|
Public records laws??? F*ck those public records laws!!!! I got a gun and a badge and I'm above the law. Sadly that's how cops feel about all laws. And sadly the judge seems to feel the same way. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/08/03/mcso-deputy-dead-request-denied/13537417/ Judge denies request for info on dead MCSO deputy Megan Cassidy, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:55 p.m. MST August 2, 2014 Before authorities discovered a stash of driver's licenses, license plates, torn-up citations and drugs in Ramon "Charley" Armendariz's home, the now-deceased former Maricopa County sheriff's deputy served on the department's human-smuggling unit, aiding in investigations of identity-theft cases. The apparent hypocrisy of an identity-theft detective hoarding IDs led observers to predict that Armendariz's involvement would derail the cases he touched, undermining the integrity of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's illegal-immigration enforcement efforts. But the first legal test for that theory — a high-profile case involving a pizza restaurant whose owners are among the handful to be targeted by deputies in the history of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's workplace raids—showed Armendariz's damage to cases could be minimal. In a rare immigration-related victory for the Sheriff's Office, a judge issued a ruling on Tuesday that said Armendariz's tangential involvement in a recent identity-theft case did not warrant further inspection, and denied the defendants' request to obtain evidence about the deputy that could bode in their favor. Attorneys for Uncle Sam's pizza restaurateurs Bret Frimmel and Lisa Norton have fought numerous aspects of the charges that arose from the July 17, 2013, raid on their two restaurants and argue Armendariz's actions had irrevocably discredited the case. Frimmel and Norton hold the distinction of being the first employers, rather than employees, to face criminal charges as a result of Arpaio's workplace raids. The two were arrested in January following a more prototypical investigation several months earlier, in which nine Uncle Sam's employees were booked on suspicion of forgery and identity theft. In a May motion, defense attorney Paul Charlton wrote that Armendariz had played an active role in the raid and said the case detective's surveillance report relied, in part, "on the work of now-deceased MCSO Det. Armendariz, the identity thief and drug addict." Charlton asked that Superior Court Judge Teresa Sanders order prosecutors to produce the Sheriff's Office's internal investigation into Armendariz. His previous attempts to obtain this information directly from prosecutors had been denied, signaling what Charlton believed was a result of the County Attorney Office's willingness to excuse the Sheriff's Office's bad behavior. The response from the County Attorney's Office "is alarming, as it reflects a belief within (the office) that a certain level of 'collateral' corruption within MCSO is acceptable," Charlton wrote. Deputy County Attorney Jaimee Oliver defended the office's decision not to release the information, arguing in a response that Armendariz played a "very minor role" in the raid. His duties were limited, she said, to checking license plates while Uncle Sam's was under surveillance and helping identify employees during the first search warrant. Oliver said Charlton's requests amounted to little more than a fishing expedition. "Defense also requested unfettered access to the investigation into Det. Armendariz, as well as completed, un-redacted personnel files and all documents pertaining to any investigation into MCSO's conduct," Oliver wrote. "Defense is not entitled to this information as it is not relevant to the investigation at hand." Oliver said if any exculpatory evidence related to the Uncle Sam's case emerges during the Armendariz investigation, the materials would be turned over to Charlton and his team. Charlton also argued they are legally entitled to a mass of evidence the state hasn't turned over related to other deputies and defendants in the case and what, if any, knowledge the Sheriff's Office's had prior to the raid regarding Frimmel's potential ties to a Department of Justice civil-rights case against Arpaio's office. Point by point, the prosecutor's response maintained the same tone: The requested material either had been or would be supplied, was unavailable or was not subject to disclosure. And point by point, Sanders tended to agree with the state. In a ruling released last week, she upheld prosecutors' objections on nearly every count, agreeing that the request for information on Armendariz was "overbroad and unduly burdensome." Sanders agreed Armendariz's role was minimal and assured the defense that the state would disclose any favorable evidence. Charlton said he and the defense team will be filing a special action to appeal the decision. Armendariz was found dead in his home on May 8, an apparent suicide that capped a week of back-to-back encounters with law enforcement. Phoenix police initially responded to his home the week before to find Armendariz chasing a phantom burglar. A search warrant was served at his home shortly thereafter, and he resigned May 2. But the deputy was able to dodge media attention until the following Sunday, when he barricaded himself in his home for nearly nine hours. The standoff ended peacefully, with Armendariz arrested Monday on drug charges. It was later revealed that authorities searching his home found hundreds of IDs, driver's licenses, license plates, passports and airport security cards, as well as torn-up citations. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said in May the revelation indicated a shakedown and would create a "universe" of review work for his office. He said prosecutors would have to look at the confiscated property and cross-reference those identities to determine any case overlap. Jerry Cobb, a Montgomery spokesman, said last week that the process was ongoing. The Sheriff's Office is conducting a review and has been ordered by a federal judge to turn over findings to the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona John Leonardo and the County Attorney's Office. Jack MacIntyre, a deputy chief in Arpaio's office, said the investigation is overwhelming but denied any evidence of a shakedown.
A hate filled message from Cathi Herrod at the Center for Arizona Policy on why Gays should be treated as 2nd class citizens??? Cathi Herrod - "It's truly alarming when the democratic process can be superseded by judicial muscle" I think what Cathi Herrod is saying is that 51% of the people can vote to enslave the other 49% percent of the people. That's wrong. That's why we have Constitutions which say the folks in the minority have rights that can't be taken away by a vote of the majority. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2014/07/31/what-if-gay-marriage-arizona/13435267/ What if: Court allows same-sex marriage in Arizona? Arizona Republic columnist EJ Montini and reporter Richard Ruelas discuss Arizona's looming same-sex marriage ruling. The Republic | azcentral.com 1:42 p.m. MST August 2, 2014 Experts: Civil rights would triumph if gay marriage was legal in Arizona. Or voters' will would be discarded. Who's right? A federal judge is expected to rule soon on the constitutionality of Arizona law recognizing marriages only between one man and one woman. We asked two experts: What if the courts allow same-sex marriage in Arizona? LAST WEEK: What if Obamacare subsidies die? ---------------------- CIVIL RIGHTS WOULD TRIUMPH Tom Simplot We need to call it what it is, marriage equality. There is no "opposite-sex marriage" or "same-sex marriage" or "black-white marriage." We are working towards creating the same basic civil and human rights for us all. Plain and simple. When we reach full equality in Arizona, hundreds (if not thousands) of families with gay and lesbian parents will gain equal protections under the law. Children of gay and lesbian parents will no longer be at risk and their family status will be recognized by the Courts. Hundreds of committed and loving same-sex partners will be seen as equal. And just as important, gay couples will gain state and federal legal benefits awarded all other members of our society. Marriage is a contract, recognized by the state, one which everyone should benefit from. Most importantly, gay and lesbian Arizonans will have the equal human rights they deserve. After decades of fighting for equality, LGBT individuals will be treated fair and equal under the law. Tom Simplot is the first openly gay member of the Phoenix City Council. ----------------------- VOTERS' WILL WOULD BE DISCARDED Cathi Herrod Six years ago, 1,258,355 Arizonans voted to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Today the fate of the will of these voters lies in the hands of one judge. The debate surrounding the meaning and purpose of marriage is raging in classrooms, coffee houses, churches and homes across the country. Yet advocates of same-sex marriage are working to stifle honest debate by using the courts to force their ideology upon the nation. If we're able to separate the super-charged rhetoric from what's actually happening in other states — and what could happen in Arizona — we'd all agree that a dangerous precedent is being set. It's truly alarming when the democratic process can be superseded by judicial muscle — when one man's opinion can overrule 1.2 million votes. [Would Cathi Herrod support slavery if the 60% White population voted to enslave the 1 or 2 percent Black people in Arizona???] Yet the subversion of the democratic process only scratches the surface of the consequences of the courts redefining marriage. This would be another step to deny a child the crucial — and sociologically vital — bond between either their biological mom or dad. Redefining marriage also puts many people of faith in the position of choosing between their occupations or their religious convictions. As we've seen in other states, religious freedom is discarded when marriage is redefined. But if marriage is redefined, it will certainly not be the final word. As a friend in the first state that re-defined marriage, Massachusetts, said, "those who say that a traditional view of marriage puts one on the wrong side of history simply have a very short view of history." This debate has just begun. Cathi Herrod is president of the Center for Arizona Policy.
