|
“Bathroom Cops” Arresting Men in Public Bathrooms After “Shaking Off” When Done Urinating Jesus, don't these pigs have any REAL criminals to hunt down???? I don't know if the pigs are arresting these people to make themselves look like heroes by bumping up their arrest numbers, or if they are making these arrests to raise revenue. I suspect it's both reasons. Either way it's a waste of our tax dollars. Once when I was in a men's restroom I was reading some graffiti that said "more then 2 shakes is jerking off". Sadly that's true and in New York City more then 2 shakes will get you thrown in prison for masturbating. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/nyregion/lawyers-challenge-lewdness-arrests-at-port-authority-bus-terminal.html?_r=0 Lawyers Challenge Lewdness Arrests at Port Authority Bus Terminal By JOSEPH GOLDSTEINOCT. 7, 2014 For some of the more than 100,000 travelers who use the Port Authority Bus Terminal each day, a second-floor men’s room is their first or last stop in New York City. The facilities are what you might expect: toilets, urinals, hand dryers. But above the row of sinks, a posted sign offers an atypical note of caution: “Restrooms are patrolled by plain clothes officers.” It is not an idle warning. Port Authority police officers have arrested more than 60 people this year in the bus terminal on public lewdness charges, a sevenfold increase over the same period last year. Most of those arrested were accused of masturbating in the second-floor bathroom. According to court records, they were observed by plainclothes officers, who were often standing next to them at an adjacent urinal. At least a dozen of those arrested are represented by the Legal Aid Society, whose lawyers say their clients — some of whom say they were merely urinating — were victims of aggressive and intrusive police tactics. A sign for the men’s bathroom on the second floor of the bus terminal, where dozens of people have been arrested and charged with lewdness this year. Credit Bryan Thomas for The New York Times The effort by the Port Authority police is part of a crackdown on quality-of-life crimes at the bus terminal. The bathroom is hardly a hotbed of sexual activity. Capt. John Fitzpatrick, the Port Authority police commander who oversees the bus terminal, acknowledged that complaints about sexual behavior in the men’s room “are few and far between.” Nonetheless, an average of two arrests on lewdness or exposure charges are made each week, leading to the puzzling, recurring sight of men being handcuffed as they leave the bathroom. “Sometimes they are nicely dressed people,” said Dolma Tsering, 39, who sells hats and shawls from a kiosk near the men’s room. “I don’t know the reason.” The Legal Aid Society argues that the police are overzealously enforcing laws against lewdness and exposure and, as a result, are arresting innocent men. In a motion filed in August, a Legal Aid lawyer argued that the Port Authority’s interpretation of the law seemed to criminalize the use of public urinals. “Surely, the use of a urinal in a public bathroom requires that man expose his unclothed penis,” wrote the lawyer, Caroline Glickler. The motion also noted that the urinals in question “are separated by partitions designed to enhance privacy” and the fact that her client, Cornell Holden, was standing at a urinal “indicates an attempt to have privacy.” Mr. Holden, a 28-year-old baker, said he noticed that a bald man at the urinal next to him — who he later learned was a plainclothes police officer — was looking at him. A privacy divider, as well as a duffel bag slung over Mr. Holden’s shoulder, separated them. “While I’m using the bathroom, he stepped back and kind of looks at me and then walks off,” Mr. Holden recalled. As he left, two officers approached him, asking what he had just been doing. “I said: ‘Nothing. I was using the bathroom,’ ” Mr. Holden said. “They pulled me aside, asked for my ID and then put handcuffs on me.” Captain Fitzpatrick, the police commander, said that in cases where an arrest is made, officers have witnessed an act of public lewdness. “They are not sidling up to somebody, trying to sneak a peek and misrepresenting what the person is doing,” the captain said. “There is no mistaking their behavior.” In Mr. Holden’s case, the plainclothes officer, Michael Opromalla, filed an affidavit accusing Mr. Holden of rubbing himself in a manner “consistent with masturbation.” “I was able to see the defendant do so while I was standing inside the public bathroom in a urinal adjacent to the urinal at which the defendant was standing,” the officer continued. “I wasn’t committing a lewd act,” Mr. Holden said of his arrest, on May 12. “I was peeing in the beginning, but I was shaking off when the guy stepped back and looked at me.” Mr. Holden said he wondered whether he had been targeted because the officer had assumed he was gay. “I wore a leather jacket, fitted clothes. I guess that fits the description of a homosexual male,” he said. “I was like, O.K., although I’m gay, I wasn’t doing anything.” Held at a police station inside the bus terminal, Mr. Holden said he overheard a police officer refer to the bald plainclothes officer as “the gay whisperer.” Another man, who asked to be identified only by his first name, Miguel, said that while he urinated he also noticed a man, who he later learned was a police officer, watching him. “You know how when you have a feeling someone is looking at you?” Miguel, 43, said of the episode, on July 9. “So I look over and see someone is smiling at me. It was like a smirk.” He described the man as stocky and wearing blue shorts. Miguel said he “paid it no mind,” washed his hands and left the men’s room. Walking toward his bus to New Jersey, he was arrested. The officer kept saying, “Oh, you know what you did,” when Miguel asked why he had been arrested. Miguel said he was not sure whether he had been targeted. “Anyone who would have gone next to that man, who would have stood in that particular urinal, would have gotten the rap that I got,” he said. But Miguel wondered whether his appearance played a role. “The way I was dressed that day — shorts, tank top, I was with my gym bag — I wasn’t dressed in a way that someone would pay attention to me in a respectful way,” he said. A third man, a 38-year-old Mexican immigrant who works in a supermarket, shared a similar account of his arrest on May 30. He said that while he was urinating, the man next to him gave him a look, smiled and left. The man, who requested anonymity because he was embarrassed and wanted to put the ordeal behind him, agreed to a deal in which the charges would be dropped if he stayed out of trouble for six months. Asked about the current crop of cases, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office said in a statement that prosecutors have “offered the Legal Aid Society the opportunity to bring in any defendants who claim that they were arrested improperly to speak with us. They declined to do so. If they do, we will investigate their claims.” But Tina Luongo, a Legal Aid lawyer, said many of the men felt humiliated “and don’t want to be brought into law enforcement to be asked very personal questions.” In the past, there has been some evidence that Port Authority officers patrolling the men’s room have arrested innocent people. One lawsuit emerged from a 2003 arrest of a 64-year-old man who said he had been struggling to urinate when officers accused him of masturbating. Two months before the arrest, the man had had surgery for prostate cancer, leaving him mostly incontinent and probably unable to get an erection, according to a doctor’s letter. The suit has since been dropped. In 2005, a federal jury found that the police regularly conducted sweeps “for the crime of public lewdness, without regard to probable cause,” as a federal court decision summarized the result. During that trial, which focused on a men’s room at a PATH station, officers testified that they arrested as many as 30 people for public lewdness in a single shift in the 1990s. The jury awarded $1.1 million to a man who had been arrested, although a judge reduced the amount. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/nypd-cracks-down-on-urinating-in-mens-room.html NYPD Cracks Down on Urinating in Port Authority Men’s Room By Margaret Hartmann Follow @marghartmann Be advised that the "broken windows" policy now extends to taking too long at the urinal. According to a service-y report from the New York Times, there's been a sevenfold increase in public-lewdness arrests in the Port Authority Bus Terminal, with police increasingly accusing people of masturbating in the second-floor men's room. The Legal Aid Society represents about a dozen of the 60 people arrested this year, and they say their clients were mostly just urinating, but an overzealous police officer decided they should pee faster. Three of the accused say their arrests followed a similar pattern: A man, who they later learned was a plainclothes officer, watched them while using an adjacent urinal, gave them a strange look, then left the men's room. "So I look over and see someone is smiling at me. It was like a smirk," said Miguel, who was arrested in July and asked to be identified only by his first name. He was arrested outside the bathroom and claims the officer would only say, "Oh, you know what you did," when he asked why he was being taken into custody. Captain John Fitzpatrick, the Port Authority police commander, insists arrests are only made when officers clearly witnessed an act of public lewdness. "They are not sidling up to somebody, trying to sneak a peek and misrepresenting what the person is doing," the captain said. "There is no mistaking their behavior." While the Times reports, "The bathroom is hardly a hotbed of sexual activity," some believed they were targeted because they were gay. Cornell Holden, another defendant, said that after his arrest he heard a police officer refer to his plainclothes colleague as "the gay whisperer." The gross bathroom in the back of the bus suddenly seems like a better option. http://www.queerty.com/nypd-sued-again-over-homophobic-entrapment-stings-20141009 NYPD Sued Again Over Homophobic Entrapment Stings The NYPD has a gross history of entrapping gay men in what it considers to be sexual situations only to slap them with charges of public lewdness. We reported an account of the disgusting practice in May, when the department settled with a man who came forward claiming that he had falsely arrested for — as the NYPD claims — trying to engage a plainclothes officer in a sex act. The man, like many others, claimed he did no such thing. This week, the Times consulted three of at least 12 victims of the NYPD’s homophobic practices who are now suing the department over their “aggressive and intrusive police tactics.” Represented by the Legal Aid Society, they all claim they were accused of masturbating while peeing at urinals in the second-floor bathroom at the Port Authority bus terminal. Though Port Authority police commander Capt. John Fitzpatrick says “the bathroom is hardly a hotbed of sexual activity” and that sexual complaints are “few and far between,” the NYPD has arrested at least 60 men for allegedly masturbating there this year alone. According to the report, at least two arrests are made each week. Cornell Holden, a 28-year-old baker, describes his experience being arrested in one of the regular stings: Mr. Holden, a 28-year-old baker, said he noticed that a bald man at the urinal next to him — who he later learned was a plainclothes police officer — was looking at him. A privacy divider, as well as a duffel bag slung over Mr. Holden’s shoulder, separated them. “While I’m using the bathroom, he stepped back and kind of looks at me and then walks off,” Mr. Holden recalled. As he left, two officers approached him, asking what he had just been doing. “I said: ‘Nothing. I was using the bathroom,’ ” Mr. Holden said. “They pulled me aside, asked for my ID and then put handcuffs on me.” Holden suspects officers target men who “fit the description of a homosexual male,” and even says he heard a police officer refer to the plainclothes officer who arrested him as “the gay whisperer” during his arrest. Another victim, identified as Miguel, also shared his account: “You know how when you have a feeling someone is looking at you?” Miguel, 43, said of the episode, on July 9. “So I look over and see someone is smiling at me. It was like a smirk.” He described the man as stocky and wearing blue shorts. Miguel said he “paid it no mind,” washed his hands and left the men’s room. Walking toward his bus to New Jersey, he was arrested. The officer kept saying, “Oh, you know what you did,” when Miguel asked why he had been arrested. Miguel said he was not sure whether he had been targeted. “Anyone who would have gone next to that man, who would have stood in that particular urinal, would have gotten the rap that I got,” he said. The fine, upstanding officers of the NYPD: protecting and serving New Yorkers since… well, we’ll let you know when that starts happening. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/undercover-cops-arresting-men-touching-urinating-public-bathrooms/#EuJksJwb5CgWg6Lh.99 “Bathroom Cops” Arresting Men in Public Bathrooms After “Shaking Off” When Done Urinating By John Vibes on October 9, 2014 A string of recent complaints filed by alleged victims of wrongful arrest are bringing question to NYPD practices of arresting men in public restrooms. There are currently undercover cops posted up in public restrooms across New York City, waiting to catch sexual predators in the act. However, according to dozens of alleged victims, average men are becoming entrapped by these undercover agents, when they have done nothing wrong. Many of the victims have claimed that after urinating, “shaking off” and zipping up their pants, they were accused of “simulating masturbation” in view of the police officer. The New York Times recently reported that police have been standing in public restrooms and staring down everyone who passes through, while they use the urinals. If the person makes any movements that the officer does not approve of, they can be arrested for “lewdness” with no evidence aside from the testimony of the officer. Since police have been stationed in public bathrooms, lewdness arrests have increased 7-fold. In the past year alone, over 60 people were arrested in one bus terminal restroom, many of them for alleged “lewdness” in the bathroom stall. Dozens of the people who have been arrested in this trap have sought legal representation from The Legal Aid Society and other independent sources. Many of these people reported that the police made them feel uncomfortable by staring at them while they used the restroom, and it seems that if anyone is guilty of lewdness it was actually the undercover officer. It is not clear why undercover agents have been placed in these bathrooms to begin with, even Capt. John Fitzpatrick, the Port Authority police commander who oversees the bus terminal, admits that complaints of lewdness in public bathrooms are “few and far in between”. Although, Fitzpatrick is still standing by the actions of his officers, claiming that the dozens of men who have now filed complaints were in fact being lewd in the restroom, otherwise, he says, they would not have been arrested. “They are not sidling up to somebody, trying to sneak a peek and misrepresenting what the person is doing, there is no mistaking their behavior,” he said. One man, accused of “simulating masturbation” says that he was simply “shaking off”, a near instinctual act that is not at all lewd or uncommon. “I wasn’t committing a lewd act, I was peeing in the beginning, but I was shaking off when the guy stepped back and looked at me,” Mr. Holden, a 28-year-old baker, said of his police encounter. After Holden walked out of the bathroom he was arrested by police and taken to jail. When Holden was being processed in the jail he overheard one of the other cops refer to his arresting officer as “the gay whisperer”. This was a fairly offensive comment for Holden, consider the fact that he is a gay man, and feels that may be the reason why he got arrested. “I wore a leather jacket, fitted clothes. I guess that fits the description of a homosexual male, I was like, O.K., although I’m gay, I wasn’t doing anything,” he said. Holden’s story is just one of dozens, and although there may be a few perverts in the bunch, it is safe to say that a vast majority of these people are innocent. --- John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he is also the owner of a successful music promotion company. In 2013, he became one of the organizers of the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com.
