Homeless in Arizona

Scottsdale creates a jobs program for cops

"The ordinance requires establishments have at least one security worker per 50 patrons ... requires establishments with ... felony public-safety incidents ... to hire at least two off-duty peace officers [police officers]."

Scottsdale adopts new security rules for bars

By Edward Gately The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:38 AM

The Scottsdale City Council on Tuesday approved a far-reaching public-safety ordinance prompted by two stabbings at a downtown nightclub

The ordinance will affect between 100 and 200 bars, restaurants and other businesses citywide. It requires establishments to file new public-safety plans, includes minimum standards for security personnel and requires those businesses with felony incidents to hire off-duty peace officers.

If any establishment is found in repeated violation of the ordinance, it could be shut down.

The council approved the ordinance 5-2, with councilmen Bob Littlefield and Guy Phillips voting no.

The ordinance was the result of Mayor Jim Lane, other city officials and downtown bar owners coming together to examine the issue of safety in the aftermath of the January fatal stabbing of Tyrice Thompson outside Martini Ranch, 7295 E. Stetson Drive, in the downtown entertainment district. He was a bouncer there.

A second stabbing occurred at Martini Ranch in June.

Lane said the ordinance resulted from "a great deal of conversation" and city officials were careful not to be "overbearing" on the business community. He also said it was important for the city not to create a "police state" and sacrifice the city's fun environment for tourists.

Councilman Dennis Robbins said the ordinance "adds a lot of value to the community, while Councilwoman Virginia Korte said it's an important first step and she would like to see the council consider additional public-safety steps for the entertainment district.

Littlefield said he wanted the ordinance to have "more teeth." Phillips said the city hasn't made use of other resources at its disposal, such as noise meters and conditional-use permits, to crack down on problem bars in the entertainment district, and that the ordinance seems like a "paper tiger."

The ordinance unfairly punishes establishments across the city because of problems with bars in one area of the city, Phillips said.

"Why should I have to go out of business because of something someone else did?" he said.

The ordinance requires establishments have at least one security worker per 50 patrons during peak hours for the first 500 patrons, and at least one additional security worker per 75 patrons beyond that.

It also requires establishments with two or more felony public-safety incidents within a one-week period, or three or more incidents within a month, to hire at least two off-duty peace officers to supplement security personnel during peak times for at least three months. The requirements are stricter for more serious felony offenses, such as use or threatened use of a deadly weapon, death or catastrophic injury.

The council narrowly approved a motion by Littlefield directing City Attorney Bruce Washburn to draft an amendment that gives the Scottsdale Police Department first right of refusal for establishments required to hire off-duty peace officers. Lane, Robbins and Vice Mayor Suzanne Klapp voted against the motion.

The council rejected other motions by Littlefield to: include misdemeanor offenses among public-safety incidents and extend the time limit for the occurrence of public-safety incidents to 30 days; and to double, or at least increase to the state limit, the fines included in the ordinance. A first violation of the ordinance carries a $500 fine, while the penalty for a second or subsequent violation within a year is a $1,000 fine.

The ordinance requires establishments to immediately report to the Scottsdale Police Department any act constituting a felony public-safety incident that occurs on the premises. The fine for false reporting is $1,000 for the first violation and $2,000 for a second or subsequent violation within a year.

"Prior to the ordinance there weren't any fines," Lane said. "If they don't report (a public safety incident) the fines are doubled. We're not trying to make it so onerous."

Littlefield, however, said the bar owners are making money "hand over fist" and that the fines aren't a real deterrent.

Community activist Nancy Cantor said it will be important for city officials to report back to the council periodically on the status of the ordinance to gauge its effectiveness.

Long Beach City Council votes to draft new medical marijuana law

Source

Long Beach City Council votes to draft new medical marijuana law

By Christine Mai-Duc

September 11, 2013, 8:26 p.m.

Long Beach city leaders have agreed to draft an ordinance that would allow and regulate medical marijuana collectives within the city, opening another chapter in the years-long saga over whether the city has the authority to control dispensaries.

In a unanimous vote, Long Beach City Council members directed the city attorney Tuesday to draft an ordinance that would once again allow a limited number of marijuana shops to operate within city limits.

The council debate came a day after a federal judge dealt a blow to a group seeking to overturn the city's medical marijuana ban through the ballot box.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled Monday that Long Beach officials were not required to place a medical marijuana initiative on the city's April ballot, even though the initiative had gathered enough signatures to qualify, because the petition's language had not requested consideration for a general election. She also rejected a request from proponents to force the city into a full count of more than 43,000 signatures.

City Council members had initially been expected to vote on a proposal to draft a medical marijuana initiative to be placed on the city's April ballot.

Instead, council members agreed to bypass an election and move forward with drafting a new zoning ordinance to regulate collectives, including caps on the number of dispensaries citywide and in each council districts, and restrictions that would confine them to areas zoned for industrial uses.

"Our city needs the same authority as other cities and states to regulate this substance in plain, public view," said Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal, one of the proposal's three sponsors. "Right now, I think we have an obligation to consider what 30,000 residents believe is a worthwhile ballot issue."

City Atty. Charles Parkin said his office would proceed with caution, considering Long Beach's complicated legal battles in trying to regulate marijuana dispensaries in the past.

The city's initial ordinance, introduced by Lowenthal and passed in 2009, created a lottery system for permits, and limited the number and location of storefront dispensaries.

Thirty-two dispensaries were selected in that lottery, but the process was halted when it was challenged in court. A state appeals court ultimately threw out the ordinance, saying the city's regulations conflicted with federal law.

In response, the City Council opted to use zoning regulations to ban all collectives of three people or more.

"This is fluid," Parkin said. He and other city officials believe that Long Beach, unlike other cities, is still bound by the appeals court ruling, which limits the officials' ability to regulate dispensaries. "I can't give them any guarantee that what they adopt will not be challenged or overturned by a court."

Parkin also said that by using local zoning laws to regulate dispensaries, the city may stand a better chance of surviving a legal challenge.

The city attorney's office will now work with Planning Commission staff to develop proposed regulations. Zoning ordinances must be approved by the city's Planning Commission before they can be considered by the City Council.

christine.maiduc@latimes.com

Judge asked to prove collection of phone records justified to stop terrorists

Judge asked U.S. in 2009 to prove collection of phone records was justified to stop terrorists

By Carol D. Leonnig, Published: September 11

A federal judge overseeing U.S. surveillance programs raised doubts in the spring of 2009 about whether the massive, secret collection of Americans’ daily phone calls was all that important to protecting the country from terrorists.

Newly declassified records show that four years before the American public would learn that the National Security Agency had created a vast database of all its phone calls, a conservative jurist with detailed knowledge of the program was far from convinced that it led to the identification of terrorist plots.

“The time has come for the government to describe to the Court how . . . the value of the program to the nation’s security justifies the continued collection and retention of massive quantities of U.S. person information,” U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton wrote in March 2009.

It is the same question that several members of Congress have been asking since the classified program was disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in leaks to The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

In early 2009, as a member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Walton raised questions about the program’s true utility. He had just learned that, over the three previous years, the NSA had scrutinized the records of Americans’ phone calls on a daily basis in violation of court orders to protect the privacy of people who were not the targets of investigations.

In a strongly worded opinion, Walton pointed out that, while the government repeatedly claimed the phone program was critical to its effort to spot terrorist activity, a submission from NSA Director Keith Alexander showed that it had helped launch only three preliminary national security investigations by the FBI.

“However, the mere commencement of a preliminary investigation, by itself, does not seem particularly significant,” Walton wrote. He added that it would be valuable if it could be shown that the probes uncovered previously unknown terrorists plotting on U.S. soil.

Walton noted that he had to rely on the government claims that the record collection was critical to national security and being used legally. But because of a pattern of misstatements and chronic violations, the court “no longer has such confidence,” he wrote.

After Snowden disclosed the collection of Americans’ phone records, among other surveillance programs, government officials have waged a public campaign to stress that they are essential to counter­terrorism efforts.

In mid-June, Alexander said domestic phone data and another program focused on the surveillance of foreign communications had together helped foil more than 50 terrorist plots.

Critics of the domestic program immediately rebutted Alexander, saying the collection of Americans’ phone records, unlike the surveillance of foreigners overseas, had no such impact. With the release of more documents, U.S. intelligence officials testified before Congress in July that the program focused on Americans provided useful assistance in 12 cases but was pivotal in identifying one.

The case that the NSA points to as its primary example of the phone program’s usefulness is that of Basaaly Moalin, a San Diego cabdriver from Somalia who sent $8,500 to a terrorist group in his home country. Skeptics in Congress say the government could have easily sought court permission for Moalin’s phone records without vacuuming up tens of million of U.S. phone records.

Two key critics of the program, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), have pushed for the Obama administration to end the collection of Americans’ records.

The senators have pointed to the government’s earlier insistence that a parallel program that allowed the collection of Internet data from Americans was also a vital safeguard.

As with the phone program, top intelligence community officials privately asserted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and congressional intelligence committees that data on Internet use was key to tracing terrorists and stopping plots in real time. Wyden and Udall, who were receiving those private briefings, demanded that the government show proof.

Instead, the Obama administration shuttered the Internet program in 2011. Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. publicly confirmed to Congress in a July 27 letter that the government “terminated this collection program in 2011 for operational and resource reasons.”

A 2009 intelligence agency document indicated that the program was not that helpful in detecting terrorists, in part because it was so expansive: “Although the programs collect a large amount of information, the vast majority of that information is never reviewed by anyone in the government, because the information is not responsive to the limited queries that are authorized for intelligence purposes.”

An NSA spokesman declined to comment for this article.

Wyden said he sees no evidence that the collection of Americans’ phone data provided critical information that the government could not have gotten in other ways and said he is disturbed by the privacy violations disclosed Tuesday.

“Considering its lack of value and the significant privacy violations that are inherent in the bulk collection program, I can’t find any reason why this program should continue to exist at all,” he said.

Julie Tate and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

Zuckerberg says U.S. 'blew it' on NSA spying

Zuckerberg says U.S. 'blew it' on NSA spying

By Brandon Bailey

bbailey@mercurynews.com

Posted: 09/11/2013 05:47:38 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg lashed out at the U.S. government Wednesday, saying that authorities have hurt Silicon Valley companies by doing a poor job of explaining the online spying efforts of U.S. intelligence agencies.

"Frankly I think the government blew it," Zuckerberg complained during an onstage interview at the tech industry conference known as Disrupt, a weeklong event where Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Marissa Mayer and other prominent tech executives also spoke out publicly and expressed frustration in person, for the first time, since a series of news leaks revealed the government's controversial surveillance programs.

"It's our government's job to protect all of us and also protect our freedoms and protect the economy, and companies," Zuckerberg told interviewer Michael Arrington, "and I think they did a bad job of balancing those things."

He went on to say: "They blew it on communicating the balance of what they were going for."

Facebook and other Internet companies have been under intense pressure in recent months after a series of news reports that suggest U.S. intelligence agencies have gained access to the online activities and communications involving users of Facebook and other popular services. Some of those reports have suggested that unnamed companies have cooperated with the U.S. efforts, although the details are unclear.

Analysts say those reports could hurt the companies financially, especially overseas, if consumers and business customers believe their sensitive information isn't safe from government prying.

Along with Google (GOOG), Yahoo and other tech giants, Facebook has insisted it doesn't give the government free rein to tap into its servers. But the companies also say they comply with legal requests to turn over user information. And they have chafed at national security rules that prohibit them from discussing the details of their actions.

Mayer, who was interviewed on stage shortly before Zuckerberg, said Wednesday that she was proud of her company for waging an early, unsuccessful court battle against government requests for Internet user data, a fight that predated her time at Yahoo.

But she said of those battles, "When you lose and you don't comply, it's treason."

Mayer also indicated sympathy for the government's efforts to defend against terrorism -- saying she agreed with earlier comments by PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, who said onstage this week that government cryptographers and other intelligence workers should not be reviled and deserve respect for trying to keep the country safe.

Arrington had warned tech executives that he planned to ask them about government spying efforts during this year's Disrupt conference, which is organized by the blog TechCrunch. His onstage interviews during the conference are always closely watched industry events.

Zuckerberg, who was clearly prepared for the question, noted that Facebook joined Google, Yahoo and Microsoft in filing lawsuits this week that seek permission to disclose the number and nature of the user data requests they receive from U.S. intelligence agencies.

The Facebook CEO said the numbers would show that the social network has only provided information about a tiny number of the social network's 1.1 billion users worldwide. But he complained that the government has not explained its efforts clearly.

It didn't help the interests of U.S. companies in overseas markets, Zuckerberg added, when the government said, "Don't worry, we're not spying on Americans." He added sarcastically, "Oh wonderful. That's really helpful" for companies that do business around the world. "I think that was really bad."

Most of Zuckerberg's remarks, however, focused on Facebook's progress over the past year. His appearance was a triumphant milestone of sorts for the 29-year-old CEO, who chose the same conference last year to break a lengthy public silence after the social network's lackluster stock market debut.

At the time of his 2012 appearance, Facebook's stock was floundering at nearly half the company's initial public offering price of $38, as critics questioned whether Facebook could adapt to the mobile Internet trend. Zuckerberg was forced to concede then that Facebook's stock performance had been "disappointing," but he vowed the company's nascent mobile business "will make a lot of money."

In the year since, Zuckerberg has followed through on that prediction, while presiding over a resurgence in Facebook's stock. After developing new kinds of advertisements to show within each user's stream of posts and updates from friends, the company is expected to see more than $2.5 billion in mobile ad sales for 2013, according to research firm eMarketer.

Facebook's stock hit an all-time high of $45.09 on Monday, before closing at $45.04.

Zuckerberg acknowledged Wednesday that he worried about the company's initial public offering last year, especially after the stock price plunged. He said he feared that talented employees would become demoralized and leave the company.

They didn't, he said, adding that the experience "has made our company a lot stronger."

Facebook's success has also enabled Zuckerberg to increasingly flex his wealth and clout on public issues: He's launched a political advocacy group to campaign for new immigration laws and announced a campaign with mobile tech firms to expand Internet access in undeveloped countries. He reportedly is scheduled to meet next week with congressional Republican leaders in Washington, D.C.

Contact Brandon Bailey at 408-920-5022; follow him at Twitter.com/BrandonBailey.

Saving lazy Libertarians

Robert Robb demonizes Libertarians by calling them "Lazy Libertarians"

First the Libertarians didn't pass the existing laws which set the requirements for signatures. That was done years ago by the Democrats and the Republicans. Just like the latest law which makes it almost impossible for Libertarians and Greens to run for office was passed by the Republicans.

Second the signature requirements don't let you get in the GENERAL election. They are to allow you to enter YOUR parties PRIMARY election. Making a Libertarian get 5,000+ signatures to get on the Libertarian Party primary and run for governor doesn't make any sense where there are only something like 25,000 registered Libertarian voters in Arizona.

And remember that unlike the Republicans and Democrats only LIBERTARIANS can vote in the LIBERTARIAN primary elections.

Third, the Libertarians have said for years that it is time to end the taxpayer financed primary elections and let the political parties pay for their primary elections. Of course Robert Robb didn't mention that because it wouldn't help his rant to demonize the Libertarian Party. Now if that was true then it should be the PARTIES, not the STATE that decides who can run in their primary election.

Source

Posted on September 12, 2013 4:25 pm by Robert Robb

Saving lazy Libertarians

Opponents of the Legislature’s omnibus election law, House Bill 2305, appear to have enough signatures to suspend its provisions and put it on the 2014 ballot.

That should be enormous relief to lazy Libertarians planning to run for office in 2014. Otherwise, it’s a lot of sound and fury over not much. The actual provisions of HB 2305 hardly warrant the outrage being expressed.

Let’s start with the lazy Libertarian provision and begin by conceding the cynical motivation of legislative Republicans in enacting it. Republicans believe that Libertarians can cost them close elections and want to make it more difficult for Libertarians to get on the ballot.

Currently, it is ridiculously easy for small-party candidates to get on the ballot because the signature requirement is expressed as a percentage of party registration. Instead, Republicans would require all candidates to meet the same signature requirement based on total voter registration.

The new requirements aren’t that daunting. To qualify for statewide office would take around 5,400 signatures. For Congress, 1,200. For the Legislature, 360. Since Libertarian and Green Party candidates can get signatures from independents, that’s not a killer obstacle for a candidate who’s in it for more than giggles.

And despite the cynical motivation, there’s sense in making the signature requirement the same for all candidates irrespective of party. Why should candidates from parties with less support, as measured by voters willing to affiliate with them, have easier ballot access than candidates from parties with more support?

Opponents are also exercised by HB 2305’s provision requiring that initiative and recall petition drives strictly comply with all constitutional and statutory requirements. The courts already require strict compliance for efforts to refer a legislative act to a vote. But they have allowed initiatives to just substantially comply.

This is entirely a judge-invented distinction. The Arizona Constitution treats initiatives and referendums exactly the same. Moreover, the substantial compliance standard gives judges too much power to decide which measures get to the ballot and which do not. Why should a judge get to decide which legal requirements are important and which are not, or what constitutes “close enough” to complying?

If modern-day populists think Arizona’s requirements for direct democracy are too tough, the answer is to change them, not to empower judges to ignore them.

The heart of the outrage, however, is over two provisions dealing with early ballots. The first would clean up the permanent early ballot list by sensibly assuming that if someone doesn’t vote by early ballot in four consecutive elections, that person isn’t really an early voter. Those not on the permanent list can still vote in person, or request an early ballot for any particular election, or sign up for the permanent list again at any time.

Before anyone’s name was removed from the list, the voter would receive a notice and could remain on the list simply by mailing back a postcard. And that somehow constitutes voter suppression.

The second provision would prohibit organized drives to collect early ballots and delivery them to the polls. People could ask a relative, friend or neighbor to drop off their ballot. But political groups couldn’t do it on a broad or systematic basis.

It seems that certain Democratic and Latino political activists are aspiring ward heelers. They want to sign people up for early ballots and then collect and deliver their ballots.

Early ballots, however, are meant to be mailed. Delivering them by hand in bulk quantities on or near Election Day exacerbates the delay in counting the vote that caused such heartburn last election.

Moreover, having hundreds or thousands of ballots outside the custody of either the voter or election officials is a disturbing security breach. In the last election, there were credible reports of people going door to door falsely claiming to be election officials collecting early ballots.

While the outrage over HB 2305 is grossly overdone, I suppose I shouldn’t complain. There are worse liberal causes than rescuing lazy Libertarians.

(column for 9.13.13)

New York claims Muslim surveillance warranted

New York claims Muslim surveillance warranted

Associated Press Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:05 PM

NEW YORK — The New York Police Department had legitimate reasons to put specific mosques and Muslim worshippers under surveillance as part of its counterterrorism efforts, a city lawyer said Thursday at the first court date in a civil rights lawsuit accusing the NYPD of religious profiling.

Peter Farrell of the city Law Department argued that before the case goes forward, the city should be allowed to present evidence specific to the six plaintiffs that he said would prove police were acting with legitimate law enforcement purposes. If the judge agrees, “then this case is over,” he said.

An American Civil Liberties Union attorney, Hina Shamsi, countered that her clients already had sufficient legal standing to sue the city and that the NYPD should be ordered to begin turning over sensitive reports and documents detailing the alleged spying on Muslims.

U.S. Magistrate Joan Azrack said she would rule at a later date.

The suit was filed in June following a series of Associated Press reports, detailing the NYPD’s Muslim surveillance programs. It alleges that the programs undermined free worship by innocent people and asked the court to halt the surveillance.

In a letter filed on Tuesday, city lawyers outlined evidence they say shows that a security team at a mosque named as a plaintiff in the suit sponsored survival training outings and referred to team members as “jihad warriors.” Another plaintiff mosque was frequented by a man convicted earlier this year of lying to the FBI about plans to team up with the Taliban or al-Qaida, the letter said.

An NYPD investigation of a third plaintiff, college student Asad Dandia, “is based on information that he has made statements and conducted activities in support of violent jihad,” the letter said. Dandia also “attempted to organize a trip to Pakistan in 2011 to train and fight alongside extremist elements there,” it added.

An NYPD informant acknowledged last year in an interview with the AP that he had spied on Dandia and others.

The NYPD didn’t target particular mosques “simply because the attendees were Muslim,” the letter said. “Rather, the NYPD followed leads suggesting that certain individuals in certain mosques may be engaging in criminal and possibly terrorist activity.”

In response, the ACLU accused the city of vilifying its clients “through inflammatory and insinuation and innuendo, suggesting (they) are worthy of criminal investigation on the basis of First Amendment-protected speech, activities or attenuated — and unwitting — association alone.”

It added: “This strategy is a deliberate distraction at best. At worst, it verges on the very type of discriminatory and meritless profiling at the heart of this case.”

Last month, the AP reported that confidential documents show that the NYPD has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorist organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on worshippers. Police officials have insisted that the department only acts on legitimate leads about terror threats.

Milke was framed by Detective Armando Saldate

Milke case: Detective who claimed confession to plead 5th

Sadly this case is a lot like the case of NYPD Detective Louis Scarcella who is accused of framing up to 50 people for murder. Detective Louis Scarcella is accused of making up confessions out of thin air, just like Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate is accused of.

NYPD Detective Louis Scarcella is also accused of beating up people to get false confession. And like Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate Louis Scarcella is also accused of giving criminals drugs, special favors and light jail sentences to get them to make up lies he used to frame people for murder.

Source

Milke case: Detective who claimed confession to plead 5th

By Michael Kiefer The Arizona Republic | azcentral.com Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:33 PM

An attorney representing Armando Saldate, the former Phoenix Police detective who claimed that accused child killer Debra Milke confessed to him nearly 24 years ago, has advised Saldate to take the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify.

Without Armando Saldate's testimony, it's doubtful that the confession could come in to Milke's retrial, effectively destroying the prosecution's case.

The alleged confession was at the bottom of Milke's murder conviction and death sentence being overturned in March by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Milke's 1990 conviction was based largely on a confession that Saldate said Milke made to him about taking part in planning the death of her four-year-old son, Christopher.

Milke denied ever making the confession and Saldate did not tape record it. During her original trial, Milke's defense attorney was not given access to Saldate's tawdry personnel record, detailing instances in which he had been caught lying and even trying to extort sex in exchange for not writing a traffic ticket. The 9th Circuit ruled that Milke be retried or released, and if she were retried, the confession could only come in if Saldate's record was admitted, too.

But the 9th Circuit opinion also put pressure on Saldate: the judges wrote that if Saldate admits to having lied in other cases, he would be discredited, and if he stuck to his original stories, he would risk committing perjury.

"What's in it for him?" Debus asked during a conversation today with The Arizona Republic.

Debus was appointed to represent Saldate in a hearing September 23 over whether the confession should be suppressed.

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office wants to use the confession, and without it, may be hard pressed to continue the case. County Attorney Bill Montgomery has repeatedly criticized the 9th Circuit ruling for what he calls misrepresentations. [How dare those b*stards in the 9th Circuit Court throw out the case just because a crooked cop committed perjury]

Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz has said that the opinion will be the law of the case. Last week, Mroz granted bail to Milke over the objections of the County Attorney's Office.

There is a hearing on unspecified matters in the Milke case this afternoon at 3:30.

Judge may toss disputed Milke confession

Debra Milke was framed by Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate????

Of course the bottom line is that your chance of getting a fair trial is about as high as going to Las Vegas and winning a million dollars.

Sadly the criminal justice system, or criminal injustice system as the former Arizona ACLU Director Eleanor Eisenberg calls it is corrupt to the core.

The problem isn't unique to Debra Milke. In the retrial of the Buddhist temple murder case it also seems that Johnathan Doody, his buddy Alessandro ‘Alex’ Garcia, along with the Tucson four Mike McGraw, Leo Bruce, Mark Nunez, and Dante Parker were also framed by the Maricopa County Sheriff for murder.

The Tucson Four were released after it was discovered that their confessions had been forced. They all received big bucks from Maricopa County for false arrest.

I suspect that the Maricopa County Sheriff also violated the rights of Alessandro ‘Alex’ Garcia and got a false confession out of him. But that's not a court issue now.

And of course Johnathan Doody is currently having a second trial, just like Debra Milke because the police probably got a false confession out of him.

One other interesting case along these lines is in New York City and is about Detective Louis Scarcella of the New York Police Department. It is suspect that he has framed as many as 50 people doing the same thing that Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate did.

NYPD Detective Louis Scarcella is accused of making confessions up out of thin air. Beating up people to get confessions. Bribing criminals with drugs, special favors, and reduced sentences to make up lies to help him frame people for murder.

Source

Judge may toss disputed Milke confession

By Michael Kiefer and JJ Hensley The Arizona Republic | azcentral.com Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:33 PM

The prospects of reconvicting child-murder defendant Debra Milke appeared to dim Thursday, when the detective who took her disputed confession signaled that he would not testify in Milke’s new trial out of a fear of incriminating himself.

Larry Debus, an attorney representing former Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate, said he advised his client to invoke the Fifth Amendment when he is called to testify in the trial.

Milke’s 1990 conviction was based largely on a confession that Saldate said Milke made to him about taking part in planning the death of her 4-year-old son, Christopher. If Saldate doesn’t testify this time, the confession will not be allowed into the re-trial, the judge said.

“I’ve given him advice, he has to decide to take it,” Debus said in a brief court hearing Thursday. He indicated his client will refuse to testify.

Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz said Saldate will need to tell her in a hearing set for Sept. 23 that he plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

And if Saldate refuses to testify, prosecutors will face a decision about how the case moves forward, Mroz said.

“Then, I believe the ball will be in the state’s hand again to see whether they want to proceed with the hearing,” she said. “All I can say is, at this point, the confession doesn’t come in without him testifying.”

Milke, 49, who was released on a $500,000 secured bond last week, has already spent 23 years on Arizona’s death row for the December 1989 murder of her son. The child was told he was going to see Santa Claus at the mall, but instead, Milke’s roommate and would-be suitor, James Styers, and his friend Roger Scott, took the boy to the desert and shot him in the head.

Styers and Scott are still on death row.

But Milke’s conviction and sentence were overturned in March by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case was sent back to Maricopa County Superior Court with orders to retry Milke or set her free.

Milke’s attorney, Michael Kimerer, said after the 20-minute hearing that he was pleased to hear about Saldate but continues to question the motives of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.

“There’s really no case,” he said. “I’m wondering why they’re proceeding now.”

Mroz reaffirmed a hearing set for this month, at which time Saldate will need to appear and confirm for the judge that he intends to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination. The judge said that if she determines that Saldate does not have a right to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege and compels him to testify, the parties will then need to hold a hearing on the motion to suppress Milke’s confession.

Saldate’s decision will strongly influence how the case proceeds, Mroz said.

“If I don’t hear from (Saldate), the confession is out, and if the confession is out, the state needs to tell me if they want to proceed with trial,” she said. “There’s a lot of ifs right now.”

Milke denied ever making the confession, and Saldate did not tape-record it. During her original trial, Milke’s defense attorney was not given access to Saldate’s personnel record, detailing instances in which he had been caught lying and trying to extort sex in exchange for not writing a traffic ticket.

Deputy County Attorney Vince Imbordino said he plans to file a motion in the next few days that will detail the prosecution’s point of view on questions of Saldate’s truthfulness outlined in the ruling from the 9th Circuit that forced a retrial for Milke.

Without a thorough understanding of the cases the 9th Circuit cited in which Saldate was found to have lied or conducted illegal interrogations, Mroz cannot have a complete understanding of the detective’s attempt to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination, Imbordino said.

“With all due respect, I don’t see how you can be fully informed on (truthfulness) material and whether it would or wouldn’t present a concern on future criminal liability until you see what we have,” Imbordino told Mroz.

The 9th Circuit opinion also put pressure on Saldate; the judges wrote that if Saldate admits having lied in other cases, he will be discredited, and if he sticks to his original stories, he will risk committing perjury.

“What’s in it for him?” Debus asked during a conversation Thursday with The Arizona Republic.

Debus was appointed to represent Saldate over whether the confession should be suppressed.

The appellate court ruling also raised the possibility that Saldate could face federal charges. The panel asked the federal court clerk to forward a copy of the ruling to the U.S. Attorney’s Office “for possible investigation into whether Det. Saldate’s conduct, and that of his supervisors and other state and local officials, amounts to a pattern of violating the federally protected rights of Arizona residents.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona said Thursday that the office will not pursue charges against Saldate for the conduct outlined in the 9th Circuit’s opinion.

“This office conducted a preliminary review with regard to Mr. Saldate and, as a threshold matter, has concluded that any federal criminal prosecution would be barred by the applicable federal limitations periods,” said John Lopez, a spokesman for the office.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office wants to use the confession, and without it may be hard-pressed to continue the case. County Attorney Bill Montgomery has repeatedly criticized the 9th Circuit ruling for what he calls misrepresentations.

Mroz has said that the opinion will be the law of the case. Last week, Mroz granted bail to Milke over the objections of the County Attorney’s Office.

She declined during Thursday’s hearing to set a trial date.

Priest sentenced to 50 years for child porn

Despite the fact that I am making fun our our hypocritical religious leaders, I think putting people in prison for the victimless crime of looking at dirty pictures is also wrong.

Even if this guy is a pervert, he doesn't deserve to spend the rest of his life in prison for looking at dirty pictures.

Source

Mo. priest sentenced to 50 years for child porn

Associated Press Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:50 PM

KANSAS CITY, Missouri — A priest whose child pornography case led to a criminal conviction against a Roman Catholic bishop was sentenced Thursday to 50 years in federal prison.

Prosecutors had asked that the Rev. Shawn Ratigan be sentenced to 10 years in prison for each of five young victims after he pleaded guilty in August 2012 to five counts of producing and trying to produce child porn.

Ratigan, 47, was charged in May 2011 after police received a flash drive from his computer containing hundreds of images of children, most of them clothed, with the focus on their crotch areas.

Bishop Robert Finn, head of the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, was convicted last September of one misdemeanor count of failing to report suspected child abuse to the state.

Prosecutors said the diocese learned about the photos on Ratigan’s computer on Dec. 16, 2010, after a technician found them on the priest’s laptop and alerted church officials. A day after the images were found, Ratigan missed Sunday Mass and was found unconscious in his garage with his motorcycle running and a suicide note nearby.

Instead of reporting Ratigan or the photos to law enforcement, as required by state law, Finn waited until the priest was released from the hospital and sent him out of state for psychiatric counseling.

When Ratigan returned to Missouri, Finn ordered him to stay at the Sisters of St. Francis of the Holy Eucharist, a facility where he could say Mass for the sisters.

The diocese turned the photos over to police in May 2011 after receiving reports that Ratigan had violated Finn’s order to avoid contact with children.

Detective ordered to hack iPad of officer's wife

Source

Lawsuit: Will Co. detective ordered to hack iPad of officer's wife

By Andy Grimm Tribune reporter

9:37 a.m. CDT, September 13, 2013

A former Will County sheriff's detective claims a top deputy ordered him to hack the deputy's wife's iPad to look for evidence that she was cheating and then demoted the detective when he complained about it to a supervisor.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Will County, Josh Fazio says Deputy Chief Ken Kaupas in 2012 told him to crack the pass code on Kaupas' wife's computer to investigate "whether she was cheating on (Kaupas)." When Fazio asked his superior, Sgt. Dan Troike, about it, Troike told him to do as he was asked.

"I can't imagine in what universe that is legitimate police work," said Michael Booher, Fazio's attorney.

Fazio is suing Kaupas and Will County.

Ken Kaupas has announced he is running for sheriff in 2014, hoping to succeed his cousin, Paul Kaupas, who is retiring. Ken Kaupas, who often acts as spokesman for the sheriff's department, declined comment on the lawsuit Thursday.

Paul Kaupas said the suit was filed to damage his cousin politically.

"Anybody can say anything they want in a lawsuit and the newspaper, and it will go into print," Paul Kaupas said. "The knowledge I have of the case, in my opinion, I know this is being done for political purposes. None of the accusations are true."

Fazio also claims in the lawsuit that Lt. Jeff McKenzie in 2010 ordered Fazio to send him a pornographic DVD while McKenzie was attending the FBI academy in Virginia "because (McKenzie) apparently had no Internet there."

When Fazio complained about both the DVD and iPad requests two years later, he claims he was chewed out by Ken Kaupas and McKenzie, then demoted to patrol duty, despite receiving numerous commendations for his work during seven years as computer forensics expert for the department.

Fazio resigned rather than take the demotion and is now working in the private sector, Booher said. Booher said he had contacted the department about resolving Fazio's complaint before filing the lawsuit, which seeks damages in excess of $50,000.

"Will County had ample time to resolve this, but they didn't respond to us," the attorney said.

The suit claims that Fazio met with Paul Kaupas before resigning and that Kaupas told Fazio he "should have just kept his mouth shut and did what he was told."

In a meeting before he was demoted, Fazio contends, Ken Kaupas told him that Fazio "broke his trust" by complaining to Troike about the iPad and that McKenzie said the complaint about the DVD could "ruin (McKenzie's) career."

Fazio also claims in the lawsuit that Ken Kaupas told other police and government officials that Fazio was not trustworthy, "a thief, a fake, and could not do his job."

agrimm@tribune.com

Twitter @agrimm34

Senate panel OKs measure defining a journalist

Only journalists have First Amendment rights????

I suspect in the long run the law if passed will be used as a lame excuse to say that ONLY journalist have First Amendment rights. And to downgrade the First Amendment rights of the rest of us, by saying that ONLY journalists have full blown First Amendment rights.

Source

Senate panel OKs measure defining a journalist

Associated Press Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:09 PM

WASHINGTON — A Senate panel on Thursday approved legislation designed to protect reporters and the news media from having to reveal their confidential sources after narrowing the definition of a journalist while establishing which formats — traditional and online — provide news to people worldwide.

On a 13-5 vote, the Judiciary Committee cleared the way for the full Senate to consider the measure. The vote came just months after the disclosure that the Justice Department had secretly subpoenaed almost two months’ worth of telephone records for 21 phone lines used by reporters and editors for The Associated Press and secretly used a search warrant to obtain some emails of a Fox News journalist.

The Justice Department took the actions in looking into leaks of classified information to the news organizations. The AP received no advance warning of the subpoena.

“One of the things that protect democracy is the free flow of information,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who mentioned his own connection to journalism. Leahy’s parents, Alba and Howard, published a weekly newspaper before selling it and starting a printing business.

Criticism of the collection of the phone records and other material without any notice to the news organizations prompted President Barack Obama to order Attorney General Eric Holder to review the department’s policy. The bill would incorporate many of the changes proposed by Holder in July, including giving advance notice to the news media of a subpoena.

In a broadside against the Obama administration, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the legislation was merely a diversion by the White House. It was introduced three days after word emerged about the secret subpoenas of the AP records.

“A new law is not what we need,” Cornyn said. “We find ourselves here because of the abuses of the attorney general.”

A point of dispute was the definition of a journalist.

The original bill would have extended protections to a “covered person” who investigates events and obtains material to disseminate news and information to the public. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief proponent of the medial shield legislation, worked with Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., as well as representatives from news organizations, on a compromise.

The protections would apply to “covered journalist,” defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have to have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.

It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a “covered journalist,” who would be granted the privileges of the law.

The compromise also says that information is only privileged if it is disseminated by a news medium, described as “newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, news agency, news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program, magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic or other format; or thorough television or radio broadcast . or motion picture for public showing.”

While the definition covers traditional and online media, it draws the line at posts on Twitter, blogs or social media from non-journalists.

The overall bill would protect reporters and news media organizations from being required to reveal the identities of confidential sources, but it does not grant an absolute privilege to journalists.

“It’s Kevlar, not kryptonite,” Schumer said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., complained that the definition of a journalist was too broad. Pushing back, Feinstein said the intent was to set up a test to determine a bona fide journalist.

“I think journalism has a certain tradecraft. It’s a profession. I recognize that everyone can think they’re a journalist,” Feinstein said.

In a moment of levity at the two-hour plus hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, remarked that the legislation “will not shield me when I use Twitter.”

Responded Leahy, “Nothing shields us from our mistakes, Chuck.”

The panel approved the compromise on a 13-5 vote.

Holder’s revised guidelines called for the government to give advance notice to the news media about subpoena requests for reporters’ phone records unless the attorney general determines such notice would pose a clear and substantial threat to the investigation. Search warrants for a reporter’s email would apply only when the individual is the focus of a criminal investigation for conduct not connected to ordinary newsgathering.

The bill makes clear that before the government asks a news organization to divulge sources, it first must go to a judge, who would supervise any subpoenas or court orders for information. Such orders would be limited, if possible, “in purpose, subject matter and period of time covered so as to avoid compelling disclosure of peripheral, nonessential or speculative information.”

Holder’s revised guidelines do not call for a judge to be involved before the government asks a news organization to divulge sources. However, the guidelines call for a new standing News Media Review Committee to advise the attorney general on such requests.

Reporters must be notified within 45 days of a request, a period that could be extended another 45 days but no more

In the AP story that triggered one of the leak probes, the news organization reported that U.S. intelligence had learned that al-Qaida’s Yemen branch hoped to launch a spectacular attack using a new, nearly undetectable bomb aboard a U.S.-bound airliner around the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death.

In the Fox News story, reporter James Rosen reported that U.S. intelligence officials had warned Obama and senior U.S. officials that North Korea would respond to a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning nuclear tests with another nuclear test.

NSA secretly kept encryption standards weak

The rumor then was that the government wanted to be able to break any data easily that was encrypted with the DES Standard.

That was probably 20 to 30 years ago and the DES Standard was mostly used by large businesses in mainframe to mainframe computer transactions. Personal computers were just getting started and the Internet didn't exist.

