|
Police: 3 men arrested after Tempe drug-related shootout If drugs were re-legalized we would not have ANY of this crimes. These folks would be buying their drugs at Circle K or Wal-Mart at a price that is one hundredth of what they now pay for illegal drugs on the black market. We would not be having gun battles in apartment complexes over a few ounces of some illegal drug. Most of you folks just want to re-legalize marijuana. Us Libertarians want to re-legalize ALL drugs and end the insanity caused by the "War on Drugs" http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/11/15/tempe-drug-shootout-apartments-arrests-brk/19088925/ Police: 3 men arrested after Tempe drug-related shootout D.S. Woodfill, KPNX | azcentral.com 2:46 p.m. MST November 15, 2014 Police arrested three men following a shootout Friday at a Tempe apartment complex. Enrique Sauce, 20, Kendall Pride, 24, and Blake Runyon, 23, were booked on multiple felony counts, police said. The men met at Garden Grove Apartment Homes, near Kyrene Road and Grove Parkway for a drug deal when an argument erupted, police said. Things quickly escalated and the men started shooting at each other, police said. "The suspects were located at the scene and at area hospitals and treated for their serious injuries," said according to a statement from department employee Jaime Garibay. Pride was booked on suspicion of armed robbery, aggravated assault, misconduct involving weapons, assisting a criminal street gang, possession of marijuana for sale and for two counts endangerment, according to police. Runyon was booked on a count of possession of marijuana for sale and two counts of endangerment, and Sauce was booked on suspicion of aggravated assault, misconduct with weapons, possession of marijuana for sale and for two counts of endangerment, police said.
I am sure that George Washington would have let Iknoor Singh help him overthrow the British without demanding he cut his hair or remove his turban. http://news.yahoo.com/sikh-student-sues-army-over-religious-catch-22-130003305.html Sikh student sues Army over religious 'Catch-22' in ROTC enlistment Christian Science Monitor By Henry Gass A Sikh college student in New York has sued the US Army, saying he can join the Reserve Officer Training Corps only if he shaves and cuts his hair – a violation of his religious beliefs. Iknoor Singh, from the New York borough of Queens, is a sophomore at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. The group United Sikhs and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on his behalf Wednesday in Washington, D.C. In an article on the ACLU website, Mr. Singh said that he has always wanted to serve his country, and after learning that the Army had granted religious accommodations to several Sikhs, he decided to enlist in the ROTC program at Hofstra. According to Singh, ROTC recruiters said he would not be able to enlist unless he complied with all Army grooming and uniform rules, including immediately cutting his hair, shaving off his beard, and removing his turban. A new policy, announced in January, allows troops to seek waivers on a case-by-case basis for religious clothing, prayer time, or other religious practices. There are currently only a few Sikhs serving in the Army who have been granted waivers. Two of them, Capts. Tejdeep Singh Rattan and Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi, were the first Sikh soldiers in 23 years to be allowed to keep their hair and beards intact and wear a turban, according to an article on the Army website. The article said that Captains Rattan and Kalsi were assured by their recruiters that their articles of faith wouldn't pose a problem. It wasn't until they completed their studies four years later that they were told to remove their turbans and cut their hair and beards for active duty. The two men were allowed to retain their articles of faith after public appeals from several Sikh organizations and a letter to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, which was signed by six US senators and 43 members of the House. As for Singh, he is caught in a "Catch-22," according to ACLU attorney Heather Weaver: He can apply for a waiver, but only after he enlists, and he can enlist only if he complies with military rules and cuts his hair. "I couldn't believe the military was asking me to make the impossible decision of choosing between the country I love and my faith," Singh said in his post on the ACLU website. Singh's lawsuit is the latest challenge to religious freedom policies in the US military. The Air Force had to rush to update its swearing-in oath for new recruits and those reenlisting after an atheist objected to the end of the oath, which read: "So help me God." Sikhs have contended with other recent challenges to their religious freedom. A Sikh accountant who worked at the Internal Revenue Service won a settlement against the federal government earlier this month after being barred from entering the federal building where she worked with her kirpan, a small ceremonial knife and one of the five articles of faith maintained by Sikhs. In his post, Singh also referenced the aftermath of 9/11, when many Sikhs were caught up in a wave of anti-Muslim sentiment around the country, and cited the mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin two years ago. "Barring us from serving in the military because of our religious practices helps reinforce these hurtful stereotypes," Singh said in his statement. The Army did not respond to a request for comment before press time on Friday. When Rattan and Kalsi were allowed to keep their articles of faith intact, Maj. Gen. Gina Farrisee, then acting deputy chief of staff for Army personnel, justified the decision in a letter, writing that the articles of faith would not affect "unit readiness, individual readiness, unit cohesion, morale, discipline, safety and/or health." That justification could be key to Singh's case, according to Mikey Weinstein, a former US Air Force officer and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation in Albuquerque, N.M. In this case, Mr. Weinstein says, the burden is on the Army to prove that, by not complying, Singh would negatively impact military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, morale, and discipline. "That seems to me to be very problematic for the Army to be able to prove that," says Weinstein. That said, he notes that the constitutional rights of service members are legally curtailed in comparison with civilians' rights, because of the 1974 US Supreme Court decision in Parker v. Levy. In that decision, the court wrote that "the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of [First Amendment] protections." Thus in certain military units, or for certain missions, religious freedoms could be curtailed, Weinstein says. If a soldier is on explosive ordnance detail, or is on a mission that may require the use of a gas mask, for example, the soldier may be required to cut his hair, he says. "A lot of discretion is given to commanders here," Weinstein adds. "You have to look at time, place, and matter." Students at Hofstra have until the end of their sophomore year to enlist as a cadet in the ROTC program, meaning Singh is approaching the deadline. In the meantime, he has been auditing a military-science course because he says he doesn't want to fall too far behind in his military education and training.
Did you expect anything else???? All I can say is there is a very low probability of a person being treated fairly by the police. Well, unless you are White, or have high ranking connections in the police department or city of Los Angeles. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lapd-dorner-20141114-story.html LAPD survey in wake of Dorner rampage finds bias complaints By Joel Rubin, Jack Leonard contact the reporters A Los Angeles Police Department review of its discipline system prompted by the Christopher Dorner rampage found widespread concerns among officers and civilians that the agency discriminates based on gender, ethnicity and rank, according to a report reviewed by The Times. Focus group sessions held with more than 500 department employees found that many of those interviewed believed internal investigations were unfair and that punishments were subjective, the document said. Among the complaints were that the department overlooks misconduct by high-ranking officials, that discipline is influenced by public and media pressures and that nepotism infects the disciplinary process. The report, however, also contained data that raised doubts about some of those perceptions of bias. Statistics compiled by the LAPD show that the ethnic, gender and rank breakdown of officers sent to disciplinary panels for suspensions or termination roughly matches the demographics of the LAPD as a whole. White officers, for example, make up 36% of the department and 35% of officers sent to a Board of Rights disciplinary hearing for a lengthy suspension or termination. Black officers account for 12% of officers and 14% of those sent to such hearings. LAPD Chief Charlie Beck ordered the report more than 20 months ago after Dorner, an ex-LAPD officer, went on a shooting rampage across Southern California, killing police officers as well as the daughter of an LAPD captain and her boyfriend. In a rambling online document, Dorner claimed that he was seeking retribution after being unfairly fired and was the victim of racial discrimination within the department. The civilian Police Commission is expected to review the report at a meeting next week. LAPD officials said in the report that they were planning to make a significant change: returning to using specific guidelines to determine what punishment an officer deserves. The move is intended to help ensure similar punishments are handed out for similar types of misconduct. The president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file officers, declined to comment, saying he hadn't read the report. Though Dorner was roundly condemned for his deadly February 2013 rampage, his allegations about discipline in the LAPD tapped into a deep well of discontent among many LAPD officers who had grown increasingly unhappy with how punishments were meted out under Beck. Weeks after Dorner died during a siege at a mountain cabin, where he was holed up, officers continued to complain that discipline in the LAPD was uneven and unfair. In