If the government is going to jail people, they should at least give them reasonable health care. That's even more true when you consider that most of the people in Arizona prisons are not there for crimes that hurt people, but victimless drug war crimes. I don't know the percent of people in Arizona prisons and jails for victimless "drug war" crimes, but it's huge. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 51% of the people in federal prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes. According to Reason Magazine, two thirds or 66 percent of the Americans in prison are there for victimless drug war crimes. http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/07/30/state-asks-judge-to-throw-out-inmates-lawsuit-saying-it-borders-on-the-ridiculous/ State asks judge to throw out inmates’ lawsuit, saying it ‘borders on the ridiculous’ By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services July 30, 2014 , 3:52 pm The state is asking federal judge to throw out a lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 34,000 inmates, saying there’s no evidence each and every prisoner is at risk. Attorney Daniel Struck, who is leading the state’s defense, told U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake the allegations presented by lawyers for the inmates amount to little more than “anecdotal evidence” that some prisoners may have had some problems. Struck also argued that some of the conditions cited have been remedied. And he said there are legitimate reasons for others, like having lights on 24 hours a day in some cells. What all that means, he argued, is there is no basis for a class-action lawsuit and Wake should throw it out. But Struck may have an uphill battle, at least in part because of a ruling last month by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. There, a three-judge panel gave the go-ahead for the lawsuit on behalf of all those in state-run prisons. Most significant in that ruling was the conclusion that the claims, if proven true, were not unique to the individual inmates but instead “systemic failures” in the prison’s health care system “that expose all inmates to a substantial risk of serious harm.” And if that is the case, appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt said that would require a wholesale revamp of the agency’s policies — and not simply correcting the problems of the 13 inmates who were the named plaintiffs. The state has asked the full 9th Circuit to overturn that ruling. But attorneys for the inmates, in their own legal filing this week, told the appellate judges they should leave the decision undisturbed. David Fathi of the American Civil Liberties Union said the three-judge panel concluded the inmates had demonstrated by overwhelming and largely uncontested evidence “the existence of the statewide Arizona Department of Corrections policies and practices” that allegedly expose all inmates to a “substantial risk of serious harm.” If Wake refuses to throw the case out, a trial is set to begin Oct. 20. The lawsuit focuses on the more than 34,000 inmates housed in state-run facilities, whose health care is supposed to be provided by private firms under contract with the state. Among the allegations are “lengthy and dangerous delays” and “outright denials of health care,” failure to provide necessary medication, a practice of “employing insufficient health care staff,” substandard dental care and denial of basic mental health care to suicidal and self-harming prisoners. The lawsuit also said inmates in isolation units were denied adequate recreation and nutrition, endured constant cell illumination and suffered from inadequate mental health care staffing and treatment. But Struck, in arguments to Wake, said the case is flawed. Some of that is technical. For example, he said inmates are relying on opinions of expert witnesses who contend the care falls below standards. But Struck said the plaintiffs did not include any emails, documents or other records those experts reviewed and relied upon, making all of their conclusions inadmissible. But Struck also said there is no basis to force the state to defend a suit brought on behalf of all inmates. “The U.S. Constitution requires that each named plaintiff prove that they are actually exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm,” he wrote. Struck also took issue with the contention there are “systemwide deficiencies,” saying the opinions of the experts “are foundationally flawed and bald conclusion (which) do not create an issue of fact.” He said the lawsuit is not supported by evidence spanning all 10 state prisons — or even a majority of them – “but instead based on a handful of unrelated isolated incidents at a few facilities.” He also said there have been improvements in health care in the prisons due to having that requirement contracted out and provisions in those contracts requiring certain levels of care. And Struck took particular issue with certain claims, like the lack of radio or television. He said the fact is that, with only some exceptions applying to some maximum custody inmates, both are available. Struck said what seems to be the issue is that the state does “does not pay for these luxuries.” “This assertion borders the ridiculous,” Struck wrote. “Plaintiffs provide no authority for the proposition that a prison must pay for a television when an inmate cannot afford one.” He also argued there are “penological justifications,” such as a suicide watch, for having some cells illuminated 24 hours a day. And he said maximum custody inmates are not isolated but have “daily social interaction,” including with staff, other inmates, isitors and by telephone. Struck also provided some point-by-point counters to specific allegations of poor health care to specific inmates. That question of class-action relief on behalf of all inmates could prove crucial to whether Wake tosses the case before trial. In last month’s appellate court ruling, Reinhardt said it would be improper to deny legal relief to inmates if they can prove unsafe and life-threatening conditions “on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them.” And Reinhardt said the fact that not every inmate has been injured is irrelevant. “After all, every inmate in ADC custody is necessarily subject to the same medical, mental health and dental care policies and practices” he said. In fact, Reinhardt said “it would indeed be surprising if any given inmate did not experience such a health care need while serving his sentence.”
ASU professor sentenced to probation for Tempe incident Proof the criminal justice system DOESN'T work. I suspect the reason ASU Professor Ersula Ore copped a plea in this case was that going to trial would have bankrupted her. Or that she wasn't willing to fact the draconian prison sentence she could have received if convicted by juries that usually rubber stamp what ever the government says. http://eastvalleytribune.com/local/tempe/article_c7aa7690-19b4-11e4-9549-0019bb2963f4.html ASU professor sentenced to probation for Tempe incident Posted: Friday, August 1, 2014 1:15 pm Associated Press An Arizona State University professor who accused campus police of excessive force when they arrested her has been sentenced to nine months of supervised probation. A Maricopa County Superior Court commissioner in Mesa sentenced Ersula Ore on Friday. Ore on July 9 pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of resisting arrest under a plea deal. Under the plea deal, a felony count of aggravated assault and two other charges were dismissed. University police say Ore was stopped May 20 for walking in the middle of a street near campus and refused to show identification. They say she kicked an officer in the shin after being handcuffed.
Oops, I killed the wrong guy!!! But don't worry, the most I will get for it is a slap on the wrist. If that much!!! And don't worry, the spin control masters in the Sheriff's office will soon come up with some propaganda to justify the murder. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-resident-killed-20140802-story.html Pico Rivera man mistakenly killed by deputy in gunfight By Christopher Goffard contact the reporter CrimeShootings A Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy inadvertently shot and killed the resident of a Pico Rivera home during a gunfight with a wanted parolee Friday, authorities said. Deputies were searching for 24-year-old Cedric Ramirez around 5 p.m. Friday at a house in the 9000 block of Reichling Lane, hoping to arrest him on parole violations, said sheriff's department Chief of Detectives Bill McSweeney. Ramirez spotted deputies and ran away, and when deputies tracked him to the driveway of a nearby home he opened fire on them, McSweeney said. Parolee standoff Ramirez broke into the home through a rear window. Deputies entered through the front door and rushed an adult and two children out of the house, while Ramirez continued firing at them, McSweeney said. When resident Frank Mendoza, 54, appeared in the doorway, a deputy mistook him for Ramirez and shot him twice, McSweeney said. He said Mendoza was crumpled unconscious in the doorway, with bullet wounds in the head and leg. When deputies realized their mistake, they tried to rescue Mendoza, McSweeney said, but he was dead by the time paramedics reached him. Ramirez took Mendoza's wife hostage and held her until 1:30 a.m. Saturday, when a tactical team entered the house and fatally shot him, McSweeney said. The woman was unharmed. Ramirez was wanted on felony warrants for vehicle theft and being a felon in possession of a firearm, authorities said. McSweeney said the deputy who fired at Mendoza was an 11-year veteran with "a very fine record." He declined to release the deputy's name.
