mehsud, who is believed to have been behind a failed car bombing in New York’s Times Square as well as brazen attacks inside Pakistan, had a reputation for being particularly ruthless. He was widely reported to have been killed in 2010, but later resurfaced. The tribal areas where the drone attacks occur are dangerous to visit, making it difficult for journalists to independently confirm information. A senior U.S. intelligence official said the U.S. received positive confirmation Friday morning that he had been killed. Two Pakistani intelligence officials in North Waziristan also confirmed his death as did two Taliban commanders who said they had seen the remnants of the militant commander’s mangled body. The strike killed four other suspected militants, according to the two Pakistani intelligence officials. The Taliban commanders said at least four missiles struck just after a vehicle in which Mehsud was driving entered the compound. All the officials and the militant commanders spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. The CIA and the White House declined to comment on the reported militant commander’s death. The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center describes Mehsud as “the self-proclaimed emir of the Pakistani Taliban.” Mehsud is on the FBI’s most-wanted terrorist list, with a $5 million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Mehsud has been near the top of the CIA Counterterrorism Center’s most wanted list for his role in the December 2009 suicide bombing that killed seven Americans — CIA officers and their security detail — at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan. The suicide bomber, a Jordanian double agent, was ushered into the military base to brief CIA officers on al-Qaida, and detonated his explosive vest once he’d reached the inside of the base. Mehsud later appeared in a video alongside the Jordanian, who said he carried out the attack in retribution for the death of another former Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, who was killed in an American drone strike in August 2009. Hakimullah Mehsud was indicted on charges of “conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens abroad and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction (explosives) against US citizens abroad,” the NCTC site says. He was believed to be responsible for attacks in Pakistan in which thousands of civilians and security forceswere killed. Friday’s strike in the North Waziristan tribal area comes at a sensitive time. The government has been trying to cut a peace deal with the militants to end years of fighting in the country’s northwest. During a visit to London on Thursday, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said talks with the Pakistani Taliban had started, though he gave no further details about who was involved or what was on the agenda. The Pakistani government was swift to condemn the Friday drone strike, albeit before news of Mehsud’s death was reported. “These strikes are a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. There is an across the board consensus in Pakistan that these drone strikes must end,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. The drone strikes are extremely unpopular in Pakistan where many people view them as an infringement on Pakistani sovereignty and say innocent civilians are killed in the process.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) add to drugs and government It's not about making the streets safer, it's about raising money for the police!!!! http://eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article_08058104-40f7-11e3-b786-0019bb2963f4.html Letter: Commons sense ‘So-called’ war on drugs a sham Posted: Friday, November 1, 2013 12:05 pm Letter to the Editor Common sense dictates that our police must be solving a much higher percent of homicides today as compared to the 1960s. After all, today’s police departments have access to DNA evidence that didn’t exist during the 1960s. And police departments today can run finger prints through high tech computers and find an exact match out of 100s of millions finger prints on file. Back in the 1960s this technology did not exist. So why do police only solve just over sixty percent of homicides today while during the 1960s, they solved more than ninety percent of homicides? The answer is our so-called war on drugs. Today police have huge financial incentives make drug busts and to confiscate drug dealers money and property, but no financial incentives to solve rapes, robberies and or murders. I’d like to add To those who think that our drug prohibition polices somehow protect children and our society, I strongly suggest they search on Google or Youtube.com for: “Retired Police Captain demolishes the war on drugs.” Kirk Muse Mesa