Let's face it government's all about MONEY $$$$ Don't think of it as an $85 bribe to a TSA police officer, think of it as an $85 PreCheck payment to your favorite TSA thug. And of course we all know that neither campaign contributions to politicians or $85 PreCheck payments to TSA thugs are bribes. Well, at least that what the politicians and cops at the TSA tell us. I would love to hear the lame excuse from the TSA on why this isn't a violation of the "Equal Protection" clause of 14th Amendment. Basically the "Equal Protection" clause of 14th Amendment says the government has to treat all people equally and the same. On the other hand the TSA never has answered my question on why these airport searches by TSA thugs aren't a violation of the 4th Amendment against illegal searches. http://www.azcentral.com/story/nowdeparting/2014/10/09/tsa-precheck-center-open-at-sky-harbor/16970917/ TSA PreCheck center open at Sky Harbor Dawn Gilbertson, The Republic | azcentral.com 2:44 p.m. MST October 9, 2014 Travelers seeking a fast-pass through airport security can now apply for one at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The TSA has quietly opened an enrollment center for its popular PreCheck prescreening program. The official opening of the center, in Terminal 4 baggage claim, is Friday. TSA Administrator John Pistole announced plans for a Sky Harbor enrollment center in January, saying it would open by spring, but it was delayed by paperwork. Until now, Arizona travelers who wanted to apply had to go to satellite enrollment centers around the state or to an airport in another city. Sky Harbor is the 28th airport to get an enrollment center. Eligible travelers pay $85 for five years of PreCheck status. The biggest perk: access to the PreCheck lanes at 120 airports around the country. Those lines are generally shorter than regular security lines and passengers get to keep their shoes, jackets and belts on and laptops and approved liquids in their bags during the security screening. The PreCheck program began in late 2011 and until late last year was open only to invited frequent fliers, including members of government "trusted traveler" programs such as Global Entry. The TSA began selling PreCheck status to approved travelers late last year as part of what Pistole called the agency's gradual shift away from a one-size-fits-all security screening to a risk-based system that recognizes that the vast majority of travelers that pass through the checkpoint every day are not terrorists. Passengers must be U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and are subject to a "security-threat assessment" that includes a background check and fingerprinting. Travelers with convictions for criminal offenses, such as treason, racketeering, terrorism and murder, are ineligible. The TSA details all the disqualifying offenses and other restrictions online. Travelers can fill out an application online or at the center. At the center, which takes appointments and walk ins, applicants must present ID and citizenship documentation. The fingerprinting is also done at the center. Travelers accepted into the program receive a Known Traveler Number within two to three weeks. The number needs to be entered when booking reservations on participating PreCheck airlines. PreCheck status is then stamped on the boarding pass. All major U.S. airlines participate in the program, including US Airways and Southwest Airlines, the dominant carriers at Sky Harbor. Among those who don't: rapidly growing Frontier Airlines, Spirit Airlines and Allegiant Air. Many travelers across the country have been granted occasional access to the TSA PreCheck lanes in what Pistole calls a free sample of the program. Those free samples are diminishing as the number of travelers paying for PreCheck rises. More than 600,000 travelers have enrolled since applications began in December. "As more and more people enroll, we'll continue to scale back (the number of) passengers that receive it randomly,'' TSA spokesman Ross Feinstein said. The TSA expects strong demand for the program in Phoenix in part given the large number of PreCheck applications at a satellite center in Gilbert since it opened in February. It is one of the busiest off-airport enrollment centers in the country, with nearly 7,500 travelers signing up. With no notice of the opening at Sky Harbor, the airport center has already enrolled nearly 100 passengers in PreCheck, Feinstein said. "We know that people have been waiting for it,'' he said.
City worker hits her own parked car, files claim for damage http://www.mercurynews.com/weird-news/ci_26692388/city-worker-hits-her-own-parked-car-files City worker hits her own parked car, files claim for damage St. Paul Pioneer Press Posted: 10/09/2014 08:26:33 AM PDT ST. PAUL, Minn. -- By her own recollection, Megan Campbell was driving a supply van back from a city storage building when she hit a parked car, causing serious damage to it. The damaged 2001 Nissan Pathfinder wasn't just anybody's vehicle. It was her own. Now, Campbell has filed a claim against St. Paul seeking $1,600 to $1,900 for damage caused to her personal vehicle by a city worker -- herself. "Because I was working for the city and driving the city vehicle, I feel they are responsible for paying for the damage done to my car," Campbell wrote in a "notice of claim" form received this week by the city clerk's office. Campbell, a 2014 college grad, has worked for the St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department since May. "I think I can safely say this is a very unusual claim," said City Clerk Shari Moore, who has received some 400 claims this year from residents, many from car damage caused by towing and potholes.
From this article H. L. Mencken's statement was correct "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Sadly if you ask me, the only real and dangerous criminals and terrorists are those in Washington D.C. Last this tactic isn't used the Republicans, the Democrats use it all the time too. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/republican-strategy-midterm-elections.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 G.O.P. Theme in Fall Election: It’s a Dark and Unsafe World By JEREMY W. PETERSOCT. 9, 2014 WASHINGTON — Darkness is enveloping American politics. With four weeks to go before the midterm elections, Republicans have made questions of how safe we are – from disease, terrorism or something unspoken and perhaps more ominous – central in their attacks against Democrats. Their message is decidedly grim: Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party run a government that is so fundamentally broken it cannot offer its people the most basic protection from harm. Hear it on cable television and talk radio, where pundits and politicians play scientists speculating on whether Ebola will mutate into an airborne virus that kills millions. See it in the black-hooded, machine-gun-brandishing Islamic fighters appearing in campaign ads. Read about it in the unnerving accounts of the Secret Service leaving President Obama and his family exposed. Republicans believe they have found the sentiment that will tie Congressional races together with a single national theme. The National Republican Congressional Committee is running ads warning that terrorists are streaming across the Mexican border. “Evil forces around the world want to harm Americans every day,” one commercial aimed at Representative Anne Kirkpatrick of Arizona, a Democrat, says. “Their entry into our country? Through Arizona’s back yard.” And after news broke that the Secret Service had failed in several instances to adequately protect the first family, it was one of the president’s biggest antagonists on Capitol Hill, Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, who convened a hearing and upbraided the agency’s director for incompetence. “I think Republicans want people to turn on the television and see that nothing is working,” said Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama’s former spokesman. Mr. Gibbs said he found it curious that John A. Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House, used the word “competence” in a recent interview when describing what voters would care about. But whether voters will place all the blame on Democrats is another question. “It will be interesting to see,” Mr. Gibbs said, “if they can convince people that they aren’t part of that dysfunction.” When Republicans picked up seats in the House and Senate in 2010, they did so by running on burning emotional issues like unemployment and anger over the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Continue reading the main story Midterm Elections 2014 The latest news, analysis and election results for the 2014 midterm campaign. While anger and economic unease have subsided, polls suggest that people are anxious. A recent survey by The Associated Press found that 53 percent of Americans believe the risk of another terrorist attack inside the country is extremely high or very high. In a new Pew poll, 41 percent said they had “not too much confidence” or “no confidence at all” that the government could prevent a major Ebola outbreak in the United States. That lack of confidence in the government is a sentiment Republicans are trying to tether to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, ticked off a list of distressing developments in the headlines – the Secret Service problems, Ebola, the militant group Islamic State. “It’s the accumulation of ineptitude that’s hovering over Obama and, in turn, his lieutenants that are running for U.S. Senate,” he said in an interview. Numerous political ads, paid for by both outside groups and the Republican Party, warn of the “dangerous world” we inhabit and “imminent attacks” being plotted by terrorists. One from the National Republican Senatorial Committee running against Senator Mark Udall in Colorado plays a clip of the senator saying that the Islamic State does not pose an imminent threat. “Really? Can we take that chance?” the announcer says. One Republican candidate for a House seat from Arizona used footage in an ad that aired in Phoenix this week showing an Islamic State member brandishing a knife at the journalist James Foley right before he was beheaded. Even the infamous 1964 “Daisy” ad aired by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign – which depicted a girl picking pedals off a flower as the clock ticked down to a nuclear blast – has been recycled by Rob Astorino, the Republican running against Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York. Playing off feelings of anxiety is a powerful strategy for motivating the Republican base. And few issues have proven as potent when linked together as border security and the fear of terrorism. Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, said this week on Fox News that border agents had told him they apprehended 10 Islamic State fighters in Texas. The Department of Homeland Security said his statement was “categorically false.” The issue also surfaced in the race between Senator Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis in North Carolina. Mr. Tillis, the Republican speaker of the state house, tried to connect border security to terrorism and disease in a debate this week. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “we have an Ebola outbreak, we have bad actors who can come across the border. We need to seal the border and secure it.” The Family Research Council, which advocates on behalf of social conservative causes, recently convened a gathering of thousands of supporters in Washington, and one of the major topics on the agenda was terrorists sneaking across the border. The lieutenant governor of Texas, David Dewhurst, warned the group that prayer rugs had been discovered along the Mexican border. (Similar stories have popped up in the media since at least 2005.) A sense that the country is dangerously off track is an increasingly popular topic of conversation in conservative media. When Mr. Paul called into the Glenn Beck program the other day, Mr. Beck said he saw a pattern in Ebola, the lack of border security and gaps in Secret Service protection. (“I don’t think the president is safe,” Mr. Beck said. “And that puts our entire system at risk.”) Mr. Paul agreed, saying something in our society was deeply broken. “The fundamental and inherent problem of government in general,” the senator said, “is trying to get government to work.” He also said Mr. Obama’s “political correctness” was keeping him from more aggressively containing the disease. Erick Erickson, the conservative writer and radio host, wrote: “At least this administration is consistent. It will let everyone and everything, including pestilence, cross our border.” “I bet, if we are patient,” he added, “the administration will even place Ebola with a nice family somewhere in Middle America and give it government benefits.” Republicans said the hyperbole highlighted the perception that the president, with his no-drama air, often plays down the seriousness of the problems facing the country. “The recurring pattern here is his unwillingness to admit things are bad,” said Stuart Stevens, the Republican strategist who was Mitt Romney’s top adviser in 2012. “It’s sort of like saying the world isn’t what it is, which is not an uncommon thing in the White House.”
Wow!!! Jan Brewer is retiring and will get paid $76,000 a year to do nothing for the rest of her life. Paid for of course by Arizona taxpayers. Isn't Jan Brewer the wicked witch that brought us SB 1070, the racist law designed to run all the Mexicans out of Arizona. Isn't Jan Brewer the person that stole a billion dollars from us to build Bank One Ball Park for her buddy Jerry Colengelo when she was on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Aren't Jan Brewer and Tom Horne the jerks who filed a frivolous lawsuit in Federal court in an attempt to flush Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act down the toilet. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/10/08/brewer-horne-apply-pensions/16947245/ Brewer, Horne apply for state pensions Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, The Republic | azcentral.com 6:14 p.m. MST October 8, 2014 They're cashing in. Gov. Jan Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne have filed paperwork with the state to start receiving their pensions. After three decades of public service, Brewer will draw $6,333.33 a month from the state's Elected Officials' Retirement Plan beginning Feb. 28, 2015, public records show. The governor cannot run for another term and is stepping down as the state's 22nd governor in January. Brewer, who has served as a state lawmaker, Maricopa County supervisor, Secretary of State and governor, will receive 80 percent of her yearly salary of $95,000. Under the pension plan, elected officials are able to retire on a pension that pays them 80 percent of their final annual salary if they've served at least 20 years of service. The pension does not increase if they have served more than two decades. Horne, meanwhile, will receive $3,600 a month for 12 years of service — four as attorney general and eight as state superintendent of public instruction. Horne lost his re-election campaign during the primary election and will leave office in January. Horne also served as a state lawmaker. However, those years did not count towards his pension because he opted to participate in a defined contribution plan, said Christian Palmer, a spokesman for the state pension system. "I switched careers from private practice to public service at the age of 57 and when I did that I felt renewed, like I was 25 years old," Horne said in a statement. "Now that I'm going back to private practice I feel the same way so it actually doesn't feel right to be collecting my pension now that I'm 25 again." The Board of Trustees for the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System must approve the applications before the payouts are made. The trustees will likely consider the applications in December or January, Palmer said. Republic reporter Craig Harris contributed to this article. Follow the reporter on Twitter @yvonnewingett.
Ducey, DuVal: How about some straight budget talk? Sadly politicians lie routinely in an attempt to mislead us and will say ANYTHING to get elected. "The two leading candidates to be Arizona's next governor are running classically smart campaigns. They speak in vague generalities, inspiring hope and optimism." "Here's the hard truth. There are two ways to balance a budget this far out of balance: Raise taxes. Slash programs. Neither is popular, and so neither candidate will talk about them." http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2014/10/08/doug-ducey-fred-duval-budget/16939635/ Ducey, DuVal: How about some straight budget talk? Editorial board, The Republic | azcentral.com 4:11 p.m. MST October 8, 2014 Our View: Governor candidates' vague generalities can't begin to close a $1 billion hole. So, how would they do it? The two leading candidates to be Arizona's next governor are running classically smart campaigns. They speak in vague generalities, inspiring hope and optimism. They avoid specifics, especially about tough topics. Those can only get a candidate in trouble. Especially when the topic is the state budget, projected to be $520 million out of balance this year and $1 billion in the red for the first budget the new governor will propose. How would Democrat Fred DuVal or Republican Doug Ducey balance it? The safe ideas they have offered in their campaigns amount to looking for coins in the sofa cushions. DuVal wants to change the way the state buys stuff. Ducey wants to streamline the bureaucracy. Both count on economic vitalization that will take years. Here's the hard truth. There are two ways to balance a budget this far out of balance: Raise taxes. Slash programs. Neither is popular, and so neither candidate will talk about them. We understand. They want to win. But whoever wins will start making tough choices minutes after taking the oath of office. Voters ought to have a clue where they would start, especially because both have made the optimistic promise to not cut education, which makes up half the budget. The only way to keep that promise is to inflict pain somewhere else. Where? An election is more than a horse race, in which somebody wins. It ought to be a debate about public policy. There is no more important public policy facing Arizona now than the priorities reflected in the next governor's budget. Please, Mr. Ducey and Mr. DuVal, let's start having a full and open discussion about the tough choices you would advocate.
Columbus had a telescope???Teachers want a raise, while teaching kids that Columbus had a telescope on his ships??? This Sunday I went to a Latino festival at the Tempe Public Library called Tardeada. At one booth there were a bunch of government school teachers telling us how wonderful they are and how they deserve more money. The teachers had some books for young children showing how Columbus discovered American in 1492. I was reading thru the book because it was in Spanish. Everything was OK in the book till I got to the illustrations showing that sailors on Columbus's ships had telescopes, which they used to view the land. Only one problem with that, telescopes didn't exist in 1492 when Columbus discovered America. Hell, telescopes didn't even exist until 1608 or one hundred plus years AFTER Columbus discovered America. I thought Galileo invented the telescope but Wikipedia says that it was Zacharias Janssen. I asked the teachers why we should raise our taxes and give them more money, if they are teaching kids that Columbus had telescopes when telescopes didn't exist until at least 100 years after Columbus allegedly discovered America. They dodged the question and didn't even answer it. Maybe because of my long hair they thought I was on drugs and made the whole thing up about telescopes being invented in the 1600's.
