Homeless in Arizona

Arizona Taxi drivers now subject to random drug testing

The way the law is written even if the taxi cab drivers flunk the tests they are not prevented from being hired by companies that operate taxi cabs.

The only requirements are that the taxi drivers take the stupid drug tests, which will cost around $100 each, and that the companies that hire them have the results on file.

The results of the drug tests are totally meaningless, and thus this silly law is nothing more then a government welfare program for corporations that give drug tests.

Source

Arizona Taxi drivers now subject to random drug testing

Posted: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:31 am

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

For the first time ever, drivers of taxi cabs and limousines in Arizona will soon be subject to random drug testing.

Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday signed legislation which will require those who own or lease out taxis and other vehicle for hire to screen applicants for drugs at the time they are hired or allowed to lease one of the vehicles. That is on top of an existing requirement for a criminal background check. And drivers also will be subject to random tests at least once a year.

The measure takes effect later this year.

Kevin Tyne, director of the Department of Weights and Measures, stressed this is not some new government program with the state going out and stopping drivers. Instead, he said it's designed to make the owners of these vehicles more responsible.

But he said it is up to them to decide what to do with that information: Nothing in the new law prohibits a company from hiring or refusing to fire a driver who tests positive. That mirrors the existing laws on background checks, with no prohibition against hiring certain felons.

Tyne said, though, this is a big step for Arizona.

"Nearly every other jurisdiction that regulates and oversees and licenses 'for hire' vehicles like taxis and liveries and limousines have some sort of a basic drug testing requirement,'' he said. "Arizona was noticeably absent in that regard.''

He said many people use taxis and limousines, both local residents and visitors.

"Patrons ought to have some basic sense that the driver has at least been drug tested,'' Tyne said.

The legislation is unrelated to the mishap Saturday where five people riding in a limousine on the San Mateo Bridge south of San Francisco were killed in a fire. The cause of the blaze remains under investigation and there has been no indication at this point that the driver, who also was burned, was in any way responsible.

California officials said it appears the vehicle, which was licensed for eight passengers, had one more than the permitted number. There appears to be no similar laws in Arizona governing how many passengers can be in any particular vehicle.

Arizona poll: Majority backs same-sex marriage, legalizing pot

Arizona poll: Majority backs same-sex marriage, legalizing pot

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Tue May 14, 2013 12:25 PM

A majority of Arizonans support same-sex marriage and decriminalizing marijuana use, a new poll has found.

The Behavior Research Center’s Rocky Mountain poll found most Arizonans — 56 percent — favor legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use, while 37 percent oppose such a move and 7 percent were unsure about the issue.

Voters in 2010 by a narrow margin legalized marijuana for medicinal use; more than 35,000 Arizonans participate in that program.

Independent voters were most supportive of legalization at 72 percent. While Republicans and conservatives were most likely to be opposed: 41 percent of Republicans said they favored legalization of marijuana while 56 percent of those who identified with the GOP said they were opposed to it.

The poll also found 55 percent of Arizonans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry while 35 percent oppose same-sex marriage and 10 percent say they are unsure. Most women, Latinos, liberals, moderates, Independents, Democrats and voters younger than 55 say they supported such unions, according to the poll.

Since 1996, Arizona law has defined marriage as between one man and one woman. In 2008, voters approved adding that definition of marriage to the state Constitution. It says that “only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

The poll found Republicans are divided on same-sex marriage with 53 percent opposed and 36 percent in favor. The poll also found that while 51 percent of political conservatives were opposed, 41 percent support same-sex unions.

The poll, released Tuesday, was conducted between April 3 and April 16, and is based on 700 telephone interviews statewide, including 438 registered voters.

The survey’s overall margin of error is plus or minus 3.8 percent.

Lower drunk-driving limit to .05, federal board says

Oops, didn't we try that once and it was a dismal failure which we called the Prohibition!!!!

Last but not least the Federal government doesn't have the power to set a legal drinking limit. What the Feds have done in the past is bribe the states with cash to lower the legal drinking limit. They did this when the limit was lowered from .15 to .10, and again when the legal limit was lowered from .10 to .08.

Source

Lower drunk-driving limit to .05, federal board says

Associated Press Tue May 14, 2013 10:21 AM

WASHINGTON — Federal accident investigators recommended Tuesday that states cut their threshold for drunken driving by nearly half, matching a standard that has substantially reduced highway deaths in other countries.

The National Transportation Safety Board said states should shrink the standard from the current .08 blood alcohol content to .05 as part of a series of recommendations aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths.

More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to a report by the board’s staff. In Europe, the share of traffic deaths attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within 10 years after the standard was dropped.

A woman weighing less than 120 pounds can reach .05 after just one drink, studies show. A man weighing up to 160 pounds reaches .05 after two drinks.

New approaches are needed to combat drunken driving, which claims the lives of more than a third of the 30,000 people killed each year on U.S highways — a level of carnage that that has remained stubbornly consistent for the past decade and a half, the board said.

“Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable,” NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said. “Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents, they are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will.”

But the recommendation to lowering the alcohol content threshold to .05 is likely to meet strong resistance from states, said Jonathan Adkins, an official with the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety offices.

“It was very difficult to get .08 in most states so lowering it again won’t be popular,” Adkins said. “The focus in the states is on high (blood alcohol content) offenders as well as repeat offenders. We expect industry will also be very vocal about keeping the limit at .08.”

The lower alcohol content threshold was one of nearly 20 recommendations aimed at reducing drunken driving made by the board, including that states adopt measures to ensure more widespread use of use of alcohol ignition interlock devices. Those require a driver to breathe into a tube, much like the breathalyzers police ask suspected drunken drivers to use.

The board has previously recommended states require all convicted drunken drivers install the interlock devices in their vehicles as a condition to resume driving. Currently, 17 states and two California counties require all convicted drivers use the devices.

However, only about a quarter of drivers ordered to use the devices actually end up doing so, NTSB said. Drivers use a variety of ways to evade using the devices, including claiming they won’t drive at all or don’t own a vehicle and therefore don’t need the devices, staff said.

The board recommended the National Highway Safety Administration, which makes safety grants to states, [that is part of the "bribe" I mentioned before] develop a program to encourage states to ensure all convicted drivers actually use the devices. The board also recommended that all suspected drunken drivers whose licenses are confiscated by police be required to install interlocks as a condition of getting their licenses reinstated even though they haven’t yet been convicted of a crime. [Screw that little thing about the government being require to assume that you are innocent till proven guilty. They want to make it so you are guilty till you prove yourself innocent!!!]

Courts usually require drivers to pay for the devices, which cost about $50 to $100 to buy plus a $50 a month fee to operate, staff said.

The board has previously called on the safety administration and the auto industry to step up their research into technology for use in all vehicles that can detect whether a driver has elevated blood alcohol without the driver breathing into a tube or taking any other action. Drivers with elevated levels would be unable to start their cars.

But the technology is still years away.

Studies show more than 4 million people a year in the U.S. drive while intoxicated, but about half of the intoxicated drivers stopped by police escape detection, the NTSB report said. [Well, if they police can't detect that these 4 million or so folks are intoxicated, they probably are not too intoxicated to drive] The board made several recommendations aimed at increasing both the visibility and effectiveness of police enforcement, including expanded use of passive alcohol devices. The devices are often contained in real flash lights or shaped to look like a cellphone that officers wear on their shirt pockets or belts. If an officer points the flashlight at a driver or the cellphone-like device comes in close proximity to an intoxicated driver, the devices will alert police who may not have any other reason to suspected drunken driving.

The use of the devices currently is very limited, the report said.

Dramatic progress was made in the 1980s through the mid-1990s after the minimum drinking age was raised to 21 and the legally-allowable maximum level of drivers’ blood alcohol content was lowered to .08, the report said. Today, drunken driving claims about 10,000 lives a year, down from over 18,000 in 1982. At that time, alcohol-related fatalities accounted for about 40 percent of highway deaths.

Pot Shops Ordered to Close in Garden Grove

Pot Shops Ordered to Close in Garden Grove

GARDEN GROVE, Calif. (KTLA) — City officials in Garden Grove on Tuesday warned medical marijuana dispensaries to shut down by the end of the day or face hefty fines.

There are about 60 pot collectives in Garden Grove — the highest concentration in Orange County [Wow!! Dumpy Garden Grove it the center of the universe for pot smokers in Orange County!!!]

The city banned pot shops back in 2008, but a supreme court case put that ban on hold.

Then, earlier this month, the California Supreme Court ruled that cities did have the right to ban dispensaries using zoning ordinances.

The day after the ruling, Garden Grove sent out letters telling dispensary owners they had until May 14 to close their doors, or face a $1,000 per day fine.

There could also be criminal charges and civil lawsuits if the pot shops don’t comply.

Supporters of marijuana collectives said the ban would force people who use the drug medicinally to turn to the black market.

They wanted the city to find a way to regulate the dispensaries rather than banning them.

They planned to make their case at a city council meeting Tuesday night.

Arizona could deny resources for federal laws under bill

And of course this would apply to stuff like the insane and unconstitutional "war on drugs" which is clearly unconstitutional per the 10th Amendment, despite the Supreme Courts ruling that the "war on drugs" is Constitutional per the "interstate commerce" clause.

Source

Arizona could deny resources for federal laws under bill

By Alia Beard Rau The Republic | azcentral.com Tue May 14, 2013 9:59 PM

Arizona voters in 2014 will decide whether the state can deny resources to federal laws or programs it deems unconstitutional.

The Legislature on Tuesday gave final approval to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016, its latest effort to flex state muscle against the federal government. The measure will go on the November 2014 ballot. It proposes to allow either the governor and state Legislature or voters to refuse to use state personnel and resources on any federal law or action deemed to be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Sen. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, sponsored the bill.

“We need to stand up and use our sovereign rights and this is another tool in the toolbox to be able to do that,” he said in a public hearing on the bill.

Former state lawmaker and unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate Jonathan Paton and Phoenix businessman Jack Biltis are behind the resolution.

This is a second attempt at passing such a measure by Biltis, who runs an employer-services firm. He spent more than $1 million of his money on an unsuccessful 2012 effort to put a similar measure on the ballot. The Checks and Balances in Government initiative lacked enough valid signatures to qualify, elections officials said.

Biltis said in committee hearings on SCR 1016 that he would again invest his own money in campaigns for the measure.

Paton told lawmakers during a committee hearing that he believed the measure is constitutional based on Supreme Court rulings. He said the court clearly ruled the federal government cannot “commandeer” a state to act in support of a federal law. [Again, I think comments by the Founders in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers support this.]

“We can’t stop the federal government directly ... but we can say how we are going to use our resources within the environs of our own state,” he said. “We have the power as a state to decide what’s right for our state.”

States, including Arizona, have pushed for measures in recent years to ignore certain federal laws, such as “Obamacare” or proposed gun restrictions. Paton said this is not “nullification” — a state refusing to enforce a federal law — but rather a broad solution that can be used whenever a situation arises.

“I don’t envision this as a left or right issue,” he said. “I envision this as a checks and balances issue.” [Again, I think the statements by the Founders in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers agree with this.]

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he envisions the bill as “a complete waste of time.” [Chad Campbell is a "complete waste of time"]

“It’s talking about not wasting money on things we feel are unconstitutional at the state, but the referendum itself is unconstitutional,” he said. “You can’t supersede federal authority.” [True, but 99.9 percent of the laws passed by the US Congress are unconstitutional and this bill simply allows Arizona to ignore those unconstitutional laws]

He said there are already checks and balances against the federal government overstepping its bounds — the courts. [Sadly the checks and balances and the courts don't work. The insane and unconstitutional "war on drugs" is clearly unconstitutional per the 10th Amendment, but the Supremes have allowed it to continue for 100 years.]

And that, he said, is exactly where this would end up. He said if voters or the Legislature decide to deny services for a certain federal action, the federal government will likely sue and the courts will still be the deciding factor in the end. [True, but for the wrong reason. The Feds would certainly sue, but the royals rulers have grown too big for their britches and they have said that the "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution gives them the power to do anything they damn well feel like, and sadly the Supreme Court has agreed with them!]

“This is just another example of the figurative finger-pointing we’ve been doing at the federal government ... and in some cases, the literal finger-pointing,” he said.

Tempe cops want to arrest students who took drunk to hospital???

Tempe cops want to arrest students who took drunk to hospital???

It seems like the cops would rather arrest people for victimless crimes like then go after real criminals who hurt people.

"Police say criminal charges could be filed against the friends who left the student"

And of course arresting the folks that took this kid to the hospital will scare people from doing it in the future.

Source

Drunk ASU student left at Tempe hospital with Post-it

Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:09 pm

Associated Press

An Arizona State University student who passed out from drinking tequila was left in wheelchair in a hospital lobby with a Post-it note saying he took part in a drinking competition.

Tempe police say the 19-year-old student was found early Saturday morning in the emergency room lobby of St. Luke’s Hospital.

Police say a sticky note on the student’s body gave his name and said he’d been drinking and needed help. Hospital staff noticed the student and helped him.

Sgt. Michael Pooley says the student consumed about 20 shots of tequila and had a blood-alcohol level of 0.47 percent, nearly six times the legal limit for driving.

Police say criminal charges could be filed against the friends who left the student.

Cops erase video of police murder in Bakersfield.

Based on my experience with crooked cops this doesn't surprise me the least bit. Every time I am stopped the police I take the 5th and refuse to answer any police questions.

Of course the cops always lie and tell me I don't have any 5th Amendment right to remain silent. And almost always the cops make up threats that bad, bad, bad things will happen to me if I don't answer their questions.

And most of the time the cops illegally search me looking for an ID, since I always refuse to them them my name.

The good news, is that even if the piggies erased the video of the Kern County sheriff's officers beating David Silva to death, frequently the file can be recovered.

Last if the police are so corrupt that they will erase the evidence that is needed to convict the 10 are so cops who beat David Silva to death, don't you think these crooked cops will also commit perjury and lie in court to convict people??? Or plant evidence to frame people???

Cops who murdered David Silva are the victims????

Well at least in this article it sounds like that is what the cops want us to believe!!!

This is typical when cops are caught committing crimes, they frequently paint themselves as the victim, not the criminal.

The murder of David Silva by the Kern County Sheriff's Office isn't any different. And sadly people frequently believe these fantastic big lies made up the the police.

Kern County makes lame excuses to justify the murder of David Sal Silva

• "I cannot speculate whether they acted appropriately or not"
• "Baton strikes were used, but what I don't know ... if they ... caused death"
• Youngblood said the baton is a less lethal weapon
• Youngblood noted that no cause of death has been determined

I wonder if Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood would be making these same lame excuses if we had a video of 10 Black men beating up a cop with billy clubs???

Using treaties to flush the Constitution down the toilet???

According to the Constitution any treaties the Federal government enters into have priority over other normal laws Congress passes.

I suspect the President and Congress are trying to twist that around to say that unconstitutional treaties give Congress and the President unlimited power.

Pretty much like how the government has twisted the "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution to say that it gives Congress unlimited power.

I think in the case the Goldwater Institute is saying Congress can only include things in treaties that are not forbidden by the Tenth Amendment.

Before this article I have read stuff saying that the gun grabbers in Congress would love to enter a UN Treaty that requires the US to ban guns, and use that as a backdoor to flush the Second Amendment down the toilet.

Of course this article says that Congress can't make any treaties that would ban guns, because that is forbidden by the Second Amendment.

Source

Nick Dranias

Cheaters Revenge Meets the New World Order

Posted on May 15, 2013 | Author: Nick Dranias

What does poisoning a goldfish to get revenge on a cheating spouse have to do with the President’s power to make treaties? The constitutionally correct answer is: Nothing at all. Unfortunately, that’s not how the Obama Administration sees it. The Administration is claiming power to get into a domestic dispute under the authority of a chemical weapons treaty. And it is aggressively advancing the proposition that Congress’s power is essentially unlimited when based on the treaty power.

The federal government has been prosecuting Carol Anne Bond for causing minor burns to the fingers of her husband’s girlfriend after spreading a caustic chemical used in developing photographs around her home. Ms. Bond has fought the prosecution by arguing that the Constitution gives power over such domestic disputes to the States. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Congress implemented a chemical weapons treaty by enacting a law that expands the treaty’s purpose and turns “each kitchen cupboard and cleaning cabinet in America into a potential chemical weapons cache.” In an earlier phase of the litigation, Justice Samuel Alito asked, “Suppose that the Petitioner in this case decided to retaliate against her former friend by pouring a bottle of vinegar in the friend's goldfish bowl. As I read this statute, that would be a violation of this statute, potentially punishable by life imprisonment, wouldn't it?”

In support of Ms. Bond’s argument that the federal government has overstepped its constitutional powers, the Goldwater Institute today filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bond v. United States of America. Our brief warns that if courts allow Congress to implement treaties without respecting the Tenth Amendment’s limitation on federal power, there is nothing to stop the federal government from using international agreements and legislation to displace other constitutional guarantees. This is because the vertical separation of powers between the states and the federal government is not a second-class constitutional protection. Allowing a treaty to undermine the Tenth Amendment opens the door to Congress enacting treaties that violate all constitutional protections – including the freedom of the press and the right to due process. That is why the Court must draw a bright line at kitchen cupboards and cleaning cabinets.

Ms. Bond won the first round when the Supreme Court reinstated her Tenth Amendment defense after the lower court rejected it on procedural grounds. Her case then returned to the lower courts, only to result in the Third Circuit rejecting her defense on the merits. Now the Supreme Court gets the last word. Hopefully, the Court will hold the line.

Phoenix, Tucson elections "rigged" for special interest groups???

In Phoenix 40 percent of the budget goes to the police and 20 percent to the fire department.

Source

Phoenix, Tucson fight change in election calendar

By Dustin Gardiner The Republic | azcentral.com Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 PM

Tucson and Phoenix are waging a legal fight to overturn a state law that would require local governments to move their elections to even-numbered years to coincide with statewide contests for president and governor.

If the law takes effect in 2014, Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton and other municipal elected officials could have their terms extended by several months or even a year.

A Pima County Superior Court judge on Monday denied the cities’ request for summary judgment in the case, saying that he needs to get more information than already submitted in court filings. A hearing will likely be scheduled in the next month, so the parties can debate the facts further.

City leaders had sought a decision on the law’s validity and an injunction to prevent it from taking effect while they argue the issue in court. They said the law interferes with a matter of purely local concern: their authority to determine how to conduct elections.

Cities and towns across Arizona have objected to the law and cite a long list of potential consequences, including that local elections would become fiercely partisan or draw little attention at the bottom of a more crowded ballot. The law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in 2012, will impact roughly half of the state’s 70 municipalities.

Supporters of the move have said it will increase voter turnout and help some cities and towns save money because they could utilize county elections resources, instead of paying the cost of printing ballots and staffing elections on their own.

In Phoenix, Stanton and four council members — Bill Gates, Thelda Williams, Michael Nowakowski and Daniel Valenzuela — could potentially serve a year beyond their elected terms, which expire in 2015, assuming they stay in office for that long. Each council member represents about 180,000 residents who would have to wait longer to elect their representative.

Tucson filed its lawsuit against the state in October after several months of cities grappling over how they might respond. A few months later, Phoenix joined the case as an intervenor, meaning the city can argue the case, which will impact all Arizona charter municipalities.

Phoenix City Clerk Cris Meyer said the law would require sweeping changes to the city’s election system and do away with the city-focused process voters have requested over the years, particularly the emphasis on a nonpartisan election cycle.

“Commingling of the state’s and Phoenix’s processes, including potentially commingled ballots, diminishes Phoenix’s ability to ensure a pristine process, free of party politics and state or federal issues typically associated with party platforms,” attorneys for Phoenix argued in court documents.

Phoenix voters decided in the 1970s to permanently hold their elections on the opposite years as presidential and gubernatorial contests. Changing that would require voters to approve amendments to the City Charter. The new law also conflicts with charter language that governs the mayor and council’s term limits and salary changes, among other issues.

The city would likely have to abandon its voting-center system, which allows residents to cast an in-person ballot at more than 20 locations starting several days before the election. Arizona holds elections on a single day, and voters have assigned precincts.

However, attorneys for the state have argued the law seeks to preserve democracy, suggesting off-year elections depress voter turnout and make the process vulnerable to special-interest influence. They said any burdens to Phoenix or Tucson are “slight and incidental.”

The state Attorney General’s Office contends election alignment has led to a massive increase in voter turnout in Chandler, Scottsdale and Gilbert, which moved their elections from the spring to fall of even-numbered years. For example, 14 percent of Scottsdale registered voters turned out for the city’s March 2006 election, compared with 85 percent in fall 2008, according to court documents.

“The record is clear that election alignment causes dramatic increases in voter turnout and dramatic reductions in overall election costs and cost per vote,” the Attorney General’s Office wrote.

Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner also denied a motion by the state for a summary judgment to dismiss the case. But Marner said conflicting evidence presented by the state and cities regarding voter turnout and cost savings needs to be heard in court.

Feds declare 3 versions of synthetic pot illegal

Source

Feds declare 3 versions of synthetic pot illegal

By Lindsey Collom The Republic | azcentral.com Thu May 16, 2013 10:11 PM

The federal government has temporarily outlawed three substances marketed as an alternative to marijuana, the move coming within weeks of Arizona adding to its banned-substances list certain chemical compounds typically found in “spice” and “bath salts.”

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced Thursday that three iterations of “fake pot” are now considered to be Schedule 1 substances, a class of drugs the government deems to have high potential for abuse and no recognized medicinal use. When ingested, designer drugs can mimic the effects of banned substances, such as methamphetamine and cocaine, and are known to trigger violence and paranoia, among other behaviors.

The classification will remain in effect for two years while the DEA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study whether the chemicals — synthetic cannabinoids UR-144, XLR11 and AKB48 — should be made permanently illegal. Meanwhile, anyone found to possess, manufacture or distribute these synthetic cannabinoids will be subject to prosecution.

“DEA is sounding the alarm once more to emphasize the severity of these drugs,” said Special Agent Ramona Sanchez, spokeswoman for the DEA in Arizona. “People don’t understand that just because these were legal, that doesn’t mean they’re safe.” [And just because marijuana is illegal doesn't mean it is a dangerous drug like our government masters tell us.]

The DEA’s latest effort adds to a growing list of federally banned substances meant to mimic the effects of illicit drugs. A federal law passed in July 2012 banned the sale, production and possession of 31 chemicals used to make some of the synthetic drugs, including two of the most popular ones used in hallucinogenic drugs marketed as bath salts.

Authorities say it has been difficult to attack the problem of novelty-powder use because manufacturers modify their formulas to stay ahead of bans.

In Arizona, a measure signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in April targeted the chemical backbone of more than 1,000 known types of synthetic drugs. During legislative testimony, the husband of a smoke-shop owner told lawmakers that his wife would be forced to remove all “spice” and “potpourri” products from the shelves due to the impracticality and expense of having each product chemically analyzed to ensure compliance with state law. Which, according to a prosecuting attorneys lobby, was precisely the point of the legislation.

“A teenage kid had a harder time buying cigarettes” before Arizona’s recent ban, said Stephanie Siete, education director at Community Bridges, a substance-abuse treatment facility. “It’s a big deal to be able to stop people from getting these substances in their hands, substances that are untested. No one knows long-term effects.”

But lawmakers say they are hard-pressed to keep up with the latest developments in synthetic-drug manufacturing. Local police and physicians have warned that a new synthetic hallucinogen known as “n-bomb,” which is marketed as an alternative to LSD or mescaline, could be among the most powerful and potentially deadly of the synthetic drugs that have inundated the market in recent years.

Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, who sponsored the dangerous-drug bill Brewer signed in April, said in committee that his legislation would not be a cure-all and that amendments would be needed as new synthetic drugs hit the market.

“This is a problem we’re going to deal with and we’re going to continue to deal with, just like we did with meth,” Farnsworth said.

Sanchez said the DEA will continue to “aggressively target” synthetic drugs in Arizona, as it did last year with Operation Logjam. DEA agents arrested more than 90 people and seized the equivalent of 18 million synthetic-drug packets during raids across the country, including in Arizona. Authorities estimated the local network produced tens of millions of dollars worth of bath salts.

It's a waste of time calling the police???

Nor did they mention that when somebody calls 911 to report a pot smoker they will probably send out 3 squad cars in an attempt to arrest the people committing that victimless crime.

Source

Letter: I've made my last call to Mesa PD for help

Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:04 pm

Letter to the Editor

We had a shoplifter at our store just waltz out with a bag of chips, a peach (that he was eating) and a bottle of whiskey. I demanded the items back, he raised the bottle with “come and get it”. Now, my work has a strict no-physical-confrontation policy and I don’t want to risk getting fired. I told him that I just wanted the items back or I’d call the police. “Go ahead and call the police”, he said, and continued walking away. So I called Mesa’s non-emergency number and explained what was going on.

He asked where the thief was, which I replied that he was just getting to the street. “How much was the merchandise”, I said about $25. “Well our call policy has changed. If they are no longer on the property, and the amount is under $30, you need to file a report online. Do you need the info?”

“Nope”, and hung up promptly. I suspect the thief knew about Mesa’s new policy, considering how smug he was. He was less than 70 yards away, threatened to commit aggravated assault, stealing, and the police sub-station is 90 seconds away.

I think I’ll forego calling from now on, take care of it myself outside camera range, since Mesa is a fend-for-yourself city now.

K. Andrew Bedwell

Mesa

OAS - Time to legalize drugs????

OAS study says countries should consider decriminalizing drug use

By Chris Kraul

May 17, 2013, 2:30 p.m.

BOGOTA, Colombia — The Organization of American States said Friday that countries should consider decriminalizing drug use, a shift backed by several Latin American leaders but opposed by the United States. [Of course the war on drugs in the USA is a huge jobs program for cops, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers and prison guards. They would hate to see their high paying jobs go down the drain by legalizing the victimless crimes of drug use and drug sales. Kind of like the Inquisition was a jobs program for priests and religious cops in the middle ages.]

Decriminalization could be one of many “transitional methods” in a public health strategy that could include “drug courts, substantive reduction in sentences and rehabilitation,” according to a report released by the OAS on the possible liberalization of drug polices.

The report, presented by OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza in Bogota, was commissioned during the April 2012 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, in response to many leaders’ complaints that U.S.-driven drug prohibition policies of recent decades had failed to stem the illicit drug business.

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said he favored discussion of the decriminalization or legalization of drugs as a way to try to curb illicit drug use and trafficking.

Officials in countries known as drug production and transit locations, such as Colombia and Guatemala, have said they were paying intolerable costs in violence and corruption while consumer nations such as the U.S. and those in Europe were getting off relatively easy as the drugs keep flowing.

“All of us who hold public responsibilities owe it to the millions of women and men, young and old, mothers and fathers, girls and boys who today feel threatened, to find clear answers and effective public policies to confront this scourge,” Insulza said.

The proposal by three former Latin American leaders -- Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia -- that drugs be decriminalized or legalized has had a ripple effect among Latin American opinion leaders, said Bruce Bagley of the University of Miami, an expert on drug trafficking and policy.

Some specialists said the OAS report could have urged more specific changes to government policies.

Mark Kleiman, a UCLA public policy professor, said policies should be retooled to focus on alleviating the violence and health damage caused by drug use, not on the flow of drugs.

“We’re in a completely unsustainable situation,” Kleiman said. “The strategy is not working.”

John Walsh of the Washington Office on Latin America, a think tank that supports decriminalization of drugs, said the OAS report was valuable in part because “it recognizes that one-size-fits-all responses won’t work for complex problems that affect countries differently.”

Illinois Senate approves bill to legalize medical marijuana

Source

Illinois Senate approves bill to legalize medical marijuana

By Michael Mello

May 17, 2013, 6:38 p.m.

Illinois has come within a signature of becoming the 19th state to allow marijuana use for medical purposes.

On Friday, the state Senate voted 35-21 to approve a medical marijuana measure, which now will head for Gov. Pat Quinn’s desk. The governor has not said whether he will sign it.

Democratic Sen. Bill Haine, one of the bill’s sponsors, told the Los Angeles Times that House Bill 1 has a very narrow scope and was crafted with law enforcement officials at the table to avoid the mistakes and pitfalls of medical marijuana programs in other states.

Eighteen states and Washington, D.C., have decriminalized marijuana use for medicinal purposes. California did so in 1996, when the state’s voters approved Proposition 215.

If it becomes law, the Illinois bill will prohibit patients from growing their own pot; instead, plants will be raised at “grow centers” overseen by authorities and the state Department of Agriculture.

Only doctors that have established relationships with patients will be able to dispense the drug to help with pain or side effects associated with treating serious illnesses, such as AIDS or cancer.

“It can’t be consumed in public. It can’t be displayed in public,” Haine said.

The bill would allow medical marijuana use for just four years, essentially creating a pilot program on the drug's use. If it’s not renewed by the state’s General Assembly, the medical pot effort will die.

A former chief prosecutor for Madison County in southwestern Illinois, Haine said he pushed for the legislation because he believes marijuana, despite its reputation, can do good.

“People have found that this substance relieves pain for people in terrible circumstances. To deny that would be unreasonable,” Haines said. “Marijuana is arguably more benign than Oxycontin … or many of the other prescription drugs.”

Nonetheless, the legislation was opposed by the Illinois Sheriffs’ Assn. and the Illinois Assn. of Chiefs of Police.

Then there’s the fact that any sort of marijuana use is outlawed by federal statues.

Haine isn’t worried.

“My old friend and colleague, the president of the United States, has said if it’s truly … for medical use, it’s not going to attract the attention of the federal government,” the senator said. “We’re going to show the federal government that this is a model.”

David Blanchette, spokesman for Quinn, said the Democratic governor wants to examine the bill closely before deciding whether to sign or veto it.

“In the past, he has said he has an open mind” to the issue, Blanchette told The Times.

The governor has 60 days from the time the bill hits his desk to take action on the bill. The legislation is likely to reach the governor sometime next week, Blanchette said.

Drug war police corruption in Utah???

A ‘Pandora’s Box of Problems’ From a Police Shooting and Drugs in a Utah Town

By JACK HEALY

Published: May 17, 2013

WEST VALLEY CITY, Utah — It began with bullets and bloodshed one November afternoon. A 21-year-old woman was dead. Two undercover officers had opened fire on her car. The police began asking the usual questions about what had happened, and why.

Danielle Willard was killed in the parking lot of a rundown apartment complex after officers from the West Valley City Police Department opened fire on her car.

Their investigation cracked open what one prosecutor called a “Pandora’s box of problems” here in Utah’s second-largest city, where Mormon pioneers once raised milk cows and sugar beets. There have been accusations of stolen drugs and missing money, abuses of police power and a cloud of corruption that defies Utah’s reputation for sunny optimism.

Over the past few months, accusations of bad police work in the narcotics squad of the West Valley City Police Department have engulfed the town and sent shock waves through Utah’s justice system. Prosecutors have tossed out 125 criminal cases. Dozens of convictions may have to be re-examined. The F.B.I. is investigating the Police Department and several officers.

