Homeless in Arizona

Source

Segerblom: Nevada to make a bundle on medical marijuana

By TOM RAGAN

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Future pot dispensary owners in Nevada are in a perfect position to make millions of dollars because the state is the only one in the country that plans to accept out-of-state medical marijuana cards, state Sen. Tick Segerblom told a 200-plus crowd Saturday.

After receiving a standing ovation at a National Cannabis Industry Association symposium for helping to pass a law legalizing such dispensaries, the Las Vegas Democrat said he expects the medical marijuana business to be a boon not only for state coffers but also for the 40 operators who will be able to sell medical pot to anybody who holds a card from another state.

At last tally 19 states had legalized medical marijuana — from Colorado to Oregon and Washington to Connecticut, Vermont and Delaware.

“And with tourism what it is in Las Vegas, with the millions of people who visit here, I don’t need to tell you how profitable it can be,” said Segerblom, who worked more than a decade to get the law passed. “And Nevada needs the money. It’s very short on revenue. But we’re not going to become a Venice Beach. Nevada has a thorough and fair bill, and we’re going to regulate this industry the right way.”

Responding to a question about whether Las Vegas hotels and casinos will ban medical marijuana, Segerblom said he hopes that they will accept it.

Other states have wrestled with the effects of secondhand marijuana smoke. Colorado already is trying to figure out how to separate the medical marijuana smoking populace from everyday tourists who just want to visit Rocky Mountain National Park with their children without breathing skunky smoke from the adjacent hotel room.

“I would think that our hotels and casinos would embrace it,” Segerblom said. “They’re already very smoker friendly.”

The one-day symposium at the Renaissance Las Vegas Hotel drew experts and dispensary operators from around the country. A few of the attendees have done well for themselves but not without first having to fight the federal government along the way. That includes Steve DeAngelo, the symposium’s keynote speaker who operates the Oakland, Calif.-based Harborside Health Center.

With more than 100,000 medical marijuana patients, DeAngelo’s dispensary is still fighting to stay open amid a federal government crackdown that’s so controversial that the city of Oakland has come to DeAngelo’s aide to protect the interest of his patients.

“The future is an inherently uncertain thing, but the change to regulate medical marijuana across the country is in­evitable,” he told the audience. “The wine is out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in. But we have to remember to hold high standards for ourselves. We have to remember that we’re not like any other business. Every other business is not illegal.”

It’s a touchy subject, the tug of war between states and the federal government in a country where there have been 750,000 arrests for marijuana possession every year, panelists at the symposium noted.

And while polls have shown that most people have no problem with legalizing medical pot, that doesn’t mean they approve of it morally, DeAngelo said.

He urged the crowd to get the word out that there are real patients amid the recreational users, and that the weed has been known to boost appetites for AIDS and cancer patients, relieve pain among scoliosis and multiple sclerosis patients, even alleviate everyday anxiety and stress.

And yet the “jokes about ‘the munchies’ and Doritos” are still the norm rather than the exception at many a planning commission meeting where local land usage has had to be changed to make way for the next pot dispensary, noted Robert Jacobs, the owner of Peace in Medicine, a pot dispensary in Sebastopol, a small city in Marin County in Northern California.

His advice to future operators: join the local Rotary Club, open up the wallet and contribute to political campaigns, and dress appropriately.

Contact reporter Tom Ragan at tragan@reviewjournal.com or 702-224-5512.

Ariz. delegates scrutinize border housing

Source

Ariz. delegates scrutinize border housing

By Bob Ortega The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:30 PM

Members of Arizona’s congressional delegation are seeking answers from the Department of Homeland Security on why Customs and Border Protection spent about $15 million for housing in the former mining town of Ajo.

At a town-hall meeting Tuesday in Tucson, in response to questions about the housing, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said, “It’s disgraceful.” Asked by a constituent how it could be justified, he replied, “It can’t. It can’t be; and people should be fired.”

As The Arizona Republic reported Monday, the CBP paid more than $600,000 each to build 21 modest homes for its personnel in Ajo, a small southern Arizona town where similar-size homes typically cost less than $100,000. The CBP also paid more than $2 million to buy 20 park-model trailer homes and lease land on which to park them. The housing project opened in February.

The CBP has declined to say how many of the homes and trailers are occupied or how much personnel pay to rent them, other than to say they pay what a spokesman called “market rates.”

“We’re going to ask for some real answers and follow up on the tremendous costs,” said U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., whose district includes Ajo. “If we don’t get a response, we’ll ask the (Office of the) Inspector General to take a thorough look at that, and I hope some of my colleagues will join me. I’d bet that this situation is not unique.”

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., also said he intends to pursue answers about the housing controversy.

“I’d like to know some more details, but, boy, on its face, it looks like a lot of wasted money,” Flake said. “On its face, how you can justify spending that much money on new housing is beyond me.”

Several other delegation members said they, too, already have or will shortly query Homeland Security about the costs. Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., provided a copy of a letter he sent Thursday to Thomas Winkowski, the acting CBP commissioner, asking for an explanation and justification of the costs and value of the homes and trailers.

Barber said he wants “immediate answers from the Department of Homeland Security on how and why these outrageous expenses were approved.”

The controversy over the taxpayer-funded homes comes as Congress debates immigration reform and whether to massively increase spending on border security, including a possible doubling of the Border Patrol to about 40,000 agents. With more than $107 billion spent on securing the border over the last seven years, Homeland Security has regularly faced criticism by government audit and budget agencies for ineffective cost oversight.

Customs and Border Protection officials didn’t answer a Republic request for a detailed explanation of the cost of the Ajo housing. In a written statement, the CBP said that the projects followed federal laws, rules and regulations and that the “CBP chose to build housing because quality, affordable housing was not available in the area.”

Even before the housing project was built, similar questions arose. In December 2010, Pima County Administrator C.H. Huckelberry complained in a letter to the project manager that a draft environmental assessment “does not contain any cost comparisons,” making it impossible to substantiate the CBP’s claim that renovating existing housing would be more expensive than building new housing. Huckelberry could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The assessment, by the General Services Administration, the agency that manages most federal property, briefly discussed alternatives such as building homes on existing federal property in Lukeville, 38 miles away near the Sonoyta border crossing, or near the Border Patrol station in Why, 11 miles from Ajo. But the assessment didn’t include detailed cost estimates.

Ajo, a town of about 4,400, sits amid piles of mine tailings about 40 miles north of the U.S.-Mexican border. Since the New Cornelia mine closed in 1983, the town has struggled. A GSA assessment for the housing project said that fewer than 30 percent of the CBP personnel assigned to the area rented in the Ajo market before the construction and that there wasn’t adequate housing for agents and officers, a claim some local real-estate agents and property owners have disputed.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2007 and 2011, nearly 30 percent of the houses in Ajo were vacant.

Both Grijalva and Barber said they see a value in making it easier for agents and customs officers to live in the community and in ensuring they have adequate housing. But both also said the government needs to protect against wasteful spending.

Grijalva said his office had previously suggested the CBP look at renovating existing housing stock in Ajo. His letter to the DHS also raised questions about spending on private detention facilities for undocumented immigrants; it cited The Republic’s story as an example of the need for the DHS to release more information that can explain why its expenses are justified.

“This looks like a classic example of spending money without worrying about the cost or consequences,” Grijalva said.

Republic reporter Dan Nowicki contributed to this article.

Goldwater files suit to stop Phoenix pension ‘spiking’

Source

Goldwater files suit to stop Phoenix pension ‘spiking’

By Craig Harris The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:37 PM

The Goldwater Institute, a conservative taxpayer-watchdog group, is taking Phoenix to court again, this time to stop so-called pension spiking for public-safety officers.

Goldwater, a Phoenix non-profit, filed suit Thursday in Maricopa County Superior Court to stop the practice that allows Phoenix police officers and firefighters to increase the amount of their pensions by cashing in unused sick leave, vacation and other benefits at the end of their careers.

The two sides also are embroiled in a suit about whether it’s legal for the city to allow police employees to be compensated for work they do on behalf of a labor union. That case is pending.

The suit filed Thursday came after The Arizona Republic in May reported on the policy, which raised questions about the legality of the practice.

Pension spiking, which is popular with police officers and firefighters, has allowed a handful of Phoenix public-safety retirees to become millionaires, and 10 others increased their lump-sum retirement benefits to more than $700,000 each through the Deferred Retirement Option Plan. All of them also received annual pensions greater than $114,000 a year.

Recipients with the biggest payouts are veteran, upper-level managers who have the highest salaries in the Police and Fire departments. Pension spiking, however, does benefit rank-and-file officers.

The average public-safety pension for a Phoenix retiree is $59,341, about $10,000 more than the statewide average. Those employees typically have not contributed to Social Security and will not recieve it.

Records show that the city’s public-safety retirement cost has ballooned to roughly $129million for fiscal 2014, compared with $7.2million in fiscal 2003. Investment losses have been one of the biggest reasons for the increased cost, though pension spiking also has contributed to the increase.

That’s because cities such as Phoenix pay higher premiums to the statewide Public Safety Personnel Retirement System based on liabilities of its members.

Inflated pensions from spiking increase liabilities.

Doug Cole, a spokesman for the public-safety retirement system, said that the pension system has no position on the suit and that it pays benefits based on compensation records provided to the trust by Phoenix and other members.

“This is an issue that the system is not involved with,” Cole said.

The Goldwater Institute contends the policy violates state law and costs taxpayers millions of additional dollars. The group sued the city, Mayor Greg Stanton, the City Council, City Manager David Cavazos and the Phoenix Police Sergeants and Lieutenants Association.

“This is not about cops or public-safety officers,” said Jon Riches, an attorney for Goldwater who previously was with the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. “This is about the city of Phoenix blatantly violating a state law. I served on active duty, and I know what it’s like to serve a dangerous job. Public-safety officers should be rewarded for a hazardous profession. Police work and being a firefighter is a noble profession. But it doesn’t allow that profession or the city of Phoenix to break rules.”

The lawsuit, which has three Phoenix residents as plaintiffs, asks for the practice to be declared illegal and for it to be stopped.

If successful, the suit will apply to all of Phoenix’s public-safety unions and management not covered by collective bargaining, Riches said.

The lawsuit contends that the city is unlawfully including payment in lieu of vacation, sick leave, unused compensatory time and fringe benefits, such as a uniform allowance, in computing the officer’s salary at the end of his or her career.

City officials and Phoenix public-safety union members have said using such benefits to increase compensation is a negotiated benefit and is not illegal.

The increased compensation number significantly increases or “spikes” annual retirement benefits — and the cost to taxpayers. That’s because the pay at the career’s end is a key component in determining pension benefits. The other is length of service.

State law defines what type of payments are included as compensation to compute retirement benefits for those in the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System, of which Phoenix is the largest member.

The law says that “unused sick leave, payment in lieu of vacation, payment for unused compensatory time or payment for any fringe benefits” cannot be used as compensation to compute retirement benefits.

State law also says that only “base salary, overtime pay, shift differential pay, military differential wage pay, compensatory time used by an employee in lieu of overtime not otherwise paid by an employer and holiday pay” can be used to calculate pension benefits.

Stanton and City Council members Thelda Williams and Daniel Valenzuela in July asked Cavazos to end the policy, but no changes have been made because the city plans to honor its labor-contract obligations until next fiscal year.

“As a matter of policy, I do not comment on litigation against the city,” Stanton said in a statement sent to The Republic.

“Last month, I joined with two members of the City Council to ask the city manager to present options to eliminate pension spiking for all employees. I will continue to work with my colleagues to end this practice."

Cavazos, however, on Aug.1 said he was leaving the city to take a similar position in Santa Ana, Calif.

He is retiring effective Oct.16, after nearly three decades in city government.

The announcement came about seven months after the City Council approved his controversial $78,000 pay raise, bumping his base salary to $315,000.

The pay raise will significantly increase his city pension.

A call to his office Thursday was not returned.

“As soon as the city receives the lawsuit, we will carefully review it and appropriately respond,” city spokeswoman Toni Maccarone said.

Cavazos, as a longtime member of the City of Phoenix Employee Retirement System, is eligible for a full pension and can cash in up to 60percent of his unused sick leave to enhance his retirement benefits, according to his contract with the city.

The lawsuit filed Thursday does not affect Cavazos or any municipal employees who are members of the Phoenix retirement system, Riches said.

“What is of interest with the city manager’s contract is reflective in the culture of the city of Phoenix and its deliberative process,” Riches said. “This is simply not an appropriate way to use sick leave.”

Goldwater has expressed confidence that it will win its latest suit, citing case law from across the country in which judges have ruled that accrued vacation time cannot be included to increase compensation when calculating public pension benefits.

Sal DiCiccio, named as a defendant because he is on the City Council, has been an outspoken critic of public pension systems.

He said the City Council should immediately end pension spiking.

“Taxpayers have been ripped off for so many years,” DiCiccio said. “It’s clearly illegal.”

DiCiccio said the additional money used for public-safety pensions is taking funding from after-school programs, libraries, senior services and police on the streets.

Phoenix, like other cities across Arizona, was forced to cut public-safety positions because of the recession and rising pension costs.

Republic reporter Dustin Gardiner contributed to this article.

Phoenix should obey the law and end pension spiking

Phoenix should obey the law and end pension spiking

As expected, the Goldwater Institute sued the city of Phoenix today, hoping to end an obviously illegal scheme that has allowed some high-level police and fire officials to not just feather their retirement nests but to gild the things.

This should be welcome news to Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton who during his campaign called for an end to pension spiking. [Rubbish!!!! Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton is owned by the Phoenix Police union and shovels pork and money to the cops in exchange for their votes]

Or not.

It’s been three months since Republic reporter Craig Harris brought the spiking issue to light. Thus far the city’s response has been to insist that the spiking is legal and punt until contract negotiations this fall.

Phoenix cut back on spiking by civilian employees last year, though it still allows them to artificially inflate their pensions with unused vacation as well as sick leave accrued before July 2012.

But city leaders have been unwilling to touch spiking by police and firefighters.

This, even though state law says members of the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System can’t boost their pensions using “payment for unused sick leave, payment in lieu of vacation, payment for unused compensatory time or payment for any fringe benefits.”

So, the city struck a deal with police and fire unions to allow “monthly pay in lieu of sick or vacation accrual” in the final years before retirement.

“These are not payments for sick leave or vacation earned but not taken,” the city’s legal department reasoned in an e-mail explaining the policy. “Rather, they are bargained-for salary increases in exchange for accepting a lessened benefit package.”

Nicely danced, don’t you think?

Most rank-and-file police officers and firefighters see only a modest increase in their pensions due to spiking. But some in the top echelons have turned the spike into the fine art of a slam dunk, earning more in retirement than while actually doing the job.

If Phoenix police and firefighters are underpaid, then raise their pay. But Phoenix officials should do it in a way that doesn’t break the law — not to mention the public’s trust.

Ex-cop killed self with nail gun

Phoenix and Tempe cops routinely troll the internet pretending to be horny underage hot girls who want to have sex with older men. And of course anytime they find a horny old man who wants to take them up on their offer the man is arrested by the cops for wanting to have sex with these imaginary underage hot horny women that exists only in the minds of the cops who make them up.

Source

Report: Ex-cop killed self with nail gun

Associated Press Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:49 AM

WISCONSIN RAPIDS, Wis. — An autopsy finds a former Wisconsin Rapids police lieutenant suspected of child enticement killed himself with a nail gun.

Wood County Deputy Coroner Gabe Holczer says 41-year-old Steven Lowe shot himself in the chest with the construction tool “multiple times” just days after being arrested.

Lowe was found dead in his pickup truck Monday morning at his home in Grand Rapids. The deputy coroner tells WAOW-TV (http://bit.ly/19u4DtB) he died of multiple wounds from the nail gun.

No suicide note was found.

Lowe was suspended by Wisconsin Rapids police officials earlier this month and then resigned from the force. Court documents say Lowe was accused of impersonating a teenage girl online to try to get juvenile boys to send him nude pictures.

No formal charges were filed before Lowe’s death.

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year

NSA - trust us, we are not illegally spying on Americans - Honest!!! Swear to God!!!

Source

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds

By Barton Gellman, Published: August 15 E-mail the writer

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

The documents, provided earlier this summer to The Washington Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, include a level of detail and analysis that is not routinely shared with Congress or the special court that oversees surveillance. In one of the documents, agency personnel are instructed to remove details and substitute more generic language in reports to the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

In one instance, the NSA decided that it need not report the unintended surveillance of Americans. A notable example in 2008 was the interception of a “large number” of calls placed from Washington when a programming error confused the U.S. area code 202 for 20, the international dialing code for Egypt, according to a “quality assurance” review that was not distributed to the NSA’s oversight staff.

In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.

[FISA judge: Ability to police U.S. spying program is limited]

The Obama administration has provided almost no public information about the NSA’s compliance record. In June, after promising to explain the NSA’s record in “as transparent a way as we possibly can,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole described extensive safeguards and oversight that keep the agency in check. “Every now and then, there may be a mistake,” Cole said in congressional testimony.

The NSA audit obtained by The Post, dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders.

In a statement in response to questions for this article, the NSA said it attempts to identify problems “at the earliest possible moment, implement mitigation measures wherever possible, and drive the numbers down.” The government was made aware of The Post’s intention to publish the documents that accompany this article online.

“We’re a human-run agency operating in a complex environment with a number of different regulatory regimes, so at times we find ourselves on the wrong side of the line,” a senior NSA official said in an interview, speaking with White House permission on the condition of anonymity.

“You can look at it as a percentage of our total activity that occurs each day,” he said. “You look at a number in absolute terms that looks big, and when you look at it in relative terms, it looks a little different.”

There is no reliable way to calculate from the number of recorded compliance issues how many Americans have had their communications improperly collected, stored or distributed by the NSA.

The only known details of a 2011 ruling that found the NSA was using illegal methods to collect and handle the communications of American citizens.

The causes and severity of NSA infractions vary widely. One in 10 incidents is attributed to a typographical error in which an analyst enters an incorrect query and retrieves data about U.S phone calls or e-mails.

But the more serious lapses include unauthorized access to intercepted communications, the distribution of protected content and the use of automated systems without built-in safeguards to prevent unlawful surveillance.

The May 2012 audit, intended for the agency’s top leaders, counts only incidents at the NSA’s Fort Meade headquarters and other ­facilities in the Washington area. Three government officials, speak­ing on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the number would be substantially higher if it included other NSA operating units and regional collection centers.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who did not receive a copy of the 2012 audit until The Post asked her staff about it, said in a statement late Thursday that the committee “can and should do more to independently verify that NSA’s operations are appropriate, and its reports of compliance incidents are accurate.”

Despite the quadrupling of the NSA’s oversight staff after a series of significant violations in 2009, the rate of infractions increased throughout 2011 and early 2012. An NSA spokesman declined to disclose whether the trend has continued since last year.

One major problem is largely unpreventable, the audit says, because current operations rely on technology that cannot quickly determine whether a foreign mobile phone has entered the United States.

In what appears to be one of the most serious violations, the NSA diverted large volumes of international data passing through fiber-optic cables in the United States into a repository where the material could be stored temporarily for processing and selection.

The operation to obtain what the agency called “multiple communications transactions” collected and commingled U.S. and foreign e-mails, according to an article in SSO News, a top-secret internal newsletter of the NSA’s Special Source Operations unit. NSA lawyers told the court that the agency could not practicably filter out the communications of Americans.

In October 2011, months after the program got underway, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that the collection effort was unconstitutional. The court said that the methods used were “deficient on statutory and constitutional grounds,” according to a top-secret summary of the opinion, and it ordered the NSA to comply with standard privacy protections or stop the program.

James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has acknowledged that the court found the NSA in breach of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but the Obama administration has fought a Freedom of Information lawsuit that seeks the opinion.

Generally, the NSA reveals nothing in public about its errors and infractions. The unclassified versions of the administration’s semiannual reports to Congress feature blacked-out pages under the headline “Statistical Data Relating to Compliance Incidents.”

The only known details of a 2011 ruling that found the NSA was using illegal methods to collect and handle the communications of American citizens.

What's a 'violation'?

Members of Congress may read the unredacted documents, but only in a special secure room, and they are not allowed to take notes. [Wow!!! Sounds like the folks in the NSA are telling Congress what to do. Not vise versa like it should be.] Fewer than 10 percent of lawmakers employ a staff member who has the security clearance to read the reports and provide advice about their meaning and significance.

The limited portions of the reports that can be read by the public acknowledge “a small number of compliance incidents.”

Under NSA auditing guidelines, the incident count does not usually disclose the number of Americans affected.

“What you really want to know, I would think, is how many innocent U.S. person communications are, one, collected at all, and two, subject to scrutiny,” said Julian Sanchez, a research scholar and close student of the NSA at the Cato Institute.

The documents provided by Snowden offer only glimpses of those questions. Some reports make clear that an unauthorized search produced no records. But a single “incident” in February 2012 involved the unlawful retention of 3,032 files that the surveillance court had ordered the NSA to destroy, according to the May 2012 audit. Each file contained an undisclosed number of telephone call records.

One of the documents sheds new light on a statement by NSA Director Keith B. Alexander last year that “we don’t hold data on U.S. citizens.”

Some Obama administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, have defended Alexander with assertions that the agency’s internal definition of “data” does not cover “metadata” such as the trillions of American call records that the NSA is now known to have collected and stored since 2006. Those records include the telephone numbers of the parties and the times and durations of conversations, among other details, but not their content or the names of callers.

The NSA’s authoritative def­inition of data includes those call records. “Signals Intelligence Management Directive 421,” which is quoted in secret oversight and auditing guidelines, states that “raw SIGINT data . . . includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and/or unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice, and some forms of computer-generated data, such as call event records and other Digital Network Intelligence (DNI) metadata as well as DNI message text.”

In the case of the collection effort that confused calls placed from Washington with those placed from Egypt, it is unclear what the NSA meant by a “large number” of intercepted calls. A spokesman declined to discuss the matter.

The NSA has different reporting requirements for each branch of government and each of its legal authorities. The “202” collection was deemed irrelevant to any of them. “The issue pertained to Metadata ONLY so there were no defects to report,” according to the author of the secret memo from March 2013.

The large number of database query incidents, which involve previously collected communications, confirms long-standing suspicions that the NSA’s vast data banks — with code names such as MARINA, PINWALE and XKEYSCORE — house a considerable volume of information about Americans. Ordinarily the identities of people in the United States are masked, but intelligence “customers” may request unmasking, either one case at a time or in standing orders.

The only known details of a 2011 ruling that found the NSA was using illegal methods to collect and handle the communications of American citizens.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he will hold a hearing on the matter.

In dozens of cases, NSA personnel made careless use of the agency’s extraordinary powers, according to individual auditing reports. One team of analysts in Hawaii, for example, asked a system called DISHFIRE to find any communications that mentioned both the Swedish manufacturer Ericsson and “radio” or “radar” — a query that could just as easily have collected on people in the United States as on their Pakistani military target.

The NSA uses the term “incidental” when it sweeps up the records of an American while targeting a foreigner or a U.S. person who is believed to be involved in terrorism. Official guidelines for NSA personnel say that kind of incident, pervasive under current practices, “does not constitute a . . . violation” and “does not have to be reported” to the NSA inspector general for inclusion in quarterly reports to Congress. Once added to its databases, absent other restrictions, the communications of Americans may be searched freely.

In one required tutorial, NSA collectors and analysts are taught to fill out oversight forms without giving “extraneous information” to “our FAA overseers.” FAA is a reference to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which granted broad new authorities to the NSA in exchange for regular audits from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and periodic reports to Congress and the surveillance court.

Using real-world examples, the “Target Analyst Rationale Instructions” explain how NSA employees should strip out details and substitute generic descriptions of the evidence and analysis behind their targeting choices.

“I realize you can read those words a certain way,” said the high-ranking NSA official who spoke with White House authority, but the instructions were not intended to withhold information from auditors. “Think of a book of individual recipes,” he said. Each target “has a short, concise description,” but that is “not a substitute for the full recipe that follows, which our overseers also have access to.”

Julie Tate and Carol D. Leonnig contributed to this report.

Court: Ability to police U.S. spying program limited

So as they have said all along it appears that this so call FISA court is really just rubber stamp to allow the police to flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet and spy on us whenever the feel like it.

Source

Court: Ability to police U.S. spying program limited

By Carol D. Leonnig, Published: August 15

The leader of the secret court that is supposed to provide critical oversight of the government’s vast spying programs said that its ability to do so is limited and that it must trust the government to report when it improperly spies on Americans.

The chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said the court lacks the tools to independently verify how often the government’s surveillance breaks the court’s rules that aim to protect Americans’ privacy. Without taking drastic steps, it also cannot check the veracity of the government’s assertions that the violations its staff members report are unintentional mistakes.

The only known details of a 2011 ruling that found the NSA was using illegal methods to collect and handle the communications of American citizens.

Lawmakers on Friday were quick to express their dismay over the latest surveillance revelations. [Yea, the same lawmakers that voted to flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet by passing the unconstitutional Patriot Act.]

“The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court,” its chief, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in a written statement to The Washington Post. “The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance, and in that respect the FISC is in the same position as any other court when it comes to enforcing [government] compliance with its orders.”

Walton’s comments came in response to internal government records obtained by The Post showing that National Security Agency staff members in Washington overstepped their authority on spy programs thousands of times per year. The records also show that the number of violations has been on the rise.

The court’s description of its practical limitations contrasts with repeated assurances from the Obama administration and intelligence agency leaders that the court provides central checks and balances on the government’s broad spying efforts. They have said that Americans should feel comfortable that the secret intelligence court provides robust oversight of government surveillance and protects their privacy from rogue intrusions.

President Obama and other government leaders have emphasized the court’s oversight role in the wake of revelations this year that the government is vacuuming up “metadata” on Americans’ telephone and Internet communications.

“We also have federal judges that we’ve put in place who are not subject to political pressure,” Obama said at a news conference in June. “They’ve got lifetime tenure as federal judges, and they’re empowered to look over our shoulder at the executive branch to make sure that these programs aren’t being abused.”

Privacy advocates and others in government have voiced concerns about the ability of overseers to police secret programs of immense legal and technological complexity. Several members of the House and Senate intelligence committees told The Post last week that they face numerous obstacles and constraints in questioning spy agency officials about their work.

In 2009, for example, a Justice Department review uncovered a major operational glitch that had led to a series of significant violations of the court’s order and notified the court, according to records that were declassified July 31 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The government described the problem as one of “over-collection” of metadata records for U.S. phone calls.

In September 2009, NSA Director Keith B. Alexander made a presentation to the FISA court about the agency’s effort to remedy the problem.

“FISA Court placed several restrictions on aspects of the business records collection program until the compliance processes were improved to its satisfaction,” the memo stated.

The only known details of a 2011 ruling that found the NSA was using illegal methods to collect and handle the communications of American citizens.

Lawmakers on Friday were quick to express their dismay over the latest surveillance revelations.

The public summaries of the violations do not say how long the problem went undetected and unreported to the court, or what information was improperly gathered by the agency’s automated collection systems.

“The problems generally involved the implementation of highly sophisticated technology in a complex and ever-changing communications environment which, in some instances, results in the automated tools operating in a manner that was not completely consistent with the specific terms of the Court’s orders,” according to unredacted portions of a December 2009 memo provided to the Senate and House intelligence committees.

Two people familiar with the 2009 flaw said that the agency was collecting more “fields” of information from the customer records of telephone companies than the court had approved. The NSA declined to answer questions about the event.

One senior intelligence official, who was authorized by the White House to speak on the condition of anonymity, described the 2009 incident as a “major event” that prompted the agency to dramatically increase its compliance staff.

“We uncovered some disconnects between us and our overseers, disconnects between what we had put in documentation, the way we had described things in documentation,” the official said.

Although the violation was unintentional, the official said, “it wasn’t always the easiest of discussions” with the court.

The agency paused, “got ourselves with our overseers back into fair territory,” and has since made “substantial improvement” in compliance, the official said.

Privacy advocates say they fear that some violations are never reported to the court.

In January 2008, the NSA appeared to have mistakenly collected data on numerous phone calls from the Washington area code 202, thinking they were foreign phone calls from Egypt, whose country code is 20. According to a 2013 “quality assurance” review of the incident, a communications switch misread the coding of the calls and presumed they were international. The NSA has broad authority that is not subject to the FISA court to collect and monitor foreign communications under certain circumstances.

The description of the 2008 problem suggests that the inadvertent collection of U.S. phone calls was not reported to the FISA court.

“However, the issue pertained to Metadata ONLY so there were no defects to report,” the review stated.

Under FISA rules, the government is required to immediately notify the court if it believes it has violated any of its orders on surveillance.

The government does not typically provide the court with case-specific detail about individual compliance cases, such as the names of people it later learned it was improperly searching in its massive phone or e-mail databases, according to the two people familiar with the court’s work.

In contrast to the dozens of staff available to Congress’s intelligence and judiciary committees, the FISA court has five lawyers to review compliance violation reports.

A staff lawyer can elevate a concern about a significant compliance issue to a judge on the court, according to a letter Walton recently sent to the Senate describing the court’s role.

The court can always demand and obtain more details about cases, but it is unclear how often that occurs. In the past, while grappling with rules for implementing the surveillance programs, judges on the court have requested a visit to NSA headquarters to inspect the operations, the officials said.

Last week, the president said that he recognizes that some Americans may lack trust in the oversight process — in which the secret court approves the rules for collecting Americans’ communications — and that he will work with Congress on reforms, which could include a privacy advocate to the court.

“In other words, it’s not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs,” Obama said in his news conference. “The American people need to have confidence in them, as well.”

Barton Gellman, Peter Wallsten and Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Can Obama write his own laws?

Source

Can Obama write his own laws?

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: August 15

As a reaction to the crack epidemic of the 1980s, many federal drug laws carry strict mandatory sentences. This has stirred unease in Congress and sparked a bipartisan effort to revise and relax some of the more draconian laws.

Traditionally — meaning before Barack Obama — that’s how laws were changed: We have a problem, we hold hearings, we find some new arrangement ratified by Congress and signed by the president.

That was then. On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder, a liberal in a hurry, ordered all U.S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang-related drug defendants with crimes that, while fitting the offense, carry mandatory sentences. Find some lesser, non-triggering charge. How might you do that? Withhold evidence — for example, the amount of dope involved.

In other words, evade the law, by deceiving the court if necessary. “If the companies that I represent in federal criminal cases” did that, said former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger, “they could be charged with a felony.”

But such niceties must not stand in the way of an administration’s agenda. Indeed, the very next day, it was revealed that the administration had unilaterally waived Obamacare’s cap on a patient’s annual out-of-pocket expenses — a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law. It was simply decreed by an obscure Labor Department regulation.

Which followed a presidentially directed 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congressmen and their personal staffs — under a law that denies subsidies for anyone that well-off.

Which came just a month after the administration’s equally lawless suspension of one of the cornerstones of Obamacare: the employer mandate.

Which followed hundreds of Obama­care waivers granted by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to selected businesses, unions and other well-lobbied, very special interests.

Nor is this kind of rule-by-decree restricted to health care. In 2012, the immigration service was ordered to cease proceedings against young illegal immigrants brought here as children. Congress had refused to pass such a law (the DREAM Act) just 18 months earlier. Obama himself had repeatedly said that the Constitution forbade him from enacting it without Congress. But with the fast approach of an election that could hinge on the Hispanic vote, Obama did exactly that. Unilaterally.

The point is not what you think about the merits of the DREAM Act. Or of mandatory drug sentences. Or of subsidizing health care premiums for $175,000-a-year members of Congress. Or even whether you think governors should be allowed to weaken the work requirements for welfare recipients — an authority the administration granted last year in clear violation of section 407 of the landmark Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of 1996.

The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will. Presidents are arguably permitted to refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional (the basis for so many of George W. Bush’s so-called signing statements). But presidents are forbidden from doing so for reasons of mere policy — the reason for every Obama violation listed above.

Such gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law?

The problem is not just uncertain enforcement but the undermining of the very creation of new law. What’s the point of the whole legislative process — of crafting various provisions through give-and-take negotiation — if you cannot rely on the fixity of the final product, on the assurance that the provisions bargained for by both sides will be carried out?