We need a right to farm in Arizona. Make that a right to farm marijuana!!!! F*ck Arizona, we need a right to farm marijuana in the USA!!!! Now I didn't say farmers have a right to government welfare. I just said people should have the right to farm whatever they want and that should include marijuana. F*ck that 12 plant limit in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act or Prop 203. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/us/missouri-considers-adding-right-to-farm-to-state-constitution.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMediaHigh&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news Missouri Weighs Unusual Addition to Its Constitution: Right to Farm By JULIE BOSMANAUG. 2, 2014 KINGDOM CITY, Mo. — Missourians already have the constitutional right to religion, speech and guns. On Tuesday, they could make a novel addition to the State Constitution: the right to farm. A proposal known as Amendment 1 will be taken up in a statewide vote on Tuesday, leaving Missouri poised to change its Constitution to guarantee the rights of its people to “engage in farming and ranching practices.” The right to farm hardly seems threatened in Missouri, one of the leading agricultural states, with nearly 100,000 farms producing crops including soybeans, corn and wheat. But a coalition of state farming groups and major agriculture corporations have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take aim at the Humane Society, which led a successful fight in 2010 to regulate inhumane dog-breeding practices in Missouri. Backers of the amendment are wary of laws that have passed in other states, like California, where voters in 2008 approved roomier living conditions for hens, and Oregon, where a rural county’s ban on genetically modified crops was overwhelmingly passed in May. Photo Darvin Bentlage, who raises cattle and grows crops in Golden City, Mo., said supporters of the amendment, set for a vote Tuesday, “don’t know what kind of can of worms is going to open up.” Credit Steve Hebert for The New York Times While the amendment would not affect federal laws governing agriculture, its possible effect on local and state laws is unclear. “There is a lot of uncertainty with respect to how the amendment would actually work in practice,” said Erin Morrow Hawley, an associate law professor at the University of Missouri who specializes in agricultural issues. “You could see a state law challenged based on this constitutional amendment. But the biggest aim is to prevent new state laws coming in from outside the state. The idea is to create another legal tool to stop that.” The debate over the proposed amendment has roiled Missouri for more than a year, with supporters saying it would end what they see as meddling by outsiders in its business practices. Opponents have protested that the amendment would be a boon for large industrial farms that would like to avoid potential laws controlling their treatment of animals or the environment, allowing them to pollute the land, extend the use of genetically modified crops and freely experiment with the use of antibiotics in livestock, a trend that has concerned scientists. “It’s put family against family and neighbor against neighbor,” Jeff Jones, a cattle farmer from Callaway County, in central Missouri, said of the amendment at an emotional public forum on Thursday evening that attracted close to 200 people. If passed, the amendment could be a model for other states trying to ward off new laws regulating farming. Only North Dakota, a state far less populous, where farming and ranching are not as central to the economy and culture as they are in Missouri, has passed a similar constitutional amendment. The Missouri amendment was sponsored by a Republican legislator and has wide support in the Republican-controlled legislature. The referendum is part of the primary on Tuesday in Missouri, where voters will also decide on a measure that would declare the right to keep and bear arms “unalienable.” Since the beginning of July, advocacy groups have spent more than $1 million on the fight over Amendment 1: Missouri Farmers Care, an umbrella group of supporters, has spent more than $650,000, while Missouri’s Food for America, a group formed last year, has poured more than $400,000 into efforts for the opposition. Much of that money has come from the Humane Society of the United States. Several days before the vote, an aggressive campaign to woo the undecided was well underway. Television commercials seemed to be running nonstop, imploring voters to help family farmers by opposing the amendment. Cherry-red yard signs proclaiming, “Keep Missouri Farming! Yes on 1,” dotted the landscape of rural southwest Missouri, a place where residents like to say there are more cows than people. The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association sent an email to members on Thursday urging them to call friends, post on Facebook and Twitter in support of the amendment, and get to the polls on Tuesday. Many farmers said they were fed up with scrutiny over farming practices from groups like the Humane Society, a widely loathed organization among farmers here, which supported the 2010 measure approving strict regulations on “puppy mills.” “I personally don’t know anybody that’s against this,” said Richard Le Jeune, who raises 200 cattle on his 573-acre property in the tiny hamlet of Halfway, Mo., 30 miles north of Springfield. “Some of these city people don’t have a clue what goes on in the country and how food is produced. We need this to keep the outsiders from trying to run things.” While watching Fox News from his living room on Wednesday, Mr. Le Jeune interrupted himself to nod at the television when a commercial advising viewers to vote against the amendment came on. “This is the second time in two days I’ve seen this one,” he said. Other farmers said the amendment, which is brief and vaguely worded, would permanently enshrine a special status for ranchers and farmers in the Constitution. Darvin Bentlage, who raises cattle and grows soybeans, corn and wheat in Golden City, Mo., said the people who were pushing the amendment “don’t know what kind of can of worms is going to open up.” “One thing’s for sure — it’s going to put ag culture above everybody else,” he said. “We’re going to be a different class of people. You won’t be able to complain about anything that we do. That should never be the case.” Agricultural groups representing cattle, soybean and corn farmers have lined up in favor of the amendment, while the editorial boards of nearly every major newspaper across the state have sounded off against it. The Kansas City Star editorial board called it an “unnecessary and potentially harmful proposal” and “a concerted effort to shield factory farms and concentrated agricultural feeding operations from regulations to protect livestock, consumers and the environment.” “It’s the agricultural establishment trying to build a firewall against growing consumer concerns,” said John E. Ikerd, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri in Columbia, likening it to early regulation of tobacco. “If we’d had a ‘right to smoke’ amendment at that time, we’d still have smoke-filled offices and airplanes.” While the Republican-controlled legislature introduced the ballot measure, support for it has not fallen along strict partisan lines. The state attorney general, Chris Koster, a Democrat, supports Amendment 1; the governor, Jay Nixon, also a Democrat, said in an email last week that he did not. Channing Ansley, a spokeswoman for Mr. Nixon, said that while the governor had championed Missouri farmers, “he also believes that changing the Constitution of our state should be done sparingly, thoughtfully and only when there is a demonstrated need to do so.” She continued: “In the governor’s view, that need has not been demonstrated in this case.” Joe Maxwell, a farmer and former lieutenant governor who works for the Humane Society, said the amendment could set off lawsuits arguing that local laws regulating agriculture were unconstitutional. “There are now two kinds of agriculture in America — we have seen over the last 30 years the advancement of the industrialized ag model,” Mr. Maxwell said. “The group of farmers who are aligned with industrialized ag believe big is better and they should be able to do whatever they want to the land and to the animals. Then there are a group of farmers who believe we are the caretakers of the land. I stand with many family farmers who are in opposition to this.” But Blake Hurst, the president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, which represents 117,000 farmers, said many laws regulating farming had overstepped, leaving farmers with no choice but to amend the Constitution to protect their industry. “When you look across the country, you see a lot of ballot initiatives that are making decisions about how farmers can farm,” Mr. Hurst said. The proposed amendment “doesn’t change regulations we have now, and it can’t possibly change federal law. We’re trying to stop ballot initiatives that limit farmers’ ability to use technology.” The effects of the similar amendment in North Dakota, where it passed in 2012 with 67 percent of the vote, have so far been indiscernible, said Rusty Rumley, a senior staff attorney for the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas. He added, however, that it was still too soon to expect major repercussions. Should the Missouri amendment pass, the possible ramifications are difficult to predict, he said. “Really and truly, I don’t think anybody knows,” Mr. Rumley said. “The thing with constitutional amendments is, they’re written to be broad. It could take quite a while to know what it’s all going to mean.” At the forum in Callaway County on Thursday, Debbie Brunette, 58, of Fulton, Mo., said she supported the farmers’ efforts but feared the measure was too permanent. “We don’t know the future of agriculture,” she said. “Why do we have to change the Constitution?”