Source

NSA secretly kept encryption standards weak

Records reveal agency's dual role as locksmith and lock-picker

Sep. 11, 2013

WASHINGTON — Years ago when computer users were dialing up the Internet, civilian government scientists already expressed concerns about the National Security Agency’s role in developing global communication standards, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

The records mirror new disclosures, based on classified files 24 years later, that the NSA sought to deliberately weaken Internet encryption in its effort to gather and analyze digital intelligence.

This week, the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology sought to shore up confidence in the important behind-the-scenes role it plays in setting standards that are used by consumers to make purchases online, access their bank accounts, digitally sign legal documents or file their income taxes electronically. The agency said it “would not deliberately weaken a cryptographic standard” and would continue to work with experts “to create the strongest possible encryption standards for the U.S. government and industry at large.”

It also noted that, under federal law, it was required to consult with the NSA on its computer standards.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said that “it should hardly be surprising that our intelligence agencies seek ways to counteract our adversaries’ use of encryption.”

That office criticized recent disclosures — based on classified records revealed by NSA leaker Edward Snowden — that the NSA for years has used computing power, legal instruments and its role as adviser to NIST to undermine encryption technologies that protect consumers but also could make digital surveillance more difficult for the U.S. government.

NSA dominated encryption

Historical NIST records released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act more than two decades ago show that tensions over security software arose in the early 1990s between the NSA and other scientists in the government who had been working together since 1989 to develop the Digital Signature Standard, a way to electronically sign documents and guarantee their authenticity. That became a federal processing standard by 1994 and was most recently updated in July.

“It’s increasingly evident that it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the concerns and requirements of NSA, NIST and the general public using this approach,” the government experts, who included NSA representatives, wrote in a January 1990 memorandum.

Then, in 1992, Stanford University Professor Martin Hellman wrote in an industry journal that the then-proposed standard, eventually embraced by NIST and the NSA, had such serious weaknesses that it undermined NIST’s credibility among civilian cryptography experts.

Additionally, the NSA wanted details of its decisions kept secret. Even the NSA’s reasoning for selecting an algorithm was closely held, stamped “classified” and accessible only to officials with a top secret security clearance. The documents the AP reviewed had been turned over to David Sobel, now senior counsel to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group.

“This was really the first opportunity the public had to learn of the dominant role that the NSA played in the realm of civilian cryptography and security,” Sobel told the AP.

The recent disclosures by Snowden, he said, “demonstrate that dynamic has not changed over the past 20 years — and, if anything, NSA might have become more dominant since those original disclosures were made.”

On one hand, the NSA is responsible for being the Internet’s chief digital locksmith, helping the U.S. government devise standards that have for years protected e-commerce, sensitive documents and citizens’ privacy. On the other, the agency is charged with being cyberspace’s chief electronic lock-picker, capable of stealing the world’s most closely guarded secrets.

“If you wanted to put it in exaggerated terms, the fox is in charge of henhouse,” said Richard Aldrich, whose study of Britain’s signals intelligence agency GCHQ details how it and the NSA worked together to weaken the quality of the encryption used by international diplomats in the 1960s, ’70s and beyond.

But even if the NSA’s campaign to loosen the world’s digital locks has a long pedigree, experts say the fact that encryption has moved out of embassy cypher rooms and into the mainstream means there’s much more at stake. Cryptographers say that the weaknesses left by the NSA might one day be used by America’s rivals in Moscow or Beijing — or even savvy cybercriminals, if the loopholes aren’t being used already.

“What one person can discover, another person can discover. In the end, somebody will figure it out,” said Ben Laurie, a core developer behind OpenSSL, a protocol that helps protect a big chunk of the world’s Internet users from fraudulent websites, credit-card scams and identity theft. “If you deliberately weaken stuff, it will come back to bite you.”

---

BACK DOORS

Cryptographers generally accept that the National Security Agency devotes an enormous amount of time and money cracking enemies’ and others’ codes.

• But the tactics exposed in the newly revealed classified documents — deliberately weakening or installing hidden “back doors” in widely-used encryption protocols — have distressed academics and practitioners alike.

• “We’re both surprised and disappointed in the way that they’re doing it,” said Matthew Green, a professor of cryptography at Johns Hopkins University.

Montgomery to Saldate - Please help us frame Debra Milke

In this article it sure sounds like Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery is sending a message to crooked Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate saying he won't be charged with perjury if he helps Bill Montgomery frame Debra Milke for murder.

With prosecutors like Bill Montgomery and cops like Detective Armando Saldate it's almost guaranteed an innocent person won't get a fair trial.

I am not sure on this but I think according to the rules of the court Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery is required to give Debra Milke any evidence that could help her prove her innocent. And that certainly would include evidence that Phoenix Detective Armando Saldate seems to be a lying scum back cop based on things he has done in the past.

An interesting case that is related to this is Brooklyn, New York where New York City Police Detective Louis Scarcella is suspected of framing around 50 people for murder. The similarities are amazing.

NYPD Detective Louis Scarcella is accused of making up imaginary confessions up out of thin air, just like Phoenix Detective Armando Saldate.

NYPD Detective Louis Scarcella is accused of giving criminal snitches drugs, money, reduced sentences and special favors in exchange for them making up imaginary evidence to convict people he was investigating of murder. Just like Phoenix Detective Armando Saldate.

And NYPD Detective Louis Scarcella is accused of beating people us to get confessions out of them. Just like Phoenix Detective Armando Saldate.

This case also has a lot of simularities to the Phoenix area Buddhist Temple murders in which four kids from Tucson were framed for the murders in the Buddhist Temple.

Source

Montgomery: Milke case detective being intimidated

By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:39 PM

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery delivered a message on Friday to the detective who allegedly received the disputed confession at the heart of the Debra Milke murder case: You have no reason to avoid testifying because you fear prosecution.

A lawyer for former Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate told a trial judge on Thursday that he had recommended Saldate take advantage of his constitutional protection against self-incrimination if he is called to the witness stand in Milke’s retrial, a move that would bar her alleged confession from being considered in the case.

The confession was crucial to her conviction in the 1989 shooting death of her 4-year-old son, Christopher, which left two men on death row and sent Milke there for 22 years until her release last week.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out her conviction and death sentence earlier this year because the trial court refused to let her introduce evidence that could have discredited the confession. Prosecutors “remained unconstitutionally silent” about Saldate’s history of misconduct, including lying, the panel wrote.

And if Saldate doesn’t testify during Milke’s retrial, the confession will not be allowed into the retrial, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz said Thursday.

In pointed remarks aimed at Saldate, his attorney and lawyers representing Milke, Montgomery said the belief that Saldate could face some sort of prosecution for the misconduct outlined in the 9th Circuit’s ruling is being used to intimidate the 21-year Phoenix police veteran and keep him from testifying. [What's wrong with threatening a crooked cop with being jailed for perjury if he lies in court or lied in court to frame Debra Milke for murder?]

And there is no reason for Saldate to believe he could implicate himself in criminal activity by testifying, Montgomery said.

“There is no basis for the state’s witness to be able to assert the Fifth Amendment … because there is no criminal conduct,” Montgomery said.

The panel that sent Milke’s case back to Maricopa County Superior Court also requested that the opinion be sent to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for investigation into whether Saldate’s misconduct outlined in the ruling amounted to a violation of Arizonans’ rights. Federal prosecutors sent a letter to Montgomery’s office in late August saying that the statute of limitations had expired on any misconduct by Saldate. [So the message to Detective Armando Saldate is please help us frame Milke because the statute of limitations is expired and you can't be charged with any crimes you committed when you helped frame her the first time???]

“There is no objective basis for Mr. Saldate to fear prosecution from anyone for anything,” Montgomery said. [because if he commits perjury helping me frame Debra Milke for murder I won't prosecute him for anything]

But investigative documents released late Friday afternoon by Milke’s defense team indicate that Saldate was reluctant to speak with police and prosecutors soon after the appeals court released its opinion.

An investigator for the County Attorney’s Office wrote that he contacted Saldate in April to talk about the case and was unable to reach him for months until the investigator served Saldate with a subpoena in late July.

An attorney representing Saldate did not return a call for comment Friday afternoon.

Montgomery spent nearly 20 minutes of his news conference on Friday going through cases where the 9th Circuit cited court rulings that noted potential misconduct on Saldate’s part, none of which were related to Milke’s confession but all of which should have been provided to her defense team at the time of her trial, according to the appeals court.

But Montgomery is convinced the 9th Circuit got it wrong, and the three-judge panel that sent Milke’s case back to court had it in for Saldate, who retired from Phoenix police within a year of taking the confession.

“The 9th Circuit, on a wild goose chase, went after detective Saldate,” Montgomery said.

So, Montgomery plans to file a memo with Mroz, who is the assigned judge for Milke’s trial, in the hopes of making her aware of some of the shortcomings he perceives in the federal appeals court’s opinion.

“It is very unusual,” Montgomery said, adding that he thought a unique approach was warranted.

“I was dumbfounded when I read the (9th Circuit) opinion and in researching what had actually happened in those cases, that the reality is very different from how they were characterized and the conclusions that were drawn,” he said.

An attorney for Milke questioned Montgomery’s analysis of the 9th Circuit opinion, noting that the panel drew its conclusions about Saldate from completed court cases, not pending allegations against the former detective.

“If you even look at the way (Montgomery) analyzes the facts, he doesn’t do that very well,” attorney Michael Kimerer said. “What I think he’s trying to do, quite frankly, is use the media to confuse the facts and issues.”

Bloated nuclear spending comes under criticism

As H. L. Mencken said:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Bloated nuclear spending comes under criticism

By Jeri Clausing and Matthew Daly Associated Press Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:32 PM

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. At Los Alamos National Laboratory, a seven-year, $213 million upgrade to the security system that protects the lab’s most sensitive nuclear bomb-making facilities doesn’t work. Those facilities, which sit atop a fault line for potential earthquakes, remain susceptible to collapse and dangerous radiation releases, despite millions more spent on improvement plans.

In Tennessee, the price for a new uranium processing facility has grown nearly sevenfold in eight years, to beyond $6 billion, because of problems that include a redesign to raise the roof.

And the estimated cost of an effort to refurbish 400 of the country’s B61 bombs has grown from $1.5 billion to $10 billion.

Virtually every major project under the National Nuclear Security Administration’s oversight is behind schedule and over budget — the result, watchdogs and government auditors say, of years of lax accountability for the agency responsible for maintaining the nation’s nuclear stockpile.

The NNSA has racked up $16 billion in cost overruns on 10 major projects that are a combined 38 years behind schedule, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reports. Other projects have been canceled or suspended, despite hundreds of millions of dollars already spent, because they grew too bloated.

Advocates say spending increases are necessary to keep the nation’s nuclear arsenal operating and safe, and to continue cutting-edge research at the nation’s nuclear labs. But critics say the nuclear program — run largely by private contractors and overseen by the NNSA, an arm of the U.S. Energy Department — has turned into a massive jobs program with duplicative functions.

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security financial and contracting oversight subcommittee, said a key problem is the Energy Department’s reliance on private contractors to carry out its mission. The DOE has fewer than 16,000 employees and more than 92,000 contractors.

The retired head of one of those contractors, former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, told Congress this spring that the absence of day-to-day accountability and an ineffectual structure at the NNSA pose a national security risk.

DOE and NNSA officials agree there are problems. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said this month that addressing the cost overruns and the embarrassing security breaches at some facilities is a top priority. A congressionally appointed panel, co-chaired by Augustine, recently began studying a potential overhaul of the NNSA.

Moniz acknowledged some projects had seen “substantial cost overruns.”

An NNSA spokesman referred a reporter to congressional testimony by the agency’s project and acquisitions manager, Bob Raines, who said projects completed in the past two years had met cost goals and finished under budget.

“We are making progress,” Raines testified in March before a House of Representatives subcommittee.

The problems have resulted in renewed scrutiny and changes in leadership at the NNSA over the past year. In August, President Barack Obama nominated retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz as its next head. He’s awaiting Senate confirmation.

Gun grabbers try to ban bullets instead of guns???

Remember the Second Amendment wasn't passed to allow people to target shoot and hunt rabbits. The Second Amendment was passed to allow the people to kill government tyrants.

Source

California takes aim at hunters' lead bullets

Peter Fimrite

Updated 10:31 pm, Friday, September 13, 2013

California would become the first state in the nation to ban hunting with lead bullets under a bill approved by the Legislature this week that environmentalists hope will inspire the rest of the country to follow suit.

AB711, which awaits Gov. Jerry Brown's signature, would require all ammunition used for hunting in California to be made out of something other than lead, the primary ingredient in bullets for so long that it is now a part of American lore. Hollywood cowboys and gangsters have a habit of filling or threatening to fill their rivals "full of lead."

The problem, according to the authors of the bill, is that leftover fragments from lead ammunition are extremely harmful, even deadly, to humans and nontarget animals, including the endangered California condor. Toxicologists and other experts say spent ammunition is the largest unregulated source of lead that is knowingly discharged into the environment.

"The Centers for Disease Control and leading scientists from around the country agree that there is no safe level of lead exposure for humans," said Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, the chairman of the Assembly Health Committee and a co-author of the bill.

The legislation was overwhelmingly approved by lawmakers at the Capitol despite a fusillade of attacks by gun lobbyists.

Dan Taylor, the director of public policy for Audubon California, a backer of the bill, said copper, steel and other metals are already being used by 35 ammunition manufacturers and by the U.S. Army.

Easier to manufacture

Lead bullets, which date to the 14th century, were easier to manufacture and did less damage to the barrels of early muskets because lead is softer than iron.

"AB711 is a milestone in the effort to protect wildlife," Taylor said. "We've removed lead from gasoline, paint and children's toys. It's clear that lead ammunition has no place in hunting when safer and more effective alternatives are available."

Gun lobbyists, including the National Rifle Association, Hunt for Truth Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, have not given up. They insist the proposed law would drastically reduce sales, eliminate jobs and cost millions of dollars in lost hunting license and tag fees, which are used by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to pay for conservation activities.

Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the NRA, said copper bullets, the most common material used besides lead, are much more expensive; heat up and spark more, causing wildfires; and fly differently, forcing hunters to go through the hassle of recalibrating their rifles. Besides, he said, there is no credible evidence that condors and the other scavenging birds are being poisoned by lead bullet fragments.

"These condors are flocking around both official and unofficial dump sites. They are vultures," Michel said. "They also congregate around lookout towers, and there are pictures of them eating the chipped lead paint. The point is, there are alternate sources of lead in the environment which are probably the source of the lead."

Established regulations

The issue is not new. Wildlife officials have said 130 species are at risk of poisoning by spent lead ammunition left behind by hunters. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service outlawed the use of lead shot for duck and goose hunting in 1991 because of evidence that the heavy metal was contaminating waterways. It has been banned for use at national wildlife refuges and some state parks. Thirty-five states regulate the use of lead ammunition on specific species or seasons.

California condors, which were down to only 22 individuals 25 years ago, and other scavenging birds like golden eagles and turkey vultures, are especially susceptible to lead poisoning. Wildlife biologists traced a good many of the deaths and poisonings to bullet fragments in the entrails and carcasses left by hunters that the birds regularly scavenge.

Lowering the levels

The state passed a law in 2007 banning lead bullets in 14 counties within the historic habitat range of California condors, but the restrictions did not apply to dove, pheasant and quail hunting. A 2011 study published in the scientific journal PloS ONE showed a reduction in the levels of lead in the blood of turkey vultures and golden eagles since that ban went into effect.

Hunting groups, health professionals and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have recently written letters supporting AB711.

If it's approved, the California Fish and Game Commission would not have to fully implement the law until 2019.

"If the governor signs the bill, there is a long, I think very reasonable, period for hunters to adapt, for new products to come to market and for prices to come down," Taylor said.

Jennifer Fearing, the California director of the Humane Society of the United States, said the claim by opponents that there is no evidence of harm caused by lead ammunition "has been undermined by so many scientists."

"We have known that lead is toxic for decades," said Fearing, who characterized the NRA's arguments as "hyperbolically incorrect" industry propaganda. "We have taken it out of every other thing that humans come in contact with, including toys, paint, pipes and gasoline, and we can take it out of ammunition. Responsible hunters support this bill."

National precedent sought

The law would still allow lead bullets for target shooting and other firearm-related activities not related to hunting. Health regulators and environmental groups have said in the past that they would like to regulate shooting ranges. They are hoping California's proposed lead ban will become a nationwide precedent.

"This has serious ramifications for other states and national policy," Fearing said. "The Humane Society of the United States wants to stop animal suffering everywhere. The conversations that will be happening in the next few years will be extraordinarily beneficial for other states."

The governor has until Oct. 12 to sign or veto the bill.

Peter Fimrite is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: pfimrite@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @pfimrite

Will Humble's convoluted cockamamie definition of medical marijuana

Last while I think Will Humble is full of BS on this issue, you have to remember that Will Humble's thugs who are called police, have guns and will arrest and jail you if you don't obey the law in the convoluted, cockamamie way that Will Humble views it.

[Will Humble] warned Friday that medical marijuana soda pop or hard candy you bought may still land you ... in jail.

Humble cautioned that the law is crafted to require that the food products contain actual pieces of the marijuana plant [just where does it say that in the law Mr. Humble???]

he said the statute is very clear that only "useable marijuana'' is legally protected and not the extracts minus the plant [just where does it say that in the law Mr. Humble???]

possessing — the brewed [marijuana] tea in a bottle, with no plant material, could be a felony [could be??? It is, or it isn't Mr. Humble!!! Please give us some solid answers, not drug war propaganda designed to scare off medical marijuana patients.]

Humble said the 2010 law did not legalize cannabis [gee Mr. Humble, just what part of a marijuana plant isn't cannabis???? All my life I thought it was the same stuff!!!!! Of course under Arizona criminal law technically cannabis is hashish. But under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act I would say hashish is just another form of medical marijuana which is legal only for medical marijuana patients]

Hashish is ... not protected under the medical marijuana law [Again Prop 203 seems to say that any form of marijuana can be used by medical marijuana users which would include hashish, hash oil and other concentrated forms of marijuana]

Are Marijuana and Cannabis the same thing when it comes to Arizona Law? The short answer is no [Well Mr Humble that certainly is true. BUT!!!! I am sure that the folks that wrote Prop 203 intended for medical marijuana users to be covered by the definition in Prop 203, not the definition in the criminal code. After all, any form of marijuana is legal only for a person with a medical marijuana prescription or recommendation.]

An issue the Department has been wrestling with for some time is how the definition of “Marijuana” and “Usable Marijuana” in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the definition of “Cannabis” and “Marijuana” in the Criminal Code fit together. [Again Mr. Humble if you weren't so busy trying to flush Prop 203 down the toilet with lame excuses such as in this blog, it should be perfectly obvious to you that the definition of marijuana in Prop 203 applies to people with medical marijuana prescriptions or recommendations. And the definition of marijuana in the criminal code applies to people who DON'T have a medical marijuana prescription or reccommendation]

Marijuana regulations might not cover all food products

Marijuana regulations might not cover all food products

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX — You may have a state-issued card allowing you to buy and use marijuana for medical purposes. But the state's top health official warned Friday that medical marijuana soda pop or hard candy you bought may still land you — and the dispensary owner who sold it to you — in jail.

State Health Director Will Humble said the 2010 voter-approved law clearly contemplates that those authorized to sell and use marijuana for medical reasons need not smoke it. Food products are legal.

But Humble cautioned that the law is crafted to require that the food products contain actual pieces of the marijuana plant. He said anything that contains only an extract remains a felony in Arizona.

Humble said he's not an attorney and cannot define exactly when preparing marijuana for brownies, sodas or lollipops crosses the line. But he said the statute is very clear that only "useable marijuana'' is legally protected and not the extracts minus the plant.

What that means, he said, is someone with a medical marijuana card could legally make, sell or possess a tea bag with marijuana. But selling — or even possessing — the brewed tea in a bottle, with no plant material, could be a felony.

Attorney Ryan Hurley, whose clients include dispensary owners, acknowledged that Arizona law does make a difference between marijuana as defined in the 2010 law and what he called an “archaic” definition of marijuana extracts that are illegal under the criminal code. And he conceded the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not include extracts.

But Hurley said he believes it was always the intent of those who crafted the law to allow food products made from extracts.

That's also the contention of Morgan Fox, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project which crafted the Arizona law. He said the statute allows use of not only marijuana but also any “preparation” of the drug, which he said includes extracts.

“I have no doubt that the state will be challenged if it tries to exclude edible marijuana products from protection,” he said.

By contrast, Jeffrey Kaufman, who also represents dispensary owners, said the issue may come down to how the THC — the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana — was extracted.

On one hand, he said it's illegal to make hashish or hash oil, the concentrated resins containing the THC, using a butane extraction process. And that would make any food products made with those items illegal.

But Kaufman said he believes there's nothing wrong with extracting THC through a freezing and filtering process and then using what's produced in recipes.

Humble isn't ready to make that kind of distinction, calling it one of the “gray area” in the law. But he said state health inspectors will soon be taking a closer look at the recipes of the food products being sold at marijuana dispensaries and advising operators when they think the items are not protected by the law.

The 2010 laws says those with a doctor's recommendation can get 2 1/2 ounces of “useable marijuana” every two weeks. And the law defines that as being the plant, minus the stems and seeds.

But the criminal code has two definitions.

The first is for “marijuana” which includes the plant “from which the resin has not been extracted.” But there is a separate definition of “cannabis” which includes the resin extracted from the plant.

And Humble said the 2010 law did not legalize cannabis.

“You can produce edibles,” he said. “But you'd better make sure it's made of 'useable marijuana' as covered under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and not extracts and resins,” which remain illegal under the state's criminal code.

The problem is where to draw that line.

“Hashish is clearly a resin or extract,” Humble said, and not protected under the medical marijuana law. But he said that, in making food products, there be “a shade of gray that's up to somebody's interpretation of the law.”

“What we're trying to do is to let folks know to stay away from those shades of gray because it could be problematic for them,” Humble said.

“Avoid using extracts in your recipes and stick to what you believe is 'useable marijuana' as defined under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,” he continued. “If you can do that, you're probably going to be OK.”

Humble said the initial offerings at the approximately 80 dispensaries now open were pretty much limited to various varieties of the flowers and leaves of marijuana plants.

“What we're starting to see is more diversification in the product mix,” he said.

Humble said inspectors will now start to take closer looks at the various food products being sold. If they conclude the items were made with extracts, they will advise dispensary owners of the possibility of winding up facing criminal charges

At the very least, he said dispensaries that do not come in line could eventually face having their licenses to sell marijuana revoked.

Will Humble's blog at the Arizona Department of Health Services

Source

Marijuana v. Cannabis

August 30th, 2013 by Will Humble

Are Marijuana and Cannabis the same thing when it comes to Arizona Law? The short answer is no- and the distinction may be an important one for Qualified Patients.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act provides registry identification card holders and dispensaries a number of legal protections for their medical use of Marijuana pursuant to the Act. Interestingly, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act definition of “Marijuana” in A.R.S. § 36-2801(8) differs from the Arizona Criminal Code’s (“Criminal Code”) definition of “Marijuana” in A.R.S. § 13-3401(19). In addition, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act makes a distinction between “Marijuana” and “Usable Marijuana.” A.R.S. § 36-2801(8) and (15).

The definition of “Marijuana” in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act is “… all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.” The definition of “Usable Marijuana” is “… the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant and does not include the weight of any non-marijuana ingredients combined with marijuana and prepared for consumption as food or drink.” The “allowable amount of marijuana” for a qualifying patient and a designated caregiver includes “two-and-one half ounces of usable marijuana.” A.R.S. § 36-2801(1).

The definition of “Marijuana” in the Criminal Code is “… all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis, from which the resin has not been extracted, whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.” “Cannabis” (a narcotic drug under the Criminal Code) is defined as: “… the following substances under whatever names they may be designated: (a) The resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin. Cannabis does not include oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any fiber, compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks of such plant except the resin extracted from the stalks or any fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination; and (b) Every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol.” A.R.S. § 13-3401(4) and (20)(w).

An issue the Department has been wrestling with for some time is how the definition of “Marijuana” and “Usable Marijuana” in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the definition of “Cannabis” and “Marijuana” in the Criminal Code fit together. This confusion, which appears to be shared by dispensaries and registered identification card holders alike, is not easy to clear up and has resulted in the Department receiving numerous questions regarding the interplay between the protections in A.R.S. § 36-2811 and the Criminal Code. While we can’t provide legal advice as to whether a certain conduct is punishable under the Criminal Code (only an individual’s or entity’s legal counsel can do this), “Cannabis” is defined as the “resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis” and “Cannabis” is listed as a narcotic drug according to the Criminal Code in A.R.S. § 13-3401(4) and (20)(w).

In other words, registered identification card holders and dispensaries may be exposed to criminal prosecution under the Criminal Code for possessing a narcotic drug if the card holder or dispensary possesses resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus Cannabis or an edible containing resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus Cannabis. If you’re concerned that your conduct may expose you to criminal prosecution, you may wish to consult an attorney. We’ll be providing some specific guidance for dispensaries licensed by the ADHS next week.

Laws from the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act

Source

SNIP

8. "Marijuana" means all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant. [And that should included hashish, hash oil, marijuana pollen and other concentrated forms of marijuana]

SNIP

15. "Usable marijuana" means the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof [again usable marijuana seems to mean any part of the marijuana plant which contains the THC - for anybody who is not making a living using the war on drugs to jail people that should include hashish, hash oil, marijuana pollen and other concentrated forms of marijuana]

Laws from the Arizona Criminal Code

Source

4. "Cannabis" means the following substances under whatever names they may be designated:

(a) The resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin. Cannabis does not include oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any fiber, compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks of such plant except the resin extracted from the stalks or any fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.

(b) Every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol.

Marijuana isn’t harmless - especially for kids

More drug war propaganda from Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk

Source

Marijuana isn’t harmless - especially for kids

By Sheila Polk My Turn Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:47 PM

Odds are you know someone with an addiction: 2.3 million people over the age of 12 sought substance/alcohol treatment in 2011, according to the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Add those not seeking or unable to afford treatment and the numbers escalate.

Marijuana dependence/abuse is twice as prevalent as other drugs — 4.2 million Americans (2011), nearly two-thirds of Arizona’s population. Nationally, treatment admissions skyrocketed 21 percent (2000-2010), with an average age of 25 and nearly three quarters male. In Arizona, marijuana treatment has surpassed methamphetamine.

Marijuana withdrawal has the same symptoms as other drugs — cravings, irritability, low self-confidence, despondency, depression and suicidal thoughts.

I see public opinion swaying toward marijuana legalization and scratch my head. Recovery is possible, but why mainstream a substance of addiction? One in 11 new users will become addicted — one in six who start as teens and up to one in two who smoke it daily.

As we strive for global competitiveness and lament poor school performance in comparison to our international peers, we must face the truth about pot. It is more crucial than ever to challenge the impression many teens have that marijuana is a benign, unfairly demonized substance.

Regular marijuana use jeopardizes a young person’s chance of success — in school and in life. The National Institute of Drug Abuse warns that habitual teen marijuana use is linked to a significant decrease in IQ of seven to eight points, not to mention school dropout or failure, future drug use, and mental health problems. An eight IQ point drop is titanic, sinking a person of average intelligence into the lowest third of the range.

Nationally, one in 15 high-school seniors are regular pot users. The 2012 Arizona Youth Survey found that one in five of Arizona’s high-school seniors used pot in the past 30 days and a 14.4 percent cumulative increase in past 30-day use since 2008 for grades eight, 10 and 12.

Parents tell me of their pot-using teens falling behind in school while insisting that marijuana is “medicine.” Unlike methamphetamine, heroin, and the horrific synthetics (bath salts/spice), marijuana’s harms are not readily apparent: no life-threatening overdose or deterioration into a gaunt and ravaged figure.

The effects are rather subtle: downward life trajectory, erosion of IQ, impaired cognitive development, mental health issues, low education attainment, and the escalation of delinquency. Disintegration over months or years is not easily identified nor does it garner headlines.

I see the harms — child abuse inflicted by the neglectful pot-smoking parent; traffic fatalities by the marijuana impaired driver.

I see the subtle signs of destruction in the growing number of addicted young adults.

Our job as adults is to create an environment to fuel our kids’ success. To that end, we must educate them and the voting public about the value of the brain and the damage of marijuana.

Already an uphill battle, the legalization movement feeds teens’ perception that marijuana is safe. We can’t sit passively by and watch this slow decline.

Marijuana is harmless? Think again.

Sheila Polk is the Yavapai County Attorney and co-chairwoman of MATForce, the Yavapai County Substance Abuse Coalition.

California politicians win the "War on Drugs"????

Bills would give state new powers to fight prescription drug abuse

Currently marijuana, heroin and cocaine are drugs which are illegal because they have no medical use whatsoever [well at least according to the self programed heroic drug warriors at the DEA]. But it won't take any teenage more then 15 minutes to score some at the local high school despite the drugs being illegal, and laws that make them doubly illegal on schools.

The law is just a lame excuse for politicians to pretend they are solving the "drug war" problem which they created. And as always to shake down consumers for another tax.

Source

Bills would give state new powers to fight prescription drug abuse

By Scott Glover and Lisa Girion

September 15, 2013, 6:55 p.m.

Since her son Joey fatally overdosed in late 2009, April Rovero has warned schoolchildren, coeds, cops and congressmen that it was too easy for the 21-year-old college student to get the prescription drugs that killed him.

In speeches from Sacramento to Washington, she complained bitterly that authorities had suspected a Rowland Heights doctor of reckless prescribing for years but did little to stop her. Rovero's son was one of at least eight men who died on drugs the doctor prescribed.

Rovero's frustration mounted over the years as she saw other families lose loved ones to a growing prescription drug epidemic. But now, she sees reason for hope.

Last week, state lawmakers passed an ambitious slate of reforms aimed at giving authorities better tools and broader powers to crack down on doctors who recklessly prescribe narcotic painkillers and other commonly abused drugs.

The three bills, which garnered strong bipartisan support, await a signature from Gov. Jerry Brown that would make them law.

For Rovero, Brown can't act soon enough.

"Each day that passes results in more lives lost to overdose and addiction to these drugs," she said.

Brown, who as attorney general railed against prescription drug abuse and pill-pushing doctors, declined through a spokesman to say how he would respond to the bills.

The proposed legislation was spurred by a series of investigative reports in The Times that linked drugs prescribed by doctors to nearly half the prescription-involved overdose deaths in Southern California from 2006 through 2011.

The Times analysis of coroners' records in four counties identified 71 doctors who had three or more patients die on drugs they had been prescribed.

At the top of the list was Van H. Vu, a Huntington Beach pain doctor who has lost 17 patients to overdose, despite what he said were state-of-the-art prescribing practices and patient monitoring. The Medical Board of California began an investigation into the patient deaths following the articles. Vu continues to practice.

The Times also revealed that state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris was not using a state database to identify potentially problematic prescribers.

Following the series, the parents and loved ones of overdose victims held a rally in Sacramento calling for reforms that would help expose and stop doctors who catered to addicts. Lawmakers threatened to abolish the Medical Board of California if it didn't become more proactive in dealing with the problem. The Times series prompted two proposed laws and created support for another that had twice failed in the Legislature.

One bill on Brown's desk is a proposal to require coroners to report to the medical board overdose deaths involving prescription drugs. The board could then use those reports to link patient deaths to a doctor's practice and determine whether reckless prescribing was a factor.

Coauthor Sen. Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance) said the goal of the bill was to give the medical board a tool to detect "patterns of death" as they emerge.

"In too many of these cases, the deadly drugs came straight from a bottle with the dead person's own name on it, with a legal prescription by a provider," Lieu said.

A second bill would allow regulators to draw a bead on reckless prescribing even before overdoses occurred. The proposed legislation would bolster the state's prescription drug monitoring program. The centerpiece of the program, known as CURES, is a database containing detailed information about narcotics dispensed by pharmacies in California, including the identities of the prescriber and the patient.

The proactive analysis of such databases is viewed by public health experts as key to curbing the toll of prescription drugs. But CURES, which is run by the state attorney general's office, was gutted during California's fiscal crisis, and no one is actively mining it to identify problem prescribers.

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) said his proposed upgrade of CURES could revolutionize the way authorities attack the prescription drug problem, whether dealing with drug-abusing patients or reckless prescribers.

"Before this, it was like looking for a needle in a haystack — just searching blindly," DeSaulnier said. With the improvements, he said, it would be "more like a surgical strike."

DeSaulnier's bill would create a steady funding stream for CURES by imposing a $6 annual fee on prescribers and pharmacists.

The third bill is designed to remove roadblocks that medical board officials say have hampered their ability to investigate physicians suspected of putting patients at risk. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said his proposed law would prevent doctors from stonewalling investigators by failing to turn over dead patients' records or by repeatedly postponing interviews. Doctors who fail to cooperate could face board sanctions.

In the end, all three bills enjoyed broad support among lawmakers of both parties, as well as consumer and other interest groups. But, as introduced, each bill faced stiff opposition from physicians, drug makers or both — two of the state's most influential lobbies.

The measures passed after authors accepted amendments that doctors and drug makers said would make them fairer. Consumer advocates, while applauding passage of the bills, vowed to seek the restoration of what they said were key provisions cut during the legislative process.

Bob Pack, whose two young children were killed by an intoxicated driver who was being prescribed pain pills by multiple doctors, said DeSaulnier's bill on CURES would enable doctors to ferret out drug-abusing patients such as the woman at the wheel of the Mercedes who ran over his children. But he said the California Medical Assn. lobbied hard to remove a requirement that doctors check CURES before prescribing narcotics.

"There's this great tool," Pack said, "but they don't want to have to use it."

Pack said he was pushing for a ballot measure that would include the requirement for doctors to check CURES and incorporate other abandoned elements of prescription drug legislation. The proposed ballot measure also would lift a 38-year-old cap of $250,000 on medical malpractice awards.

Lieu said he planned to introduce measures in the next legislative session in January that would address how physicians prescribe the dangerous narcotics implicated in a majority of overdose deaths. He said he was particularly interested in some of the prescribing guidelines adopted by Washington state three years ago.

The bills now awaiting action by Brown "address the problem at the back end," Lieu said. "There are steps that some other states have taken that may be useful to California that deal with the front end to keep the addiction from happening in the first place."

scott.glover@latimes.com

lisa.girion@latimes.com

How do you spell revenue??? Legalized marijuana!!!

On the light rail yesterday I talked to a number of Colorado baseball fans who were returning from a Diamondbacks baseball game.

From talking to them I got the impression that the government rulers in Colorado don't thing of Colorado's legalization of marijuana as ending years of government tyranny against marijuana smokers.

Instead they seem to think of it as a new way to shake down the serfs they rule over for money.

They told me that pot is selling in government stores in Colorado for over $300 an ounce. It looks like the government rulers in Colorado want to shift the outrageously high profits the drug cartels make to themselves.

Considering that marijuana is a stinking weed that is easier to grow in tomatoes, if pot prices were driven by the free market, a pound of marijuana wouldn't cost any more then a pound of potatoes.

They also told me that you couldn't just walk into a marijuana store in Denver and buy pot. You had to get a stinking pot license.

They told me that it costs $60 for the permit and by the time you add all the taxes it costs a little less then $100.

They showed me one of their licenses, which looked a lot like an Arizona auto title, but was about half the size.

Sadly it looks like our government masters are viewing legalized marijuana as just a lame excuse to shake us down for more money.

Remember the Boston Tea Party was about a lousy one and three quarter percent tax on tea. These government bandits in Colorado seem to think it's OK to slap a 300,000 percent tax on marijuana. They make King George look like an honest ethical guy.

For that matter they make Arizona politician and U.S. Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema look like a politician who supports low tax rates with her ridiculously high 300 percent tax on medical marijuana.

Phoenix pension ‘spiking’ rules vary for city employees

Phoenix pension ‘spiking’ rules vary for city employees

By Craig Harris and Dustin Gardiner The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:06 PM

While retiring Phoenix City Manager David Cavazos considers converting roughly $200,000 in unused sick leave to enhance his pension, the city is fighting rank-and-file municipal employees in court to keep them from doing the same thing.

Phoenix employee unions filed suit last year to block efforts by Cavazos to limit pension spiking by rank-and-file employees. In that case, the city counters that it is not legally bound to let employees include unused sick time in their pension-benefit calculations. Instead, it says, city management in July 1996 voluntarily chose to allow the practice and can change it at will.

The city’s position in the lawsuit is another example of its inconsistent policies on pension “spiking.” Though the City Council is fighting to limit the practice among the rank and file, it approved numerous perks for Cavazos that allow him to spike his pension.

While the city has restricted the practice with most employees, it continues to allow police officers and firefighters, who pay into a separate pension system, to convert unused sick leave and other benefits at the end of their careers to spike their pensions. The conservative-leaning Goldwater Institute recently filed a lawsuit against Phoenix to stop that practice.

City officials declined to say why they allow spiking for some employees but not others, saying they are reserving comment on pending legal issues. The spiking practice is costly for taxpayers, substantially elevating some highly compensated workers’ annual retirement payments by inflating their end-of-career compensation, a key factor in the formula used to calculate the annual pension benefit. The other key factor is length of service.

The Arizona Republic in a series of stories this year disclosed how a handful of Phoenix employees, including Cavazos and other mostly executive-level public-safety officers, spiked their pensions. The Republic found that 10 public-safety retirees increased their lump-sum retirement benefits to more than $700,000 each, and all will receive annual pensions greater than $114,000 a year.

Based on a review of his contract, other public records and information from the city retirement program, the newspaper projects that Cavazos will elevate his annual pension to at least $220,000 when he retires Oct. 16 and becomes city manager in Santa Ana, Calif. Cavazos, through a city spokeswoman, declined comment for this story and referred pension questions to other city officials.