an attempt to quell the unrest, Beck said he would conduct a comprehensive review of how misconduct is investigated and how discipline is decided. Related: The manhunt for Christopher Dorner: A double killing, a vengeful plan, a wave of fear Related: The manhunt for Christopher Dorner: A double killing, a vengeful plan, a wave of fear Christopher Goffard, Joel Rubin and Kurt Streeter It was an issue that had dogged Beck in recent years. The chief had clashed repeatedly with members of the commission that oversees the department over what they saw as Beck's tendency to impose lenient punishments on officers guilty of serious misconduct. Beck gave no timeline for when the report would be finished, but members of the commission, officers and observers of the LAPD expected it to come far more quickly. Department officials have offered different explanations for the delay, saying that the retirement of a key aide who was overseeing the report led to lost time and, with the unwieldy nature of the survey, that it took time to sort through the officers' comments. As top department officials worked in secret to finish the report, questions about Beck's handling of discipline grew. Officers' anger reached a peak in March, when The Times reported on the case of police Officer Shaun Hillmann, who was the son and nephew of retired LAPD officers Beck knew. After Hillmann was recorded outside a bar uttering a racial slur and then lied about it to investigators, Beck overruled recommendations to fire the young officer and, instead, gave him a lengthy suspension. The decision led to an outcry of favoritism and reinforced beliefs among officers that discipline is not handled impartially. Court record Also, in recent months, three LAPD captains have filed lawsuits against Beck and the department, alleging that they suffered retaliation from senior police officials after they opted not to fire officers who had been sent before discipline hearing boards. While the three-member boards are expected to reach independent decisions on what punishment an officer deserves, Beck has been clear since taking over as chief that, in most cases, if he sends an officer before a hearing board it is because he believes the officer is guilty of serious misconduct and should be fired. In their lawsuits, the captains said they felt pressured to fire the officers as Beck wanted and were taken to task when they refused to do so. The Times reviewed documents containing hundreds of pages of unedited comments officers and civilian employees typed during the group discussion sessions that were used to conduct the survey. Officers repeatedly complained that the discipline system was unfair and expressed disdain for higher-ranking officials who they believe have grown out of touch with the challenges and realities of being a beat cop. When asked whether disparities in treatment were based on race, gender, rank or nepotism, officers overwhelmingly said they believed decisions about discipline revolved around an officer's rank and whether he or she was well liked by their superiors in the department. Command-level officers routinely received slaps on the wrist or no punishment, while lower-ranking officers were suspended for similar misconduct, officers wrote. "The punishment should be the same regardless of rank," one officer wrote in a typical comment. "It seems that people with more time on [the job] get more of a break." Many officers called on department leaders to return to using punishment guidelines that set ranges for how various misconduct should be disciplined. The department abandoned the guidelines several years ago in favor of a model that emphasized the uniqueness of each officer's case. Underlying many of the comments was a seemingly deep-seated sense of alienation felt toward the higher ranks. Some questioned whether the department officials were serious about listening to their concerns. "The perception is that we have these types of meetings and nothing changes. Just going through the motions," said one. joel.rubin@latimes.com jack.leonard@latimes.com
Bend over - Obamacare continues to screw you!!! Of course anytime the government REQUIRES you to buy something you can bet you will almost certainly get screwed. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html Cost of Coverage Under Affordable Care Act to Increase in 2015 By ROBERT PEAR, REED ABELSON and AGUSTIN ARMENDARIZNOV. 14, 2014 WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday unveiled data showing that many Americans with health insurance bought under the Affordable Care Act could face substantial price increases next year — in some cases as much as 20 percent — unless they switch plans. The data became available just hours before the health insurance marketplace was to open to buyers seeking insurance for 2015. An analysis of the data by The New York Times suggests that although consumers will often be able to find new health plans with prices comparable to those they now pay, the situation varies greatly from state to state and even among counties in the same state. “Consumers should shop around,” said Marilyn B. Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs the federal insurance exchange serving three dozen states. “With new options available this year, they’re likely to find a better deal.” She asserted that the data showed that “the Affordable Care Act is working.” But Republicans quickly pounced on the data as evidence of the opposite. “Last year, many who liked their plan were surprised to learn they couldn’t keep it,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, who is in line to become chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. “This year, many who like their plan will likely have to pay more to keep it.” The new data means that many of the seven million people who have bought insurance through federal and state exchanges will have to change to different health plans if they want to avoid paying more — an inconvenience for consumers just becoming accustomed to their coverage. A new Gallup Poll suggests that seven in 10 Americans with insurance bought through the exchanges rate the coverage and the care as excellent or good, and most were planning to keep it. In employer-sponsored health plans, employees tend to stay with the same insurer from year to year. But for consumers in the public insurance exchanges, that will often be a mistake, experts said. Nashville illustrates the need for people with marketplace coverage to look closely at the alternatives available in 2015. A 40-year-old in Nashville, with the cheapest midlevel, or silver plan, will pay $220 a month next year, compared to $181 a month this year, for the same plan. The least expensive plan is offered by another insurer, Community Health Alliance, one of the so-called co-op plans created under the federal law. It offers coverage for a monthly premium of $194. But the lower premium means that consumers will have to pay a much larger annual deductible, $4,000, rather than $2,000. A policyholder who becomes seriously ill or has a costly chronic condition could pay hundreds of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses. A year after it was fully in place, the Affordable Care Act has largely succeeded in delivering on President Obama’s main promises, even as it fell short in some ways and gave birth to a new and powerful conservative movement. In addition, different health plans often have different networks of doctors and hospitals and cover different drugs, meaning that consumers who change plans may have to pay more for the same medicines. Another problem for consumers is that if the price for a low-cost benchmark plan in the area has dropped, the amount of federal subsidies provided by the law could be less, meaning that consumers may have to pay more unless they switch plans. The data, released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, indicates that price increases will be modest for many people willing to change plans. In a typical county, the price will rise 5 percent for the cheapest silver plan and 4 percent for the second cheapest. Experts said the wide swings in prices were likely to continue. “Next year will see another reshuffling,” said Caroline F. Pearson, a vice president of Avalere Health, a research and consulting company. “Eventually, in a year or two, we will start to stabilize.” The Times analysis found that premiums had increased much more sharply in places where fewer insurers were competing for customers. Prices for the lowest-cost silver plan increased by at least 5 percent in 89 percent of the counties with a single insurer. About a quarter of counties with one or two insurers saw an increase in rates of more than 10 percent. The analysis did not calculate how prices might change for people who keep their plans. In 2015, as in 2014, large numbers of health plans have high deductibles — the amount that consumers owe before the insurer starts to pay. In Muscogee County, Ga., which includes Columbus, 74 health plans are available on the federal exchange. Fifty-two of the plans have deductibles of $2,500 or more, and 27 have deductibles of $5,000 or more. The Internal Revenue Service defines a high-deductible plan as one with a deductible of $1,300 or more. In Charleston, W.Va., the state capital, only 14 health plans are available, and all are offered by Highmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Half of the plans have deductibles of $2,500 or more, and one has a deductible of $5,000 or more. In Jeff Davis County in West Texas, 17 plans are available. All but four have deductibles of $2,500 or more, and seven plans have deductibles of $5,000 or more. By contrast, Dallas residents have a choice of 64 plans, and in Houston, 71 are available. In releasing the data, administration officials noted that more insurers had entered the market in many states. By the government’s count, 25 percent more insurers will be participating in the exchange next year, and consumers will have a choice of 40 different plans, on average, up from 31 this year. New Hampshire shows how consumers may benefit from additional competition. In most of the state, the number of insurers is increasing to five in 2015, from just one this year. Prices for the lowest-cost silver plan have fallen by 14 percent. But there remain large stretches of the country where consumers will still have a limited number of insurers to choose from.