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs, government, snowden, NSA and so on What more do the cops need to know??? The guy was p*ssed off with Homeland Security, the TSA and the other slew of alphabet police agencies that have unconstitutionally turned America into a police state. I suspect if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were alive to day they would feel the same way about these TSA thugs as they did about King Georges Redcoats!!!! http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lax-gunman-150-rounds-20131102,0,1516468.story#axzz2jVt3kT00 LAX shooting suspect critical, hindering investigation, official says By Richard Winton and Brian Bennett November 2, 2013, 9:37 a.m. The man suspected of opening fire at Los Angeles International Airport on Friday, killing a TSA agent, was shot in the leg and head, making it difficult for authorities to gather information, a law enforcement official told The Times. The suspected shooter, identified by police as 23-year-old Paul Anthony Ciancia, was hospitalized in critical condition. He was wounded by an LAX police officer and sergeant as he shot his way through Terminal 3 shortly after 9 a.m., authorities said. KCAL-TV footage appeared to show the bloodied gunman handcuffed to a gurney as he was wheeled out of the terminal. He remained in critical condition at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center as of 8 a.m. Saturday. The incident Friday began, police say, when Ciancia entered Terminal 3 through the main door, pulled an AR-15 assault rifle out of a bag and "began to open fire." He then walked up a flight of stairs to the entrance of the security checkpoint, where at least three Transportation Security Administration officers were shot, officials said. One of them, Gerardo I. Hernandez, 39, was killed. Authorities said Ciancia then entered the airport itself, walking past a candy shop, a newsstand and a bookstore. The airport police officer and sergeant engaged Ciancia in a brief gunfight near a food court, officials said. “They hit him multiple times before he went down,” one law enforcement source said. A witness said the gunman was wearing a bulletproof vest. Authorities on Saturday were trying to figure out the motive for the attack. A law enforcement official told The Times that a note was found on the suspected gunman expressing “disappointment in the government” and saying that he had no interest in hurting “innocent people.” People in Pennsville Township, N.J., Ciancia's hometown, remembered him as a quiet teenager who by some accounts was bullied in high school. A law enforcement official told The Times that investigators were looking into the possibility that Ciancia “wasn’t a fan of the TSA.” In a statement issued hours after the shooting, TSA Administrator John S. Pistole said no words could explain "the horror that we experienced" when Hernandez became the first TSA officer to be killed in the line of duty. Terminal 3 remained mostly closed Saturday as the FBI continued to investigate the scene, LAX officials reported. Only the ticket counters were open as passengers awaited word on when they might be able to retrieve luggage and other personal items left behind during the rush to evacuate. LAX officials said Saturday morning on Twitter that there was no timeline for when access would be granted by the FBI.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs Don't these pigs have any REAL criminals to hunt down???? You know real criminals that hurt people, like robbers and rapists!!! Not some smuck who commits the victimless crime of selling a lousy half ounce of pot!!! http://www.azcentral.com/news/free/20131102new-york-goetz-subway-vigilante-drug-arrest.html NYC subway vigilante Goetz arrested on drug charge Associated Press Sat Nov 2, 2013 8:11 AM NEW YORK — New York City police say the subway vigilante who shot four youths who asked him for money on a train in the 1980s has been arrested on drug charges. Police say 65-year-old Bernie Goetz was nabbed in a sting operation in Union Square on Friday afternoon selling $30 worth of pot to an undercover officer. Police say he told the undercover to hang on, went back to the apartment where he has lived for decades and returned with the marijuana. He was then arrested on charges of criminal sale of marijuana. Goetz was in custody awaiting arraignment Saturday and not reachable for comment. He was cleared of attempted murder charges but convicted of weapons charges after the 1984 attack and spent 250 days in jail.