Sick-leave policies

City policy provides executive and middle managers more lucrative terms than rank-and-file workers for converting sick leave that can be used to spike pensions. For example, rank-and-file workers are limited on the number of hours they can cash in, while executive and middle managers have no limit.

Critics of the practice of compensating workers for unused sick leave say it amounts to double payment because workers already have been paid for those days that they worked.

The average annual pension benefit for a municipal employee in Phoenix is $29,256.

Phoenix residents over the last few years experienced diminished services because of budget cuts and began paying a City Council-approved sales tax on food. Against that backdrop, voters in March overwhelmingly approved a series of modest reforms to the city’s financially troubled pension system. Those reforms, however, did not address pension spiking across the board.

Stung by the most recent revelations about Cavazos’ plans, Mayor Greg Stanton and Vice Mayor Bill Gates last week announced the formation of a committee to eliminate spiking in a “fair, legal and transparent way.” Gates will lead the group of four council members. They are to report their findings by Oct. 4.

Stanton was in China until Saturday on city business, and staff said he would not be available to comment on the panel’s goals. Gates said the council subcommittee will be “very sensitive to doing what we can to treat all employees consistently and fairly.”

He said he is starting the process with an “open mind” about how quickly the council can stop different groups of employees from spiking. A major consideration, Gates said, will be whether reforms can affect not only incoming employees, but also those with accrued leave time and retirees.

“I think we look at everything on that continuum, given the legal and practical considerations and, of course, fairness,” Gates said. “What this is really about is restoring trust in city government.”

Councilman Sal DiCiccio, who has been the most outspoken about ending the practice, said that while he believes that the city has a legal basis to stop some pension spiking right away, there’s not enough council support to make it happen. Instead, DiCiccio said, the council likely will wait until new contracts with its employee unions take effect July 1, 2014.

DiCiccio said his stance is “that nobody, including David (Cavazos), should be allowed to spike.” But he has not pressed the council to try to curtail Cavazos’ pension-spiking benefits, and he suggested there is no political will to do so.

DiCiccio and much of the council supported Cavazos’ contract allowing the spiking when he became city manager in November 2009.

Councilman Tom Simplot, a member of the reform subcommittee, said the city likely would be sued if the council were to strip Cavazos of his pension-spiking benefits.

He said he agrees with Stanton and Gates, who believe that the city can end spiking in the next manager’s contract by not allowing sick or vacation time to count toward his or her pension.

All Phoenix employees belong to one of two pension systems: the statewide Public Safety Personnel Retirement System for police officers and firefighters, or the City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement Systems for all other municipal employees.

Both systems are significantly underfunded, primarily because of investment losses during the Great Recession and the dot-com bust of the early 2000s. Taxpayer-funded increases in municipal contributions to the pension funds have been needed to fill the funding gaps. Pension spiking has contributed to those financial problems.

The city this fiscal year is projected to spend nearly $124million to fund the city’s pension plan and $129 million to fund its portion of the statewide public-safety pension plan, records show. Employees also make contributions.

The city’s pension costs have increased so rapidly that they have contributed to Phoenix shrinking its Police and Fire departments. The combined $253million in projected city funding is about 42 percent more than what Phoenix spent on the two pension plans in fiscal 2010-11, when it spent a combined $178.4 million.

But Phoenix has done little to rein in public-safety pension costs. Critics blame the political clout of police and fire unions and their willingness to raise and spend large sums to influence City Council races.

Voters overwhelmingly approved a City Council-backed ballot measure in March that requires new municipal workers to split pension-fund contributions 50/50 with the city. It affects only employees hired after July 1.

For each employee hired before the reforms went into effect, the city’s pension contribution is roughly four times more than the employee’s contribution of 5 percent of his or her pay, though the size of the city’s contribution fluctuates based on investment performance.

The reform measure also raised the minimum retirement age for employees by about 31/2 years, on average.

The city did not ask voters to fix pension spiking because city management thought it had dealt with the issue through an administrative rule that prohibited city employees from calculating into their pension benefits any unused sick leave accrued after July 1, 2012. Sick leave accrued before that day still may be used to spike pensions.

Four employees and their unions last year sued the city and the pension system in Maricopa County Superior Court over the administrative rule, saying the city did not have a right to change how pension benefits are calculated without changing the city charter. The case is pending.

Frank Piccioli is president of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Local 2960 and the lead plaintiff in the suit. He said the practice of pension spiking is concentrated among managers, and a few who have abused the process have given all city employees a bad name.

‘A bit hypocritical’

“It is definitely a bit hypocritical of them to come after us when they’re doing the same thing,” said Piccioli, who declined to comment on the specifics of his lawsuit. “It does definitely smack of hypocrisy.”

Piccioli said the City Council now is trying to stop pension spiking because Cavazos and his predecessor, former City Manager Frank Fairbanks, were able to significantly increase their pensions using perks they negotiated with the council. Fairbanks now collects a $246,813 annual pension.

“They’re anti-pension because there’s a few people who took advantage of whatever they negotiated,” Piccioli said. “My people are not spiking. The regular city workers are going to have a modest pension after they retire.”

Records show all city employees have the potential to spike their pensions, but those in upper management have the ability to cash in more benefits like sick leave, deferred compensation, and vehicle and cellphone allowances for pension calculations.

The city said in court records that there is no legal requirement or bylaw within its general-employee pension system that mandates the inclusion of unused sick time in pension-benefit calculations.

“Pay for unused sick time is pay for non-working time and thus, by its very definition, not pay ‘for personal services rendered,’ ” wrote a team of four outside attorneys retained by the city and pension fund.

Toni Maccarone, a city spokeswoman, and Phoenix’s law department were unable to determine how much the city has spent in its pension battle with the unions. She said Friday the city still was researching The Republic’s recent requests.

Another lawsuit

The city took on a second pension fight last month in Maricopa County Superior Court when the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based think tank, sued the city and its officials for allowing police and firefighters to increase the amounts of their pensions by cashing in unused sick leave, vacation and other benefits at the end of their careers.

Goldwater contends that state law prohibits the practice. One of its attorneys noted the inconsistency in the city’s efforts to stop rank-and-file municipal workers from spiking their pensions at the very time when it was permitting public-safety officers to do the same thing.

“It’s very surprising,” said Jon Riches, a Goldwater attorney. “But I’m glad to see Phoenix has the right assessment in that (other) lawsuit. I hope they will come to that same assessment in regards to our lawsuit.”

The city’s attorneys have argued that it cannot immediately end pension spiking for public-safety employees because the benefit is guaranteed under their labor contracts.

Stanton has said he will stop the practice with the police and fire unions’ new contracts, which take effect in summer 2014.

Reach the reporters at craig.harris@ arizonarepublic.com and dustin.gardiner @arizonarepublic.com.

Watching the watchers

Watching the watchers

By Alessandra Soler Viewpoints Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:05 PM

Many Americans were shocked earlier this year to learn that the National Security Agency has engaged in massive, sustained and systemic surveillance of millions of people. Unfortunately, the ACLU was not surprised to learn how the NSA has abused the law and its authority to invade the privacy of countless Americans.

Government tracking of Americans’ daily activities and movements is not limited to the federal level. Indeed, many state and local agencies track our day-to-day activities, such as our driving habits and how we use our cellphones. We should be concerned about how these bodies intrude upon our privacy rights.

But the media explosion around the NSA’s big-brother behavior has stimulated a necessary and long-overdue conversation about how this one federal agency spies on innocent Americans all too easily. So, it’s worth taking a look at what the NSA says it’s doing, what it’s actually doing and what it has no business even trying to do.

The Patriot Act grants dangerously broad surveillance powers to the federal government. Various entities within the federal government, including the NSA, have relied specifically on Section 215 of the act to justify spying on innocent Americans. Now, the American Civil Liberties Union believes Section 215 is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment. Ordinarily, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to show probable cause and obtain a warrant before it can conduct a search. Section 215, however, allows the government to conduct such searches without showing probable cause and without bothering to get a warrant.

But even if Section 215 is constitutional, the NSA is still taking things way too far. The NSA conducts a domestic call-tracking program wherein it eavesdrops on people’s phone calls as a matter of routine. The NSA claims that this program is targeted, the implication being that you have nothing to worry about if you’re behaving yourself.

Not true.

How NSA operates

The program is not limited to terrorists or those associated with foreign powers. On the contrary, the NSA uses this program to collect “on an ongoing daily basis” the records of every call made in the United States, even those by innocent Americans. And congressional intelligence committees have confirmed that the government has been collecting the phone records of practically all Americans for at least seven years. In doing so, the NSA has developed a database filled with revealing information about every American’s associations and affiliations.

Think about the sweeping breadth of information being collected. Every time a resident of the United States makes a phone call, the NSA knows who he or she called, when the call was placed and how long the conversation lasted. The NSA knows if that resident called a doctor, a pastor, a political party, an addiction support group or a romantic interest. Calling patterns can indicate when we are asleep and when we are awake, our work habits and the number of friends we have. How many people would be comfortable with the government knowing this kind of information about their private lives?

Also, the NSA claims that the domestic call-tracking database is examined only sparingly. More specifically, the executive branch has stated that the database was “queried” only 300 times last year. But again, the truth is more complicated and far more alarming because these queries aren’t limited to a single person or phone number.

Instead, NSA analysts can examine the phone information of people within three “hops”— or degrees of separation — from the initial target. If each person has only 50 telephone contacts, applying this three-hop approach to even a single individual could implicate the phone records of more than 125,000 people. So, those 300 queries last year could have actually yielded information on more than 37 million people.

Even worse, the NSA aggregates these records to construct social graphs and to study their development and communications patterns over days, week, months and even years. This information can reveal the rise and fall of intimate relationships, the diagnosis of a serious illness, the identity of a potential government whistle-blower and even the signs of a corporate merger or acquisition.

Congress can fix this

Security is important, and so is privacy. One does not have to be sacrificed in order to guarantee the other. The ACLU recently supported bipartisan congressional legislation, the Amash-Conyers amendment, which would have ensured the government’s ability to protect Americans while limiting the government’s power to overreach.

The amendment would have changed Section 215 to require that requests for private records be targeted at those who are actually the subject of an investigation. This change would prevent the NSA from collecting, storing and using the records of all Americans. The amendment would not hinder the government’s ability to gather information about terrorists — it would just limit the government’s ability to spy on the rest of us in the process.

And, of course, the government would still enjoy considerable authority under many other laws and programs to pursue important intelligence leads. While Democrats and Republicans broke party lines to support the Amash-Conyers amendment, the legislation fell short of passage by just 12 votes.

The NSA and the Obama administration dismiss legitimate concerns about our privacy rights by regurgitating half-truths and tired talking points. Their response to our concerns seems to be, “Don’t worry, just trust us.” But given how the NSA has betrayed Americans’ trust by spying on all of us, whether we’re implicated in a crime or not, it’s difficult and unwise to maintain that trust.

The government may have genuine concerns about protecting our security, but it can’t use them to steamroll our genuine concerns about our privacy. And while the ACLU strongly believes that Americans’ privacy rights must be respected for constitutional and policy reasons, don’t think that this is a purely academic exercise. After all, the NSA has been spying on the ACLU’s phone calls, too.

Alessandra Soler is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

In Jamaica, a twist on wine tours for pot lovers

In Jamaica, a twist on wine tours for pot lovers

Posted: Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:16 pm

Associated Press

NINE MILE, Jamaica — Napa and Sonoma have their wine tours, and travelers flock to Scotland to sample the fine single malt whiskies. But in Jamaica, farmers are offering a different kind of trip for a different type of connoisseur.

Call them ganja tours: smoky, mystical — and technically illegal — journeys to some of the island's hidden cannabis plantations, where pot tourists can sample such strains as "purple kush" and "pineapple skunk."

The tours pass through places like Nine Mile, the tiny hometown of reggae legend, and famous pot-lover, Bob Marley. Here, in Jamaica's verdant central mountains, dreadlocked men escort curious visitors to a farm where deep-green marijuana plants grow out of the reddish soil. Similar tours are offered just outside the western resort town of Negril, where a marijuana mystique has drawn weed-smoking vacationers for decades.

"This one here is the original sinsemilla, Bob Marley's favorite. And this one here is the chocolate skunk. It's special for the ladies," a pot farmer nicknamed "Breezy" told a reporter as he showed off several varieties on his plot one recent morning.

While legalization drives have scored major victories in recent months in places like Colorado and Washington state, and the government of the South American nation of Uruguay is moving toward getting into the pot business itself, the plant is still illegal in Jamaica, where it is known popularly as "ganja."

Some would like to see that change, with increasingly vocal advocates saying Jamaica could give its struggling economy a boost by taking advantage of the fact the island is nearly as famous for its marijuana as it is for beaches, reggae music and world-beating sprinters.

Justice Minister Mark Golding told The Associated Press the government is aware of legalization efforts elsewhere, and called the issue "dynamic and evolving quickly."

"We will be reviewing the matter in light of the recent developments in this hemisphere," Golding said of decriminalization in an email.

The Ganja Law Reform Coalition, an island group that is calling for the government to decriminalize and regulate pot, is preparing to host an international conference in the capital of Kingston later this month, where topics will include prospects for cannabis commercialization.

Despite its laid-back international image, Jamaica is a conservative, religious place and many people bristle at the country's Rasta reputation.

Marijuana has been pervasive but prohibited on the island since 1913. The illicit marijuana crop has declined since the 1970s due to global competition and the U.S.-led war on drugs. Still, Jamaica is the Caribbean's leading supplier of pot to the U.S. and tourists often don't need to look any farther than their hotel lobby for assistance buying weed.

"There's already a high degree of marijuana tourism in Jamaica; they just don't call it that," said Chris Simunek, editor-in-chief of the magazine High Times, based in New York.

In Nine Mile, Breezy says Americans, Germans and increasingly Russians have toured his small farm and sampled his crop. There were no takers for the $50 tour on this morning among a couple of busloads of cruise ship tourists arriving at Bob Marley's childhood home, though more than a dozen lined up enthusiastically to buy baggies of weed from Breezy's friends, sold through a hole in the wall of the museum compound.

"I can get stronger stuff at home, but there's something really special about smoking marijuana in Jamaica. I mean, this is the marijuana that inspired Bob Marley," said a 26-year-old tourist from Minnesota. She identified herself only as Angie due to the fact the pot she was crumbling into a rolling paper is illegal both at home and in Jamaica.

An online vacation guide called Jamaicamax promises to organize ganja tours in the Negril area. But there's a caveat: First you have to smoke a marijuana "spliff" with your guide, presumably to show you are not law enforcement.

"After you smoke a spliff with us and we get to know you then we will take you on the best ganja tours in Jamaica and you'll smoke (and eat if you want) so much ganja you'll be talking to Bob Marley himself," the travel website says.

More than a decade after a government commission said marijuana was "culturally entrenched" and recommended decriminalizing personal use by adults, influential politicians and businessmen are pushing for Jamaica to cast off old fears of angering Washington and loosen up laws.

Henry Lowe, a prominent Jamaican scientist who helped develop a cannabis-derived medication to treat glaucoma in the 1980s, said the island could quickly become a hub of marijuana tourism and research. "People could come down to Jamaica for medical marijuana treatment and health tourism because this has been our tradition, our culture."

Indentured servants from India are thought to have brought the plant to Jamaica in the 19th century. Its use as a medicinal herb spread rapidly, with some people using ganja tea to alleviate aches and others using rum-soaked marijuana as a cold remedy. By the 1970s, marijuana became even more popular due to Rastafarian reggae stars like Marley and Peter Tosh.

For now, criminal gangs dominate the island's marijuana trade, and turf wars fueled in part by pot profits have long plagued gritty parts of Jamaica. But advocates say decriminalization or legalization would shift profits away from gangs, freeing money that now goes for arresting and jailing pot users.

For Breezy and his friends, any reforms couldn't come soon enough.

"The government needs to free up marijuana soon, man, because it's a natural thing, a spiritual thing," Breezy said before sticking his nose in a clump of pot plants and taking an appreciative sniff. "And the tourists love it."

David McFadden on Twitter: http://twitter.com/dmcfadd

Thousands cited for having pot on federal land

Obama lied about not arresting people for victimless marijuana crimes????

Source

Thousands cited for having pot on federal land

Associated Press Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:30 AM

TACOMA, Wash. — Karen Strand didn’t think she’d get in trouble for having a small container of medical marijuana when she went hiking in Olympic National Park this summer.

President Barack Obama, she remembered, had said the federal government had “bigger fish to fry” than people who follow state marijuana laws, and Washington state had just legalized pot.

But a ranger pulled her over on a remote gravel road, and Strand wound up as one of at least 27,700 people cited for having pot on federal land since 2009, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal court data. The number of citations is small compared to the hundreds of millions of visitors to national parks, forests and monuments each year.

But it nevertheless illustrates one of the many issues Washington, Colorado and other states face in complying with last month’s Justice Department memo that requires them to address eight federal law enforcement priorities if they want to regulate marijuana. Among those priorities is keeping marijuana use and possession off federal property.

State officials have no plans to license pot gardens or stores on federal land, but beyond that, they say, it’s not clear what they can do to discourage backpackers or campers from bringing a few joints into Rocky Mountain or Mount Rainier National Park.

“It’s not one of the big topics we’ve talked a lot about,” said Jaime Smith, a spokeswoman for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.

Other concerns on the DOJ’s list include keeping marijuana away from kids and cartels, preventing drugged driving and pot-related gun violence, and keeping unregulated marijuana grows from spoiling federal land.

Thousands of people receive tickets every year charging them with having pot on U.S. property — a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. The charges typically don’t result in jail time, but often do require at least one court appearance. They are frequently negotiated down to an infraction, akin to a traffic ticket, and a fine of up to a few hundred dollars.

Through the first seven months of this year, at least 146 people had been cited in Washington for having pot on federal land, which makes up nearly one-third of the state. At least 135 had been cited in Colorado. Washington’s figure is slightly below the same period for the past few years, while Colorado’s is roughly on track.

The number of people cited nationally has dropped, from 6,282 in 2009 to 5,772 in 2012, and is on pace to hit about 5,300 this year, according to data from the U.S. Courts Central Violations Bureau. The citations were issued at national parks, seashores, forests, military bases and monuments. There were even 10 tickets issued at the Pentagon.

Officials say the actual numbers are likely greater: Park rangers and other federal agents sometimes simply write on the ticket that the offender had a controlled substance, without specifying the drug.

Defendants say being prosecuted for having tiny amounts of pot on U.S. land — especially in Washington, Colorado and states with medical marijuana laws — belies the administration’s assertions that going after people who comply with state marijuana laws is not a priority. The DOJ first announced that position in a 2009 memo, though the fine print also made clear that pot isn’t welcome on federal property.

Strand, 36, was pulled over for having a broken taillight, and the ranger reported that he could smell fresh pot. She was ticketed for having 2 grams — far less than the ounce, or 28 grams, allowed by Washington’s recreational pot law, or the 24 ounces allowed by the state’s medical marijuana law.

“It is exceptionally confusing,” she said.

One morning this month, Strand sat in a small, crowded room at the federal courthouse in Tacoma for her initial appearance on charges of marijuana possession and drug paraphernalia — a pipe.

Near her sat her husband as well as several other people caught with weed on federal land, including a 21-year-old man who was accused of having 0.1 grams during a traffic stop on a highway that skirts Mount Rainier National Park.

“I just thought it was legal now,” Jonah Hunt said. “I didn’t know I was on federal land.”

Barbara Sievers, the assistant U.S. attorney handling the cases, informed the defendants their charges would not be dismissed.

“Regardless of whatever happened in the state, it’s federal law, and it’s federal property,” she said.

Former school teacher Melanie Cease, of Seattle, said a park ranger approached her one day in June at a secluded campsite in Olympic National Park. He came to make sure her dog was on a leash, but then saw an empty pipe on the picnic table.

With his hand on his gun, she said, the ranger demanded she turn over whatever pot she had. Cease, 48, was cited for having a “trace amount,” according to the ranger’s report.

“I’ve never been arrested in my life, and now I’m being threatened with six months in jail and a $5,000 fine for using my medicine?” she said. “It was my understanding the government was not going to mess with individual patients.”

Strand and Cease both pleaded not guilty, and their cases were set for trial in October.

Strand and her husband, Thomas, said they remain troubled by what they said felt like harassment from the park ranger. He repeatedly placed his hand on his gun when speaking to them, they said.

“It’s a beautiful place up there,” Thomas Strand said. “And I don’t know if I’ll ever go back.”

———

Follow Johnson on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GeneAPseattle

You can have SEVERAL DNA strands??? - DNA Double Take

It will certainly be intersting to see how this pays out in the criminal justice system.

Source

DNA Double Take

By CARL ZIMMER

Published: September 16, 2013 69 Comments

From biology class to “C.S.I.,” we are told again and again that our genome is at the heart of our identity. Read the sequences in the chromosomes of a single cell, and learn everything about a person’s genetic information — or, as 23andme, a prominent genetic testing company, says on its Web site, “The more you know about your DNA, the more you know about yourself.”

But scientists are discovering that — to a surprising degree — we contain genetic multitudes. Not long ago, researchers had thought it was rare for the cells in a single healthy person to differ genetically in a significant way. But scientists are finding that it’s quite common for an individual to have multiple genomes. Some people, for example, have groups of cells with mutations that are not found in the rest of the body. Some have genomes that came from other people.

“There have been whispers in the matrix about this for years, even decades, but only in a very hypothetical sense,” said Alexander Urban, a geneticist at Stanford University. Even three years ago, suggesting that there was widespread genetic variation in a single body would have been met with skepticism, he said. “You would have just run against the wall.”

But a series of recent papers by Dr. Urban and others has demonstrated that those whispers were not just hypothetical. The variation in the genomes found in a single person is too large to be ignored. “We now know it’s there,” Dr. Urban said. “Now we’re mapping this new continent.”

Dr. James R. Lupski, a leading expert on the human genome at Baylor College of Medicine, wrote in a recent review in the journal Science that the existence of multiple genomes in an individual could have a tremendous impact on the practice of medicine. “It’s changed the way I think,” he said in an interview.

Scientists are finding links from multiple genomes to certain rare diseases, and now they’re beginning to investigate genetic variations to shed light on more common disorders.

Science’s changing view is also raising questions about how forensic scientists should use DNA evidence to identify people. It’s also posing challenges for genetic counselors, who can’t assume that the genetic information from one cell can tell them about the DNA throughout a person’s body.

Human Blueprint

When an egg and sperm combine their DNA, the genome they produce contains all the necessary information for building a new human. As the egg divides to form an embryo, it produces new copies of that original genome.

For decades, geneticists have explored how an embryo can use the instructions in a single genome to develop muscles, nerves and the many other parts of the human body. They also use sequencing to understand genetic variations that can raise the risk of certain diseases. Genetic counselors can look at the results of genetic screenings to help patients and their families cope with these diseases — altering their diet, for example, if they lack a gene for a crucial enzyme.

The cost of sequencing an entire genome has fallen so drastically in the past 20 years — now a few thousand dollars, down from an estimated $3 billion for the public-private partnership that sequenced the first human genome — that doctors are beginning to sequence the entire genomes of some patients. (Sequencing can be done in as little as 50 hours.) And they’re identifying links between mutations and diseases that have never been seen before.

Yet all these powerful tests are based on the assumption that, inside our body, a genome is a genome is a genome. Scientists believed that they could look at the genome from cells taken in a cheek swab and be able to learn about the genomes of cells in the brain or the liver or anywhere else in the body.

In the mid-1900s, scientists began to get clues that this was not always true. In 1953, for example, a British woman donated a pint of blood. It turned out that some of her blood was Type O and some was Type A. The scientists who studied her concluded that she had acquired some of her blood from her twin brother in the womb, including his genomes in his blood cells.

Chimerism, as such conditions came to be known, seemed for many years to be a rarity. But “it can be commoner than we realized,” said Dr. Linda Randolph, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles who is an author of a review of chimerism published in The American Journal of Medical Genetics in July.

Twins can end up with a mixed supply of blood when they get nutrients in the womb through the same set of blood vessels. In other cases, two fertilized eggs may fuse together. These so-called embryonic chimeras may go through life blissfully unaware of their origins.

One woman discovered she was a chimera as late as age 52. In need of a kidney transplant, she was tested so that she might find a match. The results indicated that she was not the mother of two of her three biological children. It turned out that she had originated from two genomes. One genome gave rise to her blood and some of her eggs; other eggs carried a separate genome.

Women can also gain genomes from their children. After a baby is born, it may leave some fetal cells behind in its mother’s body, where they can travel to different organs and be absorbed into those tissues. “It’s pretty likely that any woman who has been pregnant is a chimera,” Dr. Randolph said.

Everywhere You Look

As scientists begin to search for chimeras systematically — rather than waiting for them to turn up in puzzling medical tests — they’re finding them in a remarkably high fraction of people. In 2012, Canadian scientists performed autopsies on the brains of 59 women. They found neurons with Y chromosomes in 63 percent of them. The neurons likely developed from cells originating in their sons.

In The International Journal of Cancer in August, Eugen Dhimolea of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues reported that male cells can also infiltrate breast tissue. When they looked for Y chromosomes in samples of breast tissue, they found it in 56 percent of the women they investigated.

A century ago, geneticists discovered one way in which people might acquire new genomes. They were studying “mosaic animals,” rare creatures with oddly-colored patches of fur. The animals didn’t inherit the genes for these patches from their parents. Instead, while embryos, they acquired a mutation in a skin cell that divided to produce a colored patch.

Mosaicism, as this condition came to be known, was difficult to study in humans before the age of DNA sequencing. Scientists could only discover instances in which the mutations and the effects were big.

In 1960, researchers found that a form of leukemia is a result of mosaicism. A blood cell spontaneously mutates as it divides, moving a big chunk of one chromosome to another.

Later studies added support to the idea that cancer is a result of mutations in specific cells. But scientists had little idea of how common cases of mosaicism were beyond cancer.

“We didn’t have the technology to systematically think about them,” said Dr. Christopher Walsh, a geneticist at Children’s Hospital in Boston who recently published a review on mosaicism and disease in Science. “Now we’re in the midst of a revolution.”

Benign Differences

The latest findings make it clear that mosaicism is quite common — even in healthy cells.

Dr. Urban and his colleagues, for example, investigated mutations in cells called fibroblasts, which are found in connective tissue. They searched in particular for cases in which a segment of DNA was accidentally duplicated or deleted. As they reported last year, 30 percent of the fibroblasts carried at least one such mutation.

Michael Snyder of Stanford University and his colleagues searched for mosaicism by performing autopsies on six people who had died of causes other than cancer. In five of the six people they autopsied, the scientists reported last October, they found cells in different organs with stretches of DNA that had accidentally been duplicated or deleted.

Now that scientists are beginning to appreciate how common chimerism and mosaicism are, they’re investigating the effects of these conditions on our health. “That’s still open really, because these are still early days,” Dr. Urban said.

Nevertheless, said Dr. Walsh, “it’s safe to say that a large proportion of those mutations will be benign.” Recent studies on chimeras suggest that these extra genomes can even be beneficial. Chimeric cells from fetuses appear to seek out damaged tissue and help heal it, for example.

But scientists are also starting to find cases in which mutations in specific cells help give rise to diseases other than cancer. Dr. Walsh, for example, studies a childhood disorder of the brain called hemimegalencephaly, in which one side of the brain grows larger than the other, leading to devastating seizures.

“The kids have no chance for a normal life without desperate surgery to take out half of their brain,” he said.

Dr. Walsh has studied the genomes of neurons removed during those surgeries. He and his colleagues discovered that some neurons in the overgrown hemisphere have mutations to one gene. Two other teams of scientists have identified mutations on other genes, all of which help to control the growth of neurons. “We can get our hands on the mechanism of the disease,” said Dr. Walsh.

Other researchers are now investigating whether mosaicism is a factor in more common diseases, like schizophrenia. “This will play itself out over the next 5 or 10 years,” said Dr. Urban, who with his colleagues is studying it.

Moving Cautiously

Medical researchers aren’t the only scientists interested in our multitudes of personal genomes. So are forensic scientists. When they attempt to identify criminals or murder victims by matching DNA, they want to avoid being misled by the variety of genomes inside a single person.

Last year, for example, forensic scientists at the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory Division described how a saliva sample and a sperm sample from the same suspect in a sexual assault case didn’t match.

Bone marrow transplants can also confound forensic scientists. Researchers at Innsbruck Medical University in Austria took cheek swabs from 77 people who had received transplants up to nine years earlier. In 74 percent of the samples, they found a mix of genomes — both their own and those from the marrow donors, the scientists reported this year. The transplanted stem cells hadn’t just replaced blood cells, but had also become cells lining the cheek.

While the risk of confusion is real, it is manageable, experts said. “This should not be much of a concern for forensics,” said Manfred Kayser, a professor of Forensic Molecular Biology at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. In the cases where mosaicism or chimerism causes confusion, forensic scientists can clear it up by other means. In the Austrian study, for example, the scientists found no marrow donor genomes in the hair of the recipients.

For genetic counselors helping clients make sense of DNA tests, our many genomes pose more serious challenges. A DNA test that uses blood cells may miss disease-causing mutations in the cells of other organs. “We can’t tell you what else is going on,” said Nancy B. Spinner, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania, who published a review about the implications of mosaicism for genetic counseling in the May issue of Nature Reviews Genetics.

That may change as scientists develop more powerful ways to investigate our different genomes and learn more about their links to diseases. “It’s not tomorrow that you’re going to walk into your doctor’s office and they’re going to think this way,” said Dr. Lupski. “It’s going to take time.”

You think your going to get a fair trial??? Don't make me laugh!!!!

Debra Milke - Alex Garcia - Detective Armando Saldate - Detective Louis Scarcella

In the Buddhist Temple murders, first the 4 kids from Tucson was framed for murder by the Maricopa County Sheriff. They were Mike McGraw, Leo Bruce, Mark Nunez, 19, and Dante Parker.

After it was discovered they were innocent Alessandro Garcia and Johnathan Doody had their civil rights violated, and may have also been framed for the murder.

Next we have the Debra Milke case. Even if she is guilty she was framed by crooked Phoenix Detective Armando Saldate who seems to have made up an imaginary confession out of thin air.

Last in New York City we have Brooklyn homicide detective Louis Scarcella. He is suspected of framing 50 people for murder. He uses the same techniques of Phoenix Detective Armando Saldate. Make up confessions out of thin air. Beat up people to get confessions. Bribe criminals with drugs, special favors and reduced prison sentences to make up imaginary evidence to help him frame real people for murder.

Temple witness has history of lying

Temple witness has history of lying

By Laurie Merrill The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:40 PM

The state’s key witness in the retrial of a man accused of being his accomplice in the 1991 Buddhist temple massacre admits a history of lying about the case.

Ultimately, it will be up to the jurors to decide whether Alessandro “Alex” Garcia is now being honest about Johnathan Doody’s involvement in the murders.

Doody and Garcia were convicted more than 20 years ago in the fatal shooting of six Thai monks, two acolytes and a nun in the temple’s sitting room.

Doody’s retrial is in its second month, and closing arguments may take place as early as Thursday.

Defense attorney Mark Rothschild had his first chance on Monday to question Garcia, who began testifying last month. His cross-examination was postponed because of a defense attorney’s personal emergency.

Garcia testified on Monday that, when police first interrogated him, he lied and said he had nothing to do with the brazen robbery and murder of nine people at the Wat Promkunaram temple in Waddell.

He again lied to investigators when he falsely implicated four men from Tucson, known at the time in the media as the Tucson Four, and two others, even though they had nothing to do with the state’s largest massacre on record, Garcia testified.

Additionally, Garcia admitted that he lied by initially withholding information that he had committed a 10th murder about two months after the temple slayings.

Garcia pleaded guilty in 1993 in a deal that allowed him to avoid the death penalty. Doody was convicted by a jury the same year. Garcia was sentenced to 271 years and Doody to 281 years in prison.

But Doody’s conviction was overturned when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that his confession, elicited over 12 hours of questioning, was illegally coerced.

Doody’s was not the only confession found to be false. There were six false confessions in the case obtained under tactics by investigators under then-Maricopa County Sheriff Tom Agnos.

There was Garcia’s initial false confession implicating the “Tucson Four”; four false confessions from each of the Tucson suspects, who later won lawsuits over the ordeal; and Doody’s confession, which was later thrown out by an appeals court.

Garcia’s testimony in the retrial gives an eyewitness account placing Doody at the scene of the slayings and putting the murder weapon — a Marlin .22-caliber rifle — in Doody’s hands. It was Doody who insisted there be no witnesses and insisted that all victims must die, Garcia testified.

Defense attorney Maria Schaffer said before Doody’s retrial that the defense would attempt to show that Garcia is an unreliable witness and that Doody was not at the temple that night.

Under redirect testimony from Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Jason Kalish, Garcia said jurors should believe his account.

“It is the truth,” he said.

Bill Montgomery takes 9th Circuit to woodshed over Milke decision

Posted on September 16, 2013 4:58 pm by Laurie Roberts

Bill Montgomery takes 9th Circuit to woodshed over Milke decision

So, it seems the Phoenix police detective who put away Debra Milke — a woman once considered Arizona’s most notorious baby killer — now has a sudden bout of … well, let’s just call it shyness.

Former Detective Armando Saldate doesn’t want to testify against Milke.

This, after sending her to prison 23 years ago in a case that was basically his word that she confessed to setting up her four-year-old son’s murder against her word that she didn’t.

The jury went with his word and Milke went to death row.

In March, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out her conviction due to substantial and alarming questions about the detective’s character. Saldate, a three-judge panel wrote, had a “long history” of trampling people’s Miranda rights and lying under oath – something that should have been, but never was, disclosed to the Milke jury.

The opinion painted a scathing and scary portrait of police and prosecutors who abused their power to send a woman to death row. Or, as Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery sees it, a doctored photo.

Montgomery took the 9th Circuit to the woodshed on Friday, saying basically that the appellate court was out to get Saldate and misrepresented his work in eight previous cases in order to discredit the detective.

“In a rush to draw a conclusion that would support the 9th Circuit’s apparent desire to take out the detective, they glossed over all the facts,” Montgomery said, in summarizing one of those cases cited by appellate judges as evidence of “the detective’s lack of compunction about lying” and his tendency to violate suspects’ rights.

In one case, for example, the appellate court pointed out that Saldate got a confession from a murder suspect who was in intensive care and drifting in and out of consciousness. A judge, the appellate court noted, tossed out the confession as “involuntary and inadmissible” due to a violation of the suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights.

Montgomery acknowledges that the suspect confessed as he drifted in and out of consciousness. But he says Saldate stopped that interview because of the suspect’s condition and never submitted that confession. Instead, he came back 10 days later, after the suspect’s condition had improved, and interviewed him again. The resulting confession was suppressed, Montgomery says, not due to Fifth Amendment concerns but because the man hadn’t been properly given an initial court appearance.

“It is safe to say that any unbiased third party reviewing this distortion of the facts would wonder whether the appellate court had an agenda which was not supported by the truth,” according to an analysis of the case by Montgomery’s office.

Montgomery says that Saldate was never accused of misconduct in any of the eight cases cited by the 9th Circuit and faces no possibility of prosecution.

Which brings us to the curious decision by ex-Detective Saldate.

Mum’s apparently the word with this guy as his attorney, Larry Debus, said last week that he’s advising his client to take the Fifth if he’s called to testify. On Monday, Saldate will have to appear in court and tell Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz whether he intends to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.

If he does, that presumably would mean that he’s done something for which he needs protection from prosecution.

It almost certainly would mean that Debra Milke would not be retried for the 1989 murder of her son, Christopher.

Saldate’s no saint. Montgomery raises sizable questions about the 9th Circuit’s grasp of events — though, interestingly, he didn’t bring up the appellate court’s revelation of the 1973 incident when Saldate pulled over a woman for a traffic stop, took “liberties” with her and later lied about it to internal affairs investigators.

The question now is this: Was he corrupt enough to invent a mother’s confession to murdering her son, as the appellate court suggests? If so, then silence is golden.

But if not, is he honorable enough to let a jury decide – his word against hers, with all the information out there this time?

That is something for Saldate to consider, as he ponders his reputation and Milke’s future.

If he lied, then a potentially innocent woman was robbed of her life.

But if he was telling the truth, then by his silence he’s now letting a murderer go free.

NYPD Detective Louis Scarcella may have framed 50 people for murder???

Several Murder Confessions Taken by Brooklyn Detective Have Similar Language

By FRANCES ROBLES

Published: June 12, 2013

As the Brooklyn homicide detective Louis Scarcella told it, the suspect in a ruthless home invasion that left one man dead and two more people in a coma started talking after just a few minutes of questioning.

A confession by Jabbar Washington in his 1997 murder trial uses phrases found in other confessions recorded by Mr. Scarcella.

“You got it right,” the suspect, Jabbar Washington, said. “I was there.”

The phrase was straightforward and damning, introducing the central piece of evidence that sent him to prison for 25 years to life. At the 1997 trial, Mr. Scarcella told the jury that it was the easiest confession he had obtained in more than two decades working for the Police Department.

But if the interrogation was unique for him, the wording was not. In at least four more murder cases, suspects questioned by Mr. Scarcella began their confessions with either “you got it right” or “I was there.”

Mr. Scarcella, 61, was a member of the Brooklyn North Homicide squad who developed a reputation for eliciting confessions when no other detective could. But questions about his credibility have led the Brooklyn district attorney’s office to reopen all of his trial convictions.

