Denver police captain punished [with a slap on the wrist] for ripping homeless man's pot sign Do we still have our Constitutional rights when cops who violate them are are not fired, not charged with a crime and not sent to prison??? I would say HELL NO we don't have any stinking Constitutional rights when a government goon that violates them doesn't get any more punishment then a token slap on the wrist. On October 17, 2014 I was falsely arrested by Chandler piggy Ariel Werther for about 15 minutes. She handcuffed me illegally, illegally searched me, told me I didn't have any 5th Amendment rights, ignored my request have a lawyer per the 6th Amendment, and violated my 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The tyrants on the Chandler City Council haven't answered any of my requests for information on that incident. Like an answer to the simple question of "why was I arrested". For more on that check out: http://bad-chandler-cop.100webspace.net/false_arrest_oct_17_2014/0_index.php http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26903862/denver-police-captain-punished-ripping-homeless-mans-pot Denver police captain punished for ripping homeless man's pot sign By Noelle Phillips The Denver Post Posted: 11/10/2014 12:01:00 AM MST Just days after he was filmed shoving a fan at a Colorado Rockies game, a Denver Police Department captain violated the rights of a homeless man on the 16th Street Mall. Capt. Joe Black will lose four days of time off for violating the man's First Amendment right to free speech after destroying his sign that read "Need weed," according to a disciplinary letter obtained by The Denver Post. An internal investigation found Black did not have grounds to destroy the sign and had changed his story about the incident during interviews, according to the letter. Black's actions do not live up to the expectations of Chief Robert White, said Cmdr. Matt Murray, the police department's chief of staff. "It's not consistent with the chief's vision and the new mission of respecting people," Murray said. "The chief came here to change a culture." Black, who commands the department's juvenile division, continues to work in his normal capacity, said Daelene Mix, a Denver Department of Public Safety spokeswoman. The incident between Black and the homeless man happened July 28, six days after Black shoved a fan at Coors Field. A video in which Black shoves Alex Buck three times was shared thousands of times on social media. In the video, Buck tells the officer he is 22 years old and had three beers. He also repeatedly yells that the officer is violating the rights of an "American citizen." Buck was ejected from the stadium but was not charged. The investigation into the Coors Field incident has not been finalized, and no disciplinary recommendations have been made to the Denver Department of Public Safety's executive director, who has the final say, Mix said. This is a frame grab from the video shot at Coors Field of the shoving incident. This is a frame grab from the video shot at Coors Field of the shoving incident. (, HANDOUT) She and Murray declined to comment further on the Coors Field incident. In both cases, Black was working off-duty security. The homeless man, who was identified only by his last name in the disciplinary letter, was sitting next to an alley on the 16th Street Mall when Black approached him. Black told internal investigators that the man became belligerent when another officer told him he could not sit or lie on the ground. The homeless man told investigators that Black had said asking for marijuana was aggressive panhandling. In a written statement and in an internal affairs interview, Black said he took the sign because the homeless man "might use the sign to swat at members of the public." But in a pre-disciplinary meeting, Black claimed he tore up the sign when the homeless man "swatted at me with the sign," the letter said. Investigators did not buy Black's change in the story. "This self-serving claim made at this late stage of the disciplinary process is not credible," the disciplinary letter said. Public safety officials determined the homeless man had a right to hold the "Need weed" sign because it was a protected form of speech. "Captain Black refuses to take responsibility for his actions," the letter said. Because he is a captain, Black is held to a higher standard, Murray said. "The higher you go up in the ranks, that much more is expected of you," he said. Noelle Phillips: 303-954-1661, nphillips@denverpost.com or twitter.com/Noelle_Phillips
Officer slaps man for refusing to allow a search of his car You ain't got NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS around ANYBODY with a gun and a badge. This isn't an isolated incident. It happens ALL the time. When I was falsely arrested by Chandler Piggy Ariel Werther on October 17, 2014 she pretty much did the same thing to me. Ariel Werther ignored my demand that she honor my 6th Amendment right to having a lawyer while she questioned. After doing that Ariel Werther told me I didn't have any 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer her questions. Ariel Werther also had one of the Chandler police thugs that showed up illegally search me violating my 4th Amendment rights. And Ariel Werther and one or more of the Chandler pigs that falsely arrested me tried to erase the video I shot of them violating my 1st Amendment right to free speech. For more on that see: http://bad-chandler-cop.100webspace.net/false_arrest_oct_17_2014/0_index.php http://www.reviewjournal.com/trending/feed/officer-suspended-after-video-captures-him-allegedly-slapping-man Officer suspended after video captures him allegedly slapping man HALFMOON, N.Y. — A New York sheriff’s deputy has been suspended after a video captured him cursing and apparently slapping a young man after the man refused to let the officer search his vehicle. The Albany Times Union reports that Sgt. Shawn Glans was suspended Saturday over the encounter Friday in Halfmoon. The man’s friend filmed the encounter. It shows Glans cursing at the man and insisting he has a right to search the vehicle, which had a rifle on the backseat. The deputy apparently slaps the man; the strike can be heard but isn’t seen. The deputy then tells the friend he could “rip your … head off.” Glans told the newspaper the two had been acting suspicious but hadn’t broken any laws. Saratoga County Sheriff Michael Zurlo calls the video disturbing.
Policing for dollars. A seminar telling cops what to steal & not to steal!!!! The seminars offered police officers some useful tips on stealing property from innocent civilians. Don’t steal jewelry or computers, instead steal flat screen TVs, cash and cars. Especially nice cars. [For the records I changed the words in that, but it's the thought that counts, and my words are an accurate description of police thievery.] According to the Justice Department in 2012 the cops stole $4.3 billion from American citizen. Jesus, with that in mind, the police are probably the biggest criminals in America!!!! So change that image in your mind of jackbooted police thugs from Nazi SS troopers or Soviet KGP terrorists to American cops, you know like the police in Mayberry, North Carolina. Sheriff Andy Taylor, Barney Fife and so on. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html?hpw&rref=us&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0 Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize By SHAILA DEWANNOV. 9, 2014 The seminars offered police officers some useful tips on seizing property from suspected criminals. Don’t bother with jewelry (too hard to dispose of) and computers (“everybody’s got one already”), the experts counseled. Do go after flat screen TVs, cash and cars. Especially nice cars. In one seminar, captured on video in September, Harry S. Connelly Jr., the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., called them “little goodies.” And then Mr. Connelly described how officers in his jurisdiction could not wait to seize one man’s “exotic vehicle” outside a local bar. “A guy drives up in a 2008 Mercedes, brand new,” he explained. “Just so beautiful, I mean, the cops were undercover and they were just like ‘Ahhhh.’ And he gets out and he’s just reeking of alcohol. And it’s like, ‘Oh, my goodness, we can hardly wait.’ ” Mr. Connelly was talking about a practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government, without ever securing a conviction or even filing a criminal charge, to seize property suspected of having ties to crime. The practice, expanded during the war on drugs in the 1980s, has become a staple of law enforcement agencies because it helps finance their work. It is difficult to tell how much has been seized by state and local law enforcement, but under a Justice Department program, the value of assets seized has ballooned to $4.3 billion in the 2012 fiscal year from $407 million in 2001. Much of that money is shared with local police forces. The practice of civil forfeiture has come under fire in recent months, amid a spate of negative press reports and growing outrage among civil rights advocates, libertarians and members of Congress who have raised serious questions about the fairness of the practice, which critics say runs roughshod over due process rights. In one oft-cited case, a Philadelphia couple’s home was seized after their son made $40 worth of drug sales on the porch. Despite that opposition, many cities and states are moving to expand civil seizures of cars and other assets. The seminars, some of which were captured on video, raise a curtain on how law enforcement officials view the practice. From Orange County, N.Y., to Rio Rancho, N.M., forfeiture operations are being established or expanded. In September, Albuquerque, which has long seized the cars of suspected drunken drivers, began taking them from men suspected of trying to pick up prostitutes, landing seven cars during a one-night sting. Arkansas has expanded its seizure law to allow the police to take cash and assets with suspected connections to terrorism, and Illinois moved to make boats fair game under its D.W.I. laws, in addition to cars. In Mercer County, N.J., a prosecutor preaches the “gospel” that forfeiture is not just for drug arrests — cars can be seized in shoplifting and statutory rape cases as well. “At the grass-roots level — cities, counties — they continue to be interested, perhaps increasingly so, in supplementing their budgets by engaging in the type of seizures that we’ve seen in Philadelphia and elsewhere,” said Lee McGrath, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has mounted a legal and public relations assault on civil forfeiture. Much of the nuts-and-bolts how-to of civil forfeiture is passed on in continuing education seminars for local prosecutors and law enforcement officials, some of which have been captured on video. The Institute for Justice, which brought the videos to the attention of The Times, says they show how cynical the practice has become and how profit motives can outweigh public safety. In the sessions, officials share tips on maximizing profits, defeating the objections of so-called “innocent owners” who were not present when the suspected offense occurred, and keeping the proceeds in the hands of law enforcement and out of general fund budgets. The Times reviewed three sessions, one in Santa Fe, N.M., that took place in September, one in New Jersey that was undated, and one in Georgia in September that was not videotaped. Officials offered advice on dealing with skeptical judges, mocked Hispanics whose cars were seized, and made comments that, the Institute for Justice said, gave weight to the argument that civil forfeiture encourages decisions based on the value of the assets to be seized rather than public safety. In the Georgia session, the prosecutor leading the talk boasted that he had helped roll back a Republican-led effort to reform civil forfeiture in Georgia, where seized money has been used by the authorities, according to news reports, to pay for sports tickets, office parties, a home security system and a $90,000 sports car. In defense of the practice, Gary Bergman, a prosecutor with the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, said civil forfeiture had been distorted in news reports. “All they hear is the woman was left on the side of the road and the police drove off with her car and her money, no connection to drugs,” he told other prosecutors at the session. “I’m not saying that that doesn’t happen — it does. It should not. But they never hear about all the people that get stopped with the drugs in their cars, in their houses, the manufacturing operations we see, all the useful things we do with the money, the equipment, vehicles. They don’t hear about that.” In an interview, Mr. Connelly said that the Las Cruces ordinance does only what the State Supreme Court has said is permissible. Sean D. McMurtry, the chief of the forfeiture unit in the Mercer County, N.J., prosecutor’s office, said forfeiture contributes to only a small percentage of local budgets but it is a good deterrent and works especially well against repeat offenders, such as domestic violence perpetrators who repeatedly violate a restraining order. “We’re very proud of our forfeiture operation,” he said in an interview. But in the video, Mr. McMurtry made it clear that forfeitures were highly contingent on the needs of law enforcement. In New Jersey, the police and prosecutors are allowed to use cars, cash and other seized goods; the rest must be sold at auction. Cellphones and jewelry, Mr. McMurtry said, are not worth the bother. Flat screen televisions, however, “are very popular with the police departments,” he said. Prosecutors boasted in the sessions that seizure cases were rarely contested or appealed. But civil forfeiture places the burden on owners, who must pay court fees and legal costs to get their property back. Many seizures go uncontested because the property is not worth the expense. And often the first hearing is presided over not by a judge but by the prosecutor whose office benefits from the proceeds, and who has wide discretion in deciding whether to forfeit the property or return it, sometimes in exchange for a steep fine. Mr. McMurtry said his handling of a case is sometimes determined by department wish lists. “If you want the car, and you really want to put it in your fleet, let me know — I’ll fight for it,” Mr. McMurtry said, addressing law enforcement officials on the video. “If you don’t let me know that, I’ll try and resolve it real quick through a settlement and get cash for the car, get the tow fee paid off, get some money for it.” One criticism of civil forfeiture is that it results in widely varied penalties — one drunken driver could lose a $100,000 luxury car, while another forfeits a $2,000 clunker. In an interview, Mr. McMurtry acknowledged that he exercises a great deal of discretion. “The first offense, if it’s not anything too serious, we’ll come up with a dollar amount, depending on the value of the car and the seriousness of the offense,” he said. “I try to come up with a dollar amount that’s not so high that they can’t afford it, but not so low that it doesn’t have an impact. If it’s a second offense, they don’t get it back.” Prosecutors estimated that between 50 to 80 percent of the cars seized were driven by someone other than the owner, which sometimes means a parent or grandparent loses their car. In the Santa Fe video, a police officer acknowledged that the law can affect families, but expressed skepticism of owners who say they did not know their relative was running afoul of the law. “I can’t tell you how many people have come in and said, ‘Oh, my hijito would never do that,’ ” he said, mimicking a female voice with a Spanish accent. Clay Bolton contributed reporting from Georgia.