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs and sheirff joe Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery tells Mexicans that he can be trusted not to screw them like Sheriff Joe does. Yea, and if you believe that I have some land in Florida I would like to sell you!!! Also the practice of charging Mexican with conspiring to smuggle themselves into the US has been declared unconstitutional, which if you ask me is an oxymoron!!! "Thomas' policy of prosecuting migrants for conspiring with "coyotes" to self-smuggle themselves into the country. In September, the policy was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge" http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2013-10-31/news/bill-montgomery-psa-undocumented-immigrants/ Cynical Bill Montgomery Airs PSA to "Comfort" the Undocumented By Stephen Lemons Thursday, Oct 31 2013 No one can say Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery lacks chutzpah. For years now, Montgomery has exploited anti-Latino bigotry to obtain and retain public office. When he campaigned for attorney general in 2006, Montgomery was one of many politicians who snuggled up to the racist minuteman movement. When it comes to the treatment of the undocumented, don't believe a word out of this guy's mouth. (En español: No le crean ni una pinche palabra que salga de su boca.) new times photo illustration When it comes to the treatment of the undocumented, don't believe a word out of this guy's mouth. (En español: No le crean ni una pinche palabra que salga de su boca.) In 2010, he ran to the right of then-interim County Attorney Rick Romley in the GOP primary. Montgomery wholeheartedly supported Sand Land's ugly anti-immigration legislation, Senate Bill 1070, and promised a return to the policies of his now-disbarred and disgraced predecessor, Andrew Thomas. This included reviving Thomas' policy of prosecuting migrants for conspiring with "coyotes" to self-smuggle themselves into the country. In September, the policy was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge, who said it was superseded by federal law. Of course, Montgomery's appealing that decision. Never mind that those smuggled into the country often end up victims of the smugglers. Montgomery's stalwart support for Sheriff Joe Arpaio's anti-immigrant policies paid off in 2010 with an endorsement from Arpaio and the sheriff's spending more than a half-million bucks to defeat Romley in the primary. And Montgomery has returned the favor in many ways. After the U.S. Department of Justice issued a letter in 2011 finding that there was a widespread "culture of bias" toward Latinos in the MCSO, Montgomery denounced the DOJ, claiming, incorrectly, that it had not backed up its accusations, which were the result of a three-year investigation. Since then, the DOJ has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the MCSO. And in a separate lawsuit, Melendres v. Arpaio, a federal judge has found Arpaio's office guilty of biased policing and ordered a monitor as well as numerous other measures aimed at ending the MCSO's racial-profiling ways. Yet, the county attorney continues to prosecute undocumented workers arrested in Arpaio's worksite raids, holding busboys and middle-aged cleaning ladies without bond on charges of forgery and ID theft while ignoring any culpability by the bigger fish involved: employers. Granted, there is evidence that Montgomery recently altered this policy by declining to prosecute 14 of the more than 20 people arrested by the MCSO after its August raid of the commercial cleaning company ProServ. But this is more a result of the fight he's encountered from some local immigration attorneys. It's important to know that the Monty who speaks Spanish in new County Attorney's Office public-service announcements is the same Monty who mercilessly has jailed and prosecuted the undocumented from day one in office. The PSAs, which start a yearlong run next month, begin with an insult, delivered by the county attorney in the English version and by someone else in the Spanish version. "It's easy to stay in the shadows," we are told, "to stay quiet and mind your own business and don't get involved." Really? If only I could transform Monty into a Mexican migrant, with limited or no English, and see how "easy" being in the shadows is for him. The PSAs feature images of Hispanic kids hugging and Latino couples smiling. Then we get Monty himself. "We don't stand for crime," he tells the camera, speaking Spanish in the Spanish-language PSA. "Crime gets reported. When you report crime, your immigration status doesn't matter. That's the law." During a recent press conference to debut the commercials, he insisted that the law in question was none other than the "papers please" section of SB 1070, the one requiring cops to check the immigration status of anyone they've stopped and suspect of being in the country illegally. Monty argues that one line of section 2b covers victims and witnesses. It states that cops "shall" determine a suspect's immigration status "except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation." Thing is, it's up to the cop and/or the agency involved. There is no guarantee in 1070 that victims and witnesses will not be asked about immigration status. In fact, a person is only "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present," unless that person presents certain ID, such as an Arizona driver's license. And I can tell you from reporting on several such cases that if an otherwise law-abiding undocumented person shows a foreign ID to a local cop, he or she risks arrest for presenting a forged document, whether or