The similarity of the confessions, which was discovered in a review of cases by The New York Times, raises new doubts about the statements that Mr. Scarcella presented and that the prosecutors used to win convictions in dozens of murder cases. One of the men, David Ranta, who had spent more than two decades arguing that he never made the confession attributed to him that began “I was there,” has already been released from prison.

Defense lawyers fighting the convictions say the resemblance of statements attributed to inmates who shared nothing in common makes it more likely that Mr. Scarcella fabricated evidence, laying the groundwork for cases to be dismissed and millions to be paid in wrongful conviction lawsuits.

“It’s sort of beyond belief that it would be coincidental,” said Steven Banks, chief lawyer for the Legal Aid Society, which is reviewing 20 cases handled by Mr. Scarcella.

Mr. Scarcella, a 26-year veteran who retired in 1999, stood by his record, saying he was one of the best detectives in the department. As for the similarities, he said: “I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. I will say this again: I have never fabricated a confession in my life.”

In a previous interview, Mr. Scarcella said that because of Mr. Ranta’s recent exoneration, inmates now considered him a “get-out-of-jail-free key.”

However, records show that in many cases, the allegations of misconduct and manufactured confessions are not new.

Mr. Washington, who is still in prison for the 1995 killing of Ronald Ellis, took the stand in his trial and testified that Mr. Scarcella provided the script for the confession. The detective, he said, grabbed him by the neck and testicles and forced him to sign his name to a document the detective wrote. “He always said the cop fed him what to say,” said Mark Pollard, who was Mr. Washington’s lawyer at the trial.

Mr. Washington, who was 23 during the trial, had an alibi, and the survivors of the shooting were unable to identify him in court, leaving the confession as the crux of the prosecution’s case. Mr. Washington’s claim of a forced confession was undermined, prosecutors wrote in response to his appeal, by a video of the confession that showed he did not appear to be looking to Mr. Scarcella for cues.

“The D.A. broke the confession down and tried to show it was extemporaneous,” Mr. Pollard said. “But I would not accept these similarities as coincidence. It definitely doesn’t smell right.”

By then the language had already appeared in several other cases. One of them centered on a 1994 arson in Williamsburg in which two people died. The suspect, Hector Lopez, had been entangled in a dispute with his former girlfriend and her new boyfriend, both of whom survived, and was accused of setting the man’s building on fire.

After about 12 hours in custody, Mr. Scarcella said that Mr. Lopez began to weep and said: “You guys got it right.”

Mr. Lopez, who was confronted with other evidence like a gas can in his car, is serving 25 years to life at the Sullivan Correctional Facility in Fallsburg, N.Y. But his lawyer, William Loeb, wrote in an appeal that discrepancies between the confession and evidence suggested “the disturbing likelihood” that Mr. Scarcella had made up the confession.

Pierre Sussman, Mr. Ranta’s lawyer, said that was precisely what Mr. Scarcella did with Mr. Ranta, who in 1990 was an unemployed drug addict when the detective questioned him for the killing of a Hasidic rabbi. Mr. Scarcella testified that he was at central booking with Mr. Ranta when his prisoner did an about-face and decided to come clean about the robbery and shooting.

Mr. Scarcella said he scribbled the man’s exact words on the back of a manila envelope, starting with “I was there.”

Mr. Ranta, who has frequently said he never confessed to the detective, was exonerated in March after 23 years in prison. “If you take a look at statements given to Detective Scarcella, and they start out the same way — ‘I was there’ — and then follow with a narrative, that’s a huge problem,” Mr. Sussman said. “It’s a sign that it may be Scarcella’s words, and not the suspects’.”

Scholars who study police interrogations say it is not uncommon for confessions to include traces of the detective’s speech, particularly law enforcement jargon the suspect was unlikely to have used without prompting. In addition, sometimes a detective will prompt a person to admit being present at the crime scene, while still playing down the role in the crime, a technique known as minimizing, which has been cited as sometimes leading to false confessions.

“It’s hard to imagine all five people used the same exact words,” said Richard Leo, a University of San Francisco law professor who specializes in confessions. “It almost sounds like a template.”

The phrases still seemed etched in Mr. Scarcella’s memory. Even in spontaneous retellings of various confessions in recent years, he has reached for those exact words.

In an interview with The New York Post last month, he said he still remembered Mr. Ranta’s confession from a quarter century earlier: “I said: ‘You come from 66th Street. I come from 66th Street. We’re both Italian. Why don’t you tell me the truth?’ So he says, ‘Yeah, you’re right. I was there.’ ”

And talking about a different case during an appearance on the “Dr. Phil” television program in 2007, where he discussed the tactics he used to get suspects to admit their misdeeds, Mr. Scarcella recalled a similar conversation with a suspect. “He says to me, ‘Louis, you were right. I was there, but he kicked me, and I shot him by accident.’ I said, ‘Don’t you feel better now?’ And he’s now doing 37 ½ years to life.”

Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney, has declined to publicly identify the 50 cases that are under review by the office’s Conviction Integrity Unit. So it is unclear how many more may have featured such language.

“We are looking for certain patterns,” said Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for the office. The wording “may be a pattern.”

An earlier examination by The Times also showed that Mr. Scarcella used the same crack-addicted prostitute as a witness in a series of unrelated murder cases.

The Legal Aid Society was informed by the office that 20 of the cases under review involved the agency’s clients. At the request of The Times, the organization’s lawyers reviewed those cases and found two with similar wording at the start of the confession. They declined to reveal the names but said both defendants served about 14 years in prison for shootings that took place in the 1990s, six years apart.

“One of the confessions includes ‘I was there’ and the other says, ‘I want to tell you the truth: you are right,’ ” Mr. Banks said. “Given the patterns that are emerging, clearly that gives great concern about the detective’s techniques.”

Steve Benson - Gun Grabber

Feds want gays bumped from federal juries

Our government masters also hate jurors who can think on their own for the same reason. They would prefer zombie jurors who rubber stamp whatever the prosecutor says.

And in this article it sounds like our government masters also hate the idea of gay folks on juries because they might not agree with the government's religious war against gay folks.

I suspect the government would also love to prohibit people who think that drugs should be legalized. Again for the same reason. Those folks tend to think the government's war on drugs is unjust, unfair, racist, selectively enforced and unconstitutional.

Source

Court to decide whether gays can be bumped from federal juries

By Maura Dolan

September 18, 2013, 8:25 a.m.

SAN FRANCISCO -- An appeals court will consider Wednesday whether gays and lesbians may be struck from federal jury pools because of their sexual orientation.

The issue before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal arose in an antitrust dispute two years ago between two drug makers, Abbott Laboratories and SmithKlineBeecham.

An attorney for Abbott used a peremptory challenge to bump a man who had spoken of his “partner.” Peremptory challenges do not require an explanation.

SmithKline objected to the strike, charging that Abbott did not want gays on a jury that was deciding whether the company improperly raised the price an HIV drug. An Abbott attorney denied removing the man because of his perceived sexual orientation. The trial judge permitted the removal.

The jury rejected most of SmithKline’s claims and decided that Abbott should pay only $3.5 million, a fraction of the damages SmithKline had sought. SmithKline has asked the 9th Circuit to overturn the verdict and grant a new trial based on the removal of the gay panelist.

The Supreme Court has barred the removal of prospective jurors because of their race or gender, but has never extended the prohibition to sexual orientation. Thirteen civil rights groups, citing rulings in gay marriage cases, have urged the 9th Circuit to bar juror strikes based on sexual orientation.

Three liberal 9th Circuit judges — Stephen Reinhardt, Marsha Berzon and Mary Schroeder — will decide the issue. They asked the lawyers to address the effect of the Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act. That ruling required the federal government to give same-sex married couples the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.

The outcome of the 9th Circuit case will only affect federal juries. California has long prohibited litigants in state court from striking panelists on the basis of sexual orientation.

Aaron Alexis approved to buy a gun despite mental problems

Gun grabber Kyrsten Sinema's says that people shouldn't be allowed to have guns unless the government gives them a permit.

Source

- Require a license for gun possession.

- Maintain and strengthen the enforcement of existing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.

- Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.

Source

Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis heard voices

By Richard A. Serrano, David Cloud and Molly Hennessy-Fiske

September 17, 2013, 9:39 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Six weeks ago, Aaron Alexis told people someone had threatened him at an airport in Virginia. A few days later, in Rhode Island, he heard voices. He thought people were speaking to him through "the walls, floor and ceiling" of the Navy base there, where he was working.

In his hotel room, the voices used "some sort of microwave machine" to send vibrations through the ceiling and into his body, a police report shows him saying. He could not sleep.

Alexis frequently moved as part of his contract work at military installations from New England to North Carolina; he arrived in Washington on Aug. 25. He switched hotels several times until Sept. 7, when he finally settled into the Residence Inn — a mile from his new workplace at the historic Washington Navy Yard on the capital's waterfront.

On Saturday he visited a gun shop in the Virginia suburbs. He practiced firing a rifle, then purchased a Remington 870 shotgun and 24 shells. The short-barrel weapon, known popularly as a "riot gun," is commonly used by police and the military.

On Monday he reported to work with that shotgun. The FBI says he had a valid pass to enter the base. At 8:15 a.m., in Building 197, the most crowded structure there, he opened fire, grabbed a pistol along the way, and killed 12 people, shooting at police until they killed him in a gun battle that lasted about half an hour.

A day later, Alexis' history of mental problems, his extensive disciplinary record from his time in the Navy, and his three arrests over the last decade — two of them for gun-related incidents — have generated numerous questions.

Many are reminiscent of past mass shootings: How had police, the military and the company he worked for missed the accumulating signs of trouble? Why was the 34-year-old loner and drifter given an ID card that would allow him to easily come and go from military bases around the country without a security check? How could he so readily pass a background check to buy a shotgun?

Amid those questions, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to order a review of security procedures at all Defense Department installations in the U.S., a Pentagon official said Tuesday.

At the company Alexis worked for, the Experts, an information technology firm based in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., Chief Executive Thomas E. Hoshko said that despite having paid another company to conduct a background check on Alexis before hiring him in 2012, to Hoshko's knowledge his company was "never made aware of any criminal or health issues."

"I have more questions than you, and I am working to find out what can be done to improve security on bases, as well as the security process," he wrote in an email.

Alexis' secret-level security clearance, which he originally received in 2008 after joining the Navy, made him a valuable hire for an IT company with contracts to work on classified computer networks. And it allowed him entry to the Navy Yard without being searched.

Like most military personnel, Alexis got his clearance as a routine matter so he could access the computers that he might use on a daily basis in his job as an electronics expert on C-40 cargo planes at Fort Worth Naval Air Station, Navy officials said.

The clearance was good for a decade, officials said. Although his Navy record included several unauthorized absences from duty, instances of insubordination and disorderly conduct, one case of being absent without leave and several failed inspections, none of the problems rose to a level that would have jeopardized his clearance, they said.

When Alexis was discharged in 2011, his clearance became inactive, but it was reinstated without the need for additional investigation when he went to work for a contractor, officials said.

"The security clearance system is not foolproof," said Steven Aftergood, a secrecy and security expert with the Federation of American Scientists. "But what is reasonable to expect is that evidence of past criminal activity and a propensity to violence should be detected, and in this case the process failed to do that."

Navy officials said that because of his disciplinary problems as a sailor, they had considered giving Alexis something less than an honorable discharge. But since he had never been convicted of a crime and had glowing fitness reports, they eventually granted him an honorable separation.

In evaluations from 2007 to 2011, first reported by Fox News, Alexis was described as "an eager trainee" with "unlimited potential" and a "get-it-done attitude." A 2008 report called him a "talented technician" on aircraft electrical systems who should be promoted.

An arrest in Georgia in 2008 for disorderly conduct stemming from an incident at a bar, however, prompted a negative review.

"He has had a severe lapse in judgment on a number of occasions and has been counseled several times for inappropriate conduct," the review said in spring 2009, noting that he had been reduced in rank and had his pay docked.

When Alexis appealed the punishment, it was overturned. Subsequent reviews were once again positive.

The system of background checks for gun purchases also failed to pick up Alexis' problems.

J. Michael Slocum, an attorney for the Sharpshooters Small Arms Range and gun store in Lorton, Va., said that "Mr. Alexis' name and other applicable information, including his state of residency, was provided to the federal [Naval Criminal Investigative Service] system, and he was approved by that system."

The shotgun purchase appears to have complied with Virginia's laws, which are less stringent than those in some other states. In 2007, after 23-year-old student Seung-hui Cho killed 32 students and faculty members at Virginia Tech, then-Gov. Tim Kaine signed an executive order requiring that the names of all people involuntarily committed to mental health facilities be provided to a federal database that licensed gun dealers are supposed to check before they sell anyone a gun.

But Alexis does not appear to have been committed. In Rhode Island, when he reported hearing voices, police told him to stay away from the people he thought were bothering him, but otherwise took no action, according to a police report released Tuesday. Rhode Island, like most other states, sets a fairly stringent standard for what officials must prove in order to involuntarily commit a person.

As a result, when Alexis reported to the Navy Yard, he "had legitimate access … as a result of his work as a contractor, and he utilized a valid pass to gain entry to the building," Valerie Parlave, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington field office, said at a news conference Tuesday.

Security at the base already has been reviewed. A Defense Department inspector general's report released Tuesday said that a computer database system the Navy had adopted to reduce costs while controlling contractors' access had allowed convicted felons onto bases 52 times.

Several members of Congress quickly leapt on the report, saying it pointed to problems. "This apparent security lapse — permitting people with criminal records to freely access military bases and facilities — is deeply troubling," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Alexis arrived at the base with the shotgun, and "may have gained access to a handgun once inside the facility and after he began shooting," Parlave said. Investigators believe he may have shot and killed a security guard and taken his weapon. Contrary to previous accounts that were widely reported Monday, Parlave said Alexis had not used an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.

Cathy Lanier, chief of Washington's Metropolitan Police Department, said police officers were at the Navy Yard within two minutes of the first calls for help. Within four or five minutes, she said, seven police units were on the scene, trying to determine where the gunfire was coming from.

"There were different buildings, different calls and different building numbers," she said. After a short time, she said, "we had units outside the building where the shooter was, and they could hear another round of gunfire. They entered immediately and two of them started giving lookouts and passing information along.

"There were multiple engagements with the suspect with multiple agencies before the final shots were fired," and this "saved numerous lives," Lanier said.

Parlave said the FBI believed Alexis acted alone. Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. attorney in Washington, said federal prosecutors nonetheless were investigating whether others assisted him in any way, even inadvertently. "We're not going to stop until we get answers to these questions," he said.

Melinda Downs, 44, a close friend from Alexis' days in Fort Worth, said she wished someone had helped him in other ways. Although he stayed with her and her husband during part of August, Downs said she had no clue that he had been hearing voices while in Rhode Island. She said he did not mention being followed or frequently changing hotels, nor his previous arrests for firing a gun through the ceiling of his apartment in Fort Worth and shooting the tires of a person's car in Seattle.

But, Downs said, she wished police had done more when he called them in distress.

"Did they try to get him some kind of help?" she wondered. "Take him to a counseling center?"

"When someone calls in with this type of mental instability, and you do nothing and yet he has access to all these weapons — the police who took that call have some kind of accountability," she said. "Why didn't they get him help?"

richard.serrano@latimes.com

david.cloud@latimes.com

molly.hennessy-fiske@latimes.com

Serrano and Cloud reported from Washington and Hennessy-Fiske from Fort Worth. Times staff writers Tina Susman in New York and Richard Winton in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Unarmed victim zone

Letter: ‘Gun free zone?’ Nope. Try ‘unarmed victim zone’

Posted: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:32 pm

Letter to the Editor

On Nov. 5, 2009 an Army major “psychiatrist jihadist” shouts “Allahu Akbar” and guns down more than 40 people, fatally injuring 13 in a gun free zone at Fort Hood. On July 20, 2012, a crazed man enters a theater in Aurora, Colo., guns down 70 people, fatally injuring 12 in a gun free zone. At Sandy Hook Elementary, also a gun-free zone, on December 14 2012, Adam Lanza fatally shoots 20 children and 6 adults. In Washington, D.C., on Sept. 16, a shooter kills at least 12 people in a gun free zone of a Naval yard reinforced with military security.

There are others as well: Virginia Tech — a gun free zone. Columbine High School — a gun free zone.

Maybe it’s time we quit calling it a “gun free zone” and refer to it by its real description: “Unarmed victim zone.”

Steve Ball

Gilbert

Dilbert busted by Homeland Security????

Norwalk pastor violated 20-plus women

But I guess ministers feel the same way too. I guess if their is a God he really works in weird ways.

Source

Norwalk pastor violated 20-plus women using 'healing hands,' cops say

By Richard Winton and Ruben Vives

September 19, 2013, 11:19 a.m.

An associate pastor at a church in Norwalk arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting more than 20 female parishioners allegedly told his victims the sex acts were a necessary part of using "healing hands."

Jorge Juan Castro, 53, was arrested last Friday on allegations that during his eight years as associate pastor at Las Buenas Nuevas Church in Norwalk, he repeatedly sexually assaulted at least 20 parishioners. He told the alleged victims who questioned the sex acts that they were part of the faith-healing process, said L.A. County Sheriff's Capt. Robert Esson.

"He claimed to have healing hands and ulitized that process to eventually sexually assault them," Esson said. "He preyed upon them from a trust position. He warned them they'd be the subject of ridicule in the church if they told others."

Castro also allegedly threatened to have the women — who ranged in age from 18 to 39 — deported if they spoke out, Esson added.

Esson said the alleged crimes stretch from October 2004 to September 2012. Detectives in the Special Victims Unit began investigating Castro April 8 when a person who many of the alleged victims had confided in informed authorities and convinced some to speak to detectives.

Detectives know of some 20 victims in the mostly Spanish-speaking congregation had allegedly been assaulted by the pastor. Several victims provided evidence to detectives and their allegations led to the charges, said sheriff's Sgt. Al Garcia.

Church leaders removed Castro from the church upon learning of the investigation, Esson said.

"The church and the senior pastor here worked with us. ... We've been to services and spoken [to the parishioners]. We assured everyone they need not be concerned about deportation," Esson said. "This is about this pastor's crimes."

After surveillance by undercover major-crimes detectives, Castro was arrested Sept. 13 at his home in Norwalk and booked on charges of rape, penetration by a foreign object and oral copulation. He is already charged with six felony counts, but that number is expected to rise.

Castro is being held in lieu of $2-million bail after a court appearance earlier this week.

Castro came to the United States from Argentina in 2004. Soon after, the alleged sex crimes began, Esson said.

Authorities in Riverside County are now also investigating his term at a church in Moreno Valley, which has been alerted, Esson said.

"He has a large number of victims and we suspect there are more. We'd like many more of those victims to come forward to us. They have nothing to fear," Esson said.

Esson said anyone with information can contact the detectives at (877)710-5273 or email Specialvictims@lasd.org or anonymously call (800) 222-TIPS or text the letters TIPLA plus your tip to CRIMES (274637)

Twitter: @lacrimes| Google+

richard.winton@latimes.com

Victimless crime - It's a jobs program for cops!!!

Our new crime-riddled ‘Five Cs’ and what to do about them

In this article when Bill Richardson talks about "organized crime" it sounds like it's almost all victimless crimes that people want. Such as drugs, gambling and prostitution.

Bill Richardson says that 60 percent or more of serious crime in Arizona is linked to organized crime. Which could also be said that 60 percent or more of the crime is victimless crime that people want.

Bill Richardson's solution to the non-existent problem seems to be to hire more cops and government bureaucrats.

The real solution it to legalize all these victimless crimes and let the cops hunt down real criminals like robbers, burglars, muggers and rapists.

Source

Richardson: Our new crime-riddled ‘Five Cs’ and what to do about them

Posted: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 7:11 am

Commentary by Bill Richardson

“Okay, we know what the writer thinks is wrong. Does he have any idea what to do about it?”

An EastValleyTribune.com commenter, “Catskinner” posed that question in regard to my Sept. 4, commentary (“Richardson: New McCain/Flake dog and pony show neglects border problem that’s already here”; read the column at evtnow.com/5ub

Here’s my response:

For those of us who attended school in Arizona, we learned the “Five Cs” of the state stood for “Copper,” “Cattle,” “Cotton,” “Citrus” and “Climate.”

Today they increasingly stand for “Cartels,” “Contraband,” “Cash,” “Crime” and “Criminals.” The “Five Cs” have changed and some of the biggest reasons are statewide law enforcement is underfunded, unorganized and in some cases even unqualified to take on the problem of crime, especially organized crime.

According to the Arizona Department of Public Safety 60 percent of serious crime in Arizona is linked to organized crime. The U. S. Department of Justice reports the percentage could be higher.

The first rule of organized crime is to operate where there is minimal risk and maximum return. That’s Arizona.

Once upon a time, statewide policing in Arizona operated under the umbrella of a single state-policing agency. Today there are almost twenty state agencies with approximately 2,000 officers doing their own thing including investigating organized crime. Throw in over 100 city and county law enforcement agencies doing their own thing, and its easy to see why organized criminals, from street and prison gangs to the Mexican cartels love doing business here. Like I said in the Sept. 4 column, Mexico based organized crime “runs with the precision of Wal-Mart and makes money like Wall Street.” Too often law enforcement runs like a swap meet.

One only need look at the current state of the Department of Liquor License and Control where only a dozen of so agents are responsible for enforcing the liquor laws at over 10,000 locations. Bars have long been locations for investment by organized crime and where criminals gather and crimes from dealing dope, to prostitution and money laundering are committed. Arizona has turned a blind eye to the serious problems that have historically surrounded bars.

The state’s massive under aged drinking problem is the just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to failed liquor law enforcement.

At one time dozens of officers DPS once did a fine job targeting liquor laws and related criminal activities. Not anymore. One can only wonder why?

Also gone from DPS’s once successful anti-crime format are the hundreds of officers who successfully worked narcotics, prescription drug abuse, prison gangs, motorcycle gangs, white supremacists, criminal intelligence and white-collar crimes.

Arizona has become a destination for organized crime in large part because state government dismantled what worked. Thanks to years of neglect and mismanagement, Arizona has put out the welcome mat for crime and criminals.

The criminal element has become increasingly more organized and sophisticated and segments of law enforcement haven’t kept up. Mediocrity has become an acceptable policing standard for some.

In order to fix what’s broken the state needs to admit organized crime is here, growing and operating with impunity.

It’s been years since Arizona presented any real threat to them thanks in large part to the state’s not having a single well-funded state agency responsible for investigating organized crime.

Arizona needs to design and fund an agency that’s solely responsible for the investigation of organized criminal activities. Within that agency there must be a statewide system to collect, analyze and share criminal intelligence on organized crime. Currently, Arizona can’t even track basic criminal activities, much less the sophisticated criminal enterprises run by gangs that move from community to community.

Fixing the problem is as simple as making a well led and all out attack on organized crime a statewide priority and creating and properly funding a state agency to lead the charge.

But I won’t be holding my breath until Arizona fixes what’s broken. Sadly Arizona has become a state that’s increasingly known for breaking things that once worked great.

Retired Mesa master police officer Bill Richardson lives in the East Valley and can be reached at bill.richardson@cox.net.

North Carolina cop 'justified' in shooting unarmed man

North Carolina cop 'justified' in shooting unarmed man, lawyers say

Marti Maguire Reuters

6:09 a.m. CDT, September 18, 2013

RALEIGH, North Carolina (Reuters) - Lawyers for a North Carolina police officer say he was "justified" in shooting an unarmed man 10 times, killing him shortly after police say he survived a car accident early Saturday morning.

Officer Randall Kerrick, 27, is charged with voluntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of Jonathan Ferrell, 24, who had played football at Florida A&M University.

At a brief court hearing on Tuesday in Charlotte, a judge scheduled a probable cause hearing in the case for October 8. Kerrick was not present in court.

His attorneys, Michael J. Greene and George V. Laughrun, issued a statement saying that they are "confident that the evidence will show that Officer Kerrick's actions were justified that night."

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department took the unusual step of charging Kerrick later on the day of the shooting.

Police said in a statement that Kerrick "did not have a lawful right to discharge his weapon during this encounter."

The tape of the 911 call that triggered the incident was also released on Tuesday, revealing a panicked caller who was woken up at about 2:30 a.m. by heavy knocking on her front door.

"There's a guy breaking in my front door," the woman said. "He's trying to knock it down."

She said she opened the door because she thought it was her husband. Alarmed to find an unfamiliar black man instead, she locked the door and called 911.

During a 17-minute recording, the caller repeatedly cried "Oh, God" and worried aloud about her baby sleeping in his crib as she waited on the line for police to arrive.

Early in the call, she said the intruder was still in the yard.

Ferrell had wrecked his car about half a mile away from the woman's home. Authorities believe he was seeking help when he knocked on the door.

Later, the caller watched through the window as the police searched her house and then went up the street.

It was then, police say, that three officers found Ferrell, who ran toward them. When one officer's Taser did not stop Ferrell's advance, Kerrick fired his gun 12 times, hitting Ferrell 10 times.

In charging Kerrick, the police said that while Ferrell "did advance" on the officer, Kerrick's action was "excessive."

The racial overtones of the case have spawned outrage among civil rights advocates; Ferrell is black, while Kerrick is white.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union are calling for the city to strengthen its citizens review board, which is tasked with investigating complaints against police, but has never ruled against the police department.

The ACLU is also calling for all video footage recorded at the scene to be considered a public record. Charlotte police last month began testing body cameras to replace recording devices on squad car dashboards.

(Editing by David Adams and Leslie Adler)

Obama should pardon all victimless drug war prisoners

Holder directs attorneys to seek reduced sentences in pending drug cases

The only RIGHT thing for Emperor Obama to do is issued pardons for all those folks.

But don't count on it.

President Obama lied when he told us he would stop shaking down people for victimless medical marijuana crimes.

And Obama recently lied to us when he said he wouldn't send his DEA thugs after people who use marijuana in Colorado and Washington where marijuana is now legal. In those two states Obama's drug czar goons are busting people in national parks who use marijuana, which is now legal in both Colorado and Washington.

Source

Holder directs attorneys to seek reduced sentences in pending drug cases

By Sari Horwitz, Updated: Thursday, September 19, 1:15 PM E-mail the writer

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Thursday that he has directed U.S. attorneys across the country to apply new sentencing guidelines to ongoing drug cases so that low-level, nonviolent offenders will not face severe mandatory sentences.

The new guidelines will be applied to suspects who have been charged but not yet put on trial, as well as to individuals who have been convicted but not yet sentenced. The directive does not affect offenders already sentenced or serving time in prison.

Drug offenses account for nearly one in five of those in state prisons, according to national incarceration data.

Holder announced last month that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders would no longer be charged with offenses that impose severe mandatory sentences. The new directive marked an expansion of that effort.

“I am pleased to announce today that the department has issued new guidance to apply our updated charging policy not only to new matters, but also to pending cases where the defendant was charged before the policy was issued but is still awaiting adjudication of guilt,” Holder said in a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said Justice officials do not yet know how many people will be affected by the new policy. He said Holder has asked for a survey of his U.S. attorneys to determine how many cases will be affected retroactively.

“By reserving the most severe prison terms for serious, high-level or violent drug traffickers or kingpins, we can better enhance public safety,” Holder said in his speech. “We can increase our focus on proven strategies for deterrence and rehabilitation. And we can do so while making our expenditures smarter and more productive.”

Republic, 12 News sue for Yarnell records

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk refuses to give out public records???

Source

Republic, 12 News sue for Yarnell records

By Dennis Wagner and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:53 AM

The Arizona Republic and 12 News have filed suit against the Yavapai County Sheriff’s and Medical Examiner’s offices over their refusal to release investigative records from the Yarnell Hill Fire tragedy that left 19 hotshots dead.

The two Gannett news organizations allege in a civil complaint filed Wednesday in Yavapai County Superior Court that diagrams, some photographs and other documents are public records under state law, and Arizona residents have a compelling interest in learning what led to the demise of the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots nearly three months ago.

Yavapai County Sheriff Scott Mascher declined comment through a spokesman. County Attorney Sheila Polk said in an e-mail that she is fulfilling a “legal obligation to limit disclosure so as to avoid the infliction of substantial and irreparable private harm.” Polk previously issued a public letter saying the privacy interest of surviving family members trumps the public’s right to know, and that “absent a court order, these items will not be released.”

David Bodney, attorney for the news organizations, emphasizes in the civil suit that the plaintiffs are seeking the records for news-gathering purposes to ensure the public has a full accounting of what happened. The plaintiffs are not seeking sensitive personal information regarding the firefighters.

Bodney alleges that Yavapai County officials engaged in “repeated stonewalling” and “have offered no legally viable justification for the continued concealment of records.”

The lawsuit seeks a court-ordered release of the documents or a private judicial inspection of records to determine which should be made public.

The 19 firefighters were killed June 30 when they became trapped by flames in a steep, U-shaped canyon near the Glen Ilah community outside Yarnell.

Multiple investigations of the fatalities are under way, including an inquiry by a national Serious Accident Investigation Team and a probe by the Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Experts on those teams are using Yavapai County Sheriff’s records as a partial basis for their findings. State Division of Forestry officials, who directed the firefighting effort, have acknowledged concerns that wrongful-death litigation also may be imminent.

According to portions of the sheriff’s report that were made public, deputies secured the accident scene, gathered evidence, made videos, took photographs and drew diagrams. The sheriff also received results of autopsies conducted by the Maricopa County Medical Examiner.

Arizona law mandates that public records be open to inspection during business hours. The state Supreme Court has defined a public record as any document “or other material” created or used by a public agency, with certain statutory exemptions.

On July 24, The Republic requested all of the sheriff’s investigative records and images while recognizing that some pictures could be withheld due to extreme sensitivity for survivors of the fallen firefighters.

On Aug. 26, Polk issued a letter declaring that all requested records and images were “not appropriate for public disclosure” and would not be released. Although the law “favors disclosure,” Polk wrote, records are being withheld because “privacy concerns of the firefighters’ families outweigh the public’s interest.”

The Republic and 12 News said in the filing they were not seeking any personal information, including Social Security numbers, birth dates, pre-existing medical conditions or photographs of human remains.

Dan Barr, an attorney for the First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, which advocates for freedom of the press, said Polk appears to have insulated herself from a political backlash that might result from families upset by the release of public records.

Barr said diagrams, evidence records and other materials may be important to an accident analysis.

“The families do not have a privacy interest to protect information from coming out about this fire,” he added.

Sharon Knutson-Felix, executive director of the 100 Club of Arizona, a non-profit that is assisting families of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, said she is especially concerned that photographs or information may become public and lead to painful comments on social-media sites where surviving children might see them.

David Turbyfill, whose son, Travis, was among those killed, said he understands that some families fear what may come out in the media, but he has many unanswered questions. He wants to know if fire commanders were negligent, if deployment shelters need improvement, if hotshots made mistakes.

“I have always thought: The more openness, the better,” said Turbyfill, a former volunteer firefighter who acknowledges his perspective is in the minority among survivor families.

Jeannie Holtby of Redmond, Ore., whose daughter was among 14 firefighters killed in Colorado’s 1994 South Canyon Fire, said disclosure of accident causes and details can be a salve for grieving families.

“We asked our questions as best I could. We felt like once the crew died, they became public information, if you will,” Holtby said. “... (It) was helpful to understand what happened, and how quickly it happened, and how quickly it went wrong.”

Does Sheila Polk want make milk illegal???

Source

1st attacks on pot; now on milk

Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:36 PM

I just wanted to thank you for publishing the unintentionally hilarious anti-marijuana rant by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk (“Let’s make pot’s dangers clear,” Opinions, Monday).

Not only did it give me a chuckle, but it got me to thinking: What will these poor folks who love to butt into our private lives do in a few more years, after freedom has prevailed in these petty battles over marriage and marijuana?

Fortunately, I only needed to read the D section of the Monday newspaper to find the answer (“Got milk? Here’s news that might shake you up”). Perhaps they can join Dr. Oz and Dr. Roizen in their war against the latest evil “m” word: milk.

— Mike Meyer, Tempe

Drug war is just job program for some

Letter: Drug war is just job program for some

Posted: Saturday, September 21, 2013 8:44 am

Letter to the Editor

Sheila Polk forget to mention what most police officers consider to the the greatest danger of marijuana in her recent editorial (The Arizona Republic’s ‘My Turn,’ evtnow.com/5uw, Sept. 13).

Legalize marijuana and next thing you will be ending the “War on Drugs”, which is basically a full employment jobs program for cops.

According to Federal statistics over 51 percent of the people in prison are there for victimless drug war crimes. Some statistics say over two thirds of the people in American prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes.

End the “War on Drugs” and the hundreds of thousands of cops, prosecutors, judges, public defenders, probation officers and prisons guards who have high paying jobs throwing people in prison for victimless drug war crimes will be out of work.

Now that’s one incredibly dangerous thing about legalizing marijuana from a cops view point.

Mike Ross

Tempe

The DEA, CIA, FBI and NSA were reading my email

Of course I was paranoid and wonder was someone else really reading my email.

Of course my first guess was that it was one of my enemies like David Dorn.

And of course the second guess was that it was the government.

Of course now after Edward Snowden released his information that the government was spying on it that I realized that the government probably was involved with illegally reading my emails several times.

I also wondered why on Earth government would waste their time cracking my passwords.

Well again from the recently released information about government spying it turns out that the government wasn't cracking my passwords.

The NSA was simply twisting the arms of Google and Yahoo and getting them to give the government the passwords and email addresses of people the government considers to be criminals like me.

Of course the government's definition of a criminal seems to be any body that "thinks they have Constitutional rights" or anybody that expects the government to obey it's own laws.

And I guess by those definitions I am a criminal because I do think I have "Constitutional Rights" and I do expect the government to obey it's laws.

Of course I an not a criminal by the standards most normal people think of criminals being.

I don't steal stuff. I don't vandalize stuff. I don't destroy property.

Q&A: Legalization of pot in Arizona

Q&A: Legalization of pot in Arizona

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:32 PM

A national marijuana-advocacy group has announced that it will push to ask Arizona voters in 2016 if they want to legalize pot for adult recreational use.

A grass-roots effort, led by a Phoenix man, would ask voters to amend the state Constitution to allow people age 18 and older “to consume or possess limited amounts” of marijuana. But the local effort has largely been discounted by the political establishment because it lacks major financial backing.

But the announcement by the powerful Marijuana Policy Project has triggered a true debate about whether Arizona should join Colorado and Washington in legalizing the drug.

While many advocates of legalized marijuana are cheering the news, opponents are decrying it, saying legalization of pot would be a public-safety disaster. The Arizona Republic asked people on both sides of the debate — Phoenix Relief Center co-owner Gino Lucadamo and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery — to offer their opinions on whether marijuana should be legalized for recreational use in Arizona. Their responses have been edited for grammar and space.

Question: Why are you for the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana in Arizona?

Answer: We 100 percent support (Proposition) 203 (the medical-marijuana law) and Arizonans’ decision to allow adults the (right to) choose medical cannabis as a method of treatment. I would be very pleased to see Arizona follow the lead of Colorado and Washington in their decriminalization efforts of a substance that has proven time and time again to be much safer than caffeine, and much less addictive than alcohol, as well as the majority of prescription medications that are heaved upon us by Big Pharma and the alcohol industry. The bottom line: As adults, they should have the right to choose.

I think also that if cannabis were decriminalized, it would bring a halt to the illegal “underground” scene where Mexican marijuana is the norm and the only people benefiting from it are the Mexican cartels. The fact is, Mexican marijuana is extremely available on the streets, and has been for many, many years. This is largely due to prohibition that keeps the cartels in business. The cartels are the last ones that want to see decriminalization. They are making a killing off of street sales. The answer is to stop wasting money on a drug war — it’s not working.

Q: How will you support the recreational use of marijuana in Arizona?

A: By providing a very safe, clean and professional environment where patients can have safe access to their medication. We will continue to drive on as the Valley’s leading dispensary that caters to veterans care, with an emphasis on veterans.

Q: How would adults’ easy access to recreational use in marijuana affect the general public?

A: I see this as an issue of individual responsibility. The same way it is an adults’ individual responsibility to consume any substance responsibly. Driving under the influence, for example is inexcusable, be it alcohol, Vicodin or cannabis. An adult that is taking on the responsibility to ingest any substance that is altering to body or mind inherently also accepts the burden of ones on actions and behavior.

The biggest impact I can see however is a positive one. Think about how many people die each year of alcohol abuse —and even more, the physical effects that come along with it. No one has ever died from cannabis. Moreover, allowing adult use will allow marijuana sales to be taxed with many of millions of dollars to fund our communities, this will create thousands of good-paying jobs that are very much needed in our state.

Q: If pot becomes legal for adults, how should schools and community-prevention programs adapt messages to prevent children from using the drug?

A: I think my colleague Ken Sobel of the Green Halo in Tucson put it best when he said, “With the billions we save from wasting tax dollars on the war on drugs and the billions more we earn in taxes, we can redouble our efforts to ensure that kids don’t get marijuana without a qualified medical recommendation, and increase funding for the 9 percent of Americans who may have some dependency issues.”

As a former (Los Angeles) police chief points out, it is far easier for a high-school student to get marijuana ... than it is to get alcohol. That is why thousands of former judges, prosecutors and cops support initiatives to regulate and tax marijuana like beer and wine.

CON | Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery

Q: Why are you against the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana in Arizona?

A: There is no good reason for our society to encourage people to recreationally use marijuana. There is no positive societal benefit. There is no positive physical benefit from recreational use. [First of all that's a lie Mr. Montgomery!!! The proposition to legalize recreational use of marijuana doesn't encourage marijuana use, it simply makes it legal. Second there is a positive societal benefit. We won't be wasting billions of dollars each year paying cops to lock people up in prisons for the victimless crime of marijuana use.]