Privacy guidelines??? The pigs are going to do whatever they want despite any silly guidelines they make up for themselves!!!! Hell, the cops routinely break the other laws that the rest of us are expected to obey. You don't expect them to obey any silly "privacy guidelines" they make up for themselves. http://www.mercurynews.com/scott-herhold/ci_26264766/big-brother-begone-san-jose-police-should-get Big Brother, begone: The San Jose police should get rid of their drone By Scott Herhold sherhold@mercurynews.com Posted: 08/02/2014 12:18:40 PM PDT So, great: Somewhere in the bowels of the San Jose Police Department, we have a drone bought with federal money -- a Neo 660 V2, to be precise -- a 2-foot wide device that can carry a camera and transmit back incredibly invasive pictures of taxpayers. As the first department in the Bay Area to have such a toy, the police say they want to use the $7,000 drone to supplement the work of the bomb squad: It would be used in tight, confined spaces that bomb robots cannot reach. Seven months after acquiring the drone, the police department still has not developed guidelines about how it will be used. That's telling. If the point is to protect police lives, as the cops say, it's hard to see it being confined solely to the bomb squad. "The police say they want to use it to disarm bombs,'' says Nicole Ozer, the technology and civil liberties policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "But tomorrow it could be used for surveillance of communities of color. When you don't have strict oversight of invasive police techniques, it's ripe for problems.'' So I've got a very simple answer: Sell the contraption. Turn it back to the manufacturer. Put it on eBay or Craigslist. If you take a small loss -- and given that this was purchased with public money, we probably spent too much -- it's nothing compared to the controversy it sparks. Invasive technology I say that for two reasons: First, drone technology is different from any other surveillance equipment. Because it's cheaper than a helicopter and doesn't require an expert to operate, it can be used to put people under constant surveillance. The most sophisticated drones can intercept texts or pick up heat images through walls. Deputy Chief Dave Hober told me the "primary'' purpose of the drone was disarming bombs, and I don't doubt him. But that leaves open a secondary purpose or two. Is there a potentially explosive Hells Angels funeral at Oak Hill Cemetery? The temptation to use the drone is overwhelming. Is there an angry march on City Hall? Ditto. Where do you draw the line? Don't forget: The drone can be loaned to other cities with laxer guidelines. The second problem is how the drone was acquired. It was bought with federal Homeland Security money, approved as part of a bigger security package on the City Council's consent calendar last November. No public debate You heard that right: There was no public debate on getting a drone. This is a technology that was rejected in San Francisco and Alameda County because of public opposition. In San Jose, the City of the Big Shrug, it sailed through. Hey, it's not our money. The feds paid. There's a long tradition in San Jose of important decisions being made with little public contribution: In December 2005, for instance, the council approved a 90 percent retirement plan for cops, a huge multi-million-dollar expense, in five minutes. Everything was negotiated in closed session. Councilman Pete Constant, an ex-cop, told me he wants to see what kind of privacy guidelines the cops come with up with on the drone. He doesn't want it buzzing his backyard barbecue. That's fair. But we should have had that conversation long before San Jose ever acquired a drone. In the meantime, the answer is really very simple: Get rid of it. Turn it back in. It's a toxic toy. Contact Scott Herhold at 408-275-0917 or sherhold@mercurynews.com. Twitter.com/scottherhold.
Yea, the guy is a jerk, if the video isn't a hoax. But the real question is don't the cops have any real criminals to hunt down??? Do we really need to spend $10,000 to $100,000 paying the cops and courts to punish this jerk. If you ask me the cops should be hunting down real criminals that hurt humans. Of course I suspect the cops that are investing this guy and being paid big bucks to do it feel differently on this issue. But those are the same cops who think they deserve to be paid big bucks to jail harmless marijuana smokers. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2014/08/03/grand-canyon-video-squirrel-kicked-off-edge-abrk/13550717/ Official: Grand Canyon probing squirrel-kicking video Matthew Casey, The Republic | azcentral.com 7:17 a.m. MST August 4, 2014 Officials believe a video that appears to show a man kicking a squirrel off a cliff was shot at the Grand Canyon, a park spokeswoman said. "The rangers do believe it is at Grand Canyon in the national park," said Grand Canyon National Park spokeswoman Kirby-Lynn Shedlowski. "It is under investigation. We are working with YouTube to see if we can get any additional information." There are different versions of the video that was uploaded to YouTube and posted to the Daily Mail's website. It shows two shirtless men standing on a cliff. One scene shows a man shooting video while another man dressed in black shorts lays a trail of food to the edge. Another scene shows the man in black shorts putting on his shoe. A squirrel follows the trail of food to the edge. In another scene, the man in black shorts appears to kick it over the edge. Shedlowski could not say whether the man could be arrested for animal cruelty or face other criminal charges. "They (investigators) would have to be able to identify the individual which is going to be problematic," she said
Arizona's other gubernatorial candidates If you ask me Barry Hess isn't very Libertarian in this article. The Libertarian platform says taxes are stealing and should be eliminated. Barry Hess's plan: "He plans to eliminate income and property taxes and substitute a flat transaction tax on every purchase" Come on Barry, what part of "taxes are theft" don't you understand???? The Libertarian platform calls for open borders. Barry Hess's plan: "I have the only plan that literally shuts down the entire border" Come Barry since when is it the government's job to draw lines in the sand and keep people from crossing them???? Last the Libertarian party platform is to legalize ALL drugs. Now this article doesn't mention it, but in the past Barry Hess has said he wants to "decriminalize drugs", not legalize them. Come on Barry, what part of legalizing ALL drugs don't you understand???? Sadly Barry Hess seems to be Republican who leans a little bit in the Libertarian direction that is running for governor as a Libertarian. I guess the good news is JL Mealer with the Americans Elect Party. His stance on the "war on drugs" or at least marijuana it to total legalize it. "Let's legalize hemp because that will build everything from cars to rubber products to plastic and everything we need" Come on Barry, this is embarrassing. A guy from an other third party being more Libertarian then the Libertarian candidate. And last but not least is Curtis Woolsey who seems to be a religious nut job who would turn Arizona into a Christian theocracy if elected. Hey, the Holy Spirit told him to run for governor. My question is if Curtis Woolsey talks to God on a daily basis why doesn't he just get the Holy Spirit to appoint him as governor??? That would be a lot easier then having him run for governor as a write in candidate an losing. On the other hand if Curtis Woolsey wins, maybe I am wrong about being an atheist and not believing in God. If Curtis Woolsey wins, God must certainly exist!