Consider immigration reform, now in gestation. The essence of any deal would be legalization in return for strict border enforcement. If some such legislative compromise is struck, what confidence can anyone have in it — if the president can unilaterally alter whatever (enforcement) provisions he never liked in the first place?

Yet this president is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: I am going to do X — and I’m not going to wait for Congress.

That’s caudillo talk. That’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first.

At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.

Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

At Seattle pot fest, police to protect -- and serve tortilla chips

Don't these pigs have any criminals to hunt down???

OK, marijuana is legal so you pigs can't arrest anybody at the Seattle Hempfest. So why don't you pigs go find some real criminals to hunt down instead of hanging out at rock concerts passing out propaganda to designed to make us love police thugs???

Source

At Seattle pot fest, police to protect -- and serve tortilla chips

By Rick Rojas

August 16, 2013, 7:00 a.m.

SEATTLE — At the marijuana festival called Hempfest that has been held here annually for more than two decades, enforcing pot smoking laws was traditionally a low priority. Police say they wanted to keep people safe and ensure that property wasn't damaged or stolen.

But this weekend, at the first gathering since Washington state voters approved decriminalizing marijuana use, police will take a different approach to protecting and serving: Instead of having handcuffs and citations at the ready, a group of officers will be passing out tortilla chips.

The hope is that munchies-stricken revelers will read the stickers on the bags that explain what has and hasn't changed under the new law.

The gathering, which began in Seattle in 1991, has grown to include thousands of "hempsters," according to organizers. It includes six stages of music and vendors hawking food, art and marijuana-related merchandise.

"We wanted to make sure we could share information, share our expectations, and do it in a way that would resonate," said Sgt. Sean Whitcomb, a Seattle police spokesman.

The idea, he said, came about as members of the department's public information division were "spitballing" on a way to approach the upcoming festival. They worked with Pepsico, Doritos' parent company, and came up with a plan.

The police department has tried to take a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek approach to informing the public about the marijuana law. After the initiative passed in November, the department published "Marijwhatnow? A Guide to Legal Marijuana Use in Seattle," which went viral. (One question: "SPD seized a bunch of my marijuana before I-502 passed. Can I have it back?" Answer: "No.")

Colorado voters also approved a ballot measure last November that legalized marijuana possession and use. It remains against federal law, however.

"We're putting out content that people can relate to," Whitcomb said. "It's produced by police, but it's written for the public. The idea is we want to engage the community that we serve."

Environmental nightmare found at pot grow in backcountry

If marijuana was legal people would be growing pot on farms like they grow lettuce and tomatoes. Not in clandestine areas in this article.

The solution is simple - legalize marijuana - again

Source

Environmental nightmare found at pot grow in backcountry southeast of San Jose

By Eric Kurhi

ekurhi@mercurynews.com

Posted: 08/16/2013 05:56:03 AM PDT

SAN ANTONIO VALLEY -- A marijuana cultivation operation that resulted in a host of highly toxic chemicals being washed into a tributary of Coyote Creek was cleared out on Tuesday by authorities searching deep in the backcountry southeast of San Jose.

While nobody was at the remote site -- reached by taking Highway 130 out of San Jose for an hour and a half then a smaller dirt road and a quarter-mile hike -- state Fish and Wildlife officials said they found car batteries, propane canisters, a large amount of black plastic irrigation line and worst of all, fertilizers and pesticides.

"There was everything from insecticides to poisons for rodents," ward Fish and Wildlife Warden Mark Michilizzi. "It included Furadan, an illegal pesticide that's extremely toxic."

Michilizzi said the result is an environmental nightmare, killing all variety of animals -- some through direct consumption, others after they feed on poisoned rodents, and still more when the chemicals are washed into waterways that are used by spawning salmon and other fish.

"It's not uncommon for us to find dead wildlife at these groves," Michilizzi said. "Particularly birds of prey, coyotes, animals higher up on the food chain. And we find that there's a large amount of chemicals that are mixed directly in the water source with total disregard to the environment."

He said that when it rains, more chemicals will be washed downstream.

"There's no mitigation to keep any harmful substances out of the watershed," he said. "The dead animals are a more obvious sign you can see, but even if you don't see that, all this poison is getting directly mixed with the water source."

While Coyote Creek feeds into Coyote Lake and Anderson Reservoir and is used for human consumption in Santa Clara County, water district spokesman Marty Grimes said the chemicals will be diluted and ultimately removed from drinking water.

"I wouldn't think the quantity would make a dent in the reservoirs, and I don't think we have any problems removing pesticides with our treatment systems," he said. "The concern is really for the natural wildlife."

Michilizzi said they suspect the grove may have been the work of operatives with Mexican drug cartels, and have seen numerous other grows in remote areas throughout the state. About 8,000 young plants were taken from the site, along with the hazardous materials.

The cleanup was part of a monthlong Fish and Wildlife-led program called Operation Pristine, which targets grows in "the most environmentally sensitive areas" around California.

So far this year, eradication operations throughout the state have netted 285,000 plants, 6,800 pounds of fertilizer, 32,000 pounds of garbage and 154,000 feet of irrigation tubing, Michilizzi said. There have been 110 arrests, and 39 firearms have been seized.

Contact Eric Kurhi at 408-920-5852. Follow him at Twitter.com/erickurhi.

Members of Congress haven't had a raise in years

Members of Congress make a lousy $174,000 a year

Damn almost makes me want to cry. Our royal members of Congress make a measly $174,000 and haven't had a raise since 2009.

Of course our royal members of Congress are not as grossly under paid as they want to make it out. Now they are on a summer 5 week vacation.

According to a second article I attached members of Congress only work a measly 126 days a year.

Most of us normal folks work 245 days a year and get two weeks off for vacation and another week off for the standard holidays.

If you assume the royal members of Congress work 8 hours days, which is usually not the case that means they only work 25.2 five day work weeks.

So their weekly pay is only a lousy $6,904 a week, or $1,380 a day.

Source

Members of Congress haven't had a raise in years

USA Today Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:47 PM

WASHINGTON — Haven't had a raise in a while? Well, neither has your member of Congress.

This month, congressional salaries slid to their lowest inflation-adjusted levels since December 1990.

When congressional approval ratings are at historic lows, congressional pay — $174,000 for rank-and-file senators and House members — may seem high. But some argue that shrinking paychecks for public service perpetuates a political culture where mostly the rich can afford to serve in office.

Members of Congress have to maintain households in two locations, one being Washington, one of the most expensive housing markets in the country even for rentals. [Must be tough making ends meet. On the other hand I probably could maintain households in 3 or 4 locations if I was make $174,000 for a job which I only had to work a lousy 126 days a year. And of course that $174,000 yearly income doesn't include the hundreds of thousands and in many cases millions of dollars in bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions they get. ]

"It's always shocking to see members of Congress sleeping in their offices," says Brad Fitch, president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation. "I know one who turned their office couch into a bed and their file cabinet into a laundry bin." [of course he doesn't actually do the laundry, the laundry bin is where is maid picks the laundry up at. And sleeping on a couch??? That's just a quaint story he tells the folks back at home to get re-elected. They think he actually sleeps on the couch instead of hanging out in topless bars where he is usually found]

"The pay is adequate but not extravagant," agrees Norm Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. "It's hard to make that case to most Americans. But in Washington, you're competing for housing with second-year associates at law firms who are already making the same salary as you." [Yea, $174,000 base salary for working 125 days a year certainly isn't extravagant. At least that's what they tell the folks back home to get re-elected]

Since 1992, congressional pay has not kept up with inflation. To keep up, pay would have to be closer to $219,000, according to a June report by the Congressional Research Service. [Life's a bitch when you only make a lousy $174,000!!!, well at least before you throw in the bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions of hundreds of thousands and many times millions of dollars]

By law, Congress obtains an annual automatic pay adjustment, equivalent to the prior year's average private sector wage change. However, the raise can't be a higher percentage than for other federal employees. [Yea, a lot of Congressmen are envious of the janitors that clean their offices, who only make $20,000 a year, but percentage wise got much higher pay raises then the Congressmen!!!]

Congress can vote to delay or deny this raise and has done so five times since the last increase in 2009, most recently in January of this year. If each of those increases had gone into effect, congressional pay would today be 5.5% higher, still less than inflation.

While lawmakers' relative pay is declining, their wealth is increasing: Many in Congress have vast personal wealth. Since 1992, according to Stanford University and the Center for Responsive Politics, congressional net worth increased significantly. Average American household net worth during that time declined. Yet average net worth among freshman members first elected last November stands at more than a million dollars. [Some mean spirited people will point out that the $174,000 doesn't include hundreds of thousands and many times millions of dollars in bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions, but hey a few extra hundred thousand dollars or even a million bucks doesn't go that far in Washington D.C.]

Thomas Mann says this is not coincidence.

"It's politically impossible to set salaries at a reasonable rate," says Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution. "So it's not realistic to expect Congress to proportionally reflect America in terms of bartenders or construction workers. Especially to have two homes – one in Washington and one in the district – if you don't have personal wealth, you almost can't do it."

"Most would make far more money in their former jobs or the private sector," Fitch concurs. "Probably the only ones doing better than before are those who have been in public service their whole lives. That's definitely the minority, since most come from the legal or business worlds."

One factor causing this slide was the 1992 passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, which required that any pay adjustment Congress votes for itself would not take effect until after the next election. That way, representatives could not vote themselves a self-serving immediate pay raise and would have to risk that any such vote may benefit successors who may be ideological or political rivals.

Since ratification of the amendment, congressional pay has increased at less than half the rate of inflation. By contrast, in the five years before passage, congressional pay increased at almost twice the inflation rate.

Ornstein says lower congressional pay perpetuates a "revolving door" between Congress and K Street.

"When lobbying pays five to 10 times congressional pay, that is genuinely corrupting," Ornstein says. "Almost 50% of those leaving office [either due to retirement or being voted out] stay in Washington, compared to a blip a few decades ago."

Though denying themselves pay increases could earn members of Congress short-term brownie points with their constituents, the consequences could be damaging further out.

"If you continue to let the differential grow, at some point, Congress would be forced to make up for it with pay increases greater than inflation," Fitch predicts. "And there will be hell to pay."

Source

Want a Job With 239 Vacation Days? Become a Member of Congress

New statistics show that Congress may be more dysfunctional than at any time in the last 60 years.

We have to let our representatives know that business as usual isn't acceptable and we expect them, above all else, to get stuff done. The number of laws passed by Congress last year was fewer than at any point since 1947. And to make matters worse, Congress will get 239 "vacation days" in 2013.

The figures from the House Clerk's office paint a bleak picture of Congressional productivity.

But what remains most astonishing about our representatives on the Hill is not only the quantity of legislation, but the amount of time spent working. The Congressional calendar for this coming year consists of 126 days, [let's see, if if they work 126 days a year that is $1,380 a day at their pay rate of $174,000 a year] leaving members of Congress 239 days to perhaps tour our great nation, toy with the idea of running for higher office, and maybe visit a natural disaster or two. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's calendar releases rather embarrassing scheduling without a single 5-day work week or weekend. If you are already feeling riled up about this, I would not suggest looking at the month of August.

So, how? How can hard-working Americans, residents of one of the most overworked countries in the world, commute five times a week to and from work while their money is squandered away in one of the two or three weekly meetings Congress manages in squeeze in?

Well, perhaps my take on activities is somewhat cynical (not that you should have expected any less). Apparently, these weeks off are called "District work periods," also known as free travel at taxpayer expense.

Even Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) admits the wrongdoing of his colleagues: "I think we'd get more work done if we spent more time in Washington. We come in, we go straight to votes, and then we go to our separate quarters. We don't really get to know each other anymore."

But Cantor disagrees in publishing a schedule with many long breaks allowing for travel and "district work periods."

This isn't the beginning. This unabashed congressional laziness has run rampant over the past decade and is only inflating. In 2007, Fox News reported expensive monthly trips taken by members of Congress to far-off lands on whose dime? Oh yes, that’s right. I think I'm starting to understand her point.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) and his wife are particularly cultured because of his spot on the Hill. He and his wife frequent Aspen Institute conferences, along with many other members of Congress. The Aspen Institute, an international nonprofit dedicated to fostering enlightened leadership and open-minded dialogue, has covered the costs of sending members of Congress to their seminars and workshops in the past. From 2000-2007, the Miller couple has attended 30 conferences with a total value of over $200,000. But that is not the kicker. Rep. George Miller, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman, did not even have a place at these conferences. Only 3 of the 30 conferences he has attended were related to education. And don't let the name fool you: The Aspen Institute certainly does not hold conferences in Aspen only. Mr. and Mrs. Miller have traveled to Aspen conferences in:

Naples, Florida, San Juan, Vancouver, Prague, Grand Cayman, Florence, Helsinki, Punta Mita, Mexico, Scottsdale, China, Barcelona, Montega Bay, Jamaica, Rome, Cancun, Venice, Dublin, Istanbul, and Hawaii.

Not only do these luxurious conferences take place across the globe, but they also ended up consuming about half a year in total, or 10% of every year.

So, does the Aspen Institute represent 10% of Rep. George Miller's constituents?

Suppressing AZ’s suppression supremacy

Well OK, HB 2305 doesn't make it impossible for Libertarians to run for office. It makes it almost impossible for all practical purposes. I suspect if the law is implemented that no Libertarians or Greens will be able to collect enough signatures to run for office.

Last remember the Libertarian party is the ONLY part that wants to end the insane "war on drugs" and re-legalize ALL drugs just like it was back in 1914 when ALL drugs were legal.

Source

Suppressing AZ’s suppression supremacy

Once again, the liberal media is unfairly downplaying the accomplishments of Gov. Jan Brewer and the Republicans who control the Arizona legislature.

The governor and her associates have every reason to be offended.

They worked very hard during the last legislative session to establish Arizona as No. 1 in the nation when it comes to voter suppression.

And they did it.

And the media snubbed them.

Even former Secretary of State and potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton joined the bias onslaught against us, touting the voter suppression work of North Carolina while not even acknowledging Arizona. Secretary Clinton described North Carolina’s latest efforts as “a greatest hits of voter suppression.”

And that’s not all. Many so-called mainstream news operations have said the same thing about North Carolina. And even other states, like Pennsylvania. The magazine Mother Jones published an article under the headline: “Why North Carolina’s Voter ID Bill Might Be the Nation’s Worst.”

If the governor and her cohorts were not so… humble they could answer, “Hogwash!”

Sure, the folks in North Carolina made it more difficult for some of their citizens to vote. They eliminated same-day registration, cut back early voting by a week, and outlawed some forms of identification, among other things.

But Arizona already outlaws same-day registration. We shut down voter registration about a month before our elections. And we’ve already imposed numerous restrictions and logistical difficulties on those interested in early voting.

But instead of resting on their laurels (If that what you’d call them?) Arizona’s politicians pressed forward. (Or is it the opposite way?)

They passed House Bill 2305.

Republican officials apparently were upset by the results of some recent Congressional races. They believe their candidates would have won if not for the presence of Libertarian candidates on the ballot. One way to prevent such an outcome in the future, of course, would be to convince Libertarians to vote for Republicans.

But that’s difficult.

So they went the easy route, passing HB 2305, which makes it tough for third parties to get on the ballot by significantly increasing the number of signatures their candidates need to qualify. Libertarians said some of their signature requirements increased 4,000 percent.

How is that not better (Or is it worse?) than what was done in North Carolina?

Brewer and friends should be outraged.

The new Arizona law also makes it much more difficult for citizens to get initiatives on the ballot. (While the legislature is able refer a proposal to the ballot with a simple vote).

HB 2305 also makes it illegal for anyone working for an organization or a political party from collecting individual ballots and dropping them off at a polling place. The ballots are sealed and signed, so one might ask, “What’s the problem?” Particularly since this is helpful to the elderly, the homebound and the disabled. Or is this because Democrats better at collecting such ballots than Republicans?

The law also makes it easier to kick voters off the permanent early voting lists.

The impact of these measures alters Arizona’s voting landscape. So much so that a group calling itself the Protect Your Right To Vote Arizona Committee is attempting to overturn HB 2305 through referendum.

A while back I had a conversation with the chairwoman of the committee, Julie Erfle.

“This really was an outrageous law to pass,” she told me. “In this country we’re supposed to look for more and better ways of getting people involved in the election process. In Arizona we have politicians trying to restrict that process. All for their own self interest. We feel pretty confident Arizona voters will see through that.”

The group believes it will collect enough signatures to get the referendum on the November 2014 ballot. If the committee collects 86,405 valid signatures by Sept. 12 the law passed by the legislature will be on hold until that election.

Either way Arizona voters will get a chance to determine if our state, like all other states in the union, is a laboratory for democracy, or, as Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” described us, the “meth lab of democracy.”

Maryland lawmaker charged with DUI/DWI

More of the old "Do as I say, not as I do" from our government masters

Source

Maryland lawmaker charged with driving under the influence of alcohol

By Maggie Fazeli Fard and John Wagner, Updated: Tuesday, August 20, 7:19 AM E-mail the writers

Maryland Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr., who recently pleaded guilty to drunken boating, is being charged with drunken driving.

The 55-year-old state lawmaker was pulled over Tuesday about 12:40 a.m., near the intersection of Edwin Raynor Boulevard and Route 100 in Pasadena, after an Anne Arundel County police officer saw him commit several traffic violations, according to an arrest report.

The officer wrote in the report that Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel) smelled strongly of alcohol and that “his eyes were red and glossy and his face was flushed. Dwyer’s speech was also very slow and slurred.”

Dwyer told the officer he was driving from a tavern in Baltimore, where he said he drank two beers, the report said.

Dwyer failed three field sobriety tests and was arrested, the report said. He has been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired and other counts.

Dwyer attorney David W. Fischer declined to comment Tuesday.

Dwyer recently pleaded guilty to a drunken boating charge stemming from a collision last year that injured seven people.

Sentencing in that case is scheduled for Oct. 25 in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. Prosecutors reached a plea deal with Dwyer that calls for no additional incarceration.

But in court two weeks ago, retired Judge Emory A. Plitt Jr., who was brought in from Harford County to handle the case, said records from alcohol treatment programs in which Dwyer enrolled after the crash would be key to his decision about a sentence.

“I want to see evaluations from those programs,” said Plitt, who does not have to honor the plea deal.

Plitt indicated that he would also hear from victims. Among those injured was a 5-year-old girl who suffered a fractured skull.

News of Dwyer’s new arrest prompted calls for his resignation Tuesday, including from fellow Del. Ronald A. George (Anne Arundel), who is a Republican candidate for governor.

“Out of concern for others who could be harmed and for Don Dwyer himself, I call on him to resign and get help,” George said. “His constituents deserve good representation.”

Because all of the earlier charges filed against Dwyer were misdemeanors and none was directly related to his job as a legislator, he has not been under threat of automatic expulsion from the General Assembly.

In May, during an appearance in Anne Arundel County District Court, Dwyer said that he was “very remorseful” for what had happened in the boating collision and said that he was continuing to seek help for a drinking problem that stemmed in part from marital issues.

The District Court judge imposed a 30-day jail sentence, saying that as a lawmaker, Dwyer should be held to a higher standard for drinking excessively before the crash. Dwyer promptly appealed that sentence to the Circuit Court.

NJ governor: Ease access to kids’ medical pot

NJ governor: Ease access to kids’ medical pot

By Angela Delli Santi and Geoff Mulvihll Associated Press Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:08 PM

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie agreed Friday to give chronically ill children easier access to medical marijuana, but he was unwilling to go as far as state lawmakers wanted.

The Republican governor conditionally vetoed a bill on the topic, saying in the document, “Parents, and not government regulators, are best suited to decide how to care for their children.”

He said he agreed with provisions that would allow production of ingestible forms of pot at state-approved dispensaries and to allow dispensaries to grow more than three strains of the drug. But he struck a part of the bill that would have dropped a requirement that a psychiatrist and pediatrician sign off before children are allowed medical marijuana. He said he wanted to keep in some safeguards for young patients.

The bill now goes back to the Legislature. If lawmakers make the changes Christie requested, it will become law. It was not immediately clear when lawmakers may take it up, but the state Senate does have a voting session scheduled for Monday.

Sen. Nick Scutari, one of the sponsors of the bill, said he’s pleased that children would be given access to edible marijuana in strains appropriate for their medical needs, but concerned that psychiatric review is an unnecessary hurdle for parents. He said he will review the conditional veto before discussing with fellow lawmakers how to proceed.

Like the 19 other states that allow medical marijuana, New Jersey lets children use it. But unlike all but a few, the state law and regulations currently in place — considered perhaps the most stringent among states that allow medical pot at all — have additional hurdles for young patients.

They must have a pediatrician and psychiatrist sign off on their use. And if one of those doctors is not registered with the state medicinal cannabis program, they would need a third physician to recommend the drug.

The bill to ease access sparked a new round of debate between Christie and medical marijuana advocates, many of whom doubt that he wants the state’s fledgling pot-for-patients program to succeed.

It attracted broader attention this week when parent John Wilson confronted the governor during a campaign stop in a diner. Wilson believes his 2-year-old daughter, Vivian, would benefit by using a certain form and strain of pot for Dravet syndrome, a rare and sometimes deadly form of epilepsy.

In a moment captured on video that made news shows and websites, Wilson told the governor, “Please don’t let my daughter die.”

Christie, who has raised concerns that it could be adults using pot recommended for their children, told him, “I know you think it’s simple, but it’s not,” during their brief exchange.

Wilson and his wife, Meghan, who live in Scotch Plains, said in a statement Friday that they are disappointed Christie “decided to make it so difficult for parents, who are already enduring tremendous pain and heartache, to get approval for such a safe and simple medication.”

They said it’s not fair that other drugs can be prescribed for children without additional doctors signing off.

The changes Christie is willing to make could enable children like Vivian to get the form and strain of pot that could help them by lifting limits on how many strains of marijuana dispensaries can grow and by allowing ingestible forms that kids could take without smoking.

Currently, New Jersey allows dispensaries to grown only three strains of pot, and that has made it unlikely that the kind Vivian’s family says she needs will be made available. John Wilson said other children with Dravet have benefited from a form high in a compound known as CBD and low in THC, the chemical that gets pot users high. Wilson said the drug can work not only to relieve pain or build up an appetite — two things medical pot is often used for — but as a medicine to treat Dravet.

New Hampshire, Delaware and Illinois have multiple-doctor requirements for kids to get pot, said Chris Goldstein, a marijuana activist who is on the board of the Coalition for Medical Marijuana of New Jersey. “This is something that originated in New Jersey and is likely to be copied in other states,” he said.

Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said lifting the limit on how many strains of marijuana plants New Jersey growers can produce will be helpful for other patients because it will allow “real innovation and better options.” Medical marijuana activists say different types of the drug work for different conditions and patients.

New Jersey now has just one operating legal dispensary with a second expected to open in September.

Washington bar's patrons with pot are living the high life

Washington bar's patrons with pot are living the high life

By John M. Glionna

Reporting from Olympia, Wash.

Aug. 20, 2013

Tavern owner Frankie Schnarr takes a long draw from his bottle of Coors Light and scans his sports bar, listening to billiard balls rattle and a pinball machine explode with points.

Suddenly, there's that smell: musky-sweet, skunky yet somehow pleasing, an odor traditionally fraught with illegality.

Three men in jeans and sleeveless shirts shooting pool nearby fire up a small purple pipe packed with pot. They inhale deeply between shots, laughing, passing the bowl, mellowing their buzz with an occasional swig of beer.

Marijuana. Being brazenly smoked in public, right there under the bar owner's nose.

Schnarr smiles.

"You get used to the smell — it's like the mold at your Mom's house," he says, motioning for another Coors. "It's strange at first, but later you realize, 'Oh, that's what that is.' Some people walk in here these days and go, 'Oh, wow.' But most walk in and say: 'Oh, wow. This is cool!'"

At Frankie's Sports Bar and Grill, firing up a "fatty" or a "blunt" is not only condoned, it's welcomed. Last fall, Washington state legalized recreational marijuana use, allowing people to smoke the drug in private, but not in public places such as bars. Schnarr, 63, has found a way around that: He's using a space in his bar he says is private, not public.

Now the second floor of his sports bar — a mammoth room with TVs, card tables, 10 pool tables, four shuffleboard tables and rows of booths — is the only pub in the state to allow the practice. It's a rarefied realm where patrons burn joints and bowls of greenish weed in a free-for-all fashion that's still unknown in most of law-abiding America.

As state officials scramble to change the law and put a stop to Schnarr's reefer madness, patrons like Jason Southwick can't believe their good fortune.

The 32-year-old unemployed landscaper takes a bud of pot from a plastic medicine vial, packs his pipe and breathes in for a prolonged moment. His friends list ways stoners and boozers handle their buzzes differently: Pot smokers don't start fights and don't run people over at crosswalks.

"We're more chill," one woman says.

These stoners are polite people."

Southwick tries to blow a smoke ring, but coughs instead, his breath acrid, eyes inflamed. His friends smirk: He's broken an unwritten rule, greedily sucking in so much smoke that his lungs rebel.

He gazes up at a slow-turning ceiling fan for a prolonged moment. "Wow, man, that is strong," he says. He walks underneath, staring quizzically. "Have you ever seen anything like this? Dude, I've never felt so much wind in my life."

No one is listening.

Except Schnarr: Pot smokers like Southwick have translated into brisk business.

"These stoners are polite people," he said. "I haven't heard as much 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir' in my 25 years in the bar business. And they spend money. After they start smoking, they may not drink as much. But they sure do eat."

Schnarr is a rebel with a for-profit cause.

"He likes to push the envelope," said his lawyer, Shawn Newman. "He's a risk-taker, a fighter. He'll take you on."

Frank Schnarr has upset state officials by allowing patrons to smoke marijuana in his bar. Even though Washington state last year passed a law allowing marijuana smoking, the law forbids public use. Schnarr has flouted the law, making enemies and friends. (John Glionna / Los Angeles Times) More photos

He's taken on the state of Washington on two occasions, both times challenging edicts on what he can and cannot do inside his business.

In 2006, when the state banned cigarette smoking in bars, Schnarr saw his profits plummet. He tried publicity stunts and rule-bending to keep his drinking emporium afloat: bar specials, car-racing parties and waitresses in bikinis.

Then one day, he decided to read the new law. "I have a seventh-grade education," said Schnarr, who opened his bar in 1994. "When I read something, I really got to read it hard."

He spotted a way around the ban: He created what he called a private room on his bar's second floor, with enhanced ventilation, and invited members (for a $10 annual fee) to puff away to their lung's content.

They quickly became known as "Friends of Frankie." Because they were partaking in a private room, there was no conflict with public anti-smoking laws, Schnarr insisted. More than 10,000 people signed up and received membership cards.

The state later sued but a judge ruled in favor of Schnarr's private space within a public place.

In November, Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for recreational use, putting state agencies in charge of regulating its sale to anyone old enough to drink alcohol. That's when Schnarr got busy again.

He invited pot smokers to join the cigarette-puffing "Friends of Frankie" in the same second-floor space. His list of private tokers and smokers has since grown by the hundreds, he says.

Before the pot law, business was failing. Now it's risen 40%.

Schnarr's move caught officials from the Washington State Liquor Control Board by surprise. The law forbids pot smoking in public taverns because the scientific research remains fuzzy on the health effects of the double-whammy of alcohol and marijuana, they say.

Dustin, left, and Paul of Tacoma, Wash., both of whom declined to give their last names, share a water pipe beneath the Seattle Space Needle the day a law legalizing the recreational use of marijuana took effect on Dec. 6, 2012. (Stephen Brashear / Getty Images) More photos

"He's a bit of a thorn in our side," board member Chris Marr said of Schnarr. "But you have to admire his entrepreneurial spirit."

Marr says the state plans to consult lawyers to stop patrons from getting high in Schnarr's bar, which is down the street from the board's headquarters. But the bar owner's challenge has given the board pause.

"Are we doing the right thing?" Marr asked. "Should we restrict the public-place consumption of pot when we don't do the same thing for alcohol?"

Legal experts warn that the weed-smoking tiff could be repeated elsewhere.

"There are going to be more Frankies out there," said Jonathan Caulkins, a drug policy research expert and coauthor of the book "Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know." "The free market is a very creative place. Any rule you come up with, entrepreneurs will find a way around it."

Schnarr says he has a personal reason to challenge state law: He wants to leave behind a thriving business for his wife, Cheri. He points to his chest, describing his multiple heart attacks and stents, his replaced valves and diabetes. He knows his time could be fleeting.

He has no choice but to take on the authorities, he says. "I'll find every loophole I can. If it's legal, I'll do it."

He looks up, as though seeking divine inspiration.

"Hell, if they legalized prostitution, I'd build a third floor up top and have ladies working out of there faster than anybody's business."

Southwick claims he's found a veritable pot smoker's paradise. His days of sneaking to the parking lot to "burn a fatty" with the boys are over.

A T-shirt is displayed at the first day of Hempfest in Seattle this month. Thousands packed the city's waterfront park for the opening of a three-day marijuana festival that was part party, part protest and part victory celebration after the legalization of pot in Washington and Colorado last fall. (Elaine Thompson / Associated Press) More photos

"I'm home," he said, snuggling with his girlfriend in a worn leather booth. "It's like I'm back in my basement — listening to music, playing pool, drinking, firing up the occasional bowl. Except I'm out in public. Who ever thought we'd see this day?"

Everything about Schnarr's bar is eye-catching, cartoonish. Its outdoor facade sports a portrait of a Fred Flintstone character holding a club along with the words: Man Cave.

The second floor is a sports lover's paradise, a 6,000-square-foot room that's twice as big as the public bar downstairs. More than 30 members move from one participatory sports game to the next. Others stare at a dozen TV screens, one of them just above a beer poster advertising "the High Life." Bartenders answer the phone "Frankie's upstairs."

Placards warn patrons that there are limits on the amount and chemical strength of the pot, and a ban on all sales on the premises.

Schnarr says he's always on the lookout for the paranoid and overindulgent. "If I see people with a bowl trying to get stupid, I'll be like 'Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!' I'll boot 'em out of here pronto."

He describes the first time he felt the woozy effects of marijuana on his brain — while in the Army in the 1960s. He was leading a truck convoy in Southeast Asia when the men fled into a bunker to avoid enemy fire.

Someone handed him a smoke. He inhaled. Deeply.

Later, Schnarr staggered back to his truck. "A guy said, 'Are you going to take the convoy?' And I said, 'I can't make any decisions right now. I'm too light-headed. I'm too relaxed.'"

Schnarr insists he's never smoked marijuana again.

EPA might have used private emails to avoid FOIA

And of course that is why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment. So when our government masters refuse to obey the Constitution that we can do something about it.

Source

Judge: EPA might have used private emails to avoid FOIA

By The Associated Press

Published: Thursday, August 15, 2013, 7:33 p.m.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge said the Environmental Protection Agency's use of personal email accounts may have been aimed at skirting public disclosure requirements.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled on Wednesday that a conservative public interest law firm, the Landmark Legal Foundation, can question and obtain records from EPA officials as part of the firm's Freedom of Information lawsuit against the federal agency. The judge granted Landmark the right to seek the information to determine whether top EPA officials used personal email accounts to conduct official business — and whether the agency initially excluded those accounts from Landmark's Freedom of Information request.

“The possibility that unsearched personal email accounts may have been used for official business raises the possibility that leaders in the EPA may have purposefully attempted to skirt disclosure under the FOIA,” Lamberth wrote.

He said the possibility that the agency purposefully excluded the top leaders of the EPA from the FOIA search, at least initially, “suggests an unreasonable and bad faith reading of Landmark's FOIA request and subsequent agreement to narrow its scope.”

In the lawsuit last year, the foundation asked for any records that indicated the EPA was delaying the announcement of new environmental regulations until after the 2012 presidential election.

In June, The Associated Press reported that some top Obama administration officials were using secret government accounts to conduct official business. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has said the practice undermines congressional oversight and complicates access to records under FOIA.

Late last year, some EPA critics accused former Administrator Lisa Jackson of using an email account under the name “Richard Windsor” to sidestep disclosure rules. The EPA said emails Jackson sent using her Windsor alias were turned over under open records requests. That email account is an EPA.gov email address, not a personal one.

The EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

Cops pose as horny young girls who want to have sex with old men

Jesus, don't these cops have any real criminals to hunt down????

This sounds like a huge waste of our tax dollars.

Paying cops to spend hours on the web pretending to be an imaginary hot, horny, beautiful, 15 year old girl who loves to have sex with old men.

Source

2 men arrested for luring a minor in northern Ariz. sting

By Matthew Longdon The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Wed Aug 7, 2013 7:38 PM

Two men are behind bars in northern Arizona after separate attempts to lure for sex a member of the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office posing as a young girl online, authorities said.

Deputies arrested Ken Roberts, 60, of Tucson, on Aug. 2 upon his arrival at a hotel in Cottonwood where he agreed to meet who he thought was a young girl, according to a Sheriff’s Office statement.

The Sheriff’s Office said Roberts first met the person posing as the girl on a social networking site in July and sent her pictures of his genitalia, face and underwear he bought for her.

Deputies said they arrested Kai Keller, 30, of Cottonwood. after a similar encounter July 19. Keller made contact with who he thought was a young girl online a few days before his arrest and mentioned having a recent sexual encounter with another 15-year-old.

Authorities said Keller was arrested at the place he agreed to meet the deputy posing as a young girl. He told deputies it was good thing they arrested him before he could hurt a young girl, the Sheriff’s Office said.

Both men were booked into the Camp Verde Detention Center and are each being held on a $50,000 bond.

Sanjay Gupta: the DEA is a bunch of liars about marijuana???

"Gupta said he had mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency had sound scientific proof when it placed marijuana in the category of the most dangerous drugs"

"I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof"

Source

Sanjay Gupta: I was wrong about weed

By Alia E. Dastagir USA TODAY Thu Aug 8, 2013 3:29 PM

Sanjay Gupta is apologizing for "misleading" the American public on weed.

CNN's chief medical correspondent, whose documentary Weed airs on CNN this Sunday, said he was wrong about the effects of the drug.

"I have apologized for some of the earlier reporting because I think, you know, we've been terribly and systematically misled in this country for some time," Gupta told Piers Morgan on CNN Wednesday night. "And I did part of that misleading."

Gupta has spoken out against the use of medical marijuana in the past, including penning a TIME magazine article in 2009 titled, Why I Would Vote No on Pot.

In an op-ed that appeared on CNN's website Thursday, Why I Changed My Mind on Weed, Gupta said he had mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency had sound scientific proof when it placed marijuana in the category of the most dangerous drugs:

"I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't look far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.

Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have 'no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse.' "

Gupta says he hopes his upcoming documentary will help set the record straight on medical marijuana.

27 arrested in Ariz. drug, firearms investigation

That is followed by people in Federal prison for victimless firearm possession crime.

I attached a graph from the Feds on the percent of people in prison for crimes and again most people are in federal prison for victimless drug war crimes, followed b victimless firearms crimes.

Source

27 arrested in Ariz. drug, firearms investigation

Associated Press Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:18 AM

KINGMAN — Dozens of law-enforcement officers went to locations throughout Mohave County Thursday morning to arrest 27 people sought on arrest warrants alleging drugs and firearms crimes.

The arrests are a result of a seven-month undercover operation conducted by the Mohave Area General Narcotics Enforcement Team and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

ATF Special Agent Thomas Magnan says many of the arrests are being made in the Kingman area.

Magnan says many of the alleged firearms violations are for sawed-off shotguns and felons being in possession of firearms. According to Magnan, the drug violations deal primarily with methamphetamine.

Magnan says the 12 arrests made by mid-morning were without incident.

Remember the cops read your web pages and twitter posts

Bay Area prosecutors increasingly using social media posts in criminal cases

By Matthias Gafni and David DeBolt

Contra Costa Times

Posted: 08/16/2013 05:36:57 PM PDT

PLEASANTON -- A teenage driver originally accused of vehicular manslaughter now faces a murder charge in the death of a bicyclist, partly because prosecutors say he bragged on Twitter about driving dangerously.

His case is part of a growing trend of social media posts being used as evidence against suspects, authorities said Friday.

Cody Hall, 18, was originally charged with felony vehicular manslaughter in the death of 58-year-old Diana Hersevoort, of Dublin. But this week, prosecutors raised that felony count to murder, in part, they said, due to his Twitter feed.

Hall was allegedly traveling at 83 mph -- more than double the speed limit -- on Foothill Road, near Golden Eagle Way, in Pleasanton when he lost control and struck Hersevoort and her husband, who suffered a broken bone, authorities said.

Prosecutors did not describe specific posts, just the Twitter feed in general, in increasing the charge. An attorney for Hall could not be reached Thursday.

As suspects feel compelled to post their misdeeds online for audiences to see, investigators have taken advantage, using the online quasi-confessions to bolster their cases, Bay Area prosecutors said.

In San Francisco, a cyclist in March fatally struck a 71-year-old pedestrian in a crosswalk after speeding through three red lights in the Castro District. Chris Bucchere, who eventually pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter, received a stiffer charge after he posted his explanation of the crash on a cycling group's website.

Hall is scheduled to appear in Alameda County Superior Court on Monday for a bail motion hearing.

Authorities said they considered Hall's Twitter feed, his driving history and his speeding on the day of the fatal crash when deciding to upgrade the charge to murder.

More commonly, murder charges have been filed in fatal crashes against suspects who recklessly flee police or against intoxicated drivers with prior DUI convictions, said Brian Welch, supervisor of the homicide unit of the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. Prosecutors must show "implied malice," meaning the defendant engaged in an intentional and unlawful act and did so with disregard for human life, to prove a murder charge, he said.

In this case, it appears the Twitter feed will serve as a "pre-offense statement," not unlike an email, text message or handwritten note to bolster the prosecution's theory of implied malice, Welch said.

"The challenge in these situations is proving that your defendant is the person who posted the statement," he said.

Contra Costa County prosecutor Derek Butts said that verification takes some common-sense gumshoe work, often made easier when defendants send photos of themselves or reveal details only known by them.

Butts prosecuted a Richmond gang murder case in which he used subpoenas to get MySpace messages posted by various gang members in which they discussed criminal activity openly with each other and taunted other gang members. One MySpace account revealed an email from one gang member to another telling him to watch the nightly news because it was featuring a shooting he committed.

"It affects a case greatly," Butts said. "It can be damaging evidence."

So why are criminals compelled to post their own malevolence? It depends, said Butts, but for some it's like a terrorist group claiming responsibility for an act of violence.

"When you're a part of a gang, it's important for people to know how bad a guy you are," Butts said. "You don't secretly whack a gang member, because what's the point of that? They want people to know they did it so people won't mess with their neighborhood."

Contact Matthias Gafni at 925-952-5026. Follow him at Twitter.com/mgafni.

Kyrsten Sinema isn't a worse crook then the rest of Congress???

Last but not least Neil B. Johnson forgot to say that when Kyrsten Sinema was a member of the Arizona legislator she tried to flush Arizona's Medical marijuana law down the toilet by introducing a bill that would have slapped a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana.

Source

Recall is part of representation

Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:16 PM

I wish to make two points regarding the attempted recall of Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. (“Man seeking recall of Sinema over NSA vote,” Valley & State, Sunday).

A representative represents the people of his or her district and he or she should be subject to recall as a matter of law.

It doesn’t make sense that the people who elect a person to represent them cannot recall that person if the people determine that the person no longer represents them.

If the people were to recall every representative whose vote violated the Constitution, I daresay that virtually every member of the Senate and Congress would have to be recalled.

And the president, too.

— Neil B. Johnson, Glendale

Gun Safe - 300 pounds of marijuana

Ohio Man Orders Empty Gun Safe, Finds 300 Pounds of Pot Inside

By Kami Dimitrova | ABC News Blogs – 8 hours ago

An Ohio man expected the gun safe he ordered online to be empty, police said.

But instead, he found $425,000-worth of tightly wrapped marijuana bricks inside.

"I've been in law enforcement for 47 years and I've never seen anything like this," Shelby County, Ohio, Sheriff John L. Lenhart said. "It's quite effective if you think about it: wrapped airtight to withstand high temperatures. Drug-sniffing dogs probably couldn't smell it."

It turned out the gun safes were manufactured by Champion Safe Co. in Nogales, Mexico, packaged by local inmates and shipped north, police said.

"Someplace between Mexico and the warehouse in Northern Ohio, the drugs got mixed up and put in the wrong safe and got delivered to the wrong person," Lenhart said.

Police hope to question a driver for Conway Inc., the truck company they said Champion hired to move the 25 to 30 gun safes to a warehouse in Ohio for local distribution. But they have not been able to find the driver, officials said.

"Not only are we looking for him," Lenhart said, "but the bad guys are, too."

That could be a problem for whoever screwed up the shipment, police said, but not for the anonymous northern Ohio man who, in early June, found 10 bales of pot tightly bound inside the safe he had ordered for $1,700. Police believe the man who got the 1,000-pound, 6-foot-tall safe had nothing to do with the drug shipment and was only expecting to find an empty space where he could store 24 long rifles and a dozen shotguns.

The shipping method has drawn the interest of the DEA because evidence suggests that this may not be the first time sealed gun safes have been used as smuggling portals, police said.

"You just spent $1,700 to get marijuana delivered wherever you want," said Shelby County Chief Deputy Jim Frye. "That's pretty cheap."

Police will keep the case open for an extended period of time, focusing on notifying jurisdictions that could have a hand in solving the case.

ABC News reached out to Champion Safe Co. and Conway Inc. for comment, but received no response.

Mexico’s new government follows old drug war strategy

I bet it's because of all that cold hard CASH the American government gives to Mexico to carry our OUR war on drugs.

"Before leaving office, Calderon repeatedly touted the fact that his forces had captured 25 of Mexico’s 37 most-wanted drug lords, a strategy backed by the U.S. government with hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and close cooperation with American law-enforcement, military and intelligence agencies"

Source

Mexico’s new gov’t follows old drug war strategy

Associated Press Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:36 PM

MEXICO CITY — With the capture of two top drug lords in little more than a month, the new government of President Enrique Pena Nieto is following an old strategy it has openly criticized for causing more violence and crime.

Mario Armando Ramirez Trevino, a top leader of Mexico’s Gulf Cartel, was detained Saturday in a military operation near the Texas border, just weeks after the arrest of the leader of the brutal Zetas cartel near another border city, Nuevo Laredo.

Interior Secretary Miguel Angel Osorio Chong came to his post last December saying the strategy of former President Felipe Calderon to focus on cartel leadership only made the drug gangs more dangerous. The new administration, he said, would focus less on leadership and more on reducing violence.

Yet the new strategy appears almost identical to the old. The captures of Ramirez and top Zeta Miguel Angel Trevino Morales could cause a new spike in violence with battles for leadership of Mexico’s two major cartels.

“The strategy of the military is exactly the same,” Raul Benitez, a security expert at Mexico’s National Autonomous University, said Sunday. “It’s not a failure of the new government. It’s the reality they face … Changing strategy is a very slow process. In the short term, you have to act against the drug-trafficking leaders.”

Ramirez, a drug boss in Reynosa, across the border from McAllen, Texas, had been vying to take over the cartel since the arrest of the Gulf’s top capo, Jorge Eduardo Costilla Sanchez, alias “El Coss,” last September. Some say he succeeded by reportedly killing his main Gulf rival, Miguel Villarreal, known as “Gringo Mike,” in a gunbattle in March. Villarreal’s death is still disputed by some.

The U.S. State Department also offered a reward of $5 million for the capture of Ramirez for several federal drug violations.

He was taken down during a major military offensive that involved air and ground forces in Rio Bravo, according to the Tamaulipas state government.

The once-powerful Gulf Cartel still controls most of the cocaine and marijuana trafficking through the Matamoros corridor across the border from Brownsville, Texas, and has an international reach into Central America and beyond. But the cartel has been plagued by infighting since Costilla’s arrest, while also being under attack in its home territory by its former security arm, the Zetas.

The split is blamed for much of the violence in Reynosa, where there have been regular, public shootouts between Gulf factions and authorities in the last six months. The factions are willing to fight for the largest piece of the lucrative business of transporting illegal drugs to the biggest market, the United States. Mexico continues to be the No. 1 foreign supplier of marijuana and methamphetamines to the U.S. An estimated 93 percent of South American cocaine headed to the U.S. travels through Mexico, according to 2010 FBI statistics.

Before leaving office, Calderon repeatedly touted the fact that his forces had captured 25 of Mexico’s 37 most-wanted drug lords, a strategy backed by the U.S. government with hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and close cooperation with American law-enforcement, military and intelligence agencies.

With that strategy, Osorio Chong said, “we have moved from a scheme of vertical leadership to a horizontal one that has made them more violent and much more dangerous.”

The new government also said it was going to limit the widespread and casual access that U.S. agents had to Mexican forces under Calderon.

But security analysts agree that close cooperation between the Mexican military and the U.S. continues along the border, despite messages from Mexico City. The coordinated efforts to track and capture Zeta leader Trevino had started under Calderon and continued, said George Grayson, a College of William & Mary professor who has written extensively on the Gulf and Zetas cartels.

“Enrique Pena Nieto would really like to not be going after capos,” Grayson said Sunday. “He wants to change the agenda. He doesn’t want the headlines to be about capos. But the situation in Morelos and Michoacan (states), and now the takedowns in the north have kept the capos on the front pages.”

Violence also continues in the western state of Michoacan near the border of Jalisco state, where two other cartels fight for territory.

The administration tactic again has mirrored that of Calderon, sending more troops and federal police to try to regain control of the region, so far with little result.

Nine bodies, hands bound and shot, were found on an abandoned property near the town of Buenavista Tomatlan in Michoacan on Saturday. At least 23 bodies in total were found, counting those in neighboring Guerrero state, where drug cartels, vigilantes and security forces also have been fighting for much of the year.

Meanwhile, the Pena Nieto government continues to say its focus is on crime prevention to bring down violence. But there is very little evidence so far.

“It’s a campaign slogan, a political discourse designed to convince the public,” Benitez said. “They’re giving very few resources to the prevention campaign.”

Navy changes how alcohol is sold on-base

Source

Navy changes how alcohol is sold on-base

By Brock Vergakis Associated Press Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:04 AM

NAVAL STATION NORFOLK, Va. — On the world’s largest naval base, sailors can pull into a gas station and buy a bottle of liquor before sunrise.

But as the Navy works to curb alcohol abuse in a push reduce sexual assaults and other crimes, the days of picking up a bottle of Kahlua along with a cup of coffee are coming to an end.

The Navy’s top admiral has ordered a series of changes to the way the Navy sells booze. Chief among them, the Navy will stop selling liquor at its mini marts and prohibit the sale of alcohol at any of its stores from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

“It’s not going to fix everything, but it is a real step in the right direction,” said David Jernigan, Johns Hopkins University’s director of the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth. “Historically, the military, as elsewhere, has viewed these problems as individual problems to be dealt with by identifying the individual with the problem. While that’s important, the research shows it’s much more effective actually to look at it as a population problem and to deal with things that are affecting everybody across the population.”

The changes are the latest addition to a broader, long-standing alcohol education and awareness program that appears to have had some success. Throughout the Navy, the number of alcohol-related criminal offenses dropped from 5,950 in the 2007 fiscal year to 4,216 in the 2012 fiscal year. The number of DUI offenses dropped from 2,025 to 1,218 during that same period, according to Navy Personnel Command.

Liquor will still be sold on U.S. bases at a discount of up to 10 percent for what it can be bought at in a civilian store, but sales will be limited to dedicated package stores or exchanges that sell a wide variety of items.

At Naval Station Norfolk, the main exchange is comparable to a small shopping mall that sells clothing, electronics and jewelry, among other things, at a discount. At smaller naval bases, the exchanges aren’t as sprawling but still often have the feel of big-box retail. While hours at those stores vary, most open at 9 a.m. close by 9 p.m.

The Navy’s minimarts at the Norfolk base currently start selling liquor as early as 5 a.m. That’s five hours earlier than people can buy at Virginia’s state-run ABC stores off-base that are typically open from from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays.

Jernigan said a growing preference among young people for distilled spirits over beer and wine means the Navy’s moves could be particularly helpful.

“But that said, alcohol is alcohol, so reducing the availability of one kind is a step in the right direction, but you can certainly get just as impaired from drinking beer and wine as you can from distilled spirits,” he said.

In the 2012 fiscal year, the Navy reported $91.9 million in distilled spirits sales, compared with $39.3 million in wine and $62.3 million in beer. The Navy uses 70 percent of the profits from its sales of alcoholic and non-alcoholic products to support morale, welfare and recreation programs.

Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert also ordered the exchanges to display alcohol only in the rear of its stores. The new rules are set to take effect by mid-October.

Greenert’s order on alcohol sales was issued the same day in late July the Navy unveiled other initiatives to battle sexual assaults that range from hiring more criminal investigators to installing better lighting on bases.

The effort follows a Pentagon report, released in May, that estimates as many as 26,000 service members may have been sexually assaulted last year.

Alcohol is often involved. In a survey, 55 percent of Navy women said they or the offender had consumed alcohol before unwanted sexual contact.

Navy officials have stressed they’re not trying to keep sailors from drinking, but they want them to do so responsibly.

The Navy is already giving many sailors random alcohol-detection tests when they report for duty, and soon the devices will be found on store shelves for personal use. The single-use product will sell for $1.99.

Jernigan suggested the Navy may want to eliminate its discounts on alcohol — just as it recently did with tobacco — if it wants to make further strides.

Not all sailors think the new rules will help.

“If people are going to drink, they’re still going to buy it wherever,” Seaman Bryan Free said after buying a bottle of vodka from a Naval Station Norfolk gas station. “So if they take it out of here, it’s not going to do nothing because they’re going to go to the package store right out of base. That’s usually where everybody gets it. So it doesn’t really matter.”

Most of the Navy’s large bases are in urban areas with plenty of convenience and grocery stores nearby.

And in the Navy, on-base housing options are typically limited, leading Free and other sailors commute to work rather than living in barracks.

Robert Parker, a University of California at Riverside sociology professor who has studied the links between alcohol and crime, said restricting on-base alcohol sales should help even if there are places to buy it nearby.

“If you make something like alcohol harder to get, you restrict the hours, you restrict the places it can be bought, then generally consumption goes down in that community or that area because people have a lot of things to do in addition to buying alcohol,” Parker said. “There will be some individuals that will be determined no matter what, and they’ll travel 100 miles to buy a six pack, but most people won’t do that.

Politicians send granny to prison???

Source

Graying Prisoners

By JAMIE FELLNER

Published: August 18, 2013

MORE and more United States prisons resemble nursing homes with bars, where the elderly and infirm eke out shrunken lives. Prison isn’t easy for anyone, but it is especially punishing for those afflicted by the burdens of old age. Yet the old and the very old make up the fastest-growing segment of the prison population.

Today, the New York State Board of Parole is scheduled to decide whether to give medical parole to Anthony D. Marshall, who was convicted of stealing from his mother, Brooke Astor. Mr. Marshall is 89 and suffers from Parkinson’s and congestive heart failure. His lawyers say he cannot stand or dress himself. He is one of at least 26,100 men and women 65 and older incarcerated in state and federal prisons, up 62 percent in just five years.

Owing largely to decades of tough-on-crime policies — mandatory minimum sentences, “three strikes” laws and the elimination of federal parole — these numbers are likely to increase as more and more prisoners remain incarcerated into their 70s and 80s, many until they die.

I try to imagine my 90-year-old father in prison. His body and mind whittled by age, he shuffles, takes a painful eternity to get up from a chair and forgets the names of his grandchildren.

How would he fare climbing in and out of an upper bunk bed? Would he remember where his cell was in the long halls of many prisons? How would his brittle bones cope with a thin mattress and blanket in a cold cell in winter, or his weak heart with the summer heat. If he had an “accident,” would someone help him clean up? Unlike Mr. Marshall, some older inmates committed violent crimes, and there are people who think such prisoners should leave prison only “in a pine box.”

Anger, grief and the desire for retribution are understandable, and we can all agree that people who commit serious crimes should be held accountable. But retribution can shade into vengeance. While being old should not be an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card, infirmity and illness can change the calculus of what justice requires.

It is worth asking: What do we as a society get from keeping these people in prison? People like the 87-year-old I met who had an “L” painted on his left shoe and an “R” on his right so he would know which was which and who didn’t even seem to know he was in prison. Or the old men I watched play bingo in a prison day room who needed staff members to put the markers on the bingo cards for them.

Attorney General Eric Holder gave his answer to this question on Aug. 12 when he announced new compassionate release policies for the Bureau of Prisons. Elderly and infirm federal prisoners who have served a significant part of their sentence and pose no danger will now be eligible for early release.

Recidivism studies consistently show declining rates of crime with age. Those who are bedridden or in wheelchairs are not likely to go on crime sprees. The scores of older prisoners I have met want to spend their remaining time with their families; they are coming to terms with mortality, regret their past crimes and hope, if time permits, to make amends.

Keeping the elderly and infirm in prison is extraordinarily costly. Annual medical costs for older prisoners range from three to nine times higher than those for younger ones, because, as in the general population, older people behind bars have high rates of chronic disease and infirmities and require more hospitalizations and medical care.

I have talked with dozens of correctional staff members who acknowledge that officers are not trained to manage geriatric prisoners. Nor are there enough of them to give the extra attention such prisoners may need — to ensure they take their medications, find their way to their cell, are clean if they are incontinent.

So what can be done? Compassionate release and medical parole programs exist in many prison systems, but they are poorly used and often exclude people who committed violent crimes or sex offenses even if those people are no longer able to repeat such crimes.

If the programs were properly devised and used, some aging prisoners could go back to their families. Others could be released to nursing homes or assisted-living facilities — although it is increasingly difficult to find private facilities that will take former prisoners. States and the federal government should also jettison laws requiring mandatory sentences that condemn offenders to old age in prison, without regard to whether they pose a threat to the public or have the potential for rehabilitation.

If we aren’t willing to change sentencing laws or make more use of compassionate release, we’ll need to pour vast sums of money into prisons to provide adequate conditions of care for the soaring population of geriatric prisoners.

That means investing in special training for correction officers; in round-the-clock medical care; in retrofitting buildings, wheelchair-accessible cells and bathrooms; in units with lower bunks and no stairs; and in increased hospice care for the terminally ill.

But do we really want to go that route? In the case of frail and incapacitated prisoners who can safely be released to spend what remains of their lives under supervised parole, release is a far more compassionate, sensible course.

Jamie Fellner is a senior adviser at Human Rights Watch, focusing on criminal justice in the United States.

Blacks and mentally ill make up bulk of San Francisco jail inmates

This article is from the Aug 20, 2013 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle which is at http://sfgate.com

The JavaScript on the web page kept locking up my computer so I gave up trying to grab the URL.

SFGate

Tuesday Aug 20, 2013 8:32 AM PT

African Americans and mentally ill make up bulk of city jail inmates

Just 6 percent of San Franciscans are African American, yet 56 percent of jail inmates are black, according to a city report issued last week.

By contrast, around 42 percent of city residents are white, but the group accounts for 22 percent of jail residents.

And the percentage of inmates with mental health needs has risen sharply over the past five years, from 56 percent in 2008 to 71 percent today.

The numbers come from a report, issued by the San Francisco Controller’s office, examining the jail systems’ future needs as the city embarks on a plan to rebuild the jail housed at the Hall of Justice. But the paper also offers some interesting insights into the demographics of the city’s most troubled populations.

In all, there are about 1,550 people currently in San Francisco jails, 91 percent of them men. The average age is 36; three-quarters of the inmates are from San Francisco.

“Younger adults are the most likely age group to be incarcerated,” the report states. “In San Francisco, 52 percent of inmates are between the ages of 18 and 35 … in addition, the jail population is disproportionately African American … African Americans age 18 to 25 constitute the largest demographic group in jail, accounting for 16 percent of the total inmates population.”

Overall, San Francsico has seen a sharp drop in its jail population in recent years, from around 2,000 in 2008 to around 1,500 today, a 25 percent decrease. Meanwhile, violent crimes are down 21 percent, property crimes are down 10 percent and overall criminal court filings have dropped 41 percent during that time period.

But the Sheriff’s Department is dealing with a larger percentage of mentally ill inmates, according to the report.

“While the number of inmates with mental health needs has declined since 2008, the percentage of the jail population with mental health needs has increased significantly,” the report states. “This trend may indicate that as the total jail population declines, those individuals that remain in jail have more serious needs.”

Politicians love marijuana because it gives them a license to steal????

Source

Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:07 PM EDT

Colorado's marijuana industry: Legal, not cheap

DENVER (AP) -- Want to be in the legal pot industry in Colorado? Open your checkbook.

Colorado's pot regulators opened three days of hearings Tuesday to lay out licensing specifics before retail sales begin in January.

The proposed rules require would-be "ganjapreneurs" to pay up to $5,000 just to apply to be in the recreational pot business. Operational licenses cost another $2,750 to $14,000.

Successful applicants must also pass a gauntlet of criminal background checks and residency requirements.

The result is expected to be an industry that will have as much red tape as green leaves. Colorado is trying to show it can strictly regulate and control a drug that has been operating in the shadows for decades, despite the advent of medical marijuana more than a decade ago.

Officials say steep application fees are needed to properly screen marijuana workers, checking fingerprints and checking for recent drug felons and people with possible ties to criminal drug cartels. [That's 100 percent bullsh*t!!!]

Colorado will also be screening future marijuana businesses to make sure no owners live out of state, a requirement set forth by state lawmakers earlier this year. The residency requirements — which apply from owners all the way down to so-called "bud-tenders" who man the counters and measure out marijuana — are a holdover from Colorado's existing medical marijuana industry.

The hefty operational license fees, according to state officials, are needed to pay for enforcement of the nascent industry. Plans call for an ambitious seed-to-sale tracking system in which Colorado will require video surveillance of all plants as they grow and are prepared, packaged and sold to customers.

The Department of Revenue aimed to use seed-to-sale tracking for Colorado's medical marijuana business, but the agency ran out of money before getting the program fully operational. The Department doesn't plan to make the same mistake twice, so operational fees are high. Retail stores will have to pay $3,750 to $14,000 a year, depending on their size. Growers will pay $2,750 a year.

Retail pot stores will also have to submit detailed floor plans to show they're meeting security requirements. They'll have to get surety bonds to ensure contract completion in the event of contractor default.

Once the retail stores clear all the tests for state licensing, they're not done yet. Local governments can add their own layers of specialized licensing and zoning requirements, taking up to a year to review applications for would-be recreational pot shops. Local governments can also ban the retail sale of marijuana altogether, as many have already opted to do.

___

Kristen Wyatt can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/APkristenwyatt @yahoofinance on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years

While Bradley Manning is guilty as hell of all the charges, the jury should have voted to acquit him.

Sure he committed a few victimless crimes, but he only did it to expose even worse crimes our government masters have committed.

The same goes for Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. They are all freedom fighters who should be given medals, not time in prison.

The real criminals are the members of the US Congress, the US Senate and Presidents Obama and Bush who allowed the American government to flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet and turn Amerika into a police state.

Source

Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years

By Julie Tate, Updated: Wednesday, August 21, 8:17 AM E-mail the writer

A military judge on Wednesday morning sentenced Army Pfc. Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.

Manning, 25, was convicted last month of multiple charges, including violations of the Espionage Act for copying and disseminating the documents while serving as an intelligence analyst at a forward operating base in Iraq. He faced up to 90 years in prison.

Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg says Bradley Manning did not deserve any prison time.

Manning is required to serve one-third of the sentence, minus three and half years of time served, before he is eligible for parole. That will be in eight years when he is 33.

Judge Denise Lind, an Army colonel, said Manning was dishonorably discharged. He was also reduced in rank and forfeits all pay.

Manning stood at attention, flanked by his attorneys, to hear the verdict with his aunt, Debra Van Alstyne, sitting behind him. He did not appear to react when the sentence was read.

As Manning was escorted out of the packed courtroom, more than half a dozen supporters shouted out to him, “We’ll keep fighting for you, Bradley! You’re our hero!”

The decision was immediately condemned by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system,” said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

The government had asked the judge to sentence Manning to 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing classified information,” said Capt. Joe Morrow, a military prosecutor. “National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.”

Defense lawyer David Coombs portrayed Manning as a well-intentioned but isolated soldier with gender identification issues, and he asked Lind to impose “a sentence that allows him to have a life.”

“He cares about human life,” said Coombs as the sentencing phase of the court-martial at Fort Meade ended last week. “His biggest crime was he cared about the loss of life he was seeing and was struggling with it.”

Manning also addressed the court and apologized for his actions, saying he was “sorry that I hurt the United States.”

Manning will receive a credit of 1,293 days for the time he has been confined prior to the sentence, including 112 days of credit for abusive treatment he was subjected to in the brig at the Quantico Marine Base.

Manning transmitted the first documents to WikiLeaks in February 2010, sending what came to be known as the Iraq and Afghanistan “War Logs” — field reports from across both theaters. Manning’s lawyers said he had become disillusioned by what he was seeing in Iraq and hoped that the public release of the secret material would prompt greater public understanding of the wars.

Manning established a relationship online with a person who is thought to be Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. As their personal correspondence deepened, Manning continued to transmit more material, including assessments of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and an enormous cache of diplomatic cables. He also leaked a video that showed a U.S. Apache helicopter in Baghdad opening fire on a group of Iraqis, including two journalists and children, that the helicopter crew believed to be insurgents.

According to his lawyers, Manning became more and more stressed in Iraq, wrestling with his sexuality and the breakup of a relationship. At one point, in April 2010, he sent an e-mail to a superior with the subject line “My Problem” and a photo of himself wearing a blond wig and lipstick.

On May 7, Manning was found on the floor of a supply room with a knife at his feet. After some brief counseling, he was returned to his workstation. Later that same day, he struck a fellow soldier and was removed permanently from the secure environment where he worked.

Following these events, Manning boasted to hacker Adrian Lamo that he had been working with WikiLeaks. After engaging Manning for several days, Lamo informed Army investigators and the FBI about the breach of information and provided them with his chat logs with Manning.

Manning was arrested in Iraq on May 27, 2010.

Legal proceedings against Manning began in December 2011 and, in February of this year, Manning pleaded guilty to 10 lesser included charges. The trial portion of the proceedings began June 3, and on July 30, Lind found Manning guilty of 20 of the 22 charges he faced.

U.S. helping hook smokers overseas

And will I think ALL drugs should be legal, I certainly am not encouraging people to use drugs for recreational uses.

Source

How a secretive trade deal could help American tobacco companies hook new smokers

By Lydia DePillis, Published: August 21 at 9:00 am

Pretty soon, if U.S. representatives negotiating a secretive trade deal get their way, tariffs on tobacco in poor Asian countries will sink to zero — and those countries will have a hard time protecting their citizens against a tidal wave of cheaper cigarettes.

Over several decades, the U.S. has relentlessly fought tobacco use. Anti-smoking ad campaigns, prominent warning labels, smoking bans and high taxes have had their desired effect: The smoking rate has been dropping for decades and this year reached a new low of 18 percent among people over age 18.

Now, the U.S. is pushing to help tobacco companies find new customers overseas, by allowing them easier access to developing countries in Asia through a sweeping trade deal that would make it more difficult for countries to pass the kinds of laws that reduced smoking in the U.S.

“If those markets are transformed, you are going to see an epidemic of enormous proportions among those least prepared to pay for it,” says Greg Connolly, director of the Center for Global Tobacco Control at Harvard. “We’re basically turning around and siding with the actual agents of that disease, and enhancing their ability to claim a billion lives in a century.”

Screen Shot 2013-08-20 at 1.26.03 AM

The world’s four biggest cigarette manufacturers — Altria (formerly Philip Morris), British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco and R.J. Reynolds — have been looking to new markets to offset their domestic losses for decades. During the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. trade officials were a big help, negotiating bilateral measures that helped pry open markets for American companies. Smoking rates soared, to the point of shaming Congress into banning U.S. agency personnel from promoting tobacco sales, which President Bill Clinton extended by executive order in 2001.