Additionally, we know what the societal costs are of the abuse of current legal substances, such as tobacco and alcohol. Therefore, it is ridiculous to approve one more substance where the abuse is going to cost us in lost productivity, in increased addiction [Another lie Mr. Bill Montgomery. Sorry to tell you, but marijuana isn't addictive like heroin.], and in increased use among our youth. If you consider the permissive use of tobacco and alcohol a shot in each foot, then approving the recreational use of another drug is one more shot. But since we’ve run out of feet, it will be to our collective head. [We shot ourselves in the foot when we made booze illegal with a failed thingy called the "Prohibition". Thank God we were smart enough to end that. Now it's time to get smart and end the "War on Drugs", which is a bigger failure then the "Prohibition"] Why we would want to deliberately encourage the use of a substance that will negatively impact our society is beyond any rational explanation.

[Hmmm... Before we voted on Prop 203 they told us that if medical marijuana was made legal in Arizona dope smoking medical marijuana patients would be raping old ladies and robbing Circle Ks to get their fixes. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery didn't say a word about those predictions which never happened. ]

Q: How will you oppose the recreational use of marijuana in Arizona?

A: With the exercise of the First Amendment. Through efforts to educate the public about the true risks, including the risks of addiction, of marijuana today. Marijuana is not harmless. With increasing concentrations of THC, research shows long-term harm reflected in studies that indicate that chronic use by teens can result in early onset of mental-health issues such as schizophrenia that they otherwise would not see until maybe their mid-20s or at all. [Again no mention of the medical marijuana patients raping old ladies and robbing Circle Ks after smoking a joint]

Q: How would adults’ easy access to recreational use in marijuana affect the general public?

A: Through an increase in the number of impaired drivers who hurt and kill people, lost productivity at work and increased health-care costs. [Lost work??? You want to talk about lost work let's talk about alcohol hangovers, something you don't get from pot] Additionally, we will see increasing use among youth despite all of the money spent over the last decade to stem drug use.

Q: If pot becomes legal for adults, how should schools and community-prevention programs adapt messages to prevent children from using the drug? [First of all pot is already illegal, but any 15 year old can get a bag of marijuana at his high school easier then they can buy beer. Even if the proposition passes it will still be illegal for kids to purchase or smoke weed. Of course kids that want weed will still get it the same way they do now.]

A: All those efforts go out the window. You will have, as we’re already seeing, an increased use among youth just with so-called medical-marijuana programs. We’re wasting what was a generational effort to convince youth to not make decisions now that would affect their ability to have happy and productive lives later. You can’t have a message that says, “OK, we’ve been telling you all along that drugs are bad. But they’re only bad if you’re younger than 21.” [Come on Mr. Montgomery, you are a hypocrite for saying that. We already tell the kiddies that about booze and liquor. Liquor magically becomes legal for kids when they hit 21 and tobacco magically becomes legal for kids when they turn 18]

Unlocking mobile phones

East Valley business owners question laws aimed at halting 'unlocking' mobile phones

Posted: Sunday, September 22, 2013 11:17 am

By Aaron Rop, Special to Tribune | 1 comment

“If you can’t modify something you’ve bought, do you really own it?”

That’s the question digital rights advocate and

FixtheDMCA.org founder Sina Khanifar is asking.

It’s a question that some cell phone businesses — including a number in the East Valley and greater Phoenix area — have also struggled to answer since late January.

As of Jan. 26, consumers can no longer “unlock” their mobile devices without permission from their cellular carrier, even if they own the device free and clear — contract or no contract. This came as the result of a change to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act last October.

“For a carrier to dictate with whom you may use your product, a product that you own outright, is nothing short of a monopoly and should be banned completely,” said Annie Thompson, co-owner of Chandler-based business,

unlockmyidevice.com.

But support for a bill currently under review by the House of Representatives, H.R. 1892 or the Unlocking Technology Act, could change the legislation.

Unlocking a phone makes a phone available to use on any similar network with a different carrier. Carriers like AT&T and T-Mobile are on a GSM network meaning they use SIM cards (which can be swapped between phones), where Verizon Wireless or Sprint devices work on a CDMA network.

For example, a T-Mobile phone that is locked will only work on the T-Mobile network if the phone was purchased in the U.S. from T-Mobile; but once it is unlocked, a consumer can use it with another GSM carrier like AT&T, use the phone internationally, or with prepaid services that use a SIM card like Wal-Mart’s Family Mobile. A phone with Sprint’s service could be “flashed” or use a network access code to work on another CDMA carrier’s service, like Cricket.

Thompson and her co-owner, Greg Bingaman, support the Unlocking Technology Act and believe that they could branch out the services they offer if the bill passes.

Thompson and Bingaman’s website and business started in February. Thompson and Bingaman wanted Apple iPhone devices for the service they had at the time, but it was too expensive so they purchased two older models off Craigslist and had them unlocked to use with their current service provider.

“It [the DMCA] renders a high dollar electronic product that you own completely useless if you want to choose to go with another service provider. That is what should be illegal,” said Thompson.

Wireless Toyz manager Miguel Duran said this summer he wasn’t very knowledgeable about the current legislation, but he knows enough to disagree with it.

“We unlock maybe one phone a month and they’re usually older phones,” he said about his Mesa store on 1960 W. Baseline Rd. His store has been in business for about six years and he believes that although unlocking isn’t a common request for his business, it’s his customer’s property and they should be allowed to do with it what they want.

Dan Schoenherr, owner of Sun Cellular Inc. on 3329 E Bell Rd #14a in Phoenix, said he got involved in repairing mobile phones in 1995. He unlocks phones for customers too and has lived through all the changes in legislation.

“I see both ends of the spectrum, where the consumers and carriers are coming from.”

Schoenherr purchased his current location from the previous business owner after working for him and getting to know him when he left a job at Verizon. He doesn’t believe the UTA, if it’s passed or not, will have too much of an impact on his business.

“Me personally, it won’t affect my business. I repair phones more often than I unlock them,” he said.Prior to the change in the DMCA, consumers could go to third-party businesses or online sources to unlock their device so their phone can work with different carriers, sometimes without the knowledge of the carrier who sold them the phone.

But that exemption put cell phone carriers at risk for financial loss because a consumer could start a contract with a carrier in order to have a new phone without paying full retail price for their phone. For example, a 16 gigabyte Samsung Galaxy S4 is specially advertised at $199.99 with a two-year-service agreement with AT&T and normally the retail value of that same phone is $639.99 at the same carrier without a contract.

This subsidized pricing is standard practice for mobile carriers Even though consumers may face a large cancellation fee as a penalty for opting out of a contract early, it’s argued that it wouldn’t cover the carrier’s loss of the phone and service fees, thus allowing the consumer to make a profit by selling their phone for retail value. Early termination could also hurt a consumer’s credit score too, but to some may believe it to be worth it in the short-term.

Khanifar, who lives in California, started a White House petition titled “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal” and accumulated 114,322 signatures after the Jan. 26 change, with 1,676 of the signatories coming from Arizona.

Khanifar made a business out of unlocking phones while an undergraduate in college. He started after unlocking his own U.S. phone when overseas in 2005 to use it on international networks. He turned it into a business, but said he eventually received a cease and desist notification from Motorola for violating section 1201 of the DMCA.

Section 1201 states that, “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title,” but unlocking phones was given an exemption to this measure by previous rulings on the DMCA. If a measure is circumvented, it means that the software which controls the way we can access copyrighted works on a device is bypassed.

For example, there are software codes put into a DVD to protect it against piracy and making copies of that DVD, but if the software is circumvented, then the DVD can be easily copied.

Since Jan. 26, anyone who violates the Section 1201 ruling could be fined with up to $500,000 and/or imprisoned for up to five years for violating copyright, a felony that Ruth Carter — owner of Carter Law Firm in Phoenix which practices Intellectual Property cases among others — says most people don’t take seriously.

Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake’s Communications Director, Bronwyn Chester, said this summer that once the bill is introduced in the Senate, Flake would definitely take a look at it, but for now he hasn’t seen it because it is still in the House of Representatives.

Khanifar said he had met with Flake when advocating in Washington D.C. about a month ago and he seemed very new to the legislation but eager to learn more. Khanifar says he has also received support from 8th Congressional District representative Trent Franks.

With the Unlocking Technology Act, there would be benefits beyond unlocking cell phones says Khanifar. It would allow people to modify and repair their electronics without risk, allow more security research, allow people to make copies of their CDs and DVDs for personal use, and allow e-books to be modified so that visually impaired individuals can use read-aloud technology.

The Unlocking Technology Act is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren , D-Calif., and six other co-sponsors. As of June 14 it was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual property, and the Internet in the House.

“This bill reflects the way we use this technology in our everyday lives,” Lofgren said in a press release. “Americans should not be subject to fines and criminal liability for merely unlocking devices and media they legally purchased. If consumers are not violating copyright or some other law, there’s little reason to hold back the benefits of unlocking so people can continue using their devices.”

Petition and White House Response can be viewed here: For more information on Khanifar’s White House petition, visit evtnow.com/5uz.

Aaron Rop, a senior studying journalism at Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, was an intern for the East Valley Tribune this past summer.

We should follow Swiss lead on drugs???

Letter: We should follow Swiss lead on drugs

Posted: Sunday, September 22, 2013 6:48 am

Letter to the Editor

I am writing about Bill Richardson’s thoughtful column: “Our new crime-riddled ‘Five C’s’ and what to do about them” (Commentary, Tribune, Sept. 18).

I have no doubt that serious crime is linked to organized crime. From 1920 to 1933, the majority of our serious crime was linked to alcohol prohibition. When we terminated alcohol prohibition our overall crime rate declined dramatically.

Do I suggest that all drugs should be sold like they were 100 years ago in grocery stores and pharmacies with no questions asked? No.

For hard drugs like heroin, meth and cocaine I suggest that we adopt the Swiss drug policy. Switzerland used to have a very serious heroin addiction problem. Now their heroin problem is a small fraction of what it used to be.

Did the Swiss government get really tough on drug dealers and addicts? No.

In 1994, Switzerland started an experimental program to sell heroin addicts the drug at very low cost, even giving it to the addicts who couldn’t afford it. In 2008, 68 percent of the Swiss voted to make the program permanent.

Have Swiss heroin-addiction rates skyrocketed? No, they have fallen dramatically.

And so has their overall crime rate.

For the record, I have never even seen cocaine, meth or heroin, (except on TV) let alone used it. But I was offered free samples of these drugs by my marijuana suppliers.

Yet I have never been offered a free sample of whiskey, rum or vodka when buying wine.

For those who think we can win the war on drugs if we just try harder I suggest they Google or go to YouTube.com and search for “Retired police captain demolished the war on drugs.”

Kirk Muse

Mesa

Pussy Riot musician on hunger strike

Pussy Riot musician on hunger strike to protest prison conditions

By Sergei L. Loiko

September 23, 2013, 1:15 p.m.

MOSCOW -- A member of the punk rock group Pussy Riot went on a hunger strike Monday to protest what she said were unbearable conditions at a Russian prison camp.

"I demand that human rights be observed in the [prison] colony; I demand that this camp ... abide by the law," Nadezhda Tolokonnikova wrote in an open letter distributed by her husband. "I demand that we be treated as humans and not as slaves."

In late 2012, Tolokonnikova, 24, and two other members of Pussy Riot, Maria Alyokhina and Yekaterina Samutsevich, were each sentenced to two years of imprisonment for inciting religious hatred.

The three were arrested in February of that year after they staged what they called a "punk prayer" against Russian President Vladimir Putin at Christ the Savior Cathedral in central Moscow. The incident occurred at the height of the 2012 presidential campaign, which Putin went on to win.

During the appeals process, Samutsevich struck a deal with prosecutors and received a suspended sentence. Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina refused to acknowledge guilt and were sent to prison camps. They were both denied parole and have previously complained of mistreatment.

Tolokonnikova has been in a camp about 300 miles east of Moscow, where prisoners are forced to work 16 hours a day for about $1 a month at a garment factory producing police uniforms.

“The most cruel regime, the longest working day, the most screaming lawlessness,” she said of her daily routine, comparing it to “an execution.”

She wrote that on her first day at the camp, she told the warden she would work only eight hours a day, as prescribed by the prison working code. The warden, she said, replied: "The code is a code, but the main thing is the production plan: If you don't fulfill it, you stay for an extended time. And mark it: Down here, we've broken people tougher than you."

Describing her work, she said: "Your hands are pierced and scratched by sewing needles, your blood spread across the table, but you are still trying to sew, because you are part of a conveyor production. And the damned machine tool keeps on breaking."

She also described prison sanitary conditions as appalling and said that inmates are routinely fed stale bread, milk diluted with water, rancid millet and rotten potatoes.

Pussy Riot's former lawyer, Mark Feygin, said that by protesting, Tolokonnikova might be making her situation worse.

"The Russian penal system inherited some horrible traits from Stalin's gulag," he said in an interview, "one of which is correction through obligatory physical labor, which turns prisoners into labor slaves. By coming out against the system, Tolokonnikova is risking sanctions that can make her life much harsher in camp."

These could include being denied meetings with relatives, being put into solitary confinement and extending her prison term, which "through some provocation the administration can easily arrange."

Tolokonnikova also recently complained to Russian penal authorities that the deputy camp warden had threatened to kill her.

"Nadezhda realizes what risks she is taking by coming out against the system," her husband, Pyotr Verzilov, said in an interview. "But she is also aware that by her tough stand against injustice, Nadezhda draws the world's attention to the horrible life and work conditions in Russian labor camps."

Verzilov said Tolokonnikova had stopped eating food as of Monday morning and intended to stay on her hunger strike indefinitely.

Administrators of the Mordovia region penal system said the protest amounted to blackmailing camp officials because they wouldn't give her unusual privileges, the Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported.

Debra Milke to go to trial … in 2015?

Source

Debra Milke to go to trial … in 2015?

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz this afternoon set the date for a new trial for Debra Milke.

In January 2015.

Put another way, the woman who spent 23 years on death row for the murder of her 4-year-old son, Christopher, will have to wait 16 months before she gets her day in court. So will the father of the child.

I’m not sure how this moldy mess of a case gets any better with the passage of 16 more months.

Prosecutors still have a star witness who is likely to refuse to testify – one whose testimony likely wouldn’t be worth the air it takes to put it out there anyway, according to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel threw out Milke’s conviction in March, citing Phoenix Detective Armando Saldate’s “lack of compunction about lying” and his tendency to violate suspects’ rights.

Prosecutors have letters Milke wrote to James Styers while he awaited trial for killing her son. (What mother does that?) They have Roger Scott, who also sits on death row and could perhaps be convinced to turn on Milke, for whatever his testimony would be worth.

And they have a box of bullets found her Milke’s purse – bullets that match the ones found in Christopher’s head on that long ago day in December 1989.

What gets better about this disaster of a case in 16 months?

I’ve said all along that if Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery can make the case against Milke, he should do it. But if he can do it, he shouldn’t need 16 months. If this is merely a delaying tactic to string this case along, it should stop now.

That’s only fair to Milke and it’s only fair to taxpayers who must foot the bill.

In 2015, Christopher Milke would have turned 30 years old.

Fox calls for action, less talk

Source

Fox calls for action, less talk

Posted: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:51 pm

By CAROLYN DRYER, Editor

Vice Mayor Tony Rivero had an enormous job to perform, and according to all who witnessed the events of Sept. 12 in Peoria, he was up to the task. As part of the celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month, Rivero once again brought former President of Mexico Vicente Fox, Fox’s wife, Marta, U.S. Sen. John McCain’s wife, Cindy, and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Rosario Marin to the city for a morning discussion about human trafficking, several calls for comprehensive immigration reform, and talks about an economic partnership between the U.S. and Mexico.

The human trafficking discussion came early, 8 a.m., between Marta Fox and Cindy McCain. Then, 9 a.m. brought Marin and Vicente Fox to a press conference. A pastors luncheon followed 11:30 a.m. at Christ’s Church of the Valley. A five-hour break preceded the 6 p.m. Economic Partners Dinner.

During the 9 a.m. press conference, Rivero told reporters Mexico shares a 360-mile border with Arizona, which gives the state access to major seaports. He said NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement) created a huge market, which has made Mexico the recipient of 34 percent of exports from Arizona, impacting 8,000 Arizona businesses and “countless employees.”

“As Mexico is pushing reforms in the oil industry, we in Arizona need to seize new opportunities for both countries,” Rivero said. “It’s time to initiate cultural initiatives for national and state programs in our universities.”

He said this would create jobs on both sides of the border and open up cultural and intellectual opportunities. Rivero said last year, he promoted comprehensive immigration reform, and said Fox knows and understands.

“We now have to convince friends in the House of Representatives. We need positive action on this critical issue,” Rivero said.

Sen. Bob Worsley said the No. 1 priority in the state is jobs.

Rep. Marcario Saldate, who spent 38 years at the University of Arizona at the Mexican Studies Research Center, said the important thing is not just to learn Spanish or have a summer experience in Mexico.

Saldate said, “But integrate our faculty members with schools in Mexico in interdisciplinary programs. Developing new leaders is of paramount importance. Higher education leads the way.”

Andrew Pachecho, with the criminal division of the Arizona Attorney General’s office, said it is important from a law enforcement perspective to have an effective seamless relationship with Mexico. He said if we didn’t have the problems (drugs) up north, it wouldn’t be so difficult for law enforcement in Mexico, where prosecutors put their lives on the line.

Former Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman said that sadly, our efforts to promote an economic relationship is polarized on both sides of the political aisle, both Democrat and Republican.

“The stalemate prolongs evil going on in both our countries,” Hallman said. “It’s the appetites in the United States that draw human trafficking and illegal drugs. It’s the United States and its appetitite that is destroying Mexico. That’s on our heads, our responsibility.”

Marin, who has served 20 years at the local, state and national level, was appointed in 2001 as the 41st Treasurer of the United States. She was also the first immigrant in that position. She spoke of former President George W. Bush’s Partnership for Prosperity program that touted the phrase, “What’s good for the U.S. is good for Mexico.”

Marin said there are Mexican communities in the U.S., but also entire American communities in Mexico.

“Mexico needs products and services from the U.S. The U.S. needs products and services from Mexico,” she said. “I sincerely hope we’re able to pass immigration reform … Every day we delay reform, the problem gets bigger.”

When Vicente Fox began his remarks at the podium, he led off with, “I continue to ride my horse like Don Quixote in search of my goals.”

He spoke of the positive relationship that could be better if NAFTA could be brought back and revised. He said it is not moving with the dynamism it had from the beginning. He said the region is losing jobs to the East (China).

“So, the threat is there,” he said. “So, we need to understand the foundations, basics, the vision that put NAFTA together.”

He said the “dream” is in all of South America, and that migration is an asset of every nation.

“This nation has to have the wisdom to handle this issue as a model to the world,” Fox said. “The time has come to make things happen. It’s key we put an limit to dialogue, meetings. It’s time for action.”

In both his press conference and later at the dinner, where 500 to 600 people were gathered, Fox brought forth his determination that the U.S. and Mexico are entering the third Renaissance.

He has changed his mind about legalizing marijuana, saying he is in favor of it being legalized across the country, not just medical cannabis.

Fox said, “Wouldn’t it be more convenient to have those millions out of the hands of cartels and in the hands of government?”

He repeated his remarks at the evening dinner, and had one last thing to say at both events, “Please don’t go to war in Syria.”

Pro-marijuana legalization effort in AZ picks up steam

Pro-marijuana legalization effort in AZ picks up steam

Posted: Sep 13, 2013 4:46 PM Updated: Sep 13, 2013 6:03 PM

By Jonathan Lowe - email

PHOENIX (CBS5) -

There's been a tidal wave of momentum this week in the effort to legalize marijuana for adults in Arizona.

"Marijuana prohibition has proven to be just as huge a failure as alcohol prohibition," said Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project.

From the U.S. Department of Justice to Senator John McCain and even former Mexican president Vicente Fox all signaled, this week, support for the effort to allow adults to smoke pot.

"We're relying and trusting people, the human being, that he will act with responsibility," Fox said during a press conference in Peoria on Thursday.

At a Tucson town hall last Thursday, Sen. McCain said, "Maybe we should legalize. We're certainly moving that way as far as marijuana is concerned. I respect the will of the people."

Tuesday, the U.S. Senate judiciary committee held a rare hearing aimed at settling conflicts between federal and state marijuana laws. Following that hearing, the Marijuana Policy Project, the self described largest marijuana policy organization in the U.S. announced Arizona is one of ten states it plans to target for legalization laws similar to that of Washington and Colorado, by 2017.

"The department of justice has made it clear that states like Arizona and Colorado can adopt these laws, and they will respect them," Tvert added.

A Pew Research Center poll in April found that 52 percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana for adults. Then in May, a behavior research center poll found that 56 percent of Arizonans favored legalizing the possession of marijuana in small amounts.

MPP spokesman Mason Tvert of Scottsdale says those numbers don't lie.

"It would be more sensible to regulate marijuana and start treating it like alcohol," he said.

Maricopa County attorney Bill Montgomery has, in the past, said he will remain strict on medical marijuana growers, sellers and consumers. CBS 5 had hoped to get his take on these latest developments and efforts to legalize marijuana in Arizona. He declined to answer our questions Friday.

Legalización de mariguana, en proceso: Fox

Source

Legalización de mariguana, en proceso: Fox

Phoenix, AZ

por Samuel Murillo - Sept. 20, 2013 09:27 AM La Voz

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.

Lo dijo

"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"

Vicente Fox

Expresidente de México

Mexican President Fox - "No a la guerra, Si a la marihuana"

Headline

Article

Serving the people ain't this unions agenda!!!!!!

Source

Unions launch offensive against potential government shutdown

By Lisa Rein, Published: September 20 at 6:00 am

Federal employee unions, having guided their members through government shutdown threats in 2011 and 2012, are arming for another possible shutdown in 11 days if Congress cannot resolve its partisan fiscal battle, taking their opposition to Congress and the Obama administration.

The International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, which represents 25,000 federal workers, mostly military civilians, appealed Thursday to Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Burwell to ensure that government workers are compensated for lost pay if federal agencies shut down on Oct. 1, the first day of the new fiscal year.

“IFPTE insists that our nation’s federal employees are made whole when they eventually return back to work,” union President Gregory Junemann told Burwell in a one-page letter. A view of the National Mall from the Lincoln Memorial. (Alex Brandon/AP).

A view of the National Mall from the Lincoln Memorial. (Alex Brandon/AP).

“IFPTE asks you, as the head of OMB and as someone who will no doubt play a key role in any negotiation aimed at re-opening the government, to INSIST that federal employees get paid for all days missed during a government shutdown,” Junemann wrote.

“We urge the Obama Administration not to use federal worker back pay as a bargaining chip to extract something in return. Rather we ask that it be made clear from the very start of any negotiation that government workers will get every penny owed to them when the government reopens,” his letter said.

Junemann said that the financial hardship on federal workers during the current round of partisan bickering on Capitol Hill over government spending and the president’s health-care law is particularly dire now. Feds are in their third year of a pay freeze, and almost half the workforce has lost several days of pay to furloughs since March because of the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration.

The union’s plea comes two days after Burwell issued a memo to federal agencies to start planning for a partial shutdown on Oct. 1 if Congress does not reach an agreement to fund the government before then. In a partial shutdown, some crucial operations continue, and employees that are needed to keep them going keep coming to work.

After two shutdowns in the 1990s, Congress awarded back pay to federal employees who were out of work.

Also this week, the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest employee union, exhorted its members to “demand that lawmakers stop the sequester and stop threatening to shut down the government if they don’t get their way.”

“Send a message to your lawmakers and tell them to stop playing political games,” AFGE President J. David Cox told union members in an e-mail. Referring to House Republicans’ decision to vote Friday on a measure to keep the government running and defund the president’s health-care law, Cox said, “Over a dozen Senators and eighty Representatives are pushing for a scenario that should be unthinkable: they want to use a government shutdown as leverage to enact an extreme, right-wing agenda that includes continuing the Sequester for the next nine years. And these folks are picking up more support every day.”

West Hollywood fur ban takes effect Saturday; merchants outraged

Source

West Hollywood fur ban takes effect Saturday; merchants outraged

By Hailey Branson-Potts

September 20, 2013, 4:19 p.m.

West Hollywood's ban on the sale of fur clothing takes effect Saturday -- and many of the city's high-fashion boutiques are figuring out workarounds or making plans to move out of town.

The mannequin in the window of the Goldsmith & Klein fashion boutique in West Hollywood wore a sultry expression and a luxurious chocolate brown fox fur stole draped over her arm.

Next to the mannequin was a printed quote from Abraham Lincoln: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”

The window display was one of several protests over West Hollywood’s first-in-the-nation ban on fur apparel.

West Hollywood is famous for its laws aimed at protecting creatures big and small. It declared itself a “cruelty-free zone for animals” and passed a slew of animal-friendly laws including bans on cat declawing, the retail sale of cats and dogs, and just this week, exotic and wild animal performances.

But in the case of fur, the city’s zeal to protect animals is running up against its claim as a capital of high fashion.

The boulevards in and around the city limits are lined with designer shops, notably Beverly, Melrose and Robertson.

While some residents praise the city’s socially conscious stand on fur, the ban has angered many business owners.

Retailers with multiple locations are busily moving fur products to locations outside West Hollywood. Independent boutiques, like Darel Adams’ Kin store on Sunset Boulevard, are seeing if suppliers will take back some of the fall fur coats on order.

Furs make up a small fraction of Adams’ collections but are among the most pricey items.

“The furs are sometimes the most expensive pieces in the collection, so it affects sales dramatically, especially if you sell it at a larger percentage,” he said. “To cut off someone’s big-ticket item makes it hard for a business to survive.”

Darren Gold, chairman of the board of the West Hollywood Design District, said the city has worked hard to establish itself as a premiere fashion destination, attracting a collection of both established luxury brands and independent designers.

The ban, he said, is a slap in the face.

“It’s detrimental to our image as a West Coast fashion capital and could prevent fashion houses from choosing West Hollywood,” Gold said.

The ban on fur apparel was approved in fall 2011, and city officials said they sought input from store owners and residents. During one boisterous seven-hour hearing, hundreds of people – many from out of town – crowded into council chambers and gave council members a standing ovation after they voted on the issue.

“West Hollywood is a very progressive community that puts a lot of emphasis on social justice and welfare,” Councilman Jeffrey Prang said. “People care about the humane treatment of animals.”

City officials said they know their ban is largely symbolic because fur is widely available just outside the city limits in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. But they hope the law sends a message.

For some merchants, it’s the wrong message.

David Klein, co-owner of Goldsmith & Klein, opened the Roberston Boulevard shop in August 2011, a few months before officials approved the ban.

They didn’t know about the ban as they were negotiating their store lease, he said. If they had, they never would have opened in West Hollywood. They put up the fur protest in their window. Then last year, they closed their store, vowing to reopen somewhere that allows fur.

BP cops don't understand agency rules on force

Source

Report: Many Border, Customs agents don't understand agency rules on force

By Bob Ortega The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:34 PM

Many Border Patrol agents and Customs officers don’t understand their agencies’ rules on when they are or aren’t supposed to use force, according to a report issued today by the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General.

Investigators also said they couldn’t figure out how many allegations of excessive force there have been in recent years, or how many Customs and Border Protection investigated, because CBP doesn’t directly track such allegations or its own investigations into such incidents.

The report was produced at the request of 16 members of Congress who demanded an investigation last year after PBS aired a cellphone video showing a group of Customs officer and Border Patrol agents in California beating and repeatedly firing Tasers at a prone, handcuffed man until he died.

CBP didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment, but the agency appended a memo to the report disputing the notion that agents and officers aren’t adequately trained, but saying it would follow recommendations to improve record-keeping, training and audits.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the report “disappointingly narrow.”

“There isn’t an in-depth look here at the investigation and accountability process. What happens after a use-of-force is barely discussed,” said Chris Rickerd, an ACLU policy counsel in Washington.

Border Patrol agents or Customs officers have killed at least 21 people since the beginning of 2010, with all but two cases along the Southwest border.

The Office of Inspector General report said that CBP’s use-of-force policy division found, on an audit last year at the San Diego field office, “that many agents and officers do not understand use of force and the extent to which they may or may not use force.”

Auditors also found that some locations weren’t providing the required hours of training, weren’t giving written tests during training in less-than-lethal force, or weren’t using the correct courses for firearms training.

Investigators said they reviewed some 21,000 incident records. But because CBP doesn’t specifically list use-of-force allegations, investigators had to try to figure out cases by looking at report summaries that were often incomplete or unclear. They found 1,187 cases of possible excessive force allegations, and 504 more in which they couldn’t tell one way or the other.

Homeland Security, with law enforcement branches that include the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Secret Service, is in effect the country’s largest law-enforcement agency. It also has been among the most secretive about its use-of-force policies and its handling of allegations of excessive force.

Law-enforcement organizations from the Los Angeles Police Department to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, among many others, provide their use-of-force policies to the public, but Homeland Security goes to great lengths to keep such information out of public view.

Janet Napolitano, who stepped down as Homeland Security Secretary last month, told the Senate Judiciary Committee at a 2011 hearing that “Our use of force policy is the same as virtually every law enforcement department that I know of … And that is, if you are under threat of serious injury or death, you may use lethal force.”

But Homeland Security has refused repeated Freedom of Information Act requests (including by The Arizona Republic) to release its use of force policy. It responded to one ACLU request by releasing a copy in which every single word about the policy was blacked out. San Diego attorney Eugene Iredale, who is representing relatives in three wrongful death lawsuits against CBP, obtained a copy but under a protective order that bars him from making the policy public, he said.

The agency also won’t disclose the identities of Border Patrol agents or CBP officers involved in shootings, or whether any of them have been subject to disciplinary actions. Even in cases of wrongful death suits, CBP and the Department of Justice have tried repeatedly, through largely unsuccessfully, to shield officers’ names from the public.

The Inspector General report didn’t examine transparency. While the report said that a surge in hiring from 2006 to 2009 didn’t affect training, data within the report showed that, last fiscal year, newly hired CBP officers, who work at ports of entry, received 78 more hours of use-of-force training than new Border Patrol trainees.

The report also noted, but didn’t examine the fact that, during the hiring surge, in which more than 9,000 new agents and 11,000 CBP officers were hired, CBP didn’t conduct polygraph exams of applicants. When CBP began doing so, about half of the applicants failed the exams; but CBP didn’t begin polygraphing all applicants until mid-2012, the report said.

$3.4M deal reached in deadly Ariz. SWAT raid

$3.4M deal reached in deadly Ariz. SWAT raid

Associated Press Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:39 PM

TUCSON — The family of a former Marine who was killed when a SWAT team raided his Tucson-area home in 2011 has settled a lawsuit with four police agencies for $3.4 million, a newspaper reported Thursday.

Jose Guerena’s widow had filed a $20 million claim against Pima County and the towns of Marana, Sahuarita and Oro Valley, all of which had officers on the SWAT team.

It was a “calculated risk management settlement,” Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry told the Arizona Daily Star (http://bit.ly/157RiVW ).

The Pima County Regional SWAT team raided four houses on May 5, 2011, looking for items they believed could be linked to drug trafficking and home invasions.

When the team knocked open the door at the Guerena home, Jose Guerena was at the end of a hallway holding an AR-15 rifle, according to officers.

Five SWAT team officers fired 71 shots, striking him 22 times, Sheriff’s Department records show.

Vanessa Guerena’s lawsuit said the SWAT team acted negligently throughout the process, from the time the detective signed the search warrant until after the shooting, when officers waited more than an hour to give 26-year-old Jose Guerena medical treatment.

A grand jury indictment released shortly after the shooting alleges Jose Guerena and some family members were part of a drug trafficking organization, and the raid was made as part of the investigation, the Star reported.

The county attorney’s office later cleared the SWAT team officers of any wrongdoing.

In total, Pima County and its excess insurance company agreed to pay the Guerena family $2.35 million.

As part of the settlement agreement, the town of Marana will pay $720,000, Oro Valley will pay $260,000 and $100,000 will come from the town of Sahuarita.

Dispensaries wary of fully legalizing pot

Source

Dispensaries wary of fully legalizing pot

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:14 PM

Medical-marijuana dispensary operators are apprehensive about plans by a powerful marijuana-advocacy group to campaign for full legalization of the drug in Arizona. [They love selling pot that costs them a few cents an ounce to grow at black market prices of $300+ and ounce, and they don't want their monopoly to end]

The Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that advocates marijuana legalization and regulation, is a former ally of the dispensary owners, having played a key financial and public-relations role in passage of the state law that created the burgeoning medical-marijuana program.

Bolstered by the Obama administration’s announcement that it will not challenge such laws, the group intends to pursue full legalization in Arizona through a voter initiative in 2016 and in nine other states over the next two election cycles. The initiative will be modeled on a program in Colorado, which has legalized marijuana for recreational use.

But the group may have a tough time selling their plan to the state’s medical-marijuana dispensary operators, who are capitalizing on the growing market, have invested thousands of dollars to get up and running and say they favor the status quo — a system in which doctors must recommend cannabis for medical purposes. The program allows certain businesses and individuals to grow marijuana in large quantities, but home growers are fading away as dispensaries open across the state.

Uneasiness among some dispensary operators highlights the divide between medical-marijuana advocates and recreational proponents — a split that could complicate any effort to further loosen Arizona’s marijuana laws.

“I’m not so sure that, at this stage, we would be for immediate legalization,” Bill Myer, co-owner of Arizona Organix in Glendale, told The Arizona Republic. “We’ve still got some issues to work through with the laws we currently have. The program is still in it’s infancy. [translation - I don't want the government monopoly that allows me to sell marijuana for $300+ an ounce to end]

“I think Arizona should probably digest what’s going on here before we move forward with what’s going on in Washington and Colorado. Is it going to be a great program, or is it going to be a problem? We don’t know that.” [Translation - I would like to continue this gravy train that allows me to sell marijuana at rip off above black market prices]

Myer and some other dispensary operators said they are concerned about their financial investments and question how legalizing recreational use, which could increase the number of dispensaries, would impact their bottom line. Other operators said they favor increased access to marijuana for adults but are remaining neutral on full legalization until they see initiative language from the Marijuana Policy Project.

“There’s significant financial investments involved,” Myer said. “Dispensaries may not be able to recoup before other people are made available to do the same things with very little capital investments. It’s absolutely our concern.” [if you have a government granted monopoly that allows you to sell marijuana that you grow for a few cents an ounce at black market prices of $300+ an ounce and you can't quickly recoup your investment you are doing something wrong.]

Arizona is among 20 states and the District of Columbia that allow marijuana use for medicinal or recreational reasons. Arizona voters approved the use of medicinal marijuana in 2010 for conditions such as chronic pain and cancer, but the program didn’t gain momentum until last year, when dispensaries began to open. [Wrong, the gravy train for marijuana dispensaries didn't start until last year when Jan Brewers frivolous law suits were dismissed and dispensaries were allowed to open]

Nearly 40,000 people participate in the program, and the state Department of Health Services, which oversees the program, has limited the number of dispensaries to 126 statewide. Sixty-eight dispensaries were operating as of last week.

Already, there is a grass-roots effort, called Safer Arizona, led by Dennis Bohlke of north Phoenix, to legalize marijuana for recreational use in Arizona.

The Safer Arizona initiative is also modeled after Colorado’s law, and Bohlke said organizers have gathered at least 8,000 of the 259,213 valid signatures needed by July 3 to qualify for the November 2014 ballot. Bohlke said he has no major financial backing to fund signature gathering.

Any efforts to further loosen Arizona’s marijuana laws will be opposed by law enforcement, said Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who has led a legal and public-relations battle against legalization. He said opponents will not be caught flat-footed as they were with the 2010 medical-marijuana measure. [That's 100 percent BS!!! The cops, prosecutors and other government nannies did everything they could to stop Prop 302 and they failed]

“We will not wait to get involved like we did with (Proposition) 203,” he said.

“I don’t think we have had an honest discussion of what ... the true impact of marijuana is on our society.” [Again 100 percent BS - the cops and prosecutors told us that Western Civilization would end as we know it if medical marijuana was legalized in Arizona. That didn't happen]

He said recent studies have found that chronic pot use by youths can affect IQs and hurt the nation’s ability to compete in the global market.

“When it comes to alcohol and tobacco, we’ve legalized those substances and we’ve shot ourselves in each foot,” he said. “And we’ve run out of feet — so, we’ve shot ourselves in the head.” [More BS!!!! The "war on liquor" which was called the Prohibition, was a dismal failure just like the "war on drugs". At least the politicians were honest enough to admit the Prohibition was a failure and end the 18th Amendment by passing the 21st Amendment which repealed the Prohibition. There never was a "war on tobacco" and to say there was is a lie. The only smart thing to do is end the insane and unconstitutional "war on drugs"]

If the Marijuana Policy Project succeeds with its proposed initiative, Arizona’s pot industry will explode, just as it has in Colorado.

Last year, Colorado voters built on the state’s medical-marijuana law and approved an amendment to its state Constitution to regulate marijuana like alcohol — for adults 21 years and older to buy.

Marijuana dispensaries must register with the state and, under rules released last week by the Colorado Department of Revenue, are required to track inventory through a state online program and keep the drug in child-resistant containers. They also cannot advertise to people younger than 21.

Colorado’s recreational-pot shops are expected to start opening in January. Existing dispensaries “in good standing” can apply for retail marijuana-business licenses, and state law mandates that for the first nine months, only existing medical-marijuana shops can apply for recreational-sales licenses.