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/08/04/arizona-gubernatorial-candidates-other-hopefuls/13493875/ The hopefuls: Arizona's other gubernatorial candidates SNIP Barry Hess, Libertarian Hess is no stranger to politics as a longtime figure in the Libertarian party. He has enough clout to garner invitations to several forums featuring the major-party candidates. On the Libertarian party: "I think the principles that I espouse are as old as the country, so they're pretty well known. All we do is carry the banner. It's not my message. It's not my philosophy to change." On the border: "Here I am the Libertarian in the race, and I have the only plan that literally shuts down the entire border. That's what it's all about, but my concern is more of compassion. It's a matter of conscience. I don't want people dying in our desert every year." His plan uses electromagnetic pulses, microwaves, ultrasonic blasts, seismic sensors, drones, and the Arizona Rangers to shut down illegal immigration. On the economy: He plans to eliminate income and property taxes and substitute a flat transaction tax on every purchase. "That will throw a tremendous amount of money into the economy where the people themselves will stimulate it where it needs to be stimulated." On his mainstream opponents: "I have as high name recognition as any of them, and they're spending millions of dollars to get it. I've just spent decades doing it." SNIP JL Mealer, Americans Elect Seizing on the opportunity presented by Americans Elect's ballot status, Mealer decided to run as he, like others, is tired of the two-party system. Riding thousands of miles around Arizona on his motorcycle, he believes he understands the state's problems. On his party: "Just ballot access, that's all it is, but to me, it's the independent Constitutionalist perspective." On the two-party system: "Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting change." On economic recovery: "Let's legalize hemp because that will build everything from cars to rubber products to plastic and everything we need." On building new industries: "We can create a new city effect up between New River and Prescott." He would achieve this by wooing a military aircraft factory to Arizona. On the Constitution: "Not necessarily that I'm really for it, but if same-sex couples want to get married, technically they can go to a church that's created specifically for that and the state must recognize it because the state shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." He says the same applies for guns because of the Second Amendment. "There's not supposed to be a law, period." SNIP Curtis Woolsey, independent write-in Woolsey spent much of his youth traveling the Americas with his missionary parents, and he acts in whichever way he sees his faith directing. He guarantees success even though he does not address any traditional issues such as education, the economy, or border security. The son of international missionary parents said the Holy Spirit directed him to run for governor on Feb. 15. On abortion, his top priority: "In cases of abortion where it's clearly evidence that a pre-birth child has been killed, it's a severe penalty -- I know it's severe -- but what if the death penalty was put into law?" On gay rights: "My preaching word is repent." On the conspiracy of psychological sciences: "Psychology, behavioral psychology, psychiatry, and the farce of mental illness is a waste of time, but mental illness is given as a great excuse for a criminal not to receive the death penalty." On court ordered medication: "You've got a judge court-ordering, forcing medicine that will make a person drugged, and you've got multitudes of people drugged, some of them against their will. On his chances: "The next governor -- who will be me -- God will provide me that job."
Back when police state Rick Romley was the Maricopa County Attorney I thought it would be impossible to get a worse nut job for county attorney. When racist, police state nut job Andrew Thomas got elected to Maricopa County Attorney he proved me wrong on that. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/letters/2014/08/03/thomas-governor-bid-raises-scary-questions/13552095/ Thomas' governor bid raises scary questions 4:04 p.m. MST August 3, 2014 Regarding "Thomas: All issues tied to immigration" (Republic , Thursday): After reading and rereading the article on Andy Thomas' run for governor, I don't know which scares me more, that this man is running for governor or that there are people who support his views. — Don Mayeski, Scottsdale
Cameron Todd Willingham is probably the only person in the USA in which we have documented proof that he was innocent of the crime he was murdered by the state of Texas for committing. I am positive that lots of other innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit, but in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham it is pretty clear that he was innocent. Junk science was used to "prove" that Cameron Todd Willingham was guilty of the crime that he was falsely executed for committing. Here in Arizona we had three cases like this. Louis Taylor in Tucson was framed for a Tucson fire murder. John Henry Knapp was framed for murder for a fire in Mesa. Ray Girdler was framed for a murder in Yavapai County. I think it was in Prescott. They all have been released from prison after being framed for murder. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-doubts-over-a-texas-execution/?hpid=z1 Fresh doubts over a Texas execution New evidence revives concerns that a man was wrongly put to death in 2004 Written by Maurice Possley, The Marshall Project Published on August 3, 2014 CORSICANA, Tex. — For more than 20 years, the prosecutor who convicted Cameron Todd Willingham of murdering his three young daughters has insisted that the authorities made no deals to secure the testimony of the jailhouse informer who told jurors that Willingham confessed the crime to him. About this project: The investigation was reported and written by Maurice Possley for The Marshall Project, a new nonprofit news organization focused on the criminal justice system. Sign up for updates on their launch. Since Willingham was executed in 2004, officials have continued to defend the account of the informer, Johnny E. Webb, even as a series of scientific experts have discredited the forensic evidence that Willingham might have deliberately set the house fire in which his toddlers were killed. But now new evidence has revived questions about Willingham’s guilt: In taped interviews, Webb, who has previously both recanted and affirmed his testimony, gives his first detailed account of how he lied on the witness stand in return for efforts by the former prosecutor, John H. Jackson, to reduce Webb’s prison sentence for robbery and to arrange thousands of dollars in support from a wealthy Corsicana rancher. Newly uncovered letters and court files show that Jackson worked diligently to intercede for Webb after his testimony and to coordinate with the rancher, Charles S. Pearce Jr., to keep the mercurial informer in line. “Mr. Pierce and I visit on a regular basis concerning your problems,” Jackson wrote to Webb in August 2000, eight years after the trial, when his former witness was threatening to recant. (Jackson misspelled the rancher’s last name.) “We worked for a long time on a number of different levels, including the Governor’s Office, to get you released early in the robbery case. . . . Please understand that I am not indifferent or insensitive to your difficulties.” Along with Webb’s account, the letters and documents expose a determined, years-long effort by the prosecutor to alter Webb’s conviction, speed his parole, get him clemency and move him from a tough state prison back to his hometown jail. Had such favorable treatment been revealed prior to his execution, Willingham might have had grounds to seek a new trial. The Willingham case timeline Opponents of the death penalty have long focused on questionable evidence used against Willingham, believing that his case could be the first to show conclusively that an innocent man was put to death in the modern era of capital punishment. As the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty in Kansas in 2006, Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the opposition could not cite “a single case — not one — in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit.” In a grievance filed July 25 with the State Bar of Texas, the Innocence Project, a New York-based advocacy group that has investigated the Willingham case for a decade, argued that Jackson’s conduct “violated his professional, ethical and constitutional obligations.” The group called for a full investigation of Jackson’s handling of the case and argued that he could be sanctioned or even criminally prosecuted for falsifying official records, withholding evidence from the defense, suborning perjury and obstructing justice. Jackson’s conduct, according to the complaint, “violated core principles of the legal profession, and did so with terrible consequences . . . the execution of an innocent man.” At the time Willingham was convicted in 1992, Jackson described the forensic evidence and Webb’s testimony as two main pillars of his case — either of which was enough to convict Willingham. More recently, Jackson contended in a local newspaper column that the trial presented “overwhelming evidence of guilt completely independent of the undeniably flawed forensic report.” But the letters and court files show that Webb threatened to renounce his testimony against Willingham at least twice before. In 2000, he sent a formal motion to recant to the Navarro County District Attorney’s Office that was forwarded to Jackson, but never put in Willingham’s court file or shared with his lawyers. Jackson — who was elected as a Navarro County judge in November 1996 and retired in 2012 — does not deny going out of his way to help Webb. But in a recent interview he said he did so only because he thought Webb was threatened by other inmates for cooperating with the prosecution. He has described allegations that he coaxed false testimony from Webb as a “complete fabrication.” In response to a detailed list of questions about his dealings with Webb and Pearce, Jackson last week refused to comment further. Pearce died in 2008. Webb’s latest allegations and the other new evidence in the matter could also have implications for the Texas governor, Rick Perry, a strong supporter of the death penalty and a possible Republican presidential candidate. In 2004, Perry refused to temporarily stay Willingham’s execution despite the report of a leading forensic expert that sharply disputed the finding of arson by a Texas deputy fire marshal. Perry’s administration has also repeatedly undercut the authority of a state Forensic Science Commission, which agreed that the arson finding relied on flawed analysis. Defending his handling of the case in 2009, the governor declared that Willingham “was a monster.” The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, the members of which were all appointed by Perry, voted in March to deny Willingham a posthumous full pardon. Cameron Todd Willingham with his wife, Stacy, and three daughters. (Courtesy of the Cameron Todd Willingham family) ‘Why wouldn’t I help them?’ Johnny Webb was a skinny, 22-year-old drug addict in January 1992 when he met Willingham in the Navarro County Jail, a yellow brick building that held about 125 prisoners on any given day. Willingham had just been arrested on murder charges for allegedly setting the fire that killed his three daughters — Amber, a 2-year-old, and twin 1-year-olds Karmon and Kameron. On the morning of Dec. 23, 1991, Willingham’s wife, Stacy, went out to buy Christmas presents, leaving Willingham with the girls. Willingham later told investigators that Amber woke him up about an hour later, crying, “Daddy, Daddy.” He said the house was filled with smoke and when he crawled out of his bedroom toward the three girls’ bedroom, he saw an orange glow on the ceiling. When he rose up to step over a childproof gate, his hair caught fire. He said he felt around for the girls but could not find them. When debris fell from the ceiling, he stumbled out the front door. He said he tried to go back in but could not because of the intense heat. He said he called for neighbors to call the Fire Department because, “My babies is in there and I can’t get them out.” Firefighters and police arrived, but the fire had exploded when Willingham broke open a front window with a pool cue and the girls could not be rescued. All three died of smoke inhalation. As Corsicana mourned the deaths, some residents of the small city 55 miles south of Dallas began to look suspiciously at Willingham. At the time, he was jobless and some neighbors said he physically abused Stacy. Willingham, who liked heavy metal music and wore his hair in a thick black mullet, was seen laughing and drinking beer after the funeral for the girls and overheard complaining that his dart board was missing after the fire. At least one witness told authorities she told Willingham to try to rescue the girls, but instead he moved his car away from the blaze. A deputy state fire marshal, Manuel R. Vasquez, viewed the ruins of the home along with Corsicana fire officials. Barely a week after the fire, they concluded it was arson. On Jan. 8, the night before Willingham’s 24th birthday, he was arrested by a SWAT team. LEFT: A photo after the 1991 fire at the Corsicana, Tex., home of Willingham and his wife, Stacy, killed their three daughters. Experts in fire forensics have disagreed with the Texas deputy fire marshal’s finding of arson. RIGHT: A resident at the house as it appears today. (Left: Texas State Fire Marshal’s Office; Right: Michel du Cille/The Washington Post) On Feb. 13, 1992, Willingham was indicted on charges of capital murder. The Navarro County district attorney, Patrick C. Batchelor, declared that if Willingham had cared as much about his children as he did about playing darts and drinking beer, he might have saved them. Webb, who had a lengthy rap sheet, had just been jailed for robbing a woman at knifepoint. By his own admission, Webb was stealing to support his drug and alcohol habits and was still traumatized after being sexually assaulted by another inmate during a previous stay in jail. In two taped interviews with the Innocence Project, conducted almost 22 years after his trial testimony, Webb described how the Navarro County sheriff, Leslie Cotten, pulled him out of his cell after he was seen talking briefly with Willingham. What had they talked about, Cotten wanted to know. Cotten, approached recently at his home in Corsicana, said he did not remember Webb. Webb said that Cotten and then Jackson urged him to try to talk to Willingham about the fire to see whether he might incriminate himself. Repeatedly, Webb said, he was taken from the jail to Jackson’s office in the courthouse, where Jackson laid out photographs of the fire scene that included the bodies of the little girls. “I was in his office three or four times and he laid them pictures out in front of me and said, ‘Johnny, what do you think about that?’” Webb recalled. “That could be your child. This dude is guilty.” Webb said the photos were “burned into my memory.” Webb, who was facing a lengthy sentence, said he asked Jackson, “What’s going to be my deal?” and Jackson said, “If you help me, that robbery will disappear . . . even if you’re convicted now, I can get it off of you later.” It is not unusual for prosecutors to offer informants more lenient treatment, but they are obliged to present only testimony they believe to be true and to disclose any deals before trial so that witnesses can be confronted. “He says, ‘Your story doesn’t have to match exactly’,” Webb continued. “He says, ‘I want you to just say he put fires in the corners. I need you to be able to say that so we can convict him, otherwise we’re going to have a murderer running our streets.’ ” Webb told Jackson he hoped to turn his life around and become an underwater welder. That could be arranged, Jackson assured him, according to Webb. In the taped interviews, Webb recalled, “He says, ‘Look, we can get Chuck [Pearce] to help you with anything you need. He’s already there to help you.’ ” “He [Jackson] had me believing 100 percent this dude was guilty — that’s why I testified,” Webb said. “The perks — they was willing to do anything to help me. No one has ever done that, so why wouldn’t I help them?” In fact, Webb said, Willingham “never told me nothing.” Johnny Webb last month in Corsicana, Tex. Webb says he was coaxed into testifying that Cameron Todd Willingham confessed to killing his three daughters in 1991 by arson. (Michel du Cille/The Washington Post) Aiding troubled young men By 1992, Charles Pearce was one of Corsicana’s most respected citizens. His father, Charles, had been the first president of Colgate-Palmolive after the two companies merged in the 1920s. In the late 1940s, after a brief career in advertising, Pearce and his wife, Peggy, moved to Corsicana to oversee the Rush Creek Ranch in nearby Kerens, Tex., a 3,500-acre spread that had been in Pearce’s mother’s family for generations. After the death of his father in 1965, Pearce inherited millions and turned his attention to helping troubled young men and boys. He volunteered at a local orphanage and a state-run home for juvenile delinquents, and built a campground on the ranch where he took boys fishing. Pearce also became fascinated with law enforcement, spending hours at the Navarro County Court House and befriending prosecutors, judges and other court officials. He researched and wrote a series of self-published books, some of them based loosely on criminal cases he watched unfold there. The former manager of Pearce’s ranch, Joe Graves, recalled that when newly sentenced inmates were transported from the Navarro County Jail to the state prison in Huntsville, Pearce often went along, riding in the back of the van with the prisoners so he could hear their life stories. The former Navarro County probation chief, Ted Warren, said he introduced Pearce to young men convicted of crimes so Pearce could help them find jobs or get into college. Gary Motter was one of them. After Motter pleaded guilty in 1989 to being an accomplice in a shooting, Pearce stuck by him for 12 years, writing often, visiting him every month and buying him $1,000 in woodworking tools so he could learn a trade in prison. Motter said that when he was paroled, Pearce bought him new clothes and a pickup truck and paid his tuition at a computer school. Laveta Calame, Pearce’s secretary during those years, said she was often sending letters and money to four or five different prison inmates on Pearce’s behalf. She added that Pearce was a good friend of District Attorney Batchelor and Jackson. “He had his mind set on helping them,” she said. In a letter Pearce sent to Webb in 1995, he said he was financially backing Jackson’s campaign to be elected as a judge. In an interview, Jackson denied he had a close relationship with Pearce. “I tried to keep him at arm’s length,” Jackson said. “I have always been suspicious of people who try to get involved in the criminal justice system who aren’t part of the system.” Ex-Navarro County prosecutor John H. Jackson, left, has said claims that he coerced false testimony from Webb are a “fabrication.” Charles S. Pearce Jr., right, who died in 2008, worked with Jackson to keep Webb in line