That didn’t stop the tobacco companies, though. When other nations try to take steps such as limiting marketing to children and banning flavored cigarettes, Philip Morris and the others complain to the World Trade Organization that the country’s actions unfairly discriminate against imported goods, as the WHO documented in a report last year. For example, there are currently cases pending against Uruguay and Australia over their decisions to require cigarettes to be sold in either completely generic or very prominently labeled packaging.

President George W. Bush strengthened the companies’ hand by refusing to join the WHO’s key international agreement on tobacco control and lobbying to weaken some of its key provisions, allowing international sales to take off: The trajectory of Philip Morris' sales--with international in pink and domestic in blue. (Source: Philip Morris annual reports, collected by the Harvard School of Public Health)

The trajectory of Philip Morris’ sales–with international in pink and domestic in blue. (Source: Philip Morris annual reports, collected by the Harvard School of Public Health)

President Obama was expected to help stem the flow of tobacco into developing countries with the Trans Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement that’s been in clandestine negotiations for three years now. Last May, the U.S. Trade Representative outlined a tobacco proposal that would have recognized the uniquely harmful status of the substance and created a “safe harbor” for countries to regulate it within their borders. Public health advocates including Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) applauded the step, while voicing hope that it might be strengthened even further.

The proposal didn’t get far, however, before facing an intense opposition campaign from companies and tobacco state legislators. They’re backed supported by a U.S. business establishment that doesn’t want to see exceptions created for any products on public health grounds, fearing that junk food could be next.

“Nowhere have they said publicly that they think their initial position was mistaken,” says Robert Stumberg, director of Georgetown University’s Harrison Institute for Public Law, of the U.S. trade negotiators. “What they’ve done instead is refer to the criticisms from industry, which is they are creating a precedent that would lead to a slippery slope… Everybody knows that tobacco is the vanguard for control of non-communicable diseases. If they can defend tobacco, they can defend themselves.”

Finally, on Friday the U.S. Trade Representative briefed Stumberg and a group of about a dozen other academics and nonprofits on a change in policy, reported simultaneously by Inside U.S. Trade, that would add steps for countries to justify restrictions on tobacco sales and get rid of the “safe harbor” against trade-related lawsuits. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids slammed the reversal:

The new USTR proposal does not recognize tobacco as a uniquely harmful product or provide a safe harbor for nations to regulate in order to reduce tobacco use, as the initial proposal would have done. The new proposal states the obvious – that tobacco control measures involve public health – and then directs public health officials from the countries that are party to the trade agreement to consult each other before launching tobacco-related trade challenges.

The new plan preserves the status quo, which allows tobacco companies to sue countries over their public health measures on the grounds that they violate free trade rules.

But it also strengthens it: The Trans Pacific Partnership will also make those free trade rules a lot stronger, through provisions lowering tariffs to zero and protecting the use of trademarks (which would support a company’s right to advertise). And countries that can’t afford to fight trade lawsuits that can cost many millions of dollars might just not act to protect their citizens in the first place.

North Korea pushes crack???

Source

How North Korea got itself hooked on meth

By Max Fisher, Published: August 21 at 7:00 am

A new study published in the journal North Korea Review says that parts of North Korea are experiencing a crystal meth “epidemic,” with an “upsurge” of recreational meth use and accompanying addiction in the country’s northern provinces.

“Almost every adult in that area [of North Korea] has experienced using ice and not just once,” a study co-author told the Wall Street Journal. “I estimate that at least 40% to 50% are seriously addicted to the drug.”

You might want to treat those sky-high numbers with some skepticism; it’s not clear how the authors could know this with such certainty or how so many North Koreans could get their hands on the drug when so many can’t afford or find basic medicine and when undernourishment remains a serious issue. A 2010 Brookings Institution report found that meth addiction rates were significant and growing but far from this scale. Still, the report is drawing attention to North Korea’s meth problem, which, whatever the scale, is well-documented and an apparently significant problem for the country.

So how do people in North Korea, a country where markets are so tightly regulated that even video CDs can be considered dangerous contraband and where social controls are often beyond Orwellian, manage to get hold of meth? It’s an interesting story, regardless of the scale of drug use today, and one that offers some interesting lessons for how North Korea works.

The problem actually goes back to the 1990s, when North Korea experienced a famine so devastating that virtually the entire world believed the country would collapse at any moment. But it didn’t, in part because Pyongyang finally decided to open up the world’s most closed economy just a small crack, by allowing a degree of black market trade across North Korea’s border with China. The idea was that the black market would bring in food, which it did, preventing North Korea’s implosion.

The black market trade into China has remained that little bit open ever since, either because Pyongyang authorities can’t close it now or because they see some trade as beneficial, probably both. Some provinces along the border have seen their economies liberalize a tiny, tiny bit — most notably North Hamgyung, which is named in the North Korea Review report as particularly blighted by meth addiction.

In the years after the border with China opened that little crack, two other things have happened that led to the current meth crisis. First, medicine ran out and the once-not-terrible health system collapsed — more on this later. Second, North Korea started manufacturing meth in big state-run labs. The country badly needs hard currency and has almost no legitimate international trade. But it was able to exploit the black market trade across the Chinese border by sending state-made meth into China and bringing back the money of Chinese addicts.

This is where things started to spin out of control for North Korea. The state-run meth factories and the cross-border black market trade started to mingle. And some of that meth ended up migrating back across the border and into North Korea, through the black market trade that brings in Chinese rice and DVDs and the like. It’s possible that some North Korean civilians started making meth on their own domestically, although it’s not clear where they would get the chemicals or the cooking space, and the scale would surely not match that of the state factories. But, either way, the influx of meth into northern North Korean cities was a product of the same barely tolerated black markets that the state allowed to open to fight the famine now almost 20 years ago.

This is where the collapse of the North Korean health system becomes relevant. As Isaac Stone Fish reported in a great 2011 Newsweek story, many regular North Koreans started using meth to treat health problems. Real medicine is extremely scarce in the country. But meth is much more common, which means that the prices of medical drugs are artificially inflated, while the price of meth is artificially low. In a culture without much health education and lots of emphasis on traditional remedies, people were ready to believe that meth would do the trick for their medical problems, and many got addicted.

The meth problem is hard for North Korea to deal with for three reasons: (1) because its health system is ill-equipped, (2) because the state doesn’t want to shut down North Hamgyung’s quasi-liberalized economy but also can’t regulate the black market effectively, and (3) because the country believes it needs to keep making meth and shipping it across the border to bring in hard currency. Meanwhile, North Korean addicts, whatever their numbers, are on their own.

NSA can ‘reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic’

Does anybody remembers the FBI program "carnivore"??? It sounds like a base for all this stuff. I remember the "carnivore" software being talked about around 1996, 1997 in the early internet days.

According to those stories "carnivore" was placed by the FBI in servers across the country and just looked at all the emails and data that passed thru saving any data it found which had the keywords it was looking for.

Source

Report: NSA can ‘reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic’

By Timothy B. Lee, Published: August 20 at 11:49 pm

The U.S. surveillance state, or at least the parts the public knows about, keeps getting bigger. Initial leaks by Ed Snowden indicated that the National Security Agency was collecting telephone metadata and had a program called PRISM to seek information from the servers of certain major Internet companies. Last month, the Guardian reported the existence of XKeyscore, an NSA program that allows NSA analysts to intercept the contents of e-mail and other online communications. But previous reporting had suggested that the NSA’s Internet interception capabilities were concentrated outside the borders of the United States.

A new report by the Wall Street Journal casts doubt on that comforting notion. According to the Journal, the NSA “has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic.” And while the NSA is only supposed to “target” foreigners, the NSA sometimes “retains the written content of e-mails sent between citizens within the U.S.”

The Journal says the NSA relies on extensive collaboration with domestic telecommunications companies to get access to Internet traffic. “The programs, code-named Blarney, Fairview, Oakstar, Lithium and Stormbrew, among others, filter and gather information at major telecommunications companies.” Filtering occurs at more than a dozen “major Internet junctions.”

These programs have a long history. The NSA was already intercepting international Internet traffic before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. After those terrorist attacks, the government expanded its surveillance activities to include more collection points inside the United States. One of those collection points became the target of an Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit after an AT&T whistleblower revealed the existence of a secret, NSA-controlled room inside an AT&T facility in San Francisco.

Like the other NSA programs revealed in recent weeks, this one involves minimal judicial oversight. Surveillance must be “covered by a broad court order” under the FISA Amendments Act. But that 2008 law doesn’t require judicial scrutiny of individual surveillance targets. Instead, judges bless broad surveillance programs, leaving decisions about specific surveillance targets up to the NSA itself.

And sometimes surveillance activities can be quite extensive. For example, the NSA engaged in dragnet surveillance during the 2002 Winter Olympics. “The Federal Bureau of Investigation and NSA arranged with Qwest Communications International Inc. to use intercept equipment for a period of less than six months around the time of the event,” the Journal reports. “It monitored the content of all email and text communications in the Salt Lake City area.”

Court limits appeal rights for ‘sensitive’ federal jobs

Court limits appeal rights for ‘sensitive’ federal jobs

By Josh Hicks, Published: August 21 at 6:00 am

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that the Merit Systems Protection Board has no standing to review the Defense Department’s security determinations, drawing criticism from labor groups and whistleblower-protection advocates concerned about due process for the agency’s employees.

In a 7-3 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the government’s authority to designate certain jobs as “noncritical sensitive,” even when the positions do not allow access to classified information.

Critics have raised concerns that the ruling could allow supervisors to punish employees with impunity by classifying their positions as “noncritical sensitive” and then declaring the workers unfit for their jobs.

“The court created a ‘sensitive jobs loophole’ without citing any direct legal authority and openly backed a proposed administration rule to declare virtually any job as national-security sensitive,” the Government Accountability Project said in a statement.

The Office of Personnel Management brought the case to the appeals court, challenging the MSPB’s claim that it could review personnel actions against two low-level Defense Department workers because their jobs did not require access to classified information.

The employees in the case were accounting technician Rhonda Conyers, who was suspended indefinitely, and commissary worker Devon Northover, who was demoted.

The majority in Tuesday’s decision wrote that the review board focused too narrowly on access to classified information while ignoring “the impact employees without security clearances, but in sensitive positions, can have.” The judges said a commissary worker could tip off the enemy to a deployment after noticing a surge in inventory.

The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents the two employees, said in a statement Tuesday that it will review the court’s decision and that it expects to seek a Supreme Court review.

AFGE president J. David Cox said the court “dismissed our appeal and with it the due process rights of tens of thousands of current and future federal workers.”

“Due process rights are the very foundation of our civil service system,” Cox added. “That system itself has been undermined by the court today, if this ruling is allowed to stand.”

To connect with Josh Hicks, follow his Twitter feed or email josh.hicks@washpost.com. For more federal news, visit The Federal Eye, The Fed Page and Post Politics. E-mail federalworker@washpost.com with news tips and other suggestions.

Costa Mesa councilmen accuse police union of intimidation in suit

Source

Costa Mesa councilmen accuse police union of intimidation in suit

By Jeremiah Dobruck

August 21, 2013, 9:00 a.m.

Costa Mesa Mayor Jim Righeimer and Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger have sued the city's police officers union, alleging the group and two other defendants intimidated and harassed them for political gain.

Much of the lawsuit stems from an Aug. 22, 2012, incident in which private investigator Chris Lanzillo followed Righeimer as he left a local bar and restaurant owned by Councilman Gary Monahan, the Daily Pilot reported.

According to a 911 recording obtained by the Daily Pilot, Lanzillo called to report a potential drunk driver, whom he did not identify as Righeimer, driving erratically and reaching a speed of 50 mph down a residential street.

Police administered a sobriety test in front of Righeimer's Mesa Verde home while his children watched in fear, the lawsuit alleges.

Righeimer was found not to be impaired and soon after the incident held a news conference where he produced a receipt for two Diet Cokes from Skosh Monahan's.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, names the Costa Mesa Police Officers' Assn.; Upland-based law firm Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir; and Menifee private investigator Lanzillo, alleging they intentionally inflicted emotional distress and violated civil rights, among 15 other complaints.

Righeimer's wife, Lene, is also included as a plaintiff.

"They're coercing and intimidating these people so that they change their vote in favor of the police association," said attorney Vince Finaldi, who filed the suit on behalf of Mensinger and the Righeimers.

At the time of the incident, Righeimer accused political enemies of trying to set him up. He asserted that the association employed Lanzillo to tail him -- an allegation the association strongly denied at the time.

Representatives from the association could not be reached for comment Tuesda.

Righeimer and the council majority have been working to reduce public employee compensation, a move that has drawn fierce resistance from public employee associations, collective-bargaining units that share some characteristics with but are not technically unions.

The suit alleges that the police association, Lanzillo and the law firm were all involved in the situation at least indirectly.

"What we're saying is it's a conspiracy, that they were all conspiring together to do this," said Finaldi, of the Irvine-based law firm Manly, Stewart & Finaldi.

The plaintiffs have asked for a jury trial, during which any damages would be decided, Finaldi said.

Lanzillo and the law firm also could not be reached after work hours Tuesday evening.

Emanuel defends hiring indicted ex-aide despite red flags

Source

Emanuel defends hiring indicted ex-aide despite red flags

By John Byrne Clout Street

6:31 a.m. CDT, August 21, 2013

Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday he didn't know his ex-comptroller was under federal investigation until the former aide was indicted last week and dismissed the notion that he should have heeded red flags about the man in Ohio before hiring him.

In his first public comments about Amer Ahmad, Emanuel said he took at face value Ahmad's assertion nearly a month ago that he was abruptly resigning as comptroller without another job lined up because he wanted to spend time with his family and return to the business world.

"He said he wanted time with his family. I understand that, having worked for two presidents and in Congress," Emanuel said. "He wanted personal time and he wanted the ability to go to the private sector to make some money given that he had a young family. That's what he asked for."

Instead, Ahmad was indicted about three weeks later.

He has pleaded not guilty to taking part in a kickback scheme between 2009 and 2011 when he was deputy Ohio state treasurer. The federal indictment says Ahmad gave state investment work to a former high school classmate and that man in turn funneled $400,000 to a landscaping company Ahmad part-owned and another $123,000 to lobbyist Mohammed Noure Alo, described by prosecutors as a "close personal friend and business associate" of Ahmad.

As early as 2010, Ohio newspapers had questioned the connection between Ahmad and Alo because of a treasurer's office contract given to a Boston-based bank that hired Alo as its lobbyist two days before bids were due. At that point, State Street Bank was Alo's only lobbying client, according to reports. The Ohio treasurer's office also hired Alo's wife, the reports said.

Those questions became the basis of a TV attack ad that helped the Republican candidate defeat Ahmad's boss, Democratic Treasurer Kevin Boyce, in Boyce's re-election bid in November 2010.

Despite the red flags, Emanuel on Tuesday contended it was reasonable for him to assume Ahmad was a good choice for the key financial position in Chicago because he was screened during the application process. Mayer Brown attorneys Vincent Connelly and Zaldwaynaka "Z" Scott vetted Ahmad in early 2011 by interviewing him over the phone about the 2010 Ohio banking contract. Emanuel said Ahmad's former employers also gave him the "thumbs up."

"They did a comprehensive background check like they do in any vetting process in any transition," Emanuel said after a ribbon-cutting at the new Jones College Preparatory High School campus in the South Loop. "And as Mr. Connelly answered today in the papers, he answered those in the sense of what they did in the background check."

Ahmad worked at the same New York-based firm, Wasserstein Perella & Co., where Emanuel made his fortune as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton White House and before running for Congress. Emanuel said Tuesday that he had not met Ahmad before he was hired to become Chicago's comptroller.

Ahmad joined the Emanuel administration when the mayor took office in May 2011. The indictment accuses Ahmad of lying to FBI agents during a September 2012 interview. Emanuel said he learned about that interview "when I read it in the papers" after Ahmad's indictment was announced Thursday.

The mayor said Ahmad, not his administration's vetting process, is to blame.

"I think he let the mayor's office and the mayor down," Emanuel said. "He had an obligation when he started to get asked to say he was under questioning. And that's where he violated, in my view, the first trust."

As part of the cleanup, the Emanuel administration last week asked Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton and Inspector General Joseph Ferguson to oversee a joint probe into Ahmad's work in Chicago. On Tuesday, the administration said it had hired two attorneys to help with the review. Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Hamilton did not say how much it will cost.

jebyrne@tribune.com

Twitter @_johnbyrne

La CIA confirma existencia de base secreta "Área 51" en Nevada

La CIA confirma existencia de base secreta "Área 51" en Nevada

Hasta ahora el lugar no ha aparecido en los mapas o en las imágenes de satélite oficiales.

La Agencia Central de Inteligencia de Estados Unidos (CIA, por sus siglas en inglés) confirmó esta semana, por primera vez, la existencia de una base militar secreta conocida como "Área 51", que está ubicada en el desierto de Nevada.

Hasta ahora el lugar no ha aparecido en los mapas o en las imágenes de satélite oficiales.

Las revelaciones fueron divulgadas por nuevos documentos desclasificados que detallan cómo el área fue utilizada durante la Guerra Fría, en 1955, para realizar pruebas secretas de los aviones espía U-2.

Los documentos obtenidos por la Universidad George Washington afirman que el sitio fue creado por una orden del presidente Dwight Eisenhower, a mediados de la década de los 50.

Aunque su existencia no era un secreto, el hecho de que el gobierno no reconociera su existencia dio lugar a diversar teorías de conspiración.

Corresponsales aseguran que es muy poco probable que la revelación acabe con esta sospechas conspirativas, que sostienen que en el "Área 51" también está ubicado un centro de investigación de extraterrestres y objetos voladores no identificados (ovnis) perteneciente al gobierno de EU.

Getting paid to do nothing in politics is a career goal?

"Getting paid to do nothing is not a matter of dishonor in politics; it’s a career goal. One that many, many, many, many Arizona politicians manage to achieve"

Last since Governor Jan Brewer obviously doesn't believe that people in prison should be pardoned she should just disband the parole board and let all it's positions go unfilled until the next governor comes along.

Source

Real mystery of clemency board

The mystery is not why Jesse Hernandez, the man Gov. Jan. Brewer went out of her way to name chairman and executive director of the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency, suddenly resigned.

The mystery is why Arizona even bothers to pretend that it has a Board of Executive Clemency.

Brewer doesn’t believe in it.

She’s made that clear.

She purged the previous board and put in what she apparently hoped were obedient sycophants and now one of them has left.

We’re not sure what Jesse Hernandez’s reasons were just yet.

He was making $84,146 a year to do nothing.

Getting paid to do nothing is not a matter of dishonor in politics; it’s a career goal. One that many, many, many, many Arizona politicians manage to achieve.

But I’m guessing the job could be frustrating.

The clemency board exists for a reason. There are times when reasonable people like the board members will carefully weigh the accumulated evidence in a particular case and for reasons that could be humanitarian or could be legal will come to conclusion that clemency is appropriate.

But if the boss doesn’t want you to come to such a conclusion.

If the boss put you on the clemency board so that you would not consider clemency an option, what’s a board member to do?

They could change the name to better suit your situation and call it the Clemency Bored.

Or they could act like so many other Arizona politicians and political appointee and do … nothing.

Burbank PD may be liable in suit by cop who alleged misconduct

You expect the police to honor your constitutional rights??? Don't make me laugh!!!

"Dahlia witnessed other officers physically abuse suspects ... he saw a lieutenant grab a suspect by the throat, put a gun under his eye and threaten him ... he heard yelling and the sound of somebody being hit and slapped from a room where a sergeant was interviewing a suspect ... When Dahlia reported what he had allegedly witnessed to a superior, the officer told him to stop his “sniveling”"

Burbank PD may be liable in suit by cop who alleged misconduct

By Maura Dolan

August 21, 2013, 1:20 p.m.

SAN FRANCISCO -- A former Burbank police detective who was placed on administrative leave after reporting that fellow officers beat and threatened suspects may pursue a 1st Amendment retaliation lawsuit against several Burbank officers and the city, a federal appeals court decided Wednesday.

An 11-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived the suit by Angelo Dahlia, a detective who charged that he was put on leave after he told the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department about alleged misconduct in the Burbank department.

A lower court threw out Dahlia’s suit on the grounds that he reported the misconduct as part of his official duties, not as a private citizen expressing free speech, and that administrative leave did not constitute punishment.

A three-judge 9th Circuit panel reluctantly agreed, declaring it was bound by a 2009 precedent.

But the larger panel overturned that precedent and decided that police officers, in some instances, may receive 1st Amendment protection when they disclose misconduct. The court also said that forced leave could be considered punitive.

“It is relevant to the resolution of Dahlia’s case that Dahlia disclosed misconduct to LASD in contravention of the numerous threats and admonitions from his superiors not to reveal the misconduct to anyone,” wrote Judge Richard A. Paez, a Clinton appointee. “Even assuming arguendo that Dahlia might normally be required to disclose misconduct pursuant to his job duties, here he defied, rather than followed, his supervisors’ orders.”

Dahlia alleged that he witnessed other officers physically abuse suspects who were taken into custody during a high-profile robbery probe that began in late 2007. He said he saw a lieutenant grab a suspect by the throat, put a gun under his eye and threaten him.

Dahlia also reported that he heard yelling and the sound of somebody being hit and slapped from a room where a sergeant was interviewing a suspect.

When Dahlia reported what he had allegedly witnessed to a superior, the officer told him to stop his “sniveling,” he said.

“The physical beatings continued in BPD interview rooms and in the field, evidenced by the booking photos of various suspects,” the court said.

The panel’s decision to revive the lawsuit was unanimous, but two judges disagreed that Dahlia had presented a valid claim for 1st Amendment retaliation and agreed only that he should be permitted to amend his suit.

“Federal courts have no business managing the daily activities of police departments,” wrote Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, joined by Judge Alex Kozinski, both Reagan appointees.

“The malfeasance by officers of the Burbank Police Department which Dahlia witnessed and the threats and intimidation he endured — if true — are shocking and intolerable,” O’Scannlain wrote. “Yet we must stay our collective hand.”

Arpaio: Armed militias beware or be shot

Personally I think we should just end the insane and unconstitutional "war on drugs" to stop all this nonsense.

Source

Arpaio: Armed militias beware or be shot

Associated Press

PHOENIX — Tough-talking Sheriff Joe Arpaio is warning civilians who embark on armed patrols in remote desert terrain that they could end up “seeing 30 rounds fired” into them by one of his deputies.

His unapologetically terse comments came Tuesday after a member of an Arizona Minuteman border-watch movement was arrested over the weekend for pointing a rifle at a Maricopa County sheriff’s deputy he apparently mistook for a drug smuggler.

“If they continue this there could be some dead militia out there,” Arpaio said.

Richard Malley, 49, was heavily armed with two others dressed in camouflage Saturday night along Interstate 8 near Gila Bend, a known drug-trafficking corridor in the desert about 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, when he confronted the deputy who was on patrol conducting surveillance, authorities said.

According to court records, the deputy and his partner stopped their vehicle, then flashed their headlights and honked their horn, a common practice used by law enforcement to trick drug smugglers into thinking the car is there to transfer their narcotics load and lure them out of hiding.

The deputies then got out, also dressed in camouflage but clearly marked with sheriff’s patches on their clothing, and began to track what appeared to be fresh footprints, authorities said.

That’s when Malley emerged from the darkness with his rifle raised “yelling commands,” according to the probable-cause statement.

The deputy, illuminated by Malley’s flashlight at this point, identified himself as law enforcement, pointing out the “word sheriff across his chest,” and ordered Malley to drop his gun.

“You aren’t taking my weapons,” replied Malley, who was armed with a semi-automatic rifle, a .45-caliber handgun and a knife, according to court records.

Another deputy eventually arrived and arrested Malley for aggravated assault. He was released on $10,000 bail and is set for a court appearance on Monday. It wasn’t clear if Malley had an attorney, and telephone numbers listed for him were disconnected.

Malley claimed “he had the right to point his rifle at the individual because he had reasonable suspicion to believe a crime was occurring,” according to the probable-cause statement. He identified himself as a “militia Minuteman.”

Such Minuteman-type militias of armed civilians patrolling the deserts for illegal border crossers and smugglers grew to prominence in the early 2000s, but the organizations’ numbers have since dwindled as they fractured into multiple splinter groups, such as crews like Malley’s who were on patrol with just three armed men.

Arpaio, whose county doesn’t run along the border but has seen an increase in drug and human trafficking, warned there will be “chaos if you’re going to have private citizens dressed just like our deputies taking the law into their own hands.”

“I have to commend my deputy for not killing this person, which easily could have happened,” Arpaio said. “He’s lucky he didn’t see 30 rounds fired into him.”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Andy Adame also expressed concern for the safety of both the militia members and Border Patrol agents.

Adame said the civilian groups could easily trigger remote sensors operated by the Border Patrol to detect illegal crossers.

“And we respond to them in a manner where we expect to encounter illegal immigrants or drug traffickers,” he said. “We can encounter them (militia members) out in the middle of the desert, which may result in disastrous personal and public safety consequences.”

In short, he noted, someone could get shot and killed, either an agent or a civilian.

Glenn Spencer, president of American Border Patrol, a civilian group that operates from a ranch along the Mexican border in Southern Arizona, won’t condemn the actions of private armed militia organizations, but he also doesn’t recommend it.

“It’s a free country. They’re not violating any law. They’re not trespassing,” said Spencer, whose group uses technology, including sensors and unmanned aircraft rather than boots on the ground, to monitor the border.

“But I wouldn’t do it, and I wouldn’t encourage anyone to do it,” Spencer added. “Going out there is dangerous.”

NSA collected thousands of U.S. communications

Source

NSA collected thousands of U.S. communications

Associated Press Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:57 PM

WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency declassified three secret U.S. court opinions Wednesday showing how it scooped up as many as 56,000 emails and other communications by Americans with no connection to terrorism annually over three years, how it revealed the error to the court and changed how it gathered Internet communications.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper authorized the release Wednesday.

The opinions show that when the NSA reported that to the court in 2011, the court ordered the NSA to find ways to limit what it collects and how long it keeps it.

The NSA reported the problems it discovered in how it was gathering Internet communications to the court and shortly thereafter to Congress in the fall of 2011.

Three senior U.S. intelligence officials said Wednesday that the NSA realized that when it was gathering up bundled Internet communications from fiber optic cables, with the cooperation of telecommunications providers like AT&T, that it was often collecting thousands of emails or other Internet transactions by Americans who had no connection to the intended terror target being tracked.

The officials briefed reporters on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe the program publicly.

While the NSA is allowed to keep the metadata — the address or phone number and the duration, but not the content, of the communication — of Americans for up to five years, the court ruled that when it gathered up such large packets of information, they included actual emails between American citizens, it violated the U.S. Constitution’s ban against unauthorized search and seizure.

In the opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denouncing the practice, the judge wrote that the NSA had advised the court that “the volume and nature of the information it had been collecting is fundamentally different than what the court had been led to believe,” and went on to say the court must consider “whether targeting and minimization procedures comport with the 4th Amendment.”

For instance, two senior intelligence officials said, when an American logged into an email server and looked at the emails in his or her inbox, that screen shot of the emails could be collected, together with Internet transactions by a terrorist suspect being targeted by the NSA — because that suspect’s communications were being sent on the same fiber optic cable by the same Internet provider, in a bundled packet of data.

These interceptions of innocent Americans’ communications were happening when the NSA accessed Internet information “upstream,” meaning off of fiber optic cables or other channels where Internet traffic traverses the U.S. telecommunications system.

The NSA disclosed that it gathers some 250 million internet communications each year, with some 9 percent from these “upstream” channels, amounting to between 20 million to 25 million emails a year. The agency used statistical analysis to estimate that of those, possibly as many as 56,000 Internet communications collected were sent by Americans or persons in the U.S. with no connection to terrorism.

Under court order, the NSA resolved the problem by creating new ways to detect when emails by people within the U.S. were being intercepted, and separated those batches of communications. It also developed new ways to limit how that data could be accessed or used. The agency also agreed to only keep these bundled communications for possible later analysis for a 2-year period, instead of the usual 5-year retention period.

The agency also, under court order, destroyed all the bundled data gathered between 2008, when the FISA Court first authorized the collection under section 702 of the Patriot Act, until 2011 when the new procedures were put in place.

The newly released court opinions revealed the court signed off on the new procedures, deeming them constitutionally acceptable.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House still contends there is no domestic surveillance program despite new revelations about the scope of U.S. emails and Internet communications that can get swept up by the NSA. He said the program is specifically to gather foreign intelligence, adding that the fact that the extent of incidental American surveillance has been documented is proof positive that accountability measures are working properly.

“The reason that we’re talking about it right now is because there are very strict compliance standards in place at the NSA that monitor for compliance issues, that tabulate them, that document them and that put in place measures to correct them when they occur,” Earnest said.

State clemency-board chief quit amid wide range of misconduct allegations

State clemency-board chief quit amid wide range of misconduct allegations

By Craig Harris The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:34 PM

Jesse Hernandez, the ex-chairman and director of the state Board of Executive Clemency, suddenly quit last week after an investigation found nine cases of inappropriate behavior, including giving an unqualified female employee he was dating a promotion and a $21,340 pay raise, records obtained by The Arizona Republic show.

The Republic acquired heavily redacted documents through the Arizona Public Records Law on Wednesday after Gov. Jan Brewer’s office refused to explain why Hernandez abruptly quit Aug. 16.

Brewer appointed Hernandez, a Republican political operative, to the post last year even though he had no experience in corrections or criminal justice, according to his resume. Messages left on his cellphone were not returned.

The five-member clemency board considers parole for eligible inmates and recommends certain clemency actions to the governor, who appoints board members. Brewer last year sacked the prior board chairman, who had 20 years of experience, and two other board members in favor of Hernandez and two other new appointees.

One of the new appointees also quit recently and said another state probe is under way to determine whether Hernandez shorted the pay of other board members.

An Arizona Department of Administration investigation was launched after a May 16 complaint against Hernandez was filed by an employee who alleged retaliation and discrimination. The subsequent probe examined a dozen allegations of misconduct. Nine were substantiated. The investigation found:

Hernandez dated a female employee and promoted her with a substantial pay raise even though she did not meet entry-level qualifications for the job and did not perform the majority of the duties required. Hernandez also tried to get her an additional raise. Investigators were told that Hernandez would kiss the woman and play with her hair, while she would give him “play slaps.”

Hernandez began associating with New York Knicks star Amar’e Stoudemire after the athlete attended an early-release hearing for a relative. Hernandez was given tickets to basketball games, met for lunch with Stoudemire and had his picture taken with Stoudemire, who once played for the Phoenix Suns.

Hernandez did not hold public hearings in accordance with state law and policies, and he treated clemency-board members and visitors inappropriately.

Board members were not allowed to review their recommendations before they were submitted to the Governor’s Office. Instead, the letters were edited and the board members’ names were stamped on the letters.

A female employee was picked on, harassed and subjected to a hostile work environment by Hernandez.

Hernandez ogled women as they walked by.

Hernandez regularly made discriminatory and inappropriate comments, such as saying one employee was promiscuous and another was a “heathen” because she did not attend church. [So I guess Jesse Hernandez, the director of the state Board of Executive Clemency doesn't believe in that First Amendment thing of separation of church and state???]

Hernandez was paid $84,146 a year.

Another of Brewer’s appointees, Melvin Thomas, also has quit, leaving the board with just three members.

Thomas, a former public and private prison warden, told The Republic that he resigned on Aug. 5, hoping the governor would take notice of problems with Hernandez.

“I needed to send a message to the Governor’s Office,” Thomas said.

Thomas said the Department of Administration is conducting a second investigation into whether Hernandez shorted the pay of other board members. Thomas said board members may not have been paid for all of their work because there was confusion about whether board members were salaried or hourly employees.

Department of Administration Director Brian McNeil said his office does not comment on pending investigations.

The Governor’s Office said board members are hourly employees, making $23.46 an hour.

Thomas also said Hernandez ordered the board to take a week of unpaid furlough in late July and early August, even though the state no longer mandates furloughs. When he contacted the Administration Department, Thomas said, officials there knew nothing about a furlough.

Brewer, who is traveling in India, could not be reached. Her spokesman, Andrew Wilder, declined to answer questions about Brewer’s appointment of Hernandez.