Racist Chandler cops send Indians to jail, let White folks off with a ticket??? Jesus, what's it take to get a cop fired. From this article it looks like racist Chandler piggy Sgt. Sue Freeman didn't get any more then a slap on the wrist for this. Last I should not that racist Chandler piggy Sgt. Sue Freeman wasn't the crooked Chandler pig that falsely arrested me 3 weeks ago on October 17, 2014 from about 7:54 a.m. to 8:10 a.m. That was Chandler piggy Ariel Werther. Ariel Werther never told me why she arrested me for about 15 minutes, handcuffed me, illegally searched me, told me I didn't have any 5th Amendment rights and had to answer her question. Hell in fact Ariel Werther even lied to me several times and told me I wasn't being arrested. Ariel Werther and 3 other Chandler pigs terrorized me for 15 minutes. They also violated my 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment Constitutional rights For more on that you can check out this website: http://bad-chandler-cop.100webspace.net/false_arrest_oct_17_2014/0_index.php http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2014/11/09/probe-officer-targeted-native-american-suspects/18784865/ Probe: Chandler officer targeted Native Americans Jim Walsh, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:54 a.m. MST November 10, 2014 A Chandler police sergeant lost her rank, and nearly lost her job, when she ordered her subordinates to single out Native American shoplifting suspects for being booked into jail, rather than being cited and released with a ticket, according to an internal-affairs investigation. In an unusual move, Sgt. Sue Freeman was demoted to officer and agreed to leave the department by Dec. 31, 2015, or whenever she reaches her 20 years of service to qualify for her pension, according to the report. The demotion was in lieu of dismissal after the investigation sustained charges of conduct unbecoming an officer. Freeman's patrol officers interpreted her order as representing biased policing, singling out Native Americans for being booked, rather than a simple citation, according to the investigation, obtained by The Arizona Republic under the Arizona Public Records Law. "Your directive was interpreted by members of your team as removing any discretion for handling a shoplifting investigation and more specifically for singling out a race of people for disparate treatment," according to the charge against Freeman that later was sustained. The patrol officers refused to follow the orders and alerted a lieutenant, said Sgt. Joe Favazzo, a Chandler police spokesman. The lieutenant pursued an internal probe after receiving multiple complaints from officers, Favazzo said. Freeman's south Chandler patrol district borders the Gila River Reservation and has a chronic shoplifting problem, Favazzo said. No one would have objected if Freeman had ordered all shoplifting suspects booked as a strong statement that the crime would not be tolerated, he said. "I think it was probably a poor choice of words, poor communication,'' Favazzo said. "She was telling her officers not to give them a ticket. It was an unlawful order." He said the fact that officers questioned during the internal investigation reported hearing the order more than once, with one saying he heard it six to 12 times, made the situation worse. Favazzo said the officers demonstrated their professionalism by not following the orders. "When you do it multiple times to multiple people, it sends out a clouded message," Favazzo said. The internal investigation also sustained a second charge that Freeman manipulated a computer system to take longer lunch hours than allowed. Freeman's discipline was more severe because she had two prior sustained offenses on her record in 2012, according to the investigation. She was suspended 10 hours without pay in September 2012 for pointing a Taser at an officer and was suspended for 40 hours without pay in December 2012 for surreptitiously recording department employees inside a police facility, a policy violation. The document said officers received the biased order from Freeman between March and August. Her demotion took effect on Oct. 16 when she signed a disciplinary agreement to avoid termination. Favazzo described the disciplinary agreement as akin to a plea agreement and said it spares the city the cost of lengthy appeals while removing Freeman from a supervisory position. The agreement spelled out that Freeman is not guaranteed a job as a patrol officer until she reaches her pension, and that she must follow the terms of the agreement and perform her job properly to remain employed.
As usual, government is the CAUSE of the problem, not the solution to the problem. Our royal rulers love to give us the line of BS that they are public servants who work for us. But when you read articles like this you realized they are just a bunch of parasites that want to suck our wallets dry for themselves and the special interest groups that helped elect them. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/11/10/phoenix-parking-meter-changes-hurting-business-owners-say/18666281/ Phoenix parking-meter changes hurting business, owners say Ryan Van Velzer, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:18 a.m. MST November 10, 2014 Downtown Phoenix at 5:30 Friday night used to mean at least two things: happy hour and free parking. But in August, city officials expanded parking-meter hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week, plus holidays. Now, small businesses and developers in downtown say the increased hours are affecting their bottom line, said Mat Englehorn, owner of Angel's Trumpet Ale House, a bar and restaurant near Second and McKinley streets. While downtown patrons visiting venues such as Chase Field, the Phoenix Convention Center and US Airways Center can find long-term parking in garages, those frequenting restaurants, bars and stores north of Fillmore Street have no such alternatives, Engelhorn said. Two- to four-hour parking-meter limits force customers to leave prematurely, he said. "With this parking issue, I wouldn't open another place down here," Englehorn said during a meeting with Phoenix Councilmen Michael Nowakowski in late October. "One, for my staff. Where am I going to park them? Two, it seems like you're (the city) trying to prevent people from coming down here." If someone wants to come downtown on a Friday night for a dinner and a movie it's going to take longer than four hours, he said. People who would come to hang out and spend money downtown will just leave after their parking-meter limit is up, he said. Additionally, employees working at small businesses such as Angel's Trumpet have fewer places to park, Engelhorn said. "I have 15 to 16 people on doing eight-hours days, they have to go to all the free areas to park," he said. The city has already taken steps to curb issues surrounding parking-meter changes. Street Department officials have decided to postpone the parking meter price hikes, known as demand-based pricing, while reviewing how parking is used downtown, said Monica Hernandez, Phoenix spokeswoman. Parking issues at popular Phoenix trails lead to consideration of parking meters The department has also begun to listen to concerns from businesses and has changed the hours and parking-meter types as a result. For example, officials expanded the parking meter time limit from two to four hours in front of Crescent Ballroom. Outside Angel's Trumpet, officials switched out parking meters from quarter-accepting machines to credit-card machines — a solution that avoids the headache of having to make change for customers needing quarters, Englehorn said. "They (the city) are doing some of the things that we are asking for, which is great. It shows they are listening," he said. But over at Turf, an Irish pub on First Street north of Pierce Street, management brings in $120 in quarters every day to help meet the demand of the customers coming in asking for change, said KP Edwards, Turf general manager. At Turf, the parking meters, which are credit-card and coin operated, have only a two-hour limit, Edwards said. It's an issue of customer convenience, he said. "Am I over the meter or am I not?" Edwards said. "Most people are saying 'this is a pain in our butt. We want to go out, we want to have good time.' The time limit limits how long they can stay, and they end up having to move or leave." As for customers that drink too much to drive, they end up with a parking ticket if they can't get to their vehicle by 8 a.m. the next morning, he said. "We are putting an extra burden on them, even though the meter doesn't run all night you have to be there by 8 a.m. in the morning, which is a problem," Edwards said. Small businesses and their customers aren't the only ones feeling the squeeze from the new parking-meter hours. Property developers such as Patrick Cantelme, who is planning a re-adaptive use development near Fourth Avenue and Van Buren Street, said that having enough available parking for customers is a concern for businesses looking to come to downtown Phoenix. "We're willing to develop the project, which is pretty expensive, a more than $3 million investment, and if we can't solve the parking issues then we can't get tenants that would justify spending that kind of money on those buildings," he said. However, city officials say that increasing parking-meter times to include nights, weekends and holidays helps businesses turnover customers, Hernandez said. "The meter is intended to accommodate," she said. "It allows them to park curbside to ensure there is turnover. Where it makes sense we are increasing time limits based on what makes sense in that area and what makes sense for the use of the meter." The goal, Hernandez said, is to strike a balance between the needs of businesses, the city and downtown patrons, she said. To do that, the Streets Department is evaluating the location and availability of free parking downtown, changing parking meters to include more machines and keeping meter rates between $1 to $1.50 an hour until the evaluation is complete, she said. "We recognize that there is a need for parking and we are looking into and identifying how this can be resolved by working with the businesses," Hernandez said.
Will Humble Talks at HSGP meeting in Mesa
Today Will Humble who runs the Arizona Department of Health Services spoke at the HSGP meeting in Mesa about vaccinations. HSGP is the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix.
If you haven't heard the word "humanist", it's just a sugar coated word for atheist. For some reason many atheists don't like the world "atheist" and would prefer to call themselves "humanists".
I am not one of them. I prefer the word "atheist" because everybody knows what it means.
I don't believe in God, because I don't see any evidence to support the existence of God. And I certainly am not ashamed of that.
I was going to ask a question like
"Almost all of the people here are atheists and we believe that the way to solve the worlds problems is by using science, logic and reason, not superstition and myth as religious people do.I put off asking my question for most of the meeting because most of the questions were around the subject of vaccinations, and I didn't think it would be right for me to change the subject.Most of the people here know that heroin is an addictive drug, while marijuana is not addictive at all.
How come the Arizona Department of Health Services is telling people the lie on medical marijuana cars it issues that marijuana is an addictive drug, just like heroin?
Why is the Arizona Department of Health Services using superstition and myth to demonize marijuana?"
Towards the end of the meeting Will Humble got pretty angry when he was talking about how the US government used a bunch of doctors telling lies about how they were vaccinating people against polio to hunt down bin Laden.
Will Humble said these lies set the medical community back by years.
I figured now was the time to ask my question. Because Will Humble and the folks at his Arizona Department of Health Services are doing the exact same thing when they spread lies that marijuana is an addictive drug like heroin.
But by then time had run out and I didn't get to answer my question.
Over all I thought Will Humble's talk was pretty good, despite the fact that I hate him because of how he has screwed over the medical marijuana community.
From his talk Will Humble seemed like a socialist who was pushing big government. And of course he as a vested interest in that because his job is running the Arizona Department of Health Services.
One thing that pissed me off was Will Humble said a number of times that everybody has a "social contract" to get their vaccinations.