and gave him money, evidence shows. (Left: Michel du Cille/The Washington Post; Right: 2007 photo by Charla Holmes) Webb’s testimony is crucial Webb first met Pearce through two friends whom Pearce had tried to help after they were convicted of minor offenses. Webb said he spent time on Pearce’s ranch and at his home in Corsicana. Webb said that after Jackson spoke to him about testifying against Willingham, Pearce visited him and said, “I’ll help you, and John Jackson is willing to do all these things if you’ll give this testimony.” Webb pleaded guilty to a first-degree charge of aggravated robbery in March 1992 and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Under Texas law, he was required to serve a minimum of three years and nine months before becoming eligible for parole. Five months later, in August 1992, Webb was the first witness called by Jackson to testify for the prosecution at Willingham’s trial. Webb told the jury that sometime in April, Willingham, after repeatedly saying the fire was an accident, spontaneously confessed to him while they were speaking through a food slot in Willingham’s cell door. Webb said Willingham told him that he squirted lighter fluid around the home and set it ablaze. Webb said Willingham and his wife, Stacy, decided to kill the girls to cover up Stacy’s physical abuse of one of the children. (Autopsies revealed no injuries to the girls other than those suffered in the fire.) Webb admitted that he took anti-depressants for post-traumatic stress syndrome after being sexually assaulted in jail. He said that he decided to testify because his conscience was bothering him after Willingham confessed to him. Jackson emphasized that Webb was testifying at great personal risk. “My life has been threatened as well as my family’s life,” Webb said on the stand. “And if I make it to the penitentiary, then I’m going to be in deep trouble.” Jackson concluded Webb’s direct testimony by asking, “Johnny, have I ever promised you anything in return for your testimony in this case?” “No, sir,” Webb replied. “You haven’t.” “As a matter of fact, I told you there is nothing I can do for you,” Jackson said. “You said there was nothing no one can do for me,” Webb said. Willingham’s defense was less than robust. His lawyers called only one witness, a babysitter who said Willingham loved his girls. The trial lasted three days. On Aug. 20, 1992, the jury convicted Willingham of the murders of his children and the following day voted to sentence him to death. Willingham, who had refused to plead guilty in return for a life sentence, maintained his innocence until the day he was executed by injection. A pattern of interceding Two months after the Willingham trial, a typed, unsigned note to the Navarro County clerk — marked “per John Jackson” — instructed the clerk how to respond to the Texas Department of Corrections if prison officials inquired about Webb’s status. The note said that Webb had not been convicted of first-degree, aggravated robbery — as he had just testified in open court — but only of second-degree robbery. “If TDC calls and wants to know which one is correct — tell them ROBBERY with No Deadly Weapon Used.” The note also explained the change: “That is what John Jackson wants it to be.” "That is what John Jackson wants it to be." (p. 156) An unsigned note in the files of the Navarro County District Court says that Jackson asked the clerk to clarify that Johnny Webb's conviction was not for aggravated robbery, but for a lesser charge. It was the first of many steps Jackson took on Webb’s behalf over the next several years, revealed in letters and documents, many of which have not previously been made public. On Oct. 21, 1992, days after the note to the clerk, Jackson sent a letter to prison officials requesting that Webb be assigned to a medical unit, which would be less onerous than protective custody. “Mr. Webb was a pivotal witness in a capital murder prosecution,” Jackson wrote. Webb had “placed himself at risk based upon his testimony in the case and I fear that he may suffer reprisal if placed in the general population.” He added, “Webb’s testimony may be necessary at [a] later stage of the proceedings and I would appreciate your attempting to place him in an environment that guarantees the smallest risk.” A month later, Jackson followed up with another letter requesting that Webb be transferred back to the Navarro County Jail because Webb had received death threats from other inmates. “In the event of a reversal,” Jackson wrote, “I would also like to be able to count on Webb’s continued cooperation.” Over the next three years, as Jackson kept in touch with Webb, Pearce deposited more than $2,000 into Webb’s prison commissary account, according to prison records obtained by the Innocence Project. In 1995, Webb wrote to Pearce that a guard at the Huntsville penitentiary had urged him to recant his Willingham testimony, possibly to protect himself against reprisals from other inmates. Pearce wrote back that he had immediately passed along Webb’s letter to Jackson. Jackson then wrote to the Huntsville warden. “I hate to keep bothering you about Johnny Webb problems, however, I received a letter from him alleging that a correctional officer . . . has suggested he recant his testimony,” he wrote. “Webb is not exactly a model citizen, but I would be very concerned if [prison] personnel is leaning on him in an attempt to change his story.” Jackson’s campaign for Webb’s early release escalated in May 1996, after Webb reported that he continued to receive threats and demanded to be transferred to federal prison or the Navarro County Jail. Watch a clip from PBS's "FRONTLINE" in which Johnny Webb discusses his testimony. “Here the state offered me certain benefits in exchange for my testimony which resulted in sending a man to death row,” Webb wrote to Jackson. “Because I kept my end of the promise, the state is bound to uphold theirs until my release from incarceration.” Pearce wrote to Webb three weeks later: “Tomorrow I will . . . see John Jackson again. In addition to all else, he is trying to work some angles with the DA, the Sheriff and Judge. Believe me, a lot of people are trying to help you.” Six weeks later, on July 15, 1996, at Jackson’s request, Judge Kenneth “Buck” Douglas — who had presided over Willingham’s trial and sentenced Webb to prison in 1992 — entered a new judgment in Webb’s case. The crime was officially recorded as a conviction for second-degree robbery instead of an aggravated robbery, in effect reducing the time Webb was required to wait before seeking parole. Jackson then sent a letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles saying that he had “recently” become aware through a letter from Webb that prison records mistakenly showed Webb was convicted of aggravated robbery. Jackson now gave the parole board this account: After consulting with Webb’s attorney, he had obtained a court order changing the record to reflect that Webb was convicted on the lesser crime of second-degree robbery, with no weapon involved. Finally, Jackson followed up with a letter to the head of the parole board saying Webb “volunteered information and testified . . . without any agreement from the State respecting diminution of the recommendation in his own case.” He asked that Webb be given consideration for his “Cooperation in the murder prosecution without expectation of leniency.” During this time, Pearce repeatedly informed Jackson about Webb’s status. “Mr. Pearce has kept me up to date on your various problems and has shared various correspondence with me regarding your eligibility for parole,” Jackson wrote to Webb in September 1996. Despite the high-level attention, Webb grew impatient. He warned Pearce that he was thinking of contacting the news media because the prosecution had failed to help him after he provided critical testimony. Pearce advised against it. "About going public...I advise against it." (p. 224) In a letter, Pearce counsels Johnny Webb not to publicize his complaints. “Assuming the media would listen to you, it would . . . reopen and rehash the whole Willingham case,” Pearce wrote. “That would not gain you any friends and would, in fact, keep John from doing anything for you.” In another letter, Pearce told Webb: “John says he has written you. I would point out to you that there are some things that can and some that cannot be discussed in a letter. . . . I can assure you that there are people working in your behalf.” Webb’s request for early release was denied. But Jackson did not relent, filing for clemency on Webb’s behalf. The application included letters from the robbery victim as well as from Batchelor agreeing that Webb had been punished enough. Batchelor’s letter stressed that the prosecution wanted to ensure Webb’s cooperation as long as Willingham was still filing appeals. “Any threat to the public by the early release of Webb is far outweighed by the possibility that Willingham might be successful” in his appeals, Batchelor noted. (Batchelor declined to be interviewed.) Shortly after Jackson’s election as a judge