Not everybody has a birth certificate!!!!Not everybody has a birth certificate!!!! But sadly or government nannies will use that as a lame excuse to prevent you from voting. Well I probably should say REPUBLICAN govenrment nannies will use that as an excuse to prevent you from voting. Probably be cause most people that don't have birth certificates come from demographics that vote Democrat. Let's face it government ain't about being a public servant. Government is about money and power. That's using government to give money and power to the special interest groups that helped the elected officials get into power. Policy helps tribal members get birth certificates By FELICIA FONSECA Associated PressNovember 14, 2014 TUBA CITY, Ariz. — Alice Guy was born at home on the Navajo Nation in a traditional eight-sided dwelling surrounded by her family and aided by a missionary nurse. But she hasn't been able to prove that to the state of Arizona. She's part of a generation of American Indians who never received a birth certificate and hit major roadblocks when they needed one later in life. In Guy's case, the paperwork required showed she has at least three names and, because of a hospital error, two birth dates. The state is now making it easier for people like Guy to get birth certificates by placing emphasis on tribal records that establish four birth facts — name, date, place and parents. Under a new policy, only one other supporting document with identical information is needed. Previously, tribal members had to gather multiple documents. The changes mean Guy might finally get a passport to visit her nephew in Italy or seek financial assistance from the government. "With the new policy statement, the tribal members have clear guidance about what kinds of tribal documents to include in their application," said Will Humble, director of the Arizona Department of Health Services. Like other American Indians whose birthdays precede 1970, Guy's birth never was registered with the state, and she never thought she needed a birth certificate. She grew up at a time when leaving the Navajo Nation was somewhat of a luxury, tribal members largely favored medicine men over hospitals, and few elderly tribal members spoke English. Applying for a birth certificate later in life meant having to match up the same birth names, places and dates, along with parents' names, on multiple documents. Assistant state registrar Krystal Colburn said some tribal members believed they had to travel to Phoenix to submit the documents, but it can be done by mail. Coconino County Supervisor Lena Fowler heard stories of people who have tried for years to get a birth certificate, abandoned the process or died still seeking one. Many of the complications were not their fault. American Indians were granted full U.S. citizenship in 1924, sending federal workers across tribal lands to capture names and populations. Those with names in their own languages often were given new names that were easier to pronounce and that sometimes were changed further as people went to school or sought work off tribal lands. Coconino County health worker Matilda Perdue said the amount of paperwork required by the state was overwhelming and didn't account for American Indians whose parents might have been illiterate and who used seasons, rather than a calendar, to mark the passing of time. Some Navajo Code Talkers, for example, lied about their ages to enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps, resulting in different birthdays listed on military records. The new state policy took effect in late September, and Fowler is urging tribal members to take advantage of it. The policy isn't state law, so it's in effect for as long as the gubernatorial administration supports it. State Sen. Carlyle Begay and Rep. Albert Hale said they are working to incorporate the policy into law but acknowledge they could face criticism. Begay said he doesn't want the discussion turned into an immigration issue or become centered on proving citizenship, particularly for southern Arizona tribes that have members on opposite sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. "This was really a huge step to help resolve an issue to allow people to gain access to services they were entitled to," Begay said. Humble said only tribal members who can prove they were born in Arizona can get Arizona birth certificates. "We never, as a part of this process, relaxed any of our standards for tribal members," Humble said. "Rather, we took advantage of the fact that tribes had records that satisfied our requirements." Guy and her husband, Claude, learned of the changes through a local newspaper. They were among a small crowd gathered in Tuba City recently to seek help from Perdue to get birth certificates printed on the spot or receive guidance on how to get one for the first time. The county started providing the service in 2006, and workers travel outside the county seat in Flagstaff to offer it in Tuba City and Page, Perdue said. She easily alternates between Navajo and English, helping her better relate to those who travel to the office from the far reaches of the Navajo reservation. She also has helped members of the Hopi, Havasupai and Hualapai tribes. Perdue sends Nelson Williams Jr. to the local hospital to get his medical records, and she helps Helene Nockideneh package documents to be mailed to the state health office. Nockideneh wants a birth certificate so she can renew her commercial driver's license and maybe travel outside the United States. Perdue tells Guy and her husband to get an affidavit of birth from the Navajo Nation and then come back and see her. "You're on the right track," she said. "You're going to get that birth certificate."
Wow Arizona has 42,000 people in it's prisons. "[Arizona] DOC, which now houses just more than 42,000 inmates." According to Reason Magazine two thirds or 66% of the people in state prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes. If we use that statistic then almost 28,000 of the people in Arizona prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes. According to the US Bureau of Prisons, 51% of the inmates in Federal prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes. If this were a Federal prison, and not an Arizona prison, 21,000 of those inmates would be there for victimless drug war crimes. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2014/11/07/new-max-security-prison-open-critics-question-need/18690727/ Critics question need for new maximum-security prison near Buckeye Craig Harris, The Republic | azcentral.com 11:56 a.m. MST November 10, 2014 The Arizona Department of Corrections showcased a new $50 million, 500-bed maximum-security prison near Buckeye on Friday, with Director Charles Ryan saying the facility will alleviate problems in housing the state's most violent male criminals. "These beds are needed. One of our biggest challenges is (inmate) population management," Ryan said. About 325 maximum, protective-custody inmates housed in Florence will be transferred to the new facility in the Rast Unit of the Lewis Prison Complex. The moves will begin Dec. 1. The state then will place inmates who prey upon other prisoners in the open cells in Florence, Ryan said. The state paid for the new prison with a $20 million allocation from the fiscal 2013 budget and a $30 million payment from the current budget. Planning began in July 1, 2012. It took 22 months to complete. The 500 beds will be in 416 cells, 84 of which are double bunked. A few are accessible to inmates with disabilities. It will be staffed round the clock by 115 correctional officers, Ryan said. The new prison in rural western Maricopa County is the latest expansion for DOC, which now houses just more than 42,000 inmates. The Red Rock Correctional Center, Arizona's newest private prison about 65 miles south of Phoenix, began housing medium-security inmates earlier this year. Ryan said even more prison space will be needed for the next several years because DOC is projecting the number of inmates will grow to 43,693 in fiscal 2016, following modest growth the past few years. He said 71 percent of all inmates have a violent criminal history. Ryan said the state's biggest need will be to find additional housing for medium-custody inmates. However, prison-system critics say that while the state may have an overall inmate overcrowding problem, DOC isn't filling the beds it already has for maximum-custody offenders — the most dangerous. They callthe new site a waste of tax dollars. Corrections records show there are 188 vacancies among the 2,705 maximum-security male beds, not counting the new site's additional 500 beds. (The state also has a 132-bed maximum-custody facility for women, with 38 vacancies.) Donna Hamm, director of Middle Ground Prison Reform, said the money for the new prison could have been better spent on juvenile diversion or mental-health programs that likely would keep people out of prison. "I think there are legions of inmates who could have been diverted from prison altogether or could spend a lot shorter amount of time in prison and still be punished for what they did, and not compromise public safety," Hamm said. Caroline Isaacs, program director for the American Friends Service Committee, agreed. "How are these going to be filled?" said Isaacs, whose office works on criminal-justice reform. "You already have a surplus. What happens if these beds are not filled?" Ryan said having a small surplus of maximum-security beds allows the state to better manage the system. A maximum-custody inmate is violent and may have committed murder. That inmate represents the highest risk to the public and staff, and requires housing in a single-cell setting, though a cell can be bunked. These inmates have limited work opportunities within the secure perimeter and require frequent monitoring. Correctional officers escort their movement in full restraints within the institution, according to DOC. A medium-custody inmate represent a moderate risk to the public and staff. Those inmates are not allowed to work outside a secure perimeter of a prison and require limited, controlled movement within the institution. Only medium- and minimum-security inmates can be housed in private prisons. The state also houses that type of inmate along with close-custody inmates, the level below maximum security. The Arizona Republic, along with other members of the media, toured the prison Friday. An elevated observation deck, with an electronic touch screen to open and close cell doors, overlooks rows of cells. Each cell is about 12 by 8 feet, with a stainless steel toilet and sink. The bed is a concrete slab, which will have a mattress. At the head of each bed are electrical and cable outlets, which can be used for a television. An inmate may purchase a specially made TV that has 15 channels, including religious and educational programming. An inmate may only listen to a TV through headphones. Ryan said TVs allow inmates to learn from educational programming, and they are behavior-management tools. The new prison also has a recreation area with a basketball hoop. It is surrounded by roughly 20feet of fencing, with circular razor wire at the top. Halfway up the fence is quarter-inch non-climbing fabric. Nearby is a guard tower, where corrections officers carry lethal and non-lethal weapons. The facility also has classrooms and a visitors center that includes non-contact areas that are separated by a clear window.
Mesa paramedic accused of selling stolen Rolex on eBay OK, I know he wasn't a government employee. But I suspect the company he worked for, Rural/Metro, has a government contract with the city of Mesa to transport people in medical need. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2014/11/14/local-paramedic-arrested-allegedly-stealing-mans-rolex-watch/19068581/ Mesa paramedic accused of selling stolen Rolex on eBay Maribel Castillo, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:15 p.m. MST November 14, 2014 A local paramedic is accused of stealing a patient's $10,000 Rolex watch and later selling it on eBay, according to court documents. Jason Edward Alexander, 32, was one of two Rural/Metro paramedics that transported a man wearing the 1969 Rolex Submariner to Banner Baywood Hospital in Mesa on Sept. 21, court documents said. Records say the watch was taken off the patient and placed in an "unsecured" location. There was no documentation of the man being checked into the hospital with the watch. The man died on Oct. 8 and left the watch to his son, who immediately began looking for it online. He called authorities after finding that the Rolex had been sold on eBay on Oct. 14, documents said. Police say they identified Alexander as the watch seller on eBay. When detectives confronted him about it, Alexander said he found the watch and put it in his pocket the day of the transport without notifying his partner. He also admitted to selling the watch to a friend for $1,400 on eBay, documents said. Alexander is facing one count of theft and traffic of stolen property, according to records.