DEA agent sued over fake Facebook page Remember it's wrong to lie, steal, commit perjury and fraud. Well unless your a police officer, and they they will come up with hundreds of lame ass excuses why it's OK for them to lie, steal, commit perjury and fraud so they can arrest people for victimless drug war crimes. I hope what I just said sounds illogical as hell!!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/07/agent-fake-facebook-page-in-drug-case/16866343/ DEA agent sued over fake Facebook page Associated Press 12:14 p.m. MST October 7, 2014 WASHINGTON — The Drug Enforcement Administration set up a fake Facebook account using photographs and other personal information it took from the cellphone of a New York woman arrested in a cocaine case, to trick her friends and associates into revealing incriminating drug secrets. The Justice Department initially defended the practice in court filings but now says it is reviewing whether the Facebook guise went too far. Sondra Arquiett's Facebook account looked as real as any other. It included photos of her posing on the hood of a sleek BMW and a close-up with her young son and niece. She even appeared to write that she missed her boyfriend, who was identified by his nickname. But it wasn't her. The account was the work of DEA Agent Timothy Sinnigen, Arquiett said in a federal lawsuit. The case is scheduled for trial next week in Albany, New York. Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement Tuesday that officials are reviewing both the incident and the practice, although in court papers filed earlier in the case, the federal government defended it. Fallon declined to comment further because the case is pending. Details of the case were first reported by the online news site Buzzfeed. Arquiett was arrested in July 2010 on charges of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. She was accused of being part of a drug distribution ring run by her boyfriend, who had been previously indicted. In a court filing in August, the Justice Department contended that while Arquiett didn't directly authorize Sinnigen to create the fake account, she "implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cellphone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in ... ongoing criminal investigations." The government also contended that the Facebook account was not public. A reporter was able to access it early Tuesday, though it was later disabled. A spokesman for Facebook declined Tuesday to comment on the legal dispute. Facebook's own policies appear to prohibit the practice, telling users that "You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission." Lawyers for Arquiett did not immediately respond to email and telephone messages from The Associated Press. Arquiett did not immediately respond to an email asking to discuss the case. Arquiett said in her filing that she suffered "fear and great emotional distress" and was endangered because the fake page gave the impression that she was cooperating with Sinnigen's investigation as he interacted online with "dangerous individuals he was investigating." The fate of Arquiett's fight against the government's use of her identity online is unclear. A staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation — a civil liberties organization — Nate Cardozo, said the government's rationale was "laughable." "If I'm cooperating with law enforcement, and law enforcement says, 'Can I search your phone?' and I hand it over to them, my expectation is that they will search the phone for evidence of a crime — not that they will take things that are not evidence off my phone and use it in another context," Cardozo said, Lawrence Friedman, a privacy and constitutional law professor at New England Law-Boston, a law school, said the Arquiett's "privacy claim rises and falls on the extent to which she consented to what it is the government says she consented to." If Arquiett agreed to cooperate with an ongoing investigation and allow her phone to be used as part of that probe — as the government alleged in its court filing — then it would be harder for her to prove that her privacy rights were violated, Friedman said. If her phone were seized without consent, then she would have an easier claim. "Basically, when you strike that kind of deal, you kind of have to play by the government's rules," Friedman said. "This is not the ordinary situation in which the person walking down the street can have their identity stolen by the government," he said. "She was involved in a criminal investigation."
Police: Principal found with drugs, young woman I was going to post this article and make fun of the hypocrites in government schools who use drugs, while at the same time telling the rest of us NOT to use drugs. I guess I can't do this because the guy is a principle at a PRIVATE school. Instead I will make fun of the draconian drug laws with draconian prison sentences. Note how both people in the article were arrested for SALES of drugs despite neither of them selling any drugs. Sadly our elected officials pass laws with silly definitions that are politically correct ways to slap people with draconian prison sentences for victimless crimes. From the article it looks like in California if you have more then a certain amount of an illegal drug it is assumed that you are selling the drugs. And of course when you sell drugs the penalties are jacked up and it's usually a felony to sell drugs. I suspect this is why Andrew Myers who wrote Prop 203 or Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act made it illegal for medical marijuana patients to have over 2 and a half ounces of marijuana. That way if a medical marijuana patient has over 2.5 ounces of marijuana the cops can ASSUME the person is illegally selling marijuana and competing with Andrew Myers buddies in the Arizona Dispensary Association. And of course they can be arrested by the police so they no longer cut into the profits that Andrew Myers and his buddies at the Arizona Dispensary Association make selling us the overpriced $300+ an ounce marijuana at their medical marijuana dispensaries. For those of you who aren't familiar with Prop 203, it almost gives the medical marijuana dispensaries a virtual monopoly on growing and selling medical marijuana in Arizona. With the 25 mile rule less then 4 percent of Arizona's medical marijuana patients are allowed to grow their own marijuana. The rest are force by Prop 203, which Andrew Myers helped write to buy their marijuana from the medical marijuana dispensaries. Many which are run by Andrew Myers good buddies who are also members of the Arizona Dispsenary Association. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/07/principal-drugs-prostitute/16876255/ Police: Principal found with drugs, young woman Associated Press 2:50 p.m. MST October 7, 2014 RANCHO CORDOVA, Calif. — The principal of a private Marin County high school resigned following his arrest at a hotel room where authorities said Tuesday he was found with drugs and a passed-out woman roughly 30 years younger than him. Thomas Price, 54, was taken into custody at Hyatt Place in Rancho Cordova after police received a call from a man who said he was worried about his girlfriend who was with the educator at the hotel, Sacramento County sheriff's Sgt. Jason Ramos said. Price, the former principal of Branson High School in Ross, was arrested Friday on suspicion of possessing drugs for sale because of the quantity of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine found, authorities said. Price was released on bail and is scheduled to appear in court on Nov. 24. The woman, 21-year-old Brittney Hall, was also arrested at the hotel about 15 miles east of Sacramento and remains in custody on suspicion of possessing drugs for sale. Ramos said the pair had known each other for some time but he wouldn't say what kind of relationship they had. "They were no strangers to one another," he said. Lawyers for Price or Hall couldn't immediately be located for comment. The school announced Monday that Price had resigned. "The alleged incident did not occur on campus and did not involve any students at our school," the statement said. The school named Price its headmaster in the spring of 2006 following a lengthy search. Before joining Branson, Price was head of the Isidore Newman School in New Orleans and the Abington Friends School in Philadelphia.
First of all over the years I have posted a number of articles about Sal DiCiccio complaining about the city of Phoenix pissing away our tax dollars on unneeded government pork. So he does bitch a lot about government pork. But based on this article Sal DiCiccio seems to be a hypocrite who says "do as I say, not as I do" I know years ago I asked Sal DiCiccio to remove me from his junk email list and he refused. I still get a few junk emails from him every week telling me what a WONDERFUL job he is doing. I suspect those junk emails are sent and paid for with taxpayer money. I also sent Sal DiCiccio who is a Phoenix City Council man a request for public records and asked for the email addresses he sends these junk mails to. He refused to give me the list and said it was his PRIVATE list. That's kind of odd, because Sal DiCiccio got MY EMAIL address from when I sent him an e-mail addressed to him as a Phoenix City Councilman. I certainly didn't give Sal DiCiccio the private citizen my email address. I gave Sal DiCiccio the Phoenix City Councilman my email address. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/10/07/phoenix-councilman-diciccio-called-hypocritical-pension/16866867/ Sal DiCiccio called 'hypocritical' on Phoenix pension Dustin Gardiner, The Republic | azcentral.com 11:44 a.m. MST October 8, 2014 When it comes to pension reform, critics say Phoenix Councilman Sal DiCiccio seems to be living by the mantra, "Do as I say, not as I do." For the better part of five years, DiCiccio has been on a mission to stop the excesses and soaring costs of the city's employee-pension system. It's an issue he seized this fall as voters consider Proposition 487, a ballot initiative that would dismantle the pension plan for new hires. He has been the public face of the pro-reform effort. MORE: Phoenix officials accused of bias | State law may restrict Phoenix pension reform But labor union leaders have accused DiCiccio of hypocrisy given that he's receiving an $8,410 pension from a previous term on the council and $10,500 in deferred compensation per year while earning a $61,600 salary for doing the same City Council job. DiCiccio said he has gone out of his way to return his pension money. Instead of writing a check to the city for his pension amount, he said he pays it back by declining other benefits available to city leaders, including a cellphone and car allowance. He emphasized that he tried to suspend his pension payments, but state officials told him the law wouldn't allow it. The pension benefit comes from DiCiccio's council stint from January 1994 to February 2000. Since returning to elected office in 2009, records show he has declined more than $46,000 in city perks and once wrote a $3,000 check to the city. Still, opponents assert DiCiccio's explanation doesn't square with his message of fiscal responsibility. Find all of the candidate information you need! Need help getting started? Register to vote here. They point out he is talking about different pots of money, and the city still has to make payments to a state-pension system for his position. Ultimately, critics contend, he is "double dipping" by pocketing a pension and deferred compensation for a job for which he earns a salary. "There's a tremendous irony when somebody positions themselves as the tip of the spear when it comes to pension reform and at the same time is receiving a pension for doing a part-time political job," said David Leibowitz, a spokesman for the firefighter union opposing Proposition 487. "I mean, how many times do we have to pay this guy to be a city councilman?" DiCiccio said the focus on his pension distracts from the real issue Prop. 487 would address: Phoenix's unsustainable pension obligations. The city's costs for the pensions of civilian workers jumped to $129 million this year, up from $27.8 million in fiscal 2002. "That's a tactic they've used to personally attack and not talk about the initiative," he said. "I've paid back my pension. Period." Public records from the Arizona Elected Officials' Retirement Plan show DiCiccio applied for early retirement in September 2003, allowing him to start drawing a lifetime pension benefit at age 45. The size of his pension has increased over time with cost-of-living adjustments. In hindsight, DiCiccio said he "would absolutely never have" taken early retirement had he known of the looming pension crisis. DiCiccio twice wrote to state pension officials, asking to have his payments suspended while he is in office. They rejected his requests. He said he also made multiple phone calls to the state, advocating for a suspension. When that didn't work, DiCiccio started declining other city benefits. But opponents said that if DiCiccio were to truly practice what he advocates, he would write a check to the city for his pension payment, decline deferred compensation and not accept a cellphone or car allowance. Rather than simply writing a check to the city for his pension amount, DiCiccio said he declined certain allowances for tax reasons. He elaborated: Writing a check would make him pay taxes twice: once for the income tax on his pension, and again for taxes on the car and cellphone allowances he would otherwise collect from the city. Cathy Gleason, the city's retired budget director and a co-chair of the No on 487 campaign, said DiCiccio is being especially hypocritical on deferred compensation, which is similar to 401(k)-type retirement plans in the private sector. DiCiccio receives the benefit despite labeling it a "second retirement" plan and advocating its removal for all city workers with pensions. "He hasn't really given it back," she said. "He's still getting more compensation than the average city employee, and they have to show up for 40 hours a week." Records from the elected-officials pension plan show DiCiccio has received more than $77,000 in payments since retiring in 2003. He said he has paid back the portion of those payments that he has received since returning to the council. However, DiCiccio has previously claimed he asked the city to stop all of his deferred-compensation payments. Public records show he stopped accepting the second retirement benefit for a few years, but had the $761 monthly payments reinstated in December 2012. When asked about the deferred compensation payments, DiCiccio said he's taking the money instead of accruing more pension benefits. He added, "At some point, you're allowed to have some benefits." Election information Early ballots for the Nov. 4 election hit Phoenix mailboxes. Voters will decide races for federal, state and local offices, as well as the fate of several ballot measures. There is only one city issue on the ballot this year: Proposition 487, also known as the Phoenix Pension Reform Act. Because Maricopa County elections officials are conducting this election, there will be no separate city ballot or polling places, as has been the case in other city elections. The vast majority of Phoenix voters participate in elections via mail and will receive their county ballots in the next several days. Ballots must be returned to the County Elections Department or city clerk by 7 p.m. on Election Day to be counted. In-person early voting starts Oct. 9 at Phoenix City Hall, 200 W. Washington St. Voters who decide to cast a ballot in person on Election Day will need to visit the specific polling place designated for the precinct where they live. For help finding your polling place, call 602-506-1511 or visit recorder.maricopa.gov/pollingplace/pollingplace.aspx. Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Nov. 4. Prop. 487 would end Phoenix's pension system for general city workers and replace it with a plan similar to a private-sector 401(k). The switch to a new retirement plan would only impact new hires or employees who choose to leave the pension plan, the Phoenix Employees' Retirement System. Current civilian employees could remain in the pension system and have a guaranteed income at retirement. Among Prop. 487's other provisions: • Make permanent and expand reforms the city has made to combat the practice of "pension spiking," generally seen as the artificial inflation of a city employee's income to boost retirement benefits. It would exclude from the pension calculation any compensation beyond base pay and expand the number of years used to determine an employee's final average salary, a key part of the benefit formula. • Prohibit the city from contributing to more than one retirement account for each city worker, including current employees. Currently, the city contributes to a second retirement plan, known as deferred compensation, on top of most employees' pensions. ------------- Pensions of former Arizona politicians Many elected officials and judges in Arizona are beneficiaries of the state's most generous retirement system, the Elected Officials Retirement Plan. The plan is the smallest and most financially troubled of the state's pension systems. In 2013, lawmakers concerned about the health of the plan passed legislation to close it to new hires, replacing it with a 401(k)-type retirement system. similar to the private sector. The change didn't affect elected leaders or judges already in the plan. Here's a list of some of Arizona's most familiar former elected officials who draw state pensions. Pension amounts are calculated based on an official's salary and years of service. Janet Napolitano Last elected post: Governor. Annual pension: $30,255. Date payments started: February 2009. Years of service: 10. Current title: President of the University of California, formerly U.S. secretary of Homeland Security. Ed Pastor Last elected post (in state): Maricopa County supervisor. Annual pension: $30,277. Date payments started: July 2006. Years of service: 14.3. Current title: Congressman, Arizona's 7th District (retiring this year). Russell Pearce Last elected post: State senator. Annual pension: $10,446. Date payments started: November 2012. Years of elected service: 10.8. Current title: Technical services division manager, Maricopa County Treasurer's Office. Sal DiCiccio Last elected post: Phoenix city councilman. Annual pension: $8,410. Date payments started: October 2003. Years of elected service: 6.1. Current title: Phoenix city councilman (DiCiccio returned to elected office after he began drawing a pension for his earlier council terms) . Tom Simplot Last elected post: Phoenix city councilman. Annual pension: $18,442. Date payments started: January 2014. Years of elected service: 10.2. Current title: President and CEO, Arizona Multihousing Association. Jane Dee Hull Last elected post: Governor. Annual pension: $112,498. Date payments started: February 2003. Years of elected service: 22.7. Fife Symington Last elected post: Governor. Annual pension: $21,696. Date payments started: December 2007. Years of elected service: 6.4. Rose Mofford Last elected post: Governor. Annual pension: $81,025. Date payments started: April 1991. Years of elected service: 13.1. Bruce Babbitt Last elected post: Governor. Annual pension: $33,852. Date payments started: December 1989. Years of elected service: 12. Phil Gordon Last elected post: Phoenix mayor. Annual pension: $53,497. Date payments started: January 2012. Years of elected service: 15.8. Current title: Director, Chan Soon-Shiong Institute for Advanced Health. Fulton Brock Last elected post: Maricopa County supervisor. Annual pension: $53,646. Date payments started: January 2013. Years of elected service: 18. Elaine Scruggs Last elected post: Glendale mayor. Annual pension: $38,400. Date payments started: February 2013. Years of elected service: 22.7. Skip Rimsza Last elected post: Phoenix mayor. Annual pension: $32,860. Date payments started: January 2004. Years of elected service: 13.3. Mary Manross Last elected post: Scottsdale mayor. Annual pension: $28,333. Date payments started: February 2004. Years of elected service: 16.8. Terry Goddard Last elected post: Attorney general. Annual pension: $69,106. Date payments started: February 2011. Years of elected service: 17.7. Current title: Candidate for secretary of state. Jerry Weiers Last elected post: State representative. Annual pension: $16,196. Date payments started: January 2013. Years of elected service: 17.9. Current title: Glendale mayor. Tom Boone Last elected post: State representative. Annual pension: $7,808. Date payments started: February 2011. Years of elected service: 8. Jack Harper Last elected post: State representative. Annual pension: $6,724. Date payments started: November 2013. Years of elected service: 10. Don Stapley Last elected post: Maricopa County supervisor. Annual pension: $55,544. Date payments started: January 2013. Years of elected service: 18.1. Scott Bundgaard Last elected post: State senator. Annual pension: $6,297. Date payments started: November 2007. Years of elected service: 8 (after his retirement, Bundgaard returned to office from January 2011 to January 2012). Note: The size of an elected official's pension increases over time because of cost-of-living adjustments. Some elected officials have returned to public office since retiring, allowing them to collect a pension and salary for the same job.