not the ID is valid. Why do some police officers assume that a matricula card from the Mexican consulate or a driver's license from a Latin American country is a forgery? Because they can. Those arrested often cannot afford counsel and end up held non-bondable, coerced into copping a plea and a one-way ticket to the custody of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Additionally, Montgomery has a policy of making it incredibly difficult for victims of crime to obtain certifications for a U visa, which allows them to remain and work in the country legally if they cooperate with law enforcement. The County Attorney's Office has denied that it has a policy of not certifying U visas, but its own statistics belie this denial. According to office spokesman Jerry Cobb, between January 2009 and May 2012, it received 83 U visa requests, certified six, and declined 19. "The rest were either approved by another agency — applicants typically apply to multiple law enforcement agencies — or were not associated with active cases or were pending review," Cobb wrote me in January, when I first asked about the issue. Six certifications out of 83 requests over a 2 1/2-year period equals 7.2 percent of the time. Which is why, immigration attorneys tell me, victims of, say, robbery and rape go to other agencies. County prosecutors quietly will tell you the same thing. To even suggest a U visa is grounds for reprimand. At his press conference, Montgomery gave no indication that his U visa policy was getting altered. Also, he insisted that his PSAs encouraging the undocumented to report crime are "consistent with guidance I've given law enforcement." This was news to Arizona ACLU legal director Dan Pochoda, who said his organization has been pushing for just such an interpretation of 1070's "hinder or obstruct" clause. "We have been arguing that there is an 'out' in 2b," said Pochoda. "Because targeting or arresting a witness or victim of a crime will necessarily interfere with an ongoing investigation . . . So far, there have been few if any takers." One of those not taking is the Phoenix Police Department, the largest law enforcement agency in the Valley. It's Operations Order 4.48 says officers should "consider when or whether to investigate immigration status in light of the need for suspect, victim, and witness cooperation." This leaves the decision to the cop. It's not a department-wide ban. Nor is it "the law," as Monty assures the undocumented. Back when the 1070 debate was roiling, then-Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris gave a sworn statement to the Justice Department for use in its lawsuit against Arizona over 1070. Harris was pilloried by some for declaring that 1070 would "have a negative effect on our community policing efforts" and that victims and witnesses "will be afraid to call police for fear of deportation." Monty's new commercials offer evidence that Harris was right. Otherwise, what would be the need? Save to sucker the undocumented into incriminating themselves or to con Latino voters into thinking that Monty's not a bad guy after all.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs I suspect this truck was illegally stopped without the required "probable cause". Jesus, don't these pigs have any real criminals to hunt down instead of harmless pot smugglers??? http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20131028yavapai-county-pot-bust-abrk.html Record-breaking $8.2 million pot bust in Yavapai County By Laurie Merrill The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:44 PM What started as a routine traffic stop of a semitruck west of Flagstaff turned into the largest marijuana seizure ever recorded by the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office, a spokesman said Monday. Two California men were arrested and accused of hauling a record 2,300 pounds of marijuana, said Dwight D’Evelyn, Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office spokesman. The cargo’s street value was estimated at more than $8.2million, D’Evelyn said. The pair were en route to the East Coast, and the marijuana was packed in a “sophisticated manner” for easier distribution, he said. Sheriff’s K-9 deputies stopped the rig Thursday on Interstate40 between Seligman and Ash Fork after noticing a malfunction in the semitrailer’s splash guards, D’Evelyn said. The driver was identified as Peng Law, 44, of Sunnyvale, and the passenger was identified as Bing Huang, 45, from San Jose. “Both appeared much more nervous than the innocent motoring public,” D’Evelyn said. “The occupants were unable to answer basic questions that two persons sharing a destination would commonly know.” A police dog search turned up “a very strong odor of marijuana.” Further searching revealed “high-grade marijuana packed in heavy-duty, vacuum-sealed plastic bags.” Law and Huang were booked at the Camp Verde detention center on suspicion of transportation of marijuana for sale and possession of marijuana for sale, D’Evelyn said. Each was being held on a $15 million bond. The semitruck and trailer were seized.