I am sure that would have ticked off any other Libertarians in the room too.
My question is just when did I sign this "social contract", and how much was I paid to sign it when I agreed to get these vaccinations.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio - Chinga juez federal Murray Snow http://www.lavozarizona.com/story/noticias/2014/10/30/juez-federal-frustado-con-la-actitud-de-arpaio-hacia-reforma/18211629/ Juez federal: frustado con la actitud de Arpaio hacia reforma Por Laura Gómez 5:37 p.m. MST Octubre 30, 2014 El juez federal Murray Snow expresó su frustración repetidas veces con la actitud del el Alguacil Joe Arpaio hacia los esfuerzos para reparar las fallas institucionales de perfil racial de la Oficina del Alguacil del Condado de Maricopa. Durante una audiencia el martes, Snow se mostró molesto por declaraciones publicadas del alguacil que demuestran una mala voluntad hacia sus órdenes de purgar al departamento y a sus agentes del comportamiento racista del cual se les hayo culpable en el caso Melendres v. Arpaio. “Él está deshaciendo lo que la MCSO está trabajando en reparar”, dijo Snow durante la audiencia. Según la abogada Cecillia Wang de ACLU, quien representa a los demandantes en el caso Melendres v. Arpaio, ha habido 13 instancias desde la decisión del juez Snow en las cuales Arpaio y miembros de la MCSO han hecho declaraciones que menosprecian la orden federal. Recientemente, Arpaio mostró poco remordimiento sobre sus acciones pasadas. "En las mismas circunstancias, lo haría otra vez", dijo Arpaio a la agencia de noticias Associated Press cuando se le indago sobre una redada en Guadalupe del 2008. Lydia Guzmán, directora del comité de inmigración de la Liga de Ciudadanos Americanos Unidos (LULAC) en Arizona, estuvo presente durante la audiencia y dijo que no habrá una reforma integra si Arpaio no respeta la orden federal en sus apariciones públicas. “Si va a cambiar la agencia, la cabeza de la agencia también tiene que cambiar,” dijo Guzmán. En defensa de Arpaio, el abogado Tim Casey dijo que la reforma y cumplimiento de la MCSO debe ser medida con cambios concretos. Snow reconoció que Arpaio está en la libertad de ejercer su derecho de expresión, pero aun así eso será visto con seriedad. “El Sheriff Arpaio puede decir lo que quiera”, dijo Snow. “Pero yo estoy dispuesto a tomar sus declaraciones en cuanta al evaluar si la MCSO está cumpliendo [con la orden]”. El monitor Robert Warshaw, quien es ex jefe de policía y tiene décadas de experiencia investigando departamentos de seguridad pública en el país, dijo que esta actitud de Arpaio tiene peso en el desarrollo del cambio. “En mi experiencia, las declaraciones de jefes ejecutivos en agencias policiacas tienen un impacto escalofriante en el proceso de reforma”, declaro Warshaw durante la audiencia. Para remediar las violaciones constitucionales del caso Melendres vs. Arpaio, el sheriff Arpaio y su equipo deben reformar sus políticas, entrenar su personal Agentes se han sometido a un entrenamiento sobre la 4ta enmienda de la Constitución de Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, Arpaio aún no ha cursado dicha capacitación. Snow ordenó que Arpaio deberá tomar el entrenamiento, que para finales diciembre debe concluir, según Raúl Martinez, miembro del equipo de Warshaw. La audiencia fue convocada para examinar el reporte del Warshaw, asignado por Snow para examinar y monitorear la reforma de la oficina de Arpaio, sobre la investigación del ex agente del MSCO de la Unidad de Tráfico de Personas Charley Armendariz—quien se suicidó en mayo de este año tras ser descubierto con videos, pasaportes, documentos de identidad y otros objetos que se presume fueron clandestinamente decomisados por él y otros oficiales de su agencia durante operativos policiacos. Armendariz fue testigo en el caso Melendres v. Arpaio, y los demandantes creen que la evidencia descubierta en el hogar del agente fallecido puede mostrar más casos de perfil racial e implicar a otros empleados de la MCSO. Snow ordenó que Arpaio debe reabrir una investigación criminal en ese caso. Salvador Reza, coordinador comunitario de Tonatierra, estuvo presente en la audiencia y opino que la MCSO está tratando de encubrir a sus agentes. “Todavía hay un intento dentro del alto mando de MCSO de protegerse,” dijo Reza. Twitter: @Laura_GomezRod http://www.lavozarizona.com/story/inicio/2014/10/29/juez-critica-joe-arpaio/18117439/ Juez critica al jefe policial Arpaio en Arizona AP 9:39 a.m. MST Octubre 29, 2014 Tea Party Express Bus Tour Makes Stop In Phoenix Arizona PHOENIX, Arizona — El juez que preside un caso de caracterización racial contra la policía del condado Maricopa, dirigida por Joe Arpaio, la criticó fuertemente el martes, acusándola de no investigar a fondo los alegatos de que algunos agentes estaban involucrados en robos. El juez federal de distrito Murray Snow también criticó directamente al jefe policial por decir públicamente que no se arrepentía de haber implementado el tipo de patrullas de control de inmigración que Snow declaró inconstitucionales como parte del caso. El magistrado se mostró preocupado de que los comentarios de Arpaio estén debilitando los esfuerzos para corregir fallas institucionales en el enfoque de la policía a las detenciones de tráfico. "Creo que él está deshaciendo completamente lo que la policía del condado Maricopa está dedicando mucho tiempo a hacer", dijo Snow, quien mostró una frustración visible contra la agencia policial en una audiencia judicial el martes. Snow ordenó a Arpaio asistir a la capacitación que sus agentes deben completar como parte del caso. La audiencia fue convocada para analizar las investigaciones de la agencia a un ex agente sospechoso de estafar a inmigrantes, y también para pronunciarse sobre los recientes comentarios de Arpaio en torno a una patrulla de inmigración en el 2008. Arpaio, quien el martes estaba en Idaho, no asistió a la audiencia. Sus abogados y uno de los principales administradores de la agencia policial enfrentaron preguntas fuertes del juez, en particular sobre la investigación del ex agente Ramón Charley Armendáriz. Armendáriz fue arrestado en mayo después que investigadores encontraron en su casa artículos de otras personas y bolsas llenas de pruebas. Él implicó a colegas del equipo especial contra tráfico de inmigrantes, renunció y más tarde se suicidó. Armendáriz es relevante para el caso de caracterización racial porque fue un testigo en el juicio del caso en 2012 y después de su arresto se descubrieron videos de sus detenciones de tráfico. El juez dijo que le preocupa que la única investigación penal de la policía de Maricopa sobre el caso de Armendáriz haya sido cerrada. "Creo que ustedes necesitan seguir investigando de dónde salieron esos artículos", dijo Snow. Robert Warshaw, un funcionario nombrado por el tribunal para supervisar a la policía de Maricopa a nombre del juez, dijo que otro miembro del equipo contra el tráfico de inmigrantes ha alegado que personal del equipo se quedó con artículos encontrados en casas de seguridad. Warshaw, que fue jefe policial, dijo que su equipo de investigadores nunca ha visto entrevistas más poco profesionales que las realizadas por los agentes de Arpaio que están efectuando la investigación. Hace más de un año, Snow falló que la policía del condado Maricopa había participado en un esfuerzo sistemático con el fin de caracterizar racialmente a los hispanos en sus patrullas regulares para controlar el tráfico y la inmigración. Arpaio niega que sus agentes hayan detenido a los hispanos por ser tales y ha apelado la decisión. La audiencia del martes se centró también en los recientes comentarios de Arpaio sobre una patrulla de inmigración en el poblado de Guadalupe que fueron una parte importante del caso de caracterización racial. Al preguntársele sobre una próxima reunión comunitaria en esa ciudad, Arpaio dijo a The Associated Press que no lamentaba haber realizado la patrulla. "En las mismas circunstancias, lo haría otra vez", dijo. Snow dijo que Arpaio, como funcionario electo, tiene la libertad de hacer los comentarios públicos que estime convenientes, pero agregó que el jefe policial fija el tono general de la policía de Maricopa, y cuestionó si esos comentarios socavan los esfuerzos por capacitar a los policías. http://www.lavozarizona.com/story/inicio/2014/10/30/joe-arpaio-discriminacion-entrenamiento/18188837/ Juez ordena a Arpaio recibir entrenamiento por discriminación racial EFE 12:06 p.m. MST Octubre 30, 2014 Tendrá que recibir la misma capacitación que sus oficiales deben cumplir, como parte de una orden de un juez federal en el caso de discriminación racial en su contra Sheriff Joe Arpaio Visits Border Security Expo In Phoenix El controvertido alguacil del condado de Maricopa, Joe Arpaio, tendrá que recibir el mismo entrenamiento y capacitación que sus oficiales deben cumplir como parte de una orden de un juez federal en el caso de discriminación racial en su contra. "El juez Murray Snow está muy molesto con las declaraciones que Arpaio ha hecho públicamente que parecen contradecir sus ordenes", dijo hoy a Efe Alessandra Soler, directora ejecutiva de la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU). Los abogados de ACLU y de Arpaio se reunieron este martes con el juez Snow, quien, según Soler, expresó su enojo ante las continuas declaraciones de Arpaio en las que asegura no estar arrepentido de sus acciones y que continuará aplicando leyes de inmigración como hasta ahora. Snow considera que las declaraciones de Arpaio minimizan el trabajo que se hace para corregir fallas dentro de esta agencia policial, por lo que le ordenó cumplir con el mismo entrenamiento que sus agentes. "Los abogados de Arpaio aseguran que Arpaio está protegido bajo la Primera Enmienda (que protege el derecho a la información y a la libertad de expresión), pero nosotros consideramos que estos derechos no pueden estar sobre los de la comunidad", dijo Soler. El juez Snow dictaminó el año pasado que la oficina de Arpaio cometió prácticas de perfil racial en contra de conductores hispanos durante sus operativos y ordenó una serie de cambios a su sistema de trabajo, incluyendo el nombramiento de un observador independiente. Desde entonces, continuamente se ha cuestionado si Arpaio está cumpliendo con los dictamines de la corte. En diciembre próximo la Corte de Apelaciones del Circuito Nueve escuchará los argumentos de los abogados de Arpaio, que disputarán la decisión de prácticas de perfil racial en su contra.