Prosecutors won't charge Phoenix arson investigators Did you really think the cops would arrest their union brothers for a crime??? http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/10/08/maricopa-declines-prosecution-phoenix-fire-investigators-abrk/16927541/ Prosecutors won't charge Phoenix arson investigators Matthew Casey, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:59 p.m. MST October 8, 2014 The Maricopa County Attorney's Office will not file felony charges against a pair of Phoenix Fire Department captains accused of lying under oath, but the office will not prosecute any case investigated by the men, County Attorney Bill Montgomery announced Wednesday. The Arizona Department of Public Safety this summer recommended charges against Capt. Sam Richardson and Capt. Fred Andes for their actions during the arson investigation at a home near 40th Street and Campbell Avenue in May 2009. "This is the first case I've been involved in — either as a county attorney or as a reviewing prosecutor — where we saw such an utter breakdown in basic investigative techniques and procedures," Montgomery said. Montgomery announced that Richardson and Andes have been added to the Rule 15 Disclosure Database, formerly known as the Officer Integrity Database and referred to as the Brady List. The County Attorney's Office is also reviewing about 30 past and pending cases investigated by the men. "To be clear, it's not cases in which both of them were investigating," Montgomery said. "It's cases in which either one of them may have been investigating." In the May 2009 case, police arrested the homeowner on suspicion of arson. The county attorney later dropped the case, in part because there was no evidence tying the homeowner to the fire, according to the DPS report. The DPS recommendations resulted from a criminal inquiry into Richardson and Andes and their supervisor, Fire Marshal Jack Ballentine, alleging discrepancies in testimony by the two fire captains. Investigators had recommended that Richardson be charged with six counts of false swearing and that Andes be charged with one count. No charges were recommended for Ballentine. To convict someone for false swearing, prosecutors have to prove the person made incorrect statements under oath that he or she believed to be false, according to Arizona law. Montgomery said that while Richardson and Andes made incorrect or impeachable statements in that 2009 case, they both believed they were true. "Not bringing criminal charges obviously did not result in us saying that there was nothing wrong with what happened here, or with what the investigation identified," Montgomery said. The County Attorney's Office notified acting Phoenix Fire Chief Kara Kalkbrenner of the decision in a letter on Wednesday. The letter, signed by Law Enforcement Liaison Keith D. Manning, suggested that fire department investigators need to be retrained in nearly a dozen key areas, including crime scene integrity, canine certification record keeping, court testimony, search and seizure, probable cause, witness credibility, the Rules of Evidence and the of Rules of Criminal Procedure. Manning also wrote that, while Richardson and Andes are not being prosecuted, "the detailed investigation raises numerous concerns about both investigators' competence and credibility." The Phoenix Fire Department placed Richardson, Andes and Ballentine on administrative leave with full pay and benefits following the DPS report. They returned to work in August but were reassigned to other divisions, according to Shelly Jamison, a fire department spokeswoman. Last month, the fire department signed a contract that will pay law firm Jennings, Strouss and Salmon PLC up to $50,000 to complete an administrative investigation of the trio that is expected to last up to 120 business days. The fire department released a statement Wednesday, saying the ongoing administrative investigation precludes officials from discussing the county attorney's decision. "We respect the findings of Mr. Montgomery's office and take the recommendations seriously," the statement said. Letter to Phoenix Chief Kalkbrenner
DPS officer shot in the face; attackers still on the loose It sounds like the DPS cop that was shot violated the constitutional rights of the people he pulled over and illegally stopped them and falsely arrested. He pulled the people over at 3 in the MORNING for having windows that were tinted too dark???? "The incident took place before 3 a.m. at a motel near Interstate 17 and McDowell Road. The officer had pulled over a 2008 blue Mercury Sable with excessively tinted windows" Jesus, it's almost impossible to tell if windows are too dark in the day time without getting a tool to measure the light. I suspect it is would be impossible at 3 in the morning when it is pitch black outside to determine by your eye ball if a cars windows are illegally tinted. If you gave me a #5 welding lense filter which is used for gas welding and a #10 welding lense filter used for arc welding which is twice as dark and asked me to tell me which is darker in the daylight I probably could do it. If you asked me to compare the two lenses at 3 am in the morning on a dark city street I probably couldn't do it. And that's why I suspect the unknown pig who stopped these guys and claimed that their windows were too dark is lying. If that's is the case I can say the people that were illegally arrested by a crooked cop certainly had a right to shoot the cop for falsely arresting them. The only mistake they made was giving the police criminal their names before shooting him. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/10/08/dps-officer-shot-abrk/16899679/ DPS officer shot in the face; attackers still on the loose The Republic | azcentral.com 1:03 a.m. MST October 9, 2014 A state trooper was expected to recover after being shot in the face after an early-morning traffic stop in Phoenix on Wednesday, and as many as five suspects remained at large after eluding two backup officers who returned fire. The suspects' car was found abandoned hours after the shooting, but as of late Wednesday, a statewide manhunt had not yielded any arrests. The 44-year-old officer, whose name was not released, survived a five-hour surgery after the attack and was in intensive care. "He faces a long road to recovery," DPS spokesman Bart Graves said of the married, six-year veteran. "It's going to be a long time before he's going to be able to talk to anybody." The incident took place before 3 a.m. at a motel near Interstate 17 and McDowell Road. The officer had pulled over a 2008 blue Mercury Sable with excessively tinted windows — a state violation. The officer asked all the car's occupants for their identification cards to run through his in-car computer, according to DPS spokesman Tim Case. Case said the extra precaution is standard procedure for officers on late-night or early-morning watch. Two other DPS officers pulled in for backup, but it was unclear whether the first officer had called for it. Automatic backup is also not uncommon for the graveyard shift, Graves said. The officer ran the ID cards, but at least one occupant said he didn't have his available, Case said. When the officer tried to run the name given by the occupant, he didn't appear in the system. Case said this could indicate the man was using an alias or that the name was not attached to a criminal or driving record. When the officer returned to the vehicle, one of the people inside opened fire, Case said. The officer fell, and the car started to peel out, prompting the backup officers to fire at the Sable. Their bullets struck the car, shattering the back window and potentially wounding its occupants, officials said. The officer, in critical condition with a gunshot wound to the face, was taken to a hospital and underwent surgery for five hours, a DPS spokesman said. The bullet reportedly hit only soft tissue. He was transferred to an intensive-care unit Wednesday afternoon and was said to be in "stable" condition. The incident triggered the state's first Blue Alert — an emergency-notification system, similar to an Amber Alert, which enlists the help of commuters in locating people involved with killing or injuring an officer. A statewide manhunt ensued for the Sable, with an anonymous tip eventually leading police to the backyard of an abandoned home near 29th Avenue and Pima Street. The discovery canceled the Blue Alert, but officers continued to comb neighborhoods and chase leads throughout the day and evening hours in search of three men and two women. Phoenix police are leading the investigation, which involves the DPS and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, FBI and U.S. Marshals Service. Officer James Holmes, a Phoenix police spokesman said investigators had identified "persons of interest" in the case but would not release any information. He also said investigators wanted to talk to whomever owns the abandoned home where the car was found. Police are familiar with the house from previous cases, he said. "There are folks that we have associated with this house over a period of time that we feel strongly were, probably in some way, involved with the people who were involved in the crime this morning," he said. The main priority of the Phoenix Police Department is understanding if all five people were involved in the shooting and what caused them to react to a police officer's presence by attacking him, Holmes said. "Until they're in custody, it will be a statewide and nationwide hunt," he added. Reporters Matt Casey, Jesse Millard and Tyler Fingert contributed to this article.
Personally I think. Wendy Rogers sucks just as bad as Kyrsten Sinema. But Kyrsten Sinema has a proven track record of screwing the voters she pretends to serve, and I think she needs to be booted out of office for that reason. Kyrsten Sinema tried to flush Prop 203 or Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act down the toilet by attempting to slap a 300% tax on medical marijuana and should be booted out of office for that reason. Kyrsten Sinema also consistently votes like a Republican and supports the police state and military industrial complex. Sure if we put Wendy Rogers in Congress she will suck just as bad as Kyrsten Sinema, but the point is we need to boot Kyrsten Sinema because she has screwed us!!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmontini/2014/10/07/wendy-rogers-kyrsten-sinema-beheading-james-foley-isis/16859761/ No shame, no sense in Rogers' grotesque "beheading" ad EJ Montini, columnist | azcentral.com 3:33 p.m. MST October 7, 2014 In what universe is it okay to use an image from a beheading -- a beheading -- in a campaign ad? I don't care what your politics are, or how you feel about a particular candidate. That cannot be acceptable. Even in the ugly world of politics there has to be at least a minimal amount of human decency. Or does there? Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Wendy Rogers, who wants to unseat Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, has released a campaign commercial that shows an Islamic State terrorist with a knife near a kneeling James Foley, a freelance journalist who was beheaded. The image comes from video footage released by the militants on Aug. 19. The Rogers commercial does not show the beheading. Small favors. Rogers campaign spokesman tried to explain the grotesque ad by saying, "We think it's an important ad to highlight the differences on what this election is about and how President Obama's failed leadership internationally has made our country less safe." And you can't highlight your perception of those differences with anything other than the picture of a man about to be murdered? Come on. Rogers' campaign said it will continue to run the ad on television, even with growing calls from the public to stop airing it. It's a way to "highlight the differences," they say. How about highlighting the priorities of a desperate politician? I'm sure there are few things worse than using the suffering and the horror of a murder victim and his family to somehow get a little attention for your political campaign ... but I'm at a loss to think of one just now.
John Daws doesn't seem to understand that government thieves are like civilian thieves. They will steal from anybody that is an easy mark. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/letters/2014/10/08/states-internet-tax-pursuit-unfairly-singles-smokers/16896821/ Arizona is persecuting smokers John Daws 7:24 a.m. MST October 8, 2014 Regarding "Why it's time for smokers to pay up" featuring David Raber, director of the Arizona Department of Revenue: Seriously? Mr. Raber thinks it's OK to charge people back sales taxes on Internet cigarette purchases from eight years ago? Or, is it just OK because it's just cigarette smokers who are being singled out? It was unclear how Mr. Raber found those 1,346 people to charge $6.6 million in sales taxes (an average bill of $4,903 each). I'm not a smoker, but if the Department of Revenue is not going to do the same thing for all Internet purchases, then they have no business singling out smokers. Those poor folks have been denied reasonable protection from ridiculous persecution for years. And, in my humble opinion, if Mr. Raber and his department tried this tactic on all Internet purchases for the past eight years, they would have a tax rebellion on their hands. Just ridiculous, Mr. Raber. Shame! — John Daws, Phoenix
Think of it as a "jobs program for generals" and a "government welfare program for the corporations in the military industrial complex". http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/pentagon-up-to-11-billion-cost-for-iraq-syria/16832969/ Pentagon: Up to $1.1 billion cost for Iraq, Syria Associated Press 4:52 p.m. MST October 6, 2014 WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has spent as much as $1.1 billion on U.S. military operations against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria since the mission began in mid-June, including more than $62 million alone in Navy airstrikes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. U.S. Central Command, in data released Monday, said that the Navy has dropped roughly 185 munitions, including 47 cruise missiles launched from ships in the region. Central Command said Air Force fighter jets have far exceeded those numbers, launching close to 1,000 munitions. The data released Monday broke out the $62 million spent on Navy munitions, but provided no cost estimates for Air Force munitions. The bulk of the Navy costs were for the 47 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired by American warships in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea that targeted the Khorasan Group, an al-Qaida cell, in eight locations west of the city of Aleppo in Syria. The group was said to be plotting imminent attacks on American and Western interests, and it was one of the key targets two weeks ago when the U.S. first began airstrikes into Syria. The Pentagon has struggled to come up with specific cost figures for the Iraq and Syria operations. Officials say it has cost an average of $7 million to $10 million daily since June. The costs of the operations began at a much lower rate in June then escalated as airstrikes began in northern Iraq on August 8. In late August, the Pentagon said the cost was an average of $7.5 million daily. The airstrikes were expanded to Syria in September, prompting the latest, higher average estimates. There are currently more than 1,300 U.S. troops in Iraq, including security personnel, staff at two joint operations centers in Baghdad and Irbil, and advisory teams that are working with Iraqi brigades and headquarters units. A coalition of about 40 nations is participating in the U.S.-led operations, including several Arab nations that are conducting airstrikes in Syria. Several European nations are participating in the airstrikes in Iraq, but not in Syria.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/07/twitter-lawsuit-nsa-fbi/16868727/ Twitter sues FBI, DOJ to release NSA info Associated Press 4:47 p.m. MST October 7, 2014 NEW YORK — Twitter is suing the FBI and the Department of Justice to be able to release more information about government surveillance of its users. The social media company filed a lawsuit Tuesday in a California federal court to publish its full "transparency report," which documents government requests for user information. Twitter Inc. published a surveillance report in July but couldn't include the exact number of national security requests it received because Internet companies are prohibited from disclosing that information, even if they didn't get any requests. The San Francisco-based company said in a blog post that it believes it's entitled under the First Amendment to "respond to our users' concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance." The U.S. government has been able to access phone networks and high-speed Internet traffic for years to catch suspected criminals and terrorists. The FBI also started pushing technology companies like Google, Skype and others to guarantee access to their data streams and grab emails, video chats, pictures and more. It recently emerged that Yahoo was threatened with a daily fine of $250,000 by the U.S. government if it didn't comply with demands to give up information on its users. A secret 2007 lawsuit and subsequent appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, the company said last month after a federal judge ordered some material about the court challenge to be unsealed. Technology companies say they turn over information only if required by court order, and in the interest of transparency with their customers, want to share information about the government's activities. "Our ability to speak has been restricted by laws that prohibit and even criminalize a service provider like us from disclosing the exact number of national security letters ('NSLs') and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ('FISA') court orders received — even if that number is zero," Ben Lee, Twitter's vice president of legal, wrote in a blog post. In January, the Justice Department and five leading Internet companies including Google Inc., Facebook Inc., Yahoo Inc., and LinkedIn Corp., agreed to a compromise that would allow the firms to reveal how often they are ordered to turn over information about their customers in national security investigations. DOJ spokeswoman Emily Pierce said in an email Tuesday that the agency worked collaboratively with those companies "to allow them to provide broad information on government requests while also protecting national security." The Federal Bureau of Investigation referred requests for comment to the Justice Department's response. But Twitter's lawsuit pushes further — for example, it wants to be able to disclose what types of information the government did or didn't ask for. "We hope that other technology companies will now follow Twitter's lead," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. "Technology companies have an obligation to protect their customers' sensitive information against overbroad government surveillance, and to be candid with their customers about how their information is being used and shared."