xxx

1) link to main page http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/20131031tempe-police-officer-resigns-amid-criminal-investigation.html Tempe police officer resigns amid criminal investigation By Jim Walsh The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:04 PM A former Tempe police officer has resigned amid a criminal investigation, with her own department recommending hindering-prosecution charges. Tempe Police Chief Tom Ryff confirmed the resignation of Officer Jessica Dever-Jakusz and said that “an active criminal investigation related to the crime of hindering prosecution was undertaken based upon evidence discovered,” according to a memo sent Tuesday to department employees. Jerry Cobb, a spokesman for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, said Tempe police have recommended two counts of hindering prosecution against Dever-Jakusz and that the case is under review. Because Dever-Jakusz is not in custody, there is no timetable for a decision, he said. Ryff said he wrote the memo because “there has been much speculation, rumor and an innuendo floating around as to why Jess chose to separate her employment from the city. “Though this matter and the details which surround it are most unfortunate, they are most certainly not representative of the entire Tempe Police Department.” Chandler police confirmed that Garrett Dever, Dever-Jakusz’s husband, is the subject of an internal-affairs inuqiry and said they are not allowed to release more inquiry is over.

xxx

1) link to main page The cops are the blame for these murders??? Disturbing the peace, as in having barking dogs always has been a crime. But cops hate domestic calls, like barking dogs because domestic calls are one of the most frequent causes of police deaths. Because of that the cops got most city governments to pass local laws that allow the cops to refuse to answer calls about barking dogs. Instead in Phoenix and many other cities you now have to get 3 neighbors to complain about barking dogs and then a court, not the cops will address the problem. Of course that happens weeks or months after the barking dog incidents. Not at the time of the barking dog incident. Because this guy couldn't get the cops to stop his neighbors dogs from barking I suspect that might be why he went on a rampage killing his neighbors over the barking dogs. http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20131026phoenix-police-investigating-homicide-abrk.html Shooting deaths of Phoenix family still a mystery By Laurie Merrill and Jackee Coe The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:03 PM Phoenix police said Sunday that they may never learn exactly why a 56-year-old man fatally shot a family of four who lived next door before killing himself in a townhouse complex in Phoenix. But neighbors in the family-oriented, 250-unit complex, near 17th Avenue and Hazelwood Street, said the shooter often argued with pet owners about barking dogs and left written notes complaining about the noise. “He didn’t want noise,” neighbor and dog owner Denise Lopez said. “The dogs were waking him up. He always used to complain.” What is known, according to police, is that Michael Dante Guzzo took his pump-action shotgun and, at about 9a.m. Saturday, fatally shot his next-door neighbors: Bruce Moore, 66; his daughter, Renee, 36; her husband, Michael, 42, who took his wife’s last name; their son, Shannon, 17; and two dogs. Guzzo then began walking to a unit across the courtyard, where a Chihuahua and pit bull had started barking at the gunfire, the dogs’ owner said. Guzzo banged and kicked the front door, said Libni, who lives at the unit and declined to provide a last name. Libni’s girlfriend had just left the shower and was trying to open the door and hold a towel around herself at the same time, he said, but he sent her upstairs to be with the two children. “That’s when he fired through the door,” said Libni, who was standing to the side at the time. Guzzo then began to walk away as Libni raced up to the second floor, retrieved his gun and opened a window, he said. “A man’s got to protect his family,” Libni said. At the sound of the window opening, Guzzo raised the shotgun and fired, shattering the glass, Libni said. He said he had just ducked. “It’s a miracle,” he said. Guzzo then walked across the courtyard to his unit, went inside and fatally shot himself, police said. On Sunday, neighbors congregated on the grass between units, many with dogs. Others strolled, and several children rode bikes. Some stopped by the Moore home and left items including flowers, candles and a stuffed animal. Those interviewed said they were shocked by the violence committed by a “quiet” man. The president of the complex’s homeowners association said crisis counselors were scheduled to arrive today. When the shootings began, several neighbors said, it sounded like construction. Barry Hatchett, 49, said he heard a “boom boom boom boom.” “Then I heard four bangs,” Hatchett said. “I looked out the window and saw him (Guzzo) walking with a gun. Then he stopped and reloaded.” Hatchett said Guzzo was walking across to Libni’s unit. He called 911. Hatchett’s wife, Charise, 42, said that Renee Moore had five dogs, all small breeds. She had just gotten several out of quarantine. They had been quarantined after she and her husband moved to Phoenix from China, she said. “Everyone who lived here had to know Renee,” Charise said. “She was always outside walking her dogs.” Shannon was also a familiar sight. He had a disability, neighbors said, and was often seen running to the school bus and playing with younger children. Officers who responded to the scene and searched for the gunman discovered the slain Moore family inside their home Saturday, and then Guzzo’s body in his townhouse, Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson said. Thompson said Guzzo’s motive is “one of the troubling questions we have.” “There is some speculation that perhaps it may have been that Mr. Guzzo had a low tolerance for dogs or noise,” Thompson said. “This is an incident where we just don’t know what sparked this.” There appears to be no history between Guzzo and the Moore family, and it did not appear that police had responded to either residence in the past, Thompson said. Guzzo apparently lived alone. Investigators hope the results of the autopsy reports can shed more light on the homicides.