“Mr. Hernandez’s conduct as chairman and executive director was unacceptable,” Wilder said. “Consequently, Mr. Hernandez recognized that and the governor welcomed his resignation.”

Wilder on Monday said he was not familiar with the reasons Hernandez had resigned, even though the Administration Department had been investigating Hernandez since May and Thomas had submitted his resignation to the governor on Aug. 5.

In his letter, Thomas wrote: “I can no longer endure the way me and my fellow board members have been treated.”

The Department of Administration works directly for Brewer and is in constant contact with the Governor’s Office.

Brian Livingston, Brewer’s third appointee last year, has become the new executive director and chairman. He did not return calls on Wednesday. The remaining board members are Jack LaSota and Ellen Kirschbaum.

Obama doesn’t favor medical marijuana ‘at this point’

Currently over 51 percent of the people in Federal prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes. 80 percent of those people in Federal prisons are not there for SALES of drugs, but for simple possession of drugs. So Obama is a liar when his White House spokesman said the following statement:

“The priority in terms of the dedication of law enforcement resources should be targeted toward our drug kingpins, drug traffickers and others who perpetrate violence in the conduct of the drug trade”

Source

White House: Obama doesn’t favor medical marijuana ‘at this point’

By Aaron Blake, Published: August 21 at 5:22 pm

White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday that President Obama doesn’t favor changing medical marijuana laws “at this point.”

Several states have moved toward legalizing marijuana — mostly medical but also recreational — and Dr. Sanjay Gupta recently came out in favor of medical marijuana after initially opposing it.

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, creating a conflict in states that have moved to legalize it. Earnest said the Obama administration is not targeting individual users in those states.

“The priority in terms of the dedication of law enforcement resources should be targeted toward our drug kingpins, drug traffickers and others who perpetrate violence in the conduct of the drug trade,” Earnest said. “But at the same time, the president does not, you know, at this point advocate a change in the law.”

States that have legalized marijuana say they believe the administration has given them tacit approval to more forward, even as it remains illegal according to federal law.

The Emperor Wears No Clothes

The Emperor Wears No Clothes

If you want a thousand good reasons to legalize, or re-legalize marijuana the book The Emperor Wears No Clothes has those reasons for you.

People are starting to realize Sheriff Joe sucks

Source

Arpaio’s approval rating declining, poll says

Associated Press Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:50 AM

A new poll says Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s approval rating declined over the last 18 months.

The poll released Thursday by the Behavior Research Center found 37 percent of those were surveyed approved of Arpaio.

Twelve percent say Arpaio was doing a fair job.

Another 42 percent disapproved of the sheriff.

The poll of 418 heads of households in Maricopa County was taken between July 8 and July 21 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 4.8 percentage points.

Arpaio won his sixth term last year in his second-closest election.

A January 2012 survey by the Behavior Research Center found 49 percent of those surveyed approved of Arpaio, while 15 percent said he was doing a fair job and 32 percent disapproved of the sheriff.

Proper channels for whistle blowers - Keep your mouth shut!!!!

Source

The price Gina Gray paid for whistleblowing

By Dana Milbank, Published: August 20

President Obama, in his news conference this month, said that Edward Snowden was wrong to go public with revelations about secret surveillance programs because “there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions.”

This is a common refrain among administration officials and some lawmakers: If only Snowden had made his concerns known through the proper internal channels, everything would have turned out well. The notion sounds reasonable, as do the memorandums Obama signed supposedly protecting whistleblowers.

But it’s a load of nonsense. Ask Gina Gray.

Gray is the Defense Department whistleblower whose case I have been following for five years. She was the Army civilian worker who, before and after her employment, exposed much of the wrongdoing at Arlington National Cemetery — misplaced graves, mishandled remains and financial mismanagement — and she attempted to do it through the proper internal channels. Pentagon sources have confirmed to me her crucial role in bringing the scandal to light.

For her troubles, Gray was fired. The Pentagon’s inspector general recommended corrective action to compensate Gray.

According to documents just obtained by Gray’s lawyer, Mark Zaid, Army Secretary John McHugh rejected the inspector general’s suggestion. McHugh wouldn’t offer Gray anything because she was on “probationary status at the time of her termination.”

Gray, who worked in Iraq as an Army contractor and Army public affairs specialist, is now unemployed and living in North Carolina.

“I went all the way up the channels,” Gray told me on Tuesday. “This is what happens when you do that.”

In response to my inquiries to the Pentagon, an Army spokesman, Col. David H. Patterson Jr., issued a statement saying that Gray’s status as a whistleblower was limited and that her firing was unrelated. “We consider the matter closed,” he said, calling the Army’s position “validated” by a federal court’s “dismissal of Ms. Gray’s lawsuit — with prejudice.”

The lawsuit was dismissed this week — because Gray dropped it. She could no longer afford the legal fees.

Sadly, Gray’s case is emblematic of the way this administration has handled whistleblowers. Obama came into office pledging transparency and professing admiration for government workers who expose abuses. But his administration has pursued more cases under the 1917 Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined (including the prosecution of National Security Agency workers who tried to register their objections through “proper” channels). And the alleged intimidation of would-be whistleblowers goes beyond those involved in sensitive intelligence. For example, diplomat Gregory Hicks told a House committee that he was demoted because he gave congressional investigators a description of the attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, that was at odds with the official version of events.

Gray’s ordeal began in April 2008 after I covered the Arlington funeral of an officer killed in the Iraq war. While there, I observed a dispute between Gray and deputy superintendent Thurman Higginbotham, the man later at the center of the Arlington scandals. Higginbotham was trying to prevent reporters from observing the burial, in violation of the family’s wishes and Arlington’s regulations — and Gray, though new on the job, told him he was wrong.

Gray registered her objections internally — but loudly. She refused to sign off on a report to the Army secretary’s office that was a whitewash of the way burials were handled at Arlington because, she said, her higher-ups were violating Defense Department regulations. She began to learn of other misdeeds by Arlington management and attempted to let military officials know; in June 2008, according to one of Gray’s legal filings, she told the commanding general of the Military District of Washington about “major problems” at the cemetery, involving fraud, mismanagement and broken regulations.

Two days later, she was fired.

A 2010 report by the Pentagon’s inspector general designated Gray as a whistleblower and concluded that, contrary to regulations, Arlington management “elected to terminate her, rather than make a reasonable effort to address public affairs policy issues that she raised” or to “document performance deficiencies that ANC management later claimed formed the basis for Ms. Gray’s termination.”

After her firing, Gray passed along information about mismanagement at Arlington to three congressional offices, all of which received false assurances from the Army that everything was under control. Gray eventually provided her findings to reporters and to the inspector general, leading to the ouster of the Arlington management.

Snowden’s case is quite a bit different, and murkier; his dalliances with China and now Russia raise questions about his motives. But Gray’s case shows that Snowden was correct about one thing: Trying to pursue the proper internal channels doesn’t work.

If the Obama administration wants whistleblowers to take the “proper” route, it needs to protect them when they do.

Judge throws out blood tests in Scottsdale DUI cases

Source

Judge throws out blood tests in Scottsdale DUI cases

By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:28 PM

Blood-test results will be suppressed in at least 11 felony drunk-driving cases that originated in Scottsdale following a Superior Court Judge’s ruling this week, which could affect hundreds of other cases.

The DUI cases were consolidated and set before Superior Court Judge Jerry Bernstein because they all had one thing in common: a challenge to the validity of the blood-testing equipment in the Scottsdale Police Department’s crime lab.

The decision could affect hundreds of DUI cases in which the suspect’s blood was tested on the malfunctioning machine, and has the potential to impact thousands of other cases that have already been through court in recent years, according to defense attorneys.

And the number of affected cases could grow even higher because the lab’s employees testified as much about scientific processes and procedures in the lab which are designed to address flawed equipment, said Joe St. Louis, an attorney representing one of the 11 defendants.

“It potentially affects all of them. If you’re using the same equipment, doing things the same way and the results aren’t reliable, then why wouldn’t you expect unreliable results?” St. Louis asked. “It takes some courage for a judge to make a decision that’s going to put fresh blood into a DUI case, but at the end of the day, the results weren’t reliable.” [Why on earth should it take courage to for a judge to do the job he is SUPPOSED TO DO??? Probably because the system is corrupt and he is not raising as much revenue as expected???]

A spokesman for County Attorney Bill Montgomery said the agency will appeal the ruling.

Court documents indicate Scottsdale police were aware for years of potential problems with the blood-testing equipment, known as a gas chromatograph. For example, the equipment mislabeled vials with wrong names or numbers, quit running during tests and erased baseline information from measurements during test runs, according to court documents

Crime lab employees insisted throughout 17 days of highly technical testimony that the equipment was fine and that any flawed blood-testing results were caught before they left the lab, ensuring that faulty information was not used in any prosecutions.

But Bernstein found that the testimony of crime-lab employees was misleading, particularly after some of the emails from crime-lab employees were introduced well into the hearings.

The Arizona Republic requested emails about the equipment under the Arizona Public Records law, and defense attorneys filed a similar request after a story was published about the content of the emails, which spoke to the lab’s employees’ shaky confidence in their own equipment despite what they told the court.

Deputy County Attorney Aaron Harder said throughout the hearings that the equipment was in fine condition and that defense attorneys were trying to focus on technical aspects instead of their clients’ guilt or innocence.

But an email that a representative from the machine's manufacturer wrote to a scientist in May 2012 indicates that not everyone agrees with the prosecutor defending the lab's work.

"Thank you very much for sharing your concerns about our HS-GC (headspace gas chromatograph) you have in your lab. Let's work on resolving the issue quickly so you don't have to face defense attorney's challenges in court related to our malfunctioning equipment," the manufacturer's representative wrote.

Bernstein took note of those emails, among others, in the 21-page ruling issued late Wednesday.

“What is so troubling about these exchanges is that (crime laboratory manager Kris) Whitman never revealed them when she was testifying. It only came to light after The Arizona Republic discovered them,” Bernstein wrote in his ruling. [So the job of the lab techs is to raise revenue, not determine guilt or innocence???]

“Given the errors or problems, and the refusal to determine the why or the basis for them, significant questions arise as to the reliability and confidence in this gas chromatography instrument,” he wrote. “Although there are policies and procedures that purport to act as safeguards, it is apparent they haven’t been sufficient.”

The ruling raises that distinct possibility that the suspects in the felony cases before Bernstein could avoid jail. [What's wrong with that??? It sounds like they are escaping from being railroaded by a kangaroo court???]

All 11 of the cases involve serious DUI allegations, according to court documents. At least two suspects submitted themselves to preliminary breath tests, and their blood-alcohol content measured above 0.20 percent, more than twice the legal limit.

At least eight suspects had prior DUI convictions, the documents said. One was supposed to have an ignition-interlock device in his car when he was arrested. Another had her 11-year-old daughter in the car when she was pulled over in late March 2011. Her preliminary breath tests put her blood-alcohol content at more than twice the legal limit.

The NSA is losing the benefit of the doubt

Source

The NSA is losing the benefit of the doubt

By Ruth Marcus, Published: August 22 E-mail the writer

Footnote 14 should scare every American. Even the parts that aren’t blacked out.

The footnote is contained in the just-declassified 2011 opinion by U.S. District Judge John Bates, then the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In the ruling, Bates found that the government had been sweeping up e-mails before receiving court approval in 2008 and, even after that, was illegally collecting “tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications.”

That’s not the really scary part. This is: “The court is troubled that the government’s revelations . . . mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program,” Bates wrote in Footnote 14.

He cited a 2009 finding that the court’s approval of the National Security Agency’s telephone records program was premised on “a flawed depiction” of how the NSA uses metadata, a “misperception . . . buttressed by repeated inaccurate statements made in the government’s submissions, and despite a government-devised and Court-mandated oversight regime.

“Contrary to the government’s repeated assurances, NSA had been routinely running queries of the metadata using querying terms that did not meet the required standard for querying. The Court concluded that this requirement had been ‘so frequently and systemically violated that it can fairly be said that this critical element of the overall . . . regime has never functioned effectively.’ ”

Followed by two full paragraphs of redactions. We can only imagine what that episode entailed.

To judge the significance of Bates’s footnote, it helps to know something about the judge. This is no wild-eyed liberal. Bates spent almost two decades in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington. He served as deputy to independent counsel Kenneth Starr during the investigation of President Bill Clinton. He was named to the bench by President George W. Bush.

If Bates is worked up about being misled by the government — and the sober language of that footnote is the judicial version of a severe dressing-down — people should listen.

Security demands secrecy. The Constitution demands that secrecy be coupled with oversight. In theory, that oversight is twofold, from Congress and the judiciary, through the mechanism of the surveillance court.

In practice, oversight necessarily depends on some measure of good will from the overseen. No matter how well-intentioned and diligent the overseers, particularly in an area as technologically murky and politically fraught as surveillance, the intelligence experts tend to hold the cards.

Their deeply ingrained institutional bias is to reveal only what is absolutely necessary, to trust their secrets and secret methods to as few outsiders as possible. When that instinct for secrecy edges into a willingness to mislead, tacitly or explicitly, effective oversight collapses.

We have already seen this phenomenon on display before Congress, in the person of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. In March, Sen. Ron Wyden asked Clapper whether the NSA collects “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” Clapper’s answer, “No . . . not wittingly.”

This was, as Clapper acknowledged, “clearly erroneous.” His belated apology rings hollow. Clapper was not only forewarned about the question, he refused to correct his misrepresentation for months, until it was proved false.

His subsequent explanations for responding in the “least untruthful manner” are unconvincing and contradictory: He had a different understanding, perhaps “too cute by half,” of “collect” — he thought the Oregon Democrat was asking about the contents of phone records, not simply archiving them. Actually, Clapper wasn’t thinking of telephone records at all; he thought Wyden was referring to the separate program to intercept foreigners’ e-mail.

So when Clapper, in announcing the documents’ release, asserts that they demonstrate “the government’s serious commitment to getting it right,” he hauls along a mountain of baggage.

It is possible to construct a happier narrative. After all, Bates’s rebuke was prompted by the intelligence community’s own disclosures. The government then cleaned up its act, with court-approved procedures to minimize privacy invasions. Congress was informed of the program, the court’s problems with it and the fixes being made. The relevant documents were declassified and released (albeit in the face of a lawsuit). President Obama has proposed additional oversight mechanisms, such as building adversary procedures into the surveillance court.

These are hopeful signs, but they do not erase the ugly history: “repeated inaccurate statements” to the court, “clearly erroneous” congressional testimony. Current assurances, made under the duress of unauthorized disclosure, must be judged in light of past performance. An intelligence community consistently too cute by half ends up harming itself, along with the country it strives to protect.

Read more from Ruth Marcus’s archive, follow her on Twitter or subscribe to her updates on Facebook.

Defendants’ legal rights undermined by budget cuts

On the other hand I suspect this is a just another plea for more money. I suspect if you get your money, it won't be given to the public defenders, but to the cops who will continue to arrest people for victimless drug war crimes and make things worse.

Source

Defendants’ legal rights undermined by budget cuts

By Eric H. Holder Jr., Published: August 22

Eric H. Holder Jr. is attorney general of the United States.

Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that everyone who is charged with a serious crime has the right to an attorney. In Gideon v. Wainwright, Justice Hugo Black observed for the court that “in our adversary system, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured of a fair trial unless counsel is provided to him.” As a prosecutor, as a judge and as our nation’s attorney general, I have seen this reality firsthand.

Despite the promise of the court’s ruling in Gideon, however, the U.S. indigent defense systems — which provide representation to those who cannot afford it — are in financial crisis, plagued by crushing caseloads and insufficient resources. And this year’s forced budget reductions, due largely to sequestration, are further undermining this critical work.

In stark contrast to many state defender programs, the federal public defender system has consistently served as a model for efficiency and success. According to court statistics, as many as 90 percent of federal defendants qualify for court-appointed counsel, and the majority of criminal cases prosecuted by the Justice Department involve defendants represented by well-qualified, hardworking attorneys from federal defender offices. Yet draconian cuts have forced layoffs, furloughs (averaging 15 days per staff member) and personnel reductions through attrition. Across the country, these cuts threaten the integrity of our criminal justice system and impede the ability of our dedicated professionals to ensure due process, provide fair outcomes and guarantee the constitutionally protected rights of every criminal defendant.

I join with those judges, public defenders, legal scholars and countless other criminal justice professionals who have urged Congress to restore these resources, to provide needed funding for the federal public defender program and to fulfill the fundamental promise of our criminal justice system.

The Justice Department is strongly committed to supporting indigent defense efforts through an office known as the Access to Justice Initiative, which I launched in 2010, and a range of grant programs. The department took this commitment to a new level on Aug. 14 by filing a statement of interest in the case of Wilbur v. City of Mt. Vernon — asserting that the federal government has a strong interest in ensuring that all jurisdictions are fulfilling their obligations under Gideon and endorsing limits on the caseloads of public defenders so they can provide quality representation to each client.

Unfortunately the federal public defender program is in dire straits. As I write, federal defenders representing the Boston Marathon bombing suspect are facingabout three weeks of unpaid leave. In Ohio, the director of one federal defender office who had served there for nearly two decades has laid himself off rather than terminate several more junior attorneys.

This shameful state of affairs is unworthy of our great nation, its proud history and our finest legal traditions. In purely fiscal terms, the cuts imposed by sequestration defy common sense because they will end up costing taxpayers much more than they save. The right to counsel is guaranteed under the Constitution. On the federal level, this means that every defendant who is unable to afford a lawyer must be represented by either a federal public defender or an appointed attorney from a panel of private lawyers. While federal defender offices are staffed by experienced, dedicated professionals operating in a framework that has proved both effective and efficient, panel attorneys often possess less experience and incur significantly higher fees. An increased reliance on panel attorneys may result in less desirable outcomes as well as significantly higher costs.

Five decades after the Supreme Court affirmed that adequate legal representation is a basic right, sequestration is undermining our ability to realize this fundamental promise. The moral and societal costs of inadequate representation are too great to measure. Only Congress has the ability to restore the funding that federal defenders need to ensure that justice can be done. It is past time for our elected representatives to act.

Cops kick man out of game for letting his son hold his beer!!!

Source

Officers: Man kicked out of NFL game for letting son hold beer was belligerent

By Chris Strauss USA TODAY Sports Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:38 AM

Arizona Cardinals season ticket holder John Coulter claimed earlier this week that “abuse and overzealous pursuit” by undercover state liquor control officers got him kicked out of last Saturday’s game against the Dallas Cowboys at University of Phoenix for allowing his 15-year-old son to hold a beer while he took a picture.

An investigation report released Thursday by the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control claims there’s more to the story than that. The department has undercover officers stationed at the stadium to crackdown on underage drinking. The officer involved in this case claims that he was only following procedure and was attempting to question Coulter’s son when Coulter became belligerent with him and his partner.

“I retrieved my police badge from under my shirt and identified myself as a Police Officer with this department, showing both my badge and ID card. I then turned to and requested to see his ID,” Investigator K. Turner wrote in the report. ”Immediately, Mr. Coulter reacted to our presence with hostility. He stated something to the effect of, “Who the [expletive] are you?” and, “He doesn’t have an ID, he’s only fifteen.” I again informed Mr. Coulter that we were Police Officers. I informed him that I had observed him hand alcohol to and that I needed to see both of their ID’s. Mr. Coulter was very upset and argumentative and was talking in a very loud voice, when he asked, “What right do you have to ask my son for his [expletive] ID!” I again pointed to me badge and stated we were officers. I then informed Mr. Coulter that it was a violation of state law to provide alcohol to a minor and that I needed to talk to his son about the alcohol. I again asked for both of their ID’s. As they retrieved their ID’s, Mr. Coulter looked at my badge and stated something like, “Oh, I see you have your little [expletive] badge!” When I did not respond, Mr. Coulter then stated, “And I see that you’re wearing your cute little Marine Corps shirt, too!”

The report (and a supplemental statement from Turner’s partner) claims that Coulter became more disorderly and refused to let the officers explain the process or ask his son if he had consumed the beer.

“It was at approximately this time that Investigator Webb suggested I use my police radio and call for a uniformed Officer,” Turner wrote. “I attempted one more time to calm Mr. Coulter, to no avail. He began saying things such as, “That’s all we need, is more [expletive] rules!” and, “You just made a big [expletive] mistake buddy! You don’t know who I am!”

The officer claims that Coulter’s increasingly aggressive behavior is what led them to escort him to a nearby exit, at which point Coulter demanded to speak to a security supervisor. The report says that he was instructed to wait at the gate while one was summoned but instead chose to leave the premises with his son.

Coulter was only ejected from last Saturday’s game and has not been banned from future visits to University of Phoenix Stadium.

Source

Who fumbled the beer hand-off at the Arizona Cardinals game vs. Dallas Cowboys?

By Dan Bickley, columnist azcentral sports Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:39 AM

I once handed a beer to my 10-year old son.

“Hold this,” I said. ”And if you take a sip, it’s your #@$. I’ll make you go on Tower of Terror with me.”

He was properly petrified. And I was lucky to be standing in Disney World, and not the University of Phoenix stadium last Saturday afternoon.

So who fumbled the beer hand-off? Everyone.

Start with the officers that removed a father and his 15-year old son from the Cardinals’ preseason game against the Cowboys. If a father figure hands a beer to someone who is obviously underage, common sense should require that (a) officers actually witness the boy taking a sip; or (b) the father was suspiciously carrying another beer of his own before disrupting their afternoon.

Assuming one of your customers is also a derelict parent can be a very slippery slope, and a sure way to ruin everyone’s weekend.

Yet judging by the police report, it’s also clear that the father of the 15-year old boy also fumbled the hand-off, failing to diffuse the issue on every level.

It should have been elementary:

“Hey, officers, I’m sorry. I know this looks bad. But I was just taking a picture. And while a can of Natural Light goes missing from the ‘fridge occasionally, the boy knows better than to drink alcohol in public at age 15.”

Instead, the report states that the father became very combative and foul-mouthed. He belittled and challenged authority, at a time when challenging authority comes with real consequences. [What rubbish. When a moron with a gun and a badge does something stupid he deserves to have his authority challenged!!!]

Overzealous security is a touchy subject for most Americans. Airports are full of ill will and negative energy. Attending sporting events is more complicated than ever. The NFL is implementing strict back-checking measures that will surely aggravate a large number of fans who are standing in queue, in desperate need of a bathroom. The Boston Marathon bombings raised the stakes once again. [And that's the problem. I police state has been created, not to protect us, but to give cops jobs]

Personally, I prefer that security focus on backpacks and not who’s carrying my beer. But I also know that the NFL has a drinking problem. It’s part of the culture, part of the appeal, part of the addiction. Outside of Las Vegas, football stadiums are about the only place where drunk before noon is socially acceptable, maybe even the norm.

Just don’t blame the Cardinals. They are extremely diligent at customer relations, and one of the first franchises to adopt philosophies from the renowned Disney Institute. You might even find this rule in the Disney playbook:

If you must hand a beer to your son, make sure you’re in one of our theme parks, where your intent is deemed pure.

Court forces atheist to participate in religious programs???

Judge: Former Calif. parolee needs compensation

Associated Press Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:59 PM

SAN FRANCISCO — A Northern California former parolee and atheist who went back to prison after refusing to participate in a religiously-tinged inpatient treatment program is entitled to monetary compensation, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

In an opinion for the 9th U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote that a jury must award Barry Hazle Jr. of Redding compensatory damages for the violation of his constitutional rights.

“Now that the Ninth Circuit has ruled, Barry Hazle will finally be able to obtain the vindication to which he’s entitled,” Hazle’s attorney John Heller said in a statement Friday.

A district court ruled in 2010 that Hazle’s First Amendment rights were violated. But a jury tasked with assessing monetary damages awarded Hazle nothing over a question of whether the defendants named in the suit, including state corrections department officials, should be on the hook for the compensation, Heller said.

“The District Court had concluded they were liable for violating his rights,” Heller said. “The question was were they responsible for the damages that occurred.”

The state corrections department referred questions about the case to a federal receiver who controls inmate medical care in California. The receiver’s office did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Hazle had served a year in prison on a drug charge. After being released in 2007, he was ordered to take part in the program, but refused saying he’s an atheist.

He was then arrested and jailed again.

After serving three more months, Hazle sued state corrections department officials.

Heller said the case will now be remanded to district court and new proceedings could begin in the next several months.

He said in addition to damages, the suit seeks to show that the organization the state contracts with to provide such treatment programs shares responsibility for the violations.

Tempe Police begin back-to-school operation

Tempe cops shake down ASU students for victimless crimes?

Tempe Police begin back-to-school operation

By Mark Remillard

August 21, 2013 at 8:30 pm

Police officers in Tempe are gearing up for the new school year.

Officers began increasing patrols during the first week of August looking for traffic violations around elementary, middle and high schools. [Looks like the cops are using the schools as an excuse to arrest people for a bunch of petty, victimless crimes, rather then to hunt down real criminals. ]

Now the focus will shift slightly to coincide with the start of the fall semester at ASU.

Operation Safe and Sober will have officers saturating Tempe on the lookout for out-of-control parties, people driving under the influence and minors consuming alcohol [also called raising revenue] and even checking in with registered sex offenders to make sure their information is up-to-date [to justify their jobs], Tempe Police Sgt. Mike Pooley said.

Pooley said the ramp-up in police presence is part of the department’s attempt to send a strong message to new students.

“For the first couple months of the school year, it seems like our calls for service go up,” he said. “So we feel this operation, Safe and Sober, is going to be able to go out … and we’re going to really try and attack these trends.”

The operation will involve some officers working during days off [translation - cops love OVERTIME pay], Pooley said, but it will also include help from agencies across the Valley thanks to a grant from the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety [a government welfare program for cops].

“Our night motors are going to be out here with a DUI task force with officers from all over the local agencies,” Pooley said. “We got people from MCSO, Scottsdale PD, Gilbert PD, Mesa PD all coming out here to help with DUI enforcement.” [Which is how cops and local city government spell REVENUE - each DUI arrest brings in fines of at least $2,000 and fines and surcharges can reach over $10,000 - and that means lots of OVERTIME pay for the cops who which is making sure the cops get a cut of the loot]

The ASU Police Department will also assist with this enforcement, Assistant Police Chief Jim Hardina said.

“We have officers that participate in the party patrols,” he said. “So we’ll also have four officers on the weekend riding with Tempe officers working the parties and those kinds of things around campus.”

Hardina said his officers will focus on traffic violations, aimed mostly at pedestrians and bicyclists.

“Typically, we have every year someone on a bike hit by a car or a pedestrian hit by a car, and it’s almost always the pedestrian’s or the bicyclist’s fault, and it’s typically a right-of-way violation,” Hardina said. [Yea, while every year in the same span of time there are hundreds of automobile accidents]

Hardina said officers will use the first week for warnings and passing out informational flyers, but then officers will begin handing out citations.

For alcohol, though, strict enforcement begins right away. [translation - we love the money we raise shaking down students for the victimless crime of drinking]

“We enforce immediately,” Hardina said. “We have our youth alcohol detail (that) will be out the first couple weekends of school and plain-clothes officers in and around the resident halls.” [don't these pigs have any real criminals to hunt down????]

Pooley said Safe and Sober includes education in addition to party patrols, DUI enforcement and the strict focus on alcohol laws. [but the cops could care less about the safe part, DUI enforcement is all about cold hard $cash$!!!! - As I said before each DUI bust is a minimum of $2,000 in fines.]

The Tempe Police Department’s Downtown Unit will be heading to local bars to educate workers on how to spot fake identification and inform them about alcohol laws, Pooley said.

“Every year, it seems like they get new staff at these bars so our bike squad goes out, they educate them and make sure they understand the current laws,” Pooley said. “(We want) to build that relationship, so they don’t feel they’re doing something bad by calling the police.” [Cops love to brainwash us to think that it's OK to arrest people for victimless crimes that hurt no one - after all it creates jobs for cops! Safe jobs for cops. It's dangerous hunting down real criminals like armed robbers]

Part of the education process is also about teaching the students about alcohol, laws and safety. [Translation - we could care less about the safety part, we LOVE the cash from those $2,000 DUI fines]

Detective Jeff Lane with the Tempe Police Department’s Crime Prevention Unit said he will be out with officers over the next two weeks meeting with fraternities and sororities to educate them.

“We’re going to actually talk to all the fraternities (and sororities) in small groups and then in a larger group to talk about working with them (and) not against them,” Lane said. “How they can call us ahead of time, getting the proper permits if they’re going to have a party and doing the right thing.”

Detective Dan Brown, also with the Crime Prevention Unit, spent Saturday at ASU’s Wells Fargo Arena meeting with students and parents during move-in to answer questions and pass out information on everything from bike safety and registration to avoiding sexual assault.

“This is our biggest program of the year, Safe and Sober,” he said. “We’re just one part of it doing the booth today. This is a great opportunity to speak with the parents.”

Tempe Police is not the only agency readying itself for the new school year and the influx of new students.

In a statement, Phoenix Police Lt. Jeff Lazell said his Downtown Operation Unit, which oversees the Downtown campus, will provide public safety talks, education on traffic and jaywalking enforcement and some drug recognition training for ASU staff. [jaywalking enforcement????? Don't these pigs have any REAL criminals to hunt down????]

Each campus has its own issues, so campus police will try to tailor enforcement to each campus’s individual needs, Hardina said. [Wow that sounds really professional!!! But if you ask the cops they are mostly interested in those $2,000 fines each DUI ticket bring in]

Operation Safe and Sober went into full swing on Aug. 15 and will run through the end of the month.

Reach the reporter at mark.remillard@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @markjremillard

Prosecutor won't drop questionable confession

Currently there are two trials going on because the Maricopa County Attorney's office didn't give the people a fair trial in the first place.

The first trial is for Johnathan Doody who is accused of the Buddhist Temple murders which happened 20 years ago in the Phoenix area. The first time around the cops violated his 5th Amendment rights and forced a confession out of him. (see this link)

The second trial is that of Debra Milke. She is also getting a second trial because again the cops seem to have framed her the first time around and made up an imaginary confession from her. Her case is also 20 years old.

If I had my way I would throw out both cases because the cops framed both people and don't deserve a second chance to commit perjury and frame them both again.

Personally I suspect neither of these trials has anything to do with getting justice. I suspect they are both aimed at proving the county attorney is "tough on crime" so he can get reelected.

Source

Prosecutor in Debra Milke case won't drop questionable confession

By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:35 PM

Debra Milke’s 1990 murder conviction and death sentence were thrown out by a federal court of appeals because of a questionable confession purportedly obtained by a Phoenix police detective with a spotty record.

But a Maricopa County prosecutor made it clear in a Superior Court hearing Friday that he intends to debate the higher-court ruling and keep the tainted confession in evidence — despite the misgivings of the Superior Court judge overseeing Milke’s retrial in the slaying of her 4-year-old son.

The clock is ticking.

The confession was supposed to be argued next Friday; Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz doubted it will get done by then, especially given that Deputy County Attorney Vince Imbordino asked for more time to prepare his arguments on the confession.

According to an order by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Milke’s retrial is supposed to start by Oct.7 or she must be released from custody. The trial will go forward.

Milke's conviction hinged on a detective named Armando Saldate, who claimed that Milke confessed the murder to him, though it was not recorded and there were no witnesses. Milke denies that she confessed.

In May, the 9th Circuit threw out her conviction and death sentence because her defense in the original trial had been denied the chance to obtain Saldate’s sullied personnel record and question him about it.

Milke’s attorneys want the confession excluded altogether.

But Imbordino told Mroz, “There are things in the 9th Circuit ruling that are false.”

Mroz has said that the opinion will be the law of the case.

“You don’t have to accept a 9th Circuit ruling if they are wrong,” Imbordino said.

There is to be a separate hearing on Friday dealing with whether Milke can be released on bond.

The trial is currently scheduled to begin Sept.30.

Friday’s hearing mostly centered on Milke’s defense attorneys’ contention that the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office should be disqualified from retrying Milke because of its actions during the 1990 trial, when it blocked Milke’s attorneys from accessing Saldate’s personnel record, which mentions eight cases in which he was caught lying or violating suspects’ rights.

Mroz took the matter under advisement and said she would issue a decision next week.