Three Ways Courts Screw the Innocent Into Pleading Guilty "Some 97 percent of federal trials were resolved last year through plea bargain" https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/07/how-the-innocent-get-screwed/ Three Ways Courts Screw the Innocent Into Pleading Guilty By Natasha Vargas-Cooper 11/07/2014 You should go read Jed A. Rakoff’s essay in The New York Review of Books, in which the senior federal district judge tries to explain why innocent people so often plead guilty. But even if you have better things to do this weekend than digest Rakoff’s thorough, convincing, 4,400-word essay, it’s still worth considering why at least 20,000 people have pled guilty to and gone to jail for felonies they did not commit — if you very conservatively take criminologists’ lowest estimates, and cut them in half. Rakoff identifies three ways the criminal justice system obstructs its own “truth seeking mechanism,” a trial by jury, which Rakoff calls a “shield against tyranny” and which Thomas Jefferson famously called “the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” 1. By embracing the increasingly-popular plea bargain. Some 97 percent of federal trials were resolved last year through plea bargain, the offer of a lesser charge and a reduced sentence if the defendant forgoes a trial. But the practice, which has never really taken hold in other countries, is, to Rakoff, “the devil’s pact.” Plea bargains happen behind closed doors, without judicial oversight, and are weighted largely in favor of the prosecutor, who has access to police reports, witness interviews, and forensic test reports. Prosecutors also have the discretion to shape the charges brought at trial, and until last year federal attorneys routinely used that power to bully people into plea bargains; any defendant who sought a trial would face the most severe charges with the lengthiest prison sentences as a matter of policy. In contrast, defense attorneys typically only meet with defendants after they have been arrested and can only interview them through “arduous restrictions imposed by most jails,” as Rakoff puts it. The notion that a plea bargain is a contractual mediation between two relatively equal parties, Rakoff argues, “is a total myth”. 2. Through mandatory minimum sentences. These rules effectively took sentencing power away from judges and transferred it to prosecutors, who can ensure uncooperative defendants spend a long time in prison by bringing charges with the longest minimum sentences. In 2012, the average sentence for defendants brought up on drugs charges who took a plea deal equaled five years and four months, while the average sentence for those who went to trial was sixteen years. The combination of mandatory sentences and prosecutorial discretion forces the defendant into a grim cost-benefit analysis: run the risk of losing the case and serve the maximum sentence or take a reduced charge, at a reduced sentence, even when innocent. 3. Via the unfettered rise of prosecutorial power. Prosecutors have far more power to exert their will than any other party involved in the criminal justice system. The one mechanism that could check their power is the jury trial, which is becoming “virtually extinct” in federal court, Rakoff writes. One possible solution to all these problems — aside from repealing mandatory minimum sentences and generally reducing the severity of sentences — is greater judicial oversight after indictment. Rakoff’s proposal is for a magistrate to meet with a prosecutor and defendant independently, ask them to provide evidence, and make their own propositions on whether the case is strong enough to go to trial. The magistrate could also interview witnesses and even the defendant. “I am under no illusions that this suggested involvement of judges in the plea-bargaining process is a panacea,” Rakoff concludes. “But would not any program that helps to reduce the shame of sending innocent people to prison be worth trying? Photo: Mark Humphrey/AP
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is a big time liar - like most politicians??? http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/544/article/p2p-81967358/ Mayor says he didn't do risky rate swaps, but he's done 4 By Heather Gillers, Chicago Tribune 10:22 pm, November 13, 2014 Mayor Rahm Emanuel this week distanced himself from the risky derivatives that are draining funds from the city's school system, declaring: "Under my tenure, there have been no swaps." But records show the city of Chicago has entered into at least four interest-rate swaps under the Emanuel administration. The deals brought the city nearly $20 million upfront but will require regular payments for up to 30 years, much like the derivative deals sapping Chicago Public Schools. The Tribune series "Borrowing Trouble" this month found that CPS' decision to issue $1 billion in auction-rate debt paired with interest-rate swaps will likely cost $100 million more than what the school district would have paid for traditional fixed-rate debt. One draw of those risky deals was the hefty upfront payments that accompanied some swaps. The Tribune analysis sparked questions from reporters after the City Council meeting Wednesday, and Emanuel was quick to point out that his administration has canceled derivatives the city entered under Mayor Richard M. Daley. "Under my tenure, there have been no swaps, and we actually terminated nearly about a billion dollars in value of swaps," he said. "So I've been clear about righting the ship going forward." Records show that the four swaps entered by the Emanuel administration are linked to existing debt — floating-rate bonds issued in 2003, 2005 and 2007, under Daley. The records obtained by the Tribune show new contracts with new banks, layered on top of existing swaps, in effect creating double swaps on the old debt. When the Tribune contacted City Hall on Thursday, the mayor's office described what the Emanuel administration has done as modifications of existing swap deals. The four swaps entered in December 2011 and February 2012 under Emanuel "are not new swaps," the mayor's office said in a statement. "They are modifications to the original underlying swaps, all of which were inherited by this administration." A spokeswoman for the mayor's office said the Tribune is "parsing words" by reporting that the Emanuel administration has entered into new swaps. A letter the city provided to the Tribune in September offers a nuanced assessment of the Emanuel administration's record. That month, the city's chief financial officer wrote to union representatives, who have been critical of city and school swaps, that the city has not entered swaps on "additional debt." CFO Lois Scott wrote to union representatives that the mayor "halt(ed) the city from entering into any new swaps on additional debt." She also wrote: "Mayor Emanuel shares your concerns about the substantial risk and potential cost of these transactions." A document showing that the Emanuel administration entered into the four swaps is a listing of the city's swap deals, titled "City of Chicago Swap Portfolio," from December 2012. The document was provided to the Tribune months ago in response to a public records request. The city also provided the signed agreement with PNC Bank for one of the February 2012 deals. Three of the four new swaps increase the unpredictability of the city's interest payments, experts said. One expert called the new derivatives "speculative." "Basically what they wound up doing is speculating on interest rates," said Matt Fabian, a managing partner at Concord, Mass.-based Municipal Market Advisors. "It might work out well." Governments typically use swaps to protect against unpredictable payments — not as a way of betting on interest rates. Under a typical interest-rate swap contract, a bank agrees to pay a government based on a floating rate and the government agrees to pay the bank based on a fixed interest rate. The government pairs these swaps with floating-rate bonds in hopes that the floating rate coming from the bank will cover the payments owed on the bonds and the only money coming out of the government's pocket will be the fixed payments on the swap. The 2003, 2005 and 2007 bonds were paired with that type of swap at the time they were issued. The Emanuel administration layered new swap contracts with different banks on top of the existing swaps, records show. Under the new swaps, the city agreed to pay a second set of banks a floating rate — the same floating rate the city is receiving from the first set of banks — and receive a different floating rate. But in three of the four cases, the Emanuel administration was trading a more predictable arrangement for a less predictable one, Fabian said. On those three swaps, the rate the city had received under Daley was linked to a composite variable-rate municipal bond index published by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group. The SIFMA rate is based on actual government bonds and was a fairly reliable match, experts say, for the interest the city could expect to pay on its debt. Under the new double-deck swaps created by the Emanuel administration, however, the city is receiving a rate linked to the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, the rate banks charge one another for short-term loans, which can diverge from municipal bond rates, creating a mismatch — called "basis risk" — between what the city gets from banks and what it owes bondholders. If the Libor-based swap payments exceed what the city owes, the city makes money; if not, the city loses money. Switching from SIFMA-based swaps to Libor-based swaps increases the possibility of that mismatch, said Andrew Kalotay, whose New York debt management advisory firm advised the city on separate deals. "Before (the swaps) there's very little basis risk if any," Kalotay said. "After, there's definitely basis risk." The mayor's office said it took steps to protect against any risk created by the switch from SIFMA to Libor by, for example, negotiating a higher upfront payment. The double-deck swaps Emanuel entered into also typically cost less to get out of than other kinds of swaps, which can be prohibitively expensive to terminate. Tribune reporters Jason Grotto and Hal Dardick contributed. hgillers@tribpub.com