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs and sheriff joe I wonder if Sheriff Joe is planning on using drone missile strikes to kill suspected drug dealers in the future??? http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/joe-arpaio-drones-99106.html Joe Arpaio seeks ‘one or two’ drones Arpaio says his drones would target drug dealers in the 'boondocks.' Reuters By TAL KOPAN | 10/30/13 1:43 PM EDT Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says that media reports that he wants a “fleet” of drones for his office are wrong — he only wants one or two. The outspoken sheriff was on Phoenix radio station KFYI on Tuesday and radio host Mike Broomhead asked him about a report on Russian news site RT.com that he wanted to acquire a fleet of the unmanned aerial vehicles. “A fleet! I want one, or two,” Arpaio said, saying that the drones he wants are not anything extreme. “They’re not the drones they have in Afghanistan or at the U.S.-Mexican border. These are small drones the size of a briefcase — high-tech, can take photos, and surveillance, go after the dope peddlers, search and rescue, try to stop the contraband from coming over the fence and our tents. So what’s wrong with that?” Arpaio also dismissed privacy concerns about his use of drones, saying his plans will target drug dealers in the “boondocks” “My program isn’t to fly over swimming pools in downtown Phoenix. It’s going out to the boondocks, where my people are locking up dope peddlers, gun battles. So I’ll do anything I can to protect my deputies, and also to find and locate missing people in the desert,” Arpaio said. “We’ve located 30; 12 were killed. I think the immigration people should be praising me for rescuing everyone. Now with drones we can do it more easily.” Arpaio compared the vehicles to helicopters, saying those are already in use to locate fugitives and do similar tasks.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs Politicians are starting to LOVE marijuana now that they know they can shake us down for a bunch of money with their silly sin taxes!!! http://gazette.com/colorado-voters-deciding-how-to-tax-marijuana/article/1508633 Colorado voters deciding how to tax marijuana Associated Press Updated: November 1, 2013 at 7:24 am • Published: November 1, 2013 DENVER — A pro-pot jingle in Colorado last year went like this: "Jobs for our people/Money for schools/Who could ask for more?" Nearly a year after Colorado legalized recreational weed, voters get the chance to decide exactly how much more — in taxes. On Tuesday, voters decide whether to approve a 15 percent pot excise tax to pay for school construction, plus an extra sales tax of 10 percent to fund marijuana enforcement. Some pot activists are campaigning against the taxes, arguing that marijuana should be taxed like beer, which has a tax rate of 8 cents a gallon. They've handed out free joints at tax protests. "Our alcohol system is regulated just fine with the taxes they have, so we don't see any need for this huge grab for cash from marijuana," said Miguel Lopez, volunteer coordinator for the small opposition campaign to Colorado's pot tax measure. While polls suggest the tax is going to pass — even in this state where voters frequently reject new taxes — it is very much an open question how much the state is going to reap. A projection prepared for voters by state fiscal analysts predicted the taxes would bring in $70 million a year. But an early draft of Colorado's first budget after retail sales begin, the 2014-15 fiscal year, doesn't include an amount they expect in pot revenue. Washington state isn't counting on pot revenue, either. Voters in that state set tax rates when they approved legalization last year. Taxes will be 25 percent, levied at least twice and up to three times between when the pot is grown and when it reaches the customer, plus sales tax. Marijuana's tax potential is an important question for the prospects for pot legalization in other states. If pot proves a tax windfall for Colorado and Washington, other states may be inclined to look favorably on legal weed. But if recreational pot smokers in the two states stay in the black market to avoid taxes, while the price tag for regulating a new industry balloons, marijuana legalization could suddenly look like a bad deal. That's why many in Colorado's marijuana industry are pushing the tax measure. They say that because most people don't use marijuana, the public needs to see a public benefit from making the drug legal. "Taxes are an opportunity for marijuana to show it can play a valuable role in the community," said Joe Megyesy, spokesman for the campaign promoting the tax measure. Support for the marijuana taxes extends even to politicians who opposed legalization in the first place, including Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper and Republican Attorney General John Suthers. "I think everyone sort of realizes that the die has been cast. We're really doing this, and if we're going to move marijuana out of the shadows, we need to regulate it and tax it," said Sam Kamin, a University of Denver law professor who studies drug policy and served on the Colorado panel that helped write state marijuana regulations. Still unclear is how the new marijuana market responds. Colorado's medical marijuana framework will remain in place, with a much lower taxation rate. Heavy pot users could save a lot of money by paying nominal annual fees to be on the state medical marijuana registry and paying only regular sales taxes on their pot. Colorado also allows growing pot at home without a license, allowing users to avoid taxes entirely. Surveys suggest that 20 percent of pot smokers consume 80 percent of the pot, so the behavior of the heavy user has significant tax consequences, said Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. It's too soon to say what will happen to recreational pot prices after retail sales begin next year. But if current prices hold, Colorado's proposed tax rate would add about $50 to an ounce of medium-quality loose marijuana, roughly the amount that would fit in a sandwich-sized plastic bag. Precise projections for the pot tax burden on the user are dicey. Like alcohol, marijuana can vary widely in potency, quality and price. Both Washington and Colorado plan to use taxes based on price. By contrast, alcohol is taxed by the gallon and cigarettes by the pack, regardless of how expensive the booze or smokes are. Another unknown is how much regulation will cost. Colorado has approved an ambitious seed-to-sale tracking scheme that includes extensive video surveillance of licensed growing sites and radio-frequency identification tagging. That could end up costing more than the 10 percent special sales tax produces, warned Colorado State University economists in a report issued in April. Kilmer said that Colorado and Washington are aware they're treading into uncharted waters on marijuana taxation. Voters and consumers, he said, should be prepared for big changes in pot tax rates and regulatory schemes. "Flexibility is clearly going to be the key here," Kilmer said. ___ Kristen Wyatt can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/APkristenwyatt