Milke, 49, is charged with first-degree murder in the 1989 death of her son, Christopher; she is accused of having arranged the killing. She spent 22 years on death row before the 9th Circuit decision in May.

Two men are still on death row because of the crime.

James Styers, who was Milke's roommate, is believed to have been the triggerman who shot the boy and left his body in a desert wash in December 1989. The boy thought he was going to see Santa Claus.

The third person convicted in the murder, Roger Scott, confessed that he was with Styers when Christopher was killed, and Scott led police to the boy’s body. Scott also implicated Milke, but he refused to testify at her trial.

The prosecutor from Milke’s first trial and the elected county attorney at the time of her conviction have both retired. But in their briefs, Milke’s attorneys claimed that the new prosecutor and his supervisors worked closely with them and could therefore be unjustly biased against Milke. They asked that the entire office be disqualified, which would require that the case be tried by attorneys from another county or by the state.

At the end of Friday’s hearing, Milke’s ex-husband, who changed his first name from Mark to Arizona, tried to give a packet of papers to Mroz, saying he has been harassed by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, which prosecuted the Milke case through years of appeals. Arizona Milke told Mroz that the Attorney General’s Office is responsible for his own father’s death because of the alleged harassment. And he expressed his own displeasure with the county attorney, though he has steadfastly lobbied for the punishment of his ex-wife for their son’s death.

Mroz told him it wasn’t the proper venue.

Snowden suspected of covering electronic tracks

Think of it as those cops who are wearing video cameras which will supposedly prevent the cop from beating up people. Ain't much you can do when the cop erases the videos of his own crimes. The same applies to Snowden here.

Of course Snowden isn't a crooked cop violating people rights. Snowden is a freedom fighter who has exposed government corruption.

Source

Snowden suspected of covering electronic tracks

Associated Press Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:29 AM

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government’s efforts to determine which highly classified materials leaker Edward Snowden took from the National Security Agency have been frustrated by Snowden’s sophisticated efforts to cover his digital trail by deleting or bypassing electronic logs, government officials told The Associated Press. Such logs would have showed what information Snowden viewed or downloaded.

The government’s forensic investigation is wrestling with Snowden’s apparent ability to defeat safeguards established to monitor and deter people looking at information without proper permission, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the sensitive developments publicly.

The disclosure undermines the Obama administration’s assurances to Congress and the public that the NSA surveillance programs can’t be abused because its spying systems are so aggressively monitored and audited for oversight purposes: If Snowden could defeat the NSA’s own tripwires and internal burglar alarms, how many other employees or contractors could do the same?

In July, nearly two months after Snowden’s earliest disclosures, NSA Director Keith Alexander declined to say whether he had a good idea of what Snowden had downloaded or how many NSA files Snowden had taken with him, noting an ongoing criminal investigation.

NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines told the AP that Alexander “had a sense of what documents and information had been taken,” but “he did not say the comprehensive investigation had been completed.” Vines would not say whether Snowden had found a way to view and download the documents he took, without the NSA knowing.

In defending the NSA surveillance programs that Snowden revealed, Deputy Attorney General James Cole told Congress last month that the administration effectively monitors the activities of employees using them.

“This program goes under careful audit,” Cole said. “Everything that is done under it is documented and reviewed before the decision is made and reviewed again after these decisions are made to make sure that nobody has done the things that you’re concerned about happening.”

The disclosure of Snowden’s hacking prowess inside the NSA also could dramatically increase the perceived value of his knowledge to foreign governments, which would presumably be eager to learn any counter-detection techniques that could be exploited against U.S. government networks.

It also helps explain the recent seizure in Britain of digital files belonging to David Miranda — the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald — in an effort to help quantify Snowden’s leak of classified material to the Guardian newspaper. Authorities there stopped Miranda last weekend as he changed planes at Heathrow Airport while returning home to Brazil from Germany, where Miranda had met with Laura Poitras, a U.S. filmmaker who has worked with Greenwald on the NSA story.

Snowden, a former U.S. intelligence contractor, was employed by Booz Allen Hamilton in Hawaii before leaking classified documents to the Guardian and The Washington Post. As a system administrator, Snowden had the ability to move around data and had access to thumb drives that would have allowed him to transfer information to computers outside the NSA’s secure system, Alexander has said.

In his job, Snowden purloined many files, including ones that detailed the U.S. government’s programs to collect the metadata of phone calls of U.S. citizens and copy Internet traffic as it enters and leaves the U.S., then routes it to the NSA for analysis.

Officials have said Snowden had access to many documents but didn’t know necessarily how the programs functioned. He dipped into compartmentalized files as systems administrator and took what he wanted. He managed to do so for months without getting caught. In May, he flew to Hong Kong and eventually made his way to Russia, where that government has granted him asylum.

NBC News reported Thursday that the NSA was “overwhelmed” in trying to figure what Snowden had stolen and didn’t know everything he had downloaded.

Insider threats have troubled the administration and Congress, particularly in the wake of Bradley Manning, a young soldier who decided to leak hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents in late 2009 and early 2010.

Congress had wanted to address the insider threat problem in the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act, but the White House asked for the language to be removed because of concerns about successfully meeting a deadline. In the 2013 version, Congress included language urging the creation of an automated, insider-threat detection program.

Feds seize office building because it was rented to a pot dispensary???

In Anaheim, the Feds are trying to seize a $1.5 million two-story commercial building because the guy rented one of his 12 office spaces to medical marijuana dispensary.

Source

In marijuana policy, the confusing smoke signals continue to burn

By Steve Lopez

August 24, 2013, 9:00 a.m.

Marijuana policy, like immigration policy, is something the country just can't seem to get right.

For the latest evidence of how confusing pot laws can be, just take a look at Anaheim, where a property owner is fighting a federal government attempt to seize his two-story commercial building, which is worth about $1.5 million.

Tony Jalali's crime?

On two occasions he rented one of his 12 office spaces to medical marijuana dispensaries, thinking such operations were perfectly legal in California.

But the feds see things differently. After an undercover Anaheim police officer used a doctor's recommendation card to purchase $37 worth of marijuana from the tenant, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration swooped in, and Jalali was notified last year that the federal government had initiated proceedings to seize the entire building in which the sale had taken place.

It's not hard to understand why Jalali was confused by mixed signals on marijuana policy, or why he was unaware of an Anaheim ordinance prohibiting dispensaries in the city. For one thing, there were other dispensaries in town when he rented space to an operator. And at its convention center, Anaheim hosts an annual event billed as the "the world's biggest marijuana festival."

"I saw banners on Artesia Boulevard," said Jalali. "Kush Expo. City of Anaheim."

That's right. Anaheim is home to a gigantic annual pot emporium, with more smoke in the air than you get from the average California wildfire.

Last month's extravaganza featured a "Hot Kush Girl Contest" and awards for the "best strains" in Southern California. Festival attendees were informed they couldn't sample the goods without marijuana recommendations from doctors, but no worries.

"Doctors will be on site!"

After looking at photos of the Kush Expo, I'm guessing that nearby Disneyland is only the second-happiest place on earth. And I'm wondering why the feds didn't just seize the convention center.

Adding to Jalali's confusion is the fact that California voters approved medical cannabis in 1996. Even the U.S. attorney's office in recent years has sent confusing signals as to where it stands.

"I had no idea I was doing anything wrong," said Jalali, who kicked out his pot tenant as soon as he got the seizure notice last year. But that wasn't enough to call off the dogs, and Jalali is still fighting to save his property in federal court, with the next hearing scheduled for Monday.

"I have property rights in this country," said Jalali, a computer engineer married to a dentist, with two kids in college. "I pay my taxes. I obey the law. I have a spotless record."

Jalali said he moved to the U.S. from Iran in 1978 to enjoy the benefits of country where rule of law prevails. He never dreamed the government could take his property without even accusing him of a crime. The city has claimed it sent two notices about problems with a dispensary to Jalali's home in Irvine, according to a Jalali attorney, but he denies receiving anything. As for the U.S. attorney's office, which initiated the seizure, it has admitted in court that it sent no warning to Jalali before moving to snatch property he bought in 2003 as a nest egg investment.

Not that it's any solace, but Jalali has lots of company. One of his attorneys, Matthew Pappas, represents four other Southern California clients with similar seizures. Another of Jalali's attorneys, Larry Salzman of the Institute for Justice, said the Los Angeles branch of the U.S. attorney's office has filed 30 civil forfeiture cases against Southern California landlords with marijuana dispensaries since 2011, and sent "threatening letters" to an additional 500 landlords.

This is happening in other states as well.

"But California is really ground zero for the use of forfeiture in states that have decriminalized marijuana," said Salzman, who added that state law prohibits forfeiture of property unless the owner is convicted of a crime.

Salzman suggested a motive other than cracking down on drug use. He said that under what's called "equitable sharing," federal and local agencies are sharing the proceeds from confiscating property.

"If they take Tony's building," said Salzman, "the money is split between the Drug Enforcement Administration and the city of Anaheim. That financial incentive has driven a literal explosion in civil forfeiture activity…."

A spokesman for the Anaheim city attorney told me there'd be no comment on the Jalali case while it's being litigated.

Thom Mrozek, a U.S. attorney spokesman, said the sale of marijuana is against federal law and the "vast majority" of California's medical dispensaries do not comply with state law, either because they are for-profit operations or because they do not serve as primary caregivers. He said most of the 30 cases have not resulted in seizures, but that landlords in 11 cases have forked over a total of $532,000 to settle. And he added that his office is responding to an explosion of dispensaries that led to lots of problems for cities and for neighbors of the pot shops.

No doubt, many shops used the medical cover to sell pot for recreational use. But why not stop with the mixed signals, end the winless and costly war on drugs, and legalize, regulate and tax marijuana, which is nowhere near as big a social or medical problem as perfectly legal alcohol?

And if we're not yet ready for that, can't the feds simply shut an "illegal" pot dispensary rather than steal an entire building from a law-abiding landlord?

steve.lopez@latimes.com

In Paper War, Flood of Liens Is the Weapon

Source

In Paper War, Flood of Liens Is the Weapon

Ben Garvin for The New York Times

Published: August 23, 2013 231 Comments

MINNEAPOLIS — One of the first inklings Sheriff Richard Stanek had that something was wrong came with a call from the mortgage company handling his refinancing.

“It must be a mistake,” he said, when the loan officer told him that someone had placed liens totaling more than $25 million on his house and on other properties he owned.

But as Sheriff Stanek soon learned, the liens, legal claims on property to secure the payment of a debt, were just the earliest salvos in a war of paper, waged by a couple who had lost their home to foreclosure in 2009 — a tactic that, with the spread of an anti-government ideology known as the “sovereign citizen” movement, is being employed more frequently as a way to retaliate against perceived injustices.

Over the next three years, the couple, Thomas and Lisa Eilertson, filed more than $250 billion in liens, demands for compensatory damages and other claims against more than a dozen people, including the sheriff, county attorneys, the Hennepin County registrar of titles and other court officials.

“It affects your credit rating, it affected my wife, it affected my children,” Sheriff Stanek said of the liens. “We spent countless hours trying to undo it.”

Cases involving sovereign citizens are surfacing increasingly here in Minnesota and in other states, posing a challenge to law enforcement officers and court officials, who often become aware of the movement — a loose network of groups and individuals who do not recognize the authority of federal, state or municipal government — only when they become targets. Although the filing of liens for outrageous sums or other seemingly frivolous claims might appear laughable, dealing with them can be nightmarish, so much so that the F.B.I. has labeled the strategy “paper terrorism.” A lien can be filed by anyone under the Uniform Commercial Code.

Occasionally, people who identify with the movement have erupted into violence. In Las Vegas this week, the police said that an undercover sting operation stopped a plot to torture and kill police officers in order to bring attention to the movement. Two people were arrested. In 2010, two police officers in Arkansas were killed while conducting a traffic stop with a father and son involved in the movement.

Mostly, though, sovereign citizens choose paper as their weapon. In Gadsden, Ala., three people were arrested in July for filing liens against victims including the local district attorney and Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew. And in Illinois this month, a woman who, like most sovereign citizens, chose to represent herself in court, confounded a federal judge by asking him to rule on a flurry of unintelligible motions.

“I hesitate to rank your statements in order of just how bizarre they are,” the judge told the woman, who was facing charges of filing billions of dollars in false liens.

“The convergence of the evidence strongly suggests a movement that is flourishing,” said Mark Pitcavage, the director of investigative research for the Anti-Defamation League. “It is present in every single state in the country.”

The sovereign citizen movement traces its roots to white extremist groups like the Posse Comitatus of the 1970s, and the militia movement. Terry L. Nichols, the Oklahoma City bombing conspirator, counted himself a sovereign citizen. But in recent years it has drawn from a much wider demographic, including blacks, members of Moorish sects and young Occupy protesters, said Detective Moe Greenberg of the Baltimore County Police Department, who has written about the movement.

The ideology seems to attract con artists, the financially desperate and people who are fed up with bureaucracy, Mr. Pitcavage said, adding, “But we’ve seen airline pilots, we’ve seen federal law enforcement officers, we’ve seen city councilmen and millionaires get involved with this movement.”

Sovereign citizens believe that in the 1800s, the federal government was gradually subverted and replaced by an illegitimate government. They create their own driver’s licenses and include their thumbprints on documents to distinguish their flesh and blood person from a “straw man” persona that they say has been created by the false government. When writing their names, they often add punctuation marks like colons or hyphens.

Adherents to the movement have been involved in a host of debt evasion schemes and mortgage and tax frauds. Two were convicted in Cleveland recently for collecting $8 million in fraudulent tax refunds from the I.R.S. And in March, Tim Turner, the leader of one large group, the Republic for the united States of America, was sentenced in Alabama to 18 years in federal prison. (His group does not capitalize the first letter in united.)

Sovereign citizens who file creditor claims are helped by the fact that in most states, the secretary of state must accept any lien that is filed without judging its validity.

The National Association of Secretaries of State released a report in April on sovereign citizens, urging state officials to find ways to expedite the removal of liens and increase penalties for fraudulent filings. More than a dozen states have enacted laws giving state filing offices more discretion in accepting liens, and an increasing number of states have passed or are considering legislation to toughen the penalties for bogus filings.

The Eilertsons, who were charged with 47 counts of fraudulent filing and sentenced in June to 23 months in prison, were prosecuted under a Minnesota law that makes it a felony to file fraudulent documents to retaliate against officials. John Ristad, an assistant Ramsey County attorney who handled the case, said he believed the Eilertsons were the first offenders to be prosecuted under the law. “It got me angry,” he said, “because at the end of the day, these two are bullies who think they can get their way by filing paper.”

The liens were filed against houses, vehicles and even mineral rights. In an affidavit, the Hennepin County examiner of titles said that in a conversation with the Eilertsons about their foreclosure, one of them told her, “We’re gonna have to lien ya.” The examiner later found that a lien for more than $5.1 million had been placed on her property.

If the purpose was to instill trepidation, it worked. Several county and state officials said in interviews that they worried that they might once again find themselves in the crosshairs. One state employee said it was scarier to engage with offenders who used sovereign citizen tactics than with murderers, given the prospect of facing lawsuits or fouled credit ratings.

Like many who identify with the ideology, the Eilertsons learned the techniques of document filing online from one of many sovereign citizen “gurus” who offer instruction or seminars around the country.

In hours of recorded conversation found by the authorities on their computer, the Eilertsons consulted with a man identified on the recordings as Paul Kappel, learning what he called “death by a thousand paper cuts.”

Mr. Eilertson, interviewed at the state prison in Bayport, Minn., denied being anti-government or belonging to any movement. But he was familiar with the names of some figures associated with sovereign citizen teachings, including an activist named David Wynn Miller, who Mr. Eilertson said was “ahead of his time.” (Mr. Miller writes his name as David-Wynn: Miller.)

Mr. Eilertson, who had no previous criminal record, said his actions were an effort to fight back against corrupt banks that had handed off the couple’s mortgage time after time and whose top executives never faced consequences for their actions.

“It seemed like we were being attacked every day,” he said. “We needed some way to stop the foreclosure.

“We tried to do our part with as much information as we had available,” he said, though he conceded that “it kind of got out of control eventually.”

NSA Surveillance - Lady Liberty Raped

NSA Surveillance - TSA goons destroying America

Obama is a liar - Unions are the problem!!!

Obama is a liar who will say anything to get elected

Unions are the problem, not the solution to the problem

1) Obama, like most politicians, is a liar who will say anything to get elected

Obama claimed Detroit as evidence of his successful policies: “We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity and, three years later, that is paying off in a big way.”

Patterson points out that the main cause of Detroit's bankruptcy was the elected officials sleeping with the government employee unions. He points out that government employee unions may also bankrupt Chicago and Los Angeles.

It doesn't mention it, but the police and firemen unions in Phoenix and many other Arizona cities are causing those governments the same financial problems that Detroit, Los Angeles and Chicago have.

Patterson: Other cities may follow Detroit's lead but government would be scary

Posted: Monday, August 26, 2013 6:42 am

Guest commentary by Tom Patterson

In the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama claimed Detroit as evidence of his successful policies: “We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity and, three years later, that is paying off in a big way.”

Yet last month, Americans were shocked when Detroit — long a symbol of our economic might and cultural vibrancy — filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The collapse has already sent tremors through the municipal bond markets and threatened the economic security of defined benefit pensioners everywhere.

But Detroit isn’t a one-off, exceptional tragedy that we can afford to pity but otherwise ignore. It is on the same trend line as scores of other American cities and even our national government.

In the first half of the 20th century, Detroit’s auto industry produced 200,000 manufacturing jobs. These weren’t government programs or the result of government subsidies nor the product of government “investment” in training programs. If anything, they were the result of government staying out of the way and allowing visionary industrialists working in a decidedly capitalistic system to produce wealth for all. Detroit had a prosperous middle class as well as great buildings, civic spaces and art institutions.

In 1941, the auto companies first began collective bargaining with the United Auto Workers. By the 1950s, Detroit’s eminence in automobile manufacturing begin to fade, as foreign competition emerged and companies were forced into wage hikes, work rules and pension commitments they couldn’t afford.

As jobs and population declined, the city of Detroit made its fatal mistake. Instead of responding to the decline in tax revenues with belt-tightening, a succession of corrupt, incompetent Detroit mayors and City Councils continued to spend recklessly and to negotiate lavish pension funds with a new but immensely powerful political support: public employee unions.

As crime rates soared and schools deteriorated, taxpayers fled Detroit, yet the alliance between unions and the politicians they supported continued to flourish.

The consequences of spending money you don’t have are eventually predictable. Detroit’s debt load today is $18 billion, a sum it can’t pay partly because 38 cents of every new tax dollar goes to retirement benefits, a figure expected to grow soon to 65 cents. Detroit mismanaged itself into a hole it couldn’t get out of. The only question now is whether bondholders or pensioners should take the major hit. Once proud Detroit is a pitiful basket case.

Chicago appears headed on the same course. It’s population has declined over 1 million since 1950. It’s predicted budget shortfall is 1 billion by 2015 while its pension funds are 32 billion underfunded.

Los Angeles hasn’t experienced a population decline but also runs an annual budget deficit and has an unfunded pension liability of 27 billion. Philadelphia’s pension plans are only 50 percent funded even though the city pays 28 percent of its total budget for pension and health benefits.

But the federal government may be in the most trouble of all. For decades now the feds have been operating public retirement and health care programs without evidencing the slightest intent to fund the promises they are making. Instead of saving contributions in the “trust” to fund future benefits for the people making the payments, they spend the money is if there is no tomorrow and no need to save or to reduce debt.

Social Security has unfunded liabilities – not liabilities, unfunded liabilities – of 9.6 trillion over the next 75 years. If you include Medicare and federal employees pension benefits, that number is an unthinkable 86.8 trillion.

It’s bizarre to see our leaders, slack-jawed and vacant-eyed, ignoring all the obvious signs of danger. Even though a modest, expected increase in interest rates on our national debt will precipitate a profound crisis, we still employee recruiters to coerce the dubious into programs like food stamps and SSDI. Even though Americans are aging and every year there are fewer workers to support each retiree, we can’t muster the courage to do something as logical and painless as gradually raising the retirement age to 67.

The lesson of Detroit is clear. Foolish fiscal policies eventually result in less freedom, less opportunity and a declining standard of living for all. Is anybody listening?

• East Valley resident Tom Patterson is a retired physician and former state senator. He can be reached at pattersontomc@cox.net.

Mexican drug cartel activity in U.S. grossly exaggerated???

They said the number is inflated because it relied heavily on self-reporting by law enforcement agencies, not on documented criminal cases involving Mexican drug-trafficking organizations and cartels.

Drug policy analysts said the wide dissemination of the number is part of a pattern in the decades-long “war on drugs” of promoting questionable statistics in an attempt to quantify the drug problem in the United States and justify budgets.

Drug policy analysts say self-reported surveys are subject to exaggeration, particularly when local and state law enforcement agencies are looking for federal grant money to bolster their budgets.

Mexican drug cartel activity in U.S. said to be exaggerated in widely cited federal report

By Scott Higham, Sari Horwitz and Steven Rich, Published: August 25 E-mail the writers

When Sen. John McCain spoke during an Armed Services Committee hearing last year on security issues in the Western Hemisphere, he relayed a stark warning about the spread of Mexican drug cartels in the United States.

“The cartels,” the Arizona Republican said, “now maintain a presence in over 1,000 cities.”

McCain based his remarks on a report by a now-defunct division of the Justice Department, the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), which had concluded in 2011 that Mexican criminal organizations, including seven major drug cartels, were operating in more than 1,000 U.S. cities.

But the number, widely reported by news organizations across the country, is misleading at best, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and drug policy analysts interviewed by The Washington Post. They said the number is inflated because it relied heavily on self-reporting by law enforcement agencies, not on documented criminal cases involving Mexican drug-trafficking organizations and cartels.

The Post interviewed local police officials in more than a dozen cities who said they were surprised to learn that the federal government had documented cartel-related activity in their communities.

“That’s news to me,” said Randy Sobel, chief of police in Middleton, N.H.

“I have no knowledge of that,” said David Lancaster, chief of police in Corinth, Miss.

NDIC’s headquarters in Pennsylvania was closed last year and its personnel folded into the Drug Enforcement Administration. DEA officials declined to release a list of the cities, calling it “law enforcement sensitive.”

Privately, DEA and Justice Department officials said they have no confidence in the accuracy of the list.

“It’s not a DEA number,” said a DEA official who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the report. “We don’t want to be attached to this number at all.”

The Post was able to identify more than a third of the cities using computer mapping techniques and government documents. The analysis located government claims of Mexican drug activity in numerous cities in unexpected places: 20 in Montana, 25 in Oregon, 25 in Idaho, 30 in Arkansas.

There is no disputing that Mexican cartels are operating in the United States. Drug policy analysts estimate that about 90 percent of the cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine on U.S. streets came here courtesy of the cartels and their distribution networks in Mexico and along the Southwestern border. DEA officials say they have documented numerous cases of cartel activity in Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta.

But analysts who study drug trafficking scoffed at the contention that the violent cartels and other Mexican-based drug organizations are operating in more than 1,000 U.S. cities.

“They say there are Mexicans operating here and they must be part of a Mexican drug organization,” said Peter Reuter, who co-directed drug research for the nonprofit Rand think tank and now works as a professor at the University of Maryland. “These numbers are mythical, and they keep getting reinforced by the echo chamber.”

The former chief of NDIC defended the work of his former agency.

“It doesn’t surprise me that the DEA doesn’t support those numbers,” said Michael F. Walther, who ran the agency between 2005 and 2012. “They like to paint a more positive portrait of the world. I stand by the work that our analysts did at NDIC.”

Drug policy analysts said the wide dissemination of the number is part of a pattern in the decades-long “war on drugs” of promoting questionable statistics in an attempt to quantify the drug problem in the United States and justify budgets.

“Washington loves mythical numbers,” said John Carnevale, a former drug policy and budget official who served three presidents and four “drug czars” at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. “Once the number is out there and it comes from a source perceived to be credible, it becomes hard to disprove, almost impossible, even when it’s wrong.”

NDIC closed in June 2012 after 19 years of operation and more than $690 million in taxpayers’ money spent. But the NDIC number lives on, cited in congressional reports on security along the Southwest border and in testimony by high-ranking members of the military and key lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“The cartels now have a presence in more than 1,000 U. S. cities,” said a 2012 report by the House Homeland Security oversight subcommittee on violence and terrorism on the Southwest border.

“A terrorist insurgency is being waged along our Southern border,” then-House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Connie Mack (R-Fla.) said during a 2011 hearing on combating international criminal organizations. He cited “the operations across Mexico and Central America, as well as in over 1,000 U.S. cities.”

Drug policy analysts called NDIC’s definitions of what constitutes a Mexican drug organization murky and not particularly useful, paving the way for confusion and misinterpretation. In its 2010 report, the center used the phrase “Mexican drug trafficking organizations,” defining them as being based in Mexico or the United States, with Mexican nationals serving as their leaders. The report’s definition of “presence” in a U.S. city was met if at least one member of the organization was engaged in “some type of trafficking activity.”

In its 2011 report, the center used the phrase “transnational criminal organizations,” and said they included seven cartels based in Mexico, the well-known Sinaloa and Zetas syndicates among them. The report broadened the definition in a footnote to include traffickers who purchased drugs from cartel associates.

Under such definitions, the analysts said, anyone from Mexico caught selling a small amount of marijuana in a U.S. city could be counted as a Mexican drug organization or cartel presence.

“These definitions are interchangeable and indistinguishable,” said Peter Andreas, a drug policy analyst at Brown University who has written a book about the politics of drug policy called “Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide.” “This is a particularly egregious example of a pattern that unfortunately has not gotten a lot of scrutiny.”

Walther, the former NDIC chief, said it is difficult to determine what constitutes a Mexican cartel presence because there are varying degrees of separation between street dealers, distribution networks and operations south of the border. But he said that his agency did the best it could under the circumstances and that NDIC was frequently attacked because it became the bearer of bad news.

“It’s in the nature of government that agencies don’t like to be told they are not entirely successful,” said Walther, who now works as a criminal defense lawyer in Pennsylvania and recently authored a study for the Army War College titled “Insanity: Four Decades of U.S. Counterdrug Strategy.”

“There’s no uniformly accepted glossary of terms,” he said. “Some of the distinctions are too fine to be appreciated by people who are not engaged full time in the counterdrug world.”

The story behind the NDIC number dates to the days of the first drug czar, during the George H.W. Bush administration in 1989. With 19 federal agencies generating drug intelligence reports at the time, administration officials wanted to create a clearinghouse to coordinate the flood of information.

In theory, the National Drug Intelligence Center seemed to be a solution. Then-Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) got involved. Murtha chaired the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, and in 1992 he obtained a $40 million Defense Department earmark. The center was established in an abandoned department store in his hometown of Johnstown, Pa., 180 miles from Washington.

At its dedication ceremony in Johnstown in 1993, then-Attorney General Janet Reno called NDIC “a crucial turning point” in the Clinton administration’s efforts to combat drugs.

But some White House officials, such as Carnevale, saw NDIC as a Washington boondoggle.

“They were getting so much money,” he said. “They hired a lot of staff. But they were so far away, and a lot of us didn’t read their reports.”

In a recent interview, Murtha’s former chief of staff defended NDIC.

“They did a hell of a job. It wasn’t a pork-barrel type of thing,” said John Hugya, who worked for Murtha for 23 years. “They had a lot of professionals working there. I respected the whole damn group.”

On Feb. 8, 2010, Murtha died at age 77, and NDIC lost its protector.

Two months after Murtha’s death, NDIC issued a “Situation Report” titled: “Cities Where Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations Operate Within the United States.” With “high confidence,” the report said they were operating “in at least 1,286 cities.”

To arrive at that figure, the center used a methodology that federal law enforcement officials now say was questionable. NDIC field intelligence officers surveyed 1,200 law enforcement agencies across the nation and asked them if they had Mexican drug-trafficking organizations in their communities. Of those agencies, 1,039 said they did, according to the report. The center then added that total to a total based on case information kept by the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, which reported that Mexican drug organizations were operating in 247 U.S. cities.

NDIC added the two numbers to come up with 1,286 cities.

“The methodology was flawed from the start,” said one Justice Department official who was familiar with the report and also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “I heard that they just cold-called people in different towns, as many as they could, and said, ‘Do you have any Mexicans involved in drugs?’ And they would say, ‘Yeah, sure.’ ”

Drug policy analysts say self-reported surveys are subject to exaggeration, particularly when local and state law enforcement agencies are looking for federal grant money to bolster their budgets.

“At a time when agency budgets are being cut, you want to demonstrate that you are protecting the public from a menace,” said Eric E. Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a drug- and policing-policy reform group. “If you say there are Mexican henchmen in 1,000 cities, you don’t want to cut their budget.”

More than a year after Murtha’s death, NDIC issued its second report in August 2011, titled “National Drug Threat Assessment.” In it, the center modified the 1,286 number by saying Mexican “transnational criminal organizations” were “operating in more than a thousand U.S. cities during 2009 and 2010.”

Drug policy analysts said the NDIC number and other questionable claims have important consequences.

“We have no idea how many Mexican drug cartel operatives are out there and where they are, and these kinds of claims are a really big problem for public policy,” said David A. Shirk, a political science professor at the University of San Diego who examines Southwest border issues. “Citizens have a right to know if federal agencies are doing their jobs, and without verifiable information it calls a lot of this work into question.”

Although the DEA declined to release the list of cities, The Post was able to pinpoint the locations of hundreds of them by analyzing a map included with an early version of an NDIC report.

The Post contacted police officials in 24 cities. While a few said they found possible connections to the cartels, officials in 18 cities said they were unaware of cartel-related activity in their communities.

NDIC reported a Juárez Cartel connection in the former mining town of Ladd, Ill., in the north-central part of the state. Ladd Police Chief William Gaefcke said he can think of only one reason why his city of 1,300 residents was listed in the report. A few years back, his department, along with two federal agents, investigated a claim that the cartel was smuggling assault weapons in the region.

The investigation went nowhere.

“The case was dismissed as unfounded,” Gaefcke said.

NDIC reported that the Juárez Cartel was tied to a drug operation in Garden City, Kan., made famous as the site of the murder trial depicted in Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood.”

“We have drugs in our community,” said Capt. Michael Utz of the Garden City Police Department. “But as far as the Juárez Cartel operating in this city, I don’t have any information on that.”

NDIC reported Tijuana Cartel activity in South Lake Tahoe, Calif.

“I haven’t seen a link to the Tijuana Cartel,” Police Chief Brian T. Uhler said. “That’s surprising to me. There are gangs here that have a statewide connection, and there may be linkages to the cartels. I guess an affiliation can mean a lot of different things in law enforcement.”

NSA decrypted United Nations’ communications

Source

German magazine: NSA decrypted, spied on, United Nations’ internal video conferencing system

By Associated Press, Sunday, August 25, 6:32 AM

BERLIN — The German magazine Der Spiegel says the U.S. National Security Agency secretly monitored the U.N.’s internal video conferencing system by decrypting it last year.

The weekly said Sunday that documents it obtained from American leaker Edward Snowden show the NSA decoded the system at the U.N.’s headquarters in New York last summer.

Quoting leaked NSA documents, the article said the decryption “dramatically increased the data from video phone conferences and the ability to decode the data traffic.”

In three weeks, Der Spiegel said, the NSA increased the number of decrypted communications at the U.N. from 12 to 458.

Snowden’s leaks have exposed details of the United States’ global surveillance apparatus, sparking an international debate over the limits of American spying.

Illinois medical marijuana law draws big-money interest

Illinois medical marijuana law draws big-money interest

By Peter Frost, Chicago Tribune reporter

9:53 p.m. CDT, August 24, 2013

Talk long enough to anyone in the business of growing or selling medical marijuana, and you'll hear plenty about risk.

It's hard to find a bank. It's difficult to find insurance. The plants are finicky. Security systems are expensive. Good, trusted employees are hard to find. State laws change at the whim of legislators and regulators. And, of course, because the drug remains illegal under U.S. law, federal agents could swoop in at any time, shut the operation down and put its owners in jail.