Officials in Utah say they have never seen anything like it.

“Chaos,” said Sim Gill, the district attorney for Salt Lake County.

And West Valley City, a diverse blue-collar suburb of about 132,000 people that has tried to overcome its image as the state capital’s scraggly stepchild, has been knocked on its heels. Instead of discussing new office parks and glimmering shopping malls, city officials are facing a drumbeat of negative news coverage. The city is now likely to face lawsuits from people whose drug arrests have been undermined by accusations of police misconduct.

“As you start to put these things together, each one individually is concerning,” Mr. Gill said. “Collectively, they are devastating.”

The uproar began with the killing on Nov. 2 of Danielle Willard in the parking lot of a run-down apartment complex.

Ms. Willard, who had struggled with drug addiction for much of her life, was shot and killed by undercover officers from the West Valley City Police Department’s neighborhood narcotics unit. The police say that Ms. Willard had been seen buying drugs, and that when officers approached her silver Subaru Forester, she backed up in their direction, striking one officer. They opened fire, hitting her in the head. She was unarmed.

As police investigators combed through the crime scene, they popped opened the trunk of the car belonging to Detective Shaun Cowley — one of two narcotics officers who had been on the scene of the shooting. Inside, they found drug paraphernalia and items linked to previous drug cases. The discovery touched off an investigation into the actions of Detective Cowley and the other officers in the unit.

Lindsay Jarvis, a lawyer for Detective Cowley, said that the evidence found in his car was in sealed, marked bags in a lockbox. “Was there something criminal about it? Absolutely not,” she said. “Shaun is being used as a scapegoat for all of the activities going on in the narcotics unit.”

In a department with about 180 officers, the neighborhood narcotics unit was a squad of seven officers, one sergeant and one lieutenant that focused on smaller-scale dealers and users, according to Anita Schwemmer, the acting police chief. The unit handled hundreds of cases each year.

As weeks passed with little information about Ms. Willard’s killing, questions multiplied. Ms. Willard’s family seethed, publicly calling West Valley City’s silence a cover-up. Articles in The Salt Lake Tribune raised questions about the department’s policies, and people started asking whether West Valley City’s residents could still trust its police force.

“It really heated up,” said Wayne Pyle, the city manager.

Over the winter, West Valley City’s retiring police chief shut down the narcotics unit, leaving drug arrests to patrol officers and other departments. The unit’s nine officers were put on administrative leave. And last month, West Valley City officials offered a few details from their investigation into the drug squad.

They found that officers had mishandled evidence and had placed tracking devices on suspects’ cars without getting necessary warrants. Confidential informers had been misused. In some cases, officers had removed trinkets like necklaces or candles from the scene of drug arrests as “trophies.” In a few instances, drugs and money were missing.

City and police officials say the problems appear to be confined to the narcotics unit, and said most of the missteps were relatively minor, like taking change or DVDs from seized cars that were bound for the auction block. Officials said that only a few officers appeared to have a hand in the most serious breaches.

“Do I believe it’s widespread corruption up and down the department?” asked Mr. Pyle, the city manager. “No, I do not.”

Whatever its scale, the revelations upended scores of criminal cases. v After Joseph Hu, a network engineer and part-time student, was arrested on charges of drug distribution and weapons possession last September, his lawyer filed a request for West Valley City to test the $40 in heroin they claimed to have seized. A few weeks later, the city dismissed the case with no explanation and let Mr. Hu out of jail.

“All we knew was something was wrong,” said Mr. Hu’s lawyer, Kelly Ann Booth. “But we didn’t know what.”

The pattern was repeated in case after case, defense lawyers said: When they decided to challenge drug charges rather than accept a quick guilty plea, West Valley City folded up the cases. Then the district attorney, after reviewing hundreds of cases, began dismissing them by the dozen, saying he could not successfully prosecute them.

“There was not a single case I wanted to dismiss,” said Mr. Gill, the district attorney. “We had no choice.”

Advocates for Hispanic residents were jarred by one detail: In 93 of 114 cases dismissed by the district attorney, the defendants had Latino last names. City officials say that reflected a reality of how drugs are traded and trafficked in central Utah; activists said it indicated bias.

“This is racial profiling all the way,” said Tony Yapias of Proyecto Latino de Utah. The group has been meeting with city officials as they try to rebuild bridges in the community.

So far, no criminal charges have been filed against anyone in the department, and no officers have been fired.

In Washington State, Ms. Willard’s mother, Melissa Kennedy, said that she is getting tired of waiting. Her daughter, she said, was a goofy and bubbly girl who was falling into a heroin addiction by the time she was a high school senior. Her parents had sent her to Utah to a rehab program near Salt Lake City. It seemed to work for a while, but Ms. Willard fell back with friends who were drug users.

Ms. Kennedy said that she does not know whether her daughter had started doing drugs again, but she said she was a 21-year-old who should still be alive. Ms. Kennedy has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city.

“I’ve been lied to, my daughter has been murdered and I don’t know why,” she said. “There is not one thing they could say to me that I would believe.”

More on that draconian Illinois medical marijuana bill

Illinois Senate approves medical marijuana bill

By Monique Garcia Clout Street

4:07 p.m. CDT, May 17, 2013

SPRINGFIELD --- The Senate today approved legislation that would allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana to patients with serious illnesses, sending the measure to Gov. Pat Quinn.

The issue pitted supporters arguing for compassion for those suffering from pain they say only cannabis can ease against opponents who contend the legislation would undermine public safety.

Sponsoring Sen. Bill Haine, D-Alton, argued the measure is one of the toughest in the nation. Haine said his bill does not reflect other states that have “sloppily” instituted medical marijuana laws.

“This bill is filled with walls to keep this limited,” said Haine, a former Madison County state’s attorney.

Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, raised concerns about lawmakers endorsing a product that classified as a controlled substance by the federal government, arguing marijuana is a gateway drug that could lead users to harder substances.

“For every touching story we have heard about the benefits to those in pain, I remind you today that there are a thousand time more parents who will never be relieved from the pain of losing a child due to addiction which in many cases started with the very illegal, FDA-unapproved addiction-forming drug that you are asking us to now make a normal part of our communities,” McCarter said. [These government tyrants probably think that if something makes you feel good it should be a crime????]

The proposal would create a four-year trial program in which doctors could prescribe patients no more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. To qualify, patients must have one of 42 serious or chronic conditions -- including cancer, multiple sclerosis or HIV -- and an established relationship with a doctor.

Patients would undergo fingerprinting and a criminal background check and would be banned from using marijuana in public and around minors. Patients also could not legally grow marijuana, and they would have to buy it from one of 60 dispensing centers across Illinois. The state would license 22 growers. [Sounds like a government monopoly and welfare program for those 22 growers]

The measure drew strong opposition from the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and the Illinois Sheriffs' Association, which sent a letter to the governor and lawmakers warning the proposal would not stop medical marijuana card holders from driving while under the influence. They suggested blood and urine testing be included in the legislation to allow police to determine whether card holders had marijuana in their system while driving.

Haine argued the law has safeguards to prevent that, including designating on a driver's license whether they use medical marijuana.

The Senate vote was 35-21, with 30 needed to pass the bill. It goes to Quinn, who has not indicated whether he will sign it. The Democratic governor recently said he is open minded to the legislation.

Read the bill: HERE

See how House members voted last month: HERE

See how the Senate voted today: HERE

mcgarcia@tribune.com

Twitter @moniquegarcia

Andrew Walter wants to boot socialist Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema

Normally I would support an atheist running for Congress, but atheist Kyrsten Sinema is probably the worst Congressperson in Washington D.C if you ask me.

Kyrsten Sinema seems to be a socialist who never met a tax she didn't love.

While a member of the Arizona Legislator Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema seemed to be a big time supporter of the police state by introducing a law that would have gutted Arizona's medical marijuana law (Prop 203) by slapping a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana.

Kyrsten Sinema is also a gun grabber.

Source

2 join 2014 race for Arizona Congress

By Rebekah L. Sanders The Republic | azcentral.com Fri May 17, 2013 10:27 PM

Two Republican candidates for Congress are getting an early jump on the midterm election.

Andrew Walter, a former Arizona State University quarterback, and Gabriela Saucedo Mercer, a Tucson activist, have officially launched campaigns for 2014.

Walter, a native of Scottsdale and a political newcomer, is competing for the metro Phoenix district held by freshman Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema. The seat is considered a toss-up.

After college, Walter, 31, spent five years in the NFL, earned a master’s in business administration from ASU, founded a small lending company and worked for MidFirst Bank.

He said his time as a team captain at ASU taught him leadership and teamwork. “That’s exactly what we need today” in Congress, he told The Arizona Republic.

Walter said he is motivated by out-of-control federal spending, a sluggish economic recovery, a poor education system and looming problems associated with implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

“There’s no time to waste on solving any of these issues,” he said. “I don’t think we have that much longer to act.”

Walter doesn’t want to be a “career politician” influenced by “special interests,” he said. When pressed, he said he would term-limit himself and vote for term limits, though he hasn’t decided what length of time a politician should serve. Walter said as far as special-interest donations to political-action committees go, if “it’s individuals or institutions that embrace an economic-freedom agenda, we have a lot to talk about.”

Other Republicans who have filed paperwork to run in District 9 are Wendy Rogers, Vernon Parker and Martin Sepulveda, who all ran last year. Rogers is the only candidate in the race who has raised much campaign cash to date.

But Sinema’s $333,000 haul from January through March has far surpassed the field. [Yes, money is what government is all about!!! And it seems like Kyrsten Sinema will tell you anything to get your vote and your cash!!!]

In southern Arizona, Saucedo Mercer will make a second run at Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Democrat, who defeated her last cycle.

Saucedo Mercer has criticized Grijalva for his 2010 call to boycott Arizona after the state passed the tough immigration-enforcement law known as Senate Bill 1070.

The district is heavily left-leaning, but Saucedo Mercer said in a written statement that Grijalva can be defeated.

“District 3 can elect a real representative to Congress who will work to bring back jobs, improve our education system, and defend our Constitutional rights,” she said. “Together, we can boycott this career politician, his fat cat political allies and special interest groups that are putting District 3 out of work.”

Kyrsten Sinema becomes a Republican???

Source

Salmon, Sinema agree on key elements of immigration reform

By Gary Nelson The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Apr 3, 2013 10:45 AM

They come from different political perspectives and sit on opposite sides of the aisle, but the Southeast Valley’s two U.S. representatives are in sync on the need for immigration reform.

Matt Salmon, the Republican veteran, and Kyrsten Sinema, the Democratic freshman, shared the platform Tuesday at the 2013 East Valley Statesperson’s Luncheon in Mesa presented by the East Valley Partnership.

Salmon represents Congressional District 5, which includes east Mesa, Gilbert, Queen Creek and parts of Chandler. He was re-elected in November after a 12-year absence from the U.S. House, where he served three previous terms. Sinema’s District 9 cuts a swath from north-central Phoenix through Tempe, west Mesa and Chandler into Ahwatukee.

“I think something will happen” this year on immigration reform, Salmon said, agreeing with Sinema on key elements of a plan that would improve border security while providing legal ways for foreign nationals to work here.

Sinema said legislation is likely to emerge from the House this month, but the end product will have to mesh with a Senate bill being pushed by the so-called “Gang of Eight,” which includes Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake.

Salmon and Sinema both said reform will help the economy, and it’s vital to provide ways for highly educated people to stay.

“One of the worst things we’re doing right now is bringing those folks here, training them, educating them, and then sending them back to their country where they are going to compete with us,” Sinema said.

Salmon agreed. “I’d like to see us operate a little more like the National Basketball Association,” Salmon said: If you can play, you can stay.

The lawmakers also talked about federal budget issues, which continue to make headlines as the so-called sequestration budget cuts slice day-to-day federal operations.

Sinema lamented the lack of bipartisanship on budget issues, but Salmon said the problems are more profound than that. [I think Kyrsten Sinema view is a) if it moves tax it b) if it doesn't move tax it too. I don't think Kyrsten Sinema ever met a tax she didn't love. Kyrsten Sinema is famous in Arizona for that 300 percent tax she tried to slap on medical marijuana in an attempt to flush Arizona's medical marijuana law Prop 203 down the toilet!!!]

It’s vital, he said, to find ways to cut the mandatory portions of the budget — now amounting to 65 percent of all federal spending. Those programs include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and debt service.

Salmon advocates raising the retirement age and other measures to keep future spending in check. “If we don’t, a lot of people are going to get hurt — a lot more than we talk about on the sequestration side,” he said.

Salmon and Sinema also agreed on the need to promote Arizona’s place in the inernational marketplace; Sinema said she has joined a group called the New Democratic Coalition, which includes about a quarter of House Democrats and is specifically interested in promoting global trade. [That's odd, Kyrsten Sinema seems to be your typical Democrat is is back by labor unions and wants to keep foreign workers out of the country. I suspect Kyrsten Sinema plays both sides of this issue in an attempt to grab both the Democratic and Republican votes.]

The biggest threat to that, she said, is America’s vulnerability to cyber-attacks. [Wow!!! Kyrsten Sinema seems to have flipped from an anti-war person to a big fan of the American military. Again I suspect Kyrsten Sinema will say anything to get your vote and is playing both the Democratic and Republican sides of this issue in an attempt to get both the Republican and Democratic votes]

“This is an area that is not talked about very much,” Sinema said, mostly because much of the information is classified. She added:

“But, I will tell you that the threat that our country is facing as a result of cybersecurity breaches is significant. The amount of money that we already have lost as a result of our inability to protect ourselves effectively from cybersecurity threats is literally in the trillions of dollars.”

Hackers in Russia, China and Iran are busily swiping financial data, patents and other sensitive information, Sinema said, and Congress hasn’t done nearly enough to stop them.

Kevin Rogers, president of the Arizona Farm Bureau, asked the lawmakers to intervene in the Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to force the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona to install expensive air scrubbers.

The resulting higher costs for electricity, he said, will hurt everyone in Arizona.

“I’m scared to death about the EPA proposals,” Salmon said. “It will dramatically increase the costs of water, and then the cost of everything. ...We’ve got to put our best foot forward to stop this from happening.”

Marijuana is NOT a significant factor crashes???

Source

Marijuana By Itself Not a Significant Factor in Fatal and Injury Crashes in 2012, DPS Data Shows

By Ray Stern Fri., May 17 2013 at 10:00 PM

Pot by itself was not much of a factor in injury and fatal crashes probed last year by the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

Fewer than 1 percent of suspected impaired drivers involved in such crashes tested positive for nothing but marijuana.

New Times' findings, based on a records request satisfied by DPS this week, jibe with statistics we reported earlier this month in our feature article about Arizona's zero-tolerance marijuana-DUI law (link below). Drivers suspected of impairment in crashes that hurt or killed people in Phoenix, Chandler and Scottsdale were rarely found to be impaired by marijuana, our earlier research showed.

Alcohol is believed responsible for five-to-10 times the number of crashes caused by drivers impaired by all other illegal drugs combined, according to the annual "Crash Facts" report put out by the Arizona Department of Transportation.

With medicinal herb now legal under state law for more than 37,000 people, we figured we'd find out what fraction of those drug cases involved pot. Not many, it turns out.

Studies have shown that marijuana may increase the risk of a crash -- a point highlighted recently in a newspaper column by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk and Valley-based anti-pot activist Carolyn Short warning of pot-caused carnage.

The concern seems rational. But data from the observations of state troopers and police don't seem to support fear of a looming disaster on the roadways.

In 2012, blood and urine tests ordered by DPS crash investigators prove that alcohol was the culprit in the vast majority of the 335 injury and fatal crashes involving impaired drivers.

Lab tests showed that only three of the 335 suspected impaired drivers had marijuana and nothing else in their bloodstreams.

(Quick caveat before we dump our numbers on you: Gleaned from the lab reports, they mix injury and fatal crashes -- we didn't see the entire crash reports -- just the drug and alcohol test results. The numbers don't include the fatal crashes in which the suspected impaired driver died. We omitted one report because, confusingly, it showed two suspects. In about 10 cases, two BAC readings were given, possibly taken from the suspect at different times -- we always picked the higher one.)

Here's what we found: * 335 -- total suspected impaired drivers. These are the folks busted by DPS statewide in 2012 for suspected impaired driving after an injury or fatal crash, and for which tests for drugs, alcohol or both were performed.

* 3 -- THC or THC metabolite only. The inert carboxy-THC metabolite, which can remain in the bodies of some users for weeks, was found in all three cases, at nanogram-per-milliliter levels of three, 39 and 42. The suspect with the 42 ngs of carboxy was also reported to have 2 ng/ml of active THC. The new legalization law in Washington sets an active THC limit of 5 ng/ml for drivers -- the same amount approved recently by Colorado lawmakers but not yet signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper.

* 285 -- alcohol-only cases. If the observed level of impairment matches the BAC shown in a breath test, police don't typically order a more expensive blood test. It's a safe bet that some of those 285 drunk drivers also had drugs or drug metabolites in their bloodstreams, including pot.

* .173 -- average BAC of the alcohol-only cases. That's about halfway between an extreme and a super-extreme DUI in Arizona. Nothing higher than .382 and with a low of .01.

* 22 -- BACs below .08, of the alcohol-only cases. This week, the National Transportation Safety Board asked all 50 states to lower the legal limit to .05.

* 19 -- mixed THC with booze or other drugs. Meth shows up a few times here, but booze and tranquilizers are the most common.

* 6 - mixed alcohol and other drugs, but not THC.

* 15 -- drugged, but no THC or alcohol. Tranquilizers, sleeping pills, meth, morphine, pain pills.

* 7 -- negative drug and alcohol test results.

Notes in four of the cases suggested police believed impairment was caused by something the lab couldn't test for, such as spice, K2 and LSD.

Final word: All of the cases involved pain and suffering caused by a driver who was probably impaired by something.

Drive safely.

Politicians and cops are addicted to Federal pork???

Posted on May 17, 2013 11:27 am

First responders face cutbacks as federal funds dry up

My Turn by SCOTT SOMERS

Once again an American city has been the target of the brutality of terrorism. Our hearts go out to the victims and families affected by the Boston Marathon bombing. [If you ask me the police who flushed the Constitution rights of the people of Boston down the toilet to catch the two Boston bombers were bigger terrorists then the Boston Bombers were.]

Watching the news, we were witness to the value of a unified response by federal, state and local authorities. Videos document Boston firefighters, emergency medical personnel and local hospitals working together to treat the wounded. Pictures show FBI and ATF agents standing with Boston police to investigate the crime and apprehend those responsible.

Homeland security continues to be a highly visible, core responsibility for frontline first responders. [The only good thing about all this "homeland security" is that it make most people realized that America has turned into a police state!!!]

Federal, state and local agencies in the Valley have worked diligently to integrate communications and build regional preparedness capabilities. An example is the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center. ACTIC was one of the first fusion centers to go into operation and is able to tie together intelligence agencies statewide. This partnership prepares the region to better respond to natural or human-caused disasters or terrorist events.

But critical programs face cuts amid a decline in federal preparedness efforts. [I disagree with that 100 percent. We don't need these wasteful police state pork programs any more then we need a hole in the head!!!]

Urban Area Security Initiative grants have been used by fire departments to improve capabilities to respond to hazardous-materials incidents. Some of these resources were used recently to respond to a suspicious letter containing an oily substance at the Phoenix office of Sen. Jeff Flake. [Yea, and I don't ever remember the cops using these megabucks of Federal pork to ever respond to any real threats. They usually end up blowing up a bag of dirty clothing that somebody forgot at a bus stop. And then claiming that they protected us from some imaginary terrorists]

Police have used UASI grants to increase explosive-ordinance disposal and SWAT and intelligence-analyzing capabilities. This equipment was on display when officers investigated a backpack left near 44th Street and McDowell Road. [I don't remember that incident, but if it was like all the others the cops probably ended up blowing up the backpack only to find out it wasn't a bomb, but a bag of dirty clothing.]

But Phoenix UASI decreased more than 50 percent between fiscal 2010 and 2012. [Thank God!!! We need a lot less of this wasteful government pork that has turned American into a police state]

The region is in jeopardy of losing its funding altogether as Congress continues to call for reductions in the number of regions receiving UASI grants. The president’s 2014 budget proposed consolidating state and local preparedness grants without adequate stakeholder input. [Yea, and lets hope they lose 100 percent of this wasteful police state pork!!!]

The Metropolitan Medical Response System grant was all but eliminated last year. MMRS helped strengthen medical surge capacity, mass vaccinations and treatment, decontamination capabilities and regional collaboration. [Translation, like the insane unconstitutional war on drugs, it's a jobs program for cops!!!]

In March, Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, Tempe Mayor Mark Mitchell, along with council members Daniel Valenzuela of Phoenix and Sammy Chavira of Glendale and myself, met with representatives of the Department of Homeland Security to express concern about the decline in the region’s grant allocation. The issue is under review by DHS. [So it sounds like the author [Scott Sommers], along with Greg Stanton, Mark Mitchell, Daniel Valenzuela, and Sammy Chavira are part of the problem of this wasteful government spending on police state pork and all need to be booted out of office by the voters]

Homeland Security grants are needed to sustain critical capabilities, training and exercises for our first responders and community partners and to continue such successful programs as Terrorism Liaison Officers and Community Emergency Response Teams. These Phoenix regional programs were identified as “innovative best practices” in a 2009 DHS review. [Of course they were. The DHS wants as much government pork as it can get!!!]

Be assured that Valley first responders remain ever vigilant and prepared to prevent and respond to emergencies. But local responders need a committed federal partner to protect our homeland. [That's 100 percent BS. What we need to do is boot the police state politicians who are responsible for this wasteful government spending out of office!!!]

Scott Somers is a Mesa City Council member.

Ron Paul slams Boston police in Marathon bombing

Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston

by Ron Paul

Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.

What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.

The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.

No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week:

“Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property.”

Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.

This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.

Source

Ron Paul slams Boston police response to blasts

Catalina Camia, USA TODAY 3:47 p.m. EDT April 29, 2013

Former congressman Ron Paul was no fan of the police presence and manhunt tied to the Boston Marathon bombings.

The libertarian-thinking, former GOP presidential candidate slammed what he called the "military-style takeover" of Boston on April 19, the day Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick asked residents of Boston and its nearby suburbs to "shelter in place."

"The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city," Paul wrote on the website of Lew Rockwell, a libertarian writer. "This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself."

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been charged in connection with the blasts that left three people dead and more than 260 injured. His older brother, Tamerlan, died in a firefight with police hours before Dzhokhar was tracked down.

Paul served in Congress for 23 years, before retiring in January. The Texan was well known for criticizing what he believed was big government intrusion, in everything from tax and financial policy to national security. The scenes in Boston of police going door-to-door, closed businesses and public transportation shut down were more appropriate for "a military coup in a far off banana republic," Paul wrote.

Patrick last week defended the "shelter in place" decision. "I think we did what we should have done and were supposed to do with the always-imperfect information that you have at the time," he is quoted as saying in The Boston Globe.

Source

Ron Paul criticizes Marathon bombing response

Globe Staff

April 29, 2013

WASHINGTON — Former US representative Ron Paul has a warning for Americans after the Boston Marathon bombings, and it may come as a surprise.

The prominent libertarian says citizens should perhaps be more frightened by the police response to the attack — which killed three and injured scores more — than by the explosions themselves.

In an article called “Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston,” the former Republican representative and two-time presidential candidate compares the intense April 19 search for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to “scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic.”

“The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” Paul writes. “This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.”

Paul argues that the Boston case sets a dangerous precedent, recounting scenes of “paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.”

“Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties,” Paul writes. “That is what happened in Boston.”

During the search, authorities encouraged residents in the Boston area to stay inside their homes.

It created surreal scenes on the Friday after the attack, with eerily quiet streets.

Governor Deval Patrick last week defended the decision to shut down the Boston area.

“I think we did what we should have done and were supposed to do with the always-imperfect information that you have at the time,” Patrick said at a news conference Friday.

— MATT VISER

<SNIP>

Goldwater Institute fights tyrants on Arizona Board of Cosmetology

Board out of woman’s business

By Robert Anglen The Republic | azcentral.com Sat May 18, 2013 1:08 PM

Confined to her Kansas City, Mo., home for six months with breast cancer in 2006, Lauren Boice conceived of a business linking cosmetologists with hospice patients.

She said the idea was to provide a beauty and care service for elderly and ill people who couldn’t get in a car for a trip to a salon.

In 2008, Boice brought Angels on Earth Home Beauty LLC to Green Valley. Two years later, she was locked in a legal battle with the Arizona Board of Cosmetology over a host of regulations that threatened to shut her down.

The board sent investigators to Boice’s house and accused her of operating an illegal salon. They told her she failed to comply with salon licensing requirements and told her she needed to install equipment such as a sink or lease space in a functioning salon.

No matter that Boice’s business operated as a dispatch service and the only equipment required to run it was a phone and a computer. Boice hired licensed cosmetologists and arranged for them to visit hospitals, care homes and private residences. The board insisted Boice was breaking the law.

“Every time I complied with one regulation, they say, ‘Now you have to do this... .’ It finally got to the point where I said, ‘This is just ridiculous,’ ” Boice said. “What snapped me was when the board said I had to book appointments through a (physical) salon. That would have removed me from my own business.”

Officials with the Cosmetology Board did not respond to interview requests Friday. Board members, who are appointed by the governor, regulate hair styling, manicures, massage and other spa-type treatments.

“It was clear they (the board) had no idea what I was doing. They were trying to pigeonhole me,” Boice said. “I wrote to the governor and the attorney general, saying, ‘Please help me.’ ”

Boice, 54, previously worked in a hospice. She now has a full-time marketing job and operates Angels in her spare time. She said the business doesn’t generate much profit, if any. She said it is more of a community service that gives those who are homebound a chance to look and feel better.

“It gives people a sense of well-being,” she said of the patients her technicians treat. “I’m not a technician. I’m not a salon owner.”

Boice said the board initiated its crackdown based on the complaint of a disgruntled job applicant whom she refused to hire.

Boice said the state was wrong, and she was determined to fight. When government officials failed to respond, she turned to lawyers with the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix.

The non-profit think tank challenges government and often takes up causes on behalf of small-business owners. Lawyers there described Boice’s case as a civil-liberties issue.

“The Board of Cosmetology has made a cottage industry of depriving consumers of choice,” said Clint Bolick, Goldwater’s vice president for litigation. “(Arizona’s board) may be the worst I’ve encountered. The board tends to take very draconian positions.”

Goldwater sued the board over a 2009 decision prohibiting a Gilbert salon owner from using live fish in a pedicure process. The fish eat dead skin off customers’ feet.

Board President Donna Aune said that the fish posed a potential danger to customers and could expose customers to bacteria and disease.

Goldwater Institute lawyers called the board’s decision arbitrary and without proof. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge in March sided with the board and ordered the owner to stop offering the treatment.

Bolick said Friday that Goldwater plans to appeal.

In 2011, Goldwater sued the board on Boice’s behalf, beginning a 16-month-long battle that ended last month when the board agreed to settle the case.

Bolick called it a capitulation. He said the board agreed it did not have jurisdiction in the case and that Boice is running a dispatch service, not a salon. He said the board put Boice through a 16-month ordeal only to determine it did not have the right to regulate her.

As part of the settlement, the board agreed that it would cease any attempts to regulate Boice’s business and agreed not to impose requirements on similar businesses, Bolick said.

He said the case cost Arizona taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps more. Goldwater waived its attorneys’ fees as part of the settlement.

“It was very, very frustrating,” Bolick said. “Litigating against the Board of Cosmetology is like banging your head against a wall.”

Boice said she was thrilled by the victory and praised Goldwater for taking the case. She said the board overreached and the state did nothing to stop it. “They just wanted to push me and push me,” Boice said. “When they realized that I wouldn’t back down, they backed down.”

Boice, whose cancer returned in October, is once again going through treatment. She said the real victory is for her customers.

“The idea was born out of my work with hospices,” she said. “It is a labor of love.”

Reach the reporter at robert.anglen@arizonarepublic.com.

A fair trial when the judge was a prosecutor????

Maybe U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin will give you a fair trial.

But there are many judges who think their role is to rubber stamp and convict anyone the police says is a criminals. A lot of these judges are former prosecutors, who also thought it was their job to railroad anyone who the police said was a criminal.

Source

NY ‘frisk’ judge calls criticism ‘below-the-belt’

Associated Press Sun May 19, 2013 10:06 AM

NEW YORK — The federal judge presiding over civil rights challenges to the stop-and-frisk practices of the New York Police Department has no doubt where she stands with the government.

“I know I’m not their favorite judge,” U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin said during an Associated Press interview Friday. It was another moment of candor for a judge known for her call-it-as-she-sees-it manner and willingness to confront government lawyers in a courthouse where many judges — former federal prosecutors themselves — seem less inclined.

“I do think that I treat the government as only one more litigant,” she said during the interview that proceeded with a single rule: no questions about the trial over police tactics that reaches closing arguments Monday.

The trial has put the NYPD and City Hall on the defensive as they justify a long-running policy of stopping, questioning and frisking some residents to deter crime. Critics say it discriminates against blacks and Hispanics. Scheindlin is not being asked to ban the tactic, since it has been found to be legal, but she does have the power to order reforms in how it is implemented.

During the trial, she’s shown an impatience with lawyers on both sides when they stray from the topic at hand, and a willingness to directly question witnesses — including police supervisors — about the nuts and bolts of trying to keep streets safe.

“I don’t think they’re entitled to deference,” she said of government attorneys. “I think some of the judges are a little more timid to maybe disagree with the U.S. attorney’s office. … They have to prove their case like anybody else. I don’t give them special respect. Maybe some judges do because they came from the office, they know the people there, whatever. I try not to do that.” [How can a person get a fair trial when the judge is a former prosecutor????]

Scheindlin, 66, appointed by President Bill Clinton, has had plenty of high-profile cases in 19 years in federal court, including three trials of John “Junior” Gotti, the son of the late legendary mob boss John Gotti, two trials of a California student who knew two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and the trial of international arms dealer Viktor Bout.

The AP interview came after a New York Daily News article revealed that the staff of Mayor Michael Bloomberg had reviewed her record to show that 60 percent of her 15 written “search-and-seizure” rulings since she took the bench in 1994 had gone against law enforcement. [If you ask me it should have been 100 percent!!!! What part of the 4th Amendment don't these judges understand!!!!]

The judge called it a “below-the-belt attack” on judicial independence. She said it was rare when any judge grants a request to suppress evidence in a law enforcement case and that inclusion of the numerous times when she rejected the requests with oral rulings from the bench would likely reduce the total to less than 5 percent.

She said reports that the mayor’s office was behind the study made it worse.

“If that’s true, that’s quite disgraceful,” Scheindlin said. “It was very discouraging and upsetting. I can’t say it has no toll.”