Christian Sederberg, an attorney specializing in marijuana law who campaigned for full legalization in Colorado, said medical-marijuana dispensary owners there were also apprehensive about legalizing recreational use. [Damn right - it cuts into their monopoly to sell marijuana at $300+ an ounce, pot that costs them a few pennies an ounce to grow] He said most of the trepidation focused on how the federal government would react, as well as the financial impact on existing medical-marijuana dispensaries.

“That was definitely an undertone of what was happening here,” Sederberg said.

He said full-legalization proponents spent a lot of time reaching out to dispensary owners to discuss the benefits of recreational use, attending networking events to make their case and writing and talking about the issue on the radio and in print media.

“We spent a lot of time talking about how this would be a net benefit for all of Colorado, including medical-marijuana businesses,” he said.

Marijuana Policy Project Communications Director Mason Tvert ran Colorado’s legalization initiative last year.

He said medical-cannabis dispensary operators, for the most part, eventually supported recreational use, although some worried about losing business to new competitors. Tvert called that argument “absurd” and said that, ultimately, dispensaries supported the effort.

“For someone to support the continued criminalization for adults for marijuana because they don’t want to potentially face competition from other businesses in a broader market is selfish and really counterproductive,” Tvert said, adding that “most businesses were either neutral or supportive.”

“And now that the law has passed, many of the medical-marijuana businesses are very pleased because they recognize the legitimacy that it lends to their products,” Tvert added.

Dr. Edward Kirk, an Arizona dentist whose family owns two dispensaries, in Wickenburg and Quartzsite, thinks pot should strictly be treated as medicine, but he doesn’t worry about losing his hold on the market to other dispensaries that could crop up if the initiative passes.

“I already see people have borderline abused the medical end of what’s out there,” he said. “For full legalization — I don’t think that’s a good idea at this point here. It needs to remain medical.” [translation - I want to continue to keep the government granted monopoly I have which allows me to sell pot which costs me a few cents an ounce to grow for $300+ an ounce. It's a gravy train and I love it!!!!]

Murray Stein, managing partner for Tucson’s Green Halo dispensary, doesn’t have a strong opinion on full legalization but stressed the need to maintain a medical component and state regulation. [Again it sounds like Murray Stein loves his government granted monopoly that allows him to sell pot for $300+ and ounce]

“I don’t personally think that full legalization will impact our model,” he said, adding that with 40,000 patients and 68 dispensaries, the market is underserved. “This is a very powerful product. It’s a drug you don’t fool around with. It needs to be properly regulated.” [yea, it needs to be properly regulated so I can continue to sell pot for $300+ an ounce and rake in the dough!!! I love having a government issued license to steal!!!]

Marketing and political consultant Jason Rose, who represents a handful of dispensaries called the Regulated Dispensaries of Arizona Association, said those dispensaries are talking with the Marijuana Policy Project about their proposal.

Although declining to discuss the details of those conversations, Rose said: “It’s fair to say that there is concern — significant concern — as to what the (initiative) language looks like. The question is: How would one (dispensary) transition from a program that exists today into a more liberal environment, and what is that structure? You have a system that is working in Arizona, and how would the dispensaries be impacted? That’s a topic of discussion among us and MPP.” [translation - we want to keep our government issued monopolies because they are a gravy train]

Thai Nguyen, who operates the Herbal Wellness Center in west Phoenix, said that he is anxious about how a recreational-marijuana program would affect established dispensaries and that he will withhold support until the Marijuana Policy Project releases language on how the program would be structured in Arizona. [Again it sounds like Thai Nguyen is mostly interested in keeping his government granted monopoly which allows him to sell marijuana for $300+ an ounce]

The public’s support for legalizing marijuana is at an all-time high, according to a national survey of 1,501 people earlier this year by the Pew Research Center. In that survey, 52 percent said marijuana should be legal, while 45 percent said it should not. Pew said support for legalizing pot has risen 11 points since 2010.

Andrew Myers, who ran Arizona’s 2010 medical-marijuana campaign and was paid by the Marijuana Policy Project, said the group’s strategy of trying to create national momentum around the full-legalization effort in 2016 could lead to passage in Arizona.

The key challenge, he said, will be funding the campaign in Arizona and other states where the group is pursuing initiatives. “Of the lists of states that they’re approaching, Arizona is among the least likely to succeed,” Myers said. “Arizona is going to be dependent on a lot of resources.”

Scottsdale opens clinic for medical marijuana

Scottsdale opens clinic for medical marijuana

By Michael Clancy The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:29 AM

Scottsdale’s only medical-marijuana clinic has opened and is serving 15 to 20 patients a day there to purchase the drug to combat a variety of ailments.

Monarch Wellness, near Via de Ventura and Pima Road, offers a variety of marijuana strains as well as edibles.

Monarch was the only applicant for the South Scottsdale Community Health Area, a geographical designation used by the Arizona Department of Health Services to scatter medical-marijuana clinics across the state.

The health area covers the city south of Doubletree Ranch Road. Because of the zoning restrictions put in place by the City Council, few spots even qualified to host a clinic. Monarch occupies what owner Dustin Johnson says is the only place in the area to meet all the restrictions, based on distance from homes, schools and parks.

Dispensaries slowly have opened across the state in the third year since voters approved an initiative in November 2010. Phoenix’s first dispensary opened in April, and others are opening here and there, but a comprehensive, up-to-date list is not available. The Department of Health Services has not announced the identifications of licensed vendors.

Monarch opened quietly a few weeks ago. Johnson said the only advertising the clinic is doing is on medical-marijuana websites. Johnson said he is attracting 15 to 20 patients a day who are eligible for 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. Patients must get identification cards through the Department of Health Services and a recommendation from a doctor.

Opening the business was complex, Johnson said. Electronic data systems had to be perfected, security had to be established and personnel had to be hired and trained. For security, guards are stationed outdoors and in, video cameras scan the parking lot and offices, doors are locked and consultations have taken place with the Scottsdale police.

The front of the house is reminiscent of a medical office, with soft seating, televisions and a receptionist.

“Patients are used to this kind of environment,” Johnson said. “It feels like they are going to get their medicine.”

But once a patient goes through a locked door, that all changes. In another room, marijuana is displayed and stored, and advisers work with patients to choose the correct strain for what ails them.

Despite the distinctive scent in the air, the room is more reminiscent of a jewelry shop than a head shop.

Prices go up to $350 an ounce. Patients can take the marijuana as is, smoking it or using a vaporizer as recommended at Monarch. They also can purchase a variety of edible products — cookies, brownies and the like.

Johnson says all incoming marijuana is tested for pesticides and molds, and to have its components broken down. Different strains have different levels of active ingredients.

He is working on opening a cultivation facility in Mesa where, he said, zoning restrictions are not as tight as they are in Scottsdale and Phoenix.

Johnson said his interest was triggered after seeing changes in his mother, who had shattered her kneecap in a boating accident and was on a variety of prescription narcotics for the pain.

She became his first patient, he says, and six months after starting to use medical marijuana, she no longer is taking any of the narcotics.

RELATED INFO

Monarch Wellness

Address: 8729 E. Manzanita Drive.

Phone: 480-991-3752

Hours: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Tuesday to Saturday, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Sunday.

Website: monarchaz.org.

Pot: Alaska, Oregon may vote to inhale next year

Pot: Alaska, Oregon may vote to inhale next year

7:11 a.m. CDT, September 21, 2013

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Marijuana legalization activists hope Alaska and Oregon will become the next two states to put recreational use of the drug before the voters, perhaps as early as next year.

A more robust state-by-state legalization effort is planned for 2016, when the presidential election is expected to boost turnout among younger voters who are seen as more pro pot, said Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project.

His group also plans to lobby lawmakers in five states, including Rhode Island and Hawaii, to legalize recreational pot by 2017, even as the drug remains classed as an illegal narcotic under federal law.

"I wouldn't be surprised to see legalization on the ballot in Alaska and Oregon in 2014," said Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. "I expect the groups trying to put it on the ballot in these states to learn from what has happened in Colorado and Washington State."

Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize marijuana for recreational adult use after approving separate ballot measures last year. Some 20 states and the District of Columbia allow pot to be used for medical purposes.

While pot activists remain optimistic over the prospects of legalizing the drug for recreational use in more states, the question of whether to push hard at the ballot box next year or to hold off until 2016 has divided some within the movement.

Those eager to see such ballot measures in 2014 say successful campaigns in Washington state and Colorado, followed by the August release of a U.S. Justice Department memo giving states leeway to experiment with legalization, underscore a shift in public sentiment that should be quickly capitalized.

"Originally I agreed with the Marijuana Policy Project and other activists who urged waiting until 2017," said Anthony Johnson, director of New Approach Oregon, one of two planned 2014 pot legalization campaigns in Oregon. "But I've been convinced there's a path to victory in 2014."

That path may start in the Oregon statehouse, as lawmakers consider referring a ballot measure to voters to tax and regulate commercially sold marijuana while allowing individuals to grow and possess a modest amount of the drug.

"Most of my colleagues have voiced a perspective of us putting something forward rather than having a citizen initiative go forward that could be much more unworkable," said Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Floyd Prozanski, a legalization supporter.

If the legislative effort in Democratic-led Oregon fails, Johnson said his group was ready to gather roughly 87,000 signatures needed to put a similar measure on the 2014 ballot.

By contrast, those preaching patience say that, since 2000, well-funded, marijuana-liberalization initiative campaigns have polled between 8 percent and 10 percent higher in presidential years than in mid-term elections.

Among the failures was California's Proposition 19, which would have legalized recreational use, but was defeated 53.5 percent to 46.5 percent in 2010.

"It's a simple numbers game," said Steve Fox, a Washington D.C.-based marijuana policy and business consultant.

BIG MARIJUANA

Opponents say they plan to counter the coming legalization campaigns by warning voters against the rise of "Big Marijuana," which they liken to the tobacco and alcohol industries.

"The Marijuana Policy Project has been very public about what states they've been focusing on," said Kevin Sabet, co-founder of Project Smart Approaches to Marijuana, or Project SAM, and director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida. "We're going to take our playbook from theirs and we're in the process of raising money to fight those campaigns...

"The idea of big marijuana and targeting kids is not good for anybody," he said.

Such an idea could be effective with most Americans, who view marijuana use as "no big deal" but are not passionate about ending its prohibition, said Robert MacCoun, a professor of public policy at UC Berkeley, who is advising Washington state lawmakers on the issue.

"The support for this shift toward marijuana legalization is soft, and these are the kinds of things that are going to persuade some people," he said.

As pot legalization efforts progress in Oregon, the Marijuana Policy Project is funding a signature drive to put a measure on the 2014 ballot in Alaska to allow possession of up to an ounce of pot, and to tax and regulate a pot industry.

It is ignoring its wait-until-2016 outlook in Republican-leaning Alaska because of the state's libertarian bent and permissive approach to marijuana, as well as state rules that dictate ballot measures be voted on in primary elections, dampening any presidential race bump, Tvert said.

The Marijuana Policy Project, which has been behind a number of successful pot liberalization measures including last year's Colorado initiative, plans with its allies to target California, Arizona, Nevada and Maine in 2016.

But grassroots campaigns are already underway in Arizona and California to put pot initiatives on the 2014 ballot, although those efforts are more far-reaching and appear less well funded.

A proposed Arizona measure, for example, would make the legal age to use marijuana 18 years old, lower than in Washington state and Colorado where it is 21. It would allow possession of 2.5 ounces of pot and would make it harder to successfully prosecute stoned drivers.

Safer Arizona Initiative author Dennis Bohlke said his campaign has raised roughly $2,000 and gathered less than 5 percent of the 259,000 signatures needed by next July to get on the ballot. "We've got a long ways to go," he said.

Meanwhile, the California Cannabis Hemp Initiative will begin campaigning next month to get a measure on the 2014 ballot that would allow individuals to possess up to 12 pounds of cannabis. The measure is similar to ones that failed to get on ballots in 2008 and 2012.

The initiative's campaign director Buddy Duzy relishes the opportunity to push his measure without competition from better-funded pot proponents.

"I'm appreciative that they are not standing in our way, other than to tell people that we don't stand a chance," he said.

Collection of 'suspicious activity' reports is challenged

Surveillance: Civil rights groups seek end to collection of government reports on 'suspicious activity' by Americans

By Thomas Peele and Josh Richman

Posted: 09/19/2013 06:47:05 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO -- Be careful if you're heading out to buy a lot of bottled water or photograph a California landmark. The government is watching, and it may put details about what you're doing into a giant antiterrorism database, especially if you appear to be Arab or Muslim.

More than 1,800 "suspicious activity reports" collected by law enforcement officers and shared with federal agencies through clearinghouses called "fusion centers" that were released Thursday showed for the first time in California that activities like photographing buildings, flying the U.S. flag upside down, or even just giving the cold shoulder to a neighbor may result in the firm rap of FBI agents on your door and demands that you explain yourself.

This is especially true for Arabs, Muslims and people of South Asian descent, who are more often the subject of the secret reports, the value of which are dubious and have never been shown to have resulted in a terrorism-related arrest, members of civil rights groups said Thursday.

The government "should not be putting us in databases as potential terrorists when we have nothing to hide and haven't done anything wrong," said Linda Lye, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. "This is wrong and it needs to stop."

A computer analysis by this newspaper of the documents released Thursday showed that about half of the suspicious activity reports resulted in the FBI interviewing the people named in them about their activities.

A U.S. Justice Department spokesman said Thursday the agency would not comment on the release of the reports.

In a letter sent Thursday to Attorney General Eric Holder, the ACLU called for immediate reforms to the post-Sept.11 national "Suspicious Activities Reporting Program," in which activities such as "photography, videography and note taking" are considered "inherently suspicious" and recorded.

The reports, obtained under state Public Records Act and federal Freedom of Information Act requests, came from the so-called fusion centers in central and Southern California. Similar requests to the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, based in San Francisco, were denied, Lye said.

Mike Sena, the Northern California fusion center's director and president of the National Fusion Center Association, said the Suspicious Activity Report initiative is merely a more organized way of organizing and vetting the sort of tips and leads people have been passing along for years.

Sena said his center -- one of 72 across the country -- won't release its data because it could compromise criminal investigations or investigative practices. But he said his center, like all the fusion centers, has a formal privacy policy. In addition, Sena said, he also has a full-time privacy officer.

"We take it very seriously," Sena said. "Our role is protecting public safety, but also protecting privacy, civil rights and civil liberties."

Of about 800 such tips and leads his fusion center receives per year, only about 100 meet the standards for being passed along to the FBI and the area's Joint Terrorism Task Force, Sena said.

He added that others deemed unrelated to terrorism but perhaps related to local crimes are referred to local police. Those that aren't referred are retained for one year, he said, but anything that meets the standard of being criminal intelligence can be kept for up to five years.

A report earlier this year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office ripped the Suspicious Activities Reporting Program, saying that average Americans going about their everyday lives were getting swept up in the program and that their names were being retained in databases.

A bipartisan report issued in October 2012 by the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs' Investigations Subcommittee suggested that the fusion centers sometimes forward intelligence of uneven quality -- "oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens' civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not, unrelated to terrorism."

The reports the ACLU released Thursday from Southern and central California included details like these:

"Suspicious ME (Middle Eastern) males buying several large pallets of water."

"Female subject taking photos of the Folsom Post Office."

A police officer in the city of Elk Grove "reported on a suspicious individual in his neighborhood" who was a doctor of Middle Eastern ancestry. The officer thought the doctor might be a terrorist because he was "very unfriendly."

"Suspicious photocopy of Folsom Dam by Chinese Nationals."

A man "nonchalantly taking photos" inside a Los Angeles subway car.

A university art professor from San Diego taking photos in an industrial area.

Someone writing anti-government slogans on the wall of a room at UC Davis.

A "noticeable increase" of female Muslims wearing veils and burqas at a shopping mall.

Someone taking photos of the Al Zampa Bridge over the Carquinez Strait between Contra Costa and Solano counties.

A trucker flying the American flag upside down on a big rig.

Four "clean-cut Middle Eastern males speaking excitedly in a foreign language."

"They still think that it is legitimate and constitutional to treat someone as a possible terrorist because of their race" or skin color, said Yaman Salahi, a lawyer with the Asian Law Caucus.

Although suspicious activity reports for the Bay Area were not obtained, he said he routinely hears from Muslims and Asians across the region reporting that they had been questioned by FBI agents.

Hal Bergman, a 29-year-old freelance photographer from Los Angeles, said that he was taking stock photos from a public street of an oil refinery at the port of Los Angeles two years ago when a security guard approached him. After a brief conversation, Bergman continued his work.

Two weeks later, there was a pounding on his door. Two FBI agents, he said, were carrying a stack of documents, a photocopy of his driver's license and were demanding to know what he was doing at the port, who he worked for and why anyone would want a photo of a refinery. The security guard had filed a suspicious activity report.

"It is a permanent record," he said of the inclusion of his name in the fusion center databases. "Who has access to this? Am I going to have a problem flying or getting across the border?

Staff writer Daniel J. Willis contributed to this report. Contact Thomas Peele at tpeele@bayareanewsgroup.com and follow him twitter.com/thomas_peele.

Source

ACLU says domestic spying goes too far

Associated Press Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:24 AM

SAN FRANCISCO — Two men of Middle Eastern descent were reported buying pallets of water at a grocery store. A police sergeant reported concern about a doctor “who is very unfriendly.” And photographers of all races and nationalities have been reported taking snapshots of post offices, bridges, dams and other structures.

The American Civil Liberties Union and several other groups released 1,800 “suspicious activity reports” Thursday, saying they show the inner-workings of a domestic surveillance program that is sweeping up innocent Americans and forever placing their names in a counterterrorism database.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the federal government created a multibillion-dollar information-sharing program meant to put local, state and federal officials together to analyze intelligence at sites called fusion centers.

Instead, according to a Senate report the Government Accountability Office and now the ACLU, the program has duplicated the work of other agencies, has appeared rudderless and hasn’t directly been responsible for any terror-related prosecutions. According to the GAO, the government maintains 77 fusion centers throughout the country and their operations are funded by federal and local sources.

The ACLU obtained about 1,700 suspicious activity reports filed with the Sacramento office through a California Public Record Acts request. Another 100 were submitted as part of a court case in Los Angeles filed by the ACLU on behalf of photographers who say they are being harassed by Southern California law officials.

The documents do not appear to show valuable counterterrorism intelligence.

A report from Bakersfield, phoned in to a police officer by a “close personal friend,” describes two men who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent stocking up on water.

Another report shows a Lodi police sergeant “reporting on a suspicious individual in his neighborhood.” The sergeant, whose name was redacted, said he “has been long concerned about a residence in his neighborhood occupied by a Middle Eastern male adult physician who is very unfriendly.”

A third report states, “An off-duty supervising dispatcher with Sacramento P.D. noticed a female subject taking pictures of the outside of the post office in Folsom on Riley Street this morning. The female departed as a passenger in a silver Mazda.”

The fusion center project was a target of a blistering Congressional report last year complaining that too many innocent Americans engaging in routine and harmless behavior have become ensnared in the program.

The ACLU and others are calling on the Obama administration to make overhauls so that only activities with legitimate links to terrorism investigations are reported.

“We want the administration to stop targeting racial and religious minorities,” ACLU lawyer Linda Lye said.

A Senate report last year concluded that the program has improperly collected information and produced little valuable intelligence on terrorism. The report suggested the program’s intent ballooned far beyond anyone’s ability to control.

What began as an attempt to put local, state and federal officials in the same room analyzing the same intelligence has instead cost huge amounts of money for data-mining software, flat screen televisions and, in Arizona, two fully equipped Chevrolet Tahoes that are used for commuting, investigators found.

The lengthy, bipartisan report was a scathing evaluation of what the Department of Homeland Security has held up as a crown jewel of its security efforts.

A Homeland Security spokesman countered that the program is “safe and effective.”

“In recent years, reporting of suspicious activity by the public has led to the arrest of multiple individuals planning mass casualty attacks,” Peter Boogaard said. “These programs are governed by robust privacy and civil rights and civil liberty protections.”

Homeland Security Department spokesman Matthew Chandler at the time the Senate report was released called it “out of date, inaccurate and misleading.”

He said it focused entirely on information being produced by fusion centers and didn’t consider the benefit to involved officials from receiving intelligence from the federal government.

Houston police chief runs over pedestrian in cross walk

The video is here: http://bcove.me/re11ovgq

Source

Associated Press Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:35 AM

HOUSTON— Houston's police chief says he's accepted a one-day suspension and will take a defensive-driving course after a traffic accident in which he hit a pedestrian while driving into work earlier this month.

Chief Charles McClelland said Thursday that the Sept. 4 accident was his fault. In a video of the accident, McClelland can be seen turning his city-owned vehicle at a downtown intersection and knocking down a pedestrian who was in the crosswalk. McClelland said he didn't see the man, who had a green light to walk across the street.

"I am the boss; I should take a bigger discipline. This is why I am accepting my suspension," McClelland said in a tweet Thursday on the police department's official Twitter account.

The pedestrian suffered minor injuries.

Woman gets life in prison for DUI

Source

Woman gets life in prison for 6th DWI

Associated Press Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:29 PM

SAN MARCOS, Texas — A 44-year-old Central Texas woman has been sentenced to life in prison for her sixth driving while intoxicated conviction.

A Hays County jury on Wednesday sentenced Rose Ann Davidson of San Marcos.

Investigators say Davidson was arrested in July 2012 on Interstate 35 after being pulled over by a Kyle police officer. Police say Davidson, whose five previous DWI convictions go back to 1996, was driving erratically and had an open container of beer in her vehicle.

Prosecutors say Davidson served time in prison for her previous alcohol-related convictions.

Man arrested after alerting teller about gun

Source

Man arrested after alerting teller about gun

Newsy Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:32 AM

GLASTONBURY, Conn. - A man who tried to alert a bank teller about a man with a gun ended up getting arrested for breach of peace, according to video from Newsy.

Fearing there would be a robbery at TD Bank, Robert Gursky, 50, said "gun" to a teller and wrote a note with the same work, prompting a bank worker to follow protocol and call police.

The man with the gun reportedly had a permit to carry a weapon, and when police tracked down Gursky, he was arrested and charged with breach of peace due to the panic he caused in the bank.

2 men guilty of conspiring to distribute drugs in prison

Source

2 men guilty of conspiring to distribute drugs in prison

By Justin Price The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:31 PM

Two Valley men have been found guilty of conspiring to distribute narcotics in prison, federal prosecutors say.

Roman Borquez, 46, of Peoria, and Ralph Moreno, 52, of Phoenix, were convicted of offenses including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona on Friday.

Borquez was also found guilty of conspiring to distribute heroin, the statement said.

Prosecutors said evidence at the trial showed Borquez, a member of a Mexican prison gang, conspired with others in Arizona to send him narcotics while serving time in a federal prison in Safford.

Borquez’s associates sent him heroin contained in two greeting cards that were intercepted at the prison, authorities said.

Evidence also showed that Borquez also arranged for the sale of methamphetamine with a Hawaii-based drug dealer.

A Phoenix-based FBI violent street gang task force comprised of federal and state investigators infiltrated Borquez’s drug trafficking organization, where they seized three pounds of methamphetamine, authorities said.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office statement did not name Moreno’s role in the drug trafficking organization. But the statement said a search of Moreno’s home produced an AR-15 rifle, a .40 caliber handgun, a small amount of marijuana and over $75,000 in cash. Prior felony convictions for drug trafficking prohibited Moreno from possessing either weapon.

The case was tried before U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver over two weeks earlier this month.

The two men face maximum penalties of up to life in prison, more than $10,000,000 in fines, or both, authorities said.

Silver is scheduled to sentence the pair on Dec. 16.

Carolina’s CPS story is every parent’s nightmare

Source

Posted on September 20, 2013 4:20 pm by Laurie Roberts

Carolina’s CPS story is every parent’s nightmare

The mother smacked her son in the mouth, as if to emphasize that he’d better watch what came out of it. She quickly regretted it and sought out help for better ways to handle a rebellious 11 year old.

Enter Child Protective Services. It took a year — including drug tests, a psychological exam and a judge’s order — but she finally got her son back last month.

Now she’s terrified because she knows the reach of the agency, one that never seemed all that interested in her side of the story.

“I’m afraid of the state,” she told me. “I need to be afraid. I think the only thing that got me by was having faith in God.” [Well I don't mean to bust your bubble, but God ain't going to help you either]

Carolina’s story is every parent’s nightmare — and CPS’s as well. The agency’s investigators and caseworkers have tough jobs. But when they get it wrong, families suffer. Here, after examining a six-inch pile of documents detailing what happened, it appears they got it way, way wrong.

CPS wouldn’t comment for this column, except to explain the process involved when removing a child, how they have to make “an informed decision about whether the child is safe or unsafe” and take them only when they are “at imminent risk of harm.”

Had I been able to talk to the CPS brass, I would have asked: do you think that happened here? And if not, what needs to change before the next Carolina comes along?

Carolina is a single mother of two boys, ages 12 and 9. In early 2012, she was temporarily living with her mother, sister and brother in west Phoenix. She soon came to regret it as she doesn’t have a good relationship with family members, who she says began overriding her parenting decisions and trying to poison the boys against her.

Things came to a head in March 2012, during a confrontation with the then-11 year old over homework. He didn’t want to do it and called his mother “stupid.” She reacted by popping him on the mouth with her open hand.

“He had never called me stupid before, and I was really thrown off by that,” she told me. “Was it my best choice? No.”

Carolina went to her son’s school, explaining what had happened and asking for help. A Phoenix police officer who worked at the school checked over the boy and saw no evidence of abuse, so school officials held a meeting with mother and son to mediate the homework issue.

While they were mediating, Carolina’s mother was calling CPS.

Within a week CPS was at the door, wherein the 11 year old proceeded to detail the abuse he had suffered during the homework skirmish.

“(The boy) states that his mother last beat him two weeks ago,” the CPS report says. “On that occasion, she struck him on the face and thrust her knee into his stomach. (The boy) indicated that he had to run to the bathroom and that he coughed up blood…”

The boy, who CPS noted showed signs of autistic behavior, went on to tell the caseworker that his mother has beaten him regularly since the second grade, often with a belt or her fists, and always while his brother watches.

One would think with all that coughing up of blood and regular beatings, CPS might have checked with the boy’s doctor, who court records show would have told the agency that he had seen no evidence of trauma. Or the school, which had seen no evidence of abuse.

Or that the CPS investigator might have taken seriously the younger son, who disputed his brother’s story.

Instead, the records show CPS seemed to take as gospel the word of Carolina’s family, who told the investigator that she often yells at the boys and has a history of drug abuse.

Within a month, CPS deemed the report unsubstantiated, finding no evidence of abuse. Even so, the agency offered family-preservation services, designated Carolina’s family as safety monitors and asked that she take a hair follicle test to rule out drug use.

She refused the test, acknowledging to me that she had used cocaine eight months earlier. But on the advice of her attorney, she started taking random urine tests to demonstrate to CPS that she wasn’t on drugs. [So you have to prove to CPS that you don't take drugs, in addition to proving to CPS that you are a GOOD parent??? - Screw that concept of innocent till proven guilty]

That, however, wasn’t good enough.

In mid June 2012, CPS took the boys away. A CPS report notes that the children were healthy but that the 11 year old reported that his mother yelled at him. It also noted that Carolina hadn’t taken the hair follicle test.

Suddenly, abuse that was unsubstantiated in April, was unquestioned by CPS in June.

“The mother has not accepted responsibility for abusing her children and has refused to work with Family Preservation services to address these issues,” CPS wrote, in a report to a juvenile court judge. [How dare the woman challenge a government bureaucrat and claim she is innocent!!!! Well that's what our government masters in the CPS seem to be saying.]

The judge gave temporary custody of the kids to Carolina’s sister and ordered a hair follicle test. [Screw that Fourth Amendment thingy about requiring probably cause to search somebody]

Which came out clean – not that it seemed to matter.

Carolina would see her children only sporadically through the summer of 2012 and her supervised weekly visits were cut off with her older son after the boy pronounced that he was afraid of his mother and would kill himself if he had to see her.

By November, the agency returned the younger son to Carolina but asked a judge to make the older boy a permanent ward of the state.

It didn’t seem to matter that CPS had never substantiated a claim of abuse. [Why should they, when they assume you are guilty of all the charges they accuse you of, until you prove your innocence] Or that CPS’s own psychologist had said Carolina “isn’t likely to be a risk to (the boys) at this time.” Or that a CPS-approved parent aide assigned to the family case didn’t see a problem. Or even that the threat of suicide was deemed bogus once the boy saw a psychologist.

The judge, after a two-day trial, found that CPS had failed to prove that the mother was abusive or that she was on drugs. But Judge William Wingard did find a “substantial disconnect” between mother and son and ordered that he remain in CPS custody to get counseling before being reunited with his mother. [I guess “substantial disconnect” is one of those things that assume you are guilty till you prove your innocent]

In February, the boy admitted in court that he’d “exaggerated” his abuse claims and the judge was not amused, especially when he learned that no therapy had begun.

“The main issues in this case are that (the boy) is not happy with his Mother’s financial situation and he is happy in a different placement that can support a more lavish lifestyle,” Wingard wrote. “To say it simply, (the boy) is a very intelligent young man who the Court finds is well aware of his ability to manipulate people to obtain his own desires and wants.”

Translation: the kid was mad at his mom.

Wingard in March noted that the abuse allegations were “completely unfounded” and ordered CPS to move the boy out of his aunt’s house, saying the placement had “emboldened this child’s sense of entitlement and sense that he need not fully participate in therapy.” It was an order that would be repeated several times. Yet five months later, he was still living there when the Court of Appeals ordered that he be returned home.

The appellate court said the state couldn’t keep the child from his mother given that CPS didn’t prove its case. [I guess you won't get a fair hearing till you go to an appeals court. I suspect the lower court will rubber stamp everything the CPS case worker says. Happened to me on an unemployment claim that took a year for me to win. Thank God I didn't need the money]

The boy is home now, after not seeing his mother for a year, and Carolina reports that they are healing.

And CPS? Is it learning anything from its handling of this case?

Beats me. The cone of silence is thoroughly engaged over at CPS HQ.

DeeAn Gillespie Strub, Carolina’s attorney, says she doubts it. The problem, she says, is that CPS too often does a half-baked investigation and disregards anything that doesn’t fit its narrative. Then the agency gets away with it because there is no one to hold it accountable — not when even judges’ orders are ignored.

“There are very few parents who can bring accountability when things like this happen and therefore the department and workers just act with impunity,” she said. “I acknowledge they are overwhelmed, I acknowledge that have to deal with hard things with kids. There are some cases where they get it right. But when they insert themselves into the fundamental unit of the society, a family, and when they elect to exercise their governmental power, to substitute their judgment for the judgment of a parent, they better darn well know what they’re doing.”

CPS recently brought the boy home and stood by as he issued a list of demands to his mother. He came armed with a password-protected phone and a tape recorder with spare batteries.

(Column published Sept. 21, 2013, The Arizona Republic.)

F.B.I. Tries to Trace Last Weeks of Gunman

Source

F.B.I. Tries to Trace Last Weeks of Gunman

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN Published: September 20, 2013

WASHINGTON — F.B.I. analysts are poring through the cellphone and e-mail accounts of Aaron Alexis, the former Navy reservist who the police say killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday.

In Texas, Florida, New York, Rhode Island and other states, agents have interviewed dozens of co-workers, friends, relatives and people he came in contact with in an attempt to piece together his final weeks. Forensic psychiatrists are building a profile of Mr. Alexis, looking at whether he exhibited traits similar to others who have gone on deadly rampages.

And investigators are parsing the final conversations of his life, searching for any scrap of information that might provide clues to what may prove an elusive goal: a motive for the shootings.

A central theory is that Mr. Alexis, who was killed by police officers, might have had a dispute with his employer or co-workers that drove him to violence. Mr. Alexis, who had a history of angry outbursts and run-ins with the law, and whose mental stability had come into question in recent weeks, began shooting people on the fourth floor of the navy yard building. He had been working at the navy yard for about a week as a contractor for a computer services company, the Experts.

But a senior law enforcement official said no clear evidence had emerged pointing to a workplace dispute that might have caused the rampage. “When we talk to people who have firsthand knowledge, we’re just not finding anything that points to a motive because of his work,” said the official, who wished to remain anonymous, citing the investigation.

The official added: “In the immediate aftermath there is always a lot of hearsay. Some say they overheard this or that. But there is no requirement that something had to provoke him. When you are dealing with crazy people, sometimes there isn’t a clear-cut reason.”

A spokesman for the Experts asserted earlier this week that the company never told Mr. Alexis that his job was in trouble. "He was continuously employed from July until Monday,” said the spokesman, Lou Colasuonno. “He didn’t have a work issue.”

F.B.I. agents have also spent time at the Florida headquarters of the Experts, poring through personnel records and interviewing company officials about Mr. Alexis, who worked there on and off for the past year.

The company’s handling of Mr. Alexis in his final weeks has come into question because he told police in Rhode Island last month that he was disturbed by vibrations sent by a microwave machine. The company told hotel workers that it would bring Mr. Alexis “home” because he was “unstable,” but it is unclear what the company did.

On Friday, Pentagon officials also said they thought that the company’s chief executive, Thomas Hoshko, might have been trying to solicit business from the Department of Defense in an e-mail sent to several Pentagon officials the day after the shootings.

The e-mail expresses Mr. Hoshko’s condolences and “disbelief” that the gunman worked for his company. But he also offers his services in a review of how security clearances and background checks are conducted on government employees and contractors. That review was ordered by President Obama after the shooting.

“I would like to offer my service, expertise and knowledge with security,” Mr. Hoshko said in the e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. “I am confident that I can provide valuable input and solutions to the process that will provide better security for the military contractors and civilians.”

The Experts declined to comment on the e-mail.

While the victims’ families and members of Congress are demanding answers to what set off Mr. Alexis, current and former federal law enforcement officials said that in terrorist attacks and mass shootings — particularly ones in which the perpetrators are mentally ill and have been killed — investigators often never come to a definitive conclusion about motive.

Law enforcement officials pointed to recent attacks — like the Boston Marathon bombings and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, Conn. — as examples of how despite extensive investigations, the authorities still struggle to find answers.

Kenneth J. Maxwell, a retired F.B.I. official who was previously in charge of the bureau’s counterterrorism branch in New York, said that when the authorities are “confronted with a tragedy of these proportions and there is a lone actor at the center of it, the focus is building an understanding of everything about the immediate history of this person: his education, his medical and psychological history, his electronic trail.”

“Was he in debt well, well over his head?” Mr. Maxwell said. “Did he have failed relationships that added to the bizarre nature of this thing? They’re going to ask everything about this person on a personal level.”

Trip Gabriel and Thom Shanker contributed reporting.

Ex-probation chief gets 10 months for child porn

Source

Ex-probation chief gets 10 months for child porn

Updated 8:42 pm, Friday, September 20, 2013

The former chief probation officer of San Mateo County was sentenced Friday to 10 months in jail and three years of probation for possessing child pornography - material he asserted he had viewed as part of his job.

Stuart Forrest, 62, of San Mateo was taken into custody after his sentencing hearing at San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood City.

Forrest testified at his trial that images found on his personal computer late last year were related to work the probation department was doing on human trafficking. But authorities said he collected child pornography for his own use and initially lied about the images when confronted.

Forrest - who served three years as the county's chief probation officer - tried to commit suicide after the pornography was discovered, cutting himself in the neck outside a San Mateo church as authorities moved in to arrest him, investigators said.

To avoid conflicts of interest, the case was prosecuted by the state attorney general's office. The trial was held before a visiting judge, who considered a report prepared by Santa Clara County probation officials before sentencing.

Henry K. Lee is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: hlee@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @henryklee

Lead judge in Shirakawa case recuses himself, hires his own attorney

Lead judge in Shirakawa case recuses himself, hires his own attorney

By Karen de Sá

kdesa@mercurynews.com

Posted: 09/20/2013 03:35:53 PM PDT

SAN JOSE -- In a startling development Friday, the lead judge in the politically sensational prosecution of former Santa Clara County Supervisor George Shirakawa Jr. appeared with his own attorney to protect himself from testifying for the high-profile defendant -- and then recused himself entirely from the case.

Taking over for Superior Court Judge Philip Pennypacker, Judge Griffin Bonini ruled that the most recent charge of illegal campaigning filed against Shirakawa can proceed, despite the defense's argument that the new charge violates a previous plea deal with local prosecutors. Shirakawa, 51, now has less than a week before he's back in court to battle the felony charge that he sent out an unlawful mailer in 2010 aimed at helping a friend, Xavier Campos, land a seat on the San Jose City Council.

And Shirakawa has yet to be sentenced for a separate set of political crimes -- using public funds to feed his gambling habit -- to which he pleaded guilty in March. Whether he gets locked up for those crimes is a decision on ice, as Shirakawa's case grows more complex -- and more controversial.

This week's developments have stunned legal onlookers. The oddities surfaced last week, when Shirakawa attorney Jay Rorty revealed he had spoken privately with Judge Pennypacker, who had anchored the Shirakawa case from its inception. That one-sided conversation without a prosecutor present, according to legal codes governing the behavior of judges and attorneys, represents a serious departure from proper conduct. And as such it has caused new ripples in the already unusual prosecution of a longtime Silicon Valley politician.

One week after that conversation was revealed in court documents filed by Rorty, Pennypacker held a one-minute hearing Friday in his courtroom, where he stated that he was recusing himself from the entire Shirakawa matter. He offered no explanation.

Minutes after appearing on the bench in robes, Pennypacker was in civilian clothes in a back-row seat in Bonini's courtroom, alongside his attorney, Lillian Yoo of the statewide firm Meyers Nave. Yoo successfully pushed back against a subpoena aiming at getting Pennypacker to testify for the Shirakawa defense in the campaign mailer case.