CHP nude photo scandal: Why were no other officers charged? Answer: I got a gun and a badge and I am ABOVE the law. http://www.mercurynews.com/my-town/ci_26933874/chp-nude-photo-scandal-why-were-no-other CHP nude photo scandal: Why were no other officers charged? By Malaika Fraley and Matthias Gafni Bay Area News Group Posted: 11/13/2014 05:43:02 PM PST MARTINEZ -- They've arrested the cop who stole racy photos from female arrestees' cell phones, but prosecutors say there's not enough evidence to support charges against two California Highway Patrol officers who received photos from former Officer Sean Harrington, even though the officers exchanged texts about the women. The decision to forgo charges against the other officers has shocked some in the legal community, including an attorney representing one of the victims. The key question: Were the two other officers part of a "conspiracy" to commit theft, or unwitting recipients of racy photos? "It is important to note that Harrington unambiguously stated in his initial confession that this illegal and predatory conduct not only occurred while assigned to L.A., but that it was an established practice in the Dublin office with sworn CHP officers and non-CHP individuals," said Danville attorney Rick Madsen who represents an alleged victim. "In my opinion, Officers (Robert) Hazelwood and (Dion) Simmons, and anyone else involved, are part and parcel of this criminal conspiracy." According to his attorney Michael Rains, Harrington, 35, of Martinez, is scheduled to appear in court and plead not guilty Friday on two felony charges for secretly searching two young female DUI suspects' phones during separate August arrests and stealing copies of their explicit photos. Harrington, who resigned on Oct. 29, has admitted to the crimes and apologized through his attorney, and is attempting to work out a future plea deal with the prosecutor and the judge. He is still being investigated over a complaint by a third woman who was also arrested in August for a DUI. Harrington's crimes were discovered after a 23-year-old San Ramon woman reported that Harrington sent himself six racy photos from her phone while she was in custody in County Jail in Martinez. During his immediate confession Harrington said that stealing suspects' nude cell phone photos was part of the culture in the CHP, but an investigation of the Dublin CHP office has so far implicated only Hazelwood and Simmons. It is not clear what action the CHP may have taken against the officers. Other than Harrington, the CHP has said it disciplined one other unnamed officer by pulling him from patrol duties. Inquiries to the CHP on possible further discipline were not returned. But if Harrington sent the photos to his colleagues with information indicating they were taken from unsuspecting female suspects, why were the other officers not charged? "We can't control what people send us as text messages," Contra Costa District Attorney Mark Peterson said. Peterson described the texts exchange between Harrington and the officers as "crude, unprofessional, and shocking," but said the messages and receipt of photos alone are insufficient evidence to prove a criminal case. Peterson said they have analyzed the case under theories of aiding and abetting and conspiracy, and they have merit. But after exploring a number of possible defenses they would have to overcome, including an argument as simple as the officers didn't know they were stolen, Peterson said, the evidence they've collected so far is insufficient to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt of any crime. Contra Costa Deputy District Attorney Barry Grove said his office interviewed and reviewed the cell phones of "a lot" of officers from the CHP Dublin office, as well as civilians, and couldn't find evidence that anyone other than Hazelwood and Simmons received stolen photos from Harrington. "It's my opinion he was trying to minimize his culpability by including other people, as if to say 'It's not so bad, everyone is doing it,' " Grove said. Calling the decision to only charge one officer "contemptible," Golden Gate University School of Law professor Peter Keane said the argument that other officers had no choice but to receive the stolen photos would not go over well in trial. "A jury would say they instituted this and they're doing it on a regular basis ... so they did choose to receive these stolen items," Keane said. "To just give them a pass is pretty contemptible on the part of the DA's office and I think the public views it that way too. I think they missed a great opportunity here to go forward with the case and protect the public against the rogue cop mentality." San Francisco attorney Erica Johnstone -- who works with Without My Consent, a nonprofit that advocates for victims of online harassment -- said the law under which Harrington is being charged targets hackers who "knowingly access" computer devices without permission, which makes charges against the two other officers a stretch. "It is not a law that is used against recipients of content that was obtained by unlawful hacking," Johnstone wrote in an email. "Perhaps there is some conspiracy angle that could be explored, but it's not obvious, which is why I would imagine that the DA declined to charge the recipient officers." New law Johnstone said the passage in September of Senate Bill 1255, dubbed the "Revenge Porn 2.0" bill, will provide prosecutors with another tool to go after nonconsensual porn cases. The law, which takes effect Jan. 1, removes one legal barrier to prosecution: Currently, the law requires evidence that someone who stole photos intended to cause the victim "serious emotional distress." "As we see in these fact patterns, it shouldn't matter whether the woman's stolen photos were selfies or not, and it shouldn't be a defense that image trading was a 'game' that was not intended to cause serious emotional distress to the victim," Johnstone wrote. "The point is that it's her body. She did not consent to sharing her body with these people. And, as we recently witnessed in the celebrity hacking event, most people seem to agree that such egregious invasions of privacy and abuse should be covered by the law." Simmons has declined to comment on the case. Hazelwood, who allegedly made the most offensive comments about one of the victims, issued an apology through his attorney Dirk Manoukian. "(Officer Hazelwood) sincerely apologizes to the women directly involved in this matter as well as to all who may have been offended by his remarks," Manoukian wrote in an email. "He is also deeply sorry for any negative effect his comments have had on his fellow law enforcement officers who bravely and honorably discharge their duties every day across our state and nation." Contact Malaika Fraley at 925-234-1684 and Matthias Gafni at 925-952-5026. Follow them at Twitter.com/malaikafraley and Twitter.com/mgafni.
Clean-cut, cautious FBI agent accused of stealing heroin? More of the old "Do as I say, not as I do" from our religious leaders, government masters and police??? http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fbi-agent-matthew-lowrys-alleged-fall-how-in-the-world-did-it-get-to-this/2014/11/14/527087d0-6aa3-11e4-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html?tid=hpModule_13097a0c-868e-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z11 FBI agent Matthew Lowry’s alleged fall: ‘How in the world did it get to this?’ By Annys Shin November 14 at 8:16 AM Even at 19, Matthew Lowry was clean-cut and cautious, unwilling to do anything that might sabotage what he always wanted: a law enforcement career like his father’s. That’s how Joann Green remembers Lowry, the FBI agent who was found in late September slumped over the wheel of an unmarked FBI vehicle with heroin and guns inside. Green, whose daughter dated Lowry for a year when he was in college, considered him an ideal boyfriend — handsome, polite and ambitious. “I thought he was dropped from the heavens,” she said. She and her daughter, who declined to be interviewed, were stunned when they learned that Lowry was under investigation for possibly stealing and using heroin seized as evidence — a scandal that has prompted two federal judges to toss out charges against nearly two dozen members of what prosecutors allege were two dangerous and sophisticated drug rings. “He was straight-laced, a proper child,” Green said. “How in the world did it get to this?” The answer to that question is anything but clear. Lowry, 33, has been suspended from his job, said his attorney, Robert C. Bonsib, but not charged. He is cooperating with investigators, who have said little about what they think led to the agent’s alleged actions. Bonsib decried some of the aspects of the investigation into Lowry as “grossly overblown,” and said that Lowry is “devastated by what has occurred here.” While prosecutors and investigators sort out whether his actions have affected any more cases, those who knew him growing up in Upper Marlboro, Md., are having a hard time reconciling the allegations with the young man they knew. “He was a typical student with decent grades. There were no major issues,” said George Hornickel, director of Grace Brethren Christian School, a small, private school in Clinton, Md., where Lowry attended high school and graduated in 1999. “We are a Christian school. We teach morals, honesty and all good things,” Hornickel said. “We understand that not all graduates who leave here embrace all the values. We try to get kids to follow Christ.” From a young age, Lowry wanted to go into law enforcement like his father. William Lowry was a Prince George’s County police officer for 27 years before heading security details for two NFL teams, including the Washington Redskins. He is an assistant police chief in Anne Arundel County. His wife, Sylvia, is listed as a Sunday school teacher at the First Baptist Church of Upper Marlboro. Of William Lowry’s three sons, Matthew was the only one who wanted his own police badge, friends recalled. Some said he was his father’s favorite. (One son also ended up following in William Lowry’s footsteps, working in stadium operations for an NFL franchise.) William Lowry declined to comment for this article, through an Anne Arundel County spokesman. Sylvia Lowry and her two other sons did not respond to e-mails and voice-mail messages seeking comment. In his high school yearbook photo, Lowry is wearing a dark suit jacket. Next to the picture is a citation from Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.” At Grace Brethren, Matthew was a varsity soccer player and wrestler and a member of the National Honor Society. He did not make a lasting impression on many of his classmates, based on conversations and e-mail exchanges with at least a dozen former students. The school has slightly more than 600 students in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. “He always seemed to follow the rules and not cause any trouble,” said one fellow alum, who described Lowry as an acquaintance. “He had a pleasant demeanor and was a quiet type. He didn’t seem to be one [who] had trouble with school or grades.” Lowry stayed close to home for college. He earned a bachelor’s degree in criminology from the University of Maryland in 2002, school officials said. While his peers were busy wallpapering Facebook with pictures from spring break and sending the occasional off-color tweet, Lowry did not leave much of a virtual trail, and does not have a Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn profile. Joann Green said that was probably by design, given his law enforcement aspirations. His focus and drive at 19 impressed Green, then a single mother, who was overjoyed when her daughter brought Lowry home to meet her. But she said she failed to convince her daughter of that, and about a year later the couple broke up. Lowry went on to marry Shana Khachab, a senior territory manager for a global pharmaceutical company, whose family has operated several restaurants in the Washington area. Khachab also coached a competitive cheerleading squad at South River High School in Edgewater, Md. The couple bought a townhouse in Odenton, Md., and later purchased a three-bedroom townhouse off Florida Avenue in Northwest Washington. His attorney said Lowry graduated with honors from the FBI Academy, where students receive at least 18 hours of ethics training. He worked several years for the FBI in Washington in a support-personnel position, law enforcement officials said, before becoming an agent about five years ago. He was part of a task force that focuses on crime along the borders between the District, Maryland and Virginia. Before and after he became an agent, he would have been polygraphed and tested for drugs, a circumstance that has raised questions about how any illicit drug use could have slipped by his superiors. Current and former agents said that cases of misconduct on the scale of which Lowry is accused are extremely rare. If the allegations prove to be true, he could be facing years behind bars. In 1995, Kenneth R. Withers, an FBI agent in Philadelphia who confessed to taking drug evidence to sell, was sentenced to 25 years. Prosecutors have not revealed how Lowry’s actions unraveled cases for some defendants and not others. Attorneys for several co-defendants who are still in prison have pressed for a more detailed accounting, to no avail. Prosecutors might not receive answers until the FBI’s Office of Inspector General completes its investigation. Green has questions, too. She wondered how such a careful young man reached the stage at which he was willing to risk “his lifelong dream.” Were there warning signs that were missed? “Obviously,” she said, “something went terribly wrong.” Adam Goldman, Jennifer Jenkins, Peter Hermann and DeNeen L. Brown contributed to this report. Annys Shin has been a staff writer at the Washington Post since 2004.