Of such criticism, she said: “It’s very painful. Judges can’t really easily defend themselves. … To attack the judge personally is completely inappropriate and intimidates judges or it is intended to intimidate judges or it has an effect on other judges and that worries me.”

A Bloomberg spokesman said Saturday, “We did a simple search of publicly available written decisions, as the media is also free to do.”

The New York County Lawyers’ Association called the report meaningless because it sampled so few Scheindlin rulings.

Scheindlin has faced heat before, most notably a decade ago when she presided over the trials of Osama Awadallah and one newspaper labeled her “Osama’s best friend,” a reference that some could misinterpret to refer to Osama bin Laden. [I guess the government will call any judge names when the judge refuses to rubber stamp their requests to railroad people they consider criminals]

“You could be in danger, physically,” she said.

The Awadallah case is memorable to Scheindlin for how it reflected the mood of the attitude across the country after the Sept. 11 attacks. Awadallah, born in Venezuela and raised in Jordan, was a young immigrant in San Diego who was picked up as a material witness after his telephone number was found in a car that one of the hijackers drove to the airport on Sept. 11. Prosecutors agreed he was no terrorist but claimed he intentionally misled grand jurors about how well he knew one of the terrorists. Defense attorneys said he was left confused after 20 days in detention. [Now that is a very good reason why you should always take the 5th and refuse to answer any questions from the police.]

She said she learned in talking to jurors after Awadallah’s first trial that they came within one vote of convicting him of false statements. At the next trial, he was exonerated.

“Same evidence. Same prosecutor. Same defense lawyers. Jury goes from 11-to-1 to 12-zip,” she recalled. “So I asked what happened. The answer is the country had turned in a new direction.”

She said immediately after Sept. 11, “people were so worried and so terrified that the next attack was around the corner that they were willing to cede many of their civil liberties.”

She added: “The second half of the (President George W.) Bush term, Bush policies were not popular any longer. People were much more distant from the event of 9/11. Now they were more concerned with civil liberties and less concerned with the security threat. … I thought it was dramatically shown by what happened in that case.”

In choosing law clerks, Scheindlin looks for varied experience like her own. She has been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer and was once politically active.

“I don’t want a kid who’s just done seven straight years of A’s at Harvard,” she said. “I want to know that they’ve done something, worked somewhere. Some experience. Some work. Some life. That makes for a rounded person.”

And should they someday become a judge, it makes them well prepared for the rare case of impact.

“That’s the day you live for, to do something that you believe is right and that is upheld as right and has a national impact, that’s great,” Scheindlin said. “That’s why people want to be judges, I think, so they can make a difference.”

———

Associated Press writers Tom Hays and Colleen Long contributed to this report.

Nobody cares about Bakersfield police murder???

When I first read about the murder in the LA Times I thought it would quickly spread across America, making people angry as h*ll.

I was wrong. As of today, I have not even seen an article about the murder in the Arizona Republic.

A welfare program for drug testing companies???

Source

Proposed Calif. Measure Requires Doctor Drug Tests

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: May 20, 2013 at 9:08 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO — A proposed state ballot measure in California would require doctors to be randomly subjected to drug and alcohol testing.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports (http://bit.ly/10PKfJP) the "Pee in the Cup" initiative is being pushed by Bob Pack, a technology mogul and former executive at AOL Inc. and NetZero Inc.

His young son and daughter were killed a decade ago by a driver under the influence of alcohol and prescription pills.

Pack's campaign already is armed with $2 million in funding and will launch this summer.

The newspaper reports the initiative might also seek to lift the cap on damages in medical malpractice cases.

The goal is to get the measure on the November 2014 ballot.

A spokesperson for the California Medical Association calls the effort a "publicity stunt."

___

Information from: San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com

Drug testing for California doctors?

Drug testing for California doctors?

They’re calling it the “Pee in the Cup’’ initiative — a proposed state ballot measure that would require doctors to be randomly subjected to drug and alcohol testing, the same way bus drivers are.

It’s being pushed by a tech mogul who’s on a very personal crusade to clean up the state’s medical practices.

Bob Pack is a former AOL and NetZero exec whose 10-year-old son and 7-year-old daughter were struck and killed a decade ago near their Danville home by a driver under the influence of alcohol and prescription pills.

After going public with a campaign to put his kids’ killer behind bars for second-degree murder, Pack turned his attention to helping the state track patient prescriptions and spot “doctor shoppers’’ like the driver in Danville.

After state funding for the effort dried up, Pack tried and failed to qualify a ballot initiative that would have taxed drug companies to pay for the tracking.

Now he’s taking aim at doctors who abuse drugs themselves. He’s enlisted the help of consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield — the guy behind the landmark 1988 measure regulating the insurance industry — and former Clinton White House adviser Chris Lehane, whose trial lawyer clients have already dropped $2 million into a campaign account.

Pack and his pals are armed with a new poll showing 85 percent of California voters would be on board with random testing of physicians. They’re also touting an article in the prestigious Journal of American Medicine advocating confidential, mandatory testing.

They’re looking to hit the streets this summer with either a single-issue measure or a multi-prong initiative that would also:

–Lift the cap on damages in medical malpractice cases.

–Change the makeup of the state Medical Board, which disciplines bad doctors, to require that a majority come from outside the medical profession.

–And ensure funding for a state database to track what drugs doctors are prescribing —and if they’re being recklessly prescribed.

The California Medical Association “isn’t in the business of speculating on every hypothetical, ridiculous ballot measure that is floated,’’ say spokeswoman Molly Weedn, but she calls the effort by Pack and his cohorts “nothing more than an ill-fated publicity stunt.’’

CMA claims the real goal to lift the decades-old cap on medical malpractice cases — a “money grab” by the trial lawyers that won’t fly with either the Legislature or voters.

We’re told a deal is about to be announced in Sacramento, with support from the doctors, that will ensure funding for the database and reorganize the Medical Board.

That could leave just malpractice awards and peeing in a cup on the November 2014 ballot. If that happens, you’re likely to see a battle royal.

For more M&R, including the the surprise bill that former Oakland cops are getting from the city, read here.

How to Legalize Pot

Source

How to Legalize Pot

Nicholas Blechman

By BILL KELLER

Published: May 19, 2013 56 Comments

THE first time I talked to Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at U.C.L.A., was in 2002, and he explained why legalization of marijuana was a bad idea. Sure, he said, the government should remove penalties for possession, use and cultivation of small amounts. He did not favor making outlaws of people for enjoying a drug that is less injurious than alcohol or tobacco. But he worried that a robust commercial marketplace would inevitably lead to much more consumption. [33 million Americans already use marijuana so who cares if a few million more start using it??] You don’t have to be a prohibitionist to recognize that pot, especially in adolescents and very heavy users, can seriously mess with your brain.

So I was interested to learn, 11 years later, that Kleiman is leading the team hired to advise Washington State as it designs something the modern world has never seen: a fully legal commercial market in cannabis. Washington is one of the first two states (Colorado is the other) to legalize the production, sale and consumption of marijuana as a recreational drug for consumers 21 and over. The marijuana debate has entered a new stage. Today the most interesting and important question is no longer whether marijuana will be legalized — eventually, bit by bit, it will be — but how.

“At some point you have to say, a law that people don’t obey is a bad law,” Kleiman told me when I asked how his views had evolved. He has not come to believe marijuana is harmless, but he suspects that the best hope of minimizing its harm may be a well-regulated market.

Ah, but what does that look like? A few places, like the Netherlands, have had limited legalization; many jurisdictions have decriminalized personal use; and 18 states in this country have approved the drug for medical use. (Twelve others, including New York, are considering it.) But Washington and Colorado have set out to invent a whole industry from scratch and, in theory, to avoid the shortcomings of other markets in legal vices — tobacco, alcohol, gambling — that lurched into being without much forethought, and have supplied, along with much pleasure, much misery. [No they are NOT inventing a new industry from scratch. Marijuana was legally sold before 1937, and all other drugs were legal before 1914, when the "1914 Harrison Narcotic Tax Act" was passed]

The biggest shadow hanging over this project is the Department of Justice. Federal law still makes felons of anyone who trades in cannabis. [And many legal scholars will tell you these laws are unconstitutional per the 10th Amendment, even if the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise] Despite the tolerant drift of the polls, despite evidence indicating that states with medical marijuana programs have not, as opponents feared, experienced an increase in use by teenagers, despite new moves toward legalization in Latin America, no one expects Congress to remove cannabis from the list of criminal substances any time soon. (“Not until the second Hillary Clinton administration,” Kleiman says.) But federal authorities have always left a lot of room for local discretion on marijuana enforcement. They could, for example, declare that they will prosecute only drug producers who grow more than a certain amount, and those who traffic across state lines. Attorney General Eric Holder, perhaps preoccupied with scandal management, has been slow to come up with enforcement guidelines that could give the states a comfort zone in which to experiment.

One practical challenge facing the legalization pioneers is how to keep the marijuana market from being swallowed by a few big profiteers — the pot equivalent of Big Tobacco, or even the actual tobacco industry — a powerful oligopoly with every incentive to turn us into a nation of stoners. There is nothing inherently evil about the profit motive, but there is evidence that pot dealers, like purveyors of alcohol, get the bulk of their profit from those who use the product to excess. “When you get a for-profit producer or distributor industry going, their incentives are to increase sales,” said Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon, another member of the Washington consulting team. “And the vast majority of sales go to people who are daily or near-daily consumers.” [That is rubbish. If marijuana is 100 percent legalized, a kilo of marijuana won't cost any more then a head of lettuce, and nobody will be making big bucks off of it. After all marijuana is a stinking weed that grows every where.]

What Kleiman and his colleagues (speaking for themselves, not Washington State) imagine as the likely best model is something resembling the wine industry — a fragmented market, many producers, none dominant. This could be done by limiting the size of licensed purveyors. It would help, too, to let individuals grow a few plants at home — something Colorado’s new law permits but Washington’s does not, because polling showed Washingtonians didn’t want that.

If you read the proposal Kleiman’s team submitted to Washington State, you may be a little boggled by the complexities of turning an illicit herb into a regulated, safe, consumer-friendly business. Among the things on the to-do list: certifying labs to test for potency and contamination. (Pot can contain, among other nasty things, pesticides, molds and salmonella.) [Yea, and so do tomatoes, potatoes, lettuce and all other legal agricultural products. He is just using that fact to demonize marijuana] Devising rules on labeling, so users know what they’re getting. Hiring inspectors, to make sure the sellers comply. Establishing limits on advertising, because you don’t want allowing to become promoting. And all these rules must account not just for smoking but for pot pastries, pot candies, pot-infused beverages, pot lozenges, pot ice cream, pot vapor inhalers. [Does he also want to micromanage the industries that sell these products when they don't contain marijuana???]

One of the selling points of legalization is that states can take a cut of what will be, according to estimates, a $35 billion to $45 billion industry and earmark some of these new tax revenues for good causes. It’s the same tactic used to win public approval of lotteries — and with the same danger: that some worthy government function comes to depend on creating more addicts. [Addicts??? Marijuana is not addictive. That is just drug war propaganda to demonize marijuana.] And how do you divvy up the revenues? How much goes to offset health consequences? How much goes to enforcement? How do you calibrate taxes so the price of pot is high enough to discourage excessive use, but not so high that a cheap black market arises? All this regulating is almost enough to take the fun out of drugs.

And then there is the issue of drugged driving. Much about the chemistry of marijuana in human beings remains uncertain, in part because the government has not supported much research. So no one has come up with a pot version of the breathalyzer to determine quickly whether a driver is impaired. In the absence of solid research, some legalization advocates insist stoned drivers are more cautious, and thus safer. (Hands up if you want Harold and Kumar driving your taxi. Or piloting your airplane.) On this and much else, Washington and Colorado will probably be making it up as they go, waiting for science to catch up. [Again about 33 million people currently illegally use marijuana. So the problem is driving while stoned probably isn't as bad as the author makes it out to be. While I favor 100 percent legalization of ALL drugs, I certainly don't think people should drive while they are stoned]

And experience tells us they are sure to get some things wrong. New York decriminalized possession of small amounts of pot way back in 1977, with the condition that there be no “public display.” The lawmakers meant to assure that you partied at home, not in the parks or on the sidewalks. They did not envision that this provision would create a pretext for throwing young black and Latino men in jail. When police in New York City stop and frisk, which they do a lot in rougher neighborhoods, they order their targets to turn out their pockets and — whoa, public display, come with us, son! Gov. Andrew Cuomo is promoting an amendment to curb that abuse of power.

On the opposite coast, California demonstrates a different kind of unintended consequences. The state’s medical marijuana law is such a free-for-all that in Los Angeles there are now said to be more pot dispensaries than Starbucks outlets. Even advocates of full legalization say things have gotten out of hand. [I didn't say that, and I am for 100 percent legalization of ALL drugs, not just marijuana.]

“It’s a bit of a farce when you can watch people come out of a dispensary, go around the corner and resell their drugs,” said Gavin Newsom, the lieutenant governor and former San Francisco mayor, who favors legalization. [Give me a break. Here in Arizona, medical marijuana costs a lot more in the legal pot dispensaries, then drug dealers sell it for illegally on the street. I suspect the same is true in California. I suspect that statement by Gavin Newsom is just propaganda to demonize marijuana] “If we can’t get our medical marijuana house in order, how do we expect voters to deal with legalization?” He is now part of a group discussing how to impose more order on California’s medical marijuana market, with an eye to offering broader legalization in 2016. And, he told me, his state will be paying close attention to Washington and Colorado, hoping somebody can, as Mark Kleiman puts it, “design a system that gets us to ‘orderly’ without getting us to ‘way too stoned.’ ”

California Senate acts to clarify legality of medical cannabis

California Senate acts to clarify legality of medical cannabis

May 20, 2013, 2:34 p.m.

Medical marijuana dispensaries that abide by security rules in California would not be subject to local or state prosecution for illegal sales under a measure approved Monday by the state Senate.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) proposed the measure to clarify ambiguous laws on medical marijuana, which was approved for legal use in California by voters in 1996. The current law allowing the sale of medical cannabis has resulted in “needless” arrests and prosecutions, he said.

SB 439 says collectives, cooperatives and other business entities can receive reasonable compensation for the services they provide, and will not be prosecuted as long as they comply with security and reporting guidelines drafted by the state Attorney General.

“It does seek to assure patients who need medical cannabis have access to it,” Steinberg told his colleagues. “It is intended to insure that drug cartels and other criminals do not benefit from the lack of regulation.”

Steinberg said the measure does not interfere with the ability of cities and counties to regulate the local operation of dispensaries.

The vote was 22-12, with Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu of Torrance joining 11 Republicans in opposition to the measure.

Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber) cited a proliferation of medical cannabis dispensaries around the state. “This is a step in the wrong direction and it is contrary to federal law,” Nielsen said during the floor debate.

Nielsen said he shares the concerns of the California Narcotics Officers' Assn. and the California Police Chiefs Assn. that the bill could expand the kinds of business entities that can get involved in growing and selling marijuana. Proposition 215 allowed marijuana to be provided by caregivers and a separate law expanded it to allow it to be cultivated "collectively or cooperatively."

That subsequent legislation did not address distribution systems such as store fronts, Steinberg said. The new bill allows sellers to be organized as any statutory business entity permitted under California law.

“This is a major expansion of Proposition 215 that is inconsistent with that original measure,” the two law enforcement groups wrote in a letter to lawmakers. Nielsen said he worries that the bill might lead to the sale of medical marijuana for profit.

Steinberg countered that the State Health and Safety code does not allow “any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit,” and his bill would not change that restriction. The bill next goes to the state Assembly for consideration.

Mayor Lewis and Barney sound like tax and spend terrorists.

In most city governments the salaries of the police account for about 40 percent of the budget, while the fire department accounts for about the next 20 percent, with police and fire departments salaries accounting for about 60 percent of the budget.

Gilbert Mayor John Lewis and Queen Creek Mayor Gail Barney seem to want you to think they are not going to spend your hard earned tax dollars on cops and firemen, but rather on roads and sewers, which is a lie.

Sadly America is the worlds biggest police state and we jail a higher percentage of our population then any other country in the world.

And the number one reason most of these people in American prisons are their for victimless drug war crimes.

If Gilbert Mayor John Lewis and Queen Creek Mayor Gail Barney really wanted to save your tax dollars they would order their police to stop arresting people for victimless crimes and concentrate on real criminals that hurt people, like robbers, burglars, muggers and rapists, not harmless pot smokers.

Source

Sales-tax simplification shouldn’t kill cities, towns

Our Turn by John Lewis and Gail Barney

The Southeast Valley’s explosive growth has municipalities such as Gilbert and Queen Creek scrambling to keep up with such fundamental needs as roads, sewers and public-safety services as developers and home builders erect waves of new homes.

To fund this critical growth-related infrastructure, Arizona cities and towns rely heavily on the construction sales tax, a key component of overall sales-tax revenues. Local sales tax represents approximately 50 percent of general-fund revenues in Gilbert and more than 47 percent in Queen Creek. [And of course almost all of those taxes goes to pay for the cops and firemen, not roads and sewers as Mayors John Lewis and Gail Barney want you to think]

With numbers like these, we are alarmed over the continued push in the state Legislature to eliminate the construction sales tax. Special-interest groups are attempting to use Gov. Jan Brewer’s important legislation on tax simplification as the means to achieve this financial windfall no matter the devastation to the state budget or that it will force many development-related costs onto our existing residents and businesses. [Yes, the problem here is SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, but it's not the unnamed special interest groups mention by Mayors John Lewis and Gail Barney. It's the special interest groups called the police union and the fireman union. The police and fire department unions LOVE taxes, because they get about 60 percent of the taxes that most cities collect to pay their salaries]

Gov. Brewer has made tax simplification a top priority and worked tirelessly to develop business-friendly tax reforms to aid economic development and job-creation efforts.

As the mayors of Gilbert and Queen Creek, we are fully supportive. If anyone in the state knows the importance of job creation, it is the leadership of cities and towns. These efforts should not be lost in a legislative battle over special-interest tax breaks.

While the Arizona system of taxation is far from perfect, it does honor the axiom “growth must pay for itself.” The cost of putting in new roads and infrastructure should be shouldered by developments incurring the cost, not by existing homeowners and businesses that already paid their way.

But does tax simplification need to occur? We say yes.

Is eliminating the construction sales tax the best way to achieve this simplification? The answer is clearly no.

We share the objectives behind Gov. Brewer’s tax-simplification legislation but have differing thoughts on how to get there. For this reason, we have been actively engaged in providing feedback, communicating concerns over devastating financial impacts while also spending countless months researching and crafting alternative solutions.

We are almost there.

After months of hard work, with continued guidance from the governor’s office, leaders of cities and towns developed a modified proposal streamlining sales-tax reporting, collection and auditing. We drafted legislative language making Arizona compliant with the federally proposed Marketplace Fairness Act (Internet taxation). [Translation Mayors John Lewis and Queen Creek Mayor Gail Barney want to shake us down for even more taxes with an internet tax!!!]

We are working diligently to find a solution on the construction sales tax that is common-sense, benefits Arizona businesses and taxpayers and doesn’t blow an enormous hole in state or local budgets. And we are almost there. [Translation - Mayors John Lewis and Gail Barney are working diligently to shake you down for as many taxes as they can!!!]

No one is certain when this legislative session will end. But we do know it can end abruptly, without notice. When it does end, tax simplification should not get lost in the shuffle, nor should legislation get pushed through that harms communities like Gilbert and Queen Creek. [Sorry guys, taxes don't harm the government, taxes feed government bureaucracies. Taxes harm the people that Mayors John Lewis and Gail Barney pretend to be looking out for]

Municipalities are the very economic engines of Arizona. Providing infrastructure is vital to economic development and job creation. We ask for continued partnership and transparency to ensure the ultimate outcome on tax simplification is a win for taxpayers, a win for the state and a win for cities and towns. [Translation - Mayors John Lewis and Gail Barney want to shake you down for as much of your hard earned money as they can get away with]

John Lewis is the mayor of Gilbert and Gail Barney is the mayor of Queen Creek.

East Bay vice squad cop sentenced to 14 years in federal prison

Source

Former head of East Bay vice squad sentenced to 14 years in federal prison

By Malaika Fraley

Contra Costa Times

Posted: 05/21/2013 06:07:00 AM PDT

mfraley@bayareanewsgroup.com

OAKLAND -- The former head of an elite Contra Costa County vice squad was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison Monday for stealing drug evidence, robbing prostitutes and making phony arrests -- crimes he said he committed as a cry for help while in a depressed and suicidal state.

"When I see the charges I've pleaded to, I'm overwhelmed with guilt and shame," ex-Central Contra Costa Narcotics Enforcement Team Cmdr. Norm Wielsch said as he sobbed and clutched a tissue. "I'm sorry, that's not really me." [Translation - Please give me a slap on the wrist for punishment. I am a cop and it is impossible for me to commit real crimes.]

Wielsch's attorney argued for electronic home detention for the 51-year-old Antioch resident, who asserts he "impulsively" began abusing the badge while suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by his 25-year law enforcement career and a degenerative muscular disease that eventually will put him in a wheelchair.

Judge Saundra Armstrong said she wasn't convinced. By Wielsch's own account, he was motivated, at least in part, by greed, the judge said.

Armstrong said she would have sentenced Wielsch to 17½ years, as the U.S. Attorney's Office requested, but thought 14 years took into account both his medical problems and the damage he caused to the public's confidence in law enforcement.

"He was crushed," defense attorney Raymond Erlach said after the sentencing. "In Norm's mind, he's being unfairly singled out because he's a cop." [Does he think cops deserve a "get out of jail card" for crimes they commit like armed robbery???]

Criminal cases against suspects arrested by Wielsch and others were dismissed, and several civil lawsuits were filed, after undercover state Department of Justice agents in February 2011 caught Wielsch and Concord private investigator Christopher Butler trying to sell drugs that had been seized by CNET. The Department of Justice program headed by Wielsch and staffed by local officers was suspended indefinitely as authorities launched a police-corruption probe that resulted in the prosecution of officers from Danville and San Ramon.

Wielsch pleaded guilty in December to five felonies: conspiracy to distribute marijuana and methamphetamine; theft from programs receiving government funds; robbery; and two counts of conspiracy against civil rights. Another six felony charges were dismissed as part of the plea deal.

His attorney said Monday that it was Wielsch's mental illness that made him susceptible to Butler, a sociopath who corrupted otherwise good people. At one point, Wielsch wanted to stop robbing prostitutes, Erlach said, but Butler blackmailed him into continuing by claiming that he had video of a married Wielsch having sex with one. Prosecutor Hartley West told the court there's no evidence that's true.

"If you trace their criminal conduct, all of it traces back to Mr. Butler," Erlach said.

Butler, 51, of Concord, was sentenced to eight years in federal prison in September. He and Wielsch started their law enforcement careers together at the Antioch Police Department in the early 1990s.

Wielsch had previously told investigators that he robbed and sold drugs to prepare for retirement and to earn favor with Butler for a position in Butler's expanding private investigation business.

Wielsch suffers from Charcot—Marie—Tooth disease, which has caused severe atrophy to his feet and lost feeling in his legs from the knees down. The disease struck him 30 year earlier than it did his father, who uses a wheelchair.

He said he was too proud to seek help for his depression over the disease, and it sent him into "a downward spiral of self-destruction" after 24 years of "honest hard work." He said he wants to speak at police academies and police departments about the importance of getting help for depression.

"I wish I had someone to warn me," Wielsch said.

Outside the courthouse, defense attorney Sara Zalkin said she has evidence that Wielsch abused his authority earlier in his career than he claims. She said she represents clients who had been arrested by Wielsch but declined to talk further, citing attorney-client privilege.

Former Danville officer Stephen Tanabe, 48, of Alamo, is awaiting trial on charges that he conspired with Butler to set up the estranged husbands of Butler's P.I. firm clients for DUI arrests. San Ramon attorney Mary Nolan, of Oakland, is awaiting trial on charges that she and Butler used eavesdropping equipment on her clients' estranged spouses.

And former San Ramon police officer Louis Lombardi, 40, of Discovery Bay, was sentenced to three years in federal prison for stealing drugs and other property when he was a CNET agent under Wielsch.

Wielsch will be eligible for parole in 10 years, his attorney said.

Contact Malaika Fraley at 925-234-1684. Follow her at Twitter.com/malaikafraley.

Top IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment

Government bureaucrats do it all the time and so should you.

The real problem is when you are detained by the police the questions are frequently rigged or asked in a manor that any answer you give will be an admission of guilt, and that answer will be used against you in court.

Susan Sanchez, is a public defender for the Maricopa County Attorneys office who used to give "Know Your Rights" talks for Phoenix Copwatch. She tells us that when you pulled over and asked by the cop

"How intoxicated are you on a scale of 1 to 10"

Most people who have had only one beer don't realize that if they say they are only intoxicated at a level of 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 are admitting that they are legally drunk.

That is because under Arizona law even if you are slightly intoxicated, you are still guilty of DUI. And saying you are only intoxicated at a level of 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 is admitting you are drunk.

The only correct answer to that question is zero, but the cop didn't tell you that you could use zero as an answer. The cop told you to give an answer of 1 to 10, and any of those answers is an admission of guilt - even if you don't know it.

Of course you and I know the question is a bunch of BS, but sadly the prosecutor will take the answer you gave to this BS question and ask the jury to convict you with it.

So it's best to refuse to answer any and all police questions, just like this high level bureaucrat at the IRS is doing.

Source

Top IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment

By Richard Simon and Joseph Tanfani

May 21, 2013, 12:15 p.m.

WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif. The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.

Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm of Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.

Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.

According to an inspector general’s report, Lerner found out in June 2011 that some staff in the nonprofits division in Cincinnati had used terms like “Tea Party” and “Patriots” to select some applications for additional screening of their political activities. She ordered changes.

But neither Lerner nor anyone else at the IRS told Congress, even after repeated queries from several committees, including House Oversight, about whether some groups had been singled out unfairly.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

joseph.tanfani@latimes.com

Twitter: @JTanfani

richard.simon@latimes.com

Twitter: @richardsimon11

Rep. Juan Mendez - I’m an atheist

The good news was the gay community has fought that, so now while a lot of people still hate gays it has become socially unacceptable to terrorize gay folks like it used to be.

Sadly us atheists are in the same position that gays were in 20 years ago. Sadly it's still socially acceptable to terrorize atheists.

I think it's great that Rep. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe has come out and admitted that he is an atheist. While a lot of people will hate him for it, I think that it will help people began to see the fact that atheists should have the same rights as all other people, even if they hate us.

I am still pretty pissed at Arizona US Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema for refusing to admit that she is an atheist. It sure seems like Kyrsten Sinema refuses to tell the public any of her positions if she thinks it may cost her votes, even if it is the truth.

Her official religion at the US Congress is listed as no religion, even though us folks here in Phoenix that know her, know that she is an atheist.

I am also still pretty pissed off at Kyrsten Sinema's attempt to slap an 300 percent tax on medical marijuana when she was in the Arizona Legislator.

I know Kyrsten Sinema never met a tax she didn't love. I a lot of conservative groups consider Kyrsten Sinema the worst legislator in the history of Arizona when it comes to her socialist tax and spending.

I also know that in all of Kyrsten Sinema campaigns for both the Arizona and US Congress she has been supported by the police unions. She says she supports the people, but when she votes, it seems like she supports the police state.

So I don't know if she tried to slap that 300 percent tax on because it is part of her usual love to tax and spend and simply thinks that every penny in your wallet is hers.

Or if she did it for the police unions, in an attempt to flush Prop 203 down the toilet. Prop 203 is Arizona's medical marijuana law.

Oddly Kyrsten Sinema does admit she is a gay, while not admitting she is an atheist, other then saying she doesn't have a religion.

Kyrsten Sinema is also a gun grabber and has been given an F by the NRA with a zero percent rating on a scale of 0 to 100.

Source

Arizona lawmaker: I’m an atheist

By Mary K. Reinhart The Republic | azcentral.com Tue May 21, 2013 10:06 PM

A state lawmaker acknowledged that he is an atheist as he gave the daily House invocation Tuesday, urging legislators to look at each other, rather than bow their heads, and “celebrate our shared humanness.”

Rep. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe, who said it was freeing to be open about his secular views, also introduced about a dozen fellow members of the Secular Coalition for Arizona who watched from the House gallery.

The House and Senate convene with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Members take turns giving the prayer or inviting a religious leader to do so — similar to practices that have taken place for centuries in Congress, statehouses and city halls throughout the country.

Mendez’s secular invocation comes as the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether prayers can be offered at government meetings.

An appeals court last year ruled unconstitutional the practice in Greece, N.Y., of having Christian pastors give prayers before public meetings. The Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom appealed and the high-court ruling, expected by June 2014, will resolve conflicting appeals-court rulings about religious expression.

Tuesday’s invocation was to have been given by Serah Blain, executive director of the Secular Coalition of Arizona. But Mendez said House staff had no record of his request to allow Blain’s remarks, so he offered the remarks himself.

“This is a room in which there are many challenging debates, many moments of tension, of ideological division, of frustration,” he said. “But this is also a room where, as my secular humanist tradition stresses, by the very fact of being human we have much more in common than we have differences.”

House lawmakers appeared to have no reaction to Mendez’s remarks.

But in a statement Monday on the Supreme Court case, Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, defended the practice of praying before government meetings.

“The outcome of this case could very well preserve or eliminate one of the great American traditions, which poses no threat to the secular nature of the business of the state,” he said.

Blain leads a growing coalition that represents 17 secular organizations at the Legislature, focused on pushing back against the powerful Christian-based Center for Arizona Policy and promoting a death-with-dignity law and science-based sex education in schools.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that people with no religious affiliation make up the third-largest group worldwide, after Christians and Muslims. About 20 percent of people in the U.S. say they are religiously unaffiliated.

IRS big wig takes the 5th and refuses to answer Congress's questions.

Source

IRS big wig takes the 5th and refuses to answer Congress's questions.

Many of the Founders died to give you your Fifth Amendment rights. You should always take it, like Lois Lerner did, who is a 34 year life time employee of the IRS.

Any defense attorney will tell you to NEVER answer police questions. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.

One problem with talking to the police is frequently the questions are rigged, and any answer you give will be an admission of committing a crime. Even if you didn't know you were confessing to a crime.

In Arizona one trick question cops use to convict you of DUI or DWI is to ask "On a scale of 1 to 10 how intoxicated are you".

If you give the cop the answer he asked you for, which is a number between 1 and 10 you have admitted to committing the crime of drunk driving.

In Arizona the slightest bit of intoxication is consider to be drunk driving, so if you answer the question with "1", you have admitted to driving while drunk.

Of course the only answer to that question is ZERO, and the cops don't give you that as an option to answer the question with.

Source

Lois Lerner invokes Fifth Amendment in House hearing on IRS targeting

By William Branigin and Ed O’Keefe, Updated: Wednesday, May 22, 9:46 AM E-mail the writers

The head of the Internal Revenue Service’s tax-exempt organizations office, faced with allegations of improper targeting of conservative groups, told a House committee Wednesday that she has done nothing wrong but declined to answer questions, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Lois G. Lerner told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in an opening statement that members of the panel have already accused her of providing false information to Congress.