Arizona governor candidate Republican Doug Ducey is a big fan of Christian nut job Cathi Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy or CAP??? Most people don't even know who Cathi Herrod is, but she runs the Center for Arizona Policy which is a group that is pretty much intent on turning Arizona into a Christian Theocracy. And sadly Cathi Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy have been very successful at getting the Arizona legislator to pass their bills into law. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/10/08/social-issues-influence-governors-race/16897265/ Social issues influence governor's race Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, The Republic | azcentral.com 6:45 a.m. MST October 8, 2014 Abortion, religious freedom and marriage rights haven't dominated the competitive governor's race, but whoever occupies the executive tower for the next four years almost certainly will grapple with such social issues. Democrat Fred DuVal, 60, a former Clinton administration staffer, lobbyist and Board of Regents chairman, has made those issues part of his campaign's rallying cry as he blitzes the state with a message that includes marriage equality, women's rights and an end to "ugly political score-settling" with divisive legislation such as Senate Bills 1062 and 1070. As he campaigns, Republican Doug Ducey, 50, the state treasurer and former Cold Stone Creamery CEO, has tried to steer clear of those topics, saying they distract from his economic message. But he's been confronted with questions about why he put Cathi Herrod — architect of controversial social legislation through her presidency with the Center for Arizona Policy — front and center in his campaign even before he officially declared his candidacy. While Arizona's most controversial social policies have generally originated in the state Legislature and the courts have had the final say, the governor is the gatekeeper. As the state's chief executive, the governor holds the veto stamp and has historically used it to push back on legislation deemed too far outside the public interest. No other issue exemplifies the gubernatorial contenders' contrasting views on social issues more than SB 1062, which would have offered a legal defense for individuals and businesses facing discrimination lawsuits if they could have proved they acted upon a "sincerely held religious belief." Critics say the bill would have instead legalized discrimination, and, on Feb. 26, after corporate America rose up against the bill, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it, saying it did not "address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona." DuVal declared his opposition to the bill on Feb. 21, the day after lawmakers passed it. He posted on Facebook he would have stopped the bill from reaching the governor's desk. On Feb. 24, he joined a rally against the bill outside the state Capitol and announced through a bullhorn that Brewer should reject the legislation. He has remained consistent in his opposition to the legislation and any similar legislation in the future. At the same time, on Feb. 21, Ducey said he would take time to read the bill before taking a stance. A day later, he said as governor he would veto SB 1062 "but would then bring together all the interested parties before this legislative session adjourns to forge consensus on acceptable language protecting religious liberty." Ducey has refused to say how he would handle similar legislation if it comes before him next Legislative session. In a Center for Arizona Policy candidate questionnaire, Ducey answered that he supported "protecting individuals and businesses from being required to provide services or use their artistic expression in a manner that violates their moral or religious beliefs." The question, like SB 1062, deals with increased protections for people based on their religious beliefs. Ducey said Tuesday he thought the Center for Arizona Policy's religious-protection question was related to the U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, in which the court ruled corporations with religion-based objections can't be forced to pay for insurance coverage of contraception. The candidates' positions on abortion and marriage reflect their party's long-held platforms. But SB 1062, which opened a rift in the Republican Party, has put Ducey in a difficult spot. The Center for Arizona Policy, the most influential Christian conservative lobbying group in the state and author of SB 1062, tends to return with its legislation until it passes. The organization will not discuss its plans for the upcoming session. To win, "Ducey can't rely solely on Republicans, he has to rely on independent voters," who tend to be younger and more liberal on social issues, said Rodolfo Espino, an associate professor at Arizona State University's School of Politics and Global Studies. "That is why, when he talks about some of this stuff, he automatically moves it back to the economy and education. It's, 'Let's not talk about this stuff any more.' " But those issues will be unavoidable for the next governor. During her five years as governor, Brewerhas frequently considered questions touching on religion, abortion and same-sex partnerships. Brewer and state lawmakers tried unsuccessfully, for example, to eliminate health coverage for the domestic partners of state and university employees, most of whom are same-sex couples. Employees sued the state and got the law halted; the case is still moving through the courts. On abortion, Brewer signed what at the time was the most restrictive abortion law in the country, prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. The courts also halted that law. DuVal and his campaign have tried to cast Ducey as a "hardcore social conservative" who has embraced and validated some of the most divisive voices in Arizona and the Republican Party. They point to Herrod, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. DuVal has also seized on donations Ducey's family foundation has made to the Center for Arizona Policy, saying his financial support of the center, and relationship with Herrod, signal that he would "breathe new life" into SB 1062 and other legislation she wants to advance. Ducey Family Foundation tax documents show the foundation has donated $2,000 to the Center for Arizona Policy in recent years, but hundreds of thousands more to Catholic organizations and various other causes, some that benefit children and battered women. Ducey's campaign has not attacked DuVal over his stances on social issues. Instead, it paints hm as a big-spender whose "credentials in job creation or matters related to the economy are largely non-existent." 'Matters of conscience' DuVal, an Episcopalian, says many social issues are "matters of conscience for me. I soul-search, reflect on my faith, my Constitution." On abortion, DuVal says he believes women's "reproductive choices" have been eroded "year in, year out" and that would end if he won the governorship. "I believe that women's reproductive choices are for women to make, in consultation with family and physicians," he said. He favors allowing same-sex couples to marry, saying his family has experienced the pain of marital restrictions. He has an uncle who "lived in the shadows of shame" with his partner, whom DuVal did not meet before his uncle passed away. A cousin lives happily in a civil union with her partner in Delaware. "I am, as a matter of culture and faith ... pro-marriage and I believe we should have more of it — the more the better," he said. "Marriage equality is good for loving couples and is good for society and is good for our economy — it's good to have an inviting, inclusive place for us to draw talent, and marriage equality is right as a matter of law, and a matter of human rights." DuVal, who is comfortable talking about these social issues, says he seeks advice from a variety of close advisers and friends, including the Rev. Phillip Jackson, of Christ Church of the Ascension, former Republican Attorney General Grant Woods and Sheila Kloefkorn, who serves on the national board of the Human Rights Campaign. "Fred and I, we've had long talks together on spiritual growth and development and some of these hot-button issues and he brings his faith, his relationship with Jesus into this process," Jackson said. "Fred will do that with everything he's faced with as governor." Woods, a friend of DuVal's since high school, said DuVal "has a had a lifetime of standing up for non-discrimination," and would take that philosophy to the governor's suite. "He's a guy who doesn't have a mean bone in his body," Woods said. "He's been way ahead of, I think, the country on issues related to sexual orientation, and for that matter, issues related to civil rights in general." 'What I'm going to govern on' Ducey, a Catholic who attends St. Patrick's Catholic Community, addresses social issues only when directly asked, and frequently pivots to a broader message about "economic opportunity." He has said he favors "traditional marriage" but added the issue isn't one that will be decided by a governor. In his candidate questionnaire with Center for Arizona Policy, he answered he opposes "government granting unmarried domestic partners the same employee and health benefits as married couples." Ducey is anti-abortion, answering in his survey that he supports "prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother." He touts his endorsement by Arizona Right to Life political action committee. He is less forthcoming on religious-rights issues. During a meeting with The Arizona Republic editorial board last week, he was asked how he would approach abortion, religious freedom and marriage. He responded by saying he wanted to talk about "what animates my campaign" — the economy and education. "I'm focusing on the issues that bring people together and build broad majorities," Ducey said. "I believe what I believe, but to me, I think the area for opportunity in this state are on those two issues, in addition to projecting our state outward, in terms of I'm proud to live here." When told there was still confusion about how he would act on future religious-rights legislation, he referenced his prior statement that he would veto SB 1062 and added that he's been married for nearly 24 years and that he and his wife, Angela, don't agree on every issue. "But we found a way to work together," he said. "I don't agree with everyone in my coalition on every issue. I'm campaigning on what I'm going to govern on." Asked how he would act on legislation similar to SB 1062, he said, "To say that I'm going to veto something that I haven't read, is just — or sign something that I haven't read — I don't think is good policy for any chief executive." He added, "I don't know that legislation has to put us unnecessarily in the national spotlight." When asked what was objectionable about SB 1062, he said, "I don't think it was necessary." Ducey says his beliefs and principles guide him on most issues. When he needs guidance, he calls former U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, a conservative on social issues. Ducey's campaign said he also seeks advice from people like Republican Lea Márquez-Peterson, president of the Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and Lisa Graham Keegan, an independent voter and former schools superintendent. Márquez-Peterson said she has not given Ducey advice on social issues. She hopes Ducey would veto bills such as SB 1062, which she says "would hurt the economy." Keegan, who mostly advises Ducey on education issues, says she has told Ducey of her support for marriage equality and reproductive rights. "It's very clear he's a committed Catholic and he follows that doctrine," Keegansaid, but seeks advice from others because "he's a thoroughly decent human being who wants to understand. Sometimes, all you can do is try to plant a seed." Herrod downplayed her role in Ducey's campaign. She played up his "pro-life and pro-family" positions. "The advisory group is just symbolic of the broad coalition that Doug Ducey has pulled together," she said. "It shows that he's willing to listen to people from different segments of the policy arena in Arizona." She said Ducey, as governor, would "pull people around the table and develop a consensus when there might be disagreements," among advisers. Most of the lawmakers who have endorsed him are among the Legislature's most socially conservative, consistently introducing bills written by the Center for Arizona Policy. Herrod would not say whether she will push another version of SB 1062 this session, or how Ducey would act, if elected: "I will make no speculation at all. The issues raised by 1062 are real issues. But I have no speculation on what will happen next." Republic reporter Alia Beard Rau contributed to this article.