Before you post that photo on the internet you may want to verify that it doesn't have the GPS information about where you shot it!!!! Per Federal law most cell phones have GPS chips in them and will embed the GPS information of where you shot a photo into the photo. Which means that anybody that comes along including the police can figure out where you shot the photo. Read your cell phone manual and figure out how to turn off including the GPS location of where you shot a photo in the photo. This website will take a photo you upload, or a photo on the internet and tell you what meta tags it has in it, which will include any GPS meta tags: http://regex.info/exif.cgi Remember if you take a photo of those 40 kilos of weed in your loving room and you upload the photo with GPS information in it to the internet you will be tell in the cops the exact location of your weed. http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2014/11/08/tech-drones-social-media-privacy-issues/18744345/ Tech, social media, drones threaten privacy Russ Wiles, The Republic | azcentral.com 8:24 p.m. MST November 8, 2014 Personal privacy is under growing threat amid increased use of social media, smartphones, public cameras and even drones. Americans willingly share or fail to protect sensitive information. During a conference on privacy last week, Kevin Ashton flashed a map on a giant screen showing the addresses where dozens of cats live with their owners in north Scottsdale, within a few miles of the posh resort where the conference was taking place. The point: to illustrate how much information — some benign, some highly sensitive — is floating around the Internet or contained in databases to which parties from aggressive marketers to outright criminals have access. Ashton zeroed in on a photo of a black, white and orange feline living in the 10000 block of East Mirasol Circle. "Does this cat's owner know that we're talking about the cat right now?" he asked. The owner almost certainly had no clue that his calico was the focus of a seminar lecture point, though the owner probably uploaded the photo to a social-media site. Ashton found the picture on iknowwhereyourcatlives.com, a website run by Florida State University researchers that uses cat photos from around the globe to illustrate how easy it is to access information from the Internet. People who, like the cat's owner, post photos from smartphones often share more than just a picture. Many individuals voluntarily provide potentially sensitive personal information in careless chatter. And unless they have turned off the device's geolocation capability, they might also reveal the time, longitude and latitute coordinates and the type of electronic device used, said Ashton, a British technology entrepreneur and author. "If you post an image online, you post the data as well," he said. That's the tip of an iceberg that is growing bigger by the nanosecond. Even as consumers try to guard Social Security numbers, credit-card numbers and mothers' maiden names, they reveal other information about themselves. Some is shared through voluntary social-media discourse. Some is offered up when making online purchases, signing up for apps, responding to marketing pitches and so on. Much of it is fumbled away by businesses or government agencies guilty of sloppy safekeeping. "We're all constantly being asked by a lot of organizations to provide a lot of personal data," said Adam Levin, founder and chairmanof IDT911, a Scottsdale company that provides identity- and data-breach management services. "Some of it is for purposes that are clear; some of it is for purposes that are mysteries." More computers watching The conference hosted by IDT911 involved a sobering recitation of trends on identity-theft risks, data breaches, ineffective government regulation, hacking attacks, unauthorized postings of photos and so on. It also touched heavily on privacy and the assault on it. Consumers aren't just putting themselves at risk through careless uploads. They're also creating unwitting photographic footprints and digital trails through routine activities like shopping, driving or visiting the doctor. Much of what's recorded is becoming part of a permanent record. "We live in an age where everything is stored, for the first time in history," said Mike LeBaron, principal security investigator at Symantec Corp. and another speaker at the conference. The simple truth is nearly everyone is being monitored, here or there. Geolocation devices in smartphones or vehicles can reveal your location. RFID or radio frequency identification devices — tiny chips with radio antennas — can figure out which appliances are running in your home or when you entered your hotel room. Traffic sensors or security cameras monitor when you drive through an intersection or enter a store. Aerial drones can snap videos of your backyard hot tub and who's in it. Last year, 1 billion digital cameras were sold, including those on smartphones, and 1 billion geolocation devices were included in cameras, vehicles, other devices or sold separately, Ashton said. More than 1 million drones are now owned by individual Americans, heading to a projected 12 million within a decade. Most are or will be used for personal spying, he postulated, after showing the photo of a sunbathing woman in Florida whose image was captured by a drone that was retrieved after it crashed into a tree. Although the information and photos collected by these or other devices might be harmless and of limited scope by themselves, it doesn't end there. Big-data computer analysis increasingly is being used to distill and make sense of all those pictures, keystrokes and comments, turning them into profiles that show a person's driving habits, shopping routines, dating preferences and so on. By the next decade, computers, cameras, sensors and other data-gathering devices will be smaller, less obvious and more numerous, Ashton predicted. More will be able to do their jobs without requiring a human to push a button or open a gate, like automated toll booths and motion-activated cameras already can do. What they collect increasingly will be put on the internet, he said. Lack of transparency, consent These and other threats on privacy have been hastened by computerization, including the advent of the Internet and smartphones. Quite a few developments have been ignored or even embraced by a public that's both fearful of terrorist attacks and enthusiastic about getting coupons or other customized money-saving offers. Amazon and Netflix are among the many retailers that make purchase recommendations based on prior activity, and most customers don't think twice about these suggestions. But when transparency is lacking, Big Data analysis can backfire on companies, assuming the word leaks out. For example, Target stepped into a public-relations quagmire when the retailer sent pregnancy-tailored coupons to a high-school student in Minnesota based on an analysis of her shopping activity. This raised the ire of her father, who didn't know the girl was pregnant until the less-than-discrete ads started to arrive. Other examples include the recent revelation that Facebook was analyzing user news feeds, without consent, in an attempt to manipulate people's emotions for a study. Then there was the case where OkCupid steered users of the dating site toward or away from romantic matches, also for the purpose of a study. "It gives you an idea of how Big Data can be used in mischievous ways," said David Vladeck, a former director of the Federal Trade Commission's Consumer Protection Bureau. "And it shows what can go wrong." Medical records for sale Privacy infractions involving medical records are especially worrisome. As it is, personal health data, from prescriptions to insurance claims to information about behavioral-health problems, are routinely sold through legal channels, said Deborah Peel, a physician and founder and chairwoman of Patient Privacy Rights in Austin. "Every bit of (medical data) is shared, and we don't know about it," she said. That also means consumers don't have an opportunity to correct errors in what's being brokered. HIPAA, or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, provides some privacy safeguards but doesn't prevent some sharing of medical records. Nor does it require patient authorization to release records in many cases. The act initially required patient consent to transfer personal records, Peel explained, but that safeguard was later removed, allowing a sizable data-brokerage industry to grow up. In a report this year, the Federal Trade Commission called for more transparency and accountability in the data-collection industry, including that conducted by medical-records firms. Peel's organization makes available a "privacy-risk calculator" at patientprivacyrights.org that enables you to understand situations or practices that raise the danger that your records might wind up on the market. The legal commerce in health records is in addition to medical identity theft — a situation where a crook poses as a legitimate patient to acquire health care using the victim's name and insurance benefits. One problem here is that treatments received by an imposter can eat into the lifetime coverage limits that people have on their insurance plans. Also, it creates a situation where medical records can get mixed up, such as the substitution of the ID thief's blood type into your records, said Peel. These concerns are in addition to the obvious breakdown in privacy. Apathy, then stress It doesn't require much thinking to realize that these new threats to privacy are intertwined with assaults on personal freedom. Yet people routinely accept the changes and typically don't object until and unless they suffer a major privacy invasion themselves. Then things can get nasty. In the case of identity theft, the financial losses typically aren't that large. Most credit-card companies will absorb the entire loss from fraudulent transactions. But victims often complain about feeling violated, and the hassle to straighten out compromised records can span many months, if not longer. Half of all identity-theft victims aren't able to clean up their records within a year of suffering an attack, said Eva Velasquez, president and CEO of the Identity Theft Resource Center, based on a study the San Diego group conducted. Six percent of victims reported feeling suicidal from the stress, she said. Yet people often willingly reveal sensitive personal information that can trigger an ID-theft attack, or they fail to safeguard credit cards, smartphones, laptops and other devices. Breaches don't all derive from Chinese or Russian hackers breaking into the databases of firms like Target, Home Depot, Sony or JPMorgan Chase. Consumers often are the weakest links in the chain. "So many young people think they're only talking to friends" on social-media sites, Velasquez said. But if you think you can restrict the flow of information that you post to a circle of your friends, you're under an illusion, she said. "If you wouldn't want to put up a statement on a billboard next to your house, don't put (the same message) on Facebook," she said. If there's a common theme from experts, it's that consumers not only must safeguard what they can but also should decline many requests they receive for sharing personal information. And they need to speak up, to elected officials, regulators and businesses they patronize, when they don't like something. Lack of oversight Levin said he would like to see companies required to post a standardized "database-disclosure box" similar to the nutritional guidelines contained on a can of soup. This is where companies might be required to divulge recent breaches they have suffered, summarize what information was compromised and explain how they responded. Unfortunately, regulatory responses often are lacking and tend to be reactive rather than proactive. The government-oversight environment is "fractured" with no comprehensive federal statute, said Ginger McCall, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C. The Federal Trade Commission is the federal agency with the most direct oversight, including over identity theft. "But the FTC is charged with so many duties," she said. Privacy enforcement is complicated by the fact that it's not always clear what constitutes harm, that it's difficult to determine culpability and that enforcement actions often aren't easy to implement, said Vladeck, the former FTC official. "After-the-fact remedies for privacy violations are largely inadequate," he said. "The genie's out of the bottle." Yet the need for caution is real and likely will become more acute. The explosion of tiny computers, smartphones, RFID gadgets and other sensors, traffic and security cameras, drones, smart meters and all sorts of other monitoring and recording devices will make it increasingly difficult to do anything anonymously. Facial- and voice-recognition systems will fill in many of the remaining blanks. Much if not most of the data will find a permanent home on the Internet, putting it within anyone's reach. "All of this pales in comparison to what's coming," Ashton said. Reach the reporter at russ.wiles@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8616. Protecting what you can Identity-theft risks and privacy threats often stem from the same concerns. Though people can't erect air-tight defenses, they can take steps to minimize or delay the fallout from being a victim. Here are some precautions suggested by Adam Levin, chairman of Scottsdale-based IDT911: •Limit the number of credit and debit cards you carry, and never carry your Social Security card. •Shred documents containing sensitive personal information. If possible, use a cross-shredder. •Safeguard your smartphone. Treat it as the data-storage device it is, and turn off geolocation tracking features. •Be wary of supplying personal information to companies, including that requested for coupons, discounts or other money-saving benefits. Question why companies need certain information. •Protect your computer and use updated security software. Several big data breaches were triggered by company laptops that were stolen or left unattended in public. •Use strong and lengthy passwords, preferably involving a mix of letters, numbers and special characters. Don't store usernames or passwords on smartphone apps. •Make sure you're dealing with a legitimate website and not a carefully crafted imitation. Be suspicious of unsolicited e-mails asking for money or help or inviting you to click on attachments. •Sign up for transaction alerts offered by financial companies that will flag large purchases and let you know of requests to change your mailing address — requests you might not have authorized. •Check important financial accounts on a daily basis, looking for unauthorized activity. This involves extra effort, but it's nothing compared to untangling your accounts after an ID theft. •Find out if you have access to ID-theft monitoring services or post-theft damage-control assistance. Your company might offer this as an employee benefit, or your homeowner or auto insurance policy might cover it.