In the Arizona Republic this article was given the title of: Veil drops, revealing how Obama mocks public And remember I am a Libertarian. I don't like Emperor Obama any better then I like Emperor Bush!!! http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865615489/The-Gruber-Confession-Obamacare-is-a-product-of-world-class-cynicism.html Charles Krauthammer: The Gruber Confession — Obamacare is a product of world-class cynicism By Charles Krauthammer Published: Thursday, Nov. 13 2014 6:30 p.m. MST WASHINGTON — It's not exactly the Ems Dispatch (the diplomatic cable Bismarck doctored to provoke the 1870 Franco-Prussian War). But what the just-resurfaced Gruber Confession lacks in world-historical consequence, it makes up for in world-class cynicism. This October 2013 video shows MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, a principal architect of Obamacare, admitting that, in order to get it passed, the law was made deliberately obscure and deceptive. It constitutes the ultimate vindication of the charge that Obamacare was sold on a pack of lies. "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," said Gruber. "Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass." First, Gruber said, the bill's authors manipulated the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which issues gold-standard cost estimates of any legislative proposal: "This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes." Why? Because "if CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies." And yet, the president himself openly insisted that the individual mandate — what you must pay the government if you fail to buy health insurance — was not a tax. Worse was the pretense that Obamacare wouldn't cost anyone anything. On the contrary, it's a win-win, insisted President Barack Obama, promising that the "typical family" would save $2,500 on premiums every year. Skeptics like me pointed out the obvious: You can't subsidize 30 million uninsured without someone paying something. Indeed, Gruber admits, Obamacare was a huge transfer of wealth — which had to be hidden from the American people, because "if you had a law which ... made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed." Remember: The whole premise of Obamacare was that it would help the needy, but if you were not in need, if you liked what you had, you would be left alone. Which is why Obama kept repeating — Politifact counted 31 times — that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan." But of course you couldn't, as millions discovered when they were kicked off their plans last year. Millions more were further shocked when they discovered major hikes in their premiums and deductibles. It was their wealth that was being redistributed. As NBC News and others reported last year, the administration knew this all along. But White House political hands overrode those wary about the president's phony promise. In fact, Obama knew the falsity of his claim as far back as February 2010 when, at a meeting with congressional leaders, he agreed that millions would lose their plans. Now, it's not unconstitutional to lie. But it is helpful for citizens to know the cynicism with which the massive federalization of their health care was crafted. It gets even worse, thanks again to Gruber. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case claiming that the administration is violating its own health care law, which clearly specifies that subsidies can be given only to insurance purchased on "exchanges established by the state." Just 13 states have set up such exchanges. Yet the administration is giving tax credits to plans bought on the federal exchange — serving 37 states — despite what the law says. If the government loses, the subsidy system collapses and, with it, Obamacare itself. Which is why the administration is frantically arguing that "exchanges established by the state" is merely sloppy drafting, a kind of legislative typo. And that the intent all along was to subsidize all plans on all exchanges. Re-enter Professor Gruber. On a separate video in a different speech, he explains what Obamacare intended: "If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits." The legislative idea was to coerce states into setting up their own exchanges by otherwise denying their citizens subsidies. This may have been a stupid idea, but it was no slip. And it's the law, as written, as enacted and as intended. It can be changed by Congress only, not by the executive. Which is precisely what the plaintiffs are saying. Q.E.D. It's refreshing that "the most transparent administration in history," as this administration fancies itself, should finally display candor about its signature act of social change. Inadvertently, of course. But now we know what lay behind Obama's smooth reassurances — the arrogance of an academic liberalism that rules in the name of a citizenry it mocks, disdains and deliberately, contemptuously deceives. Charles Krauthammer's email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmontini/2014/11/13/supreme-court-illegal-immigration-9th-circuit-arizona-bill-montgomery/18987461/ A win for illegal immigrants? No, for the Constitution EJ Montini, columnist | azcentral.com 3:18 p.m. MST November 13, 2014 First it was the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wagging its finger sternly at Arizona, now it's the U.S Supreme Court. This time around the highest arbiters of justice in America pointed their fingers at us and asked, "What part of illegal don't you understand?" News broke Thursday that U.S. Supreme Court will not block the 9th Circuit's ruling that struck down an Arizona law denying bail to some individuals who are in the country illegally. The justices dissolved the stay that had been granted on that ruling. The 9th Circuit judges tossed out an Arizona law that was passed by voters in 2006. The law denied bond to undocumented immigrants charged with Class 4 felonies or worse. (Class 4 felonies include things like aggravated DUI, possession of narcotics, forgery, identity theft and more.) Under the Arizona law, passed as Proposition 100, once a judge decided there was probable cause to believe an arrested person was in the U.S. unlawfully that person was locked up, even if the judge believed – and even if prosecutors agreed – that the accused wasn't a flight risk. Before you panic understand this: The Supreme Court's decision does NOT mean that all of the defendants affected will be let out of jail. Just that they will get a hearing. As Cecillia Wang, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued against the law, told me earlier this month, "Sometimes people lose sight of an important principle because they don't like the particular group being targeted by a law. Undocumented immigrants are not popular with a lot of people. But the Constitution is protecting all of us. If the government is charging you with a crime you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And in the meantime you should be treated like someone who is innocent. Under our Constitution you have the right to have a judge decide if you pose a flight risk or a threat to the community." The U.S. Constitution doesn't simply protect the rights of citizens. It protects anyone and everyone who comes into contact with our justice system. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery was hoping the Supreme Court would allow Arizona to continue denying bail. He's a prosecutor. He's concerned about community safety. I get that. And his case isn't over yet. The stay that allowed the Arizona to remain in effect was lifted. It's still possible (but unlikely) for the Supreme Court to hear the case. Besides judges also have a responsibility to consider the possible risk to the community when a person accused of a crime appears before them seeking bail. That's how our system works. What the Supreme Court did was not a victory for illegal immigrants. It was a victory for the Constitution.
78 percent of Arizona voters are racist jerks??? "As approved by 78 percent of Arizona voters, Prop. 100 said that anyone in the country illegally who is accused of a serious crime should be denied bail." If you ask me it violates the 8th Amendment. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" And there isn't a word in the 8th Amendment that says "except Mexicans" http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2014/11/13/prop-100-no-bail-law-is-struck-down/18992869/ No-bail law is a no-go with Supreme Court Laurie Roberts, columnist | azcentral.com 4:44 p.m. MST November 13, 2014 Yet another of Arizona's immigration laws is no more. The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday let stand a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that tossed out the state law denying bail to undocumented immigrants accused of certain felony crimes. The law was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2006, one of several initiatives approved at the peak of the furor over illegal immigration. It then came under fire from critics who say it unfairly singles out Latino immigrants as flight risks while allowing others to await trial while free. Both U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton and a three-member panel rejected the American Civil Liberties Union's arguments. The ACLU then appealed to a larger panel of the appeals court and that 11-member panel voted 9-2, ruling that the law violates the due-process rights of the immigrants by imposing punishment before trial. The high court this afternoon let that ruling stand, refusing to issue a stay until the 9th Circuit ruling could be appealed. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery vowed to appeal despite the Supreme Court's "disappointing indifference" in refusing to grant a stay. "In the weeks ahead, we will endeavor to meet the challenge of responding to motions to review conditions of release that will now be filed as a consequence of the Ninth Circuit's callous rejection of legitimate state interests and the Supreme Court's disappointing indifference," he said in a statement. "We will seek certiorari to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to rectify the Ninth Circuit's action and to further our legitimate state concerns and interests in safeguarding the public and securing defendants' appearance in court." As approved by 78 percent of Arizona voters, Prop. 100 said that anyone in the country illegally who is accused of a serious crime should be denied bail. At the time, that made sense to me. A person who commits murder, mayhem or some other serious crime is naturally going to head for the hills (or in this case, the border) if he or she is looking at serious prison time. Then the Legislature then defined "serious" as any class four felony or above. Then, then-Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas started using the no-bail law as leverage to win low-level felony guilty pleas from those who didn't want to spend endless months in jail awaiting trial on offenses that are punishable by probation. Those convictions then lead to deportation and a likely bar to any chance to return the legal way. The purpose of the no-bail law wasn't to make prosecutors' lives easier. It was to protect the public and ensure that people charged with serious crimes showed up for their day in court. Given the no-bail law, people actually have been forgoing their day in court. Even with Prop. 100 now gone, a person who is accused of a truly serious crime won't be released. Offenses such as first-degree murder and rape are already non-bondable. Bond is also not allowed if you're already charged with another felony or when public safety is at risk. be appealed. If you're charged with other crimes, a judge can already set a high bond should he or she determine that you're a flight risk. The question at hand: should a person accused of shoplifting automatically be treated the same as a person accused of murder – with no chance for a hearing to determine whether they should be released. The high court, in refusing to issue a stay today, appears to have answered that question. The answer: no.