Chicago area cops bust a car window and use a Taser on a guy because he didn't have a government issued photo ID to show them???? The only Supreme Court case on this I know is Hiibel v Nevada, and in that case you only have to VERBALLY tell the police your name under certain circumstances. Hiibel v Nevada does NOT require you to give the police an ID card, just verbally tell the cops your name. http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/544/article/p2p-81608552/ Hammond police sued over use of Taser during traffic stop Quinn Ford, Tribune reporter 9:24 am, October 7, 2014 A federal lawsuit accuses Hammond police of "malice" and "reckless indifference" when they smashed a car window and used a Taser on a passenger during a traffic stop last month. But Hammond police, in a two-page rebuttal, said they resorted to force only after the passenger repeatedly refused to leave the car and kept reaching toward the back seat, prompting fears he may have had a weapon. Neither the police statement nor the lawsuit say a gun was found in the car. The incident happened around 3:30 p.m. on Sept. 24 when Lisa Mahone was pulled over as she drove with a friend, Jamal Jones, and her two children, 7 and 14, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in Indiana. The officer told Mahone, 47, she was stopped for not wearing her seatbelt and asked for her driver's license. The officer also asked to see Jones' identification, according to both police and the lawsuit. Mahone produced her license, but Jones told the officer he had been ticketed for not paying his insurance and did not have his license, the lawsuit states. Jones claims the officer drew his gun "for no reason" after Jones retrieved the ticket from his backpack and "offered the ticket to the officer." But police say Jones refused to hand over the ticket. "(Jones) refused to lower the window more than a small amount, then told the officer that 'he was not going to do (the officer’s) job' and for him to get a piece of paper," police said in their statement. "The first officer then called for back-up after asking (Jones) several more times to provide his name." As the back-up officer arrived, "the first officer saw the passenger inside the vehicle drop his left hand behind the center console. . .Fearing for officer safety, the first officer ordered the passenger to show his hands and then repeatedly asked him to exit the vehicle," according to the statement. The lawsuit says Jones refused to leave the car "because he feared the officers would harm him." Around this time, Mahone shifted the car into gear and began moving until officers warned her that a "stop strip" had been placed in front of her car and would puncture her tires. Mahone told the officers they were on the way to Stroger Hospital in Chicago to visit her sick mother. In a video recorded by Mahone's 14-year-old son, she can be heard calling the Hammond police department to explain the situation. "Just give me a ticket for no seatbelt so I can go to the hospital because the doctor called me to tell me to come in because my mom is about to pass away," Mahone said as officers continued to ask Jones to get out of the car, according to the video. One officer tells Jones if he does not step out of the car, they will "have to open the door for [him]." Jones nods and, after a few moments, one officer breaks the window with a club and uses a Taser on Jones, the video shows. Officers pull Jones out of the car as Mahone's 7-year-old daughter can be heard in the backseat crying. The lawsuit says shards of glass hit the the girl and the boy in the back seat. Police said the officers took the action "fearing the occupants of the vehicle may have possessed a weapon, and seeing the passenger repeatedly reach towards the rear seats of the vehicle." According to the lawsuit and the police statement, Jones was arrested and issued citations for resisting law enforcement and refusal to aid an officer. Mahone was cited for not wearing her seatbelt and was allowed to leave. The lawsuit accuses Hammond police of excessive force, battery and false arrest, saying the officers' actions "were taken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights and safety of plaintiffs." But police, in their statement, said officers "who make legal traffic stops are allowed to ask passengers inside of a stopped vehicle for identification and to request that they exit a stopped vehicle for the officer’s safety without a requirement of reasonable suspicion. "When the passenger displayed movements inside of the stopped vehicle that included placing his hand in places where the officer could not see, officers’ concerns for their safety were heightened," it added. Hammond police said an officer also recorded the incident. Here is a copy of the video where the cops use a crowbar to smash the guys window and then taser him: http://www.trbimg.com/img-5433dd84/turbine/chi-warning-graphic-hammond-police-break-vehicle-window-taze-passenger-20141007-01/400/16x9
Is a prisoner's beard dangerous? "Trust us, we are the experts" - Sadly that's a line of BS we get a lot from the police and our government masters. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/527/article/p2p-81569971/ Is a prisoner's beard dangerous? By Michael A. Helfand October 2, 2014, 4:43 p.m. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Holt vs. Hobbs, another big-ticket case that tests the limits of religious liberty when it comes into conflict with government regulation. The petitioner — Gregory Holt — is a prison inmate, housed by the Arkansas Department of Correction. But Holt is also known by another name, Abdul Maalik Muhammad, and he is by all accounts a sincere adherent of Islam. As part of that faith commitment, he wants to grow his beard 1/2-inch long in accordance with Islamic practice. It seems like a relatively reasonable request. But Arkansas prison officials have refused to grant it, arguing that a 1/2-inch beard would prevent them from maintaining the safety and security of the prison. The Department of Correction contends that Holt might be able to hide, for example, a SIM card or a razor in such a beard; the former could be used to order contraband and the latter to commit further violent crimes. To address these types of cases, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in 2000. The act says prisons may not impose regulations that "substantially burden" the religious liberty of inmates. The exception is a regulation that is the "least restrictive means" to advance a "compelling government interest." Put more succinctly, carefully tailored regulations necessary to accomplish something extremely important are permissible. In Holt's case, the Arkansas officials argue that they have followed the legal formula: The policy, they claim, is necessary to protect the safety and security of prisons. But there is good reason to be skeptical that the prison's beard policy is truly necessary. Arkansas already allows prisoners to grow a 1/4 -inch beard if for a medical reason they cannot shave. In addition, 44 states have policies that would allow Holt to grow a 1/2-inch beard, and the Arkansas brief before the Supreme Court conspicuously lacks any examples where those policies have led to death and destruction within a prison's walls. Nor, apparently, have the prison officials considered or tried any obvious alternatives in pursuit of safety and security. In fact, one Arkansas warden has already admitted under oath that he never explored how other jurisdictions implemented their more lenient beard policies. For example, a prison could allow 1/2-inch beards but also require that they be regularly inspected, perhaps by having the inmate run his fingers through his beard under the direction of a prison guard. The prison officials are asking the court to ignore all this. Their position, in short, amounts to the following: "Trust us — we are the experts." It argues that the court must defer to prison officials when they claim that a particular regulation is the only way to protect the safety and security of the prison environment. But the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which was sponsored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), requires far more scrutiny of prison regulations. As Hatch and Kennedy wrote when the law passed, "Prison officials sometimes impose frivolous or arbitrary rules." And so the act expressly demands that the government explain why there is no other option available before it substantially burdens an inmate's religious practices. Otherwise, prisons would have a free hand to prioritize bureaucratic convenience over fundamental religious liberties. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, has an embarrassing history when it comes to exchanging our civil rights for supposed security. During World War II, the federal government infamously prevailed before the court when it argued that Japanese internment camps were necessary to protect the safety and security of the American people. In retrospect, the court simply failed to question why interning U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry was necessary to protect national security; indeed, even the most limited interrogation of the claim would have exposed the camps for what they were: outright discrimination. The Arkansas Department of Correction's claim that its beard policy is necessary to protect safety and security must be scrutinized. Indeed, it is hard to imagine the claim surviving much scrutiny at all. Prisons may be dangerous places, but that does not mean we can allow them to infringe on civil rights without justification. When it comes to abridging civil rights, we must hold government accountable. "Trust us" is just not enough. Michael A. Helfand is an associate professor at the Pepperdine University School of Law and associate director of the Diane and Guilford Glazer Institute for Jewish Studies.
L.A.-area restaurants adding healthcare surcharge to cover workers I read in the book "Beating Obamacare" by Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D, that Obamacare will add $1.79 an hour to the cost of hiring a full time worker. She went on to say that shouldn't cause any problems when you talk about hiring brain surgeons and other high priced employees, but it will really screw thing up when you talk about hiring people for low paying jobs in labor intensive industries like the restaurant business. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/5/article/p2p-81606542/ L.A.-area restaurants adding healthcare surcharge to cover workers By Shan Li October 6, 2014, 7:12 p.m. Diners are discovering an unfamiliar new item when the bill comes for the truffled lobster Bolognese at Melisse and for the crunchy Spanish fried chicken and waffles at AOC — a 3% surcharge for employees' medical insurance. The charge first appeared at one Los Angeles-area restaurant late last year; by early September, more than a dozen mainly high-end eateries followed suit. The added cost has given some diners heartburn and thrust the restaurants' owners unwillingly into the debate over the Affordable Care Act. The healthcare surcharge, the restaurant owners insist, isn't a political statement, but a way to offer valuable benefits to employees while maintaining their profits, which are slim even at the most successful establishments. "We want our staff to have healthcare," said Josh Loeb, the co-owner of popular dining spots including Milo & Olive and Rustic Canyon. "It's not because we support Obama or don't support Obama, or are Democrats or are not Democrats." The Los Angeles-area restaurants aren't the first to charge customers to cover healthcare. After San Francisco implemented a healthcare mandate in 2008, many restaurants there adopted a surcharge to cover the cost of health insurance for employees. Last December, Los Angeles restaurateur Bill Chait made a splash by introducing a 3% "Healthy LA" charge at his French restaurant Republique on South La Brea Avenue. Loeb said he was inspired by the Northern California pioneers and emailed a group of "like-minded" restaurant owners earlier this year to see whether they could plan a course of action together. The owners he reached out to, Loeb said, all run high-quality spots with many of the same clientele. Among those on the list: Caroline Styne and Suzanne Goin of Lucques, Tavern and AOC; Jon Shook and Vinny Dotolo of Son of a Gun and Animal; and David Lentz of the Hungry Cat restaurants. Many of the restaurant owners said they had been mulling over providing health insurance for years. They took the plunge after watching the Affordable Care Act pass and seeing other businesses find ways to offer healthcare for their employees. "We decided it would be a good thing to do it as a group," said Josiah Citrin, the chef-owner of Melisse in Santa Monica. "Usually when lots of people do things it's easier to make change." Citrin joined in even though Melisse doesn't have enough workers to fall under the employer mandate that starts in 2016. That provision of the act requires businesses with more than 50 full-time workers to provide health insurance. The coverage will be a particular boon to longtime employees who are getting older, he said. Younger restaurant workers such as Sarah Huxhold are also cheering the surcharge. Huxhold, a 31-year-old server at Milo & Olive in Santa Monica, said she lost her insurance through work last year after quitting to pursue a career in music. While out of work, her mom helped her buy coverage for about $500 a month, but Huxhold decided it was too expensive and dropped the plan in December. Since then, the Baldwin Hills resident said she has tried unsuccessfully to get insurance through Medi-Cal. She's been forced to scour Groupon for a deal on eye exams and pinned her glasses together to avoid getting a new pair. Now that she will have insurance, she plans to get an annual physical and visit the dentist and optometrist. "I'm really excited about having insurance again," Huxhold said. "There is no way I can pay for those things out of pocket." But restaurants face an uphill battle to explain the surcharge to confused customers such as Bruce Morman. The Hancock Park architect, a fan of fine dining, said he doesn't mind paying a few extra dollars to provide healthcare to restaurant workers. But he doesn't want to see an extra line on his bill or have a conversation with his waiter about health insurance. The 53-year-old said he'd prefer to have that cost built into menu prices. "It should be seamless," Morman said. "I don't want to think about it." Online reviewers have been more blunt. On Yelp, some diners have called the fee crazy, cheap and tacky. "It's basically management saying 'Obamacare made me do it,' " one reviewer wrote. "If you want to offset costs try turning up the thermostat. There's your 3%! Now please pay your workers' health insurance, and hush." The restaurants say increasing menu prices is not as effective as a surcharge. Costs such as rent and liability insurance often are calculated as a percentage of revenue, so prices would have to be bumped up higher than 3% to raise the same amount as a surcharge, they said. Restaurants on average make only 5 cents profit for every dollar of revenue, because they are labor-intensive businesses with high costs, said Styne of AOC, Lucques and Tavern. "There is a misconception out there that the restaurants are reaping such high profits that we should just take less profit," she said. "Many months, no matter how busy the restaurants may be, they can actually be running at a loss." Chait, managing partner of Republique, Petty Cash, Bestia and other L.A. hot spots, said a big motivator for providing healthcare was smoothing out pay inequality between employees who serve customers and the cooks, Chait said. California's long-standing gratuity law bars cooks and back-of-the-house staff from sharing in tips. With tips, some of his servers can make as much as $80,000 a year, vastly outstripping the amounts earned by those who toil in the kitchen. Son of a Gun and Animal have debated rolling out an all-inclusive service fee — which would replace the tip and cover healthcare costs — after signing up workers for insurance this fall, said Helen Johannesen, director of operations. Chait said the restaurant he is working on opening next year at the Broad contemporary art museum will nix tipping as well. Jot Condie, chief executive of the California Restaurant Assn., said he doubted that a healthcare surcharge would be widely adopted but added that more restaurants might go for an all-inclusive service fee. "Once it starts you are going to see other segments in the industry, whether coffee shops or ice cream shops, dip their toe in," Condie said. "If they see it's manageable and customers do not revolt." So far, the restaurant owners say the reception from customers has been mostly positive — although a few have grumbled. Loeb said just a handful of people have asked for the new fee to be taken off their bill. One diner, according to Loeb, said: "We're from the South, and we don't believe in universal healthcare." shan.li@latimes.com Twitter: @ByShanLi
Does the Secret Service really need to real all our emails and Facebook posts like NSA does to protect the President??? Even if it was legal, which it isn't I doubt it. When the Secret Service arrests some kindergarten student in Des Moines, Iowa for threatening the life of the President, I suspect it's more about creating jobs for high paying Secret Service agents then it is protecting the President from credible threats. Same goes for when the Secret Service arrests some homeless wino living in alley in Anaheim, California next to Disneyland for threatening the President with a cruise missile. It ain't a credible threat on the President's life. It's mostly about empire building in the Secret Service. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-dynamics-of-protecting-a-president-most-threats-against-obama-issued-online/2014/10/07/a525ef6c-4b11-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html?hpid=z1 The new dynamics of protecting a president: Most threats against Obama issued online By Juliet Eilperin October 7 at 6:00 AM More than 60 percent of the threats against President Obama are made online, according to the Secret Service, posing a new set of challenges for an agency under fire for a series of critical security lapses. Lawmakers and private security officials question whether the Secret Service has sufficiently adapted to a new social-media landscape in which it must sort through a blizzard of online references to the president, investigate those that raise flags and then reconcile them with the intelligence they are gathering on the ground. “I don’t know if they’ve adapted to these new threats,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on national security. “The attacks are going to come, no matter what. Are there new and creative ways of detecting them? I’m not convinced they’ve tied those loops.” Chaffetz noted that he was “pleasantly surprised” that in 2011 agents were able to pick up right away a tweet a D.C. woman had posted about a man shooting at the White House. But he questioned why that piece of evidence was not used to corroborate suspicions among several officers that shots had been fired. Instead, the agency forwarded the report to the U.S. Park Police for further investigation, and it would be four days before it was discovered that bullets had hit the White House. “Why didn’t that show up in the system?” he asked about the tweet. During Obama’s first run for the presidency, the issue of clearest concern was his race, which made him a magnet for threats from people who thought his race disqualified him from the office. After nearly six years in the White House, the number of overtly racist threats have subsided, but the threats in general continue. Today, the dominant theme of grievance in threats against the president is government overreach, according to current and former Secret Service officials, as critics suggest Obama is abusing his power and trampling the Constitution. Brian Leary, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said the agency has adjusted to the fact that 60 percent of threats now made against the president occur online. “The capability is there, and we have to evolve with technology as well,” he said, adding that the number of threats against Obama “did spike a few months after the election, but they declined back to a level that is consistent with his predecessors, and they still are.” Other sources, who because of the sensitivity of the matter asked to not be identified, said the president still receives more threats than previous presidents, although the number is lower than in the immediate aftermath of his first election. What constitutes a threat? Members of the protective intelligence division consider even the most minor suggestions of harm to the president worthy of investigation. One agent, who requested anonymity to discuss internal agency operations, described being instructed to interview individuals who were intoxicated in a bar and overheard describing how they would like to hurt the president. Since Obama took office, at least 65 people have been indicted for threatening to harm him. In January, Daniel L. Temple, who had tweeted “im coming to kill you” and “so I gotta kill barack obama first,” was sentenced to 16 months in prison after pleading guilty. Nicholas Savino was sentenced in March to a year in jail after posting on the White House Web site in August 2013, “President Obama the Anti-Christ, As a result of breaking the constitution you will stand down or be shot dead.” Police, who arrested Savino a few days after he posted the statement, found three guns and roughly 11,000 rounds of ammunition in his apartment and car. Agents briefed on protective intelligence for presidents and presidential candidates say that the rise in threats has much to do with the advance of the technological age, with the agency now receiving a much larger number of electronic communications that contain threats. Today, racially based threats constitute between 5 and 10 percent of the threats made against the president, according to individuals familiar with the matter. Marilyn Mayo, co-director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, said her group has found that physical threats against Obama and racial remarks on white-supremacist sites peaked in 2008 and 2009. During the early days of Obama’s candidacy and his first year of his presidency, according to several individuals familiar with the matter, many of the threats against him had a frightening racist quality. “If you had seen the stuff we were reading, it would have made your jaw drop,” said one former agent, who asked not to be identified, because of the sensitive nature of the topic. “We continue to see a tremendous amount of anger against Obama,” she said, adding that much of it focuses on assertions that he has overstepped his constitutional authority. Some critics do turn violent. Jerad Miller had called for Obama’s impeachment on his Facebook page; in June he and his wife, Amanda, shot two police officers in a pizza restaurant in Las Vegas. They placed a swastika and an anti-government flag on one officer’s body and a note on the other’s, saying, “This is the start of the revolution.” Miller died in a shootout with police, while his wife committed suicide. Southern Poverty Law Center senior fellow Mark Potok, whose group monitors white-supremacist organizations, said in an interview, “The fact that all of this is online makes the job in some way easier and in some way harder.” “All this ugliness is exposed to the light of day,” Potok said. “On the other hand, you typically have no idea who are the people posting on these sites, because they’re anonymous.” Steve Atkiss, who served as special assistant for operations under President George W. Bush and is now a partner at Command Consulting, said his firm’s private and government clients are both looking for ways to mine social media for these kinds of threats. “One thing those clients have been clamoring for, for several years now, is a tool that would sort through the 50,000 tweets per second that are flying through cyberspace to find what is meaningful to them,” said Atkiss, adding that his firm has recently found software that puts keywords in context. “It’s been a struggle.” One of the biggest challenges is finding the context to any violent or negative reference to the president, especially if agents are trying to track a plot in progress. In June, the Secret Service issued a work order seeking software that could to detect sarcasm and identify social-media influencers online. Early fears for Obama Before he was elected president, the threats Obama’s Senate office received were so vituperative that Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) asked the Secret Service to review whether he needed federal protection. Then-Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan told Congress that the agency was going to have to “pick him up” before any presidential candidate in history, with the exception of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had an existing detail because of her husband’s time in the Oval Office. The prospective of the first African American president being assassinated was such a serious concern among some black voters that the Obamas addressed it directly in the campaign. Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he discussed the matter with Michelle Obama after a high school teacher in his home town of Sumter told him some of her African American students “were not going to support him. They did not want to see him elected, because somebody would kill him.” Michelle Obama — who privately talked to Coretta Scott King about the prospect of a presidential assassination before her husband was elected — gave the same answer she gave in a 2007 interview with CBS’s Steve Kroft: that he was just as vulnerable as a private citizen. “I don’t lose sleep over it, because the realities are, as a black man, Barack can get shot going to the gas station, you know,” she said in the interview. “So you can’t make decisions based on fear and the possibilities of what might happen. We just weren’t raised that way.” Secret Service officials also monitor any menacing communications involving Cabinet members that have racial overtones and mention the president, according to individuals familiar with the matter. The backlash against government overreach has been a major theme in this year’s elections as Republicans have accused Obama of overstepping the bounds of his executive authority. It has also taken on a violent tone at times, such as Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s campaign to take up arms against Bureau of Land Management officials who sought to round up his cattle after he refused to pay federal grazing fees for years. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of anti-government militia groups in the United States — which spiked up to 858 during President Bill Clinton’s time in office — had dipped to a low point of 131 in 2007 under Bush. But it rose to 1,096 last year, a nearly tenfold increase since Obama took office. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said in an interview that “there’s a meanness in American society today that reminds me of the period in our history, the civil rights period, where it was dangerous to speak up and speak out.” But Lewis, who spoke with both of the Obamas at the recent Congressional Black Caucus Foundation annual dinner, said the revelations about potential vulnerabilities in the White House’s security system did not seem to be affecting the first couple. “I don’t think they live in fear. None of us live in fear,” Lewis said, referring to prominent African American political figures. “You’re not preoccupied with what might or might not happen. You just do what you have to do.” Carol D. Leonnig and Alice Crites contributed to this report. Juliet Eilperin is a White House correspondent for The Washington Post, covering domestic and foreign policy as well as the culture of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She is the author of two books—one on sharks, and another on Congress, not to be confused with each other—and has worked for the Post since 1998.