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Momentum-to-legalize-marijuana-in-California-is-5880897.php Momentum to legalize marijuana in California is growing By Kurtis Alexander Published 4:19 pm, Saturday, November 8, 2014 After Tuesday’s election, just one piece of the West Coast remained unwelcoming to recreational pot: California. But with voters in Oregon and Alaska legalizing the use and sale of marijuana — joining Washington and Colorado in inviting retail spreads of cannabis-infused teas and brownies and joints — advocates see fresh momentum behind the slow shift in how the public regards the green stuff and those who enjoy it. California residents rejected legalization in 2010, with a 54 percent vote against it, but supporters of recreational marijuana are growing more confident about reversing that result in the 2016 election. “I see a parallel — not a perfect parallel, but a parallel — with marriage equality,” said Ben Tulchin, a San Francisco-based pollster who has watched sympathy for both same-sex unions and marijuana climb. “The first battle you may lose, like in California, but you start a conversation and get the dialogue going. … And you eventually see a very big shift.” California, alongside Arizona and Nevada, have legalization measures in the works for the 2016 election, when the presidential race is expected to deliver younger voters to the polls who tend to be more supportive of pot. Proponents are considering other states as well. “I got to believe that the wins this week, coupled with the wins in 2012, will provide momentum,” Tulchin said. The increasing support for the drug is the result of a number of factors, say marijuana supporters, who for decades made little progress. Electorate has changed “The bottom line is that people are no longer fooled by the anti-marijuana propaganda,” said Chris Lindsey, legislative analyst for the Marijuana Policy Project, which filed paperwork this fall to raise money for California’s legalization measure. Echoing what has been seen as a winning talking point for cannabis proponents in recent years, Lindsey said, “Voters are increasingly savvy to the fact that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol and really should be treated that way.” The electorate has fundamentally changed to include more Millennials who are tolerant of the drug, alongside Baby Boomers who grew up with it in the ’60s. Another factor is that more than 20 states as well as the District of Colombia now permit marijuana to be prescribed for the sick, meaning many communities have grown accustomed to the drug. Even without legalization, many law enforcement agencies have made busting pot users a low priority — as a trip to most any outdoor concert venue will prove. Critics have long said that most medical pot users obtain their “medicine” for recreational purposes. “The sky didn’t fall. Usage rates and abuse didn’t change. All the doom-and-gloom scenarios that we were told would happen didn’t come to fruition, and people are seeing that,” Lindsey said. Voters in Washington, D.C., who on Tuesday approved a measure allowing adults to grow and possess marijuana but didn’t lay out a framework for enabling retail sales, had another impetus for going forward: racial injustice. More blacks arrested A report by the American Civil Liberties Union said black people in San Francisco were 4.3 times more likely than white people to be arrested for pot possession in 2010 — even though black and white people use pot with similar frequency. In Washington, D.C., the number spikes to eight times. “Here you have a city where the majority is black and the majority of them are poor, and they don’t use marijuana any more than the hipsters or yuppies who live in the northwest, yet they’re the ones more likely to be arrested,” said UC Santa Cruz sociology Professor Craig Reinarman, who has written about drug policy for 30 years. Supporters of decriminalization note that because more than half of the nation’s drug arrests are for marijuana, a shift would cut prison costs and free up police to pursue other crimes. Also Tuesday, voters in a handful of cities and counties, from Maine to New Mexico, passed measures similar to Washington, D.C.’s, reducing or eliminating penalties for marijuana possession. In California, Proposition 47 downgraded the possession of most drugs to a misdemeanor. For Washington, D.C.’s, measure, one hurdle remains. It has to be approved by Congress, because U.S. lawmakers hold constitutional powers over the capital. Whatever decision the legislature makes, the debate draws the federal government into an issue that it’s tried to stay clear of. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, even for medical use. If there is momentum for legalization, there is also a continuing deep concern about the shift from broad segments of the population. Opponents argue that legalization will increase marijuana use among adults and children, and that the social costs, including addiction treatment, will run high. Kevin Sabat, president of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, doesn’t think the momentum will carry. Advances made in the election last week, he said, came because marijuana supporters outspent their opponents. “This wasn’t about voters being turned off. It was about voters hearing only the legalizers’ message because they were the only ones with real money,” Sabat said. “We’re certainly going to put our best effort forth to defeat the initiatives in 2016. We already won once in California, and I think we can win again.” Backers in California acknowledge that victory won’t come easy. Although polls show a majority now supports the idea, selling voters on a specific plan gets tricky. Concerns about how the drug will be taxed, and who can sell it, helped sink Proposition 19 four years ago. Even leaders in the medical marijuana community decided they didn’t like the details of the rollout and came out against the initiative. A lack of funding for the 2010 campaign was also an obstacle. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a supporter of the 2016 push for legalization, is chairing a task force to study the issue in a bid to head off problems. “A lot of things weren’t thought through with Proposition 19,” said Newsom, who will be termed out of his office in 2018 and doesn’t see support of pot as hindering his political future. “We want to make sure we have the answers to the tough questions.” Many Californians are waiting for those answers, including Kevin Reed, the founder and president of The Green Cross, a medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco’s Excelsior. He said he’s not sure if his customers and his business will benefit from legalization. Just a matter of time Since opening 10 years ago, he said, he’s taken pride in serving patients who need his product — and he doesn’t want the value of that mission diluted. “The context disappears with legalization,” he said. “It just becomes getting high.” Reed, though, also understands why people want to use the drug recreationally, and thinks it’s just a matter of time before the laws change. “It’s going to be a different world,” he said. “It’s not really the world I signed up for. But I’m gonna take the ride.” Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: kalexander@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @kurtisalexander
Obama authorizes sending 1,500 additional troops to Iraq I thought we won the war in Iraq a couple of years ago??? I distinctly remember watching the last American troops move out of Iraq on TV. Oh well, lied again to by the government!!!! I guess the profit margins of the stocks of the corporations in the military industrial complex are not making enough profits and Emperor Obama needs to help them out. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/07/iraq/18658389/ Obama authorizes sending additional troops to Iraq Jim Michaels, USA TODAY 8:21 p.m. EST November 7, 2014 WASHINGTON — The White House authorized up to 1,500 additional troops to be sent to Iraq, the Pentagon announced Friday, doubling the size of the U.S presence there. The troops will work to expand the existing mission to advise Iraqi security forces and establish training facilities, said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary. U.S. advisers will not accompany Iraqi units into the field, Kirby added. The additional forces — which will serve in a "non-combat" role and be dispersed throughout the country — reflect the challenges the U.S. faces in preparing Iraq's military to retake ground that has been lost to the Islamic State, which has taken large chunks of Iraq and Syria. The decision to authorize additional troops was based on a request from the Iraqi government for additional assistance and a U.S. assessment of Iraq's armed forces, the Pentagon said. President Obama pledged not to get the United States involved in another ground war in the Middle East, but his top military advisers have maintained they would request additional troops if needed to accomplish the mission. "If I think that we need to do more things, or we need more or better capability, I won't hesitate to make that recommendation to my boss," Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command, said this week. The additional troops will allow the Pentagon to establish centers outside of Baghdad and Irbil — the capital of the Kurdish region — to advise and assist Iraqi forces, the Pentagon said in a statement. Currently advisers are largely restricted to those two cities. The U.S. military will also establish several sites around Iraq to accommodate the training of 12 Iraqi brigades, including three Kurdish brigades. One site will be in Anbar province, a Sunni region west of Baghdad where the Islamic State has established strongholds. It will take two to three months to get the additional troops into Iraq and six months to complete training of the brigades, Kirby said. U.S. advisers will also participate in efforts to train Sunni tribes, some of whom have been fighting against the Islamic State in Anbar, Kirby said. The Sunni tribes were instrumental in turning the tide against al-Qaeda in 2006 and 2007, but at the time they enjoyed extensive American support. Since then, tribal leaders have complained of not getting support from Iraq's Shiite-dominated central government. The White House requested an additional $5 billion to pay for operations against the Islamic State, including $1.6 billion to train and support Iraq's armed forces. Until Friday, the White House had authorized 1,600 U.S. troops in Iraq. About 1,400 are currently on the ground, according to U.S. Central Command. Despite billions of dollars of U.S. funds, a large portion of Iraq's military collapsed in June when Islamic State forces attacked Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, as well as other locations. The Pentagon has blamed the poor performance of Iraq's military on neglect by its government after the U.S. left the country in 2011. Kirby said the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "squandered" the opportunities provided by years of American training and support. Iraq's new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, has pledged to form a more inclusive government and reach out to alienated Sunnis. Kirby said there have been signs of a stiffening resolve among Iraq's military, which has taken on Islamic State fighters in recent clashes. But military officials have said Iraq's military is not yet capable of mounting the large scale offensive required to push the militants out of the country. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and David Jackson
2nd ruling: Pot law doesn’t provide DUI immunity
2nd ruling: Pot law doesn’t provide DUI immunity
This is complete total bullsh*t!!!!
When we voted on Prop 203, which is Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act it specifically said that while driving stoned on marijuana is a crime, that a medical marijuana patient could not be convicted of DUI simply because of marijuana metabolites in their body. Marijuana metabolites can stay in your body for over a month.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/36/02802.htmThis is why the Founders passed the Second Amendment. To give us the ability to dump those government tyrants when they refuse to obey the law.ARS 36-2802.D
D. Operating, navigating or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana, except that a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.
2nd ruling: Pot law doesn’t provide DUI immunity
By - Associated Press - Wednesday, November 5, 2014
PHOENIX (AP) - Another court ruling says Arizona residents who have medical marijuana cards allowing them to legally smoke pot can still be prosecuted under laws against driving under the influence while having marijuana in their system.
A state Court of Appeals panel of three judges ruled last month that a medical marijuana user wasn’t immune from prosecution under DUI laws.
A different panel of Court of Appeals judges reached the same conclusion in a ruling issued Tuesday. It stems from the cases of two defendants, both of whom had medical marijuana cards.
The defendants pointed to a medical marijuana law provision that provides a partial legal shield for pot usage prescribed by a physician. However, the latest ruling notes that physicians don’t prescribe medical marijuana. They only certify a patient’s medical eligibility.
Ruling: Medical pot can lead to DUI, even if driver isn’t impaired
By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services October 21, 2014 , 3:57 pm
LA medical marijuana card is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for motorists found with active components of the drug in their system, no matter how little, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
The judges rejected arguments by the attorney for Travis Darrah that the positive drug test, by itself, cannot be used to convict him of driving under the influence of drugs. The judges said prosecutors need not prove actual impairment.
Tuesday’s ruling is unlikely to be the last word. Attorney John Tatz said he may seek Supreme Court review, saying the decision is in direct contradiction to the 2010 voter-approved Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.
That’s also the assessment of Chris Lindsey, a legislative analyst with the Marijuana Policy Project which crafted the law.
Darrah, who has a state-issued card allowing him to obtain and use marijuana, was arrested by Mesa police in 2011. He was charged with two separate counts of driving under the influence of drugs.
One makes it illegal to drive while impaired.
The other says a person cannot operate a motor vehicle while there is any illegal drug or its metabolite in his or her body. That was based on a blood test which showed evidence of an active component of marijuana. Tatz asked for the second count to be dismissed.
He acknowledged that the 2010 law does not make it legal for a medical marijuana cardholder to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of the drug.
But Tatz pointed out the law also says medical marijuana users cannot be considered under the influence solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of the marijuana “that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.” And he said there was no evidence presented that Darrah was not impaired.
The judge refused to drop the charge and refused to let jurors hear that Darrah is a medical marijuana user. Jurors then found Darrah innocent of the impairment charge but, based solely on the blood test, guilty of the second charge.
Appellate Judge Michael Brown, writing for the court, said he does not read the law – and the exemption – as broadly as Tatz.
“If Arizona voters had intended to completely bar the state form prosecuting authorized marijuana users under (this section of the law), they could have easily done so by using specific language to that effect,” Brown wrote.
Lindsey said all that ignores the intent of the law: to allow patients to use the drug and not be kept from driving simply because there was something left in their bodies that shows up in a blood test.