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs and govenrment http://www.teleguiaenespanol.com/954/index.htm ¡Legalización en puerta!, pero de la mariguana La mayoría de los estadounidenses apoya el consumo legal del enervante. La legalización de la marihuana en dos Estados, Washington y Colorado, ha llevado por primera vez a que el 58% de la población apoye su legalización en toda la nación, según concluye un estudio elaborado por Gallup. Todo ello a pesar de interferir directamente con la regulación federal, que considera esta droga ilegal. En 1969, primer año que esta consultora realizó un estudio a este respecto, tan solo el 12% de los ciudadanos respaldaba la medida; el porcentaje se ha ido incrementando desde entonces hasta que en 2011 rozó el apoyo de la mitad de la población. Los estadounidenses de 65 años o más siguen siendo los más reacios a legalizar esta droga, aunque el respaldo ha aumentado un 14% con respecto al año anterior. En contraste, el 67% de los estadounidenses entre los 18 y los 29 años quiere legalizar la marihuana y, entre aquellos que tienen entre 29 y 65 años, el apoyo es más que patente, continúa el informe de Gallup. Los resultaron surgieron tras el análisis de las entrevistas telefónicas realizadas a 1.068 adultos, todos mayores de 18 años, del 3 al 6 de octubre de este año. De acuerdo al portal del periódico español El País, la victoria en las urnas de la legalización de esta sustancia en Colorado y Washington ha afectado directamente al porcentaje de aceptación de los estadounidenses. El 39% la ha probado El pasado 29 de agosto, el fiscal general de EU, Eric Holder, anunció que la Administración no iba a demandar a estos dos Estados por permitir su uso recreativo, aunque Holder añadió que el Gobierno no aplicaría medidas, siempre y cuando ambos Estados mantuvieran la sustancia ilegal fuera del alcance de los menores y aplicaran medidas de regulación y suministro. Hasta este anuncio, los consumidores en estos dos Estados también estaban expuestos a una persecución y denuncia por parte del Gobierno Federal, al ser la marihuana una droga ilegal. Más de 750 mil personas fueron detenidas en EU a causa de la marihuana en 2011, según los últimos datos recogidos. De estos, el 87% de ellos fue por posesión. Ahora, el 39% de los encuestados asegura haber probado la marihuana, "algo que sin duda ha influido en los resultados del estudio", señala la consultora en su informe. La legalización de la marihuana es un debate que lleva 44 años en la sociedad estadounidense, pero que ha sufrido una aceleración desde comienzos del nuevo milenio, un cambio que ha pasado de la total prohibición a finales de la década de los sesenta a una aceptación "provocada por los cambios sociales que han hecho que ésta aumente considerablemente", agrega el informe.