The risks may be even greater in Illinois, where Gov. Pat Quinn this month signed a bill into law that will allow a temporary, for-profit medical marijuana industry, permitting cannabis sales to patients with certain medical conditions starting in 2014.

Still, as two events over the past three days have proved, plenty of people are willing to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars — in some cases several million — to get a shot at serving a new market of marijuana consumers.

More than 200 people crowded into a second-floor meeting area of the Embassy Suites in River North on Saturday, paying up to $375 each to learn more about the business of medical marijuana and to network with experienced purveyors of the product from states like California, Colorado and Michigan. That followed an event Thursday at another downtown hotel that drew more than 50.

"I've talked to several potential investors here thinking home-run dollars from the beginning," said Michael Mayes, the Chicago-based chief executive officer of Quantum 9, a marijuana consulting and technology company. "But, here at least, if you're swinging for the fences, you have to know you might strike out."

Mayes, 30, who also operates two marijuana cultivation centers and three retail dispensaries in Colorado, had conversations with attorneys, doctors, prospective growers and capitalists who see opportunities in Illinois to carve out a niche in the nascent industry.

While there appears to be plenty of interest, the potential rewards may not outweigh the risks.

"There is a lot of optimism here, but it's going to take a minimum of a year before any of these businesses can start operating, maybe even 15 to 18 months," said Hilary Bricken, a Seattle-based attorney who has worked with growers and sellers in other states.

Although the new state law kicks in Jan. 1, three state agencies must also draft rules and regulations to govern the industry. Then there's an intensive application and review process, which could take several months depending on the number of individuals or businesses that apply for a limited number of licenses to grow and sell the product.

By the time the first ounce of medical marijuana is sold to a patient with a qualified condition at a licensed dispensary in Illinois, it could be mid-2015. And because the four-year pilot program could end Dec. 31, 2017, there may be only two and a half years to recoup an investment that would likely surpass $1 million.

"There are just so many unknowns about Illinois. From a capital perspective, it seems pretty tough," said Elliott Klug, an industry veteran who operates a growing operation and chain of dispensaries based in Denver under the Pink House banner.

While Klug isn't willing to test the waters in Illinois, many of his contemporaries have shown interest in competing for one of 22 licenses to grow the product and 60 to sell it across the state.

"I think what you're going to see are the big players, who are already established in other states, be the ones who can come in, take the risk and get a lot of the licenses," said Gabriel Plotkin, a Chicago attorney with Miller Shakman & Beem. "These are businesspeople with experience, credentials and money."

pfrost@tribune.com

Somebody needs to tell Cindy Currence about "jury nullification"

"Jury nullification" has been a part of American and English law since the 1600's and it allows jurors the right to return an innocent verdict if they feel either the law is unjust or the sentence for the crime committed is unjust.

During the days of slavery many jurors returned innocent verdicts for people who were guilty of helping slaves escape because they knew that slavery was morally wrong.

During the American's "war on liquor" they did the same and some people estimated that 60 percent of the people arrested for liquor violations were acquitted because jurors thought the Feds war on booze was morally wrong.

And if you ask me jurors should start returning innocent verdicts for every person arrested for a victimless drug war crime. That would send a message to the police to stop wasting our tax dollars arresting people for victimless drug war crimes.

One of the main groups that preach "jury nullification" is the Fully Informed Jury Association.

Source

Sorry, your honor, I’m no killer

Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:42 PM

This month, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Karen O’Connor invited me down to her very civilized courtroom to participate in the jury trial of a young man who faces a murder charge.

We rode a nice shuttle bus to the nice new courthouse. We checked in on computers that printed official juror badges. They offered us coffee and cinnamon rolls.

And then the judge told us that the young man in front of us may have killed someone and that we may have to kill him. It’s not going to be me.

I was excused from jury duty.

Last week in The Arizona Republic, in an article about a new book on Jodi Arias ( “Author says new Arias book will clear Alexander’s name,” Valley & State), the author says, “How does somebody get to that point of moral degeneracy?” Ask Judge O’Connor and the state Legislature.

Don’t eat their cinnamon rolls — and if they ask you to kill someone, say no.

— Cindy Currence, Phoenix

Collection of student data raises questions

Collection of student data raises questions

By Cathryn Creno The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:29 AM

Rose Fletcher, a Mesa mother of two, agrees that schools need to keep track of some basic information about her children — their grades, standardized-test scores and attendance from year to year.

“I also understand that the state needs to compare schools’ test-score data,” she said. “I don’t mind that.”

But mirroring the concerns of a growing number of parents, Fletcher worries schools are collecting too much data about her kids, ages 7 and 9. She and others worry about identity theft as well as invasion of their families’ privacy.

“I got a letter from my 7-year-old’s school asking whether I am Hispanic and what is the primary language I speak at home,” she said. “That bothers me. Why are they so concerned about the culture I practice in my home? My demographics, race or background should not determine my children’s future.”

She wonders if she will be asked next about her family’s politics or religion.

Another Mesa mom, Brenda Martin, is concerned about the security of the data that schools collect about her sons, who are in junior and senior high school.

“I don’t think they need to know all of the things that they ask,” she said.

Information-technology officials at the Arizona Department of Education say student information is as safe as it has ever been — and will get even safer as they continue to develop a more streamlined and centralized data system in the next few years. [Hey Edward Snowden is in Russia and he won't be leaking any data from Arizona schools!]

In addition, Arizona has a Data Governance Commission that permits state officials to collect only student information that directly relates to education.

Still, many parents have confronted State Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal with fears that his department will either sell their kids’ data or use its new computer system to pry into their finances, politics, religion — even gun ownership.

Because of the questions Huppenthal is regularly asked, the state Education Department developed a five-point fact sheet for him to share when he speaks publicly.

“Will the system track a family’s political affiliations or firearms ownership? Absolutely not,” Huppenthal’s fact sheet states. “The system is intended to do three major things: provide teachers data so they can better instruct their students, simplify the administration of the school system and reduce the burden of required reports.”

In June, about 90 parents from around central Arizona met with Huppenthal about the new Arizona Common Core Standards. Many challenged him with questions about whether the state will collect more personal data from families as the new academic standards and the centralized data system are rolled out.

Reports about data

News reports about weaknesses in the current data system, as well as commentary by conservative figures like Glenn Beck, have raised the suspicions of many parents.

Beck, for instance, recently told a National Public Radio interviewer that he believes the federal government is developing a national education data system to support testing the new Common Core standards.

He said it “calls for massive amounts of personal data on students, including health-care histories, income information, religious affiliation, blood types, ... how are your parents voting.”

Not factual, state officials say.

“People are afraid we want to collect information about politics and firearms — but we are only collecting the data we have always collected,” said Chris Kotterman, the state Education Department’s deputy associate superintendent for policy development and government relations.

Kotterman and other Education Department officials confirmed that they do, and most likely will continue to, collect information about students’ gender and racial background, languages spoken at home and whether their families have incomes low enough to qualify for free or reduced-cost lunches.

That information is used by state and federal education officials to determine whether all students are being properly served by school districts. Officials also sometimes use demographic data to make sure standardized test questions are fair.

“But the data is collected and looked at in the aggregate,” Kotterman said. “We don’t include individual student names in the reports.”

How information is used

Kelly McManus, government-affairs director for the advocacy group Stand for Children Arizona, said she has observed “a tremendous amount of misinformation and fear-mongering around (student) data right now.” [Parents, trust us royal government rulers, we are smarter then you, and know what we are doing, and we would never let you down. Didn't Edward Snowden's boss say something like that!!!] She has developed a fact sheet similar to Huppenthal’s that she uses to dispel myths. “The primary type of data that is being collected is academic in nature,” she said.

“As a former teacher, it was so important for me to know where my students were academically, who had a history of absenteeism and who I needed to be prepared to provide additional supports to. I think people who are concerned should talk to their school and find out what is really being collected. There are state and federal laws protecting individual student data,” McManus added. [Yea, like the ones that stopped Edward Snowden from leaking all that data!]

Kotterman suggested parents keep in mind that the laws regulating the privacy of student data are similar to those that make medical records private. [Well, they didn't work very well in Edward Snowden's case. Nor do they do much good stopping bank robbers who could care less that they are committing a crime]

“We can’t sell your student’s data,” he said. “We can’t give it away.” [Well legally we can, but if some bureaucrat decides to sell your student's data, there ain't much you as a parent can do about it.]

RELATED INFO

About the education data system

Although it received less than a third of the funds it requested for the project, the Arizona Department of Education is moving forward to streamline and centralize the state’s student-data system.

The state Legislature allocated $7 million this year for a program to replace a piecemeal system of data and coding that officials use to track everything from standardized-test scores to students who receive federally funded meals.

The funds also are being used to develop pilot programs in 11 Arizona school districts and charter schools: Balsz Elementary, Deer Valley Unified, Eloy Elementary, Kingman Unified, Nogales Unified, Paradise Valley Unified, Phoenix Elementary, Tolleson Elementary, Vail, the Arizona State School for the Deaf and Blind and AmeriSchools. The program helps the districts instantly connect with student data that is housed in state Education Department databases.

Teachers can access student data through “dashboards” in their classrooms and find out immediately if their students are gifted, need remedial work in certain areas or have had attendance problems.

Department officials hope that as many as 200 school districts will connect to the new system in the next two years.

ASU’s tobacco-free policy — what a conundrum

Well I suspect it will be that way for a while. Well at least until the cops realized they can use it to create a jobs program for themsevles.

Source

Malecka: ASU’s tobacco-free policy — what a conundrum

Corey Malecka is a junior studying journalism at Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication and an intern with the East Valley Tribune.

Posted: Saturday, August 24, 2013 7:14 am | Updated: 11:03 am, Sun Aug 25, 2013.

Guest commentary by Corey Malecka | 13 comments

Arizona State University has banned the use of tobacco products on its property, and its enforcement is something difficult to imagine in the bustling university towns at the heart of communities like Tempe, southeast Mesa and Downtown Phoenix.

The “Tobacco-Free Campus” ostracizes users of tobacco products – namely easy-to-spot smokers – off the Sun Devils’ four primary campuses, as well as other property owned, rented or leased by the university.

The move is aligned with the Tobacco-free College Campus initiative, a national program under the guise of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ASU is now among the nearly 800 educational institutions that have implemented such a policy, according to a tally by the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation.

But of that number, only about 100 universities have a similar enforcement policy at ASU, said Kevin Salcido, associate VP and chief HR officer.

So how exactly is the university prepared to enforce and discipline violators?

Enforcement at ASU is dependent on student, staff and visitor participation in a voluntary peer-to-peer model.

ASU Police Department officials have made it clear that it was never the university’s intention to have its police department enforce it.

In reality, anyone can enforce it — even chain smokers if they felt so compelled. Because the program is voluntary, no university official can make someone enforce the tobacco ban; but if you respect the rule of law, then it would make sense that you would be obliged to.

Yet, while the intent to promote a healthy student body is valiant, the idea of having those on campus serve as the sort-of-but-not-really-official enforcement arm is troubling.

To patrol the university grounds by moral authority, rather than legal authority, is – pun intended – just blowing smoke.

With around 73,000 students enrolled, according to the university, enforcement would include trial-and-error, noted Justin Zeien, chair of the Health and Counseling Student Action Committee and Well Devils member

And, chances are, there will be sufficient errors.

Maricopa County Community College District’s Breathe Easy Initiative has a tobacco-free policy that began July 1, 2012. The MCCCD police handle compliance, said Andrew Tucker, district manager of communications for MCCCD.

Tucker asserted MCCCD does not punish violators on a first offense, but neither will ASU. It must be successful because MCCCD has had no write-ups in violation of its policy, only reminders by public safety.

But at ASU, say someone oversteps the purview of the policy’s “soft” enforcement by means of threats or harassment; Salcido admitted that abuse and misconduct of enforcement is a possibility. And to the same end, smokers may even be noncompliant just for the sake of turning their noses up at those attempting to shoo them to the borderlands.

Though, with only a handful of resources and one of the largest university communities in the nation to watch over, a smoking policy shouldn’t be left to university law enforcement, either.

So if the peer-to-peer system isn’t the way to go, and the policy would have been too much weight on the shoulders of an understandably busy ASU police arm, what’s the solution?

The American College Health Association conducted a survey at ASU for the 2011 National College Health Assessment, finding 86.4 percent of students do not smoke cigarettes. Basic arithmetic reveals only 9,928 ASU students smoke cigarettes. Sure, nearly 10,000 students seem like enough of a sample to invoke a tobacco-free policy; but that’s spread over four large campuses, numerous other properties, and not all students are on campus at the same time – nor lighting up together.

With those numbers in play – again considering the sheer size of ASU as a whole – wouldn’t a series of designated, conspicuously-marked smoking zones on each corner of each campus, allowing a compromise between smokers and non-smokers, be a better option? A campus libertarian group, Students for Liberty, fought against the policy change and supported such a move as a best-case consolation. The group’s logic: it would localize littering, and anyone who chose to could avoid the vicinity at will.

Surely $38,700 could have been a good starting point to help zone out smokers. That amount is what the university preliminarily allocated for small regulatory signage around ASU facilities, according to a facilities development and management official.

Or how about another $8,130? That’s what ASU’s Office of Wellness and Health Promotion had requested to spend on “Well Devils” T-shirts over the past three years from IGNITE – that’s Influence, Guide, Network, for Intercollegiate Tobacco Education, a county program for area colleges and universities to promote the dangers of smoking and to help tobacco users quit. Well Devils is mainly a student organization advocating for a healthy mind, body, and community, and the funds were devoted as such “because Well Devils live and breathe tobacco-free,” said Karen Moses, director of ASU Wellness.

In explaining the new ASU policy, director of ASU Health Services and HCSAC adviser Allan Markus said “mostly it’s for students, faculty and staff who made the life choice not to smoke.”

That’s a telling statement. It’s OK that the majority stands to benefit from such a decision, but in this case, it didn’t have to be at the expense of the minority – that being the tobacco users.

What’s clear is that the ASU community missed an opportunity to foster actual engagement between differing viewpoints on a controversial issue, and that the community could have come up with a solution that benefited all parties involved.

I might have been one to help enforce the policy if it were truly at the benefit of the entire student body. But as it sits now, I plan to keep a clean nose, and hope to find an ashtray off campus.

• Corey Malecka, a junior studying journalism at Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, was an intern for the East Valley Tribune this past summer.

Obama’s higher ed fix won’t work

Yes, the "war on drugs" is also a "war on Blacks"

City elections are corrupt????

1) When it comes to increased college costs the Federal government is the cause of the problem, not the solution to the problem.

2) The "war on drugs" is a racist "war on drugs" where police selectively enforce drug laws in the neighborhoods of minorities.

3) I suspect that city governments prefer their elections to be held on oddball dates, because it's easier for the special interest groups that control city governments to win with smaller voter turnouts.

Source

Obama’s higher ed fix won’t work

From the political notebook:

* Last week, President Barack Obama took what his office described as a “college affordability bus tour.” During it, he proposed that the federal government start evaluating which universities and colleges offer a greater value and direct proportionally greater federal aid to those with higher rankings.

That’s just what the country and higher education needs: another busybody federal program.

Think the federal government is having difficulty coming up with a Volcker rule to limit the investment risks banks can take with their own capital. Wait until it gets into the business of defining “value” in college education.

There is something the federal government could do that would dramatically reduce the cost of a college education: stop financing it.

If the federal government wasn’t massively subsiding higher education, colleges, universities and trade schools would have to sharply reduce the cost or go out of business. There’s room to do it. Higher ed costs have increased largely in administration, not classroom instruction.

They would also have to increase their value proposition far more than would be necessary to game whatever scheme Obama’s federal value apparatchiks come up with.

Students would also benefit from having to rely on private financing. The federal government has a difficult time differentiating between institutions and degrees. Private lenders wouldn’t.

The federal government can’t really say that it will give a loan to attend Virtuous State but not Diploma Mill U or to get an engineering degree but not one in English Lit. With private lenders, there would be money available for degrees from institutions that would result in jobs with incomes sufficient to pay back the loan but not when that was in doubt. Imagine that.

Students wanting to go on to college would have to buckle down more in high school, even if they weren’t aiming at getting into a prestigious school. That high school record is part of what private lenders would be looking at.

There is significant malinvestment in higher education. It won’t be solved by setting off a feeding frenzy among college administrators and federal bureaucrats over what constitutes “value.”

* When Attorney General Eric Holder proposed sentencing reform, state Rep. Bob Thorpe tweeted to the effect that Holder was doing it because he was Black and Blacks make up a substantially disproportionate percentage of those incarcerated in the United States.

Thorpe was lambasted by Democratic politicians, and rightfully so given his crudity. Thorpe sort-of apologized and then restricted access to his twitter account.

But here’s the irony: Race is very much an issue in sentencing reform, particularly with respect to drugs which was part of Holder’s focus.

Drug laws are far more vigorously enforced in low-income, minority communities, for reasons both good and bad. As a result, drug convictions for minorities, particularly young black men, are hugely disproportionate to what the statistics say about their relative drug use. Obviously having a criminal record sharply limits their future prospects. This is a big social issue in the United States.

There are many reasons to change our drug laws. The disproportionate effect on young minorities is one of them.

And, in the ultimate irony, Holder said as much in the speech to which Thorpe responded.

* A superior court judge recently held that Phoenix and Tucson didn’t have to follow a new state law and change their candidate election dates to coincide with the state’s primary and general elections. I doubt that this is the last word. The ruling completely ignored a 1997 Court of Appeals decision saying that the state could dictate municipal election dates, a decision the state Supreme Court referred to approvingly in a 2012 opinion.

However, the ruling did cheer some and occasioned a reprisal of an argument in favor of the current low-turnout, by-invitation-only city elections that is both astonishing and amusing.

Based upon Scottsdale’s experience, moving to the state schedule can double or triple turnout. The smaller turnout is nevertheless better, some claim, because the electorate is focused just on city issues.

So, the judgment of 20 percent of the electorate is to be preferred to the judgment of 60 percent because the 60 percent are making other decisions at the same time?

Really?

What's your share of the $16.7 trillion debt???

The current population of the USA is about 313 million and with a National Debt of $16.7 trillion that means every man, woman and child in the USA owes $53,354 towards their share of the National Debt.

But since most children don't pay taxes lets calculate what ever adult in the USA owes toward the National Debt. I will just double the number because about half the US population is children so each adult in the USA owes $106,709 toward their share of the National Debt.

That means that mythical family of four owes $213,418 toward their share of the National Debt. If they recently bought a home, that is probably about what they owe toward their mortgage.

Of course if you have read the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin you probably realize that the National Debt is just an accounting sham where the government pretends to borrow money from itself to justify running the printing presses to print all that money.

Source

U.S. will hit debt limit in mid-October, Treasury secretary Lew says

By Jim Puzzanghera

August 26, 2013, 1:59 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. will run out of borrowing authority under the nation's $16.7-trillion debt limit in mid-October, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew formally told Congress on Monday as he implored lawmakers to act soon to avoid a government default.

Lew had last updated Congress on the debt limit in May, saying that he expected the Treasury to be able to continue borrowing until at least Labor Day.

The new deadline comes as lawmakers prepare to return to Washington next month to battle over government spending. Republican leaders have demanded budget cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit, and some lawmakers want President Obama and Democrats to agree to other policy concession as well.

Raising the limit doesn't authorize new spending; it simply allows the government to pay the bills for spending Congress already has approved.

But Lew warned that a standoff risked "dire consequences" and urged Congress to act quickly to "remove the threat of default."

"Protecting the full faith and credit of the United States is the responsibility of Congress because only Congress can extend the nation's borrowing authority," Lew wrote to House and Senate leaders, with copies sent to all lawmakers.

"Failure to meet that responsibility would cause irreparable harm to the American economy," he said.

A bitter showdown over raising the debt limit two years ago led Standard & Poor's to cut the nation's AAA credit rating to AA+.

The government technically hit its debt limit again in May. Since then, the Treasury has been using so-called extraordinary measures to juggle the nation's finances and continue borrowing to pay its bills.

The Treasury got additional help this summer when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a combined dividend payment of nearly $60 billion on their bailouts, extending the deadline for the U.S. to raise its borrowing authority.

Based on the latest estimates, the Treasury's extraordinary measures would reach their limit in the middle of October, Lew said.

At that point, the government would only be able to pay bills with cash on hand of about $50 billion on any given day. Because it's not possible to estimate precisely when that cash would run out, Lew said Congress shouldn't wait until the last minute.

"Congress should act as soon as possible to protect America's good credit by extending normal borrowing authority well before any risk of default becomes imminent," he wrote.

Uncle Sam has your Facebook password???

Facebook: Governments demanded data on 38K users

By Matt Apuzzo Associated Press Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:50 AM

WASHINGTON — Government agents in 74 countries demanded information on about 38,000 Facebook users in the first half of this year, with about half the orders coming from authorities in the United States, the company said Tuesday.

The social-networking giant is the latest technology company to release figures on how often governments seek information about its customers. Microsoft and Google have done the same.

As with the other companies, it’s hard to discern much from Facebook’s data, besides the fact that, as users around the globe flocked to the world’s largest social network, police and intelligence agencies followed.

Facebook and Twitter have become organizing platforms for activists and, as such, have become targets for governments. During anti-government protests in Turkey in May and June, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called social media “the worst menace to society.”

At the time, Facebook denied it provided information about protest organizers to the Turkish government.

Data released Tuesday show authorities in Turkey submitted 96 requests covering 173 users. Facebook said it provided some information in about 45 of those cases, but there’s no information on what was turned over and why.

“We fight many of these requests, pushing back when we find legal deficiencies and narrowing the scope of overly broad or vague requests,” Colin Stretch, Facebook’s general counsel company said in a blog post. “When we are required to comply with a particular request, we frequently share only basic user information, such as name.”

Facebook and other technology companies have been criticized for helping the National Security Agency secretly collect data on customers. Federal law gives government the authority to demand data without specific warrants, and while companies can fight requests in secret court hearings, it’s an uphill battle.

Facebook turned over some data in response to about 60 percent of those requests.

It’s not clear from the Facebook data how many of the roughly 26,000 government requests on 38,000 users were for law-enforcement purposes and how many were for intelligence gathering.

Technology and government officials have said criminal investigations are far more common than national security matters as a justification for demanding information from companies.

The numbers are imprecise because the federal government forbids companies from revealing how many times they’ve been ordered to turn over information about their customers. Facebook released only a range of figures for the United States.

The company said it planned to start releasing these figures regularly.

Blame Gov. Brewer for this epic clemency fail

Source

Our View: Blame Gov. Brewer for this epic clemency fail

By Editorial board The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:28 PM

Jesse Hernandez, who recently resigned as executive director and chairman of the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency, obviously is not the first political appointee to arrive at an important government post ill-prepared and unqualified.

Usually, the beneficiaries of these opportunities have the good sense to not call attention to their shortcomings, lean heavily on the expertise of staff and ride the gravy train to its lucrative end.

In a backhanded way, such people pay tribute to their benefactor (in this case, Gov. Jan Brewer) in the one way they can: by not making idiots of themselves and calling attention to the fact that the boss (as mentioned, Gov. Brewer) thought so little of the post that she would fill it with such a knucklehead.

Jesse Hernandez, alas, does not appear to have learned this one lesson that is fundamental to political self-seekers: Your goofball antics do not reflect on you because, by virtue of your paper-thin qualifications, you cast no shadow. It all reflects back onto your boss. Who — did we mention? — is Gov. Brewer.

If the appointment had been to some far, wee corner of the political feather-bedder’s universe, that would have been one thing. But the clemency board is a highly visible institution, made more visible by Brewer herself.

Hernandez was appointed last year when Brewer suddenly replaced three of the five clemency board members, apparently because they were recommending too much clemency on behalf of inmates.

As The Republic’s Bob Ortega reported in his series in May on Arizona’s prison system, Brewer is the first Arizona governor in 34 years not to issue a single pardon. She has denied each of the clemency board’s 13 recommendations.

But simply saying no wasn’t enough. Brewer needed a clemency board that was just as averse to clemency as she was. Enter Hernandez, whose political connections in the Republican Party suggest a viewpoint on crime and clemency that would mirror the governor’s.

But if a reluctance to liberate felons had been his only notoriety, Hernandez still would have an $84,000-per-year job. It was the foolish stuff that done him in.

Before a year was out, an internal investigation found nine instances of inappropriate behavior by the new director, including conducting a tacky and obvious in-office romance and arranging a substantial promotion for his special friend, who, like Hernandez himself, appeared otherwise unqualified.

Hernandez also stirred accusations of favoritism by continuing a commutation hearing, repeatedly, for a relative of his friend, basketball star Amar’e Stoudemire. And he accumulated a fulsome record of rude behavior involving other board members, staff and relatives of inmates.

Hernandez has his defenders. Among them, prisoner-rights activist Donna Leone Hamm, who normally is not fond of clemency-averse board directors. But the one defender who mattered to Hernandez is on a promotional tour of India. And she has not commented on her appointee’s behavior, other than to declare that she accepted his resignation without hesitation.

That would be Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who apparently thought someone devoid of corrections experience would be a good director of the state clemency board, as long as his politics aligned with hers.

Sometimes, such political appointments strike pay dirt. Which is to say they kick up no dust. Sometimes, like this one, they splat headfirst into the muck.

This article reminds me of David Dorn!!!!!

Posted on August 26, 2013 2:32 pm by EJ Montini

Recalling the unimaginable

One of the worst things about a job like mine is the realization, based on experience, that human behavior which should be unimaginable… isn’t.

Like a parent killing his child and then himself.

That is supposedly what happened over the weekend, when Chandler police say 25-year-old Rajneesh Saini shot and killed his three-month-old son and then took his own life.

It’s unimaginable.

It’s unthinkable.

It’s … happened before.

Here.

Years ago I received in the mail a letter from a woman named Koby Lyn Robinson.

She was in the news at the time for having put a gun to the head of her 6-year-old daughter, Kaylea, pulling the trigger, and then shooting and killing herself.

But some miracle, Kaylea lived.

The letter I got from Koby Lyn was postmarked the day of the shooting.

She wrote in part, “I’m concerned that despite my careful planning, the press will exaggerate and fudge on the reporting of my suicide. I waited on you once at the Spaghetti Co. and praised your ‘reporting.’ … You have a beautiful daughter, so do I. I had dreams for her, but single moms really struggle to ensure those dreams for their children.”

There is no way of understanding how a loving parent can do such a thing. There’s no explaining it. Or justifying it. Or anything remotely like that.

I don’t understand it. None of us do, I’d guess.

But here is how Koby Lyn explained it: “There is no place in our society for those of us who need emotional and mental healing. There’s no place in our society for those of us who are very young, very old or very vulnerable. I just couldn’t keep on fighting …

“I beg you please don’t let the press butcher my name and hurt my family. I’m not a horrible person, I’m not a murderer, I’m a middle-aged, sad, lonely desperate mom who just couldn’t go on. There are many out there just like me. Maybe God will forgive me and let me help those people from wherever this journey of death takes me.”

Architect of 'dirty DUI' scam says cop helped out

Source

Architect of 'dirty DUI' scam says cop helped out

Justin Berton

Updated 11:30 pm, Monday, August 26, 2013

The East Bay private investigator who invented the "dirty DUI" - elaborately staging the drunken-driving busts of targeted men - said the ploy grew more efficient after he paid off a Danville-based cop with cocaine and a pistol to ensure the arrests occurred.

Christopher Butler was once a police officer himself, before he sought wealth and fame as a private investigator with side appearances in magazines and on television. On Monday, he became something else: a government witness.

Butler, who cut a plea deal and is serving eight years in prison on drug and conspiracy charges, took the stand at the federal corruption trial of Stephen Tanabe, the former Contra Costa County deputy sheriff who Butler said carried out three drunken-driving arrests on his behalf.

Tanabe's attorneys have said the officer worked for an agency that pressured its employees to make frequent DUI stops - and took tips from Butler in the same way officers learn of drug deals from informants. Tanabe, 50, of Alamo has denied he accepted drugs or any compensation from Butler in exchange for the arrests. 'Designed coincidences'

Sounding at times like the police officer he once was, Butler gave a stoic overview of his once-thriving investigations firm, which was the subject of a reality TV show called "P.I. Moms" - it was never broadcast - and specialized in creating what Butler called "designed coincidences."

"We'd create the illusion that something was happening when it really wasn't," said Butler, who wore a red inmate jumpsuit for his appearance at the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. He said he was hired, at times, to plant drugs on clients, install listening devices in cars and commit insurance fraud.

But it was the dirty DUI stings that Butler described at length. He said he conceived the ruse when a client approached him in 2007 and complained that her husband was driving drunk with the couple's children in the car.

The woman wanted recorded video proof, Butler said, so he dispatched a female "decoy" to approach the man at a bar, flirt and see if the target "would take the bait" by following the decoy in a car to another destination.

Butler, who often represented estranged wives in divorce and child-custody disputes, said he carried out the DUI sting a dozen times on unsuspecting men throughout the Bay Area, but sparked only five arrests.

He said he adhered to strict rules when deciding whether to accept a client's request: The man needed to have a propensity to drink and drive, and children needed to be involved.

"I don't know why," Butler said when asked why children needed to play a role. "It was just my requirement."

At first, Butler said the scam was inefficient. He would call the local police dispatch center to report a drunken driver, but sometimes a patrol car arrived too late or not at all. Then in 2008, he said, he called a close friend who was a Concord police officer on his cell phone to make sure the officer was working the same night as a planned sting. Officer friends involved

Butler said that the Concord officer arrested the targeted man and that he called on several police friends after that.

"I put together a plan where I was able to have direct access to a law enforcement officer," he testified.

Butler also described his friendship with Tanabe, whom he met in the mid-1990s when both men were Antioch police officers. After Butler resigned in 1999, while under investigation for conducting a 33-minute patrol chase that ended in an accident, he opened his firm, Butler and Associates.

He said he often hired Tanabe, who also had resigned, for bodyguard and surveillance work. But Tanabe, he said, used cocaine and once asked Butler to help him quit the drug.

Years later, Butler said, he was at a bar with Tanabe - who had joined the county Sheriff's Office in 2006 - as one of his decoys flirted with a targeted man. Tanabe, he said, asked him to be paid for his involvement with the arrests.

"Mr. Tanabe wanted to be compensated for his time and efforts," Butler said. "I didn't expect him to work for free." Paid in cocaine

The private investigator said he was surprised when Tanabe asked to be paid with $200 worth of cocaine instead of cash - he thought his friend had quit using the drug long ago. Butler said he delivered the drugs to Tanabe when the officer was in uniform and parked in his patrol car outside a market in Danville.

"I put the car in park, reached out the window, and handed him the baggie," Butler said.

Tanabe faces more than 20 years in prison if convicted. His attorneys will begin their cross-examination of Butler on Tuesday.

Justin Berton is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jberton@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @justinberton

Video cameras - proof of police corruption???

"More than 100 prosecutions had to be scuttled when footage from security videos prompted allegations that officers lied about the circumstances of drug searches and arrests or stole from suspects"

Source

S.F. cops will wear cameras to record searches

Jaxon Van Derbeken

Updated 9:24 pm, Monday, August 26, 2013

San Francisco police supervisors will soon wear video cameras on their chests in a pilot project aimed at reassuring the public in the wake of questionable drug raids by plainclothes officers at residential hotels in 2011.

Police Chief Greg Suhr said the $1,000 devices will be rolled out to 50 plainclothes supervisors in the next six weeks as the first part of what is expected to be a deployment of 150 cameras. The goal, Suhr said, is to document every detail of an investigative search.

"We can have a recording of the conversation at the door with regard to consent on consensual entries or the announcement on search warrant entries," he said. "The main goal is to capture for purpose of evidence preservation the conversation at the threshold."

In recent years, some Bay Area cities have decided to equip officers with chest cameras at all times, with the footage used in both criminal investigations and in internal probes of officer misconduct. Suhr said using wearable cameras in other situations, including traffic stops, is under consideration.

The grant-funded program in San Francisco comes as the FBI continues to investigate several residential hotel raids in 2011.

More than 100 prosecutions had to be scuttled when footage from security videos prompted allegations that officers lied about the circumstances of drug searches and arrests or stole from suspects.