Hey, being a member of the legislator is a PART TIME job. And they should be paid PART TIME wages. The Arizona legislator only meets 4 months a year. Members of the Arizona legislator are not required to work 8 hour days, 40 hours weeks, or for that matter even show up for work. The currently legislator pay of $24,000 for a 4 month part time job would be $72,000 a year if the job was a full time job. And that ain't bad for a job that doesn't even require a high school diploma. Or a job which you don't have to show up for work if you don't want to. Raising the pay of Arizona legislators to $35,000 for a part time 4 month job, will make their pay be equivalent to a full time job that pays $105,000 a year. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2014/10/03/arizona-legislative-pay-what-if/16675339/ What If: Voters raise lawmakers salaries? The Republic | azcentral.com 6:28 p.m. MST October 4, 2014 What If: Two members of the commission that recommends legislative pay levels weigh in on a November ballot initiative. The Nov. 4 ballot includes a proposal to increase legislators' pay to $35,000 annually, from the current $24,000. We asked two experts: What if voters raise lawmakers salaries? KANEFIELD: Why lawmakers should make at least $35k WHAT IF: Lawmakers made more? POTENTIALLY, BETTER REPRESENTATION The Arizona Legislature has seen many turns in the past 100 years; from a primarily rural, agrarian based membership to a rural versus urban split of members to our current make-up based on census numbers and Redistricting Commission findings. What hasn't changed is the salary. Only twice in the state's 102-year history has the legislature's annual salary been increased. With the passage of Prop 304 the salary of Arizona legislators will effectively be adjusted for inflation from the pre-1998 rate of $6,000 per year to $35,000 a year. What does this mean to Arizona? An increase in salary will increase the ability of those in office to be more focused on the job at hand by removing the demands of a second job or pressures of trying to live on a salary that is just under $23,850, the U.S. poverty guideline for a family of four. Stakeholder meetings, research of issues relative to pending legislation, and constituent services are vital parts of a quality legislative service but impeded if the individual is holding a second job to support their family. The session may be from January to April, but the role of the legislator continues even after sine die. Additionally, the ability to attract a larger pool of candidates is created by offering a wage in keeping with the expectations of the position. The infusion of a broader base offers potential for greater thought and representation, with hopes that a less divisive and more constructive outcome to the process is developed. Lisa Atkins chairs the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers. EXPECT CORRUPTION, DEBT If voters approve a salary increase for legislators, Arizona will soon look like Illinois. Illinois pays its legislators more than $67,000 per year — among the top states in the nation — but a high salary doesn't translate to better lawmakers. Illinois has been mired in debt for years and, at times, months behind in paying its bills and providing funding for schools and universities. In 2011, in response to its severe budget problems, Illinois lawmakers raised taxes by 67 percent to solve their budget woes! Although they were the ones responsible for busting the budget, they shoved the responsibility for paying the debt onto the taxpayers. The following year, still mired in debt, Illinois legislators received their fifth pay increase since 2000. Illinois clearly illustrates that raising legislator salaries does not result in good government. But Illinois is not unique. New York, California and other states likewise demonstrate that there is no relationship between good government and legislative salaries. A 2014 Gallup poll reported that, of any state, Illinois residents trust their state government the least. The more you pay state legislators, the more you attract those who seek power, status and money. Keeping salaries low helps to weed out corruption and self-promoters. Keeping salaries low helps to remove ulterior motives for seeking public position. The only legitimate reason for seeking the position of a state legislator should be concern for good government. Do not raise the pay of Arizona legislators. Karen Johnson is a former state senator.
Keep religious spats out of public schools??? If the employees at government schools would obey the Arizona and US Constitutions against mixing government and religion and trying to force the Christian religion on the children we wouldn't have these problems. But sadly many government school employees think it is more important to shove Jesus down the throats of the kiddies then it is to obey the Constitutional and keep religion out of government. If teachers want to teach the kiddies about Jesus, they should be working at a private religious school, not a government public school. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2014/10/05/ground-zero-culture-wars/16788265/ Keep religious spats out of public schools Editorial board, The Republic | azcentral.com 7:41 a.m. MST October 6, 2014 Our View: Special interest groups are too quick to turn public school campuses into a battle zone. Look, we get it. Separation of church and state has a long, grand tradition in this country, where religious and political refugees found a home away from the controlling hand of the British monarchy and the Church of England. We get that institutions run by local, state and federal governments cannot become hot houses of religious indoctrination. Those institutions belong to all of us: Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, atheist, Rastafarian. They are not the vehicles for any of us to preach our notion of God or no God. But can we call a truce? Can we call a truce in our 21st-century culture wars that turn every encroachment of the church-state armistice into legal blitzkrieg, pitting rival interest groups and their attorneys against each other? Are public-school children really best served when every classroom indiscretion on First Amendment grounds erupts into a volley of threats and counter-threats and bad publicity? The latest outbreak of hostilities comes in the Peoria Unified School District, where a first-grade teacher is accused of putting a plaque on her wall that reads, "Jesus Loves the Little Children." Educators at another district school, as Republic staff writer Mary Beth Faller reports, are accused of having Christian symbols on the wall, Bibles on a classroom bookshelf and a Thanksgiving celebration in which some children played the role of preacher. That caused the national Freedom From Religion Foundation to thunder that old principles are being violated and young minds contaminated by religious messaging in a religion-free zone. "The courts have been pretty clear that teachers don't have First Amendment rights when they're acting as teachers," said Andrew Seidel, attorney for the group. When it was alleged a teacher was told to remove religious symbols from her classroom, in galloped the Alliance Defending Freedom to protest. Teachers have every right to have Bibles and Scripture readings on their personal desks, they argued. Caught in the middle are school administrators, who have better things to do than endure the push and pull of fundraising groups with self-interested agendas and hair-trigger reflexes. Surely there are ways to work these things out amiably and quietly while leaving schools to focus on their core mission — educating children. Rather than raise their swords, opposing special interests need to take a powder. To the civil libertarians, we would say pick your battles. Don't ignore violations of church and state; just make sure they rise to the level of truly threatening personal freedom. If you jump on every Bible on a book stand, you become a bigger problem to schools and schoolchildren than the remote possibility that a child might be indoctrinated. Teachers struggle to get their kids to read the next day's homework, let alone a much thicker and impenetrable book of Scripture. To the religious libertarians, we would say show some discretion. Schools have a right to instruct their teachers to respect church-state boundaries; otherwise they end up with the kinds of time-sucking disruptions we now see in the Peoria School District. This problem is not about children. This problem is about adults who fail to bring to these complex issues a little bit of temperance and good judgment. Our schools face huge challenges. They don't need the added disruption of being ground zero in the culture wars.
In the Attorney General's race both Felecia Rotellini and Mark Brnovich seems to be jerks, neither of which I would want in office. I am also very embarrassed because in this article they say that Mark Brnovich used to work for the Goldwater Institute which is kind of a Libertarian ACLU. Sadly, Mark Brnovich is a Nazi, not a Libertarian. http://www.azcentral.com/story/robertrobb/2014/10/06/rotellinis-animus-against-conservatives/16833727/ Rotellini's animus against conviction conservatives Robert Robb, columnist | azcentral.com 5:10 p.m. MST October 6, 2014 Felecia Rotellini, the Democratic nominee for attorney general, is trying to make the case that Mark Brnovich, her Republican opponent, is an ideologue unsuited for the office. In doing so, she actually raises questions about her own ideological bias and inclusiveness. Brnovich has spent most of his professional life as a prosecutor and as head of the Department of Gaming. He had a short stint as a legal scholar for the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank. According to Rotellini, that makes him an ideologue and voters should hold it against him. That's awfully close to saying that conviction conservatives, ipso facto, are unqualified to be attorney general. Rotellini also criticizes Brnovich for soliciting and receiving the support of social conservatives. Her denigrating tone, however, suggests that she is, herself, a conviction liberal on social issues. Social conservatives are a quarter to a third of the Arizona electorate. The attorney general is an elected position. Social conservatives aren't excluded from participating in that decision. Social conservatives are also the dominant force in the Arizona Legislature. The next attorney general is going to have to deal with them and their issues, like it or not. Both Brnovich and Rotellini say they will park their political views at the door and not use the office to promote them. I think both of them generally will. But at this point, there's actually more reason to doubt Rotellini's commitment on this score than Brnovich's. Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com. Follow him on Twitter at @RJRobb.
While Christians tell us their religion is one of love and peace, many people in their religion preach nothing but hate when it comes to gay people. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/04/pennsylvania-methodist-church-appeal-gay-wedding/16714735/ Methodist church to hear appeal over gay wedding Associated Press 9:52 a.m. MST October 4, 2014 PHILADELPHIA — The Methodist church's highest court will decide later this month whether a minister who officiated his gay son's wedding can keep his pastoral credentials. The Rev. Frank Schaefer was defrocked following a church trial in southeastern Pennsylvania last year, then reinstated by an appeals panel in June. That decision was appealed to the Judicial Council, the church's highest court. The nine-member panel said on the Methodist Church's website that it will hear oral arguments in the case Oct. 22 in Memphis, Tenn. The issue of gay marriage has long roiled the United Methodist Church, the nation's second-largest Protestant denomination. Hundreds of Methodist ministers have publicly rejected church policies that allow gay members but ban "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" from becoming clergy and forbid ministers from performing same-sex marriages. Traditionalists say clergy have no right to break church law just because they disagree with it. Some conservative pastors are calling for a breakup of the denomination, which has 12 million members worldwide, saying the split over gay marriage is irreconcilable. The church suspended Schaefer, former pastor of a church in Lebanon, Pa., for officiating his son's 2007 wedding, then defrocked him when he refused to promise to uphold the Methodist law book "in its entirety." Schaefer successfully appealed, arguing the decision was wrong because it was based on an assumption he would break church law in the future. The Rev. Christopher Fisher, who served as the church's prosecutor at Schaefer's trial, then appealed to the high court. The Judicial Council has the final word on the matter. No decision is expected until several days after the council adjourns on Oct. 25. Schaefer has since launched a student ministry in Isla Vista, California.