The key, he said, is impairment – or the lack thereof.
“You could have a small amount of active metabolite in the system and not be impaired,” he said, much as someone using a prescription painkiller would not be breaking the law if the concentration was too low to cause impairment. And Lindsey said the 2010 law was crafted to include the impairment requirement because of how long marijuana remains in the system.
Tatz said there is precedent for that argument.
He said the parallel charge for alcohol to the one his client was convicted is operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08.
If the blood test returns a number below that, that charge is dismissed. But the motorist still can be charged with driving while impaired if there is other evidence.
In this case, Tatz said, there is no presumptive number in Arizona law for how much marijuana someone can have in the blood. So that, he said, leaves prosecutors only the option of charging Darrah with driving while impaired – a charge for which his client was found innocent by a jury.
Brown also said this case is different than one where the Arizona Supreme Court earlier this year voided driving while intoxicated charges against another medical marijuana user.
In that case, though, the justices pointed out that what was found in that driver’s blood was an inactive metabolite of the drug which can remain long after the effects had worn off.
Medical marijuana licenses don’t protect you from getting a DUI, court rules
By Hunter Schwarz October 22
An Arizona court ruled Tuesday that drivers with medical marijuana licenses can still be charged with driving under the influence.
Travis Darrah, a Phoenix man with a medical marijuana license, was charged in December 2011 with two counts of DUI. According to the court documents, a test taken after his arrest found he had active components found in marijuana in his system.
A jury acquitted Darrah of the first count, driving while impaired, but not of the second, having a prohibited drug or its metabolite in his body. Darrah argued that because he was medically licensed to use marijuana and was not impaired, he was immune from being prosecuted.
Judge Michael Brown wrote that had Arizona voters wanted to protect medical marijuana users from being penalized for operating vehicles, they would have put specific language into state law.
“In the absence of such specific wording, we will not presume the electorate intended otherwise,” Brown wrote.
There are about 50,000 Arizonans medically licensed to use marijuana under a 2010 state law, according to the Arizona Republic.
As usual, government seems to be the cause of the problem, not the solution to the problem. I always thought the purpose of regulating these utilities was to give the public low cost rates in exchange for giving the utilities monopolies. Damn, why does this make me think of Andrew Myers, Prop 203, the Arizona Dispensary Association, $300+ an ounce medical marijuana and Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act??? http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2014/11/07/coroporation-commission-proposes-dropping-energy-efficiency-standard/18651923/ Why would Corp Com want to give $9 billion to APS, etc? Laurie Roberts, columnist | azcentral.com 12:15 p.m. MST November 7, 2014 Well, that didn't take long. The Arizona Corporation Commission, a soon-to-be wholly owned subsidiary of Arizona Public Service, has proposed eliminating a requirement that utilities provide energy-efficiency programs that reduce your electric bill. Put another way, the commission is pondering a move that would take close to $9 billion out of our pockets over the next few years and hand it over to APS and Arizona's other electric utilities. "It's a truly awful proposal that will hurt the people of Arizona," said Kris Mayes, who chaired the commission when the requirement was adopted in 2010. "It just is really hard to understand where this is coming from." Actually, it seems A Pretty Simple thing to figure out. If you wondered why APS would secretly fund campaigns to get certain candidates onto the Corporation Commission – or to (try to) get Commissioner Gary Pierce's son Justin into the secretary of state's office – wonder no more. Payback, it seems, may be coming and it's a $9 billion b@#ch . In 2010, the then-bipartisan Corporation Commission voted 5-0 to require electric utilities to reduce the amount of power they sell by 22 percent by 2020. This, by helping homeowners and businesses conserve energy. Since then, the utilities have spent millions subsidizing the cost of home-energy checkups and low-power light bulbs, buying old power-guzzling refrigerators and offering rebates to customers who install more efficient pool pumps and seal those leaky air ducts and such. The program is paid for with a $2 to $4 tariff tacked onto your electric bill. In 2013 alone, APS and Tucson Electric Power customers knocked $77 million off their utility bills as a result. Or put another way, that is $77 million that APS and TEP did not collect. Earlier this year Commissioner Pierce, who voted for the program in 2010, held a meeting to determine if anybody had a problem with the conservation standard. Nobody spoke up. So naturally, Pierce is now pushing to dump it, questioning whether the program is cost effective. "We want to be as energy efficient of a state as possible but not overpay for this energy efficiency," he told The Republic's Ryan Randazzo on Wednesday. Curiously, Pierce couldn't supply Randazzo with a single example of an efficiency measure that is costing consumers more that it's saving them. The program does, however, cost the utilities – the guys who are in this business to sell you MORE electricity, not less -- a tidy bundle. And that's not even factoring in the added profit they could make if they could get off this conservation jag and just build more power plants. Count Jeff Schlegel, the Arizona representative for the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, among those scratching their heads at the commission's proposal, which was filed on Election Day. "We're seeing a politically motivated attack to remove something that's actually doing great for customers," he told me. "I don't know who that would be from. The only organizations that would benefit from the elimination of the standard would be a utility that wanted to make more by selling electricity to customers." Look for a vote early next year, when Tom Forese and Doug Little join the all-Republican commission. That is, Forese and Little, who were elected with a little help from a $3 million dark money campaign that is widely believed to have been funded at least in part by APS. They'll join three other commissioners, who were also supported by APS in 2012. (APS officials say they didn't know APS's contribution to the Arizona Chamber's independent expenditure group would be used to help the three commissioners. That, however, doesn't change the fact that it did.) APS spokesman Jim McDonald said APS is ahead of where it needs to be to meet the 22 percent standard in 2020 and has been repeatedly honored by the EPA for its energy-efficiency program. He declined to comment on the commission's proposal, saying the utility will file its position later this month. "When we make this kind of filing to the commission, it is our practice not to discuss what that filing will be in advance of making it," he said. "But I think you'll be very interested in reading it." I'm guessing APS will publicly support the program. After all, it isn't what the folks who run APS do in public that's in question. It's what they do in private. This is the outfit that last year said they weren't funding a secret ad campaign aimed at raising the utility bills of rooftop solar customers, until they eventually admitted that they were. This is the outfit that refuses to address the widely held belief that it secretly funded this year's campaign to get Forese and Little elected. The problem with secrecy is that it breeds suspicion. The commission's energy-efficiency standard is good if you like to see that drop in your electric bill. It's good if you like clean air and available water. So who isn't it good for? I, for one, am Absolutely Positively Stumped.
FBI says it impersonated AP reporter in 2007 case Sadly the police criminals are often worse then the common criminals they pretend to protect us from!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/07/fbi-says-it-impersonated-ap-reporter-in-2007-case/18675145/ FBI says it impersonated AP reporter in 2007 case Associated Press 5:28 p.m. MST November 7, 2014 SEATTLE — The FBI's creation of a fake news story and impersonation of an Associated Press reporter during a criminal investigation undermine media credibility, blur the lines between law enforcement and the press and raise questions about whether the agency followed its own guidelines, free press advocates say. In a letter to The New York Times on Thursday, FBI Director James Comey said an agent "portrayed himself as an employee of The Associated Press" in 2007 to help catch a 15-year-old suspect accused of making bomb threats at a high school near Olympia, Washington. It was publicized last week that the FBI forged an AP story during its investigation, but Comey's letter revealed the agency went further and had an agent pretend to be a reporter for the wire service. Comey said the agent posing as an AP reporter asked the suspect to review a fake AP article about threats and cyberattacks directed at the school, "to be sure that the anonymous suspect was portrayed fairly." The bogus article contained a software tool that could verify Internet addresses. The suspect clicked on a link, revealing his computer's location and Internet address, which helped agents confirm his identity. "That technique was proper and appropriate under Justice Department and FBI guidelines at the time. Today, the use of such an unusual technique would probably require higher-level approvals than in 2007, but it would still be lawful and, in a rare case, appropriate," Comey wrote. Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of the AP, said the FBI's actions were "unacceptable." "This latest revelation of how the FBI misappropriated the trusted name of The Associated Press doubles our concern and outrage, expressed earlier to Attorney General Eric Holder, about how the agency's unacceptable tactics undermine AP and the vital distinction between the government and the press," Carroll said in a statement. In a letter to the Justice Department last week, the AP requested Holder's word that the DOJ would never again misrepresent itself as the AP and asked for policies to ensure the DOJ does not further impersonate news organizations. On Friday the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement it was "deeply concerned" by the FBI's actions and called for a review of policies. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, in its own letter on Thursday to Comey and Holder, asked the agency for full disclosure about the incident. "The utilization of news media as a cover for delivery of electronic surveillance software is unacceptable," the letter said. "This practice endangers the media's credibility and creates the appearance that it is not independent of the government. It undermines media organizations' ability to independently report on law enforcement." The letter from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press also said the FBI's actions in the Washington state case appear to violate Department of Justice standards because there was not adequate review or disclosure about the ruse to the judge approving the warrant and FBI counsel. "The failure to comply with the FBI and Attorney General's own requirements regarding news media impersonation is inexcusable," said the letter, which was co-signed by than two dozen organizations, including The New York Times Company, the Gannett Co., The Washington Post, The McClatchy Company and the American Society of News Editors. Against the backdrop of Fast and Furious, a flawed ATF investigation in which guns were allowed to be transported across the border in hopes of tracking them in Mexico, the Justice Department last year provided new guidance to U.S. Attorneys' offices about a prosecutor's oversight of sensitive and undercover investigation — including evaluating whether the investigative tactics would affect public safety or yield useful evidence for a prosecution. That guidance has not been made public. In his letter to The New York Times, Comey said all undercover operations involve deception, "which has long been a critical tool in fighting crime." He said no "actual story was published, and no one except the suspect interacted with the undercover 'A.P.' employee or saw the fake draft story. Only the suspect was fooled, and it led to his arrest and the end of a frightening period for a high school." Ryan Calo, a University of Washington law professor and expert in cyber law and privacy, said the FBI should've realized what they had done would eventually become known. "It's ironic that you think that impersonating the press wouldn't make it into the press," Calo said. "Whether or not it violates any law, to act as the FBI has done, it's certainly ethically problematic and undermines faith in the press and of course the government itself." Comey said the FBI's tactics are subject to "close oversight, both internally and by the courts that review our work."