IRS controversy: Who knew what, and when

“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.” But on the advice of counsel, she said, she would not answer questions or testify before the committee.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the committee chairman, asked her to reconsider, to no avail, then dismissed her and her attorney from the hearing room. At that point, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) objected, saying Lerner waived her right to invoke the Fifth Amendment by making an opening statement. “She ought to stay here and answer our questions,” he declared.

Issa excused Lerner anyway “subject to recall” if the committee determines she did not properly invoke her right. He added that he might consult with the Justice Department about giving Lerner “limited immunity” to testify.

Lerner’s attorney informed the Oversight Committee Tuesday that she would invoke the Fifth Amendment, but she was required to appear anyway. She said in her opening statement that she has been a government employee for more than 34 years, moving to the IRS exempt organizations office in 2001 and becoming the director of that unit in 2006. She said she was responsible for 900 employees and the processing of more than 60,000 applications a year.

“I am very proud of the work that I have done in government,” Lerner said.

Appearing before the committee along with Lerner were Douglas Shulman, the Bush administration appointee who led the IRS during President Obama’s first term; J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration; and Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin.

The House hearing was the latest in a series of Capitol Hill grillings of officials in connection with an audit by George’s office, which reported last week that it found inappropriate targeting of groups applying for tax-exempt status based on terms such as “tea party” or “patriot” in their case files.

In opening the hearing, Issa charged that George, who has been largely spared the grillings reserved for other officials in previous hearings, failed to keep Congress informed about his findings as the audit proceeded.

“We must also insist ... that we not wait 10 months to find out that there’s a there there,” Issa said. He called the delay “the greatest failing of an otherwise well-regarded inspector general.”

George reminded the committee that his office conducted an audit, not an investigation. He said the improper practices by an IRS unit in Cincinnati started in 2010 and were “not fully corrected’ until May 2012. “These practices were inappropriate,” he said. “They remained in effect for approximately 18 months.”

In questioning George, Issa said that under the law, “you have a responsibility to keep us continually and ... equally informed.”

George said there are “established procedures for conducting an audit” to ensure fairness and noted that information given to Capitol Hill “sometimes is not retained on the Hill.”

Issa retorted that the Obama administration has been known to leak information, and he charged that the IRS “maliciously leaked” the inspector general’s main finding in an apparent attempt to get ahead of the audit report.

With Lerner having refused to answer questions, lawmakers also turned their focus to Shulman, whose testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday irked some senators as he rebuffed attempts to blame him for the fiasco in which conservative groups were listed separately for special scrutiny.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House panel, criticized Shulman for not correcting his March 2012 testimony after learning that IRS employees had indeed targeted conservative groups.

“It seems to me that you would come back even if it were a phone call or a letter,” Cummings said. “I mean, common sense.”

Cummings also asked Shulman whether he was upset after learning from Steven T. Miller, who worked under Shulman at the time, that the IRS had targeted conservatives, an issue that members of Congress were concerned about.

“I felt comfort that the IG was going to look into this and report back to Congress at the appropriate time,” Shulman said.

Under questioning from Republicans, Shulman said he did not discuss the IRS targeting of conservative groups with the White House during what one GOP lawmaker said were more than 100 visits there in 2010 and 2011.

“It would not have been appropriate to have a conversation with anyone at the White House about the subject of discriminating against conservative groups,” Shulman said.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) also asked George to clarify whether officials at the Treasury Department or the White House ever directed IRS employees in the tax-exempt unit to target certain groups.

“We did pose that question,” George replied, adding that “the response was that there was no direction” of that nature from Treasury to the Cincinnati unit or from the unit’s affiliate office in Washington. He said in response to another question that his auditors “didn’t question anyone as to whether or not they’d received any direction from the White House.”

Norton urged George to look into that issue.

Appearing before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, Shulman said he was “saddened” by some of the agency’s actions regarding applications for tax-exempt status during his tenure.

“I certainly am not personally responsible for making a list that had inappropriate criteria on it,” Shulman said, adding: “With that said, this happened on my watch, and I very much regret that this happened on my watch.”

Asked at one point by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) whether he would apologize to Cornyn’s constituents who were unfairly targeted by the IRS, Shulman said that he was not sure what occurred specifically with Texas-based groups and announced his regret that the wrongdoing occurred on his watch.

“Well, I don’t think that qualifies as an apology,” Cornyn said.

The confrontation Tuesday was one more example of the growing acrimony surrounding congressional efforts to get to the bottom of the IRS targeting scandal as the outgoing acting IRS commissioner, his predecessor and the Treasury Department tax watchdog rejected the idea that political partisanship played any role in singling out conservative nonprofits for heightened scrutiny.

In Tuesday’s Senate hearing, Miller, the acting commissioner who submitted his resignation under pressure last week, sat alongside Shulman, who headed the IRS from March 2008 to November 2012, as each detailed how they first learned of the situation and the steps they took to remedy it.

Testifying for the first time since IRS officials admitted to the situation, Shulman was asked why he did not come forward before to acknowledge the improper screening that occurred before his departure.

“I did not have a full set of facts” before an IRS inspector general’s audit was made public last week, Shulman told the panel. He said he knew “sometime in the spring of 2012” that “there was a list being used” to designate groups for extra scrutiny and that the term “tea party” in a group’s name was a criterion. But he said that he did not know what other words were on the list and “didn’t know the scope and severity of this.”

“I agree that this is an issue that when someone spotted it, they should have brought it up the chain, and they didn’t,” Shulman said under questioning. “Why they didn’t, I don’t know.”

Shulman said several times that he was “dismayed” and “saddened” to read about the agency’s improper actions in the report released last week and said that he had made certain George’s office looked into the matter once he learned about it.

But Shulman refused several times to take personal responsibility for the situation or to explicitly apologize.

After Cornyn asked for an apology, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) offered Shulman another opportunity: “Are you responsible?”

“I’m deeply regretful,” Shulman said.

“Okay, never mind,” Roberts said, cutting him off. “Let’s just move on.”

Miller, as he had last week, took full responsibility for the agency’s decision to publicly apologize for the targeting by planting a question to raise the issue.

Under questioning, Miller explained that IRS leaders were aware that George was on the verge of releasing his report, so “we thought we should begin talking about this. We’d thought we’d get out an apology.”

Miller said he worked with Lerner, who leads the agency’s tax-exempt unit, to ensure that she would be asked a question about the controversy during a panel discussion at a conference.

“We wanted to reach out to the — to Hill staff about the same time [the report would] come out,” Miller said. But that strategy “did not work out,” he said. “Obviously, the entire thing was an incredibly bad idea.”

At a separate hearing held by the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said he would have “advised against” the decision by the IRS to plant the question at a conference hosted by the American Bar Association in Washington instead of first notifying lawmakers.

Lew told the committee that he was not involved in the decision to plant the question but that some Treasury and IRS officials discussed the strategy in advance. He emphasized that the management of the matter was up to the IRS’s discretion.

Discussions about the IRS’s plans to apologize began in late April, according to a senior department official. That’s when IRS officials first told the Treasury that Lerner was considering making a speech in which she would make a public apology for inappropriate conduct. Also in late April, the IRS told Treasury that Miller would apologize when asked in forthcoming congressional testimony.

Treasury did not advise the IRS what it should do, the official said.

In both of these cases, Treasury discussed the potential disclosures with the White House and said that the department planned to defer to the IRS.

Finally, Treasury was told ahead of time that Lerner would be asked a question about the controversy at the American Bar Association conference.

Treasury did not tell the White House about the planned disclosure at the ABA conference.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney defended the administration’s deliberations on the issue.

“It was very important, in our view . . . that we not take any action that could even be seen to create the appearance of intervening in an ongoing investigation like this. In this case, an independent inspector general audit. And so, of course, we did not,” Carney said.

Aaron Blake, Zachary A. Goldfarb, Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.

Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.

Cops/FBI kill bombing suspect during questioning

If Ibragim Todashev had taken the 5th and refused to talk to the FBI he would be alive today!!!!

Any defense lawyer will tell you to ALWAYS take the 5th and refuse to answer any and all police questions.

You are NOT a criminal for taking the rights which the Founders died to give you!!!!

The problem is anything you tell the police will be used against you, and the police routinely take benign things you say and twist them around to make it look like you confessed to a crime.

Taking the Fifth and refusing to submit to police questions will prevent this from happening.

Source

Man tied to Boston bombing suspect killed in confrontation with FBI, others

By Sari Horwitz and Jenna Johnson, Updated: Wednesday, May 22, 9:50 AM E-mail the writers

A Chechen man who was friends with one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects was shot and killed in Orlando early Wednesday when an interview with the FBI and other police officers erupted into a violent confrontation, the FBI said.

The victim was identified as Ibragim Todashev, 27, who knew Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev through the world of martial arts.

The FBI said in a statement that Todashev was being questioned about the bombing by an FBI agent, two Massachusetts state police officers and other law enforcement personnel when the witness turned violent. The FBI said that the agent, who was not identified, was injured and that Todashev was shot and killed.

Two federal law enforcement officials said that, during the questioning, Todashev had implicated himself and Tsarnaev in a triple homicide in Waltham, Mass., two years ago. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, said Todashev brandished a knife and threatened the officers during the interview in his apartment.

Tsarnaev had been identified as a potential suspect in the triple slaying shortly after the bombings.

The FBI statement provided few details about the death in Orlando and did not address the Waltham killings. It said only that Todashev initiated a violent confrontation while being questioned. “During the confrontation, the individual was killed and the agent sustained non-life threatening injuries,” the statement said.

The FBI has been conducting interviews across the United States and in Russia with associates of Tsarnaev and his brother, Dzhokhar, over the past month to learn whether anyone else was associated with the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing, which killed three people and wounded more than 260.

The interviews have focused heavily on people from the northern Caucasus area of Russia, where Tamerlan Tsarnaev spent six months in 2012. The Tsarnaev family has roots in Chechnya, part of the restive region, and the FBI suspects he might have had contact with Islamic militants there last year.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed in a shootout with police four days after the bombing. His brother was captured later that day and faces charges that could carry the death penalty. Before he was charged, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told the FBI that no one else was involved in the plot and that he and his brother had acted out of anger over the U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A team of officers went to Todashev’s apartment in a residential area near Universal Studios in Orlando to interview him about his relationship with Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Khusen Taramov, who said he was a friend of Todashev, told an Orlando television station that Todashev used to live in Boston and knew Tsarnaev through marital arts circles.

“He was not radical at all,” Taramov told WESH-TV. He added that the FBI had been tracking Todashev since the Boston bombing.

At some point, Todashev moved to Florida. He was arrested for aggravated battery this month, according to police records, after getting into a fight with a man in a parking lot.

When the FBI agent and others arrived at his apartment early Wednesday, the law enforcement officials said Todashev initially was cooperative. They said he appeared on the verge of signing a confession to the killings of three people in Waltham in September 2011. They said he had implicated Tsarnaev in the homicides.

But the interview turned violent, the officials said, and Todashev went for a knife. He injured the FBI agent and was shot and killed. The FBI did not say whether he was shot by the agent or one of the other law enforcement officers.

Tsarnaev’s name has surfaced in earlier news reports about the Waltham slayings, which remain unsolved. Stephanie Guyotte, a spokeswoman for Middlesex County’s district attorney’s office, said the investigation is ongoing and refused to say whether Todashev or Tsarnaev was a suspect.

On Sept. 12, 2011, police found three men dead in a well-kept rental house on a short, quiet street in Waltham. The men were identified as Brendan Mess, 25, of Waltham, Erik Weissman, 31, of Cambridge, and Raphael Teken, 37, of Cambridge. The Boston Globe and other news outlets have reported that Tsarnaev was friends with Mess and that the two met through boxing.

A woman who lived next door to the rental house said she home that day and consoled Mess’s distraught girlfriend, who reportedly found the bodies and ran screaming outside. The neighbor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she does not want her name associated with the gruesome slayings, said she was told that the men had their throats slashed and that their bodies were covered with pot.

“She was horrified,” the neighbor said of the girlfriend. “We didn’t hear a thing that night. . . . The fact that all of this attention has come here again is very painful.”

Authorities say that the men died early Sept. 12, but relatives of at least one of the victims insist that the men were killed Sept. 11, the 10th anniversary of the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. Sept. 11 is the date listed on the tombstone of Weissman, according to photos on an online memorial.

At the time of the killings, Waltham police issued a statement saying that detectives did not think the attack was random and that the victims probably knew their attacker or attackers. The Middlesex district attorney’s office later said in a statement that the men died of “sharp-force injuries of the neck.’’ The Globe reported that the deaths were probably drug-related.

Two friends of Teken and Weissman said they believed the deaths were connected to a massive May 2011 drug bust in nearby Watertown. The bust followed a year-long investigation by federal authorities and resulted in charges against 18 people. Weissman was a founder of a company that produced high-end glass bongs.

Julie Tate and Peter Hermann contributed to this report.

In AP, Rosen investigations, government makes criminals of reporters

In AP, Rosen investigations, government makes criminals of reporters

By Dana Milbank, Published: May 21

There are various reasons you might not care about the Obama administration’s spying on journalist James Rosen and labeling him a “co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor” in an espionage case.

Liberals may not be particularly bothered because the targeted journalist works for Fox News. Conservatives may not be concerned because of their antipathy toward the news media generally. And the general public certainly doesn’t have much patience for journalists’ whining.

But here’s why you should care — and why this case, along with the administration’s broad snooping into Associated Press phone records, is more serious than the other supposed Obama administration scandals regarding Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service. The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of.

To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can’t speak out, you can’t defend those rights, either.

Beyond that, the administration’s actions shatter the president’s credibility and discourage allies who would otherwise defend the administration against bogus accusations such as those involving the Benghazi “talking points.” If the administration is spying on reporters and accusing them of criminality just for asking questions — well, who knows what else this crowd is capable of doing?

When Rosen and I covered the Bush White House together a decade ago, I knew him as a scrappy reporter who had a fascination with Watergate trivia. He later wrote a sympathetic biography of John Mitchell, Nixon’s disgraced attorney general. Now he’s learning just how abusive a Justice Department can be, from an administration that has launched more leak prosecutions than all previous administrations combined.

My Post colleague Ann E. Marimow, who broke the Rosen story, obtained the affidavit by FBI agent Reginald Reyes seeking access to Rosen’s private e-mails. In the affidavit, Reyes stated that “there is probable cause to believe that the reporter has committed or is committing a violation” of the law against national security leaks. The affidavit detailed how the FBI had monitored Rosen’s comings and goings from the State Department and tracked his various phone calls with the suspected leaker, analyst Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.

The administration snoops had spied on Rosen enough to know of his Watergate hobby: his Gmail address named for the Nixon aide who installed the secret taping system, and Rosen’s “clandestine communications plan” (a modern-day version of Bob Woodward’s fabled flowerpot) in which an e-mail containing one asterisk meant Rosen should contact Kim.

Rosen’s supposed crime? Reyes got his evidence from an e-mail from the reporter: “I want to report authoritatively, and ahead of my competitors, on new initiatives or shifts in U.S. policy, events on the ground in [North Korea], what intelligence is picking up, etc. . . . I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses. . . . In short: Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it, or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.”

That is indeed compelling evidence — of good journalism.

And how did Rosen commit this crime? Kim told investigators Rosen is a “very convincing, persistent person” who “would tell me I was brilliant and it is possible I succumbed to flattery.”

Only in this Justice Department could flattery get you a prison term.

President Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, told reporters that there must be a “balance” between a free press and leaks that “can endanger the lives of men and women in uniform and other Americans serving overseas.”

True, but the 2009 reports that prompted the probe confirmed what was already conventional wisdom, that Kim Jong Un was likely to replace his father, Kim Jong Il, as North Korea’s leader, and that there were worries that North Korea would respond to new sanctions by launching a third nuclear test. As it happens, the intelligence was wrong, and Pyongyang didn’t launch another test at the time.

Carney told the White House press corps Tuesday that Obama doesn’t think “journalists should be prosecuted for doing their jobs” (perhaps he could remind the FBI of that), and the administration has renewed its support for a media shield law (a welcome but suspicious gesture, because the White House thwarted a previous attempt to pass the bill).

If Obama really is “a fierce defender of the First Amendment,” as his spokesman would have it, he will move quickly to fix this. Otherwise, Obama is establishing an ominous precedent for future leaders whose fondness for the First Amendment may not be so fierce.

Twitter: @Milbank

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

Medicinal pot is coming. Why it's NOT time to worry

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Medicinal pot is coming. Why it's not time to worry

If it goes through, we'll see a trade-off. Increases in addiction, crime and family dissolution along with assorted benefits.

But enough about the proposed expansion of casino gambling in Illinois.

Today I want to talk about the inevitability of legalized medical marijuana here, a development very unlikely to lead to such social problems, the fears of opponents notwithstanding.

I say "inevitability" because a measure to make Illinois the 19th state to permit doctors to prescribe marijuana to treat specific medical conditions passed the General Assembly Friday, and on Monday, in a conversation with the Tribune editorial board, Gov. Pat Quinn sent an unmistakable signal that he will soon sign that measure into law.

Quinn sometimes dithers publicly when bills land on his desk. In early 2011, for example, he played Hamlet on the abolition of the death penalty for nearly two months, continually (allegedly) seeking more input from more sources on an issue that had already been exhaustively reported and researched, until he finally signed the bill.

But there was no dither in his response Monday, even though he said it will be "a month or so" before he acts on the bill.

First, he brought up the fact that military veterans — a group that he has long and vigorously championed — are particularly strong proponents of medical marijuana, in part because many feel it is of great value in coping with post-traumatic stress disorder. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs formally allowed its patients to use marijuana for medicinal purposes in hospitals and clinics located in states where such use is legal.

About the Illinois bill, Quinn said, "I just want to make sure that it's done properly. Sometimes there's technical defects in bills, so you have to pay attention to that at all times."

He added that, right now, he's putting all his energies into helping settle differences in Springfield over pension reform legislation.

Fair enough. But aside from possible small "technical defects," I asked him directly, "Do you have any big concerns over this bill?"

"I read his column today," Quinn said, nodding toward my colleague Steve Chapman. "I thought it was a good column."

He was referring to an entry in Chapman's Tribune blog that listed "two big reasons" Quinn should sign the bill:

The first is that cannabis is truly useful for some therapeutic purposes. The second is that this legislation subjects it to tight controls that should alleviate the concerns of skeptics.

The entry concluded, "For Quinn to sign it would be an act of humanity that holds little risk."

The idea in general holds little risk. One indication of that is that none of the states that have legalized medical marijuana since California became the first in 1996 have repealed it (though some have tightened their restrictions). Another is that academic studies have shown no particular correlation between medical marijuana laws and increased illegal use among teens or adults.

In fact, a study published in the Annals of Epidemiology last year found the implementation of medical marijuana laws statistically correlated with a small decrease in the rate of marijuana use among 12- to 17-year-olds.

Another reason this bill isn't risky is that it will be one of the most circumscribed marijuana laws on the books, limiting doctors to the amounts they can prescribe and the medical conditions for which they can prescribe it. The law in no way resembles the almost comically permissive California medical pot laws (which, even still, have not caused the Golden State to fall into the sea).

And, finally, if our state turns out to be an outlier and the new law leads to rampant reefer madness, it will sunset after four years unless the legislature renews it. And, of course, the whole thing can be repealed at any time.

I congratulate Gov. Quinn in advance for his good sense, and urge the doubters and worrywarts to take a chill pill, or whatever it is you do to relax.

Will Humble Shakes Down Midwifes???

Source

Midwives take aim at new state regulations

By Mary K. Reinhart The Republic | azcentral.com Wed May 22, 2013 10:54 PM

Arizona midwives and their clients are railing against state officials over proposed regulations that they claim would limit health-care choices and endanger lives.

But the state health director says that the controversy is fueled by a misunderstanding of current rules and state law and that regulators and midwives are not far apart after six months of meetings on the regulations scheduled to take effect July 1.

Close to 100 midwives, mothers and their children protested Wednesday in front of the Arizona Department of Health Services, saying the new regulations will limit a woman’s right to have her child delivered by a midwife and prohibit midwives from administering medications they’ve used for decades.

“Keep home births safe!” children and moms chanted as they marched along 18th Avenue in front of the ADHS building with signs reading, “Don’t force midwives to abandon me” and “Don’t let (ADHS) Director Will Humble set back women’s rights 40 years.”

There are 63 licensed midwives in Arizona. They assist in about 1 percent of births.

At issue in the draft rules is an informed-consent provision that says midwives cannot assist mothers who refuse to undergo certain blood tests and regulations that could subject midwives to criminal prosecution if they administer medications they’ve offered for years to mothers and babies.

State law and current regulations appear to conflict on the medication issue. The law does not allow licensed midwives to prescribe or administer controlled substances, but current regulations require them to have on hand certain drugs, such as anticoagulants, in case of emergency.

Midwives say they fear for the safety of mothers and babies without the ability to have those drugs on hand. In a statement, the American Association of Birth Centers called on the ADHS to scuttle the medication rule.

“It is unreasonable for the department to create unnecessary risks to the life and health of women and babies by revoking access to these medications for licensed midwives,” said Julia Hall, executive director of the Babymoon Inn birth center in Phoenix.

Humble said state officials hope to find some middle ground, such as allowing midwives to provide medications under standing orders from physicians. Adding midwives to the list of those authorized to dispense medication would require a change to state law.

“I think there’s some confusion about what the regulations actually say,” he said. “There’s obviously some confusion around the administration of medications. We’re still trying to work through some of those issues.”

Women and midwives opened the door to the new regulations two years ago, when they set out to update the rules to allow women who have had Caesarean sections to give birth to subsequent children at home. Current rules prohibit midwives from helping women deliver twins, breech babies or post-Caesarean babies at home, in addition to other births that are considered high-risk.

They met with Humble and other state health officials, who helped them shepherd a bill through the Legislature last year to streamline regulations and establish an advisory committee to consider allowing post-Caesarean deliveries by midwives.

Humble said the proposed regulations will improve a disjointed system by requiring better communication among midwives, emergency responders and hospitals. Among other things, midwives will be required to call the closest hospital to report when a mother goes into labor and after she has delivered.

It also creates an electronic database of reports on home births that currently are collected on paper and submitted haphazardly.

“My focus has been to try to build a safer, better, more efficient system,” Humble said. “Home births can be a really good, safe and less expensive option. But you’ve got to have a system that works in harmony.”

But midwife Marinah Farrell said the new rules could reduce the number of home births and compromise safety by leading to more unattended deliveries.

“There are a lot of issues, but for me, the biggest is safety,” she said. “And I just don’t want more women to die.”

During Wednesday’s protest, state health officials brought cases of water to the crowd, which included dozens of babies and preschoolers with little shade from the midday sun. Looking down on the crowd from his fifth-floor office, Humble fretted about dehydration and praised the group’s organization and dedication.

“If everyone did this,” he said, “we’d have a better country.”

Reach the reporter at maryk.reinhart@arizonarepublic.com

Cops assume you are guilty till proven innocent???

Phoenix police battle for proof in 2 fatal crashes

But by the way the police and prosecutors behave it seems that it is exactly the opposite. They assume we are guilty until we prove we are innocent.

The cops and prosecutors can usually use these illegal, strong armed tactics to get a plea bargain from people who don't have a lawyer, but once a person knows their rights and hires a lawyer those tactics are a little bit harder to use by corrupt cops and prosecutors.

Source

Phoenix police battle for proof in 2 fatal crashes

By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Wed May 22, 2013 11:01 PM

Investigators identified what they believe to be the weapon and the man who owns it.

But charges against Christopher Wakefield Chevalier, suspected of driving a convertible that killed a pedestrian in March, were dropped last month. That left investigators to find more evidence proving the car’s owner was driving when the vehicle hit and killed the pedestrian.

Investigators are facing the same scenario in trying to determine who was driving the SUV that they say struck and killed Phoenix police Officer Daryl Raetz last weekend.

Experts say that without an eyewitness account placing SUV owner Jesus Cabrera Molina, 24, in the driver’s seat shortly before or after Raetz was hit near Cambridge and 51st avenues, that process could take months.

Phoenix police believe Chevalier, the owner of the orange Alfa Romeo, was driving the convertible when it struck and killed Ana Blaze as she walked along Northern Avenue near 11th Avenue on March 2. But they can’t prove it yet.

Charges were dismissed on April 2, but prosecutors asked police to do further investigation, and the charges could be refiled.

As in Raetz’s death, there were witnesses who could describe the car that ran down Blaze; and as in Raetz’s death, there was evidence collected from the scene and the vehicle that police believe links the car to the crime.

But there is no obligation for the driver of either vehicle to implicate themselves, said Mike McCullough, a former Phoenix police vehicular-crimes investigator.

“If you’re involved, you’re going to do everything you can in an effort to not cooperate with the police to prove you were the driver,” he said.

Chevalier, 45, contacted his attorney and came to the police station the morning after Blaze was hit, according to court documents, but he refused to answer questions. Still, Phoenix police believed the evidence collected was strong enough to arrest Chevalier on March 21 on allegations of manslaughter, leaving the scene of a fatal accident and tampering with evidence.

Less than a month later, the charges against Chevalier were dropped at the request of the prosecutors.

Phoenix police believe they can recommend some of the same charges against Chevalier when the investigation is complete.

“(Prosecutors) are asking for some of the results of forensic testing, they are asking for some comparative testing to be done on some of the items on the vehicle that were at the scene and recovered from the vehicle itself,” said Sgt. Trent Crump, a Phoenix police spokesman. “One of the best things we can have in this is time and making sure everything is done correctly and everything is done thoroughly.”

Experts say proving who was driving can be difficult. If that is established, it can be as hard to prove the suspects were acting recklessly — a requirement for manslaughter — or that the drivers knew they hit a human instead of an animal — a requirement for fleeing the scene of an accident.

Investigators collected DNA and a cellphone from Chevalier two days after Blaze was killed, according to court documents. But a car owner’s DNA should be throughout their vehicle, and a cellphone can typically be used to help track someone’s movements only if the phone is in use, said Jim Botsko, a former Phoenix police investigator and accident reconstructionist.

The detectives in Phoenix’s vehicular-crimes unit, who are also investigating the death of a Phoenix firefighter last weekend, are likely taking many of those same steps as they investigate Raetz’s death and hoping ubiquitous surveillance cameras somewhere captured footage of the driver, he said.

“You have to do something to be able to put the person behind the wheel relatively soon in time to when the collision occurred,” Botsko said.

Investigators in Chevalier’s case collected surveillance video from a gas station not far from where Blaze was struck, according to court documents. The video showed an orange convertible with “severe damage” on the passenger side of the windshield and shattered glass in a bent window frame, according to court documents, but there is no mention of the driver.

Court documents in Molina’s case indicate that an off-duty officer saw Molina driving an SUV matching the description of the truck that hit Raetz about 90 minutes after the wreck. But detectives are still searching for a witness who can place Molina in the driver’s seat before the wreck.

“As the investigation unfolds, you may not realize there was something in the vehicle that you may want to go back and examine, like receipts from where the driver may have stopped before the collision,” said McCullough, the Phoenix investigator. “At that point, you’ve got a known person who was operating a vehicle, so you’re going to take that information to the retail outlet.”

But all of this takes time, the investigators cautioned.

Molina, who’s being held without bond, was arrested on suspicion of cocaine possession on Sunday afternoon.

Federal immigration officials said they’ve also issued a detainer to take custody of Molina because he’s in the country illegally and skipped a court date after posting a $5,000 bond in 2012. Federal officials likely will take Molina into custody after the drug charges are resolved, including serving any sentence that may be imposed. That could happen before Phoenix police complete the investigation into Raetz’s death.

Time also allows investigators to rely on some of their most reliable tools: chatty criminals and an eye for detail, McCullough said.

“There’s no honor among thieves; all it takes is someone’s lips who are a little loose, and you start to build a case,” he said. “You don’t have a lot of corroborating evidence or witnesses to help your case. It relies on the numerous tricks you can use up your sleeve to learn information or your ability to analyze a scene.”

Glendale police chief threatens to "Burn down store" of drug dealer

Source

Former Glendale assistant police chief says he regrets actions

By David Woodfill The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Wed May 22, 2013 8:27 PM

Glendale’s former assistant police chief who got demoted after accusations that he threatened a local business he thought sold drugs to his son told The Arizona Republic and 12 News Wednesday he regrets his actions, but acted as a concerned father.

Greg Dominguez was demoted one rank to commander, took a $15,000 pay cut and was suspended for a week following some sort of confrontation he had with an employee at Spanky’s Smoke Shop on Bell Road in Peoria.

The police department has disclosed few details from their internal investigation of the incident, but according to a Peoria police report, someone who worked at Spanky’s said Dominguez threatened to “burn the store down” if he did not stop selling “stuff” to his son. The worker said threat was made during one of two encounters in February.

Dominguez acknowledged going to the store and using curse words, but said he doesn’t know exactly what he said other than “I asked him to stop selling to my son.”

He said he acted out of fear for his son.

He teared up as he described watching his son destroyed his health. At one point, he said he thought his son had died after he walked into the room and saw him laying perfectly still in his bed.

“Scared,” is how Dominguez described his state of mind when he decided to go into Spanky’s to confront the person he thought was selling the drug.

Dominguez said he doesn’t remember the exact date of his encounter with the employee, but said he knew his son had just gone to the store because he used a smart phone tracking application.

He never identified himself as a police officer, he said. "This was me going to try and save my son."

Dominguez said in hindsight he realized that convincing one person to stop selling his son drugs wasn’t going to help.

“I know different things now,” he said. “I’ve learned a lot about addiction, a lot about spice.”

Dominguez said he plans to stay at the Glendale Police Department and was appealing his punishment, which he said was too punitive. [That is 100 percent rubbish!!!! If a civilian had threatened to burn down the business of a police officer who committed a crime against him, the civiilan would almost certainly be convicted of a crime and be sitting for a long time in prison. Glendale police chief Greg Dominguez got a slap on the wrist for a serious felony and is now complaning that his punishment is too severe!!!! That is rubbish. Glendale police chief Greg Dominguez should be sitting in a prison cell, not running the Glendale Police Department]

Gilbert’s 1st medical-marijuana dispensary prepares to open

By Parker Leavitt The Republic | azcentral.com Wed May 22, 2013 10:33 AM

Gilbert’s first medical-marijuana dispensary is preparing to open in an industrial park near Elliot and McQueen roads, behind Mesquite High School in the town’s northwestern corner.

D.R.H. Enterprises, a company based in the West Valley, is nearing completion of a dispensary in the Elliot Commerce Park, and officials may soon award the business a certificate of occupancy, town planner Al Ward said.

The dispensary, located at 175 S. Hamilton Place, Suite 110, is “progressing well” with tenant improvements, Ward said. D.R.H. Enterprises did not respond to a request for comment.