xxx

1) link to main page 2) put in drugs Bill Montgomery is a liar who cant be trusted!!! http://www.teleguiaenespanol.com/954/index.htm Pide procurador denunciar delitos La fiscalía del Condado Maricopa lanzó una campaña de anuncios públicos en radio y televisión para urgir a los residentes a "salir de las sombras y reportar crímenes". Los anuncios en inglés y español serán difundidos localmente y en los canales de cable entre los próximos doce y dieciocho meses. "Informar sobre la delincuencia es responsabilidad de todos y un requisito esencial en nuestros esfuerzos para mejorar la seguridad pública y lograr la justicia para las víctimas", declaró el fiscal del Condado Maricopa, Bill Montgomery. "Uno de los puntos que queremos llevar a casa con estos avisos es que las víctimas y testigos no deben temer a una investigación sobre su estatus migratorio", aclaró. Según datos del Departamento de Seguridad Pública de Arizona, la tasa de delitos violentos en el Condado de Maricopa cayó un 2.3 por ciento en 2012 respecto al año anterior, mientras que los delitos contra la propiedad disminuyeron más de un 14 por ciento. Los analistas citan varios posibles factores detrás de estos descensos, incluyendo mejoras al trabajo policial, condenas penales eficaces, los programas de prevención del delito y los cambios demográficos.

xxx

send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI TESTS send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI BREATHALIZIER TESTS INCLUDE A COPY of 9/28 or 9/23 college time include copy of republic article where required DUI test was declared unconstitutional send out one copy every day for a week send out one copy every week for two months send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI TESTS send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI BREATHALIZIER TESTS INCLUDE A COPY of 9/28 or 9/23 college time include copy of republic article where required DUI test was declared unconstitutional send out one copy every day for a week send out one copy every week for two months send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI TESTS send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI BREATHALIZIER TESTS INCLUDE A COPY of 9/28 or 9/23 college time include copy of republic article where required DUI test was declared unconstitutional send out one copy every day for a week send out one copy every week for two months send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI TESTS send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI BREATHALIZIER TESTS INCLUDE A COPY of 9/28 or 9/23 college time include copy of republic article where required DUI test was declared unconstitutional send out one copy every day for a week send out one copy every week for two months send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI TESTS send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI BREATHALIZIER TESTS INCLUDE A COPY of 9/28 or 9/23 college time include copy of republic article where required DUI test was declared unconstitutional send out one copy every day for a week send out one copy every week for two months send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI TESTS send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI BREATHALIZIER TESTS INCLUDE A COPY of 9/28 or 9/23 college time include copy of republic article where required DUI test was declared unconstitutional send out one copy every day for a week send out one copy every week for two months send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI TESTS send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI BREATHALIZIER TESTS INCLUDE A COPY of 9/28 or 9/23 college time include copy of republic article where required DUI test was declared unconstitutional send out one copy every day for a week send out one copy every week for two months send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI TESTS send out email saying you can REFUSE DUI BREATHALIZIER TESTS INCLUDE A COPY of 9/28 or 9/23 college time include copy of republic article where required DUI test was declared unconstitutional send out one copy every day for a week send out one copy every week for two months

xxx

Steve Benson - Gun Grabber

Non Sequitur - Danae & Jeffery get Pinged by NSA thugs????

Previous articles on the brave police officers who risk their lives to protect us.

More articles on the brave police officers who risk their lives to protect us..