Shirakawa's attorney had sought Pennypacker's help because the judge oversaw the plea deal reached between the District Attorney's Office and Shirakawa -- a deal that spared the defendant prison time, but forced him from office and saddled him with tens of thousands of dollars in fines. The basis of that deal, attorney Rorty argued, was that the agreement was "global" and spared Shirakawa any further prosecution. Rorty said otherwise, Pennypacker "would not have accepted the plea" and could testify to that.

But Bonini rejected the notion that the judge should have to testify in the case he had presided over for the past seven months. And he ruled that the latest charge against Shirakawa should not be dismissed.

That case is based on DNA evidence that arrived from a state lab well after the plea deal was reached. According to prosecutors, the evidence linked Shirakawa with skin or saliva cells on postage stamps affixed to the 2010 campaign flier.

The flier aimed to discredit Campos' main campaign rival, Magdalena Carrasco, by falsely portraying her as a "communist" in an attempt to turn off Vietnamese-American voters. The DA's office argued successfully that it had not considered Shirakawa a suspect in that long-dormant investigation until the DNA evidence appeared and that the plea agreement, if anything was a good deal for the defendant.

"We had no reason to engage in gamesmanship," Deputy District Attorney Kaci Lopez said. "The DA's office ultimately charged 12 counts when they could have charged more than 40."

Bonini agreed, saying: "The DA did not have Mr. Shirakawa as a focus of the investigation" until the office received the DNA. After he had "scoured the records multiple times," the judge continued, he could not find "one single person who in any way discussed or contemplated" possible charges against Shirakawa in the campaign flier case before that time.

Where the case goes next is unknown. Shirakawa is set to appear in court again on Wednesday, but he now may have to retain a third attorney. And whoever picks up the campaign flier case will have a tough argument that he had nothing to do with sending the illegal hit piece. Since the charge was filed in June, attorney Rorty has consistently argued that Shirakawa was a suspect in the 2010 campaign flier investigation, even though the case was later closed by former DA Dolores Carr.

"Their own investigation had identified him as a suspect," Rorty said. "They were as aware as everyone else ... that Mr. Shirakawa was clearly a person of interest to them against whom charges might be brought."

Contact Karen de Sá at 408-920-5781.

U.S. moves drone fleet from Camp Lemonnier

U.S. moves drone fleet from Camp Lemonnier to ease Djibouti’s safety concerns

By Craig Whitlock and Greg Miller, Published: September 24 E-mail the writers

The U.S. military has been forced to relocate a large fleet of drones from a key counterterrorism base on the Horn of Africa after a string of crashes fanned local fears that the unmanned aircraft were at risk of colliding with passenger planes, according to documents and interviews.

Air Force drones ceased flying this month from Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. installation in Djibouti, after local officials expressed alarm about several drone accidents and mishaps in recent years. The base serves as the combat hub for counterterrorism operations in Yemen and Somalia, playing a critical role in U.S. operations against al-Shabab, the Somali Islamist militia that has asserted responsibility for the Nairobi shopping mall attack, which killed more than 60 people.

The Pentagon has temporarily moved the unmanned aircraft from the U.S. base in Djibouti’s capital to a makeshift airstrip in a more remote part of the country. U.S. military officials said the disruption has not affected their overall ability to launch drone strikes in the region, but they declined to say whether it has forced them to curtail the frequency of drone missions or hindered their surveillance of al-Shabab camps and fighters.

The Djiboutian government’s growing unease over drone flights casts doubt on its commitment to host the aircraft over the long term. It is unclear whether the temporary drone base can be transformed into a permanent home or whether the U.S. military will have to hunt for another site in the region, according to previously undisclosed correspondence between the Defense Department and Congress.

That uncertainty raises fresh questions about the Pentagon’s plan to invest more than $1 billion to upgrade Camp Lemonnier into a major regional base, supporting operations throughout Africa, as well as in parts of the Arabian Peninsula and Indian Ocean. Those plans include a $228 million compound to house up to 700 personnel from the highly secretive Joint Special Operations Command.

More broadly, however, the concerns about drone safety present a strategic challenge for the Pentagon as it begins to shift more of the robot planes to new frontiers, where they must share congested airspace with commercial aircraft.

A rash of accidents

Unlike in the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. military essentially has ruled the skies, the drones in Djibouti and other foreign locations have flown from the same runways and relied on the same air traffic controllers as civilian pilots.

At least five drones based at Camp Lemonnier have crashed since January 2011, Air Force records show, including one that plowed into the ground next to a neighborhood in Djibouti’s capital, which goes by the same name as the country.

Last year, the Pentagon was forced to suspend drone operations in Seychelles, an island nation in the Indian Ocean, after two Reaper drones crashed on the runway at the main international airport, which serves half a million passengers a year.

The overseas accidents could have repercussions in the United States, where the military and the drone industry are pressing the federal government to open up the skies to remote-controlled aircraft.

Under a law passed by Congress last year, the Federal Aviation Administration is preparing rules that would integrate drones into U.S. airspace by the end of 2015. Until then, the Defense Department can fly drones at home only in restricted military airspace or with special permits.

In Djibouti, a tiny and parched African country that borders the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, the government notified the Obama administration early this year that it was concerned about a series of drone accidents and near-misses. It was time, Djiboutian officials said, to find another home for the aircraft.

The U.S. military intensified its drone operations at Camp Lemonnier in 2011 as part of a crackdown against al-Qaeda targets in nearby Yemen and Somalia, with up to 16 takeoffs and landings each day.

But elbowroom was at a premium. The base was already crammed with military fighter jets, cargo planes and other manned aircraft. Lemonnier is shoehorned onto a stretch of shore front and shares a single runway with Djibouti’s only international airport for commercial flights. French and Japanese troops also have small bases next to the airport, alongside the Djiboutian military.

Rattled by the rash of drone crashes, the Djiboutian government asked the Pentagon to move its unmanned aircraft away from the city to a rarely used airstrip in the desert, Chabelley Airfield, according to the unclassified documents, which were obtained by The Washington Post as part of a public records request.

In a letter to Congress in February, the Pentagon asked for urgent authorization of $13 million in funds and equipment to build “minimal facilities necessary to enable temporary operations” at Chabelley. To save time on construction, the military used troop labor instead of private contractors.

“The construction is not being carried out at a military installation where the United States is reasonably expected to have a long-term presence,” the documents stated. “No decisions have been made about long-term [drone] operations in the region.”

The military gradually transferred the drone operations to Chabelley and flew the last drone flight from Lemonnier this month, U.S. defense officials said.

Air Force Maj. Matt Hasson, a spokesman for a U.S. counterterrorism task force that oversees most military operations at Camp Lemonnier, declined to comment when asked whether the move had hindered drone operations in Yemen or Somalia. But he said that basing the drones at Chabelley “enables us to continue to fully support our partners to secure their borders against illegal activities.”

Airport safety ‘paramount’

The U.S. government has a fixed, long-term lease for Camp Lemonnier and pays Djibouti $38 million a year in rent. Djiboutian officials said that they were happy with their military partnership with Washington but that the armed Predator and Reaper drones were flying — and crashing — too close to their capital for comfort.

“The safety of the airport is paramount,” said Roble Olhaye, Djibouti’s ambassador to the United States. “The airport seems to be congested. There are so many military aircraft based at the airport and around the airport — French aircraft, American aircraft, Japanese aircraft.”

He said that U.S. and Djiboutian officials were still discussing possible long-term solutions but that Chabelley was “the best option available at the moment, for them, for us.”

“It gives them the necessary leeway, the necessary space,” Olhaye said. “I think it’s in the best interest for all.”

The presence of the unmanned aircraft remains a sensitive subject in Djibouti. During a telephone interview, Olhaye shied away from using the term “drone,” chuckling whenever a reporter mentioned it.

In a separate interview, a diplomat from a Middle Eastern country cited rising concern that the civilian side of the Djibouti airport might be targeted by militants looking to retaliate against U.S. drone operations. Regional tensions have risen as the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command has carried out dozens of strikes against al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Yemen.

“Once you have military installations in civilian facilities, that civilian facility and the public become endangered,” the diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. drone strategy in the region.

The same potential problem exists elsewhere.

In Ethi­o­pia, for example, the Air Force flies Reaper drones from a civilian airport in the town of Arba Minch. In West Africa, the Air Force began flying Predator drones in February from a small military base in Niger that abuts the capital’s international airport.

Within two months, one of them had crashed while on a surveillance mission in neighboring Mali, according to Air Force records.

Gun ban for those convicted of domestic violence upheld

Source

Gun ban for those convicted of domestic violence upheld

Bob Egelko

Published 5:03 pm, Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of battery against a spouse or domestic partner from possessing a gun, even if the victim was uninjured, a California appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 2-1 decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno waded into a dispute that has divided state and federal courts: whether a 1996 federal law, which imposes a lifetime ban on firearms possession by those convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," requires evidence that the victim was actually beaten or seriously harmed.

The case involved a Tulare County man, Scott James, who pleaded no contest in 1996 to the misdemeanor battery of his wife and was placed on probation. James applied to be a reserve police officer in 2008, and later tried to buy a gun, but he was turned down because the state classified his crime as domestic violence.

The court did not give details of James' crime. California law defines battery as the "willful and unlawful use of force or violence" against another person, but also says it can be violated by "the slightest touching."

In another case, a different state appellate court ruled in May that a misdemeanor battery conviction, by itself, did not amount to an act of "domestic violence" that barred gun ownership. A federal appeals court in San Francisco had reached the same conclusion in a 2003 ruling about a similar law in another state.

The majority in Tuesday's ruling, however, said those decisions gave too little weight to the intent of the 1996 federal law. Its author, the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said during floor debate that he was proposing "a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to guns and domestic violence."

"A zero-tolerance policy is not furthered" by requiring agencies that issue gun licenses "to differentiate between, for example, a slap and a punch, or a poke to the chest and a poke in the eye," said Justice Jennifer Detjens in the majority opinion.

She quoted Lautenberg as saying that domestic cohabitants face a risk of violence in surroundings where "a firearm in the hands of an abuser all too often means death."

Dissenting Justice Gene Gomes said he read the federal law as covering only those crimes that involve force "capable of causing physical pain or injury."

James' lawyer, Leonard Herr, said he was considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court. The ruling, he said, "makes any sort of touching result in a federal prohibition against owning firearms."

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: begelko@sfchronicle.com

Standards vary on concealed weapon permits in California

Source

Report: Standards vary on concealed weapon permits in California

Associated Press

Posted: 09/25/2013 08:55:09 AM PDT

LODI -- Obtaining a concealed weapon permit in California is a proverbial roll of the dice as the standards vary wildly from agency to agency, according to a report.

But almost no continuity exists among the dozens of law enforcement agencies authorized to issue concealed weapon permits in the state, the Lodi News-Sentinel (http://bit.ly/16PdRxb) reported this week.

In most states, law enforcement agencies issue permits based on a statewide standard.

But in California, each agency, from the tiniest police force to the largest sheriff's department, develops its own standard. It can be based on politics, population, personal opinion, budget cuts -- and at any time, for any reason, an agency can change policy.

For example, the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office rejects more applicants than it approves, while the Calaveras County Sheriff's Office approves more than 90 percent.

However, if you live in San Francisco, you're not so lucky. San Francisco very rarely issues permits. In fact, there are only two in a city of 700,000. Both were obtained through the police department.

Statewide, more than 55,000 people are permitted to carry concealed weapons, according to state Department of Justice statistics. The issue is heating up in California as gun laws are debated and many residents want guns for their own safety and protection. Also, a number of residents are suing restrictive agencies of violating equal-protection rights.

Some California lawmakers believe reform is needed.

"There shouldn't be such significant variance in how many permits are allocated," said Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto. "(Law enforcement agencies) should be issuing concealed weapons permits to people who apply for them, unless there is a legal reason not to. So if that is not being followed throughout the state ... then perhaps we do need some clarifying criteria and standard at the state level."

When a citizen applies for a concealed weapon permit, agencies require them to pass a background check, a shooting proficiency test and a psychological evaluation. The applicant must also submit a sworn affidavit explaining why they need to carry a concealed gun.

If granted a permit, the applicant can carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed in public. Even if the applicant is denied a permit, they can still store a weapon at their home.

Dave Wellenbrock, a former chief deputy district attorney and deputy public defender for San Joaquin County, has seen the concealed weapon issue from different angles.

He said getting a permit varies "incredibly" throughout the state.

"It's really pretty arbitrary and varies with the scene," Wellenbrock said. "There's not many guidelines on who has them and who shouldn't get them at the state level.

"It depends on who the head of the local agency thinks should have one," he continued. "And because there are no guidelines on who should have one, it creates a wide range of discretion."

------

Information from: Lodi News-Sentinel, www.lodinews.com

Concealed weapon permits reflect a patchwork of standards in California

Concealed weapon permits reflect a patchwork of standards in California

Dan Evans/News-Sentinel

Posted: Saturday, September 21, 2013 12:15 am

By Kristopher Anderson/News-Sentinel Staff Writer | 4 comments

Say you’re a jeweler living in Sacramento County. You’d like to carry a concealed handgun for security reasons. If you apply for a concealed weapon permit, you are very likely to be issued one. A jeweler living in Lodi would likely be successful, too.

But one living in San Francisco is out of luck. San Francisco very rarely issues permits. In fact, there are only two in a city of 700,000.

Getting a concealed weapon permit in California is a roll of the dice, a News-Sentinel investigation has found.

Standards vary wildly from agency to agency. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office, for instance, rejects more applicants than they approve, while the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Office approves more than 90 percent.

Today, almost no continuity exists among the dozens of agencies entrusted to issue permits in California. The differences can reflect the political outlook of a sheriff or police chief, or the amount of money an agency chooses to spend processing applications.

The result: A jurisdictional welter in which some residents can get a permit as easily as filing a tax return, while others are left waiting months for near-certain denial.

The issue is heating up in California, as gun laws are debated and many residents want guns for their own safety and protection.

A number of residents are suing restrictive agencies of violating equal-protection rights.

And in light of the News-Sentinel’s investigation, some California lawmakers say reform is needed.

“There shouldn’t be such significant variance in how many permits are allocated,” said Assemblywoman Kristin Olson, a Republican representing the 12th District, which includes numerous communities, including Lockeford. “(Law enforcement agencies) should be issuing concealed weapons permits to people who apply for them, unless there is a legal reason not to. So if that is not being followed throughout the state ... then perhaps we do need some clarifying criteria and standard at the state level.”

Why a concealed weapon?

Californians apply for concealed weapons permits for a variety of reasons.

A father may want to protect his wife and children. A retired judge or law enforcement officer could fear retribution. And there are those who feel self-defense is their constitutional right.

When a citizen applies for a concealed weapons permit, agencies require them to pass a background check, a shooting proficiency test and a psychological evaluation. The applicant must also submit a sworn affidavit explaining why they need to carry a concealed gun.

If granted a permit, the applicant can carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed in public. Even if the applicant is denied a permit, they can still store a weapon at their home.

Today, more than 55,000 Californians — nearly the population of Lodi — are permitted to carry concealed weapons. [Big stinking deal. The 6.5 million people in Arizona don't even need a stinking permit to carry a concealed weapon.]

In most states, law enforcement agencies issue permits based on a statewide standard.

But in California, each agency, from the tiniest police force to the largest sheriff’s department, develops its own standard. It can be based on politics, population, personal opinion, budget cuts — and at anytime, for any reason, an agency can change its policy.

For many years, obtaining a permit through the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office was so difficult many residents didn’t bother to apply.

But when budget cuts forced Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness to lay off 122 deputies in 2009, he decided that residents living in his jurisdiction should have the ability to protect themselves in the event of an emergency.

Almost overnight, McGinness reversed the department’s stance on concealed weapons permits. One of the state’s most restrictive agencies in the state became one of the most permissive.

“Gone are the days that a bus drivers or traveling jeweler will be denied a permit,” Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Jason Ramos said. “If you want to protect your family, that’s a good enough reason for us.”

Today, the Sacramento Sheriff’s Office approves roughly 90 percent of applications. Within the county, there are more than 3,500 permit holders — up from 800 in 2011.

The department also plans to approve nearly all of the 4,000 residents currently waiting for their applications to be reviewed.

A patchwork system

A woman wanting to carry a firearm for protection would likely receive a permit in Sacramento County.

Her reason isn't likely fly in other jurisdictions, though, including San Joaquin County.

As of May, there are 327 holders through the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office. In addition, the sheriff’s office received 41 new concealed weapons applications between January and March of this year, but approved only five. (San Joaquin County Sheriff Steve Moore declined to be interviewed for this story.)

Lodi’s Dave Wellenbrock is a former chief deputy district attorney and deputy public defender for San Joaquin County who has seen the concealed weapons issue from different angles.

He says some former prosecutors have obtained concealed weapons permits for self-defense.

Getting a permit varies “incredibly” throughout the state, he said.

“It’s really pretty arbitrary and varies with the scene,” he said. “There’s not many guidelines on who has them and who shouldn’t get them at the state level. It depends on who the head of the local agency thinks should have one. And because there are no guidelines on who should have one, it creates a wide range of discretion.”

In fact, getting a concealed weapons permit in some areas is nearly impossible.

The San Francisco County Sheriff’s Office has approved one application in the last 30 years (it expired in 2008). Today, there are just two permit holders within the county, and both were obtained through the police department.

In general, rural counties are quicker to approve permits than urban counties.

Between 2011 and 2012, the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Office approved 93 percent of applications, while the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office approved just 36 percent.

In recent years, the Lodi Police Department has granted permits to the majority of applicants, including 11 in 2011 and nine in 2012.

According to Lodi Police Lt. Fernando Martinez, applicants must work with large amounts of cash or prove there is a specific and imminent threat against their life in order to receive a permit.

“The way our policy works is you have to show just cause to be issued a (concealed weapons permit),” he said. “For the mere purpose of protecting yourself or family without any threat, that reason is kind of vague. You have to show that you’re in some kind of threat because of what you do or because you’re in danger.”

Writing their own rules

Throughout the state, agencies write their own rules, and some lawmakers think that’s wrong.

“To me it’s pretty cut and dry,” Olson said. “We shouldn’t need anything more than the Second Amendment in order to have a clear criteria. Obviously at this point, that hasn’t been sufficient in California, because I, too, have heard many reports of arbitrary standards as to when they’re issued and when they aren’t in many counties.”

Some legislators, including Olson and Dan Logue, a Republican representing the third district which includes Chico, believe the regulatory patchwork is unconstitutional.

Olson, however, says a statewide standard isn’t the solution.

And while a clear solution doesn’t yet exist, Olson says California lawmakers need to at least prevent agencies from stone-walling applicants.

“I and other legislators should look into whether we should introduce legislation to make it very clear ... that (law enforcement agencies) should be issuing concealed weapons to those who apply for them unless they are a prohibited person,” she said. “And in that instance, they absolutely should not issue them.”

Concealed weapons in other states

In Oregon, things are different.

Each permit application is reviewed by the sheriff’s office. Unlike California, police chiefs cannot issue permits.

Each applicant is subject to a background check. And once the process is complete, every applicant is approved or denied based on a statewide standard.

“It ensures that you don’t have 36 counties with local politics playing a factor in this one issue,” said Chief Deputy Jason Gates of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office. “It’s a statewide issue. We’re all doing it the same way so we know the (concealed weapons) holder has gone through the same background process. We know that the process has been followed.”

In Multnomah County, which incorporates Portland and Gresham, the first and fourth most populated cities in Oregon, there are 24,000 permit holders — almost half the number that exist throughout California.

Gates says that in Oregon, a “shall issue” state, agencies approve more applications than they deny. In other states, like Arizona, residents don’t even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

But throughout the country, the majority of states approve applicants based on a statewide standard.

Gates says adopting the process followed in California would create “chaos” in Oregon.

“It would be a huge step backwards from the process we have now,” Gates said. “It’s a waste of time to separate the law by county. I would be very opposed to that occurring in Oregon. It’s going to take law-abiding citizens and make them criminals. It criminalizes someone who has a legal basis for carrying their firearm concealed.”

Emotions complicate reform

About three dozen bills related to firearms were introduced in the California Legislature this year.

None addressed the growing debate over concealed weapons permits.

Based on a string of mass shootings nationwide, Olson says the sentiment of lawmakers in Sacramento is to strengthen gun control.

But lawmakers should begin addressing the array of standards.

“The emotion surrounding the gun debate unfortunately supersedes logic in many instances,” she said. “There have been some horrific tragedies that have happened in the last couple of years in the United States that cause all of us to react in horror. But unfortunately, many lawmakers make decisions based on emotion rather than logic.”

Five years ago, San Francisco resident Jeff Levinger looked into getting a concealed weapons permit.

He says crime in his once-peaceful neighborhood had skyrocketed. He frequently heard stories from friends and neighbors who’d been assaulted merely walking home.

Wanting to be prepared in case he was ever in danger, Levinger investigated the process to carry a concealed weapon. He couldn’t find anyone who could even walk him through the application process, and he knew the chances of moving forward were close to nil.

Discouraged, he gave up.

But Levinger said that if the law is ever changed, he’d try again.

“It’s my right as an American,” he said. “There are times and places that it’s quite appropriate to be prepared in that way.”

Marijuana Patent - U.S. Patent 6630507 B1

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH3, and COCH3.

See the article for the rest of it.

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##

See the article for the rest of it.

Government Has Patent For Marijuana Cannabinoids Since 2003

Marijuana and Cannabis News

Worth Repeating: Gov't Has Patent For Cannabinoids Since 2003

By Steve Elliott ~alapoet~ in Medical

Monday, June 27, 2011 at 8:49 pm

​By Ron Marczyk, R.N. Health Education Teacher (Retired)

The United States federal government holds a "medical patent" for all cannabinoids -- a patent which it has held since 2003.

Let's take a look at the rationale behind this patent, and highlight the good news it actually contains for disease prevention, medical treatment and for cannabis legalization.

This patent was the outcome from research conducted by:

• Dr. Aiden J. Hampson, a neuropharmacologist at the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) in Bethesda, Maryland

• Dr. Julius Axelrod (1912-2004), Professor Emeritus, National Institutes of Health, pharmacologist and neuroscientist who shared the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine

• Dr. Maurizio Grimaldi, professor of neurology/neuropsychopharmacology and toxicology, NIMH

Here's how it all went down in 1998.

See the article for the rest of it.

Street Vendor’s Execution Stirs Anger in China

And when you read the article it sure sounds like Xia Junfeng got at least as much of a fair trail as Debra Milke and Johnathan Doody, both who may have been framed by the Maricopa Count Prosecutor for murder.

Another good reason to end the death penalty.

Source

Street Vendor’s Execution Stirs Anger in China

By ANDREW JACOBS

Published: September 25, 2013

BEIJING — There was never any doubt that Xia Junfeng was a killer: Four years ago, in a flash of panic and fear, he stabbed to death two urban enforcement officials who had sought to punish him for operating an unlicensed shish kebab stall.

On Wednesday morning, Mr. Xia, a laid-off factory worker and father of a 13-year-old boy, was put to death in the northeastern Chinese province of Liaoning.

But in a country whose citizens widely support capital punishment, Mr. Xia’s execution has stoked a firestorm of public anger, much of it expressed through social media. Censors were kept busy all morning as tens of thousands of messages lit up China’s most popular microblog service, Sina Weibo, many of them condemning his execution.

While most focused on the belief that Mr. Xia had been unfairly convicted during a trial rife with irregularities, a number of people could not help but compare his fate with that of another recently convicted killer, Gu Kailai, the wife of a fallen Chinese leader who confessed to killing a British businessman but was given a suspended death sentence, which is akin to life in prison.

“If Gu Kailai can remain alive after poisoning someone to death then Xia Junfeng shouldn’t be put to death,” said Tong Zongjin, a professor at the Chinese University of Political Science and Law in Beijing. “It might be a flimsy dream to insist that everyone be treated equally before the law, but it’s nonetheless unseemly to turn this ideal into a joke.”

Mr. Xia’s case evoked sympathetic coverage even from some of China’s most reliably pro-government media. Global Times, a tabloid owned by the ruling Communist Party, portrayed the case as a tragedy for all those involved, and the official Xinhua news agency ran a series of paintings by Mr. Xia’s son, including one that appeared to depict a child running to embrace his father.

While the outpouring of compassion for Mr. Xia reflects a widespread disdain for China’s urban management officials, known as chengguan, it also highlights a lack of faith in China’s judicial system, which is heavily weighed against defendants and often takes into account the interests of the state. Teng Biao, a lawyer who represented Mr. Xia during his appeal, suggested that the harsh sentence was intended to send the message that any challenges to the government — even to lowly code-enforcement officials — would not be tolerated. “The authorities wanted to show off their muscle,” he said.

Most details of the case are not in dispute. In May 2009, Mr. Xia and his wife were selling grilled meat on the streets of the provincial capital, Shenyang, when they were confronted by as many as 10 chengguan. The men grabbed the couple’s gas cooking cylinder, tossed the skewers on the ground and then proceeded to beat Mr. Xia when he resisted. The beatings reportedly continued in a nearby chengguan office. It was then, according to his lawyers, that Mr. Xia pulled a fruit knife from his pocket and stabbed three chengguan, killing two.

Mr. Teng said the court refused to consider testimony from six witnesses who would have made clear that Mr. Xia had acted in self-defense. In the end, the judge relied on testimony from the chengguan, as did a subsequent appeal. “This is a case of extreme unfairness under the law,” Mr. Teng said, noting that a conviction of intentional homicide requires proof that the crime was premeditated.

The case is among a string of violent confrontations involving chengguan, who are charged with enforcing sanitation codes and other rules. In July, a 56-year-old watermelon seller in Hunan Province collapsed and died on the street after a chengguan reportedly struck him in the head with a metal weight from his scale. But, the agents, say they too, are victims of abuse, pointing to an episode last March in which an agent seeking to stop illegal construction in Hubei Province was killed by an angry villager who attacked him with a pick ax.

Mr. Xia’s case is not dissimilar to that of a unlicensed sausage vendor in Beijing, who was convicted in 2007 of slashing to death an enforcement official who had seized his cart. The episode was closely followed by a sympathetic public but it had a different denouement: the man, Cui Yingjie, was given a suspended death sentence.

In recent months, as his case awaited a ruling from China’s highest court, Mr. Xia’s plight appeared to be drawing a groundswell of public support, which is often a factor in high-profile judicial decisions. Donations to his legal fund poured in and media accounts sought to humanize him, describing how he and his wife, a former hotel maid, had struggled to provide art classes for their only child.

A book of the boy’s paintings, published to raise funds for the family, sold out its entire 5,000-copy print run.

On Wednesday morning, after word came that the Supreme People’s Court had rejected his appeal, Mr. Xia’s wife, Zhang Jing, documented her final meeting with her husband in a series of microblog postings that riveted the country. She described how her mother fell to her knees wailing, and then recounted how the guards refused to allow one last photograph.

“Why won’t you allow a photo for his son to look at?” she wrote. “Why do you have to be so cruel?”

Patrick Zuo and Frank Ye contributed research.

Many believe U.S. lax on protecting gun rights

Source

Poll: Many believe U.S. lax on protecting gun rights

Sep. 20, 2013 10:38 PM

Written by Jennifer Agiesta and Nancy Benac

WASHINGTON — A growing number of Americans are questioning the government’s protection of the constitutional right to bear arms, according to a poll by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Asked how the government is doing on protecting a variety of rights and freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights and federal law, Americans pointed to slippage almost everywhere but most dramatically on guns and voting rights.

Overall, 44 percent of Americans think the federal government is doing a good job of protecting the right to keep and bear arms, down from 57 percent two years earlier.

Republicans and independents were far more likely than Democrats to give the government poor reviews on that point.

Among Republicans, 36 percent said the government was doing a good job, down from 51 percent two years ago.

That compared with 56 percent of Democrats, down from 64 percent two years ago.

The survey was conducted Aug. 12-29, before the mass shooting this week at the Washington Navy Yard that left 13 people dead, including the gunman.

The AP-NORC Center survey was conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago.

It involved landline and cellphone interviews in English or Spanish with 1,008 adults nationwide.

Results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Glendale officials' mishandling of funds may be a crime

Source

Glendale officials' mishandling of funds may be a crime, report says

By Paul Giblin and Caitlin McGlade The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Sep 21, 2013 10:48 PM

A former Glendale city manager and several other top administrators may have committed crimes by mismanaging millions of dollars in public money involving an employee-retirement program, according to a city-funded legal analysis.

Former City Manager Ed Beasley and other top officials may have broken a state law that bars public employees from knowingly mishandling public funds, a Class 4 felony, according to the report that was prepared by a team of attorneys, accountants and computer experts, and obtained by The Arizona Republic from a source with access to the report.

The legal analysis notes that evidence would have to pass a high bar to lead to criminal charges. “The evidence must show criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt. This intentionally high standard is necessary due to draconian penalties,” it says. The “possible criminal actions” are punishable by one to nearly four years in prison, the document says.

But “the most likely scenario is that the city faces civil liability” because of city administrators’ actions, the document says. That legal analysis says the burden of proof for a civil action is lower than the burden of proof for criminal prosecution.

Auditors investigated other possible felonies, including fraud and tampering, but concluded there was not sufficient evidence that such laws had been violated. Several former employees refused to speak with auditors, the report says.

“The ultimate decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges lies in the hands of the appropriate law enforcement agency,” the legal analysis says. Glendale officials turned over the audit to the state Attorney General’s Office for potential investigation last month.

Attorney General’s Office spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said she didn’t know whether state investigators are pursuing the matter.

The legal analysis is part of an audit that concluded six former employees improperly shifted more than $6 million in city funds over three years to hide the ballooning costs of an early-retirement program from the Glendale City Council. Revelations in the audit led to the ouster of four city executives and the launch of ethics reforms.

The administrators were accused in the audit of diverting money from the employee benefits, risk management and workers compensation trust funds to cover the retirement program’s expenses, possibly violating state law.

Glendale officials released the 253-page audit on Aug. 21, but withheld the legal analysis, citing attorney-client privilege. The Republic obtained a copy of the document, and three officials, including City Councilmen Manny Martinez and Gary Sherwood, confirmed its authenticity.

The audit says criminal actions may have occurred, but the legal analysis goes into further details about potential charges and specific administrators who may be criminally liable under a state law that prohibits mishandling public funds.

The city administrators named in the legal analysis, mainly finance and budget officials, have either resigned or been fired. Those officials either declined comment, did not return messages or could not be reached by The Republic.

City officials withheld the legal analysis about possible criminal conduct from prosecutors to allow state investigators to make their own analysis, city spokeswoman Julie Watters said.

Beasley, who retired from Glendale in June 2012, did not return phone messages and e-mails to his office seeking comment. When the audit was released in August, he disputed a finding that he kept information from the council.

“I would never, nor did I ever, direct staff to keep information from council. That’s not the way I operate,” Beasley said at the time. He now works for a private real-estate firm.

The council commissioned the audit in the spring, so independent experts could dig deeper into serious financial mismanagement discovered by the city’s auditor, according to Mayor Jerry Weiers and other members of the council who unanimously approved the second audit.

The six-month, $513,000 independent review was conducted by a team under the direction of former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Jose de Jesus Rivera of the law firm Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally.

Five council members who spoke to The Republic about the legal analysis said they are awaiting guidance from the attorney general. Some wanted a criminal investigation but others appeared ready to move on.

Martinez said he would support further investigation by attorney general’s officials into possible criminal actions.

“I feel for these folks,” he said. “I knew them well. I don’t like to see anything like this happen to anyone, but if someone does something wrong like this, they have to pay the consequences.”

Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack and Councilwoman Norma Alvarez said the gravity of the matter warrants additional attention.

“That’s why I say the attorney general has to make that call, because he should do what’s right for the public, for our citizens and our taxpayers,” Knaack said.

Alvarez said she suspects there were additional improprieties that the auditors didn’t uncover.

“The attorney general is supposed to be protecting the cities,” she said. “He needs to get on it or say there’s nothing wrong.”

Sherwood, however, questioned whether criminal charges would help the city heal. The final decision is up to the Attorney General’s Office, he said.

“There are some criminal components there, and they easily could be pursued, but it would cost money and really, what does the city get out of that, other than, ‘Hey, we told you so’? It really doesn’t make sense and it would keep us front and center,” Sherwood said. “Eventually, we’ve just got to move forward.”

Weiers referred questions to the city attorney.

The administrators named in the legal analysis promoted an early-retirement program to council members without divulging the deal’s full costs, the audit says.

Administrators failed to consider the full financial impact of buyout payments to employees, and, at least initially, completely overlooked charges associated with the early retirements imposed by the Arizona State Retirement System, the audit says.

Even after the full costs were known, they failed to properly advise the City Council, and instead touted the initiative as a cost-saving program, the audit says.

Then administrators drew $6.1 million from three municipal trust funds to cover buyout payments and state fees, the audit says.

Top administrators may have violated state law that prohibits government officials from mishandling funds when they diverted $83,000 a month from the employee benefits trust fund to cover the retirement program’s costs, the legal analysis says.

“If the (employee benefits trust fund) was set up appropriately, money could not be withdrawn once it hit that account,” the report says. “This was readily recognized by the employees at the city of Glendale.”

Similarly, the administrators may have violated that law when they drew down the city’s risk management and workers’ compensation trust funds to conceal early retirement expenses, according to the legal opinion.

A long list of former officials, including then-risk manager Jim Loeb, Beasley, former Assistant City Managers Pam Kavanaugh and Horatio Skeete, former financial officer Diane Goke and former Financial Services director Sherry Schurhammer, all took actions that possibly could constitute mishandling public funds, the legal analysis says.

Loeb gave permission to take money from risk management and workers’ compensation funds, the auditors say.

Beasley, Kavanaugh and Skeete “appear to have given orders” to create a payment plan, authorized it and implemented the monthly diverted payments, the legal analysis says.

Goke approved moving the funds and Schurhammer facilitated the movement, the report says.

The fund transfers could result in “the most serious criminal charge in terms of penalty” because they were made without council approval and money from the funds was used for non-employee benefits, the legal analysis says.

Loeb, who retired from Glendale in 2009, could not be reached for comment.

Kavanaugh, who retired in 2010, did not return messages seeking comment.

Skeete, who was fired in August, did not return messages at his home and on his cellphone. He filed an appeal to his termination and is scheduled to appear before a review panel on Oct. 23.

Goke and Schurhammer both resigned last month shortly after the public audit was released. Goke told The Republic that she hasn’t seen the legal analysis and that she had no comment. Schurhammer did not return messages left on her home phone.

There is some evidence that other Glendale officials’ actions may have violated other laws, the legal analysis says.

Former Human Resources Executive Director Alma Carmicle, along with Loeb, Beasley, Kavanaugh, Skeete, Goke and Schurhammer, may have violated Glendale code by “exceeding authority,” the report says. The crime is a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by a $2,500 fine and up to six months in jail, the analysis says.

Loeb may have broken the same law when he authorized transferring $3.2 million to pay state retirement system penalties, according to the audit. Other city officials may have stepped outside legal bounds by approving or aiding the money transfers, the legal report says.

Carmicle retired in February 2012, after telecommuting for nearly a year from Mississippi. She said she did not want to talk about the legal analysis.

Other possible crimes could be more difficult to prosecute, the report says.

The legal analysis also examined possible criminal charges against former Deputy City Manager Art Lynch for using his position to secure valuable benefits, according to the auditors. He took the early-retirement buyout and returned the next day as a private consultant, collecting $930,410 over three years.

However, it would be “nearly impossible to prove” since the city manager, city attorney and council all reviewed and approved his contract, the legal analysis says.

Lynch did not return messages seeking comment.

The independent auditors did not find enough evidence for claims based on fraud, willful concealment or tampering, the legal analysis says.

There is a possibility the financial mismanagement could leave the city vulnerable to lawsuits, the report says.

Employees and retirees could sue the city for breach of contract and fiduciary duty based on how top administrators handled their benefits, compensation and medical coverage funds, the auditors say. But potential plaintiffs may find it difficult to argue in court how they were harmed financially, the document says.

Or, employees and retirees could sue for common-law fraud, which would require them to prove the city made a false representation to them that was important enough to influence their actions, but the possibility of such a claim appears remote, the legal analysis says.

Glendale officials took appropriate action by forwarding the audit to the Attorney General’s Office, said Jean-Jacques Cabou, an attorney who specializes in white-collar defense cases for the Phoenix law firm Perkins Coie.

By hiring a respected former U.S. attorney to investigate the issue and acting on his team’s report, municipal officials are making a strong public-policy statement that employees are expected to follow the letter of the law, and that there are serious consequences for those who don’t, Cabou said.

“Your function is to pass that along,” he said. “It would seem quite strange, under the circumstances, for a city not to forward the matter to a prosecuting authority.”

However, pursuing the issue can consume time and attention that current employees potentially could spend on other municipal issues, he said.

Arizona Solicitor General won't investigate state senator's residency

Source

Arizona Solicitor General won't investigate state senator's residency

By Alia Beard Rau The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:19 PM

The Arizona Solicitor General has declined to investigate allegations that new state Sen. Carlyle Begay, a Democrat, does not meet the residency requirements for the job.

Solicitor General Robert Ellman sent a letter Monday to attorney Tom Ryan, stating he would not seek action against Begay.

“The facts concerning Mr. Begay’s current residence and length of residence are disputed and cannot be resolved without additional investigation or discovery,” Ellman wrote, adding that the state constitution and state statute on this issue are “ambiguous if not contradictory.”