A second Gilbert dispensary is proposed near the southwestern corner of Power and Warner roads, but that company must still go before the Planning Commission to request a use permit. The application is tentatively scheduled for review July 3, Ward said.

Arizona voters approved marijuana for medicinal use in 2010, but dispensaries have been delayed by a string of legal hurdles, including state regulations and federal opposition to the program.

In December, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that the state’s marijuana program does not conflict with federal drug laws, paving the way for dispensaries to begin opening their doors.

Voters approved the Medical Marijuana Act by a margin of about 4,300 votes in November 2010, prompting Gilbert officials to move swiftly in adopting rules to limit how and where dispensaries can operate.

The Town Council in January 2011 adopted a zoning-code amendment that restricts marijuana dispensaries to industrial districts. Mandatory separation distances ensure they cannot open next to a school, park, church or residential neighborhood.

Gilbert’s zoning ordinance also requires dispensaries to be housed in permanent buildings with a security plan reviewed by town officials. Dispensaries in Gilbert can't sell other merchandise and cultivation can only take place inside a closed, locked building, not on a farm, according to the ordinance.

In addition to D.R.H. Enterprises, two other prospective dispensaries were awarded use permits by the Planning Commission in 2011. Those permits, however, were later revoked by the Town Council when residents complained the dispensaries would be located too close to park space.

There are more than 37,000 patients statewide qualified to use medical marijuana, and nearly three out of four are men, according to a DHS report.

More than 70 percent of patients list chronic pain as their sole medical condition, according to the report. About 2 percent of patients identified cancer as their sole medical condition and about 20 percent listed multiple conditions.

There are 382 qualified patients in the west Gilbert zone, as outlined by the state. More than 800 patients live in the east Gilbert zone.

The state expects doctors to follow certain protocol when considering medical-marijuana certifications, including:

Make or confirm a diagnosis of a debilitating medical condition.

Conduct an in-person physical examination.

Review the patient's medical records.

Explain the potential risks and benefits of medical marijuana.

Attest that the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the use of marijuana.

Gilbert's dispensary regulations

Must be 1,000 feet from parks, churches and schools and 500 feet from residential areas.

Must be at least 1,320 feet away from a hospital or another marijuana dispensary.

Operations are restricted to 8 a.m.-6 p.m.

Must be located in a permanent building.

Limited to 3,000 square feet and can have only one secure entrance.

Cultivation can only be done inside a locked building.

No home deliveries or drive-through sales.

Each business must submit an extensive security plan to the town.

Must be certified by the Arizona Department of Health Services.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne’s defense plan detailed

The real problem is government is corrupt to the core. And sure now and then government works doing it's function of being a public servant, but most of the time the only function of government is to enrich the elected officials, the special interest groups that helped get them elected, and of course the unelected government bureaucrats who run their government fiefdoms.

Source

Horne’s defense plan detailed

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Thu May 23, 2013 10:17 PM

As the campaign-finance allegations against Attorney General Tom Horne hang in legal limbo, documents obtained by The Arizona Republic offer insights into the case Horne and his co-defendant would make if it goes to court.

An attorney representing Kathleen Winn, Horne’s director of community outreach, argues in the documents that allegations the two illegally coordinated campaign efforts are based on speculation. Attorney Timothy La Sota also questions investigators’ tactics, revealing they not only continued to tail Horne more than a year after the alleged violation, but also followed Winn’s attorney, Larry Debus.

Investigators’ techniques “raise questions of bias and political motives and taint this entire investigation,” La Sota wrote in a letter to the Secretary of State’s Office.

“Despite all the resources poured into this investigation, all the interviews and surveillance ... the FBI and Maricopa County Attorney’s Office have speculation and conjecture, but not hard evidence,” he wrote.

Horne and Winn last year were accused of unlawfully coordinating campaign spending during the 2010 election, when Horne was the Republican candidate for attorney general and Winn was chairwoman of Business Leaders for Arizona, an independent-expenditure committee. Both have denied wrongdoing.

After a 14-month investigation, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery accused Horne and Winn of collaborating to quickly raise more than $500,000 to run negative ads against his Democratic opponent. By law, candidates are not allowed to coordinate certain activities with independent-expenditure committees.

Montgomery pursued a civil-enforcement action, but a judge this month ruled the case could not move forward because of legal technicalities and procedural failings by the Secretary of State’s Office, which found reasonable cause exists to believe a campaign-finance violation occurred.

“While we certainly welcomed Mr. La Sota’s submission, it doesn’t change our reasonable cause determination,” said Matt Roberts, Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s spokesman. “It doesn’t sway our opinion at all.”

Montgomery declined to comment on La Sota’s letter.

A spokesman for the FBI also declined to comment.

The judge said the secretary of state must submit the case to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to determine how to proceed. The Attorney General’s Office can send the case to another law-enforcement agency or a private attorney for review, Montgomery has said.

While the case is with the Attorney General’s Office, Horne, Winn “and immediate staff such as executive assistants,” won’t have access to information, discussion, or decisions on the case, according to Horne’s spokeswoman.

In his letter to the secretary of state, La Sota says:

Despite authorities’ “exhaustive” and “expensive” investigation, they were only left with “speculation and conjecture” about coordination.

La Sota wrote that calls between Winn and Horne before the release of an attack ad against Horne’s Democratic rival were tied to a complex real-estate deal — not the ad. Horne never referred anyone to an independent campaign to make a donation, never suggested to Winn the names of people to be solicited for contributions, never spoke to anyone about contributing to an independent campaign, and never weighed in on how an independent campaign’s money should be spent.

A statute that Winn and Horne are accused of violating is unconstitutional.

La Sota argues the Arizona Revised Statute 16-905 “is blatantly unconstitutional” because contribution limits were too low, and therefore violated free speech and equal protection under the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. La Sota points out that the state Legislature this session raised contribution limits partly because “they were ripe for a free-speech challenge.”

La Sota says Montgomery, in testifying before lawmakers, blamed the number of investigations by his office on low contribution limits. An affidavit from an official with the Goldwater Institute declaring current individual contribution limits under current state statutes are unconstitutional is included with La Sota’s letter.

The FBI “came with an agenda and that was to get Tom Horne.”

La Sota questions why the FBI was involved in the investigation. Authorities have said the FBI took the case because Horne was conflicted from investigating himself. La Sota accuses the FBI of attempting to “intimidate witnesses and lie to them in order to get them to say what they wanted.” He accuses the FBI of threatening to use “the ‘Martha Stewart’ treatment”— to send them to prison for lying — to get them to cooperate.

La Sota says the FBI’s undercover surveillance of Horne was “the most unseemly part” of the investigation. “The FBI was following the Arizona Attorney General around years after alleged civil campaign finance violations had been committed, looking for any type of infraction that they might be able to pin on him,” he wrote. “What in the world did this have to do with a civil campaign finance matter?”

During that surveillance, the FBI saw Horne back a borrowed car into a Range Rover and leave without leaving a note. An FBI report states Horne did not leave a note because he was having an extramarital affair with a subordinate who was with him during the accident. Earlier this month, he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor hit-and-run charge stemming from the incident and paid a $300 fine.

Democrats are trying to use Horne’s driving offense — and the FBI report accusing him of an affair — to their advantage as Horne gears up for a re-election campaign. One Democratic senator has called on lawmakers to initiate impeachment hearings against Horne, and this week, the state Democratic Party called on him to explain the circumstances surrounding the accident.

La Sota also takes issue with investigators having a mole in the Attorney General’s Office: “A one point and perhaps still to this day, the FBI had what they call a human asset apparently inside” the agency. La Sota said the mole raises questions about potential “invasions of attorney-client protected relationships to federalism concerns.”

Amanda Bynes arrested on marijuana charge

Source

Amanda Bynes arrested on marijuana charge

Associated Press Fri May 24, 2013 10:18 AM

NEW YORK — Police say actress Amanda Bynes has been arrested in midtown Manhattan after she heaved a marijuana bong out of a window.

It happened at an apartment building on West 47th Street at about 7:40 p.m. Thursday.

Police say a building official called police to complain that Bynes was smoking marijuana and rolling a joint in the building's lobby.

The officers went to Bynes' apartment where they saw heavy smoke and a bong, which Bynes then threw out the window in front of the officers.

Bynes was arrested on charges of reckless endangerment, tampering with evidence, and criminal possession of marijuana. It wasn't clear if she had a lawyer.

Bynes rose to fame starring in Nickelodeon's "All That" and has also starred in several films, including 2010's "Easy A."

Marijuana causes another death!!!!!

Source

Man charged in Utah police shooting found dead at jail

Associated Press Fri May 24, 2013 10:14 AM

SALT LAKE CITY — An Army veteran charged with killing a police officer and wounding five others in a shootout during a marijuana raid was found dead at Weber County jail, the veteran’s father said Friday.

Matthew David Stewart was found dead late Thursday, said his father, Michael Stewart, who doesn’t believe foul play was involved and says it may have been a suicide.

The Weber County Sheriff’s Office wouldn’t confirm the inmate death ahead of a late morning news conference.

Michael Stewart said he wasn’t told how his 39-year-old son died. He said his son was despondent over a judge’s recent refusal to hold a hearing on what the family believes was an illegally obtained search warrant.

Stewart was accused of killing strike force agent Jared Francom and wounding other officers when authorities descended on his Ogden home during a January 2012 raid. He could have faced the death penalty if convicted of aggravated murder.

He also faced charges of attempted aggravated murder and marijuana cultivation.

Investigators said they received a telephone tip that Stewart was growing marijuana in his home about 40 miles north of Salt Lake City. Officers have said they visited when no one was home and believed they could see equipment inside for growing marijuana. [If they said they "believed they could see equipment inside for growing marijuana" instead of saying they "saw marijuana growing" I suspect the cops illegally broke into the guys home and made up the line of they "believed they could see equipment inside for growing marijuana" to justify their crime]

Authorities obtained a search warrant, and a drug task force raided the site on Jan. 4, 2012.

Stewart maintained he never heard the officers identify themselves and believed he was being robbed when they broke open his door with a ramming device.

Police said Stewart had not responded to a knock at the door and waited for police to enter before firing into a hallway from his bedroom.

During the gun fight, Stewart suffered several gunshot wounds and was hospitalized for nearly a month.

Man gets 340 years for victimless crimes

Jesus don't these pigs have any real criminals to hunt down??? Sure the guy is a pervert, but so what!!! He didn't hurt anybody, steal anything or cause any trouble other then looking at dirty pictures.

The only other victim in this crime, besides David Greenberg, the alleged criminals are the taxpayers of Arizona who will be forced to pay hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of dollars for putting this guy in prison for the rest of his life.

The last time I checked it cost something like $50,000 a year to put a person in prison in Arizona.

If David Greenberg lives to be 70 years old, which is about the average life expectancy of Americans, he will spend the next 25 years in the Arizona State Prison system costing the taxpayers $1,250,000 in current tax dollars.

Yep, we will be spending $1,250,000 to put a guy in prison for looking at dirty pictures!!!!

Source

Flagstaff man gets 340 years for child sex crimes

Associated Press Thu May 23, 2013 10:37 PM

FLAGSTAFF -- A 45-year-old man has been sentenced to 340 years in prison in a child-sex case that included voyeurism, surreptitious videotaping and extensive downloading of child pornography.

David Greenberg was sentenced Wednesday in Coconino County Superior Court to 17 years in prison on each of 20 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. State law requires that the terms be served consecutively, so the sentences add up to 340 years.

The sentence imposed was the normal one prescribed by state law, above the minimum of 190 years sought by Greenberg’s lawyer and below the maximum of 482 years sought by the prosecution, the Arizona Daily Sun reported.

Defense attorney David Bednar argued that the sentencing violated his client’s constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

However, Judge Cathleen Brown Nichols ruled that it didn’t because Greenberg was sentenced on multiple counts.

Nichols said Greenberg’s actions caused extreme harm to the victims and that she doubted Greenberg’s expressions of remorse.

Hailing the lengthy prison sentence, County Attorney David Rozema cited Greenberg’s voyeurism and extensive collection of child pornography.

“The threat of harm from this type of offender cannot be overstated,” Rozema said.

A Flagstaff police detective testified that Greenberg had so much pornography that police decided to not look at most of it because it would take a detective one year of full-time work to review it all.

“This was the most graphic, gut-wrenching, stomach-turning content I’ve ever seen,” said Sgt. Gene Shantz.

Greenberg is a former science researcher and doctoral student at Northern Arizona University.

Shantz said the case began when Greenberg was arrested trespassing at a home and investigators suspected from Greenberg’s statements that he was a predator. The investigation led to a search of Greenberg’s home and the discovery of child pornography.

Greenberg told Nichols that his obsession was shameful and disgusting. However, Greenberg said it was an addiction that never physically threatened anyone because he never actually touched any of the victims.

“The shame I feel no one can even begin to understand and I have to live with that for the rest of my life. I don’t understand how I’m going to prison for the rest of my life,” Greenberg said.

Prosecutor Jonathan Mosher said Greenberg’s behavior had caused great harm.

Each time a person views an image or video of a child being abused, that child is victimized again, Mosher added.

“When you possess an image of a baby being (sexually abused), you get the maximum — period,” Mosher said.

Marijuana prevents diabetes????

Source

Marijuana tied to better blood sugar control

Genevra Pittman Reuters

11:48 a.m. CDT, May 24, 2013

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People who had used marijuana in the past month had smaller waists and lower levels of insulin resistance - a diabetes precursor - than those who never tried the drug, in a new study.

The findings, based on surveys and blood tests of about 4,700 U.S. adults, aren't enough to prove marijuana keeps users thin or wards off disease. And among current pot smokers, higher amounts of marijuana use weren't linked to any added health benefits, researchers reported in The American Journal of Medicine.

"These are preliminary findings," said Dr. Murray Mittleman, who worked on the study at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

"It looks like there may be some favorable effects on blood sugar control, however a lot more needs to be done to have definitive answers on the risks and potential benefits of marijuana usage."

Although pot smoking is a well-known cause of "the munchies," some previous studies have found marijuana users tend to weigh less than other people, and one suggested they have a lower rate of diabetes. Trials in mice and rats hint that cannabis and cannabinoid receptors may influence metabolism.

The new study used data from a national health survey conducted in 2005-2010. Researchers asked people about drug and alcohol use, as well as other aspects of their health and lifestyle, and measured their insulin and blood sugar levels.

Just under 2,000 participants said they had used marijuana at some point, but not recently. Another 600 or so were current users - meaning they had smoked or otherwise consumed the drug in the past month.

Compared to people who had never used pot, current smokers had smaller waists: 36.9 inches versus 38.3 inches, on average. Current users also had a lower body mass index - a ratio of weight to height - than never-users.

When other health and lifestyle measures were taken into account, recent pot use was linked to 17 percent lower insulin resistance, indicating better blood sugar control, and slightly higher HDL ("good") cholesterol levels.

However, there was no difference in blood pressure or blood fats based on marijuana use, Mittleman's team found.

A CAUSAL LINK?

Mittleman said that in his mind, it's still "preliminary" to say marijuana is likely to be responsible for any diabetes-related health benefits.

"It's possible that people who choose to smoke marijuana have other characteristics that differ (from non-marijuana smokers)," and those characteristics are what ultimately affect blood sugar and waist size, he told Reuters Health.

Dr. Stephen Sidney from the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, California, said he wonders if cigarette smoking may partially explain the association. Marijuana users are also more likely to smoke tobacco, he told Reuters Health.

"People who use tobacco oftentimes tend to be thinner," said Sidney, who has studied marijuana use and weight but didn't participate in the new study. "So I really wonder about that."

Another limitation with this and other studies, Sidney and Mittleman agreed, is that all of the data were collected at the same time, so it's unclear whether marijuana smoking or changes in waist size and blood sugar came first.

"The question is, is the marijuana leading to the lower rate (of diabetes) or do they have something in common?" said Dr. Theodore Friedman, who has studied that issue at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles.

He and his colleagues think the link is probably causal. "But it's really hard to prove that," Friedman, who also wasn't involved in the new research, told Reuters Health.

One possibility is that the anti-inflammatory properties of marijuana help ward off diabetes, he said. But he agreed that more research is needed to draw out that link.

"I want to make it clear - I'm not advocating marijuana use to prevent diabetes," Friedman said. "It's only an association."

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/10Ty3La The American Journal of Medicine, online May 16, 2013.

Arpaio’s fantasy ends here

Arpaio’s fantasy ends here

The Republic | azcentral.com Fri May 24, 2013 6:56 PM

From the beginning, this racial-profiling case clearly had legs.

It was brought against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio by people of Hispanic ancestry with real-life stories to tell.

By Americans from Chicago. By Mexican citizens with a perfectly legitimate right to be in the United States. By people of a darker hue who suffered the indignity of seeing lighter-hued people in the same car treated far, far more kindly by Arpaio’s deputies.

All of those plaintiffs, according to U.S. District Judge Murray Snow, told the same story with clarity: They were targeted in the course of sweeps by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office solely because they were Latino.

Snow ruled on Friday, nearly eight months after the seven-day trial, that Arpaio’s department had engaged in forbidden racial profiling.

The case parallels the still-pending federal case against Arpaio brought by the Justice Department’s Office of Civil Rights. But while that case — led by President Obama’s nominee to head the U.S. Department of Labor, Thomas Perez — appears to rest heavily on expert testimony and statistical analysis, this case stands on evidence closer to the ground.

That evidence included Sheriff Arpaio’s own words.

In addition to weighing the strong, personal stories related by the plaintiffs, Judge Snow also considered Arpaio’s often intemperate observations about his rationale for conducting so-called “crime sweeps” in neighborhoods that just happened to be largely Hispanic.

Hubris and ego have long been hallmarks of America’s Toughest Sheriff. His snarky, smirking, contempt-laden denials that his sweeps profiled Hispanics always pushed the margins of believability. Now, a federal judge has called him on it.

The ruling will be appealed. That was guaranteed, regardless of which way the judge ruled. But Snow’s order that the Sheriff’s Office halt its practice of using Hispanic ancestry as a reason for stopping drivers is only the beginning. In addition to the Justice Department case, Snow indicated that still more remedies may follow his injunction against Arpaio’s practices.

The motivation behind Arpaio’s obnoxious sweeps can be traced to a specific incident in 2005, which constituted a political epiphany for the image-conscious sheriff. He saw the public reaction — outrage — when a young veteran was arrested for holding a group of suspected illegal aliens at gunpoint.

From that moment forward, he saw political gold in transforming himself into America’s Toughest Immigration Warrior.

Judge Snow’s decision is evidence that Arpaio’s gold fantasy is finally turning back into lead.

Drop off unwanted drugs at Mesa Police substations

Why are we paying these cops big bucks to act as janitors or garbage collectors to throw away unwanted drugs????

Wouldn't it be more cost effective if the Mesa trash collection department allowed you to turn in you old unused drugs to them???

Well that's assuming you really need to turn unused drugs into our government masters. I suspect this is mostly propaganda which will be used to justify the police role in the insane and unconstitutional war on drugs.

Source

Drop off unwanted medicine at Mesa Police substations

Posted: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:04 pm

TRIBUNE

The Mesa Police Department was the first law enforcement agency in Maricopa County to offer convenient "drop-off" locations for unwanted prescription drugs.

The following Mesa Police Substations are equipped with MedReturn boxes in their lobbies and are available 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Fridayy:

Central Substation, 120 N. Robson;

Red Mountain Substation, 4333 E. University Drive; and

Superstition Substation, 2430 S. Ellsworth Road.

A drop-off box will open at the Fiesta (Dobson) Substation when it opens in September.

Marijuana laws are racist????

Let’s stop wrecking lives over a bag of weed

By Paul Zukerberg, Published: May 24

In a little office on the third floor of Metropolitan Police Headquarters on Indiana Avenue NW is a small window to the future — open to some, closed to many. This is where you get your D.C. “police clearance.”

If you have never been there, that’s because you have never applied for a job flipping burgers, mowing lawns or cleaning restrooms in the District. Room 3033 is the human resources department for the poor, the young and the disenfranchised. The piece of paper you get there — if you have no criminal record — is what you need to land a job. Without it, you’re out of luck.

For 29 years, I have defended clients facing marijuana charges in the District. At every initial appearance, without fail, the judge admonishes the defendant either to stay in school or to hold down a job. In the majority of cases, however, a job is not possible because most employers in this town will not hire entry-level workers who do not have a police clearance.

What crime is increasingly tripping up those looking for work? Possession of marijuana.

In 1995, police in the District arrested about 1,850 people for having pot. By 2011, the number had skyrocketed to more than 6,000. It’s still rising.

To put that into perspective, there are twice as many marijuana arrests in the District as there are students graduating from D.C. high schools each year.

And though marijuana usage rates for blacks and whites are about the same, more than 90 percent of those arrested on pot charges in the District are black. Most of them are young men. By the time their cases are over, months or sometimes years later, they have gone from the unemployed to the long-term unemployed.

For young people denied jobs, crime and public assistance become far more enticing. Marijuana laws create a permanent underclass of people unable to join the legitimate workforce.

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” Is it not cruel, and unusual, to deny a young person caught with a bag of weed his chance for entry into productive society? Long experience shows that legitimate employment is the best remedy for youthful indiscretions.

The costs of our current marijuana policy are extraordinary, both for those arrested and for society. We are spending millions of dollars, and tens of thousands of hours’ work by police, enforcing punitive marijuana laws. Add up what is spent on the arrests, booking, forensic testing, prosecution, court-appointed lawyers, judges, marshals and probation officers, and the cost of a single marijuana prosecution can begin to rival the cost of sending a student to college. [I consider the drug war nothing but a jobs program for all these cops, prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers, and prison guards. Of course they all tend to justify the insane unconstitutional war on drugs, because it gives them their fat pay checks, even if drug war only puts people in prison for the victimless crime of using or selling drugs]

There are two types of marijuana users the District. Those who have avoided arrest, and those whose lives are derailed by involvement with the criminal courts. The first group is predominantly white and privileged. The second, black and disadvantaged. Research confirms what many people of color suspect: The disparity between white and black marijuana arrests is the result of racial bias in the application of the law. [I suspect a better way of saying that is the racist police routinley single arrest Blacks for marijuana use, while they ignore a large number of White people who commit the same crime.]

I talked a great deal about this issue when I ran for D.C. Council in April’s special election. I didn’t win, but that doesn’t mean that the city’s leaders can’t take a sensible action to improve the prospects of thousands of young people.

It’s time for Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) and the D.C. Council to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Seventeen states and several major cities already have. Blue states such as Massachusetts and red states such as Nebraska have realized that it is counterproductive to pointlessly saddle their kids with criminal records. If Cambridge intellectuals and Nebraska “cornhuskers” can agree on decriminalizing marijuana, why can’t the District’s elected leaders figure this out, too?

Decriminalization is not legalization. With decriminalization, marijuana is still prohibited but the maximum penalty for those caught with small amounts is reduced from a criminal misdemeanor to a civil violation.

Adults are given a citation and fined. Juveniles are assigned to an educational class, and their parents are notified. Because there’s no arrest, there’s no arrest record — and no impediment to finding legitimate employment.

Public safety is not enhanced by locking up people for small amounts of pot. In fact, public safety is compromised, and society pays a hefty price, when law enforcement turns harmless young pot users into “lawbreakers” and drags them into a system that ultimately spits out them out on a dead-end street.

The writer is a D.C. lawyer.

The rise of the fourth branch of government

And at the same time these members of Congress who are doling out pork and cash can deny giving special treatment to the people who gave them campaign contributions by saying "I didn't write those laws. Those laws were created by some unnamed federal bureaucrat in some unnamed federal agency. I am shocked at how those unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats are wasting out tax dollars [but of course they never will pass any laws to stop it, because they agree with those unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats who are helping them rob us taxpayers blind]"

Government also frequently works like this at the state, county and city levels too. When elected officials can blame unelected bureaucrats for their decisions it makes it a lot easier for them to rob us blind and get reelected at the same time.

Source

The rise of the fourth branch of government

By Jonathan Turley, Published: May 24 E-mail the writer

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.

Clearly, there was a degree of willful blindness in these claims. However, the suggestion that someone, even the president, is in control of today’s government may be an illusion.

The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.

For much of our nation’s history, the federal government was quite small. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies.

This exponential growth has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.

The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.

This rulemaking comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical. Of course, agencies owe their creation and underlying legal authority to Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings. But Capitol Hill’s relatively small staff is incapable of exerting oversight on more than a small percentage of agency actions. And the threat of cutting funds is a blunt instrument to control a massive administrative state — like running a locomotive with an on/off switch.

The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”

The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000.

These agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process, with one-sided presumptions and procedural rules favoring the agency. And agencies increasingly seem to chafe at being denied their judicial authority. Just ask John E. Brennan. Brennan, a 50-year-old technology consultant, was charged with disorderly conduct and indecent exposure when he stripped at Portland International Airport last year in protest of invasive security measures by the Transportation Security Administration. He was cleared by a federal judge, who ruled that his stripping was a form of free speech. The TSA was undeterred. After the ruling, it pulled Brennan into its own agency courts under administrative charges.

The rise of the fourth branch has occurred alongside an unprecedented increase in presidential powers — from the power to determine when to go to war to the power to decide when it’s reasonable to vaporize a U.S. citizen in a drone strike. In this new order, information is jealously guarded and transparency has declined sharply. That trend, in turn, has given the fourth branch even greater insularity and independence. When Congress tries to respond to cases of agency abuse, it often finds officials walled off by claims of expanding executive privilege.

Of course, federal agencies officially report to the White House under the umbrella of the executive branch. But in practice, the agencies have evolved into largely independent entities over which the president has very limited control. Only 1 percent of federal positions are filled by political appointees, as opposed to career officials, and on average appointees serve only two years. At an individual level, career officials are insulated from political pressure by civil service rules. There are also entire agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — that are protected from White House interference.

Some agencies have gone so far as to refuse to comply with presidential orders. For example, in 1992 President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a lawsuit against the Postal Rate Commission, and he threatened to sack members of the Postal Service’s Board of Governors who denied him. The courts ruled in favor of the independence of the agency.

It’s a small percentage of agency matters that rise to the level of presidential notice. The rest remain the sole concern of agency discretion.

As the power of the fourth branch has grown, conflicts between the other branches have become more acute. There is no better example than the fights over presidential appointments.

Wielding its power to confirm, block or deny nominees is one of the few remaining ways Congress can influence agency policy and get a window into agency activity. Nominations now commonly trigger congressional demands for explanations of agencies’ decisions and disclosures of their documents. And that commonly leads to standoffs with the White House.

Take the fight over Richard Cordray, nominated to serve as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray is highly qualified, but Republican senators oppose the independence of the new bureau and have questions about its jurisdiction and funding. After those senators repeatedly blocked the nomination, Obama used a congressional break in January to make a recess appointment. Since then, two federal appeals courts have ruled that Obama’s recess appointments violated the Constitution and usurped congressional authority. While the fight continues in the Senate, the Obama administration has appealed to the Supreme Court.

It would be a mistake to dismiss such conflicts as products of our dysfunctional, partisan times. Today’s political divisions are mild compared with those in the early republic, as when President Thomas Jefferson described his predecessor’s tenure as “the reign of the witches.” Rather, today’s confrontations reflect the serious imbalance in the system.

The marginalization Congress feels is magnified for citizens, who are routinely pulled into the vortex of an administrative state that allows little challenge or appeal. The IRS scandal is the rare case in which internal agency priorities are forced into the public eye. Most of the time, such internal policies are hidden from public view and congressional oversight. While public participation in the promulgation of new regulations is allowed, and often required, the process is generally perfunctory and dismissive.

In the new regulatory age, presidents and Congress can still change the government’s priorities, but the agencies effectively run the show based on their interpretations and discretion. The rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding.

We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government.

Read more from Outlook, friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.

CeaseFire complains police interfere with group's push to ease gang conflicts

CeaseFire complains police interfere with group's push to ease gang conflicts

By Jeremy Gorner, Chicago Tribune reporter

May 25, 2013

CeaseFire Illinois workers say Chicago police officers are increasingly ordering them off street corners in Woodlawn along with gang members, interfering with their efforts to tamp down violence in the crime-plagued neighborhood.

The alleged harassment is the latest sign of tension between CeaseFire and police at a time when the two are supposed to be partners under a first-of-its-kind city contract to reduce shootings and killings in the South Side community.

Adam Collins, a spokesman for Superintendent Garry McCarthy, defended the police conduct, saying officers have a right "in the interest of public safety" to disperse groups off street corners "where gang members are known to congregate."

But CeaseFire workers say it is interfering with their work mediating conflicts, which often involves talking to rival gang members hanging out on the same corners. Over the last two months, as police disperse gang members, officers have routinely been rousting CeaseFire workers — known as "violence-interrupters" — off corners along 63rd Street near King Drive, CeaseFire said.

Police should be able to distinguish gang members easily from CeaseFire workers clad in their trademark orange shirts and nylon jackets, noted Marilyn Pitchford, program manager for CeaseFire Woodlawn.

"The police don't trust some of the staff. They think some of the staff is in the gang life," Pitchford said of CeaseFire workers, many of them ex-cons. "They think once you get that stripe on your back, you continue to be part of that environment."

CeaseFire points out that in the two beats where its Woodlawn workers operate as part of the pilot program, no homicides have occurred this year.

Some law enforcement sources, however, credit an added police presence for the drop in violence.

Regardless, Tio Hardiman, CeaseFire's executive director, expressed frustration over complaints that police are hassling his Woodlawn workers at a time that their efforts are helping reduce shootings.

"Why are you telling us to get off the street when homicides are down?" Hardiman asked. "They need to stop interfering with our work because we don't interfere with their work. ... We're supposed to have a partnership."

The CeaseFire workers in Woodlawn and North Lawndale on the West Side operate as part of a one-year, $1 million contract that was forged as Mayor Rahm Emanuel looked for even unorthodox solutions last year as Chicago grappled with runaway violence that saw homicides exceed 500 for the first time in four years.

McCarthy, though, does little to hide his disdain for CeaseFire, saying that group doesn't want to work with the police and even dissuades gang members from cooperating with law enforcement. Over the years, Chicago police put little trust in CeaseFire since it depends so heavily on former gang members for its workers.

But distrust of the police is also deeply rooted in CeaseFire. The anti-violence group agreed to the contract last year only if police pledged not to use its workers as informants, saying they would lose credibility with gang members if they came off as snitches for authorities.

Last week, two CeaseFire workers in Woodlawn, speaking on condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation by police, said officers in marked and unmarked squad cars pull up periodically while they're talking with gang members, angrily telling everyone to get off the corner.

They said most of the problems have occurred at 63rd Street and Vernon Avenue, a busy corner with a fish and chicken restaurant, a liquor store and a CTA Green Line station — all spots where the interrupters said rival gang members frequent and have the potential to clash.