It's great that Oregon kind of sort of legalized marijuana. But from this article it sounds like the law sucks!!!!! Marijuana needs to be TOTALLY LEGALIZED so the government stops throwing people in prison for the victimless crime of using, growing or selling a plant. Also the government crooks in Oregon seem to want to tax the krap out of marijuana smokers. According to this article there is a $35 an ounce tax on marijuana and a $560 tax on each pound of pot. F*ck those government crooks. The only good news is the government crooks in Oregon are not as crooked as Kyrsten Sinema who wanted to slap a $900 an ounce tax on medical marijuana in Arizona. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/07/oregon-growers-gear-up-for-green-rush-of-legal-marijuana/18676077/ Ore. growers gear up for Green Rush of legal marijuana Associated Press 5:53 p.m. MST November 7, 2014 GRANTS PASS, Ore. — It will be nearly two years before Oregonians can drop by the corner marijuana store to pick up some bud for the weekend, but growers are already gearing up to meet the increased demand of the coming Green Rush. Measure 91, enacted by voters this week, will let people possess and grow their own marijuana starting in July 2015. But the retail side doesn't start to kick in until January 2016. Oregon Liquor Control Board Chairman Rob Patridge says it will take months from then to issue licenses and grow the first legal crops that can be sold through retail outlets. Medical marijuana grower Norris Monson in Portland plans to expand operations and expects competition from Colorado and California growers coming to Oregon to tap the new market. Patridge will go to the Emergency Board of the Legislature in early December to ask for a budget to hire staff and pay for operations. He plans to spend the first three months of 2015 with the commission traveling around Oregon to listen to people in the marijuana industry, law enforcement, local government and citizens on what they would like to see in rules governing retail sales of recreational marijuana. The rules will govern how marijuana can be packaged and marketed. HOW WILL THE LAW UNFOLD? The Control, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Act goes into effect Dec. 4, but implementation comes in three steps. On July 1, 2015, people can possess an ounce of pot in public and up to 8 ounces at home. They can grow up to four plants at home. On Jan. 4, 2016, the commission starts taking license applications. It is likely to take several months for them to be processed. Patridge said marijuana offered for retail sale will have to be grown from scratch once a license is secured, so there will be no offering stockpiled marijuana. With a three-month growing cycle, it will likely be sometime in the last half of 2016 before the first shops will be able to offer legal recreational marijuana for sale. WHO CAN BUY MARIJUANA? Anyone 21 years or older. WHO CAN GET A LICENSE? Licenses will be issued for up to one year at a time for specific locations, and they will cover growing, processing, wholesaling and retail sales. Many growers plan to get all four, so they can control their supplies and markets. There is a non-refundable application fee of $250 for each one. The license costs $1,000. The commission can refuse to grant a license to anyone with a criminal record, not of good reputation and moral character, who has not maintained a sanitary establishment, or cannot understand the law. It can also refuse a license if it feels there are already enough pot providers to serve a specific area. Licenses are open to residents of other states, and investment can come from out of state. Cities and counties that want to keep out growers and retailers must get voter approval. HOW WILL IT BE TAXED? Measure 91 gives the state sole authority to tax marijuana, at a rate of $35 per ounce of bud, $10 per ounce of leaves, and $5 for each immature plant. The tax is levied once at the producer level. Cities and counties are barred from imposing their own taxes. But because so many cities and counties want to cash in, the issue may go to court or the Legislature. WILL THERE BE A GREEN RUSH? Portland medical marijuana grower Norris Monson of O.penVAPE has been hearing murmurings for some time of people securing warehouse space to grow marijuana in the Portland area. Southwestern Oregon medical marijuana grower Karen Sprague, CEO of The CO2 Company, has been looking for land to expand operations, and she knows others have been, too. They both expect Portland and southwestern Oregon to continue to be the big pot-growing locales — with indoor-grown in Portland and outdoor-grown in southwestern Oregon. They would not be surprised to see greenhouse growers established in the Columbia Gorge in The Dalles, where there is lots of sunshine and cheap electricity. Monson expects people with good business plans and experience will succeed, while those with get-rich-quick dreams will fail, because as the supply increases, prices and profit margins will fall. HOW WILL PRICES BE AFFECTED? State taxes will add $560 to the price of a pound of marijuana buds, but increased supply is likely to bring prices down. Medical marijuana in Oregon was selling for $2,000 to $2,400 a pound in August, but newly harvested outdoor-grown pot is selling for $1,200 to $1,600 a pound, driving down overall prices, Monson said. By contrast, Washington retail pot is selling for about $4,000 a pound, because it is taxed at a higher rate. WILL MEDICAL MARIJUANA SURVIVE? It is hard to know at this point. People have to pay the state $200 for a medical marijuana card and visit a doctor to authorize the card. Monson said that as recreational marijuana prices fall, the advantage to having a medical marijuana card may go up in smoke. Sprague said that medical marijuana companies are producing marijuana with compounds that have health benefits, but without THC that gets you high, and hope to market that through retail outlets as well as medical marijuana dispensaries.
Arpaio sues property owner over fall injury "Arpaio claims a faulty sidewalk is to blame. But shortly after the fall, he said he blamed himself for the injury" "What happened ... I blame myself ... I fell and I broke my arm" http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/11/07/12-news-sheriff-sues-after-falling/18657107/ Arpaio sues property owner over fall injury Joe Dana, 12 News | azcentral.com 2:42 p.m. MST November 7, 2014 Sheriff Joe Arpaio, often known as America's toughest sheriff, has been a lightning rod for millions of dollars in lawsuits. Over the years, he has been outspoken about what he has called frivolous lawsuits against him and the county, famously saying that he can't go to the bathroom without getting sued. Now Arpaio is turning the tables and suing a company after he tripped and fell at the Renaissance Square patio in Phoenix last year. Arpaio claims a faulty sidewalk is to blame. But shortly after the fall, he said he blamed himself for the injury. From the next day, Arpaio gave a message to the public: "What happened ... I blame myself," he said in a video statement from his hospital bed. "I fell and I broke my arm." But Arpaio is now suing Hines GS Properties, which owns the Renaissance Square in downtown Phoenix, alleging an improperly installed storm grate is to blame for causing the fall. During a media tour Thursday at his jail, Arpaio expanded on the comments he made at the hospital that he blamed himself. "I did say that because nobody pushed me," he said. "They did not push me. The people that pushed me were those that had a bad sidewalk." According to the suit, the sheriff's attorneys are asking the property owner to change the sidewalk to prevent other falls and asking for unspecified damages. Arpaio says he's not trying to pocket any money from a settlement. "The money that we expended I think should go back, and probably has to go back, to the insurance company." When asked whether he'd get any himself, the sheriff answered simply, "No."
At the Federal level 51% of the people in Federal prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes according to the US Bureau of Prisons. At the state levels 66% or thirds of the people are in prison for victimless drug war crimes. The solution to the problem is to legalize victimless drug war crimes, not build more prisons. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2014/11/07/new-max-security-prison-open-critics-question-need/18690727/ New max-security prison to open; critics question need Craig Harris, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:25 p.m. MST November 7, 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 $20million allocation from the fiscal 2013 budget and a $30million 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.
More of the old "Do as I say, not as I do" from our religious leaders, government masters and police??? Remember kiddies, heroin is a dangerous drug and you shouldn't use it until after you are a police officer. OK, I am just joking. Heroin has been demonized just like marijuana has and isn't anywhere as bad as the propaganda spin masters at the DEA claim it is. Unlike marijuana heroin is addictive, and you can also overdose on it. But other then that heroin isn't the evil drug the DEA claims it is. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/prosecutors-in-maryland-virginia-reviewing-cases-amid-investigation-into-fbi-agent/2014/11/06/e227d954-65b3-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html?tid=hpModule_13097a0c-868e-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z12 FBI agent in evidence-tampering case reportedly took heroin being held for trial By Peter Hermann,, Cheryl W. Thompson and Victoria St. Martin November 6 at 8:35 PM The FBI agent accused of tampering with drug and gun evidence reportedly took heroin earmarked for trial and used it himself, according to two law enforcement officials familiar with an investigation that is prompting authorities to dismiss cases against convicted narcotics dealers in the District. Robert C. Bonsib, the attorney for Matthew Lowry, the 33-year-old agent, declined to comment on specifics of the case, saying only that some accusations are “grossly overblown.” He added that Lowry, who has been suspended but not charged, wants to cooperate and “help bring this matter to a fast conclusion.” Law enforcement officials said the agent has talked to them and discussed the allegations. Federal officials allege Lowry took drugs that were being stored in a lab for a future court case. Officials familiar with the case have also said that Lowry was found in late September slumped over the wheel of his unmarked FBI vehicle near the Navy Yard. Two additional officials said that in the car were two drug evidence bags, heroin and two firearms. Lowry is not named in the court documents. Fallout from the investigation continued Thursday as a federal judge dismissed charges against 10 defendants in one large-scale drug case and vacated prison sentences that ranged from two to 12 years. The defendants had been released from prison Oct. 27, but with the judge’s order they became the first felons to be cleared of criminal charges in a case linked to the agent. In a separate case, another federal judge delayed dismissing charges against four suspects, saying he wanted additional information. A hearing is scheduled for Friday for six of 14 defendants in a third drug case. In the cases that were dismissed Thursday, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a two-paragraph order that does not describe the reasons. Typically in such cases, it is because unauthorized taking of evidence breaks what is called a “chain of custody,” and authorities no longer vouch for the integrity of the evidence. Boasberg set hearings for Nov. 14 and 17 during which additional details could be revealed. The flurry of court hearings and filings this week underscored both the seriousness and the complex nature of separate law enforcement agencies simultaneously conducting a secretive investigation into the alleged misconduct while also trying to deal with its impact on criminal cases that involved the agent. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has agreed to drop cases against 28 defendants, but various judges assigned to each need to approve. Lowry worked out of the Washington field office on a cross-border task force, which involves local police and concentrates on crime along the District’s boundaries with Maryland and Virginia. Federal prosecutors in those states said they are reviewing cases to determine whether any involved Lowry. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia said prosecutors had not found that the agent was involved in significant matters. The FBI has said the investigation began the last week of September. No other details beyond the nature of the allegations have been publicly released, although court documents unsealed this week noted the accusations include alleged tampering with drug and gun evidence. Authorities have not commented further. But on Thursday, Andrew Ames, spokesman for the FBI’s Washington field office, said that the “weapons referenced in the court filings are in the government’s possession.” He declined to elaborate but said the bureau wanted the public to know there are no missing guns on the streets. Lowry’s attorney, Bonsib, declined to comment on specifics of the case, saying his client preferred to discuss the matter with authorities. “He hopes that by cooperating with the investigators, he can help them get a better idea of what happened and didn’t happen,” Bonsib said. The lawyer said Lowry graduated with honors from the academy and “has had a distinguished career with the FBI. Law enforcement has been his life’s dream.” Bonsib said Lowry is “devastated by what has occurred here.” He repeatedly declined to describe the allegations being made against Lowry, saying only that “he intends to make himself fully available and help authorities get a handle on the real facts that occurred here.” Lowry’s father, William Lowry, is the assistant chief of the Anne Arundel County police, had served 27 years on the Prince George’s County police force and headed security details for two NFL teams, including the Washington Redskins. The elder Lowry declined to comment through a spokesman for the Anne Arundel department. The spokesman said the assistant chief is dealing with “a personal family matter.” How the courts handle the cases will vary. One federal judge on Thursday accepted motions filed by prosecutors and defense lawyers to dismiss charges against 10 defendants in a single drug conspiracy case, without having a hearing. But in another case Thursday, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon rejected a move to dismiss drug charges against four defendants. Leon said he wanted more information about the government wanting to dismiss the case “without prejudice,” which would allow prosecutors to refile the charges in the future. Leon said “the government wants its cake and to eat it, too,” indicating he might accept a bid to dismiss the case “with prejudice,” barring further prosecution. At the same time, Leon said the drug case was serious and he didn’t want to release the defendants without additional information, citing a need to “protect the public interest.” He said, “We’re going to move very carefully. Slowly. No sprinting.” The judge set an additional hearing for Dec. 10; defense attorneys said they would appeal to try to get their clients cleared sooner. “I certainly understand the judge’s precautions and concerns,” Elita C. Amato, an attorney for defendant Darnell Jackson, said after the hearing. Amato, who said she has two other clients whose cases also could be dismissed in connection with the investigation, said she was surprised when she received dismissal motions concerning the FBI agent. “Obviously, there’s a lot going on here that we don’t know about,” she said. Adam Goldman, Lynh Bui, Jennifer Jenkins, Clarence Williams and Matt Zapotosky contributed to this report. Victoria St. Martin covers breaking news and Prince William County for The Post's Local desk.