Suhr said he hopes the videos will assure the public that officers are acting properly during such raids. Martin Halloran, the head of the police union, voiced a similar sentiment, saying, "I think you are going to find out that once this equipment is out there that our officers are performing in a professional manner and have been all along."

Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who publicly released some of the footage that raised questions about the residential hotel raids, welcomed the use of the cameras, saying they have proven effective elsewhere in reducing complaints of misconduct. He stressed that the technology needed strict guidelines and supervision to protect privacy rights.

"I think it's a good idea," Adachi said. "The question, or problem of police accountability, is one that has plagued San Francisco and other cities for decades. What cameras will do is provide objective evidence of the circumstances in these cases."

In the San Bernardino County city of Rialto, police-deployed video cameras led to an 88 percent drop in complaints against officers and a 60 percent drop in the use of force in a one-year period.

While police are moving toward reliance on video cameras, San Francisco's fire department has explicitly banned firefighters from buying and using helmet-mounted cameras until a policy can be worked out to permit their use.

Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White reinforced a 2009 policy against cameras, saying she needed to protect privacy rights. She acted not long after Battalion Chief Mark Johnson's helmet-mounted camera captured footage that raised questions about the department's handling of the July 6 crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214.

In the response to the fire, a passenger was run over by an airport fire rig after being covered by foam. Fire officials say Johnson violated the rules, but have not yet sought to discipline him.

Jaxon Van Derbeken is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com

Recreational marijuana: Denver sets sales tax, retail rules

Well I guess that is a lot better then Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema who tried to flush Arizona's medical marijuana laws down the toilet with a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana.

It's been a while since I dug up the percent tax on tea that caused the Boston Tea Party, but I think it was something like 3/4 of a percent tax or a 1 and 3/4 percent on tea.

This 3.5 percent tax on marijuana in Denver is at least twice the tax that caused the Boston Tea Party.

Source

Recreational marijuana: Denver sets sales tax, retail rules

By Jeremy P. Meyer, Denver Post

Posted: 08/27/2013 09:28:33 AM PDT | Updated: 53 min. ago

Denver City Council on Monday made several big decisions about the nascent marijuana industry, including allowing stores to sell both medical and nonmedical pot without requiring physical barriers in the shops and setting a proposed 3.5 percent tax rate.

Also, new licensing requirements will give neighbors a chance to raise concerns about public safety, health and welfare of the neighborhood at mandatory public hearings before medical marijuana centers can convert to selling retail marijuana.

"We've done a good job here," Councilman Chris Nevitt said after an afternoon committee meeting. [You ever hear an elected official admitting they did a lousy job??? Nope, they always pat themselves on the back, not for doing an OK job, but for always doing a super, super, super fantastic job]

Denver, which has about 200 medical marijuana centers, is the largest city in Colorado to opt-in on allowing retail marijuana to be sold beginning in January. The City Council has been working on establishing a licensing and regulatory framework since Amendment 64 was passed by state voters last year.

The 3.5 percent sales tax, if approved by voters in November, is expected to raise $3.4 million a year to pay for regulation, enforcement and education around the new industry. [Translation - the 3.5 percent tax is a government welfare program for government bureaucrats!!!] Denver Mayor Michael Hancock had wanted a 5 percent beginning tax rate. The tax would be able to be raised as high as 15 percent without a public vote. [You can bet as time marches on the tax rate will be continually jack up until it hits the 15 percent max. And then the government crooks will ask the voters for permission to raise the tax higher]

"This will create the opportunity to deal with some of those social costs that will come as a result of an expanded presence of marijuana in Denver," said Councilwoman Debbie Ortega. [translation - it's a welfare program for overpaid government bureaucrats]

"The whole country is watching us," said Council President Mary Beth Susman. "Come Jan. 1, we are going to have people from all over the country asking us how is it going? We have thought about what it will mean for the future and to be among the first to legalize marijuana in this fashion."

The council on Monday also set the licensing requirements for the new industry that will begin in January. The new rules range from store hours to the substance of public hearings. The full council will vote on the licensing requirements next month.

Among the highlights :

• For the first two years, the city will allow only established medical marijuana businesses to convert to retail marijuana shops.

• Medical and retail marijuana can be sold in the same store without a physical barrier, which had been called for in an earlier version.

• Retail marijuana shops in Denver can operate from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., despite a state law that allows them to be open until midnight.

• Public hearings will be required when existing medical marijuana shops convert. But the hearings won't be as strict as liquor licenses, which determine whether neighborhoods need or desire that a liquor license be issued.

Some council members were concerned that the public wasn't going to have as much opportunity to make their cases before the pot shops begin operating. Councilman Paul Lopez was pleased that the council put in an allowance for neighbors to talk about their concerns.

"This will give neighborhoods a voice and will keep them at the table and not on the menu," he said.

Cops have a firefight in LA camp ground????

I suspect if civilians had committed these crimes, instead of off duty cops, they would be facing a long series of felony charges along with a million dollar plus bail in the gun grabbing state of California.

Source

Rival campers who opened fire turn out to be sheriff's deputies

By Robert Faturechi

August 26, 2013, 10:42 p.m.

An apparent booze-fueled dispute over loud music between two groups at a Chino campground over the weekend escalated to the point where men from both sides drew guns and opened fire.

No one was hurt, but the two alleged gunmen have plenty to explain.

It turns out that the rival gun-toting campers were both Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies.

Authorities suspect the off-duty cops learned they were colleagues only after their campground showdown.

Chino police officers were called to Prado Regional Park early Sunday morning. They arrested the deputies — Dejay Barber, 44, and Matthew Rincon, 24 — on suspicion of negligent discharge of a firearm.

Chino police Lt. Wes Simmons, when asked if he'd ever come across a similar scene, couldn't stifle a chuckle: "That's not fair for you to ask me that," he said, before acknowledging that he hadn't.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said both deputies have been relieved of duty with pay. He said the men brandished their guns in a "threatening manner."

They did not fire at each other, he said, but into the air.

"Alcohol is suspected," Whitmore said. "This is gross negligence."

It's unclear if there were other campers nearby when the off-duty deputies began shooting. Multiple rounds were fired.

"I don't know how many, but more than one," Whitmore said.

This isn't the first time in recent years that violence has broken out between deputies from the agency.

In 2009, a sergeant was accused of pointing a gun at the head of a fellow sergeant inside the Compton sheriff's station and mouthing, "I'm gonna kill you."

In 2010, a group of jail deputies brawled with two of their colleagues at a department Christmas party. At one point, a female deputy was punched in the face.

And last year, a deputy was accused of kicking another deputy in the groin without provocation. That came after she had been arrested the year before over suspicion of assaulting fellow deputies during an early-morning brawl at a La Mirada park where she and two colleagues were found bloodied and apparently drunk.

Whitmore said the department is taking the latest incident seriously.

One of the deputies works in the county courts, Whitmore said, and the other in the department's transit services division. The criminal investigation will be handled by the Chino police.

No press release was issued about the campground gunfire. The Times learned of the incident through a source.

robert.faturechi@latimes.com

Police smelled marijuana on 2 Chainz tour bus

Source

Police smelled marijuana on 2 Chainz tour bus

By Tim Talley Associated Press Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:42 PM

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City police officer who pulled over the tour bus of rapper 2 Chainz "smelled an overwhelming odor of marijuana" when the driver opened the door, a police affidavit says.

Eleven people, including 2 Chainz, were arrested Thursday after refusing to get off the bus for about nine hours following the traffic stop. The 35-year-old rapper, whose real name is Tauheed Epps, had performed with Lil Wayne and T.I. in Oklahoma City the night before.

The affidavit, filed Monday in Oklahoma County District Court, says the officer pulled over the bus on Interstate 40 early Thursday morning because none of the rear taillights on the passenger side were working.

The officer smelled marijuana when the driver of the bus, identified as Sedric A. Brooks, opened the door, the affidavit says, and the officer "could actually see smoke inside the bus around the door."

The officer then ordered Davis back on the bus, the document said, after which Davis "quickly shut the door" and said he wasn't authorized to let the officer in.

The affidavit also says that a passenger on the bus, Abdullah Mujahid, shook his head "no" when ordered to get off the bus and held up a small copy of the U.S. Constitution.

The other occupants of the bus also refused to leave, so officers towed it to a nearby police training facility. The occupants finally walked off the bus after investigators obtained a search warrant.

2 Chainz and the others were charged with obstructing a police officer. All were released after paying $2,000 bail.

Investigators say they found narcotics on the bus and that more charges could be filed later.

The Atlanta-based rapper, initially known as Tity Boi, was a member of the rap duo Playaz Circle before going solo. His 2012 debut album, "Based on a T.R.U. Story," topped the Billboard charts. His new album, "B.O.A.T.S. II: Me Time," is set to be released next month.

Earlier this year, 2 Chainz was acquitted of marijuana charges he faced after a traffic stop on Maryland's Eastern Shore.

NYPD designates mosques as terrorism organizations

Source

NYPD designates mosques as terrorism organizations

By Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo Associated Press

Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:28 AM

NEW YORK — The New York Police Department has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorist organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams, often without specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Designating an entire mosque as a terrorism enterprise means that anyone who attends prayer services there is a potential subject of an investigation and fair game for surveillance.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the NYPD has opened at least a dozen “terrorism enterprise investigations” into mosques, according to interviews and confidential police documents. The TEI, as it is known, is a police tool intended to help investigate terrorist cells and the like.

Many TEIs stretch for years, allowing surveillance to continue even though the NYPD has never criminally charged a mosque or Islamic organization with operating as a terrorism enterprise.

The documents show in detail how, in its hunt for terrorists, the NYPD investigated countless innocent New York Muslims and put information about them in secret police files. As a tactic, opening an enterprise investigation on a mosque is so potentially invasive that while the NYPD conducted at least a dozen, the FBI never did one, according to interviews with federal law enforcement officials.

The strategy has allowed the NYPD to send undercover officers into mosques and attempt to plant informants on the boards of mosques and at least one prominent Arab-American group in Brooklyn, whose executive director has worked with city officials, including Bill de Blasio, a front-runner for mayor.

The revelations about the NYPD’s massive spying operations are in documents recently obtained by The Associated Press and part of a new book, “Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD’s Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden’s Final Plot Against America.” The book by AP reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman is based on hundreds of previously unpublished police files and interviews with current and former NYPD, CIA and FBI officials.

The disclosures come as the NYPD is fighting off lawsuits accusing it of engaging in racial profiling while combating crime. Earlier this month, a judge ruled that the department’s use of the stop-and-frisk tactic was unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union and two other groups have sued, saying the Muslim spying programs are unconstitutional and make Muslims afraid to practice their faith without police scrutiny.

Both Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly have denied those accusations. Speaking Wednesday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Kelly reminded people that his intelligence-gathering programs began in the wake of 9/11.

“We follow leads wherever they take us,” Kelly said. “We’re not intimidated as to wherever that lead takes us. And we’re doing that to protect the people of New York City.”

***

The NYPD did not limit its operations to collecting information on those who attended the mosques or led prayers. The department sought also to put people on the boards of New York’s Islamic institutions to fill intelligence gaps.

One confidential NYPD document shows police wanted to put informants in leadership positions at mosques and other organizations, including the Arab American Association of New York in Brooklyn, a secular social-service organization.

Linda Sarsour, the executive director, said her group helps new immigrants adjust to life in the U.S. It was not clear whether the department was successful in its plans.

The document, which appears to have been created around 2009, was prepared for Kelly and distributed to the NYPD’s debriefing unit, which helped identify possible informants.

Around that time, Kelly was handing out medals to the Arab American Association’s soccer team, Brooklyn United, smiling and congratulating its players for winning the NYPD’s soccer league.

Sarsour, a Muslim who has met with Kelly many times, said she felt betrayed.

“It creates mistrust in our organizations,” said Sarsour, who was born and raised in Brooklyn. “It makes one wonder and question who is sitting on the boards of the institutions where we work and pray.”

***

Before the NYPD could target mosques as terrorist groups, it had to persuade a federal judge to rewrite rules governing how police can monitor speech protected by the First Amendment.

The rules stemmed from a 1971 lawsuit, dubbed the Handschu case after lead plaintiff Barbara Handschu, over how the NYPD spied on protesters and liberals during the Vietnam War era.

David Cohen, a former CIA executive who became NYPD’s deputy commissioner for intelligence in 2002, said the old rules didn’t apply to fighting against terrorism.

Cohen told the judge that mosques could be used “to shield the work of terrorists from law enforcement scrutiny by taking advantage of restrictions on the investigation of First Amendment activity.”

NYPD lawyers proposed a new tactic, the TEI, that allowed officers to monitor political or religious speech whenever the “facts or circumstances reasonably indicate” that groups of two or more people were involved in plotting terrorism or other violent crime.

The judge rewrote the Handschu rules in 2003. In the first eight months under the new rules, the NYPD’s Intelligence Division opened at least 15 secret terrorism enterprise investigations, documents show. At least 10 targeted mosques.

Doing so allowed police, in effect, to treat anyone who attends prayer services as a potential suspect. Sermons, ordinarily protected by the First Amendment, could be monitored and recorded.

Among the mosques targeted as early as 2003 was the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge.

“I have never felt free in the United States. The documents tell me I am right,” Zein Rimawi, one of the Bay Ridge mosque’s leaders, said after reviewing an NYPD document describing his mosque as a terrorist enterprise.

Rimawi, 59, came to the U.S. decades ago from the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

“Ray Kelly, shame on him,” he said. “I am American.”

***

The NYPD believed the tactics were necessary to keep the city safe, a view that sometimes put it at odds with the FBI.

In August 2003, Cohen asked the FBI to install eavesdropping equipment inside a mosque called Masjid al-Farooq, including its prayer room.

Al-Farooq had a long history of radical ties. Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian sheik who was convicted of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks, once preached briefly at Al-Farooq. Invited preachers raged against Israel, the United States and the Bush administration’s war on terror.

One of Cohen’s informants said an imam from another mosque had delivered $30,000 to an al-Farooq leader, and the NYPD suspected the money was for terrorism.

But Amy Jo Lyons, the FBI assistant special agent in charge for counterterrorism, refused to bug the mosque. She said the federal law wouldn’t permit it.

The NYPD made other arrangements. Cohen’s informants began to carry recording devices into mosques under investigation. They hid microphones in wristwatches and the electronic key fobs used to unlock car doors.

Even under a TEI, a prosecutor and a judge would have to approve bugging a mosque. But the informant taping was legal because New York law allows any party to record a conversation, even without consent from the others. Like the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge, the NYPD never demonstrated in court that al-Farooq was a terrorist enterprise but that didn’t stop the police from spying on the mosques for years.

And under the new Handschu guidelines, no one outside the NYPD could question the secret practice.

Martin Stolar, one of the lawyers in the Handschu case, said it’s clear the NYPD used enterprise investigations to justify open-ended surveillance. The NYPD should only tape conversations about building bombs or plotting attacks, he said.

“Every Muslim is a potential terrorist? It is completely unacceptable,” he said. “It really tarnishes all of us and tarnishes our system of values.”

***

Al-Ansar Center, a windowless Sunni mosque, opened in Brooklyn several years ago, attracting young Arabs and South Asians. NYPD officers feared the mosque was a breeding ground for terrorists, so informants kept tabs on it.

One NYPD report noted that members were fixing up the basement, turning it into a gym.

“They also want to start Jiujitsu classes,” it said.

The NYPD was particularly alarmed about Mohammad Elshinawy, 26, an Islamic teacher at several New York mosques, including Al-Ansar. Elshinawy was a Salafist — a follower of a puritanical Islamic movement — whose father was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, according to NYPD documents.

The FBI also investigated whether Elshinawy recruited people to wage violent jihad overseas. But the two agencies investigated him very differently.

The FBI closed the case after many months without any charges. Federal investigators never infiltrated Al-Ansar.

“Nobody had any information the mosque was engaged in terrorism activities,” a former federal law enforcement official recalled, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation.

The NYPD wasn’t convinced. A 2008 surveillance document described Elshinawy as “a young spiritual leader (who) lectures and gives speeches at dozens of venues” and noted, “He has orchestrated camping trips and paintball trips.”

The NYPD deemed him a threat in part because “he is so highly regarded by so many young and impressionable individuals.”

No part of Elshinawy’s life was out of bounds. His mosque was the target of a TEI. The NYPD conducted surveillance at his wedding. An informant recorded the wedding and police videotaped everyone who came and went.

“We have nothing on the lucky bride at this time but hopefully will learn about her at the service,” one lieutenant wrote.

Four years later, the NYPD was still watching Elshinawy without charging him. He is now a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit against the NYPD.

“These new NYPD spying disclosures confirm the experiences and worst fears of New York’s Muslims,” ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi said. “From houses of worship to a wedding, there’s no area of New York Muslim religious or personal life that the NYPD has not invaded through its bias-based surveillance policy.”

Legalize homegrown marijuana

www.azdhs.gov/medicalmarijuana/documents/dispensaries/lawsuits/081513-notice-of-claim-CV2013-011447.pdf

Many other lawsuits relating to medical marijuana are also on the DHS website at:

http://www.azdhs.gov/medicalmarijuana/dispensaries/lawsuits.htm

Source

robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8472.

Posted on August 28, 2013 11:50 am by Robert Robb

Legalize homegrown marijuana

A lawsuit has been filed claiming that medical marijuana patients have a state constitutional right to grow their own rather than being required to purchase it from a state-licensed dispensary if there is one within 25 miles.

The claim is based on a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2010 saying that no one could be required to “participate in any health care system.” The measure was intended as a thumbing of the nose at Obamacare.

I don’t think much of the lawsuit’s prospects. Not being compelled to participate in a health care system isn’t the same thing as the right to concoct your own pharmaceuticals.

However, the lawsuit does occasion the thought that legalizing the right to cultivate, possess and use marijuana for personal use would be a good place to begin to rationalize our drug laws.

If the state did so, personal use would still be illegal under federal law. But the feds would be far less likely to go after individuals than large retail outlets. The feds have gone after some medical marijuana dispensaries in other states and have growled at the notion of retail stores in the states that recently legalized recreational use of marijuana.

State law could still make selling marijuana illegal. Just legalize homegrown, personal use.

That would have been a far better place to begin than with medical marijuana. I don’t dispute that marijuana can provide relief for some people and some conditions. But it’s not really a prescribed medical drug and state law doesn’t really treat it as such, although a doctor has to recommend it. And there’s clear gaming of the system to get it principally for recreational purposes.

Although it would pull the rug out from under those who have invested in the dispensaries under existing law, allowing homegrown consumption for any purpose is a more sensible approach, given federal law.

Lawsuit to declare 25 mile marijuana limit unconstitutional

Two men file lawsuit over medical marijuana

August 24, 2013 4:45 am

HOWARD FISCHER Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX — Two Arizona men are arguing that a 2010 voter-approved measure designed to attack the federal Affordable Care Act gives them a constitutional right to grow their own medical marijuana.

Keith Floyd and Daniel Cassidy contend in a lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court that the state cannot require that medical marijuana recipients can obtain their drug only from a dispensary if they live within 25 miles of any of the state’s licensed facilities. Their attorney, Michael Walz, argues that requirement runs afoul of language now in the Arizona Constitution which prohibits any law that requires anyone to “participate in any health care system.”

Walz said it’s a matter of free choice.

A ruling in his favor could have broad effects.

Most immediately, it would mean that the approximately 95 percent 40,000 medical marijuana cardholders who now live near a dispensary would not need to pay the $250 an ounce — or more — now being charged by dispensaries.

Instead, they could grow up to 12 plants for their own use right at home.

It also could undermine the financial plans of those who have invested thousands of dollars to get one of the limited number of dispensary licenses the state is granting, and many times more than that to set up shop. [I suspect many of these people were counting on having a government issued monopoly to make big bucks off of selling marijuana at black market prices to a captive audience that can't legally purchase it else where. If marijuana is totally legalized and the free market is allowed to govern sales you should be able to a pound of pot for less then a pound of tomatoes at your local Fry's or Safeway!]

But Walz said patients should have that right. More to the point, he said it’s constitutionally guaranteed.

His ammunition is Proposition 106. That measure put a provision into the Arizona Constitution overriding any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health-care system.

Sponsors said it was aimed directly at the plan Congress enacted requiring individuals to obtain health coverage or pay a fine. But Walz said the language is broad enough to cover what his clients want.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, also approved by voters in 2010, allows those with a doctor’s recommendation to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. The idea was to have that sold through state-regulated dispensaries. [i.e. government monopolies which charge black market prices]

But the law also provided an exception for anyone living at least 25 miles from such an outlet, with cardholders allowed to grow up to 12 plants at any one time.

With no dispensaries until this year, both men initially had been granted the right to grow. But that was rescinded by the state Department of Health Services when they renewed their medical marijuana user cards.

Walz contends that move is illegal in light of the constitutional amendment.

“The state does have a reasonable right to regulate medicine,” he said. “It’s just that they can’t compel citizens to go to one particular system or one particular outlet for the medications that they’re legally entitled to.”

State Health Director Will Humble said he’s simply enforcing the law as approved by voters. [Well as interpreted by his marijuana hating boss Jan Brewer] But Humble said he doubts that the constitutional provision can be interpreted to let people make their own regulated medications.

“Are people allowed to grow their own amoxicillin?” he asked, referring to the antibiotic that now is available only by prescription — and only through a state-regulated pharmacy. “I mean, this is medication.” [Why yes they are!!! Last time I checked it was legal to have moldy oranges peels with amoxicillin molds growing on it.]

Walz, however, insists this is different.

“You’re dealing with a plant,” he said.

“Should those be regulated as much as pharmaceutical drugs?” Walz continued. “I would say probably not.”

He said it would be no different if the state were to ban people from growing their own aloe plants used by some to treat burns and instead require Arizonans to buy aloe lotion from a local pharmacy “with God-knows what preservatives in it.”

Multiple dispensaries have been licensed for the state’s largest urban areas.

But residents of some communities will not have the luxury of shopping around for the best deal. For example, the state has allocated only one dispensary for Lake Havasu City, though there always is the option to drive to Kingman, Bullhead City — or even Flagstaff or Phoenix.

Humble said, though, it makes sense to have most medical marijuana users obtaining their drugs through a state-regulated system of growers and dispensaries rather than an unregulated system of individuals growing their own. [Of course it makes sense to Will Humble who is a government bureaucrat who will benefit from the silly law. Or at least Will Humble's empire at ADHS will benefit from it.]

That system requires those with licenses to account for what they have grown or sold. Humble said there is no way to determine whether home-grown marijuana is being diverted to some use beyond that of the cardholder.

“We were really clear-headed about putting regulations together that prevented diversion and theft,” he said.

“That’s why the inventory controls are so tight,” Humble continued. “You tell me what the inventory controls are in somebody’s house who’s got 12 plants?”

Ryan Hurley, an attorney who represents dispensary owners, said he does not believe the lawsuit has any merit. [So I guess the dispensary owners do want to keep their government issued monopolies that allow them to sell marijuana at outrageously high black market prices to medical marijuana patients]

And Hurley said he doubts there would be much loss of business for dispensaries even if Walz were to get a judge to decide in favor of his clients. He said most cardholders will find it more convenient to buy the ready-to-use weed from a dispensary than go through the hassle of nurturing a mature plant from seeds. [Then why are the dispensary owners paying Ryan Hurley big bucks to shoot down the lawsuit that will end their monopolies???]

“It’s legal to brew your own beer in this country, but very few people actually do it,” Hurley said. Anyway, he said, it’s not really easy to grow the plant, “especially high-quality cannabis, particularly if you’re old, elderly or very sick.” [Wow! Isn't that shoveling the BS. Marijuana is a stinking weed that even a person with a black thumb can grow!!!!]

Morgan Fox, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project that crafted the Arizona initiative, said that 25-mile rule was intentional, even if it does limit patients in many areas to getting their drugs from dispensaries. [I have often wonder if Prop 203 was written with the 25 mile limit to create monopolies for the people behind the law.]

He said that in most urban areas there will be several choices. “And there will be no problems with neighbors complaining about patients growing medicine in their neighborhoods.” [from that statement it sounds like the Marijuana Policy Project favors keeping the silly 25 mile limit???]

Two file lawsuit for grow-your-own medical marijuana

... We would be happy to sit down and do a consult at my hourly rate of $325 to explore the viability of a possible claim

M. Ryan Hurley
RHurley@roselawgroup.com
6613 N Scottsdale Road, Suite 200
Scottsdale Arizona 85250
Direct: 480.240.5585
Fax: 480.505.3925
Mobile: 602.999.2375

Two file lawsuit for grow-your-own medical marijuana

Posted By Phil Riske / August 24, 2013 / No Comments

By Howard Fischer | Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Sun

Two Arizona men are arguing that a 2010 voter-approved measure designed to at- tack the federal Affordable Care Act gives them a constitutional right to grow their own medical marijuana.

MMJKeith Floyd and Daniel Cassidy contend in a lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court that the state cannot require that medical marijuana recipients can obtain their drug only from a dispensary if they live within 25 miles of any of the state’s licensed facilities. Their attorney, Michael Walz, argues that requirement runs afoul of language now in the Arizona Constitution which prohibits any law that requires any- one to “participate in any health care system.”

Walz said it’s a matter of free choice.

A ruling in his favor could have broad effects.

Most immediately, it would mean that the approximately 95 percent 40,000 medical marijuana cardholders who now live near a dispensary would not need to pay the $250 an ounce — or more — now being charged by dispensaries.

Instead, they could grow up to 12 plants for their own use right at home.

It also could undermine the financial plans of those who have invested thousands of dollars to get one of the limited number of dispensary licenses the state is granting, and many times more than that to set up shop.

If you’d like to discuss medical marijuana, contact Ryan Hurley, director of the Rose Law Group Medical Marijuana Dept. rhurley@roselawgroup.com

Unless you have a boatload of money you don't mind giving to Ryan Hurley you probably shouldn't waste your time emailing him with medical marijuana questions.

He is just going to come back and waste your time telling you he wants $325 an hour to talk to you.

Here is the response to a question I sent him.

After saying I had a case he quickly asked for $325 an hour, not to do any work, but to tell tell me if I had a viable claim.

... We would be happy to sit down and do a consult at my hourly rate of $325 to explore the viability of a possible claim

M. Ryan Hurley
RHurley@roselawgroup.com
6613 N Scottsdale Road, Suite 200
Scottsdale Arizona 85250
Direct: 480.240.5585
Fax: 480.505.3925
Mobile: 602.999.2375

Medical marijuana vendors don't like 25 mile lawsuit????

Source

August 28, 2013

Lawsuit Tied to Home Grows Could Alter Arizona Medical Marijuana Market, But Industry Skeptical

Arizona’s medical marijuana industry has already dealt with enough turbulence to last a lifetime. But MMJ professionals might have to brace themselves for more uncertainty and change in the near future.

Two residents have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state’s ban on home growing for medical cannabis patients who live within 25 miles of a dispensary, arguing that it violates their rights under a provision in the Arizona Constitution tied to health care. The ban – a highly controversial piece of Arizona’s medical marijuana law – essentially ensures that the lion’s share of the 40,000 registered patients have to buy cannabis from state-licensed MMJ centers rather than cultivate their own or buy it from caregivers. [i.e. medical marijuana dispensaries have a government issued monopoly that allows them to sell marijuana to captive customers at black market prices]

Dispensaries benefit greatly from this regulation, of course, as they have almost total control of the market. [and they love it because it almost is a government issued license to print money when you can sell marijuana at black market prices to captive customers]

So a change in the law could have repercussions for those already operating dispensaries as well as the dozens of entrepreneurs preparing to open one soon. If the suit is successful, it’s conceivable that a few thousand patients would opt to cultivate their own cannabis, deeming it cheaper than paying dispensary prices. That would shrink the overall market available to MMJ centers and limit their future potential. [sounds like the medical marijuana dispensaries don't like this law suit because it will destroy their government monopoly]

Many dispensary owners have invested a considerable amount of money – in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars – to obtain licenses and launch, developing business plans based on a certain number of patients. A decrease in the customer pool could force some dispensaries to scale back or, in a worst-case scenario, even close. [Just because Prop 203 gave medical marijuana dispensaries a government monopoly to sell medical marijuana doesn't make it right, despite the fact that these dispensaries have invested big bucks in their government issued monopolies.]

On the bright side, however, companies that sell cultivation equipment and provide related services targeting home growers would have a sizable market going forward.

“A lot of this has to do with price,” said attorney Michael Walz, who is representing the two men behind the lawsuit. “Many people who are qualifying patients have severe financial problems. At dispensaries it costs about $400 an ounce for medicinal grade marijuana now. A lot of people can’t afford that.”

The lawsuit estimates that home growers can produce medical-grade cannabis for $50 an ounce after the initial investment, once they know what they’re doing and have the proper equipment, Walz said. [$50 an ounce??? That's rubbish!!!! Marijuana is a stinking weed that will grow well even if you have a black thumb!!! If marijuana was grown as a commercial crop I suspect a pound of marijuana would cost less then a pound of tomatoes at you local Fry's, Safeway or Bashas grocery store. ]

Many patients in Arizona have been growing their own cannabis due to delays in the roll out of the state’s dispensary program, which has been beset by delays and challenges. Dispensaries began opening up late last year, and several dozen are now operational. That’s forced patients within 25 miles of these centers to stop growing their own.

So what are the chances the lawsuit will be successful?

Several industry professionals said it doesn’t appear to have much merit, with one even calling it “laughable.” [I suspect that is wishful thinking on the part of the dispensary owners. Or at least I hope it is wishful thinking on the part of the dispensary owners]

“Voters voted for the 25-mile rule, so anybody taking the other side and saying that it’s unfair is basically saying that voters didn’t know what they wanted,” said Moe Asnani, who runs the consulting firm Arizona Dispensary Solutions and operates several dispensaries. “They are taking the approach of those on the far right (who have tried to sink the program). The truth is that when people went to the ballot and picked a side on this issue, they did it with the understanding that this would be regulated through dispensaries.” [I think most people voted for Prop 203 because they think marijuana should be legal. I think if most people had the choice they would have voted for the law WITHOUT the 25 mile limit. I think Moe Asnani is just trying to justify the law which gives his dispensary the right to a government monopoly which will make him rich selling medical marijuana at black market prices]

Indeed, the whole provision tied to home growing was deemed a necessary inclusion to sway voters in favor of MMJ and get the law passed. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act passed by the slimmest of margins (just 4,300 votes), and it very well could have failed without the home-grow provision.

Walz, however, said that the Arizona Constitution still overrides any state statue.

“The fact that voters passed it has no bearing whatsoever,” Walz said. “It’s an absurd argument.”

Even if the suit is successful, some dispensary professionals believe the impact will be minimal, saying that most people who try to grow their own fail and that the vast majority of patients will prefer the convenience of MMJ centers.

Mesa drug war cops bust Yerberia shops

Source

Mesa police arrest 12 after year-long undercover investigation of prescription-drug ring

By Jim Walsh and Astrid Verdugo The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:22 PM

A year-long undercover investigation by Mesa police led to the arrests of 12 people accused of illegally selling prescription drugs manufactured in Mexico to customers without prescriptions.

Police served 14 search warrants at herbal stores that cater to the Latino community, known as Yerberia shops. The search warrants were also served at the homes of people suspected of operating them, said Sgt. Tony Landato, a Mesa police spokesman.

Landato said the warrants were served at locations throughout the Valley, including Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe, Chandler and Scottsdale.

Police targeted the Los 3 Amigos and El Renacer Yeberia shops in the investigation, which focused on the illegal sale of prescription drugs manufactured in Mexico.

Landato said police seized homes, businesses, vehicles and bank accounts as part of their investigation.

The news about the investigation apparently spread quickly within the Hispanic community in Mesa. A clerk at a Mesa Yeberia, not involved in the investigation, said some of her customers told her about the arrests.

Landato said the Mesa police street crimes unit spearheaded the investigation, but that other agencies throughout the Valley assisted in serving warrants. He said the investigation is still underway and that the names of those arrested and the addresses of the shops are not being released at this time.

The suspects did not resist arrest and there was no violence, Landato said.

Previous articles on Medical Marijuana & Drug War News.

More articles on Medical Marijuana & Drug War News.