I always thought the purpose of city governments was to pick up the trash, provide us with water and sewer. And provide us with a few cops. Cops that arrest real criminals, not harmless pot smokers or homeless folks. Since when did the purpose of government change to promoting cool places for us to eat expensive yuppie meals at or yuppie bars to get drunk at??? You know like on Mill Avenue in Downtown Tempe. Sadly it seems like the Royal Rulers of Tempe are more interested in putting on cool parties in Downtown Tempe or at the Tempe Town Toilet, which they call Tempe Town Lake. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/11/13/mill-avenue-rebrand-downtown-tempe/18967653/ Mill Avenue gets new brand, name as Downtown Tempe Dianna M. Náñez, The Republic | azcentral.com 8:54 p.m. MST November 13, 2014 Mill Avenue is the heart and soul of Tempe. After weathering an economic downturn, the hip college strip is hopping again, and downtown stakeholders want to bank on the momentum. A new vision was unveiled at an inaugural State of the Downtown address Wednesday that spotlighted a rebranding effort and a revamped logo to market the city's urban core. The Mill Avenue District is now a thing of the past. The rebranding campaign has christened the campus hub Downtown Tempe. With the new name came a makeover for the business district's former website. "Millavenue.com" is no more. "Downtowntempe.com" has replaced the old Internet address. And the new logo, "dt," suggests a trendy nickname. But will Valley residents welcome the revamping? Or will the changes be met with eye-rolling and push-back? Arizonans have shown they are keen on history and don't like changes to tradition. Fan backlash last year forced Arizona State University to scrap a makeover of the school mascot, Sparky, and adopt a less drastic redesign. And recently, Scottsdale merchants and city leaders panned "SoDo," a proposed nickname for the area south of downtown. Tempe leaders and business owners say Mill Avenue's rebranding will be embraced. They say it's time for a shift that reflects the vision of a vibrant downtown that is blossoming beyond Mill. Tempe's central location between Phoenix and larger suburbs and proximity to major freeways, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and the commerce and recreation at Town Lake have primed downtown for economic recovery. Downtown has developed into an expanding urban center, shedding any past resemblance to the traditional town squares found in smaller cities. "I love tradition," said Tempe Councilwoman Robin Arredondo-Savage, a fourth-generation Tempe resident. "But we just want people to remember we're more than just one street." The city has long fended off complaints that Mill Avenue has little to offer off the main street. The influx of new restaurants and bars on roadways near Mill is changing that perception. Restaurateur Sam Fox said he chose downtown Tempe for his biggest development to date, The Yard Tempe, an $11 million mixed-use project, because of the area's offbeat mix of history and hipness. Mill Avenue's branding revamp was hosted at Fox's development in the Farmer Arts District, which is just west of Mill, and the railroad line that cuts through downtown. Fox recognized that his business is off the familiar path. He joked in Wednesday's address that he welcomed everyone to the "wrong side of the tracks." Fox said he hopes the community will see the rebranding less as a sea change and more as a celebration of a "great evolution." In December, Fox's Culinary Dropout opens in The Yard Tempe amid a marketing campaign inviting foodies to an "uber-hip restaurant and bar." The restaurant will share building space with The Madison, a spin and yoga studio with a cafe that opened last month, and a breakfast eatery, Over Easy. Not everyone is impressed with the marketing of Mill. Hip and fancy is fine, said Vic Linoff, who opened a bookstore on Mill in 1973 and has owned buildings on the college strip since 1980. Linoff is a history buff who swears he's not stuck in the past. He said he would be happy if the problems on Mill could be remedied so easily. But the future of downtown Tempe depends little on a new name and logo, he said. "It's really about the retail. It's always been about the mix," he said. "We can't just be all bars and restaurants." The shift from retail businesses to entertainment started in the late 1990s. Many Tempe residents and business owners have advocated for the revival of an eclectic fusion of independent retail to complement the existing restaurant and bars. Some retail entrepreneurs have said they can't afford the high rents on Mill. Even in the economic downturn, when major retail chains like Abercrombie & Fitch Co. shuttered on Mill, rents hardly faltered from their highs, Linoff said. Kate Borders, head of a non-profit that manages the business district for landowners, said new urban restaurants on Farmer Avenue and on College Avenue, just east of Mill, are already giving Valley residents reason to visit downtown and spend time beyond Mill. City leaders hope Fox's business will revitalize Farmer Avenue in a way that mirrors the growing buzz on College Avenue since the Valley's popular Postino Wine Cafe expanded to Tempe last month. Borders said new businesses will attract a mixture of college kids, hipsters and old-timers. Tempe Mayor Mark Mitchell said the diversity and deluge of patrons are a key to building a market strong enough to sustain more retailers. "We have to continue the momentum, show we think big," Mitchell said. Mitchell, a native Tempean whose family dates back generations, understands if people don't want to pick one name over the other or embrace new over old. Mitchell's father, Harry, a former Tempe mayor and Arizona congressman, is credited as the visionary who revitalized Mill in the 1970s. "They're going to say Mill Avenue or downtown Tempe," he said. "It's OK." --- For more on Tempe Town Toilet see: http://tempetowntoilet.100webspace.net For more on the Tempe Cesspool for the Arts see: http://tempe-cesspool-for-the-arts.tripod.com The Royal Rulers on the Tempe City Council call it the Tempe Center for the Arts, us locals call the multi-million dollar waste of money the Tempe Cesspool for the Arts.