One of the violence-interrupters said they risk arrest if they don't comply with the police order to disperse — and that would mean they would be fired under the city contract. Yet if they don't talk to gang members on those corners, they're not doing their jobs, he said.

"We're in a lose-lose (situation)," he complained as he stood by a wrought-iron gate outside the restaurant. "If we move like they're telling us to do in a hot spot … and something (bad) happens right there, it makes us look bad."

At a meeting Thursday about the problem, Hardiman said police refused to allow CeaseFire workers and the gang members to congregate along the 63rd Street corridor.

Hardiman said he thinks a potential solution could be for CeaseFire workers to try to discourage the gang members from gathering in those areas.

"You need the police just like you need CeaseFire, OK?" Hardiman said. "Just like the churches need a preacher. So we're not going to try and dismiss what the police are all about."

jgorner@tribune.com

NYPD street stops called profiling, big change sought

The legal definition of arrest is when the police detain a person for any reason and that person is not free to leave or go. If a cop stops you to write a traffic ticket under this definition you have been arrested while the cop wrote you the traffic ticket.

I was taught that it was illegal for the police to detain a person or arrest a person unless they had either "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion".

While lawyers and judges can argue for weeks about what these terms mean in a nutshell "probable cause" means a cop saw you commit a crime and thus can arrest or detain you for that crime.

"Reasonable suspicion" means that you match the description of a person who just committed a crime and a cop can arrest or detain you to determine if you are the person that committed the crime.

So with that in mind it is illegal for the police to stop and detain a person simply because they look suspicious.

My understanding of the Fourth Amendment is that it is illegal for the police to search anyone, unless the the police have a search warrant, or the person is arrested for a crime.

There is one exception to that from the case of Terry v Ohio, in which the Supreme Court said it is legal for the police to give a person a pat down search on their outer garments looking for weapons, if the police want to question the person.

Source

NYPD street stops called profiling, big change sought

By Colleen Long Associated Press Sat May 25, 2013 9:08 AM

NEW YORK — It once was an accepted tactic as old as policing itself and, according to the New York Police Department, a key to the city’s dramatic drop in crime: patrol officers stopping young men on the street to see if they’re up to no good. [What what I have read all of this would be illegal in Arizona]

But thanks to rising concerns about racial profiling, a lawsuit and a 10-week trial with testimony ending May 20, the tool the NYPD calls stop, question and frisk has been scrutinized like never before. A judge could rule to change the way the department makes the stops to better protect civil rights. But skeptics warn the changes could come with a price. [Yea, we could go from being a police state in NYC to a free country!]

“It’s hard to see how a cop will be able to leave the station house without some potential adverse impact on his personnel folder if it all goes into effect,” said Eugene O’Donnell, a professor of police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “The public may suffer, too — what officer would want to engage someone on the street if he’s looking over his shoulder all the time?” [If a police officer is afraid of someone looking over his shoulder he is probably doing something illegal and shouldn't be a police officer]

The men who sued the NYPD because they believe they were stopped solely for being minorities want across-the-board reforms that include more supervision from department superiors, more comprehensive training and stricter discipline for officers who make illegal stops. They also want a court-appointed monitor to oversee the reforms. [I think that is 100 percent BS. The police should be forbidden from stopping anybody, unless the person is committing a crime.]

Samuel Walker, a University of Nebraska criminology professor and expert in police policy working pro bono for the plaintiffs, proposed a database where information on an officer — complaints, days on patrol, stop and frisks, and arrests made — would be collected and analyzed to catch potential problem officers. Right now there is no centralized database. [If a police officer is violating somebody's constitutional rights he should be fired, not entered in some silly database.]

He said sergeants and other supervisors must review officer conduct, not solely their enforcement numbers, and they should be reviewing officers quarterly, not annually. He suggested more training for officers on racial profiling and stop and frisk at the police academy and on the job.

Community input on how to implement the changes through phone surveys, mailings and calls to people who have reported incidents with police should be included.

“A comprehensive approach is absolutely essential because if any one of the components is absent or weak and ineffective, the entire accountability system begins to collapse,” Walker said.

The reforms are necessary, lawyers say, because they believe the policy has created a culture of fear in minority communities. The tactic has existed in some form for decades, but the volume of stops increased dramatically under Mayor Michael Bloomberg and about 5 million stop and frisks have been made during the past decade.

U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin is not being asked to ban the tactic, which has already been found to be legal. Her options are to leave it as is or order reforms, which appear likely since she’s ruled previously on related cases that changes are needed. [I think she should ban the activity! Period!!!]

Mid-trial, city lawmakers said they’d reached broad agreement on a proposal to create an inspector general to oversee the department in part because of stop and frisk and a series of stories by The Associated Press on the monitoring of Muslims. The inspector general would function on a macro level weighing in on policy, while the court monitor would enforce nuts-and-bolts changes related to the stop-and-frisk policy.

But morale is already low among the rank-and-file and such changes might make it worse for them, O’Donnell said. [Any cop who's moral is low because they are not allowed to stop and search anybody they want to stop should be fired!!!]

“This will all rain down on the cops,” he said. “The mayor is bullet proof. All the policy makers who formulate or acquiesce to this strategy will be held harmless.”

But O’Donnell, and other experts not related to the case, say some reforms are necessary.

“A court has recognized that while stops and frisk are a legal tactic, what we have going on here is way too much of a good thing,” said David Harris, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who is an expert on street stops.

“Crime has gone down, down, down and especially in minority communities. And still there is a fair degree of alienation and anger. What is happening is that they’re glad there’s less crime than there used to be, but does it have to be done like this? Is there another way?” [If you ask me I would rather live with more crime, then live in a police state where I am shaken down by police criminals]

The city’s expert witness, James Stewart, the director for the Law Enforcement and Justice Policy at the Center for Naval Analysis, said the department already does much of what the lawsuit seeks. Officers receive extensive training at the academy, a training officer is assigned to police precincts and the department has beefed up safeguards to the stop-and-frisk policy.

To add unnecessary oversight would create additional work and heap more stress on officers who perform an already difficult, dangerous job, the city experts said. Stewart referred to cameras worn by officers in another city, and the judge seized on it, wondering whether it should be used in the NYPD on an experimental basis. [That's 100 percent BS. From what I have read most of this stop and frisk nonsense is done to find people who have marijuana and are certainly not dangerous criminals]

“I’m intrigued by it,” Scheindlin said. “It seems to me it would solve a lot of problems.”

Police and city officials question why — in a city that has seen a precipitous drop in crime — they’re under fire. [Duh!!! Because the police are now criminals who are terrorizing the people they pretend to protect!!!]

“The attacks most often come from those who play no constructive role in keeping our city safe, but rather view their jobs as pointing fingers from the steps of City Hall,” Bloomberg said in a recent speech to police. “Some of them scream that they know better than you how to run the department.” [No these attacks come from people who are tired of living in a police state and would like to return to a normal world where we are assumed innocent until proven guilty, not the current NYC police state of being guilty until you prove you are innocent]

Amanda Bynes: 'Sexually harassed' by police officer

Source

Amanda Bynes: 'Sexually harassed' by police officer

Amanda Bynes claims she was ''sexually harassed'' by a police officer who arrested her on Thursday night (May 23).

The 'She's All That' star - who was charged with attempted evidence tampering, reckless endangerment and marijuana possession in court on Friday (May 24) after being arrested at her New York City apartment - has accused an officer of slapping her vagina and lying about her throwing a bong out of the window.

The 27-year-old actress addressed her legal troubles in a lengthy rant on Twitter on Saturday (May 25), writing: ''Don't believe the reports about me being arrested. It's all lies. I was sexually harassed by one of the cops the night before last which is who then arrested me. He lied and said I threw a bong out the window when I opened the window for fresh air. Hilarious. He slapped my vagina. Sexual harassment. Big deal. I then called the cops on him. He handcuffed me, which I resisted, quite unlike any of the reports stated.''

The actress is upset she was initially sent to the hospital, a move which she describes as ''offensive.''

She said: ''Then I was sent to a mental hospital. Offensive. I kept asking for my lawyer but they wouldn't let me. The cops were creepy. The cop sexually harassed me, they found no pot on me or bong outside my window. That's why the judge let me go. Don't believe any reports.'' [Sadly cops frequently use the "mentally ill" card to lock you up in a nut house, when they don't have any evidence to arrest you for a crime. Here in Arizona it is relatively easy for the police to lock you up for being "insane" when they don't have any evidence to arrest you for a real crime. I think that is also true in many other states. Here in Arizona the Secret Service used the "mentally ill card" to arrest Kevin Walsh and lock him in a mental institution when they didn't have any evidence to arrest him for threatening the life of President George W. Bush]

Amanda's parents are reportedly worried she is bipolar or schizophrenic. [So what!!! About one percent of the population is either bipolar or schizophrenic. And while both illnesses have been demonized, people with these illnesses are in general harmless. Google both terms and you will be surprised to find out that most of the stuff you think you know about both illnesses is wrong]

A source told gossip website TMZ.com that the 27-year-old actress's recent erratic behavior is not enough for her to be placed under a 5150, California's Welfare Institutions Code, to be evaluated under involuntary psychiatric hold for 72 hours.

The insider said that her parents Lynn and Rick are eager to secure an involuntary conservatorship, similar to Britney Spears, but have been told her conduct has not been severe enough for a judge to take away her legal rights and she has not been diagnosed with any mental illness.

Sex-offender data is used to collect money and intimidate

I have always disliked the governments requirement that sex offenders are required to register with the government and have their personal information placed in online databases that anybody can view on the internet.

I think the governments intent is to humiliate, belittle and intimidate the alleged sex offenders and it doesn't serve any legitimate function of protecting public.

Last the term "sex offender" is misleading. If you get arrested for taking a leak in an alley under Arizona's laws you are considered a "sex offender" and required to register under this stupid law.

If My Data Is an Open Book, Why Can’t I Read It?

Source

If My Data Is an Open Book, Why Can’t I Read It?

By NATASHA SINGER

Published: May 25, 2013

OUR mobile carriers know our locations: where our phones travel during working hours and leisure time, where they reside overnight when we sleep. Verizon Wireless even sells demographic profiles of customer groups — including ZIP codes for where they “live, work, shop and more” — to marketers. But when I called my wireless providers, Verizon and T-Mobile, last week in search of data on my comings and goings, call-center agents told me that their companies didn’t share customers’ own location logs with them without a subpoena.

Consolidated Edison monitors my household’s energy consumption and provides a chart of monthly utility use. But when I sought more granular information, so I could learn which of my recharging devices gobbles up the most electricity, I found that Con Ed doesn’t automatically provide customers with data about hourly or even daily use. Robert McGee, a spokesman for Con Ed, suggested that I might go down to the basement once an hour and check the meter myself.

Then there is my health club, which keeps track of my visits through swipes of my membership card. Yet when I recently asked for an online log of those visits, I was offered a one-time printout for the year — if I were willing to wait a half-hour.

Never mind all the hoopla about the presumed benefits of an “open data” society. In our day-to-day lives, many of us are being kept in the data dark.

“The fact that I am producing data and companies are collecting it to monetize it, if I can’t get a copy myself, I do consider it unfair,” says Latanya Sweeney, the director of the Data Privacy Lab at Harvard, where she is a professor of government and technology.

Of course, she notes, we can replicate the information that companies collect and collate about us with third-party apps or other workarounds, but we shouldn’t have to resort to redundancy. Professor Sweeney says: “We would like to see people have access to all of the data that they produce.”

In fact, a few companies are challenging the norm of corporate data hoarding by actually sharing some information with the customers who generate it — and offering tools to put it to use. It’s a small but provocative trend in the United States, where only a handful of industries, like health care and credit, are required by federal law to provide people with access to their records.

Last year, San Diego Gas and Electric, a utility, introduced an online energy management program in which customers can view their electricity use in monthly, daily or hourly increments. There is even a practical benefit: customers can earn credits by reducing energy consumption during peak hours.

About one-quarter of the company’s 1.2 million residential customers have tried the program, says Caroline Winn, the company’s vice president for customer services. Newer features, she says, allow customers to download their own use files. Or they can choose to give permission for the utility to share their records directly with a handful of apps that can analyze the data and suggest ways to reduce energy consumption.

“The customer owns their data,” Ms. Winn says. “Whether they want to use our app or somebody else’s, we want to make sure we are facilitating that.”

(Con Ed in New York also offers customers reduced pricing if they use electricity during off-peak hours. But the program requires the installation of a special meter.)

People might feel more comfortable about being subject to data-mining if companies did a better job of demonstrating a direct benefit to them, argues Jules Polonetsky, director of the Future of Privacy Forum, an industry financed research organization in Washington. One model for this, he says, is the product recommendation engine at Amazon, which lets customers view their purchase histories and excise one-off items they bought for friends that might not represent their own personal tastes.

“They are providing transparency as a feature,” Mr. Polonetsky says. “I can tweak their algorithm in a way that is mutually useful.” (Amazon is one of the sponsors of his organization.)

Even so, companies rarely offer customers more than a cropped snapshot of their activities.

Right now, for example, fitness enthusiasts who use blood pressure monitors, calorie calculators and movement sensors typically can’t collate the data for a unified view of their wellness, Doc Searls, a technology writer who has experienced this kind of problem himself, told me. If people could easily integrate their data, he wrote in a recent blog post, they might be able to correlate weight loss to a particular workout routine or diet. Those companies that do allow customers to export their files and integrate their data elsewhere, he says, have a market advantage over companies that are data misers.

“Stock data, bank data, and bond data are all more valuable when they are looked at together,” says Mr. Searls, the author of “The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge.” “If I have a choice between apps and one of them shares the data that I can use more easily, I am going to choose that one.”

INTEL, for instance, recently introduced a “data economy” project, intended to encourage companies to think of consumers as participants in the information economy, and not just as data-harvesting opportunities. The venture includes a site called WeTheData.com, which looks at current obstacles to information sharing.

Ken Anderson, a senior research scientist at Intel Labs who oversees the project, compares corporate data-hoarding today to a faulty mind-set of the fast-food industry in the early 1980s. Back then, he says, fast-food chains thought that they should open outlets only at a good distance from their competitors. But when food courts in malls became popular, he says, those restaurant chains realized that they benefited from shared retail space.

“If you put it all in one place, you get more business,” says Mr. Anderson, a cultural anthropologist who studies how people interact with technology.

The same goes for consumer data. He envisions an online answer to food courts — an information smorgasbord where consumers could browse their own records. “We are trying to show companies the value of opening data up” he says, “and having them be more communal in nature.”

Sheriff Joe Arpaio - We don't racially profile Mexicans

A ton of weed in Manhattan Beach????

Boat with nearly a ton of marijuana is part of growing smuggler trend

By Los Angeles Times Staff

May 26, 2013, 8:20 a.m.

The discovery of a Mexican smuggling boat, which was carrying nearly a ton of marijuana, in Manhattan Beach is part of a growing trend on the beaches of Southern California.

Border Patrol agents spotted the panga boat just before 3 a.m. Saturday in waters illuminated by a full moon.

After the vessel came ashore near 44th Street, authorities discovered 1,850 pounds of marijuana and two Mexican men, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

The men were taken into custody for questioning, ICE said.

Maritime smuggling has been on the rise as federal authorities fortified border and airport enforcement.

In the last two years, encounters with ocean-going smugglers has nearly doubled, with the sharpest increase along secluded beaches in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, though the greatest number still occur in San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles counties, according to customs officials.

In 2008, there were 45 human-smuggling-related incidents, most of them in the San Diego area. In 2012 there were more than 200.

Garcetti: Recreational pot use is question for voters

Source

Garcetti: Recreational pot use is question for voters

By Dalina Castellanos

May 26, 2013, 7:18 p.m.

In his first interview with a national news outlet, Mayor-elect Eric Garcetti said he wouldn't have any problems if California voters decided to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

During a short interview with Univision's Jorge Ramos on Sunday, Garcetti was asked if he thought pot use should be legalized for casual use. His response was interesting.

Marijuana was important for medicinal use, he said. "But if in the future, California's voters want it for casual use, for me, it's not a problem."

He went on to suggest that enforcement of marijuana laws was diverting law enforcement from more important tasks.

"I want to use the police department's resources for more serious crimes, but they are usually tied up in these crimes that aren't as important," Garcetti said. "Still, it would need to be decided by a state-wide vote."

The comments came at the end of a six-minute interview that focused mostly on the role the Spanish language played in Los Angeles politics.

The television anchor asked if it was possible to win the mayoral race without being able to speak Spanish, adding that the city will have had Spanish-speaking mayors for more than a decade with his election.

“The Latino vote was very important to my victory, but it’s not necessary,” Garcetti said in Spanish. “If you can speak Spanish, then you can have a stronger connection with the residents of Los Angeles.”

Los Angeles is the most diverse city in the world, Garcetti continued, and “it’s important to have a global perspective.”

Garcetti also said that his administration would focus heavily on education and the economy.

“Everything that I want to do [as mayor] will be possible when we have a strong and prosperous economy,” Garcetti said in Spanish. “Los Angeles has all the ingredients of success ... but we need to start with our education system” and businesses.

Jaime Regalado, professor emeritus of political science at Cal State L.A., said Garcetti was “definitely sending a message” by granting his first post-election interview to a Spanish-language news medium.

The marijuana comment was "a generally safe response," he said. Stating his support for medical pot use and saying that he wanted police to focus on serious criminal matters were likely to find broad approval "in a liberal city that bleeds political blue."

Regalado said Garcetti's comments about language and L.A.'s diversity of cultures were "smart" as well.

“He and future winning citywide candidates will need a coalition that includes many of those cultures, ethnicities and races,” Regalado said in an email. “He showed some moxie here -- political and cultural.”

Game and Fish cop embezzles $13,600

If this is like other police crimes, don't expect any charges to be filed against the crooked cop that stole $13,600 from the state of Arizona. Well other then a slap on the wrist at most.

Source

DPS inquiry: Game and Fish official stole agency funds

By Dennis Wagner The Republic | azcentral.com Mon May 27, 2013 10:50 PM

A former law-enforcement boss at the Arizona Game and Fish Department embezzled thousands of dollars from an undercover account set up to catch wildlife poachers and should be charged with felony theft, a state police investigation concludes.

The Department of Public Safety report alleges that John G. Romero, who resigned while under investigation in early February, set up a covert bank account using his old undercover name and siphoned public money for three years before it was detected.

Investigative findings, including a request for prosecution, were submitted to Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne more than two months ago. No charges have been filed to date, and a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s Office said she could not comment.

Romero, who could not be reached, told investigators he did not use funds for personal expenses, according to the report. But he admitted a failure to maintain records or to get payments approved, the report says.

Gary Hovatter, special assistant to the Game and Fish director, said the 22-year officer retired with full benefits.

Hovatter said a claim may be filed for recovery of the cash. He also said the matter was referred to the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, which regulates law-enforcement officers and is empowered to withdraw certification.

According to the DPS report, Game and Fish officials requested an independent probe in October after an audit of the Operation Game Thief program, designed to catch wildlife poachers. Records showed cash withdrawals by an unknown person named Greg D. Gomez. Romero had been given that pseudonym, with a matching driver’s license and Social Security card, years earlier when he worked undercover in the department’s Special Operations Unit.

Game and Fish officials told DPS investigators that the fake identity was canceled in 2000 and that Romero had not worked undercover since 2004. They said Romero never received permission to resurrect the identity or create a covert bank account and never filed expense reports concerning the payouts.

The DPS report says at least $13,600 went into the “Gomez” account, which was linked to Romero’s home address. Nearly all that money was withdrawn.

DPS investigators concluded that Romero improperly authorized his own expenses and was not challenged because the employee who issued checks “knows not to ask any questions” about undercover operations.

State police said that most of the withdrawals by Romero took place on days when he did not work and when his personal bank account was low or empty.

The report says Romero failed to provide documentation of how the funds were used and stammered when asked to explain, as illustrated by a transcribed excerpt: “You know, I spend it on, uh, you know, mostly it’s for the uh, you know, the payment of, of, of services. Uh, use it for the, uh, the, you know, I help out other regions with, uh, with payments of, of, uh, just informant money or projects or, you know, just different things of that nature.”

Romero told investigators he kept his activity reports at home but was “not the best bookkeeper. … It seems like I’m playing fast and loose with this,” he added, “and sometimes I do.”

Romero, whose salary was $65,362, wrote the Game and Fish Department’s policy manuals for investigations and special operations. He was a nationally recognized expert on illegal trafficking of reptiles and served as a training officer.

Department records obtained via a public-records request show that Romero had been promoted through the ranks to a top enforcement job despite repeated disciplinary memos for failure to maintain and submit official records.

Hovatter said Game and Fish administrators have taken steps to prevent future violations of financial-accountability rules at the agency.

Reach the reporter at dennis.wagner@arizonarepublic.com.

Arizona groups sue over pot-dispensary deadline

Source

Arizona groups sue over pot-dispensary deadline

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Mon May 27, 2013 10:17 PM

Eleven Arizona non-profit corporations are suing the state, seeking additional time to open medical-marijuana dispensaries.

Last August, the state Department of Health Services randomly selected the non-profits to receive the dispensary-registration certificates required to operate dispensaries. Under state rules, each has one year to then qualify for a certificate to operate. They had a year to obtain “approval to operate” certificates or permanently lose the authorization to open a dispensary.

In a lawsuit filed last week in Maricopa County Superior Court, the groups are asking a judge to order state officials to give them more time to get up and running.

The groups argue that a separate lawsuit involving the White Mountain Health Center medical-marijuana dispensary had a “chilling effect” on other potential dispensary owners. That case centered on zoning documentation for the Sun City dispensary and grew to encompass a larger question of whether federal drug laws pre-empt the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

A Superior Court judge ruled in December that the state law is constitutional and that the county must make a zoning decision about White Mountain Health Center. County Attorney Bill Montgomery is awaiting a hearing before the Arizona Court of Appeals.

The groups also say they have encountered problems obtaining documents from city officials, who control zoning tied to the dispensaries.

Will Humble, director of Department of Health Services, told The Arizona Republic that he may give the 11 groups more time.

Paul Conant, an attorney representing the non-profit corporations, said his clients “are pleased to have an opportunity to try to resolve this amicably.”

Since Arizona voters approved the medical-marijuana law in 2010, about 35,000 Arizonans have been approved to smoke or grow marijuana. Of that group, the overwhelming majority cite severe and chronic pain as a debilitating medical condition. Statewide, 21 dispensaries have opened.

Prison guards sell drugs for prisoners????

Source

Maryland’s prison system struggles to police thousands of guards and inmates

By Annys Shin and Aaron C. Davis, Published: May 27 E-mail the writers

She could have been fired years ago for allegedly letting gang members stage a brutal attack on an inmate in his cell. Instead, corrections officer Antonia Allison was allowed to resign from her job at the Baltimore City Detention Center in 2006 without any mark on her personnel record and then return to the state-run jail nine months later, prison system officials acknowledge.

Last month, Allison, 27, became one of 13 corrections officers indicted in a corruption case so widespread and brazen that it astounded law enforcement officials across the country. The guards are accused of helping a violent prison gang operate a drug-trafficking and money-laundering operation that involved smuggled pills and cellphones, sexual liaisons and thousands of dollars in cash payments. Allison plans to plead not guilty to the charges, said her lawyer, Chris Purpura.

How Allison wound up being rehired — even as she later agreed to pay a settlement to the inmate attacked on her watch in 2006 — is emblematic of a Maryland correctional system that has struggled for years to police its 7,500 guards and nearly 26,000 inmates.

A review of court records and interviews with current and former law enforcement officers, jail administrators, state officials, union representatives and corrections experts paints a picture of a failed disciplinary system, with little if any deterrent for corrections officers who smuggle contraband or even have sex with inmates.

The prison system’s small cadre of full-time permanent investigators — just 19 in a state with 24 corrections facilities — has remained virtually the same since Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) took office more than six years ago.

Their ranks did not grow after a report, issued the month O’Malley was elected to his first term, warned that there were nearly 300 gang members inside the detention center. Nor were more full-fledged investigators added after a 2009 investigation led by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration found a hive of corruption and flagrant gang activity at the Maryland Correctional Institution in Jessup and the Metropolitan Transition Center in Baltimore. Evidence from that probe suggested the problems were just as serious at the detention center, the state’s largest jail and long one of its most troubled.

“There was a sense that this isn’t going to get fixed until we get a case so big, so shocking that it would reallocate resources or change laws,” said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the current investigation. “We figured we needed national attention to force the Maryland legislature to act.”

The problems appear to be deeply rooted.

Allison, who could not be reached for comment, might have faced criminal charges in the assault on inmate Tashma McFadden, who was stabbed 32 times in July 2006, said one former jail supervisor, who agreed to discuss the incident only on the condition that he not be identified by name. But an internal investigation was derailed when a sympathetic supervisor suggested she quit after the attack, he said.

Allison, who denied any role in the assault, later attributed her resignation to injuries suffered in a car accident, according to a court deposition she gave in 2009.

Prison system officials said guards who resign in lieu of dismissal are supposed to be “red-flagged” and barred from being rehired. They said that there was no explanation in Allison’s personnel file for her 2006 departure and that they could not explain why she was able to return. But they confirmed that by July 2007, she was back in uniform at the jail, where prosecutors allege she eventually went to work for Black Guerilla Family operative Tavon White smuggling marijuana and prescription pills.

The jail supervisor said he was astounded when Allison was rehired. “Dishonest officers feel empowered” when they beat the system, he said. “And you see what happened.”

A dysfunctional system

Allison and the 12 other indicted officers operated in an environment where there was “no effective punishment,” federal investigators said in charging documents. The guards allegedly served as drug mules and, in several cases, had sex with inmates, with little fear of serious consequences. Four of the indicted officers became pregnant by White, and two tattooed his name on their bodies. Only one of the guards has entered a plea on the charges, saying she is not guilty; Allison and the others have yet to be arraigned.

O’Malley and Gary D. Maynard, the head of the prison system, have expressed revulsion at the allegations, while defending their record of rooting out corruption.

Statistics show the department’s disciplinary system does work, said Rick Binetti, state corrections spokesman.

Since O’Malley took office, 112 corrections officers have been fired or forced to resign because of alleged wrongdoing, Binetti said. When officers challenge the dismissals, judges uphold the firings three-quarters of the time.

But departmental records also show that Maryland relies heavily on forced resignations: 41 of the 112 resigned in lieu of dismissal or charges being filed in court. Maryland, in fact, rarely prosecutes officers for offenses short of violent abuses of inmates, state and court records show. By comparison, Virginia fired nearly 100 of its 12,000 guards last year, state officials there said.

Maryland officials acknowledged that changes are needed, especially at the detention center. The governor’s office said Monday night that O’Malley will soon announce the creation of a task force to investigate and prosecute gang activity and corruption at the jail. The 10-person task force will be made up of corrections investigators, Maryland State Police officers and an assistant state’s attorney in Baltimore.

The chief of security at the Baltimore jail has been replaced. This month, Maynard moved his office into the detention center and vowed to cleanse the jail of its culture of complicity.

The head of the prison system’s internal investigations unit announced his resignation two weeks ago, though officials maintain that his departure is unrelated to the probe at the jail. And O’Malley has ordered a review of the disciplinary process, which was altered three years ago to give corrections officers the right to appeal certain suspensions, firings and other punishments to a board of their peers. The Correctional Officers’ Bill of Rights was criticized by federal investigators last month for making it too hard to weed out compromised guards. But, as the Antonia Allison case demonstrates, the disciplinary dysfunction at the jail existed long before those protections were signed into law.

It isn’t clear whether the extraordinary scope of problems at the jail exists anywhere else in the prison system. But the system’s internal investigation and disciplinary process is undermanned, undertrained, and underfunded statewide, a review of policies, staffing levels and caseloads shows.

While the number of full-time investigators has stayed the same, their caseload has doubled over the past six years, from 700 to 1,400 — part of an effort to prosecute inmates who obtain cellphones and use them to conduct criminal business behind bars.

Although investigators are supposed to police both corrections officers and inmates, the vast majority of the state’s resources are devoted to convicts. Last year, more than 90 percent of the cases pursued by investigators involved crimes committed by inmates.

The unit also does not have enough staff to keep investigators on shifts overnight or on weekends. Investigators are on call for major cases but have to come in from home.

Asked if they have pressed for more resources in a system with an operating budget of $1.3 billion, two corrections officials sidestepped the question.

“If you ask any police force, they’ll tell you they could use more officers,” said one of the officials, both of whom were made available to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity. “We are trying to do our best to investigate all criminal and administrative cases that come across our table.”

The efforts of the investigators can be hampered by the frontline corrections officers assigned by wardens to police their fellow guards.

Those officers often perform the initial legwork that can make or break a case. Yet they are not given polygraph tests to ensure their integrity, and they get almost no additional training. They also have no police powers. As a result, when corrections officers are caught smuggling contraband into the jail, there is no one on-site who can make an arrest.

That’s different from most big-city jails, including the District’s central detention facility and New York’s on Rikers Island, where the jails maintain closer ties with local police forces and have sworn officers on-site. Internal affairs investigators in the District work at the jail.

At the Baltimore detention center, even if guards or other employees are caught with drugs that would be illegal to possess outside the jail, they can simply leave the premises before law enforcement arrives, current and former officers said.

“A supervisor can say, ‘I order you to stay in that chair,’ but if the employee says, ‘Oh, I’m sick, I have a fever,’ they can’t stop that person from going home,” one of the corrections officials said.

Afterward, it becomes far easier for prison administrators to seek resignations from the accused than to pursue criminal charges, current and former officers and jail officials said.

Investigators often encounter a code of silence among the guards, criminal justice experts and former corrections officers said. “You are fighting that culture of people not wanting to testify or provide information against another officer,” said former federal prison warden Peter Carlson.

Jail officials aren’t always eager to expose corruption inside their walls either, said Frank A. Colaprete, an expert on internal investigations in corrections.

“Everyone is trying to keep their jobs,” he said. “They don’t want publicity or embarrassment.”

Increasing caseloads

The prison system’s Internal Investigative Unit is tucked at the end of an office park in Savage, a half-hour south of Baltimore.

Its 19 investigators are the only ones wearing a corrections badge who have passed a polygraph exam and received police academy training.

The investigators have had ­notable successes, including the 2006 second-degree murder conviction of a corrections officer for stomping to death an inmate at Baltimore’s central booking facility next to the detention center.

Another investigation into a 2008 assault of a single inmate at a state prison in Hagerstown led to the termination of 26 officers. In that case, an inmate who assaulted an officer was later beaten by guards repeatedly over three consecutive eight-hour shifts. Fourteen of the fired guards faced criminal charges. Six were convicted and three went to prison.

But in between such big cases, the unit has struggled to keep pace with a mounting and increasingly complex caseload, driven largely by the emphasis on prosecuting inmates for having cellphones.

The effort is the result of the 2009 investigation into corruption and gang activity. Using cellphones smuggled in by corrupt officers, Black Guerilla Family leader Eric Brown orchestrated drug deals and initiated violent attacks on adversaries from behind bars. He spent some of the profits on crab imperial and Grey Goose vodka, which he had delivered to his cell at the Metropolitan Transition Center in Baltimore with room service-like ease.