Begay, 32, was appointed in August to represent Legislative District 7, which covers a large area of northeastern Arizona, including the Navajo and Hopi reservations. The Apache County Board of Supervisors appointed Begay to fill Jack Jackson Jr.’s Senate seat after Jackson resigned to accept a U.S. State Department job.

In his letter, Ellman stated that the Attorney General’s Office is only required to proceed when “undisputed facts show as a matter of law that a person is unlawfully exercising a franchise.”

He said this case does not meet those criteria, and mentioned that state Rep. Albert Hale — a democrat who is challenging Begay’s status —can file his own lawsuit. Hale was a rival of Begay’s for the Senate appointment.

Ryan and Hale, D-St. Michaels, allege that Begay actually lives in Gilbert and asked Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and the Apache County Attorney’s Office to investigate.

Ryan and Hale argue that the Arizona Constitution requires a legislator to live in the county he or she will represent for at least one year before taking office.

Phoenix election-law attorney Andrew Gordon and attorney Roopali Desai, who are representing Begay, say that rule applies only to elected officials and not to officials who, like Begay, were appointed.

Gordon has said state statute requires someone appointed only to be a resident at the time they are appointed to office.

Gordon has said they can prove Begay was a resident of the appropriate county at the time he was appointed. According to voter-registration documents, Begay changed his voter registration from Maricopa County to Apache County on July 22.

A search warrant for an accidental death???

Source

Boy, 2, killed in Gilbert by dogs at babysitter’s home

By Laurie Merrill The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:51 PM

A 2 1/2-year old boy was killed after he got in the way of three fighting dogs Sunday at the home of his Gilbert babysitter, police said.

The babysitter was also injured when she tried to break up a fight between three pitbull mixes in the home near Val Vista Drive and Melrose Street, said Gilbert police Sgt. Jesse Sanger, a department spokesman.

The toddler, who was declared dead at Gilbert Mercy Medical Center after the 11:11 a.m. attack, suffered several dog-bite wounds after winding up “in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Sanger said.

The babysitter was transported by ground to Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn Medical Center with injuries to her arms and legs, Sanger said.

She was undergoing surgery and listed in stable condition, he said. Gilbert police detectives had not been able to interview the sitter Sunday afternoon and were awaiting warrants to enter the home, Sanger said.

The woman was babysitting five children whose mother was in Flagstaff and father in Mesa, Sanger said. Two 9-year-old boys, and two girls, ages 6 and 7, were also in the house but not injured, Sanger said.

The babysitter has cared for the family before, he said.

It is possible she may face charges but not “if it’s purely just an accident,” Sanger said.

The mother was notified about 3 p.m. that her son had died, Sanger said. Gilbert police have not released the names of the babysitter or the children.

The dogs are in the custody of animal control officials, he said. Another dog, a hound, also lives in the home but was not seized by authorities, Sanger said.

The five-acre property is near Mercy Gilbert Medical Center and also home to several horses, Sanger said.

It was unclear whether the sitter owns the property, Sanger said

Chicago to pay $2.4 million to man injured by drunk city worker

Source

Lawyer: Chicago to pay $2.4 million to man injured by drunk city worker

By Mitch Smith Tribune reporter

9:06 p.m. CDT, September 23, 2013 A man injured when a drunk Chicago municipal worker plowed a city-owned truck into a group of pedestrians two years ago will receive more than $2.4 million from the city, one of his lawyers said Monday.

Stephen Dewart, then 27, was passing out fliers for his wife's wedding consulting business in May 2011 when a Streets & Sanitation worker drove onto the sidewalk and struck him on the Near North Side, said the lawyer, Susan Novosad.

"He was being a good husband and a good friend," Novosad said, "and he was in the right place at the wrong time."

Dwight Washington, the city laborer driving the truck, had a blood-alcohol content more than twice the legal limit and an open bottle of brandy wedged beneath his gas pedal when the vehicle left the road and injured seven pedestrians. Washington is now in prison.

Dewart sustained fractured bones and vertebrae in the collision, Novosad said.

The judgment "validates the injuries he sustained," Novosad said. "It validates their wrongdoing."

Court docket information on the Cook County website confirms that a judgment was entered in favor of Dewart on Friday, but the filing did not list the amount of the judgment.

The city agreed to pay out $6.25 million last year to settle another case involving the same crash.

mitsmith@tribune.com | Twitter: @MitchKSmith

New law lets teens delete digital skeletons

Source

New law lets teens delete digital skeletons

Kurtis Alexander and Vivian Ho

Updated 10:10 pm, Monday, September 23, 2013

Remember that dance-party photo you regretted posting online? How about the time you over-shared your feelings about your ex or made that comment about Barack Obama?

All forever etched in the annals of the Internet.

Well, maybe not - at least if you're under 18.

Legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday will require Web companies, starting in 2015, to remove online activity - whether it be scandalous or simply embarrassing - should a California minor request it.

The thinking, say supporters of the new "eraser" law, is that boys will be boys (and girls, well, girls) and that the indiscretions of youth shouldn't haunt them down the road.

"Kids so often self-reveal before they self-reflect," said James Steyer, founder of Common Sense Media, a nonprofit group in San Francisco that advocated for the law. "Mistakes can stay with teens for life, and their digital footprint can follow them wherever they go."

The bill, authored by state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, pushes lawmakers deeper into the sticky debate over online privacy. As social media soars in popularity and Web companies cull more and more information about people's lives, questions continue to be raised about what Internet firms should and should not be doing with the data.

Small win for privacy

California already allows certain people, such as victims of domestic violence, to get information struck from the online record. And a pioneering 10-year-old state law requires companies to let visitors to their websites know what information they're collecting - and whom they're sharing it with.

A recently introduced amendment to that law, which is now in the hands of the governor, would force these companies to state whether they honor do-not-track requests that users make in their Internet browsers.

If the eraser law is a win for online privacy, it's a small one. The legislation has its limitations: Teens won't have absolute certainty that Mom and Dad - or college admissions officers or future employers - won't see their photo at a keg party, even if they ask for the photo to be removed.

If the underage drinking picture is posted by someone else, for example, it's not covered by the law. If the image is copied and posted to another Web site, that would not be covered, either.

Web companies also are not required to scrub their servers clean of personal data, just remove the requested item from public viewing. Under the law, sites can offer ways for users to make the redaction directly, or provide an avenue for users to request one.

Doesn't extend to adults

There's an additional catch: the law doesn't extend to adults who want to go back and delete material they posted as minors.

Many companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, already allow users to remove their posts.

Another facet of the new law, which may have a broader effect, bars Web companies and firms that deal in mobile apps from marketing products that are illegal for minors - such as alcohol, cigarettes and firearms - if they know, or should know, a minor is logged in. The companies also are not allowed to provide identifying information on minors to vendors of these products.

Opponents of Steinberg's legislation don't take issue with the new law's intent - to protect children. But they say it's not a productive solution.

The Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C., which works for freedom on the Internet, said burdensome restrictions could deter Web companies from creating content for children and even prompt sites to ban minors entirely.

Potential problems

"There's going to be a barrier to new and innovative services that want to target an audience of minors," said Emma Llansó, an attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Another potential problem, opponents say, is that California will have a different policy than other states, creating a patchwork of regulation that could be difficult for the industry to navigate.

Similar legislation on children's online privacy has been put forth at the federal level but has failed to gain traction. Federal law already limits the information Web companies can collect from those under the age of 13 but not for older children. And it does not include an eraser clause.

Steinberg praised the governor's approval of his law Monday as "groundbreaking protection" for kids.

OK with these teens

Outside San Francisco's Galileo High School, many students said the law sounded like a good idea. They said they might appreciate a chance to make a fresh start, digitally speaking, after they turn 18.

"As a youth, you make a bunch of mistakes," said Alicia Cabral, 17. "If you put it on the Internet, it follows you everywhere."

Her friend, 15-year-old Diana Cortez, added that caution is still in order.

Even if you make sure not to post photos of yourself, you can't stop your friends from doing so, she said. "If you use drugs and there are pictures of you doing that and you apply for a job, you won't get hired."

Kurtis Alexander and Vivian Ho are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. E-mail: kalexander@sfchronicle.com, vho@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @kurtisalexander, @VivianHo

Jamaica lawmakers debate pot decriminalization

Jamaica lawmakers debate pot decriminalization

Associated Press Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:04 PM

KINGSTON, Jamaica — Lawmakers on Tuesday debated a proposal to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use by adults in Jamaica, where many islanders are expressing weariness with current drug policy.

There is no bill drafted or vote scheduled, however, and various government administrations have talked about the issue for decades. But it’s lately become a budding topic among Jamaicans, with some arguing that pot could become a major force for the struggling legitimate economy if it was no longer relegated to the underground.

Some lawmakers complained that current law results in about 300 young men receiving criminal records each week for possessing small amounts of “ganja,” creating a growing pool of unemployable people on the Caribbean island.

“There is no doubt that ganja can have harmful effects on an individual. But this does not warrant criminalization of thousands of Jamaicans for their personal choice and use, some for reasons deep-rooted in culture,” said opposition lawmaker Daryl Vaz, a former information minister.

Minister of State for Tourism & Entertainment Damion Crawford agreed, saying too many Jamaicans face a lifelong stigma that comes with a drug conviction involving a small amount of pot.

“For personal use, the punishment of a criminal record is too much,” said Crawford, the son of a Rastafarian.

The discussion centered on a motion introduced by governing party lawmaker Raymond Pryce. He says there is great academic and commercial potential in decriminalizing a plant that has long been part of Jamaica’s history, saying there is no shortage of evidence that the plant has medical and therapeutic value.

Marijuana has been pervasive but prohibited on the island since 1913. It’s generally grown on remote mountainsides and in marshes and swamps. Besides recreational use, marijuana has long been used as a medicinal herb by rural people and as a spiritual sacrament by Rastafarians.

In 2001, a government-appointed commission said marijuana was “culturally entrenched” in Jamaica and recommended legalizing the private use and possession of small amounts by adults. It argued that penalizing individuals for having or cultivating small quantities of pot was “unjust” and discredited the entire legal system.

Even though the report received approval from a parliamentary committee, the decriminalization effort stalled largely due to anxiety over angering the United States, which has spent millions on local eradication efforts.

But now that a growing number of U.S. states are loosening their pot laws, and voters in and Washington and Colorado legalized it, some advocates say the old fear is now baseless. Late last month, the U.S. Justice Department said it would not challenge states that want to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana.

“Now that the Obama administration has given Colorado and Washington a qualified green light to proceed with legally regulating and taxing marijuana, there is no way that U.S. diplomatic representatives can credibly tell Jamaica, or anyone else, that they can’t do the same,” Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, said in an email.

———

David McFadden on Twitter: http://twitter.com/dmcfadd

Ex-Commissioner Beavers sentenced to 6 months in prison

Source

Ex-Commissioner Beavers sentenced to 6 months in prison

By Jason Meisner Tribune reporter

10:31 a.m. CDT, September 25, 2013

Former Cook County Commissioner William Beavers was sentenced to six months in prison this morning for failing to pay taxes on tens of thousands of dollars he took out of his campaign fund and used for gambling and other personal expenses.

The sentence is far short of the 21 months requested by prosecutors. Beavers was also ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and just under $39,000 in back taxes.

The usually outspoken Beavers chose not to address the judge before his sentence was imposed.

But he did talk to a throng of reporters in the lobby of the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse after the sentencing, saying he plans to appeal his conviction and doesn’t consider the 6-month sentence a victory.

“I don’t want no time, OK?” he said.

Asked why he chose not to speak during the sentencing, Beavers said he didn’t want to take the chance of angering the judge.

“He’s the judge, OK? I don’t want to piss him off because then he’ll probably do something I don’t want him to do,” the former Chicago alderman said.

In handing down the sentence, U.S. District Judge James Zagel said he had to take into account that he was sentencing a former elected official even though Beavers wasn’t convicted of misusing his public office.

When an elected official commits a crime, the judge said, “it damages the bonds between the people and those they elect, making it far more difficult for the government to perform its function.”

Beavers, 78, a stalwart of the Cook County Democratic Party and longtime champion of machine politics, was convicted by a federal jury earlier this year on four counts of tax evasion.

In recommending a sentence of 21 months in prison, prosecutors in a recent court filing portrayed the outspoken former police officer and alderman as someone who abused the trust placed in him as a public official despite “maintaining a front row seat for the long and sordid history of public corruption in Chicago and Illinois.”

“As an elected official for over 30 years, Beavers saw many of his fellow Chicago aldermen – as well as numerous state and local officials – convicted of public corruption crimes, and he had reason to appreciate the impact such corruption has had on the public’s faith in government,” prosecutors wrote.

Since his arrest last year, Beavers has repeatedly accused the government of going after him because he refused to wear a wire on fellow Cook County Commissioner John Daley, a brother of former Mayor Richard Daley.

His attorneys had asked Zagel for probation, arguing in vague fashion in a filing Monday that Beavers was being targeted for his refusal “to succumb to the pressure to ‘cooperate’ with the government.”

Any money Beavers took from his campaign fund was a loan that he later paid back, his attorneys said. He also amended his taxes “to correct any errors that may have taken place,” their filing stated.

Prosecutors alleged during the March trial that Beavers used his campaign funds from 2006 through 2008 as if they were cash machines, blowing the money on slots at the Horseshoe Casino. He also was convicted of failing to pay taxes on a $68,000 campaign check that he deposited into his city pension to double his monthly payout and a combined $28,800 in monthly stipends he received from the county.

The government argued that Beavers decided to cheat on his income taxes in those three years after getting socked with a $27,000 tax bill in 2005 when he reported $43,000 in campaign money that he spent on himself.

Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC

Brazilian president, at United Nations, blasts spying by Washington

Brazilian president, at United Nations, blasts spying by Washington

By Carol J. Williams and Vincent Bevins

September 24, 2013, 7:59 a.m.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff used her lead-off speech at the annual United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday to blast the United States for operating a worldwide spying network that she said violates the sovereignty of other countries and the civil liberties of their citizens.

Rousseff had already signaled her nation's outrage over reports of National Security Agency data interceptions in Brazil by canceling a summit and state dinner with President Obama that had been set for late October.

"What we have before us is a serious case of violation of human rights and civil liberties," Rousseff told the assembly immediately after opening pleasantries.

She described arguments that the technological surveillance of individuals, businesses and diplomatic missions is necessary in the global fight against terrorism as "untenable" and an affront to the sovereignty of nations.

"Brazil can protect itself," Rousseff declared. "Brazil doesn’t provide shelter to terrorist groups."

Rousseff never mentioned Obama or the NSA by name but said her nation's dismay over "this case of disrespect" had been communicated to Washington, along with its insistence that Brazil "cannot possibly allow recurring and illegal actions to go on as if normal practice."

Since July, Brazilian news organization Globo has published three reports based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, which alleged that the United States had spied on Brazilian citizens, Rousseff herself, as well as important state-run oil company, Petrobras.

Rousseff has strongly denounced the alleged eavesdropping and asked Obama for a public apology and concrete actions to curb it. The decision to cancel the Washington trip, a rare diplomatic snub of the United States, was well received in many parts of Brazil, especially in the base of her left-of-center Workers Party, many of whose members have memories of a U.S.-backed military dictatorship that spied on dissidents.

Valley school buses get security upgrade

Source

Valley school buses get security upgrade

By Amy B Wang The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:31 AM

On a sweltering summer day, Eric Kissel switched off the engine of a school bus. An intermittent beeping, just loud and frequent enough to be mildly irritating, began.

Within about 10 seconds, the bus horn started blaring, jumping to a deafening decibel and reverberating through the parking lot. At last, Kissel walked to the back of the bus, pushed a button and deactivated the alarm.

It was just a drill, but it is one example of new security technology many school buses now have, said Kissel, transportation director for Laveen Elementary School District. The alarm system is designed to force the driver to the back of the vehicle any time the bus powers off — theoretically eliminating the odds a child is left on board.

Across the Valley, school districts are installing similar alarm systems, as well as video cameras, digital sensors and other technology, to try to improve bus safety. Though the technology is not foolproof, officials hope it adds another layer of security that will reduce incidents.

Whether school-bus safety has improved across the Valley or the nation because of new technology is hard to measure. The U.S. Department of Transportation tracks school-bus fatalities and says school buses are still the safest mode of transporting kids to and from school, compared with traveling in a car.

However, school districts don’t collect data on non-fatal school-bus-related incidents in a uniform way. Infractions run the gamut from general rowdiness to all-out fights.

Most incidents are minor, but in severe cases, students have been forgotten on buses, dropped off at the wrong locations or struck at intersections.

New technology

At a glance, school buses are still remarkably similar to how they have looked for decades. They are still painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow, a color formulated in 1939 for its easy visual detection — even by sleep-deprived parents and children in post-dawn pickup hours. Most seats are still drab-green or brown vinyl.

A closer look, however, reveals very different vehicles than those from 20 years ago. Video cameras throughout the buses record both driver and students. Many districts installed sophisticated alarms, similar to Laveen’s Child Check-Mate System, and real-time GPS tracking.

A GPS system might allow a dispatcher to flag a bus if it went over a certain speed or monitor any unplanned stops.

Before, a driver could mindlessly check things off a clipboard during “pre-trip” safety inspections, Kissel said. Now, buses with digital sensors can force drivers to scan all inspection points before the bus leaves the lot.

“That now takes even the newest driver through a comprehensive safety check,” Kissel said. “Have you looked at your wheels? Lug nuts? Suspension? Tires?”

Last year, the Deer Valley Unified School District outfitted all 82 of its full-size buses with new digital video-camera systems. Officials hoped students would curb bad behavior if they knew they were being recorded.

Scottsdale Unified School District officials are mulling whether to require students to scan identification cards each time they board and get off buses, though the idea is still in its infancy.

New technology also may improve safety off the bus.

Phoenix-based Redflex Traffic Systems developed cameras that can be mounted on the left side of a school bus, with a view of the stop arm that comes out whenever the bus stops. These cameras can capture video of drivers running the buses’ stop signs, and the company can issue tickets.

Arizona law doesn’t allow the cameras, but officials expect that to change soon.

Bert Herzog, transportation director for the Scottsdale district, is pushing for the new technology. “It’s an accountability piece, as far as our school district is concerned,” he said.

At another district where Herzog previously worked, a driver once left a child on a bus for 45 minutes. Though the student was unharmed, he said, one occurrence was enough to convince him that things like the Child Check-Mate System of alarms were worth it.

“One of the worst feelings in the world is to get that call and know that we left a student on a bus,” Herzog said.

“We’re supposed to go back and make sure we don’t have anybody (left on the bus), but having that switch at the back of the bus ensures that we walk that bus every day when we’re done with our routes.”

Limitations

Neither the federal nor state government mandates the new technology, and, because of the cost, it is not evenly distributed throughout Phoenix-area districts.

The Laveen district spent nearly $57,000 upgrading its technology: about $31,000 on GPS tracking, $20,700 on video cameras and $5,000 on the alarm system.

“Here’s the reality of it: It’s expensive,” Kissel said. “It’s like any business. You’re talking about often saving what’s called soft costs. You’re preventing incidents that may cost a lot of money or a lot of emotion.”

It’s tough to go into schools, many already underfunded for curriculum and other student programs, and make the case for spending money on bus technology to prevent incidents that might not happen, he said.

And there is no guarantee technology eliminates incidents on buses. With any device, there are always going to be potential technical issues. Kissel has seen cameras overheat and fail. GPS systems can lag in transmission if a bus travels to an area with poor cellular reception. Then, there’s human error.

“Foolproof? Absolutely not,” Kissel said. “All those are decisions that people have to make to do their job and do it well.”

Still, Kissel said the district invested in technology because district officials made bus safety a priority.

“They were very clear that student safety is paramount and that they want to do this as well as it can be done,” Kissel said.

But it is hard to draw definitive conclusions based on records about whether technological upgrades significantly improve school-bus safety. Part of the difficulty lies in how varied these incidents are and in the different ways school districts record and categorize student infractions.

Records requested by The Arizona Republic show thousands of student disciplinary incidents on board Valley school buses each year.

In the Tempe Elementary School District, which has 66 bus drivers and 79 buses, the number of student bus incidents has remained in the 700s over the past three years, ranging from “negative attitude and questioning driver” to “vandalizing school property.”

Mesa Public Schools, the state’s largest public school district, with 545 bus drivers and 517 buses, has gradually improved its technology. All its special-education buses have cameras, and about 40 to 50 percent of its regular buses have cameras, district spokeswoman Helen Hollands said.

Those numbers are constantly changing, as new buses — which all include GPS and video cameras — replace older ones.

However, the number of student incidents on school buses recorded in the Mesa district has remained relatively steady over the past three years, ranging from “inappropriate language” to “defiance/disrespect of authority” or worse. In one case, a student was accidentally hit by a bus.

In April, a preschool-age boy in Laveen fell asleep and was left behind on a school bus. He later was discovered, unhurt, by a mechanic at the district’s transportation yard.

Cultural changes

The technology is only as effective as the people using it, some say.

In August, three teens severely beat a Florida child on a school bus while the driver called 911 but did nothing to intervene.

Caught on video, the beating and the driver’s response went viral, prompting outrage and debate about what the driver’s involvement, legally and ethically, should have been.

It’s not just students who misbehave.

In February 2008, a bus driver in the Higley Unified School District got into a quarrel with a 14-year-old Williams Field High School student.

A bus camera captured a fight that escalated over 15 minutes, until the driver and student began pulling each other’s hair and pushing one another, prompting a boy on the bus to call 911.

The Scottsdale district has cameras on most of its buses, and they grant a measure of peace of mind for Joe Blare, who has been a school-bus driver there for five years.

“I always try to tell my students, ‘Hey, guys, I know what you’re doing,’ ” Blare said. “The cameras are there for our benefit and for the kids’ benefit. They’re to keep them safe, and a lot of kids, quite frankly, have made accusations toward drivers that are completely unfounded.”

Blare said he often drives a bus at full capacity — 80-plus students, no bus monitors — and inevitably the kids will become rowdy.

“I honestly think the human element enters in quite a bit with the kids. You can only have so much technology,” Blare said.

“I know the name of almost every one of my elementary kids, only because it’s easier to discipline. Most of my high-school kids ... I always tell them, you don’t want me to know your name.”

Allison Dillon, a mother in the Tempe Union High School District, said her daughter experienced months of abuse that allegedly included name-calling and inappropriate touching while riding a school bus.

“There were some boys on the bus that just constantly bullied her,” Dillon said. “When I reported that to the bus monitor ... his answer to her was, ‘Well, boys will be boys.’ ”

After basically throwing “a bit of a tantrum” to get the district’s attention, Dillon got her daughter switched to another route. Though the school buses had cameras, that didn’t help their case, she said.

“At one point,” Dillon said, “when I asked would they go back and look at some of the (recorded) history, they said, ‘Look, we would literally have to pull footage for every day going back. Unless you can give us a specific day for a specific incident, we can’t really do it. We don’t have the manpower.’ ”

No amount of technology could have replaced more parental involvement, she said.

Kissel and other transportation directors said these incidents are rare, given the thousands of students transported every day.

However, he said, the ultimate goal is to work toward eliminating these incidents — and to do so, the technology has to come with a culture change.

“I’m not trying to hide and sneak around and try to put these kids in a situation to fail,” he said. “I truly want the behaviors to change. I want them to learn how to ride safely on the bus.

“As we move forward and populations grow, we have to learn how to safely conduct ourselves in those environments.”

AG Montgomery withholds evidence in Milke lynching????

Source

Milke retrial judge sends stern message to Montgomery over withholding letter

By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:18 AM

The judge in the Debra Milke murder retrial sent a stern message to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery this morning asking why his office had withheld a letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office saying it had no intention of filing criminal charges against the detective who testified that Milke confessed to him in 1989.

Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz asked why she had to read about the letter in an article in The Arizona Republic instead of hearing from the case prosecutor, Deputy County Attorney Vince Imbordino, especially since the possibility criminal charges had been the subject of hearings since Imbordino received the letter.

Last week, former Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate informed the court through his attorney that he intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and would refuse to testify in the case.

In Milke’s first trial, Saldate claimed that Milke confessed to him that she was involved in the 1989 murder of her 4-year-old son, Christopher. Milke was convicted and sent to death row largely on the basis of that alleged confession, which was not recorded and to which there were no witnesses. Milke still claims she never confessed.

But in March, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Milke’s conviction and death sentence because her defense had not been given access to Saldate’s tarnished personnel record detailing alleged deceptions in other cases. The chief judge asked that Saldate be investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona and the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to see if Milke’s civil rights were violated.

Saldate subsequently requested an attorney to represent him in a hearing that was scheduled for Sept. 23 to determine whether the confession was admissible in the new trial. Imbordino asked the court to provide an attorney for Saldate on Aug. 23 and Mroz obliged on Aug. 30. That attorney, Larry Debus, then informed the court on Sept. 12 that Saldate may not testify. Mroz responded that if Saldate did not testify, the confession would not be admitted into evidence.

Montgomery has repeatedly stressed to the media that the 9th Circuit ruling was incorrect and that certain court rulings impugning Saldate were incorrect. On Sept. 13, Montgomery held a press conference at which he distributed an Aug. 30 letter from an assistant U.S. Attorney saying that the statute of limitations had run on possible criminal charges against Saldate.

In today’s ruling, Mroz ordered Montgomery and Imbordino to make the letter available to her and to Milke’s defense team, and that Imbordino file a written explanation by Friday “as to why the State did not inform the court of the federal prosecutors’ letter and instead chose to reveal the information through a press conference, if in fact the letter exists.”

Mroz cancelled the Sept. 23 hearing on supressing the confession and ordered the opposing attorneys to appear on that date to discuss the status of the case and scheduling matters.

The County Attorney's Office will not comment while the case is pending.

$5.4 million jobs program for cops

Arizona police departments get $5.4 million to hire more officers

By D.S. Woodfill The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:07 PM

Police departments across the state will get $5.4 million in federal grants to hire more officers.

For some departments, the hirings will be first since the recession hit Arizona and the rest of the nation.

The grants from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Police Services were announced at a Thursday news conference by Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, whose city got the lion’s share – nearly $1.9 million.

“Today is a great day for public safety,” Stanton said.

He was joined by Phoenix Police Chief Daniel Garcia, law-enforcement leaders from around the state including Yuma, Glendale and Peoria, and Joshua Ederheimer, acting director of the Justice Department’s COPS program.

Phoenix’s share will pay for 15 officer positions. Officers will be assigned to schools as part of the department’s School Resource Officer Program.

“We worked hard for this grant,” Stanton said. “Councilman Valenzuela and I personally went to Washington and visited with the Department of Justice to make the case why this particular grant in the city of Phoenix (was) incredibly important for our young people.”

Like departments around the Valley, Garcia said the Phoenix Police Department has made sacrifices to help the city keep a balanced budget since the economic downturn. That’s forced leaders to find other ways, such as grants, to maintain staffing.

“These grants from the DOJ will allow us to continue ... adding much needed officers in our community,” he said.

Other funds will go to the department’s Business and Economic Stability Team, which is a group of officers who focus on catching criminals trafficking stolen goods and counterfeit merchandise, he said.

“Some of these funds will help pay for their training, overtime and software that will help us find and prosecute those who are causing great economic loss to our city,” Garcia said.

Ederheimer said the agency has awarded $14 billion to cities, counties and tribal governments since 1994, facilitating more than 124,000 law enforcement jobs.

About 7,000 of those jobs were added in the past three years.

“They’ve been delivered during a time when cities have had to make tough choices as it relates to public safety,” Ederheimer said.

Ederheimer said the COPS program takes into account criteria such as a city’s fiscal need, crime rates and effectiveness of their community policing efforts.

“It’s not just about delivering money,” he said. “It’s about providing valuable resources to agencies with a legitimate need and the ability to achieve ... solutions.”

Peoria Police Chief Roy Minter Jr., whose department got $375,000 to hire three officers, said the funds are sorely needed. The funds will help the department create its first new positions since the economy tanked.

“This is huge for us, and it’s huge for the city,” he said. “We have been and continue to be one of the fastest-growing cities here in the West Valley, so it’s important for us to continue to maintain a high staffing level.”

Minter said the officers will be assigned to the department’s community-policing program. Those patrol officers are assigned to specific parts of the city and are intended to form strong relationships with business owners and residents when not tending to regular duties.

The Glendale Police Department got the second largest grant, about $1.3 million, which will pay for 10 officers.

“These will be patrol officers, and we are going to use them to continue to fight violent crime in Glendale,” spokesman Jay O’Neil said. “That’s going to be their main focus.”

California governor signs bill to deter paparazzi

Source

California governor signs bill to deter paparazzi

Associated Press Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:04 PM

SACRAMENTO, California — Paparazzi and others who harass the children of public figures will face tougher penalties under legislation that California’s governor signed Tuesday.

The bill will boost penalties for actions that include taking photos and video of a child without consent and in a harassing manner.

Celebrities such as actresses Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner urged lawmakers to support the bill. Berry testified before several legislative committees that her daughter has been intimidated by aggressive photographers who follow them daily, often shouting as they snap pictures.

The measure also will help protect the children of police officers, judges and others, who might be susceptible to harassment or unwanted attention due to their parents’ occupations, de Leon said.

Under the legislation, which goes into effect in January, violators could face up to a year in county jail and a fine of up to $10,000. Fines would increase for subsequent convictions.

The bill, signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Jerry Brown, also allows for parents to bring a civil action against violators to seek damages and attorney’s fees.

Media organizations, including the California Newspaper Publishers Association, opposed the legislation, saying it was overly broad and could restrict legitimate newsgathering activities.

Yuma officer charged with luring minor for sex

Source

Yuma officer charged with luring minor for sex

Associated Press Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:47 AM

YUMA — A Yuma police officer has been charged with three felony counts of luring a minor for sexual exploitation even though the 16-year-old victim has repeatedly denied he did anything wrong.

Defense attorney Marlo Arnold told a Yuma Justice of the Peace Tuesday that 25-year-old Ron Anton Ciancimino (see-an-seh-MEE’-noh) should have his $110,000 cash-only bond lowered. The request was denied.

Ciancimino was arrested Friday by Yuma County sheriff’s deputies and formally charged Tuesday. The Yuma Sun reports (http://bit.ly/16IA10P ) the case developed last week after deputies were called to a local hospital about a girl who had been a victim of a possible sexual offense.

Deputies later arrested 27-year-old Joshua Jonathan Alpizar. They say he admitted to the allegations but details haven’t been released by the sheriff’s office.

Calif. deputy suspected of child molestation

Source

Calif. deputy suspected of child molestation

Associated Press Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:33 AM

NEVADA CITY, Calif. — Authorities have arrested a long-time Sacramento County Sheriff’s deputy on suspicion of child molestation.

Forty-three-year-old Donald Michael Black was taken into custody on Tuesday in Nevada County.

Nevada County Sheriff’s Sgt. Dan Saunders says Black is facing five counts of committing lewd or lascivious acts on a child who is 14 or 15. Saunders did not know whether Black had an attorney, and The Associated Press could not find a listing for Black.

Saunders said Black bailed out of jail on Tuesday night.

Sacramento County Sheriff’s officials tell the Sacramento Bee (http://bit.ly/18pMoRh) Black has been placed on paid administrative leave. He is a 23-year veteran of the department.

ATF misplaced 420 million cigarettes in stings

Source

ATF misplaced 420 million cigarettes in stings

Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:06 AM

WASHINGTON — Government agents acting without authorization conducted dozens of undercover investigations of illegal tobacco sales, misused some of $162 million in profits from the stings and lost track of at least 420 million cigarettes, the Justice Department’s inspector general said Wednesday.

In one case, agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sold $15 million in cigarettes and later turned over $4.9 million in profits from the sales to a confidential informant — even though the agency did not properly account for the transaction.

The ATF’s newly-appointed director, B. Todd Jones, said the audit covered only selected, “historical” ATF investigations between 2006 and 2011, and said the agency had tightened its internal guidelines since then.

The audit described widespread lack of ATF oversight and inadequate paperwork in the agency’s “churning investigations,” undercover operations that use proceeds from illicit cigarette sales to pay for the ATF’s costs. The audit came as a new blow to a beleaguered agency still reeling from congressional inquiries into the ATF’s flawed handling of the Operation Fast and Furious weapons tracking probes in Mexico.

“ATF’s guidance regarding churning investigations lacked breadth and specificity, and managers at ATF headquarters as well as managers and special agents at ATF field offices often disregarded it,” Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz wrote in the 53-page audit.

The inspector general recommended tightened ATF procedures for documenting, tracking and reviewing proceeds from its undercover tobacco stings.

Jones said the agency has adopted most of those guidelines. While accepting responsibility for “management and oversight lapses that allowed those deficiencies to develop,” he insisted that “the report’s findings do not reflect current ATF policy or practice in this area.”

In a written response, Horowitz approved the ATF’s moves in April 2013 to tighten its standards. Horowitz cautioned that his office “has not been provided evidence to verify the sufficiency of actions taken.”

Reviewing three-dozen ATF undercover cigarette stings between 2006 and 2011, the inspector general found that none of those income-generating probes had been given proper prior approval by an internal ATF review committee, as required by agency policy.

One of those sting operations did not have any approval, either from the ATF or the Justice Department. In that 2009 case, ATF officials allowed a tobacco distributor working as an ATF confidential informant to keep $4.9 million in profits from cigarette sales to criminal suspects. ATF officials justified the move by explaining the $4.9 million covered the informant’s expenses. But the inspector general said the agency failed to “require the informant to provide adequate documentation to support or justify those expenses.”

The remaining profits were used by agency officials to pay for a separate ATF cigarette smuggling sting — which the inspector general said violated ATF rules that profits from a “churning investigation” could only be used to fund that specific operation, not other cases.

The inspector general said shoddy documentation and inventory controls made it impossible to account for more than 2.1 million cartons of cigarettes — totaling 420 million cigarettes — during at least 20 separate ATF sting operations. The watchdog estimated the retail value of those items at $127 million.

Montgomery to Armando - help me frame Milke and no perjury charges???

Source

Montgomery: Milke case detective being intimidated

By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:39 PM

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery delivered a message on Friday to the detective who allegedly received the disputed confession at the heart of the Debra Milke murder case: You have no reason to avoid testifying because you fear prosecution.

A lawyer for former Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate told a trial judge on Thursday that he had recommended Saldate take advantage of his constitutional protection against self-incrimination if he is called to the witness stand in Milke’s retrial, a move that would bar her alleged confession from being considered in the case.

The confession was crucial to her conviction in the 1989 shooting death of her 4-year-old son, Christopher, which left two men on death row and sent Milke there for 22 years until her release last week.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out her conviction and death sentence earlier this year because the trial court refused to let her introduce evidence that could have discredited the confession. Prosecutors “remained unconstitutionally silent” about Saldate’s history of misconduct, including lying, the panel wrote.

And if Saldate doesn’t testify during Milke’s retrial, the confession will not be allowed into the retrial, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz said Thursday.

In pointed remarks aimed at Saldate, his attorney and lawyers representing Milke, Montgomery said the belief that Saldate could face some sort of prosecution for the misconduct outlined in the 9th Circuit’s ruling is being used to intimidate the 21-year Phoenix police veteran and keep him from testifying.

And there is no reason for Saldate to believe he could implicate himself in criminal activity by testifying, Montgomery said.

“There is no basis for the state’s witness to be able to assert the Fifth Amendment … because there is no crim- inal conduct,” Montgomery said.

The panel that sent Milke’s case back to Maricopa County Superior Court also requested that the opinion be sent to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for investigation into whether Saldate’s misconduct outlined in the ruling amounted to a violation of Arizonans’ rights. Federal prosecutors sent a letter to Montgomery’s office in late August saying that the statute of limitations had expired on any misconduct by Saldate.

“There is no objective basis for Mr. Saldate to fear prosecution from anyone for anything,” Montgomery said.

But investigative documents released late Friday afternoon by Milke’s defense team indicate that Saldate was reluctant to speak with police and prosecutors soon after the appeals court released its opinion.

An investigator for the County Attorney’s Office wrote that he contacted Saldate in April to talk about the case and was unable to reach him for months until the investigator served Saldate with a subpoena in late July.

An attorney representing Saldate did not return a call for comment Friday afternoon.

Montgomery spent nearly 20 minutes of his news conference on Friday going through cases where the 9th Circuit cited court rulings that noted potential misconduct on Saldate’s part, none of which were related to Milke’s confession but all of which should have been provided to her defense team at the time of her trial, according to the appeals court.

But Montgomery is convinced the 9th Circuit got it wrong, and the three-judge panel that sent Milke’s case back to court had it in for Saldate, who retired from Phoenix police within a year of taking the confession.

“The 9th Circuit, on a wild goose chase, went after detective Saldate,” Montgomery said.

So, Montgomery plans to file a memo with Mroz, who is the assigned judge for Milke’s trial, in the hopes of making her aware of some of the shortcomings he perceives in the federal appeals court’s opinion.

“It is very unusual,” Montgomery said, adding that he thought a unique approach was warranted.

“I was dumbfounded when I read the (9th Circuit) opinion and in researching what had actually happened in those cases, that the reality is very different from how they were characterized and the conclusions that were drawn,” he said.

An attorney for Milke questioned Montgomery’s analysis of the 9th Circuit opinion, noting that the panel drew its conclusions about Saldate from completed court cases, not pending allegations against the former detective.

“If you even look at the way (Montgomery) analyzes the facts, he doesn’t do that very well,” attorney Michael Kimerer said. “What I think he’s trying to do, quite frankly, is use the media to confuse the facts and issues.”

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

Arizona Mandatory DUI Breathalyzer tests ruled unconstitutional - Don't take the !!!!

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.

Previous articles on Medical Marijuana & Drug War News.

More articles on Medical Marijuana & Drug War News.