Does Obamacare violate my 13th Amendment right??? Yes, the question is does the Affordable Care Act violate my 13th Amendment right against slavery. If the government is going to force my to spend hours of my time selecting a health care plan that sure sounds like slavery to me. I guess that problem could be fixed by the government just telling me what sh*tty health plan they were going to force me to buy. Of course there are probably a lot of OTHER reason that Obamacare is unconstitutional, like the 10th Amendment. Which says if the government isn't given a power, that power is reserved for the states and the people. Last time I checked the US Constitution didn't have a word in it about Uncle Sam being allowed to force me to buy a health care plan. http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2014/11/13/aca-website-ready-enroll/19008953/ Is ACA website ready to (en)roll? Heathcare.gov opens for enrollment tomorrow, and the Obama Administration says this time the website is ready. Ken Alltucker, The Republic | azcentral.com 7:02 a.m. MST November 14, 2014 More than 120,000 Arizona residents who get private health insurance through the federal marketplace will find out this week how much they can expect to pay for health coverage next year. When the three-month sign-up period for Affordable Care Act health coverage begins Saturday, most individuals will be automatically enrolled in their existing marketplace plan for coverage beginning Jan. 1, 2015. But consumer advocates said those plans may charge a higher premium, deductible, co-payment or co-insurance, or may change the doctors and hospitals that consumers can use at less expensive "in-network" rates. Other plans may change prescription-drug coverage, so experts urge individuals to scrutinize their plans and study other options that will be available over the federal marketplace, the centerpiece of the health-care overhaul also known as "Obamacare." "We encourage Arizonans to shop around, know their options and know their rights," said Diane Brown, executive director of Arizona Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, a consumer group. Insurers are required to mail notices before Saturday that show any changes to a consumer's coverage. While most will be automatically routed to their existing plan for 2015, some plans will be canceled, and those customers will be assigned to similar replacement plans, according to insurers and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Federal officials said they don't expect the heavy website traffic of last year's enrollment kickoff, when frustrated consumers were stymied in attempts to sign up on the glitch-ridden federal marketplace, healthcare.gov. The Department of Health and Human Services this week said 9 million to 9.9 million will sign up for marketplace coverage over the coming year. That is less than the Congressional Budget Office's projection that 13 million would get coverage. About 7.1 million people are now covered, but not all those individuals are expected to keep their coverage as life circumstances change. Website traffic "will not be as heavy as it was in the very beginning" last year, said Ken Shapiro, acting director of HHS Region IX, which includes Arizona and three other states. "On the consumer side, we're ready to go." Shapiro said the marketplace will be better prepared this year to handle glitches and required downtime for website maintenance. He added that consumers should notice an easier experience, with the typical consumer expected to navigate 16 screens, compared with 76 a year ago. Changes are coming to your healthcare plan. Here’s what you should be watching for. Shapiro estimated that 90 percent of required information will be loaded for consumers who re-enroll, but he said consumers need to verify their incomes and review their choices to avoid a plan that's a poor fit. Filings with the Arizona Department of Insurance show that most plans will raise rates, with insurers such as Cigna, Health Net and Humana planning to increase average rates for some plans by more than 10 percent. Other health-insurance plans will have modest single-digit increases, while the non-profit cooperative Meritus expects to lower rates from a year ago. Consumers can browse for plans on the federal marketplace without logging in using their personal information. The window-shopping features allow consumers to review basic plan details, such as the monthly premium and co-payments. For example, a 40-year-old Maricopa County resident could shop among 127 plans offered by 11 health insurers with monthly premiums that range from $153 to $440, according to healthcare.gov. Nearly 235,000 Arizona residents who get coverage through the state's Medicaid expansion won't need to go through the marketplace enrollment for private plans. However, they still must maintain eligibility for the state's Medicaid program, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, which covers eligible individuals who earn up to $16,105 or a family of four that earns up to $32,913. Those who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but don't get coverage through an employer may be eligible for taxpayer-subsidized coverage through the marketplace. Those who earn four times the federal poverty level, or $46,680 for an individual, may qualify for sliding-scale subsidies with the more generous premium assistance for those who earn less. Enrollment experts recommend consumers review their healthcare.gov accounts to make sure their income levels are correct, because those who underestimate their income may be required to pay more when they file federal income taxes the following year. "We're really emphasizing that people go back into the marketplace to check their accounts," said Pati Urias, an Arizona spokeswoman for Enroll America, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that promotes sign-ups. Consumers also should be aware that the penalty for not getting coverage next year increases to the greater of $325 per individual or 2 percent of income, up from this year's penalty of the greater of $95 or 1 percent of income. Several groups are exempt from this individual mandate, including those who don't earn enough to file a federal income-tax return, those who experienced a lapse in coverage of less than three months, Native Americans who are a member of a federally recognized tribe, undocumented residents and incarcerated individuals. Some consumers already are planning to review their coverage options after receiving notices of rate increases from their insurer. Tucson resident Jane Gittings said she received a notice that her insurer, Humana, planned to hike her monthly premium from $278 to $464 for an individual, non-marketplace plan. That prompted her to make an appointment with her broker to explore other options. "I am just disappointed," Gittings said. "I've been a 10-year client, and I've been pretty faithful to them. ... It sounds like they want to get rid of these plans" by charging consumers more. Gittings said she will consult a health-insurance broker to study her options. If she chooses to purchase a marketplace plan, she will have more insurance providers to choose among compared with a year ago. There are 11 health insurers who will offer plans in Arizona, though not all insurers market plans in every county. UnitedHealthcare will join the Arizona marketplace after sitting out the first year. The insurer evaluated marketplaces in each state and "watched as each market matured and developed over time" before deciding to offer plans in Arizona and other states, the company said in a statement. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona is among the insurers that will change its mix for the next year. The Phoenix-based insurer will convert some "preferred provider" health-insurance plans with limited networks of doctors and hospitals to a health-maintenance organization. The insurer already has attempted to communicate changes with customers through its network of brokers so that they are prepared for the plan changes. "Every customer will have a default option," said Jeff Stelnik, a Blue Cross Blue Shield senior vice president. "If a plan is no longer available, we recommend to the closest plan available." Looking for enrollment assistance? Dial 211 and you will be connected with local organizations that can help. Healthcare.gov lists the following health-insurance companies as offering marketplace plans in Maricopa County: Aetna, Assurant Health, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Cigna Healthcare, Health Choice Insurance Co., Health Net, Humana, Meritus, Phoenix Health Plans, UnitedHealthcare and University Healthcare Marketplace.
It takes TWO F*CKING YEARS to find the name of a cop that shot a person. Yes, Emperor Obama's government is certainly more open and accountable then Emperor Bush's government. Of course don't count on this pig being charge with a crime and sent to prison like a civilian would have. No this murdering pig will get a nice long paid vacation. And if he is found to have made any minor mistakes he will get a gental slap on the wrist. AT MOST. The murdering pigs name is Lonnie Swartz. Sadly the judge refused to let us know any more information about this murderer that works for the Federal government. Folks, I am sure the Founders gave us the 2nd Amendment for this very reason. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2014/11/13/border-agent-shot-teen-name-released/18993997/ Name of border agent who shot teen released by judge A U.S. District Court judge Thursday ordered that the name of the agent, Lonnie Swartz, be released to the public. Bob Ortega, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:22 p.m. MST November 13, 2014 TUCSON – More than two years after an unarmed Mexican teenager was killed by a Border Patrol agent who fired through the fence in Nogales, Ariz., a U.S. District Court judge Thursday ordered that the name of the agent, Lonnie Swartz, be released to the public. Judge Raner Collins also ordered that previously sealed court papers filed by the agent's attorney be revealed, saying the public had a right to know. The boy's family is suing the agent in the shooting death. The Arizona Republic this week filed a request to intervene in the suit and to have the sealed information made public. Collins' order stated that although Swartz's concerns about possibly being embarrassed or harassed "are valid, these do not rise to the level of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of public access." However, the judge also ordered the parties in the case not to disclose where Swartz lives or works or other personal information. Collins previously allowed most of the motions and information filed by the agent's attorney to be sealed temporarily while he considered a request to let Swartz be sued under a pseudonym. Both U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Sean Chapman, the private attorney representing Swartz, have sought to keep his name secret since he shot and killed 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez two years ago, firing through the border fence into Mexico from Nogales, on Oct. 10, 2012. SPECIAL REPORT: Force at the border Since that night, the Border Patrol has declined to identify Swartz or release additional information about the shooting, citing an ongoing FBI investigation. According to a motion filed by Chapman, unsealed Thursday, the FBI is awaiting documents from Mexican authorities, and that Swartz "remains at risk of criminal prosecution by the federal government." If so, Swartz would be the first agent to be prosecuted by federal authorities for killing someone in the line of duty since at least 2004. As The Republic has reported, in 48 cases since 2005 in which agents have killed people in the line of duty, none have been disciplined or prosecuted. Attorneys for Araceli Rodriguez, Elena Rodriguez's mother, filed a civil suit in July against Border Patrol agents involved in the death, alleging that one or more "John Does," as their complaint then termed the agents involved, had used "unreasonable and excessive force," violating the boy's Fourth and Fifth amendment rights. In court Thursday, Chapman said that "we agree that the public has a right to know what's going on in this case," but he argued that there was no need to release the name of the agent, whom he said had no previous record of violence or disciplinary concerns. "I'm worried about the safety of my client; it could subject him to ridicule, to possible threats," Chapman said. He said that two agents identified in other shooting deaths, Jesus Meza Jr. and Arturo Lorenzo, had faced harassment and threats after their identities were released. But Christopher Moeser, representing The Republic, said Chapman had flipped the legal burden. The agent, Moeser said, "bears the burden of establishing compelling reasons for closure, supported by specific factual findings" such as a specific threat or harm. Similarly, Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who is helping represent Araceli Rodriguez, said he could not find a single example of a law-enforcement officer's name being withheld in a court proceeding. "You would have to have specific, concrete evidence of real, serious harm before you could even entertain this notion," Gelernt said. "The public has an enormous interest in what goes on at the border. The public will want to know if he's been disciplined, if he committed a crime, if other parties may have information and come forward." Gelernt and attorney Luis Parra argued that the public has a strong, legitimate interest in the identity of officers because of their authority to use deadly force and deprive people of their rights. Gelernt noted that police departments around the country routinely voluntarily disclose the names of officers involved in shootings, even in circumstances where there are ongoing and potentially violent protests. The CBP denied Freedom of Information Act requests from The Republic for the identities of agents involved in the shooting and for video from surveillance cameras on towers about 150 feet from where the boy was shot, that presumably would have recorded the incident. Nogales police and Border Patrol agents had responded to a 911 call on Oct. 10, 2012, reporting two suspected drug smugglers carrying bundles over the fence from Mexico. As agents and officers searched a neighborhood along the fence, two men dashed out and began climbing back over the fence into Mexico. The Border Patrol said that Swartz (not identified in their statement) fired in response to rocks thrown over the fence as agents and police officers tried to stop the two men. Two witnesses on the Mexican side of the fence said that Elena Rodriguez, however, was walking down the street when other youths ran past just before the shooting started. The boy was shot 10 times in the back and head. Chapman, Swartz's attorney, could not immediately be reached for comment after Collins' ruling. |