In the wake of that scandal, the unit hired two technicians to collect evidence from cellphones recovered from the state’s prisons. They also stepped up their partnerships with federal and local law enforcement agencies.

As cellphone cases have taken up more of the investigators’ time, current and former officers said the department has been less focused on fraternization and other misconduct by officers that allegedly fed the criminal activity inside the detention center.

Inmates at the Baltimore jail reported the second-highest rate of sexual contact with guards of any jail in the country, according to a federal survey released this month. Nearly 7 percent reported having sexual contact with officers. Nationwide, the rate was less than 2 percent.

Black Guerilla Family members at the detention center allegedly used sex to secure the allegiance of some of the 13 indicted corrections officers, all of whom were women.

Allison is not among the corrections officers accused of having sex with inmates. But her name was added to a confidential list of officers suspected of gang ties after she allegedly let members of the Bloods stab McFadden on July 6, 2006, according to court documents that contain the internal memo prepared for the warden.

She resigned in the middle of an internal investigation. McFadden, who was serving jail time for a drug-dealing conviction, sued her in federal court in 2008, seeking damages for his injuries.

In a court deposition she gave in 2009 in connection with the lawsuit, she said a prison system investigator interviewed her about the incident shortly after she returned to work and read her her rights. She invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, she said, because “I didn’t know what he was talking about.”

The prison system’s investigative unit then sent the case on to the state’s attorney’s office, but nothing happened, according to court records.

In the 2009 deposition, Allison denied being part of the attack or being a member of a gang, maintaining that she resigned from her job because of injuries to her back and wrist from a car accident.

Allison, the daughter of a police officer, was taking college classes in hopes of becoming a forensic pathologist. She tried unsuccessfully to have the lawsuit dismissed. Just before the trial was to begin, McFadden learned from corrections officials that Bloods inmates were planning to assault him over the case. He settled.

Allison paid him restitution for several years, his attorney said, while she continued to work at the jail. She was earning almost $42,000 a year when she was charged last month with working for the inmates she was supposed to be guarding. v Ann E. Marimow and Jennifer Jenkins contributed to this report

Goldwater Institute threatens suit over Phoenix practice of ‘spiking’ pensions

From this article it sure sounds like Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton is a liar who will say anything to get elected.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton Stanton lied to the public when he had campaigned and said he would end this practice in this article.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton also lied to the public when he campaigned and said he would end the temporary Phoenix sales tax, which mostly goes to the Phoenix police and fire departments.

It sure looks like Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton doesn't support the people that elected him, but rather is owned by the special interest groups in the Phoenix Police and Phoenix Fire Department unions.

I suspect those 2,400 retired Phoenix cops and firefighters vote for Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton because he supports their government pork.

Source

Goldwater Institute threatens suit over Phoenix practice of ‘spiking’ pensions

By Craig Harris The Republic | azcentral.com Tue May 28, 2013 11:23 PM

The Goldwater Institute has threatened to sue Phoenix if the city does not end a legally questionable policy that allows police officers and firefighters to increase the amount of their pensions by cashing in unused sick leave, vacation and other benefits.

The Phoenix-based conservative watchdog group, which has a history of winning suits against municipalities, sent a letter late last week to Mayor Greg Stanton, saying state law is clear that the practice of “spiking” pensions is illegal. The letter also said “attempts to evade the obvious meaning of this law are, at best, erroneous, at worst, dishonest.”

Stanton, who had campaigned on pension reform but has taken no action to end pension spiking by public-safety officers, declined an interview request. [Just like he also campaigned and promised to remove the temporary sales tax which he didn't.]

His spokeswoman, Sarah Muench, issued a statement saying Stanton “will ask for a meeting to bring together the Goldwater Institute and our City Attorney.” [Sounds like Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton is just shoveling the BS to keep the reporters and public at bay for a little bit longer]

“He looks forward to discussing it. He has no further comment at this time,” Muench said.

One Fire Department captain, meanwhile, said Goldwater would be wasting taxpayer funds if it forced Phoenix to defend itself in court. [Of course the only people that benefit from this practice are members of the Phoenix Fire Department and Phoenix Police Department]

If a lawsuit is filed, Goldwater likely will seek a judgment declaring the practice illegal.

In the face of such a judgment, the statewide Public Safety Personnel Retirement System would have no choice but to seek refunds from retired police officers and firefighters who received enhanced pension benefits because of pay spiking, system administrator Jared Smout said.

“We would have to figure out what their pension should have been, and any overpayment, and collect that,” Smout said. “The way we typically collect is by reducing pensions. ... This potentially would affect a large amount of people.”

The city could avoid a legal judgment by voluntarily agreeing to change its policy.

In that case, it is unclear whether the retirement system would try to recoup past overpayments, because it could face a lawsuit by retirees. [Who have been stealing our tax dollars and want to keep the stolen loot]

Smout said the retirement system would prefer to have a court ruling in advance so that whatever steps it takes to recoup overpayments are legally binding and less vulnerable to litigation.

It is unknown how many Phoenix retirees could be affected, but such repayments could be significant.

For example, in one instance, a former assistant fire chief increased his lump-sum retirement check by roughly a quarter of a million dollars, to $795,983, and he increased his annual pension benefits by more than $40,000 — to $130,046 a year.

There are approximately 2,400 Phoenix retirees receiving benefits from the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System. Rank-and-file officers say they have been unfairly criticized by the public as greedy because a few high-ranking executives have significantly enhanced their pensions through spiking. [Have to disagree with that. The retired rank and file police officers and firemen screw the taxpayers just as much as the high ranking ones]

However, there has been no organized movement to curb abuses in the pension system.

Smout said the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System, of which Phoenix is the largest member, has requested information from the city on its justification for allowing police officers and firefighters to spike their pensions.

The pension fund has taken no action against the city and has stated that pension spiking by Phoenix only hurts the city because it results in a larger bill the city must pay to the state pension trust for retirement benefits.

Phoenix budgeted $109 million this fiscal year for public-safety pension costs, and that figure will increase by $20 million for the fiscal year that begins July 1. In fiscal 2003, the city paid $7.2 million.

Pension spiking accounts for only a portion of the increased payment. Substantial investment losses by the pension trust, and other factors such as highly paid and experienced public-safety officers, account for the city’s increased payments.

An inquiry by the state pension system, and Goldwater’s legal threat, come after The Arizona Republic earlier this month reported the city’s pension-spiking policy, which has allowed a few retirees to become millionaires shortly after retirement.

The newspaper also found that the spiking policy allowed a few police officers and firefighters to make more in retirement than when they worked.

The average public-safety pension for a Phoenix retiree is $59,341, about $10,000 more than the statewide average. There are 153 Phoenix public-safety retirees who receive pensions greater than $88,000 — more than two times the average income in Arizona.

The Republic initially reported that pension spiking occurs because the city allows public-safety officers to cash in unused sick leave, vacation and deferred compensation to calculate their pensions.

The Republic has since learned that the city also counts compensation paid for emergency shifts, bonuses and vehicle and cellphone allowances to be calculated into salary totals that determine pension benefits.

State law says “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” may be used to calculate pension benefits.

Final compensation and length of service are the key components in determining the amount of a public pension in Arizona. The more a person makes at the end of a career, the higher the lifetime pension. Salary spiking, therefore, increases pensions and the long-term costs for taxpayers.

The city issued a statement Tuesday saying that its public-safety employees have bargained for fewer vacation and sick days in exchange for a higher salary. It also said that, in certain circumstances, an employee can quit accruing sick and vacation leave in return for additional salary.

The statement also said “whether a public- safety employee’s compensation is pensionable under state statute is a decision to be made by the PSPRS administrators.”

Smout and other public-safety administrators said they do not have the resources to determine whether an employee’s compensation is “pensionable.” Instead, they say, they rely upon the accuracy and honesty of governments that are part of the system to report the accurate compensation of public-safety officers.

Jon Riches, an attorney from Goldwater, said the demand letter was intended to put the city on notice.

“Hopefully, they will take action to change these policies. If the policy remains as it is, it’s difficult to imagine a situation where a lawsuit wouldn’t occur,” Riches said. “Hopefully, Phoenix does the right thing and changes a policy that is abusive and illegal.”

City Councilman Sal DiCiccio, an outspoken critic of the costs of public pensions, agreed.

“Under the best case scenario, the city of Phoenix is purposely circumventing the law. In the worst case, which is the current situation, the city is breaking the law,” he said.

But John Teffy, a Phoenix Fire Department captain, said Goldwater should stand down.

“It seems to me that if the Goldwater Institute took the time to understand how the city works and how contracts work, they would know there is a much simpler way to address this than with (threats of) frivolous lawsuits,” Teffy said.

Marijuana Use Causes Brain Damage Confirmed???

Source

Marijuana Use Causes Brain Damage Confirmed

Scientists have confirmed the long-held suspicion that frequent heavy marijuana use damage the brain's memory and learning capacity.

By Christine Hsu | Aug 09, 2012 04:23 PM EDT

Scientists have confirmed the long-held suspicion that frequent heavy marijuana use damages the brain's memory and learning capacity.

Australian researchers have showed for the first time that the earlier people start their marijuana habit, the worse the brain damage.

"Our results suggest that long-term cannabis use is hazardous to white matter in the developing brain. This was especially true for those who had started in adolescence, as we know the brain is still developing during this time," Lead researcher Dr. Marc Seal, from Melbourne’s Murdoch Children's Research Institute said in a university release.

Scientists from MCRI, Melbourne University and Wollongong University compared MRI scans of the brain for 59 people who had been using marijuana for an average of 15 years to 33 healthy people who had never used the drug.

After measuring changes to the volume, strength and integrity of white matter in the brains of all participants, researchers found that long-term heavy cannabis users had disruptions in their white matter fibers.

The brain's white matter is responsible for information passed between different areas of grey matter within the nervous system, and unlike grey matter, which are the brain's thinking areas that peaks at age eight, white matter continues to develop as people age.

Seal and his team found that there was more than 80 percent reduction of white matter in the brains of users.

Additionally, researchers found that the average age of participants in the study started using cannabis when they were 16 years old, participants who started using the drug at a younger age like 10 or 11 had even more severe brain damage.

"This is the first study to demonstrate the age at which regular cannabis use begins is a key factor in determining the severity of the brain damage," Seal said, according to AAP.

He explained that marijuana interferes with naturally occurring cannabinoid receptors in the brain and by introducing external cannabinoids into a person's system it stops their white matter from maturing.

Researchers linked the significant changes in the white matter in the brain's hippocampus and commissural fibers, suggesting that long-term marijuana use may lead to memory impairment and deficits in learning and concentration ability.

"These people can have trouble learning new things and they are going to have trouble remembering things," Seal said.

"We don't know if the changes are irreversible but we do know that these changes are quite significant," he added.

Researchers said that the findings could not be explained by recreational drug and alcohol use. Researchers will monitor participants for the next two years to detect any further changes.

The latest findings add to results from previous smaller studies that showed that the brain's memory center, the hippocampus, shrunk in heavy marijuana users.

Police: Scottsdale chef found with marijuana

I suspect the pot was found when the police were in the process of stealing his car. In Arizona if you are stopped by the police and don't have a valid car registration or insurance we have some silly draconian police state laws that allow the police to steal your car until you "prove your innocent". These laws don't serve any valid purpose other then allowing the police to raise money for themselves by legally stealing cars from people.

Source

Police: Scottsdale chef found with marijuana, suspended license

By Matthew Longdon The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Wed May 29, 2013 6:31 AM

Chef Eddie Matney was recently arrested on charges of drug possession and driving on a suspended license, Scottsdale police say.

Matney, owner and executive chef at Eddie’s House in Scottsdale, was stopped last week by Scottsdale police near 68th Street and Camelback Road because of an obscured license plate, according to police.

They say a subsequent check showed Matney’s registration and driving privileges had been suspended. While waiting for a tow truck, police officers say they found marijuana in Matney’s vehicle. [In Arizona if you don't have a valid car registration the police are allowed to steal your car, and hold it hostage till you prove your innocent of the crime. The bottom line is this practice is just a form of legalize theft used by the police to raise money]

In a statement Tuesday night, Matney said “a very small amount of marijuana was found with fishing equipment.”

The same day, Matney told 12 News he doesn’t smoke marijuana and doesn’t know why it was in the vehicle. He also said he didn’t know his license was suspended.

Woman framed for having 12 pounds of pot in Mexico????

Family of Goodyear woman jailed in Mexico says she's not guilty

Authorities said they found marijuana under bus seat

By Daniel González The Republic | azcentral.com Tue May 28, 2013 10:41 PM

Yanira Maldonado has spent more than a week in prison in Mexico after Mexican officials found 12 pounds of marijuana under her bus seat, but family members say the Mormon mother from Goodyear is the victim of a nightmarish mistake.

Family members believe that someone else may have been trying to smuggle the marijuana and that Maldonado just happened to be sitting in the seat where the drugs were hidden.

“We feel we have a strong case,” said Larry Maldonado, Yanira’s father-in-law.

Yanira was returning to the Valley with her husband, Gary Maldonado, on May 22 when they passed through a military checkpoint near Hermosillo and the drugs were found. She has been trying to prove her innocence ever since. She is being held in a prison in Nogales, Sonora, Larry said.

A federal judge in Nogales listened to witnesses Tuesday, and the family hopes to know by Friday whether the case will be dismissed, he said.

Yanira and Gary married one year ago and have seven children together from previous marriages, Larry said. They are both members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and met at church, he added.

Yanira is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Mexico. She works with disabled children. Gary is an American born in the U.S. He works in the information-technology field, his father said.

The case has attracted national attention since family members began publicizing Yanira’s imprisonment on social media.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake also has gotten involved after family members contacted the Arizona Republican.

Flake spoke about the case with Mexico’s deputy ambassador to the U.S., Mabel Gomez Oliver, on Saturday and Sunday, an official in Flake’s office said. Flake also spoke with Gary Maldonado on Sunday.

Larry Maldonado said Yanira and Gary feel like they are living in a nightmare.

They left Phoenix by bus on May 19 to attend a funeral for Yanira’s aunt near Los Mochis in the state of Sinaloa, Larry said.

On May 22, they were headed back to Phoenix on the same Mexican bus line, when they passed through a military checkpoint near Hermosillo.

The soldiers ordered everyone off the bus and took them to a room where their luggage was X-rayed, Brandon Klippel, Gary’s brother-in-law, said in an e-mail.

Yanira and Gary were the only Americans on the bus, Klippel said.

At first, the soldiers told Gary they had found the marijuana under his seat and arrested him, Klippel said. But then, police went to his cell and told him they thought the drugs had been found under his wife’s seat and under an open seat on the bus and arrested her, he said.

Klippel said in the e-mail that Gary’s Mexican court-appointed defense attorney suggested he try bribing Mexican authorities to have the case dismissed, telling him, “You know how it works in Mexico, right?”

Through the lawyer, Gary offered to pay Mexican authorities $3,500 and then upped the offer to $5,000 after being told the initial offer wasn’t enough, Larry said. In the end, neither bribe was accepted, he said.

Officials at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C., declined to be interviewed about the case.

They issued a statement that said Mexico’s government is in close communication with the U.S. government “to guarantee Mrs. Maldonado’s right to consular assistance.”

“Mrs. Maldonado’s rights to a defense counsel and due process are being observed,” the statement said.

A spokesman at the U.S. State Department said during a briefing Tuesday in Washington that officials from the U.S. Consulate in Nogales had met with the Maldonados on Friday to make sure their rights were being protected.

Erik Lee, associate director at Arizona State University’s North American Center for Transborder Studies, said American citizens have long complained about Mexican police asking for bribes to settle traffic violations.

But he found it unlikely that federal authorities in Mexico would try to plant drugs on American citizens for bribes because of the risk of causing an international furor that could hurt tourism, the country’s major source of income.

“That is pretty high stakes,” Lee said. “That goes against their economic interests.”

What’s more, Mexico’s government in recent years has been trying to clamp down on police corruption and bribes at the state and local levels, he said.

Republic reporter Dan Nowicki contributed to this article

Innocent man freed from prison gets master’s degree

That is 100 percent bullsh*t!!!! The police routinely frame innocent people and send them to prison.

As of last month more then 300 people have been released from death row when DNA testing proved they were framed by the police for crimes they didn't do.

I suspect the 300 number is just the tip of the iceberg and that there probably tens of thousands of innocent people who are in prison who were framed by corrupt cops.

Source

Innocent man freed from prison gets master’s degree

By Jonathan Bandler (Westchester County, N.Y.) Journal News Wed May 29, 2013 7:02 AM

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. - When he last donned a cap and gown, Jeffrey Deskovic was a 20-year-old convict getting an associate degree at an upstate prison.

That was in 1994. It took 12 more years for him to prove he had been wrongfully convicted of the rape and murder of a Peekskill schoolmate and get out of prison.

On Tuesday, he marched near the front of the procession at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice graduation ceremony as he received his master’s degree.

It was an important milestone for the 39-year-old exoneree, who sat in the front row during the ceremony at the Javits Center in Manhattan and was recognized in the school president’s remarks.

“I got a bit emotional there because it was surreal thinking about how far I’ve come,” he said. “I had a real sense of accomplishment and it touched me to walk across that stage and hear the cheers.”

He was 17 when convicted in the 1989 slaying of 15-year-old Angela Correa, even though the jury knew his DNA didn’t match the evidence. He had been arrested after giving a false confession to police after hours of interrogation. [The police probably used a technique called the "9 Step Reid Method" to get the confession. The "9 Step Reid Method" replaced the old technique of beating people with physical rubber hoses to get confessions by using psychological rubbers hoses to mentally beat confessions out of them]

He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison and spent years trying to get the DNA evidence retested.

After the Innocence Project got involved, the evidence was retested and the real killer, Steven Cunningham, was identified. Deskovic was released in September 2006, nearly 16 years into his prison term.

He has so far received $8.3 million from New York state and Westchester County, and his federal lawsuit against Peekskill and Putnam County is still pending. He used $1.5 million of his compensation money last year to start The Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation for Justice, which fights wrongful convictions and assists those exonerated.

At the graduation, honorary degrees went to Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, co-founders of the Innocence Project, which has helped win exoneration for 307 people through DNA testing.

Scheck said Deskovic’s case was emblematic of the work of freeing the innocent.

“We were able to learn a lot of lessons about what went wrong with the criminal-justice system and how to fix it,” Scheck told the crowd, adding that Deskovic is “carrying on that mission.”

The work for Deskovic seems never-ending. From the foundation’s Rye Brook, N.Y., office, he oversees a staff of four, plus interns.

They have received more than 800 requests and have taken on 12 cases, 10 murder convictions, an assault and an arson. Each accepted case has to have two things -- a plausible claim of innocence, “not just a hunch,” Deskovic says -- and a concrete direction to go in. They are paying close attention to cases from Brooklyn as the District Attorney’s Office reviews 50 convictions linked to a homicide detective whose handling of witnesses has come under scrutiny.

Deskovic meets with potential donors, speaks at conferences and lends his voice at protests. He has stood outside courthouses in White Plains and New York City, handing out the foundation’s Thinking Juror’s Handbook. It offers his story, a primer on wrongful convictions and a heavy pitch for unswayed jurors to hold their ground.

He even found time to learn Spanish and guest-host a WVOX radio show.

But there are constant frustrations. He still struggles socially. And he wants to help everyone but knows he can’t.

There was an “awkward moment” Thursday while speaking with people at The Castle, the Fortune Society’s halfway house for ex-cons in Harlem, as some in the audience tried to get his help on convictions they claimed were bogus.

“People think I have this super-large staff and we can take on anything,” he said. “I know what it’s like to be on the other side of that and it bothers me.”

Although waiting for a big success to spur fundraising, the foundation did play a role this year in the release of William Lopez, who served more than 22 years for the 1989 murder of a Brooklyn drug dealer. The foundation helped track down a witness in the Dominican Republic. He testified by video earlier this year, insisting that Lopez was not the killer.

Once freed, Lopez got help from the foundation with temporary housing and finding a therapist. And when Lopez moved into a new apartment last week, Deskovic took to Facebook with an appeal for some of the furniture, appliances and other items Lopez needed to fill it.

“He’s been awesome, everything he’s done to help me acclimate,” Lopez said Tuesday afternoon. “You hear people who say ‘When I get out I’m going to do this and this to help people,’ but not many of them do. Jeffrey keeps doing it. He means business.”

Deskovic’s thesis on wrongful convictions offered a dozen causes for innocent people ending up in prison and remedies for each. One of his thesis advisers at John Jay, Andrew Karmen, called Deskovic an “inspiration.”

“He’s resilient, someone who went through an unfathomable, unbelievable experience losing all those years of his life who can now speak with authority on these issues,” said Karmen, who serves on the foundation’s board. “He sees injustice and he wants to prevent it from happening to other people.”

Deskovic doesn’t rule out more education, maybe even law school. But it won’t be immediate. He has too much on his plate.

“I enjoy school, I wish I was going back in the fall,” he said. “But until the foundation takes off, how can I?”

Judge: Joe Arpaio heeded his supporters, not the law

Source

Judge: Joe Arpaio heeded his supporters, not the law

With just hours left in the drive to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, campaign organizers are scrambling to grab the manna as it floats down from heaven.

Or in this case, from a federal judge.

U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow ruled late on Friday afternoon that Arpaio and his deputies have been and are unconstitutionally targeting Latinos in the sheriff’s six-year-old campaign to rid the county of people here illegally.

The 142-page ruling is detailed and devastating as it outlines a rogue agency that stopped cars specifically because they had brown people in them and continued arresting Latinos for suspected immigration violations even after it lost the authority to do so.

This, because of a sheriff who opted to do the popular thing rather than the constitutional one.

And perhaps worst of all for Arpaio, the ruling was written by a conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush.

Naturally, the sheriff plans to appeal, contending through his lawyer that no racial profiling occurred.

I suspect the Go-Joe crowd – what’s left of them — will rally ‘round.

“There are so many people who don’t care that he violates the Constitution,” retired lawyer-turned-Episcopal priest Glenn Jenks told me. “All they know is he gets the bad guys and that’s what they want.”

Rev. Jenks was the rector at Good Shepherd of the Hills Episcopal Church in Cave Creek when the church’s day-labor operation became Arpaio’s first target in September 2007.

“He just showed up one morning with deputies parked outside the church and we were getting word deputies were stopping any person that went out with a brown person in the car, dismissing the driver immediately and investigating … the worker,” Jenks said.

It was there that Arpaio’s deputies managed to bag a Mexican man and hold him for eight hours for a suspected immigration violation. This, despite the visa in the man’s wallet.

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres sued on behalf of himself and other Latinos targeted. Sadly, it’s taken more than five years and two election cycles to sort out what happened here.

In his ruling, Judge Snow noted that MCSO would station undercover detectives at Good Shepherd and other day-labor centers then radio patrol officers to stop any driver who left with Latinos in the car on the pretext of a traffic violation. The driver then would get a warning or at most a citation while the passengers’ immigration status was investigated based solely on the fact that they were Latino – a constitutional no-no.

Ditto for the sheriff’s saturation patrols that were ostensibly intended to pick up anyone in a designated area for any violation yet remarkably seemed to focus on Latino drivers.

“The great weight of the evidence is that all types of saturation patrols at issue in this case incorporated race as a consideration into their operations, both in design and execution, the vehicles the deputies decided to stop, and in the decisions made as to whom to investigate for immigration violations,” Snow wrote.

He wrote a lot of other things as well. About an agency that engages in a “institutionalized consideration of race in MCSO operations.” About “its failure to observe normal standards of police conduct.”

About a sheriff who is “aggressively responsive to the wishes of a significant portion of the Maricopa County electorate” but not so much to the constitution that he has sworn to uphold — the one that protects all people.

Arpaio’s critics hailed the judge’s ruling.

“In the long run, the office of sheriff is being de-legitimized,” attorney Josh Nunez told me.

“If he really had the people’s best interests at heart, he would resign and acknowledge that people no longer trust his department and he is not the person to clean it up,” said Lilia Alvarez, manager of the Arpaio-recall campaign.

Knowing that’ll never happen, she and other recall organizers have set up Camp Recall Arpaio at 2nd Avenue and Jefferson, hoping for a last-minute surge in support. The four-month campaign has been hampered by a lack of funding, largely because organizers didn’t wait to give voters a chance to want to reconsider their November vote.

Now the group has until 5 p.m. Thursday to turn in the valid signatures of 335,317 voters. Alvarez on Tuesday estimated the group has about 300,000 signatures and needs another 70,000 to ensure an adequate cushion.

Double that cushion and maybe there’s a chance.

OK, with less than 48 hours to go, there’s no chance.

And that, given Judge Snow’s ruling, is a shame.

If a cop doesn't think he will get a fair trial what chance does a civilian have???

Vindication for an LAPD officer who was fired from the force

By Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times

May 27, 2013, 9:14 p.m.

Just 11 months into his job as a Los Angeles police officer, Sergio Arreola had a choice to make: resign or be fired.

The day before, April 11, 2012, he had been handcuffed and booked by Pomona police for allegedly assaulting them during a traffic accident investigation and resisting arrest. Arreola's captain had issued the ultimatum after getting word of the incident from Pomona officials.

The 25-year-old Marine veteran, who had dreamed about becoming an LAPD cop, felt his world crumbling around him.

For a moment, the young officer considered resigning. Doing so, the captain told him, would spare him the black mark of being fired and give him a chance at finding another job. But Arreola dismissed the idea just as quickly. Resigning would signal that he had done something wrong.

He told the captain that he hadn't done any of the things the Pomona officers alleged. Arreola asked the captain to investigate the situation before signing the paper that would boot him from the force. He offered the captain the phone number for a tow truck driver who had witnessed the incident and told him that at least one other witness, his brother-in-law, had recorded a video of it.

"With all due respect, I have done a lot for this country and I've worked really hard to get here — to get to this position as a police officer," Arreola said. "I'm not going to resign. If you want to terminate me, go ahead."

The captain was unmoved. The Pomona officers' description of the incident made it clear that Arreola was not LAPD material.

Arreola turned in his equipment and left the station for what he assumed would be the last time. Once out of earshot in the parking garage, he dialed his wife.

"He fired me," Arreola told her, tears streaming down his face.

Arreola had been on the way to his in-law's house in Pomona after having finished an overnight shift when his wife called. A relative had gotten into a minor traffic accident nearby, she told him. She gave Arreola the location and asked him to meet her there.

Pomona police Officer Eric Hamilton, who first responded to the call of a single car accident in a quiet neighborhood, said in his arrest report that Arreola immediately was aggressive and belligerent when he arrived, refusing to obey Hamilton's commands.

When Arreola identified himself as an off-duty LAPD officer, Hamilton demanded to see his badge. Arreola went to his trunk to pull out the rain jacket where he had pinned his badge and lifted it up for the officer to see. Hamilton had an audio recording device running. [Why do cops always tell the cop that stopped them they are cops??? Is it to get special treatment??? I wonder if it would do any good to show the cop that pulled me over to show him my employment badge that shows I work at Wennie World, the finest hot dog stand in the world!!!]

On the recording, a copy of which The Times has obtained, Hamilton is heard telling other officers after the arrest that he was so suspicious of Arreola that he "broke leather" — cop lingo for unclasping the safety lock on his gun holster — as he saw Arreola move toward the trunk and kept a grip on his gun in case he needed to draw it quickly.

Worried that he was losing control of the situation, Hamilton put out a call over the radio, asking for assistance to deal with a combative LAPD officer. Officer Chris Tucker heard the call and rushed to the scene. Both officers described Arreola's demeanor as "extremely angry," and, within minutes of arriving, Tucker attempted to handcuff Arreola. He tackled him to the ground when Arreola "began to twist and tense up, pulling his arms from our grasp," Tucker said in his report. Hamilton quickly came over to assist. The officers alleged that Arreola tried to punch Hamilton in the face as they restrained him.

But, according to Arreola, it was Hamilton who was hostile from the outset. As he approached the intersection, Arreola recalled seeing Hamilton yelling at this wife. Confused, Arreola said he got out of his car and, from about 30 feet away, called out to his wife, "What's going on, Erika? Let's go."

Hamilton responded angrily, swearing at Arreola and telling his wife to "shut up" while pulling her back by the elbow, Arreola recounted in his official account of the incident to LAPD officials. Arreola acknowledged that he told Hamilton a few times that he shouldn't be talking to his wife "like a criminal" over something as minor as a one-car traffic accident. Hamilton, he said, responded with more profanities and threatened to arrest Arreola. At that point, Arreola said, he asked Hamilton to call for his supervisor.

Arreola denied ever resisting the officers. Tucker, he said, intentionally pulled him off balance while he was being frisked and, when Arreola stumbled, the officer used it as an excuse to take him to the ground.

On Hamilton's recording, the officer is heard telling Arreola repeatedly to "stop resisting" and Arreola saying that he is not resisting. Arreola is also heard pleading with onlookers to record the scene. Once on the ground, Arreola said, the officers punched him repeatedly. Hamilton, he said, bent his left arm back violently and Tucker attempted to subdue him by using a choke hold.

Through the head of the union that represents Pomona police, both Hamilton and Tucker declined to be interviewed for this article. The union official cited an ongoing internal investigation by the Pomona department into the officers' conduct, which he said bars them from speaking publicly.

Based on the officers' account of Arreola's behavior, prosecutors in the L.A. County district attorney's office charged Arreola with three misdemeanors for resisting arrest, assaulting Hamilton and obstructing the officers' work. Although they eventually dropped the assault charge, Robert Rico, Arreola's attorney in the criminal trial, said prosecutors refused to discuss any sort of deal on the other two accusations. Their only concession, Rico said, was to spare Arreola time in jail if he pleaded guilty to the charges.

The hard line that prosecutors took was moot, since Arreola wouldn't consider a deal. "They've ruined my life, they've ruined my name," he recalled saying when Rico gave him the option to plead guilty. "What's the worst they can do? Send me to jail?"

In the months leading up to his trial, Arreola struggled to keep himself and his wife afloat. He ran his credit card to its limit and refinanced his house and car loans. He borrowed money from his wife's father to keep them going while he studied at a local college hoping for a degree that would help him land a new job. Peter Casey, an LAPD lieutenant who had supervised him, wrote a check to help cover his legal fees.

Arreola's chances at trial appeared bleak. The tow truck driver did not testify, telling Rico he had been harassed by a Pomona detective, the attorney said. [So cops do threaten people with physical harm to prevent them from testifying, just like the Mafia does???] And Pomona police claimed they found no video of the arrest on the brother-in-law's phone, despite his insistence that he recorded it, according to Rico. [I'm sure the Pomona cops will deny erasing the video, like the Bakersfield and Kern County Sheriff's office denied erasing the video of a man beaten to death by Kern County Sheriff's officers in Bakersfield] But several of Arreola's supervisors and old partners testified on his behalf, describing him as soft spoken and respectful. Arreola himself took the unusual step of testifying. And, at one point, the judge told the jury to disregard the testimony of a Pomona sergeant because it was factually wrong.