Most people don't realize it but the folks that folks that operate driving schools and give driving classes have a government welfare program for them when in comes to enforcing traffic violations. If the government wasn't forcing people who get traffic tickets for petty driving offices to pay big bucks to attend these defensive-driving courses most of these schools would go out of business. I suspect the owners of these defenseless driving schools pay back the judges and city council members at election time by giving them bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2014/10/06/glendale-court-fixes-error-lowers-fee/16837699/ Glendale court fixes error, lowers fee Peter Corbett, The Republic | azcentral.com 8:11 p.m. MST October 6, 2014 The Glendale City Court has corrected an error in fees that saddled speeding motorists in the city with the most expensive defensive-driving courses in the state. The court lowered its fee for traffic school from $195 to $130 as of Oct. 1, about four months after The Arizona Republic pointed out the error to Judge Elizabeth Finn. "It wasn't that I overruled myself," she said. "I changed the fee to what it was originally intended to be." Each municipal court sets its own fees for diversion programs that allow motorists with traffic violations to take a defensive-driving class to avoid a fine and points on their driving record. The amount charged in Glendale was higher than intended due to a clerical error that the court was unaware of until it was pointed out by The Republic. Finn, the city's presiding judge, said the fees can only be changed twice a year. Oct. 1 was the earliest she could correct the clerical error on a form sent to the Arizona Supreme Court administrative office that resulted in the higher amount. The mistaken city fee of $195 went into effect in April 2013. It pushed the total cost for attending defensive-driving school for a Glendale violation to $298, including the city and state court fees, and the cost of the private driving school. The court will not refund those higher city court costs because that was legally set charge, Finn said. The corrected fee amount in Glendale puts it in line with other Valley cities. Phoenix, Tempe and Scottsdale charge $135. Peoria has the highest fee in the state at $162. "My intent for Glendale is not to be the highest or the lowest," Finn said. Traffic school is an alternative to paying a traffic fine, accumulating points toward license revocation and having a violation reported to a driver's insurance company, which can lead to higher rates. Motorists can attend the school anywhere in the state but must pay fees set by the jurisdiction where they were cited. |Motorists can choose to go to traffic school once in a two-year period.
Phoenix officials accused of bias on pension initiative In most city governments the POLICE are the largest number of employees and the biggest chunk of the city budget. In Phoenix the police get about 40% of the budget which is followed by the fire department which gets the next 20% of the budget. All the other departments combined share the remaining 40% of the budget in Phoenix. I suspect the reason the Phoenix elected officials are against this is because they want the votes of the 3000+ Phoenix cops and the votes of the firemen who are against Prop. 487 because it will cut into their pay. Of course the bottom line is our elected officals serve the special interest groups that help elect them. And that includes the special interest groups called the Phoenix Police Union and Phoenix Fire Department Union. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/10/06/phoenix-officials-accused-showing-bias-pension-initiative/16841647/ Phoenix officials accused of bias on pension initiative Dustin Gardiner, The Republic | azcentral.com 7:11 a.m. MST October 7, 2014 Supporters of a ballot initiative to end Phoenix's employee-pension system are accusing top city officials of having a conflict of interest and using their positions to influence the outcome of the election. Scot Mussi, chairman of Citizens for Phoenix Pension Reform, said his group is exploring filing a complaint with the Arizona Attorney General's Office accusing the city of misusing taxpayer resources to defeat Proposition 487. He said city employees with a stake in the retirement system have created a false narrative about its potential costs and impact on public-safety employees. "They've crossed the line repeatedly because they want to defeat this initiative," Mussi said. "It's systemic, and it's infected the entire structure and governance at the city of Phoenix." However, Deputy City Manager Rick Naimark said top city officials must provide realistic analysis about the possible legal and financial impacts of the initiative. For several months, he has presented information suggesting Prop. 487 could cost the city hundreds of millions of dollars to implement and affect retirement benefits for police officers and firefighters. Find all of the candidate information you need! Need help getting started? Register to vote here. "We, as professional managers in the city, have a responsibility to the mayor and (City) Council and to the public to accurately describe to them the impact of potential actions," Naimark said, "and that's what we've attempted to do in this case." Prop. 487, also known as the Phoenix Pension Reform Act, would dismantle the city's ailing employee-pension system for new hires and replace it with a retirement plan similar to a private-sector 401(k) and require a city contribution. The measure is on the Nov. 4 ballot. At the heart of Mussi's accusation is the claim that city officials have intentionally released biased, misleading information. He alleges they want to defeat the initiative because it would impact them financially, including ending a second retirement benefit known as deferred compensation. Arizona Republic columnist Ed Montini and reporter Richard Ruelas discuss Phoenix's ongoing pension problems. On top of earning a pension, most city employees also receive deferred-compensation payments, which are similar to 401(k) contributions in the private sector. State law prohibits cities from using public resources, including money, materials and personnel, to influence the outcome of any election. But the law allows city officials to provide "factual information in a neutral manner" that educates voters. Mussi said city officials' claims about its potential impacts on police and fire have been far from neutral. He said that argument is a farce to distract voters, and he questioned why the city hasn't also released any memos from its outside attorney explaining the rationale. "They provide no information on any of these things," he said. "They're in cahoots with opponents of the initiative." Naimark and other city managers have said the initiative's language could have unintended consequences, including blocking the city's payments to the state-run pension system for public-safety employees. Labor unions have focused on the finding, saying the measure "will" end retirement benefits for them. Although Prop. 487 includes language stating "it's not intended to affect" that pension system, city officials have said the actual amendment to the City Charter is poorly written and could affect those payments and, in turn, death and disability benefits for first responders. But attorneys on both sides of the issue have said it's unlikely the city could ever withdraw from the police and fire pension plan. Several areas of state law, including the Arizona Constitution and provisions creating the pension system, could prohibit Phoenix from ever withdrawing from the plan or diminishing retirement benefits for existing employees, attorneys said. Naimark said city management is required to describe the initiative as it's written and cannot predict how the courts would resolve any conflicts with the state. He said there is a "risk" the measure could impact public-safety workers. The Arizona Republic submitted a public-records request for any legal memos provided to Phoenix by its outside counsel, Atlanta-based employment attorney Wesley Stockard. A city spokeswoman declined to provide those documents, saying they are subject to "attorney-client privilege." Naimark said the city hired an outside attorney to avoid the potential for a conflict of interest with its in-house attorneys. He said the city cannot release the attorney's memos or make him available for comment because it could face lawsuits if Prop. 487 passes. "The release of such legal advice could potentially compromise the city's position in future litigation," Naimark said. "It's very likely that the passage of this could result in litigation." On the debate over the initiative's financial impact, Mussi said the city has released incomplete cost estimates. Naimark has said Prop. 487 will likely cost taxpayers $358 million over the next 20 years because its cost-saving provisions cannot be legally or practically implemented. For example, the provision ending deferred compensation conflicts with the city's labor contracts with its employee unions, who could negotiate to receive the money back in some other form. Supporters of the initiative point to figures that show the initiative, if fully implemented, could save up to $325 million over the same period. Mussi said the city is again trying to mislead voters and could eventuallyimpose new labor contracts. Councilman Sal DiCiccio, an advocate of Prop. 487, also has accused city officials of bias. He said that has been apparent in many scenarios, from its misleading statements about the initiative's legal and financial impacts to routine issues like not removing improperly placed political signs from street medians. "The whole system is rife with conflict of interest," DiCiccio wrote in a newspaper column. "City staff, who handle labor negotiations, create the reports, hire the attorneys and consultants and report to the politicians, purposefully design and justify a broken system." Phoenix employees are allowed to campaign for or against a ballot initiative in their personal time. However, they can't campaign on city property or use their authority or job title in any way to influence the election. Naimark said when the city receives specific allegations of improper political activity, "We take those very seriously, we investigate them, and we follow-up." Last week, Acting Fire Chief Kara Kalkbrenner received two complaints alleging improper campaign activity at fire stations, including "No! On 487" signs placed in station bay areas. She said department officials visited the stations and did not find any improper signage or campaigning, though an investigation is ongoing. Pensions of former Arizona politicians Many elected officials and judges in Arizona are beneficiaries of the state's most generous retirement system, the Elected Officials Retirement Plan. The plan is the smallest and most financially troubled of the state's pension systems. In 2013, lawmakers concerned about the health of the plan passed legislation to close it to new hires, replacing it with a 401(k)-type retirement system. similar to the private sector. The change didn't affect elected leaders or judges already in the plan. Here's a list of some of Arizona's most familiar former elected officials who draw state pensions. Pension amounts are calculated based on an official's salary and years of service. Janet Napolitano Last elected post: Governor. Annual pension: $30,255. Date payments started: February 2009. Years of service: 10. Current title: President of the University of California, formerly U.S. secretary of Homeland Security. Ed Pastor Last elected post (in state): Maricopa County supervisor. Annual pension: $30,277. Date payments started: July 2006. Years of service: 14.3. Current title: Congressman, Arizona's 7th District (retiring this year). Russell Pearce Last elected post: State senator. Annual pension: $10,446. Date payments started: November 2012. Years of elected service: 10.8. Current title: Technical services division manager, Maricopa County Treasurer's Office. Sal DiCiccio Last elected post: Phoenix city councilman. Annual pension: $8,410. Date payments started: October 2003. Years of elected service: 6.1. Current title: Phoenix city councilman (DiCiccio returned to elected office after he began drawing a pension for his earlier council terms) . Tom Simplot Last elected post: Phoenix city councilman. Annual pension: $18,442. Date payments started: January 2014. Years of elected service: 10.2. Current title: President and CEO, Arizona Multihousing Association. Jane Dee Hull Last elected post: Governor. Annual pension: $112,498. Date payments started: February 2003. Years of elected service: 22.7. Fife Symington Last elected post: Governor. Annual pension: $21,696. Date payments started: December 2007. Years of elected service: 6.4. Rose Mofford Last elected post: Governor. Annual pension: $81,025. Date payments started: April 1991. Years of elected service: 13.1. Bruce Babbitt Last elected post: Governor. Annual pension: $33,852. Date payments started: December 1989. Years of elected service: 12. Phil Gordon Last elected post: Phoenix mayor. Annual pension: $53,497. Date payments started: January 2012. Years of elected service: 15.8. Current title: Director, Chan Soon-Shiong Institute for Advanced Health. Fulton Brock Last elected post: Maricopa County supervisor. Annual pension: $53,646. Date payments started: January 2013. Years of elected service: 18. Elaine Scruggs Last elected post: Glendale mayor. Annual pension: $38,400. Date payments started: February 2013. Years of elected service: 22.7. Skip Rimsza Last elected post: Phoenix mayor. Annual pension: $32,860. Date payments started: January 2004. Years of elected service: 13.3. Mary Manross Last elected post: Scottsdale mayor. Annual pension: $28,333. Date payments started: February 2004. Years of elected service: 16.8. Terry Goddard Last elected post: Attorney general. Annual pension: $69,106. Date payments started: February 2011. Years of elected service: 17.7. Current title: Candidate for secretary of state. Jerry Weiers Last elected post: State representative. Annual pension: $16,196. Date payments started: January 2013. Years of elected service: 17.9. Current title: Glendale mayor. Tom Boone Last elected post: State representative. Annual pension: $7,808. Date payments started: February 2011. Years of elected service: 8. Jack Harper Last elected post: State representative. Annual pension: $6,724. Date payments started: November 2013. Years of elected service: 10. Don Stapley Last elected post: Maricopa County supervisor. Annual pension: $55,544. Date payments started: January 2013. Years of elected service: 18.1. Scott Bundgaard Last elected post: State senator. Annual pension: $6,297. Date payments started: November 2007. Years of elected service: 8 (after his retirement, Bundgaard returned to office from January 2011 to January 2012). Note: The size of an elected official's pension increases over time because of cost-of-living adjustments. Some elected officials have returned to public office since retiring, allowing them to collect a pension and salary for the same job. ON THE BEAT Dustin Gardiner covers Phoenix City Hall, with an emphasis on government accountability, public money and city politics. How to reach him dustin.gardiner@arizonarepublic.com Phone: 602-444-2471 Twitter: @dustingardiner
The reason I dislike US Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema is because despite the fact that she pretends to support the "little guy", she routinely votes to support the police state and military industrial complex. Kyrsten Sinema when she was a member of the Arizona Legislator tried to slap a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana in an attempt to flush Prop 203 or Arizona's Medical marijuana Act down the toilet. That tax failed. At her job as a US Congressman Kyrsten Sinema has voted to support the police state Patriot Act and routinely votes to support the military industrial complex. That's despite the fact that when I knew Kyrsten Sinema she was an anti-war protester. Yes, Kyrsten Sinema's opponent, Wendy Rogers seems to be a real jerk too, but Kyrsten Sinema has screwed us and needs to go. I would rather have Republican Wendy Rogers in office, who hasn't screwed us yet, then phoney baloney Democrat and vote like a Republic Kyrsten Sinema who has screwed us many times. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/10/06/beheading-video-used-rogers-ad-sinema/16840487/ Beheading video used in Rogers ad against Sinema Donna Cassata, Associated Press 8 p.m. MST October 6, 2014 A House Republican candidate is using video footage moments before the beheading of American James Foley in a campaign ad slamming Arizona Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema as weak on national security. Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Wendy Rogers launched the commercial that opens with a member of the Islamic State group with a knife as Foley kneels, an image directly from video footage released by the militants on Aug. 19. The spot does not show the beheading. "Terrorist threats are growing. Are we secure? Are we protected?" an announcer says as other images of ISIS are shown. "Keeping us safe and secure is Congress' job. Kyrsten Sinema hasn't done her job. … She's allowed her liberal agenda to get in the way of our safety." Republican candidates have criticized Democrats as soft on terrorism using images of members of militants from ISIS carrying a black banner. The Rogers ad marked the first time that video footage of the beheading showed up in an ad, prompting Democrats to demand that Rogers take the commercial off the air. "It is reprehensible and unbecoming of anyone seeking elected office to use the footage of an American tragedy for political gain, and Wendy Rogers should remove this ad immediately and apologize to Mr. Foley's family," said Tyrone Gale, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "For Wendy Rogers to use such a reprehensible tactic to make baseless claims just to smear Representative Sinema proves how desperate her campaign has become." Rogers' campaign spokesman, James Harris, defended using the footage, saying it was a fair use of current-affairs scenes to highlight differences between the candidates. "We think it's an important ad to highlight the differences on what this election is about and how President Obama's failed leadership internationally has made our country less safe," he said. Sinema referred questions to her campaign staff, and they were not able to comment immediately. Rogers has purchased about $124,000 worth of ad time to air the commercial in the Phoenix market and on cable, according to ad buys. Although Sinema narrowly won her seat in 2012, she is considered a favorite to win re-election. |