Stop demonizing teen sexting. In most cases, it’s completely harmless. I have posted a lot of articles about people arrested by the police for the victimless crime of sexting. Sadly many of these people are charged with felonies and could be sent to prison for years. Also many of those who are convicted are labeled as "sex offenders" for the rest of their lives which prevents them from getting jobs or even renting a place to live. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/07/stop-demonizing-teen-sexting-in-most-cases-its-completely-harmless/?hpid=z11 Stop demonizing teen sexting. In most cases, it’s completely harmless. By Elizabeth Englander November 7 at 6:00 AM Elizabeth Englander is a professor of psychology and director of the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State University in Massachusetts. Sexting is becoming a normal part of teens’ sexual development. (Photo by Leren Lu/Getty Images) Stories of teens taking and sending a naked picture of themselves with their phones have been all over the news media in recent years. The outcome? Shocking, according to reports which have suggested that humiliation and sometimes even suicide can follow. But what is the reality? Sexting is often seen as a dicey electronic version of “I’ll show you mine, you show me yours”. Many teens (and adults) engage in it. Indeed, some are suggesting that it is becoming a “normal” part of adolescent sexual development. And in general, few psychological problems (if any) are correlated with the behavior. Here’s the bottom line: research suggests that most photos don’t end up in disasters, either socially (being passed around, teased, bullied) or criminally (being prosecuted). Such outcomes are possible, but they aren’t highly probable. We should make kids aware of these possibilities, but we have to do that without suggesting that disaster is likely or, worse, inevitable. Risky behavior? Sexting is a crime when it involves sending nude pictures of anyone under 18-years-old. A study of thousands of sexting cases found that those selected for criminal prosecution in the US in 2011 involved adults asking teens for pictures, or cases of obvious coercion, threats or blackmail. The researchers pointed out that the cases that come to the attention of authorities are more likely to have aggravating circumstances. Whether the authorities are actively choosing not to prosecute more run-of-the-mill sexting, or whether they are prosecuting teen-on-teen sexting but simply rarely seeing it, is unclear. The news media continue to cover stories such as the recent case in Oakland County, Michigan, but true to form, that case went beyond two teens exchanging photos, and involved boys collecting groups of photos for purposes unknown. If a teen sends a nude photo to a friend, how big is the risk that it will result in serious harm? Recent research is downplaying that risk. I have found that more than three-quarters of teens who sext believe their photo went to the intended recipient and no one else. These teens might be wrong and spreading photos around might be more common; but if the sender believes it has been kept private, then they probably weren’t traumatized by a mass exposure. When I studied the after effects of sexting, I found that most incidents didn’t have much of an outcome at all – either good or bad. Most kids didn’t describe trauma or bullying, but neither did they describe newly-acquired boyfriends or increased popularity. The most common outcome was generally “feeling worse”, but even that happened in only about one-quarter of the cases. Curiosity and coercion Yet there are risks to sexting that have been largely ignored. A lot of sexting is done to attract the recipient – either by an existing girlfriend or boyfriend, or by someone who wants a relationship with the recipient. It’s becoming increasingly clear, however, that not all sexting is about fun and games. My biggest concern is when kids under 18 – often girls – are pressured by their peers to engage in sexting that they really don’t want to do. The younger they are when they sext, the more likely they are to report that they succumbed to pressure. And that pressure isn’t rare. Overall, about two-thirds of the teens in my research studies report that they were pressured or coerced into sexting at least some of the time. Being pressured into sexting sometimes happened within a dating relationship, or it might come from a person (usually a boy) with whom a girl wants to have a relationship. Wanting to attract that boy, and wanting to be attractive to a boyfriend or girlfriend, were the most common reasons for actually sending the photo. About 92% of the teens who were not pressured reported no problems following sexting; but that number dropped to only 68% of the teens who felt pressured into sexting. Is it time for sexting ed? Hannah Rosin’s recent article in The Atlantic told the story of a town in Virginia that discovered an Instagram page featuring a compilation of nude pictures of local girls. Officials also found – to their astonishment – that sexting appeared to be widespread and common, and that issues such as widespread exposure and criminal liability were far from the minds of the teens involved. Any parent might ask, why haven’t students been taught about the criminal nature of underage sexting? Why haven’t students been warned about how devastating it could be to have a nude photo become public? The problem, in my experience, isn’t that adults don’t issue these warnings. The problem is that kids don’t hear them. That deafness probably results from credibility issues. Why should you trust a warning that contains inaccurate data? Imagine that I warned you to wear your seat belt, because half of the car rides in America end up with someone going through the windshield. You might not listen to me, given that it’s obvious to anyone that half of the car rides in America don’t end up with people slamming on the brakes, much less going through the windshield. Sexting warnings are the same. If our information isn’t correct, if we’re issuing dire warnings about outcomes that are, in reality, pretty rare, then our message isn’t heard. The conversations that will ring true with kids aren’t about the law or about social humiliation. These conversations should address the common risks and problems sexting poses, like being pressured to send pictures, or pressuring someone else to send pictures. Some teens may not understand that pressuring someone into sending naked pictures can be sexual harassment. There are no social rules about when it’s OK to take or post a picture without someone’s consent – but 70% of the teens I study say that there should be commonly-accepted and agreed-upon guidelines. “Sexting ed” could help us all develop such social norms. Both sex and technology are topics that can be anxiety-ridden for parents, and it can be difficult for kids to believe there is any risk when they see so many peers sexting without consequences. It’s important for parents to discuss risk, but also to discuss them realistically. Talking with your children about obeying the law, respecting others’ privacy, everyone’s right to keep their bodies private, and what values you have about this issue is what parenting around sexting is all about. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Tom Horne is still a jerk, even if he has been booted out of office. http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2014/11/05/judge-rules-in-tom-horne-campaign-finance-case/18560981/ Tom Horne (remember him?) continues quest for vindication Laurie Roberts, columnist | azcentral.com 5:08 p.m. MST November 5, 2014 Overlooked (by me, at least) in the mad dash to this week's election was the latest on one of this campaign season's early roadkill: Tom Horne. It seems he's lost yet again in his quest for vindication. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has upheld a finding that Arizona's soon-to-depart attorney general got his job in the first place by cheating. Judge Crane McClennen late last week affirmed a decision by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, finding "substantial evidence" to support Polk's conclusion that Horne violated campaign-finance laws during the 2010 election. Polk last year found that Horne illegally coordinated with Business Leaders for Arizona, an independent committee that attacked his Democratic opponent, Felecia Rotellini. As a result, Polk ordered him to refund more than $400,000 in donations to the independent committee. Horne appealed, saying that just because he repeatedly conferred by phone with BLA's Kathleen Winn on the day she was finalizing the Rottelini attack ad, doesn't mean that he was talking to her about the Rotellini attack ad. No, he was talking to her about real estate. Both Polk and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery found that difficult to believe. Each concluded that Horne illegally coordinated with Winn's committee, in violation of campaign-finance laws. Horne appealed to an administrative law judge who recommended that the case be dismissed. That judge said there was no proof that Horne and Winn were discussing the ad during their eight phone calls on the day the ad was being finalized. Horne immediately declared vindication but alas, Polk proceeded with the civil enforcement action anyway. So Horne appealed to Superior Court, where last week McClennen agreed with Polk. Horne, in a statement, vowed to appeal the "unjust ruling." Fortunately, he'll have plenty of time to do just that, now that the ultimate court – the one of public opinion – has rendered its verdict.
Policing for Revenue???? The article that follows is about how Sheriff Joe is charging people to visit inmates in his Tent City Gulag. They will be charging people $39 an hour to visit people that are jailed in Sheriff Joe's gulag. Currently Sheriff Joe is screwing people with the bargain basement price of only $15 an hour to visit their friends. Sherrif Joe says it's a good deal. F*ck Sheriff Joe!!!! Here is the URL that Sheriff Joe put up on the web about electronic visits to his gulag: http://visitfromhome.net/maricopa One other outrageous rip off run in jails and prisons are the mini Circle K's run by the government that sell junk food and items like toothpaste and soap to the inmates. 10 years ago when a friend was in Sheriff Joe's gulag he told me they were charging $1 for a pack of ramen noodles that you normally buy at Frys or Bashas for 10 cents a pack. I tried to get a copy of the entire list of items and prices sold by Sheriff Joe, but the Maricopa County Sheriff's office jerked me around so much I gave up with my request for public records. Here are a couple of links to price lists from commissaries in Maricopa County Jail, Arizona State Prison and a Federal Prison in Arizona http://free-kevin-walsh.tripod.com/asp_commissary_list.html And here is a list from a Federal prison Laro Nicol was in: http://free-kevin-walsh.tripod.com/letters/fci-safford.html http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/11/06/mcso-launches-video-visitation-platform/18618403/ Video chats replace in-person visits at county jails Paulina Pineda, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:06 p.m. MST November 6, 2014 Face-to-face visitation has a new meaning for inmates at Maricopa County jails now that in-person visits have been swapped for Skype-like video chats. On Thursday, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office launched a Web-based video-visitation platform that eliminates in-person visitations and expands visitation hours. The system, developed by Texas-based Securus Technologies, allows people from all over the world to talk to any of the 8,500 inmates in the county's six jails via video, as long as they have a high-speed Internet connection and a webcam. The Sheriff's Office is offering a promotional price of $5 for a 20-minute conversation, but that price will increase to $12.95 for 20 minutes after Jan. 1. Securus is paying $2.3 million to provide 600 video stations to the six jails at no expense to the taxpayers, according to Securus CEO Rick Smith. The system, which Securus says is the largest in the country, is expected to generate thousands of dollars for the Sheriff's Office while increasing jail security by eliminating the potential for contraband smuggling, an issue during the more than 20,000 in-person visitations each month, according to sheriff's officials. Sheriff Joe Arpaio said it will also allow friends and family members to schedule visits without having to miss work or drive down to a facility. "It's a win for everyone involved," Arpaio said. Remote visitations can be scheduled seven days a week between 7 a.m. and 9:30 p.m at visitfromhome.net/maricopa. Visits must be scheduled at least 24 hours in advance. Inmates can receive one free on-site visit per week, but they will be held through the video platform at either the Fourth Avenue or Lower Buckeye jails. On-site visitation hours at those jails have expanded to seven days a week between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., up from a single visit on Sunday or Monday. Sheriff's officials say on-site visits will no longer be conducted at the Durango, Estrella, Tent City or Towers jails, but inmates there have access to video chats. Securus will receive 100 percent of the revenue until the number of calls reaches 8,000 per month. Ten percent of the excess revenue will then go to MCSO, and that will increase to 20 percent once the company's initial investment is recovered. Money generated from the system will go toward the Sheriff's Office Inmate Services Fund for education. The Sheriff's Office will store video calls for 60 days and will monitor calls for criminal or sexual activity.