Rico said he used the audio recording to show that Arreola had followed the officer's orders and not been combative. On the recording, jurors heard Arreola telling Hamilton, "You know I didn't do anything," and Hamilton retorting by calling Arreola "a fool."

Later in the recording, as Hamilton tells Arreola's wife that he's arresting her as well, Hamilton said, "I'm going to make sure your husband is never a police officer in the state of California again. I'll talk to Chief Beck myself personally," referring to the LAPD chief.

And jurors listened as Hamilton and Tucker recounted the arrest for other officers. "I just about broke his left arm. I wanted to break his arm," Hamilton said.

"I had my arm around him to choke his ass out," Tucker said.

The jury found Arreola not guilty.

The acquittal was important, but it wasn't everything.

Earlier this month, Arreola once again was summoned into the captain's office where he had been told his career with the LAPD was over. This time, the captain, who declined to be interviewed, wanted to welcome Arreola back to the force — a result of months of negotiations between department officials and Matthew McNicholas, an attorney representing Arreola in a lawsuit against Hamilton, Tucker and the Pomona Police Department.

"It feels good," Arreola said of returning to the job. "I want to show the LAPD that the people who supported me and believed in me were right all along."

joel.rubin@latimes.com

Hicks: Amanda Bynes pot charges going up in smoke

Source

Hicks: Amanda Bynes pot charges going up in smoke

By Tony Hicks

Contra Costa Times

Posted: 05/29/2013 09:53:10 AM PDT

New York Police were apparently not able to, technically, find marijuana on Amanda Bynes last week.

Isn't that kind of like falling into the ocean and not being able to, technically, find water?

According to TMZ, the drug possession case against Amanda Bynes is falling apart, as police realize they have no hard evidence that Bynes was in possession of pot.

And we all scoffed when she threw her bong out the window.

Turns out, Amanda Bynes may be some sort of criminal genius who understands the methodology of law enforcement case-building against a suspected drug perpetrator better than any of us.

Or she just got lucky.

A police official told the website the police report mentions nothing about any marijuana recovered at the scene. According to the report, officers saw Bynes throw what they believe was "drug paraphernalia" out the window. The report also says cops smelled "a strong odor of marijuana."

I guess it was to difficult to look out the window and see where that bong landed.

CURSE YOU and your clever ways, Amanda Bynes. We will MEET AGAIN!

Funny enough, a TMZ producer found broken glass on a sub-roof under Bynes' window, and called police to see if they already inspected it. Cops arrived a short time later and scouted out the scene.

Uh ... guys, I know you're TMZ and all, but you aren't supposed to be doing the cops' work for them.

Besides, the problem is -- as pointed out by the law enforcement experts at TMZ (no, really, they're pretty good) -- it can't be determined whether anyone tampered with the glass, since so much time went by (during which, it also rained). So it's likely the bong couldn't be used as evidence in court.

CURSE YOU, Amanda Bynes, super-criminal!

Contact Tony Hicks at Facebook.com/BayAreaNewsGroup.TonyHicks or Twitter.com/insertfoot.

Colo. marijuana regulations signed into law

Source

Colo. marijuana regulations signed into law

Associated Press Wed May 29, 2013 9:38 AM

DENVER — A set of laws to govern how recreational marijuana should be grown, sold and taxed was signed into law Tuesday in Colorado, where Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper called the measures the state's best attempt to navigate the uncharted territory of legalized recreational pot.

The laws cover how the drug should be raised and packaged, with purchasing limits for out-of-state visitors and a new marijuana driving limit as an analogy to blood alcohol levels. Hickenlooper didn't support marijuana legalization last year, but he praised the regulatory package as a good first crack at safely overseeing the drug. [Yea, now with dollar signs in his eyes Governor John Hickenlooper wants to shake down pot smokers for as much cash as he can!!!]

"Recreational marijuana is really a completely new entity," Hickenlooper said, calling the pot rules "commonsense" oversight, such as required potency labeling and a requirement that marijuana is to be sold in child-proof opaque packing with labels clearly stating the drug may not be safe.

Colorado voters approved recreational marijuana as a constitutional amendment last year. The state allows adults over 21 to possess up to an ounce of the drug. Adults can grow up to six plants, or buy pot in retail stores, which are slated to open in January.

The governor said Tuesday he believes the federal government will soon respond to the fact that Colorado and Washington state are in violation of federal drug law. But Hickenlooper didn't have a specific idea of when.

"We think that it will be relatively soon. We are optimistic that they are going to be a little more specific in their approach on this issue," Hickenlooper said. Pressed for details, the governor jokingly referred to unrelated scandals surrounding the U.S. Department of Justice.

"They've been kind of busy," Hickenlooper said.

Colorado's new marijuana laws include buying limits for out-of-state visitors. Visitors over 21 would be limited to one-fourth of an ounce in a single retail transaction, though they could legally possess the full ounce. [Sounds like a replay of the same draconian laws that used to apply to marijuana the illegal drug]

Colorado laws attempt to curb public use of marijuana by banning its sale in places that sell food and drink that aren't infused with the drug, an attempt to prevent Amsterdam-style pot cafes. Food laced with the drug also would have to be to-go orders.

Colorado's laws also include a first-in-the-nation requirement that marijuana magazines such as High Times be kept behind the counter in stores that allow people under 21. That provision has prompted promises by attorneys representing at least two publications to challenge the restriction, which would treat pot magazines similar to pornography. [Sounds like the First Amendment is a victim of legalized marijuana in Colorado]

Besides the magazine restriction, Colorado's laws differ in several more ways from proposed marijuana regulations pending in Washington state. Colorado makes no attempt to ban concentrated marijuana, or hashish, unlike Washington. Colorado also has different possession limits on edible marijuana. Colorado also is planning a brief grandfather period during which only current medical marijuana business owners could sell recreational pot.

Both states are poised to require all pot-related businesses to have security systems, 24-hour video surveillance and insurance. [Looks like the politicians are using marijuana legalization to justify a bigger and better police state] One of the Colorado laws signed Tuesday gives state pot businesses a chance to claim business deductions on their taxes, something currently prohibited because the industry is illegal under federal law.

Colorado's laws also propose a series of new taxes on the drug. If voters agree this fall, recreational pot would face a 15 percent excise tax, with the proceeds marked for school construction. There would also be a new recreational pot sales tax of 10 percent, in addition to regular statewide and local sales taxes. [Wow the crooks in Colorado want to shake down pot smokers for a 25 percent tax. Well, at least that is better then Arizona Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema's outrageous proposal of a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana. She is pretty well hated by the marijuana community in Arizona for that, although her police supporters love her for the tax] The special sales tax would be spent on marijuana regulation and new educational efforts to keep the drug away from children.

"Public safety and the safety of our children were at the forefront of our minds," said Sen. Randy Baumgardner, R-Hot Sulphur Springs, the sponsor of some of the pot bills. [If he said cold hard case was at the forefront of our minds I would agree with him. But saying it's for "the safety of our children" is a big lie!!!]

Lawmakers and a few dozen marijuana legalization activists on hand to see the pot bills signed into law agreed that marijuana laws will see many changes in coming years if the federal government doesn't intervene.

"We are going to be talking about marijuana in the state of Colorado for some time," predicted Rep. Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, a sponsor of the stoned-driving law.

Mason Tvert, spokesman for the national legalization advocacy group the Marijuana Policy Project, predicted a lot of states will watch to see how recreational pot regulation works in Colorado and Washington.

"We can regulate the sale of alcohol in a responsible manner, and there's no reason we can't regulate the sale of something objectively less harmful — marijuana," Tvert said.

Microsoft Marijuana????

Former Microsoft manager has big ideas about marketing retail pot

By Bob Young

Seattle Times staff reporter

Former Microsoft manager Jamen Shively wants to create the first national brand of retail marijuana and to open pot trade with Mexico.

Shively plans to announce that and more in a Thursday news conference he says will feature Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico.

“Let’s go big or go home,” Shively said. “We’re going to mint more millionaires than Microsoft with this business.”

He’s acquiring medical-marijuana dispensaries in Washington and Colorado, he said, and plans to become the leader in both the medical and adult-recreational pot markets. He sees the marijuana market as the only one of its size in which there does not exist a single established brand.

He and Fox plan to announce a proposal for regulating the trade of marijuana between the two countries, he said.

Some details of the trade agreement remain to be worked out, such as how to get around international rules forbidding legal pot, Shively admitted.

“I don’t know how exactly that would be done, but I know it’s been done in other industries,” he said.

Alison Holcomb, primary author of the state’s legal-marijuana law, said Shively faces a huge obstacle in the federal government’s prohibition of marijuana.

“Having a national chain of marijuana-based companies is not only explicitly counter to the existing prohibition, but also counter to the government’s expressed concern about business growing too large,” said Holcomb, drug-policy director for the ACLU of Washington.

But Shively, 45, likened the federal prohibition to the Berlin Wall and said it’s crumbling, with fewer defenders every day.

He also said he’s created a way to shield investors from federal regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

And, he contends a venture this size is too big to operate recklessly and take risks — such as diverting legal pot to black markets — that the federal government is most concerned about.

“What we’re all about is making it extremely professional and having the highest quality and efficiencies,” he said.

What if the feds were to come after him?

Shively paraphrased Obi-Wan Kenobi. “He said ‘Darth, if you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.’”

If she were Shively’s attorney, Holcomb said, she’d advise him to read the so-called Cole memorandum from the U.S. Department of Justice. It “explicitly mentioned a concern with operations involving thousands of plants and millions of dollars” and is evidence of the federal concern with big pot businesses.

Shively, though, seems undeterred. He has become almost evangelical about pot and its benefits, particularly for medical patients, such as his father who has prostate cancer.

“I’ve just fallen in love with the plant,” he said. “Especially in the medical realm I’ve gone from entrepreneur to advocate to activist, seriously.”

Shively worked at Microsoft six years, he said, and had the title of corporate strategy manager. He said he’s been smoking pot for a year and a half.

Bob Young: 206-464-2174 or byoung@seattletimes.com

Uncle Thompson supports the police state in NYC???

I made fun of New York mayor candidate William C. Thompson Jr. by calling him an "Uncle Tom", but he isn't any different then the other politicians that sell out the people they pretend to serve for the special interest groups that help get them elected.

It doesn't matter if we are White, Black or Latino, the politicians still sell us out for the special interest groups that help them get into power. And one of the biggest of those special interest groups are the men in Blue, the cops, along with their union brothers the firemen.

Source

Thompson Sees No Need to Bar a Police Tactic

By MICHAEL BARBARO

Published: May 29, 2013

The aggressive era of stop-and-frisk policing in New York City is, in every sense of the word, on trial: the subject of a high-stakes federal court case, scorching denunciations from civil rights leaders and emotional calls for its dismantlement by liberal lawmakers.

But in a stand that is surprising black leaders and worrying some allies, William C. Thompson Jr., the sole African-American candidate for mayor, is steadfastly unwilling to join the tear-it-down chorus.

Instead, Mr. Thompson is embracing elements of the polarizing crime-fighting strategy and winning praise from an unlikely duo deeply associated with it: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

On Wednesday, Mr. Thompson’s restrained approach paid by far its biggest political dividend when a coalition of unions representing about 100,000 city law enforcement officials voted to endorse his Democratic campaign, making clear that what appealed to its members was his comparatively conservative posture on criminal justice, according to people told of the decision.

But in a city whose racial politics are never far from view, Mr. Thompson’s moderate stance on an issue that has consumed the city’s black and Latino community is inflaming a number of high-profile African-American Democrats, even holding up the endorsement of a party stalwart, the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Mr. Sharpton, who likens opposition to stop-and-frisk tactics to a snowballing social movement, has let Mr. Thompson know that he is displeased with his views on policing and should not assume that black voters will automatically support his candidacy.

“I don’t think it’s wise to be distant from a social movement if you are going to run for mayor of this city, especially as a black candidate,” Mr. Sharpton said in an interview. “I have expressed this to Thompson.”

“This,” Mr. Sharpton added, “is not a marginal issue.”

Mr. Thompson’s message, more law-and-order than reactive liberal activist, is upending assumptions about a black candidate for mayor in a city where David N. Dinkins struggled with the perception that he could not control crime and urban decay in the early 1990s.

In an interview, Mr. Thompson spoke of an “overreaction to stop and frisk” that he said glossed over its usefulness as a police tool, even as he forcefully criticized its excesses over the past few years.

As rivals call for the abolition of stop-and-frisk tactics as a routine police procedure, and an independent inspector general to monitor the police, Mr. Thompson said the right way to curb abuses was by asserting his values on the Police Department when he becomes mayor, not through a patchwork of quick fixes that could hamstring him once in office.

His criminal justice platform, he said, “isn’t about running for mayor; it’s about governing.”

Still, Mr. Thompson is now bucking the left wing of his party on three fronts: by pledging to keep stop-and-frisk operations as a crime-fighting tool; proposing an inspector general who operates within the Police Department, rather than outside of it (“I don’t want to create additional bureaucracy,” he said); and opposing a City Council bill that would open state courts to legal claims of racial profiling by the Police Department. (He said it would divert precious city finances to endless legal bills.)

In each case, at least one of his rivals in the mayor’s race — and in some cases, several of them — has staked out territory to his left, forcing Mr. Thompson to defend his Democratic credentials on what are possibly the most emotional questions of the 2013 campaign.

During a candidate forum a few weeks ago, John C. Liu, a Democratic candidate, called on Mr. Thompson to join him in demanding the abolition of stop-and-frisk policing.

The exchange that followed produced the most memorable — and poignantly personal — exchange in the mayor’s race.

“I’m the one who has to worry about my son getting shot on the street,” Mr. Thompson thundered.

In the interview, Mr. Thompson said he was deeply affected watching crime overtake and oppress neighborhoods like Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, where he grew up, in the early 1990s.

But his personal experiences cut both ways, simultaneously fueling his fury over what he calls the “misuse and abuse” of the stop-and-frisk policy. Friends and acquaintances have been stopped by police “for no other reason than who you are,” he said.

And Mr. Thompson recalled his discomfort at having to prepare his stepson, then 13, for the likelihood that he could be stopped by the police, a conversation that Mr. Thompson said his own father never had to have with him. “Be calm,” Mr. Thompson counseled.

“Why am I having this conversation with a 13-year-old, who really is just a child?” he recalled thinking to himself.

Though it has won him new political partners, like the United Uniformed Workers of New York, the coalition of 20 law enforcement unions, Mr. Thompson’s measured police plan may have cost him old friends.

On Wednesday, District Council 37, the city’s largest municipal labor union, decided to endorse Mr. Liu, after backing Mr. Thompson in 2009. Mr. Liu’s outspoken opposition to the stop-and-frisk policy played a role, according to a union official involved in the discussions, who said rank-and-file members saw less courage in Mr. Thompson’s position.

The question, for Mr. Thompson, is whether black and Latino voters, who will prove crucial to his Democratic campaign, will share those reservations.

A Quinnipiac University poll, released last month, showed that while 59 percent of white voters approved of the stop-and-frisk tactic, 72 percent of black voters and 58 percent of Latino voters disapproved of it.

Those numbers, combined with the surging rates of police stops in recent years, have left several black leaders scratching their heads over Mr. Thompson’s policies.

Jumaane D. Williams, a city councilman from Brooklyn who has sponsored legislation against stop-and-frisk tactics, bluntly suggested that Mr. Thompson was taking the allegiance of black voters for granted.

“I think he believes that the color of his skin is what’s needed to get to communities of color, rather than standing on the correct substance of issues,” he said.

Mr. Thompson dismissed that claim as “ridiculous.” He added: “I would never take support of black voters for granted. Ever.”

As he outlines his position, Mr. Thompson at times echoes the oratory of Mr. Bloomberg, stop-and-frisk policing’s biggest champion, who has said: “I understand that innocent people don’t like to be stopped. But innocent people don’t like to be shot and killed, either.”

Unlike Mr. Bloomberg, however, he also gives voice to the anger and pain of those who find the tactic dehumanizing.

And, underscoring his desire to reassure those uneasy about a return to lawlessness in post-Bloomberg New York, he has pushed for the hiring of 2,000 additional police officers.

“It’s an extremely tricky balance,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from Brooklyn and Queens, who is black and has yet to make an endorsement in the mayor’s race. Mr. Jeffries has repeatedly spoken out against excessive use of stop-and-frisk policing.

“He has to convince one set of New Yorkers that he will continue dramatic declines in crime and keep our city one of the safest in the country,” Mr. Jeffries said, “and on the other hand, he has to convince an aggrieved community of color that the Police Department on his watch will behave in a dramatically different fashion.”

Inside Mr. Thompson’s political operation, there have at times been open disagreements over his policies on policing.

But Mr. Thompson has argued back that every neighborhood deserves the sense of security that has become the new normal in the city’s wealthier precincts. “I haven’t been shy,” he said, “about making sure that all communities in this city are entitled to safety.”

Some IED incidents I was involved in????

Sure nobody was hurt and no property was damaged but I suspect the police officers at the Homeland Security wouldn't want to let that get into their way of bragging that they are heroes who saved the country and the world from phoney baloney alleged terrorists like me.

As H. L. Mencken said:

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

His prank, if we can believe what the police said is putting some dry ice in a pop bottle and letting the bottle pop when the dry ice turned to gas and forced the top off of the pop bottle.

Back in the old days when 16 ounce pop bottles were made out of glass I had bought a 16 ounce bottle of Coke on my trip to the grocery store.

When I got home I unloaded my groceries and took them inside, but I forgot about the unopened 16 ounce bottle of soda pop and left it on the roof of my VW.

I heard a small explosion or pop while I was inside my house, but I didn't think anything of it.

It wasn't until later that I went outside and saw that the sun had heated up my pop bottle causing it to explode.

I thought I was lucky, because if I had been out side when the bottle of Coke had exploded I might have been injured by flying glass.

I cleaned up the glass and didn't think anything about it.

Of course I am lucky it happened 20 years ago and not now.

If it had happened now, I probably would be arrested for having an illegal explosive device which would probably get me 20 years in prison. Yea, don't tell the goons at Homeland Security that a 16 ounce bottle of Coke is not an IED because that might get in their way of making themselves look like heroes by arresting me for being a terrorist who is endangering the whole American way of life.

I probably would also be charged with a terrorist bombing attack and attempted murder of everybody who lived on my street.

Of course don't try to use and logic and reason and tell the goons at Homeland Security that this wasn't a bombing attack nor was it was an attempted mass murder. I just forgot to bring my Coke inside and it blew up in the hot Arizona sun.

Of course they could care less about the facts if it gets in the way of arresting me and pretending that they saved America from another terrorist attack and that they are heroes for arresting some smuck who left his Coke in the Arizona sun.

Here is another incident that happened years ago and involved IED or Improvised Explosive Devices as the cops and Homeland like to call them. I guess us normal people don't call them IEDs or improvised explosive devices like the cops do, but bottles of soda pop.

Again I suspect that if the goons at Homeland Security had been around when this had happened I would also h ave been arrested and put in prison for many years over this incident which involved a bottle of soda pop.

I was at work and me and a co-worker were walking to Circle K to get some junk food.

My friend had a two liter bottle of soda pop and for some reason he tossed it up into the air.

When the bottle hit the ground it burst open and took off like a rocket flying thru the air. It was pretty cool. I suspect all the carbon dioxide gas it the soda pop provided the energy.

And we were both lucky that the 2 liter bottle of pop didn't hit either of us. It could have caused some serious damage.

Again we didn't think anything of the incident, other then that the pop bottle looked pretty cool when it took off like a rocket.

We told our other co-workers about the incident when we got back from our junk food run to Circle K.

Of course if that had happened today we both probably would have been arrested and charged with possession of explosive devices, IEDs or improvised explosives devices as the goons at Homeland Security love to call them.

Of course that sounds so much more dangerous then calling the bottles of soda pop.

And of course the goons from Homeland Security would probably be laughed out of court if they tried to tell the judge they were arresting us for possession of a soda pop bottle. So that probably why they love to say IEDs instead of 2 liter bottles of soda pop.

Of course my friend, who thru the bottle of soda pop would have been arrested for attempted murder. Attempted murder of me.

And since I was there I probably would have also been arrested on a charge of being an accessory to attempted murder. Yea, the attempted murder of myself. How silly!!!!

But it's not silly to the cops who would be using this bogus incident in an attempt to make themselves look like heroes that saved the world from a phoney baloney terrorists like me and my friend.

Cops draw blood from teenager suspected of smoking pot

Ariz. high court rules on blood test of juvenile

Associated Press Thu May 30, 2013 11:21 AM

The Arizona Supreme Court says the constitutional protections on searches and seizures means that voluntary consent of a person accused of DUI is needed to justify a blood draw by police without a warrant.

The court's ruled Thursday in a case involving a blood draw performed by a Pima County sheriff's deputy on a 16-year-old high school student who allegedly drove to school while under the influence of marijuana.

The student agreed to have his blood drawn but the Supreme Court says the consent wasn't truly voluntary because he'd earlier been handcuffed and was told he had to submit to testing.

The Supreme Court said its ruling doesn't cover whether the juvenile lacked the legal capacity to consent or whether the blood draw violated his parents' rights.

Arizona mother freed from Mexican jail, heads home

Arizona mother freed from Mexican jail, heads home

By Daniel González The Republic | azcentral.com Fri May 31, 2013 7:50 AM

NOGALES, Ariz. — A mother from Goodyear whose detention in a Mexico jail on suspicion of drug smuggling made international headlines, inspired a “Free Yanira” hashtag on Twitter and won the attention of politicians on both sides of the border was freed by a judge late Thursday after spending nine days in jail.

A small sedan carrying Yanira Maldonado and her family members could be seen crossing through the Nogales port of entry at 12:20 a.m. Friday morning.

A short time earlier, when she was released from prison, a tearful Maldonado stood on the steps of the detention center and expressed her gratitude to her family, her attorney and even the director of the prison who made the facility comfortable in her final days there.

“I want to say, ‘Thank you,’ first to God because I’m free now,” Maldonado said, surrounded by family members. “I’m very grateful that I’m free, for my family, for my children.”

She also thanked the media for bringing the international focus to her case.

“Through you, my situation was extended to the whole world,” she said.

Maldonado said she believes drug smugglers were responsible for hiding the marijuana found under her bus seat and she just happened to be the unlucky passenger who sat there.

“I don’t think I was targeted. Maybe (I was) unlucky,” Maldonado said later during an emotional 2:30 a.m. press conference next to the pool of her hotel in Nogales, Arizona just hours after she was released from a Mexican jail. “Somebody smuggled them there, and I probably sat in the wrong seat.”

Yanira seemed remarkably composed considering the ordeal she had just been through. Smiling often, she sat holding hands with her husband, Gary Maldonado, during the entire 20-minute press conference. He kept his arm around her shoulder as she talked about what it was like to be held in a jail suspected of being a drug smuggler, and then after nine long days being told she was being released.

“I yelled. I’m free. I’m free. I’m free. I was innocent, so I was very happy to be out,” she said.

She said she felt “very sad” when she was first put in jail.

“I could not believe I was there because I was innocent,” she said.

A devote member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Maldonado said she relied on her faith to get her through what family members have called a “nightmare” for her and her husband, Gary. [Sadly religion is part of the problem here. The religious nut jobs are partly responsible for passing many of the draconian laws that make victimless crimes like drug use, gambling, prostitution, pornography and gay sex illegal. And of course many of these laws against victimless crimes have draconian sentences with them. In Arizona when a person is arrested for having child porn, they get a mandatory 10 years in prison for each picture they have and the sentences must be served consecutively, which means people in Arizona who are convicted of having child porn are frequently sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole]

Yanira said she passed the time in jail praying and reading scriptures with other inmates from a copy of the Book of Mormon she found at the jail. On Sunday, she said she also led several other inmates in a fast.

News of her pending release began to spread after a pivotal court hearing earlier in the day.

Family members said a surveillance video shown during a court hearing Thursday helped prove that Yanira Maldonado was not trying to smuggle bundles of marijuana as had been alleged by Mexican federal authorities last week.

News of Maldonado’s release late Thursday drew reaction from Arizona politicians who have taken an interest in her plight, including members of the state’s congressional delegation.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who has been assisting the family, confirmed on Twitter that she was being set free. He tweeted at 10:28 p.m.: “Great news. Just had it confirmed by Consul General. Yanira Maldonado has been released.” [What a joke!!! U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake who is part of the ruling class that caused the problem by passing America's insane and unconstitutional drug war laws seems to take to take credit for the release of Yanira Maldonado]

Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Mesa, also released a statement saying he was thrilled that Maldonado’s release, which her family began to anticipate Thursday afternoon, was finally a reality. [What a joke!!! Rep. Matt Salmon who is part of the ruling class that caused the problem by passing America's insane and unconstitutional drug war laws seems to take to take credit for the release of Yanira Maldonado]

“I received encouraging reports from her husband Gary earlier today that her release looked promising and was constantly assured in my conversations with U.S. and Mexican officials that this situation would be resolved fairly and quickly,” Salmon wrote. “I am heartened that this was the case and Mrs. Maldonado is now coming home where she belongs.” [So what jerk!!! You are also responsible for passing the unconstitutional drug laws which are the cause of the problem!!!]

Family spokesman Brandon Klippel told the media about 10 p.m. that Maldonado was being freed from the jail in Nogales, Sonora, where she had been held since May 22. Media saw her leave the jail just after 11 p.m. into the waiting arms of her husband and other family members.

Klippel, brother-in-law of Yanira Maldonado’s husband, Gary, said she would immediately cross the border into the United States.

Her husband, Gary, said at a news conference earlier Thursday that the family was optimistic Maldonado, 42, would be released after surveillance video showed her boarding a bus in Mexico on her way back to Arizona carrying two blankets, two water bottles and her purse, but no drugs. She had been arrested after soldiers found drugs under her seat on the bus.

“She was in a good mood because she feels she is going to get out,” he said.

His father, Larry Maldonado, said he was among a room full of people allowed to watch the 20-minute surveillance video before it was turned over to the judge, who later decided to dismiss the drug-smuggling case. Her attorney subpoenaed the bus company to obtain the tape.

Had she been found guilty, she could have faced 10 years in prison in Mexico, Larry said.

Yanira’s arrest drew international attention after family members began publicizing the case on social media. They insisted she was not guilty and said she was the victim of a nightmarish mistake that turned the lives of her and her husband upside down.

Flake and Salmon have been in contact with family members as well as with U.S. State Department officials and officials from the Mexican Embassy.

Yanira said she was told around 9:30 p.m. Thursday that she was being set free, but Mexican authorities never explained why she was arrested and detained nor did they offer an apology. In fact, she said won’t know for three months whether federal prosecutors will try to appeal a judge’s decision to release her and not pursue drug trafficking charges.

On Thursday, Mexican officials told The Arizona Republic that Yanira was detained because Mexican soldiers found 12.3 pounds of marijuana hidden under her seat and an empty seat near her while she was traveling on a commercial passenger bus with her husband.

The couple were sitting together, with Gary in the aisle seat and Yanira in the window seat, said Larry, who added that there were empty seats around them.

“As a matter of fact, she was sitting over the drugs. So, because of that, she was arrested as a suspect of drug trafficking,” said Denise Coronado, a spokeswoman for the regional office of Mexico’s Secretariat of National Defense in Sonora. Coronado said the bus driver was also arrested, which is standard protocol.

Mexican soldiers found the drugs after the bus was stopped at 8 a.m. May 22 for a routine inspection near Querobabi in the state of Sonora, Coronado said. Querobabi is about 60 miles north of Hermosillo on the highway between Hermosillo and Nogales.

The case was then turned over to federal prosecutors, who are responsible for investigating whether the drugs belonged to Yanira, Coronado said.

Coronado said soldiers have found marijuana hidden on commercial passenger buses in the past, but “it is not common.”

Patricia Monroy, a spokeswoman for the Mexican Attorney General’s Office in Sonora, and Lydia Antonio de la Garza, a spokeswoman for the Mexican Embassy, declined to answer questions about the case.

Yanira and Gary, 41, were returning to the Valley after attending a funeral for Yanira’s aunt near Los Mochis in Sinaloa, the Mexican state south of Sonora, when the bus passed through the military checkpoint, Larry said.

Family members presented testimony and evidence to try to prove Yanira was not guilty, he said. Five witnesses testified in court on her behalf on Tuesday, including her husband, Larry said. Two relatives who drove Yanira and Gary to the bus station and two bus passengers testified, Yanira’s father-in-law said.

On Wednesday, the soldiers who found the drugs were scheduled to testify, but they did not show up, Larry said.

Coronado said the soldiers were not given sufficient notice to leave their posts near Hermosillo and make the 11:30 a.m. hearing.

Despite the ordeal, Maldonado said she plans to return to Mexico, although not anytime soon. She said she was born there and still has many family members living in Mexico, including several uncles who are fishermen in Sinaloa, a coastal state known for fishing, agriculture and drug trafficking. Yanira is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and Gary is a U.S. citizen.

“I love Mexico,” Maldonado said. “Mexico is a beautiful country. Don’t take this wrong.” On her next trip to Mexico, Yanira said she will drive, not take the bus.

She said she experienced a great sense of relief when she crossed the border back into the United States.

“I felt, I’m home, finally,” she said.

Reporter J.J. Hensley contributed to this report.

The laws against drugs kill people????

Source

Man dies in Mesa after being arrested, stunned

By Matthew Longdon The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Thu May 30, 2013 8:20 PM

A 25-year-old man died Thursday night in Mesa after he was arrested, stunned with a Taser and medically cleared by paramedics, according to the U.S. Marshals Service.

The U.S. Marshals fugitive task force received a warrant for the former prisoner on Wednesday after he was accused of violating his probation by failing a drug test, according to David Gonzales, U.S. Marshal for Arizona.

Authorities are not publicly identifying the man until his family is notified of his death, Gonzales said.

Investigators located the man late Thursday afternoon near Broadway Road and Country Club Drive, and boxed him in with their vehicles, Gonzales said.

The man became combative after investigators reached him, forcing the Marshals deputies to deploy a Taser, Gonzales said.

The U.S. Marshals policy calls for paramedics to medically clear suspects who are stunned with a Taser, Gonzales said, and medical professionals evaluated the man and determined he was OK to go to jail.

After the man was in custody, investigators discovered evidence that may have linked him to an earlier home invasion in Mesa and called local detectives to the scene, Gonzales said.

The man became agitated as he waited in the back of a law-enforcement car, Gonzales said. Paramedics were called back to the scene and took the man to the hospital where he was pronounced dead shortly before 6 p.m., Gonzales said.

Mesa homicide detectives are investigating the man’s death, according to the Marshals service.

Previous articles on Medical Marijuana and the evil Drug War.

More articles on Medical Marijuana and the evil Drug War.