in 1996, he organized another flurry of letters to the parole board. This time, Judge Douglas, Sheriff Cotten and Jackson all insisted that Webb’s sentence was excessive and he should be released. Upon ascending to the bench, Jackson issued a warrant to prison officials requiring Webb be brought to Navarro County for a hearing relating to “protective custody pending executive clemency.” No court records have been found showing that such a hearing was held. Recant, reprieve roadblocks Webb’s clemency request was denied. After he was paroled in January 1998, Webb said in the Innocence Project interviews, he immediately went to see Pearce, who gave him a cashier’s check for $10,000. He used $7,250 of the money to buy a pickup truck, he said. Pearce also agreed to pay Webb’s $10,000 tuition at the Ocean Corp., a commercial diving and underwater welding school in Houston, Webb said. Pearce funneled $4,000 a month to Webb by wiring the money to the school and officials then issued him a check, he said. Webb was dismissed from the diving school in June 1998, after he was jailed on a Houston drug charge. In his arrest records, Webb listed a $1,000 stipend from Pearce as his only source of income. In August 1998, Webb pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in prison. At the same time, his parole on the robbery charge was revoked, which kept Webb in prison until 2007. As soon as Webb returned to prison, Pearce resumed sending money to Webb’s commissary account with a $200 deposit in the fall of 1998 and $400 in 1999, according to the prison records. In February 2000, Webb wrote to Pearce saying he was scared because other inmates had learned he had testified against Willingham. He said it was “all over the unit” that he was a snitch. Webb said he had no choice but to recant his testimony. In March 2000, Webb submitted a hand-written document titled “Motion to Recant Testimony” to the Navarro County District Attorney’s Office. Webb said he was “made to Lie” and that Willingham “is innocent of all charges.” A handwritten note on the document says “Gave to Dist. Judge Jackson 4-3-00,” but the motion was neither included in Willingham’s court file nor disclosed to Willingham’s attorneys. Webb eventually dropped the matter. Webb asks to recant testimony against Willingham (p. 329) "I was forsed (sic) to testify against Mr. Willingham by the D.A.'s Office and other officials. I was made to lie. Mr. Willingham is innocent of all charges." That August, Jackson wrote to Webb again. He said that he and Pearce “visit on a regular basis concerning your problems.” Jackson reminded Webb that he had “worked for a long time on a number of different levels, including the Governor’s Office to get you released early” and that he had been disappointed that Webb wound up back in prison again so quickly. In January 2004, weeks before Willingham’s scheduled execution, his attorney filed for a reprieve. He sought 90 days to investigate an allegation that Webb had received a vehicle after he was released from prison in 1998 and indications that Webb’s testimony had been coached. Judge Jackson opposed the stay and flatly denied once again that Webb had received any benefits in exchange for his testimony. “I did not offer Webb any consideration for his cooperation,” Jackson declared. Having previously insisted that Webb’s punishment was excessive, Jackson now described it as “entirely adequate.” As for the car, Jackson said, “Any benefit Webb may have obtained from Pearce at a time remote from the Willingham prosecution had no connection with Webb’s testimony.” Webb was paroled again in 2007. He returned to Corsicana, got married and tried to lead a quiet life. He could no longer count on Pearce’s help. “He used my father horribly,” Pearce’s daughter, Vivian, said in an interview. “He would show up at the house asking for money. I finally said this has to stop. He’s taking advantage of you.” Vivian Pearce said her father was a good friend of John Jackson and helped people at his request. But she rejected the idea that her father’s generosity toward Webb might have been connected with his testimony against Willingham. “I just knew him as one of Dad’s projects,” she said. “My father would never have done anything to encourage false testimony.” The mounting evidence of Willingham’s innocence does not seem to have persuaded many residents of Corsicana. “I wish they could dig Willingham up and kill him two more times — once for each of those little girls,” said Tony Ayala, a construction worker who lives down the street from the scene of the fire. Even Willingham’s widow, Stacy, who had defended him for years, later said she believed he was guilty. ‘Wanting to come forward’ Six years after Willingham’s execution, the Innocence Project obtained a hearing to determine whether a special Court of Inquiry should be convened to investigate whether Willingham was wrongly executed. Jackson prepared an affidavit for that proceeding in which he again denied that Webb received any benefits in exchange for his testimony. A Texas appeals court prevented the judge from issuing a ruling. In 2012, the Innocence Project and Willingham’s family members filed a petition with the parole board seeking a posthumous pardon. By that time, several of the country’s top experts in fire forensics had debunked the indicators of arson and concluded the fire was an accident of unknown cause. (Evidence that might have identified the actual cause was lost long ago.) In April 2014, the parole board declined to grant the pardon. These days, Webb lives with his wife and mother, subsists on odd jobs and is again struggling to stay out of prison. He was arrested in August 2013 by Corsicana police on a charge of assaulting a man who came onto his front porch in a dispute over money. Webb said that he acted in self-defense. During hours of conversation at his home here, Webb said he was eager to finally set the record straight about his testimony against Willingham, but his lawyer was adamant that Webb not say more publicly while he still faces criminal charges in Navarro County. The attorney, Daniel Biltz, said Webb has nothing to gain by publicly discrediting the Willingham prosecution before his current case is resolved. In his interviews earlier this year with the Innocence Project, Webb said: “I’ve been wanting to come forward with this . . . for a long, long time about certain specific things that no one’s ever known. This has been something that’s pretty much destroyed my life for 22 years.”
How much do people hate Congress? Let us count the ways. 22 percent of Americans think Congress is doing a good job??? That number seems way too high!!!! This article has a lot of graphs and images associated with it. You want want to go to the Washington Post and view the original version of the article for that reason. Come on folks. The Founders gave us the Second Amendment for a reason!!! Why are you waiting???? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/04/how-much-do-people-hate-congress-let-us-count-the-ways/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z9 How much do people hate Congress? Let us count the ways. By Aaron Blake August 4 at 6:30 AM A new poll from NBC News and Marist College registers what would appear to be Americans' overwhelming distaste for Congress. The survey shows that just 22 percent of people would describe Congress as at least "somewhat productive," while 74 percent say it has been at least "somewhat unproductive." Half of Americans say Congress has been "very unproductive," and only 3 percent say it has been "very productive." This is just the latest in a long line of polls trying to measure just how unhappy Americans are with their federal lawmakers. And boy, do they seem unhappy. A quick recap: 1) Gallup has shown Congress's approval rating languishing around an all-time low -- most recently at 15 percent. 2) Another Gallup poll showed that just 7 percent of Americans say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress. Half (50 percent) said they have "very little" confidence in their lawmakers. Those numbers are all the worst ever. 3) About seven in 10 Americans (69 percent) say they don't want most members of Congress reelected, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. An additional 36 percent say they don't want their own representative reelected. Both of those are the highest in the past two decades. 4) A CBS News/New York Times poll from April 2013 showed that just 9 percent of people think Congress is more interested in serving its constituents, while 85 percent think it's more interested in serving special interests. As recently as 2006, twice as many people (18 percent) gave Congress credit for representing the people it was meant to represent. Still not great, but at least better. 5) A recent FiveThirtyEight poll showed that Americans dislike Congress more than Jar Jar Binks and Darth Vader. The chart below speaks for itself. 6) A Public Policy Polling survey in 2011 showed that Americans favored root canals, cockroaches, Genghis Khan and even used-car salesmen in head-to-head match-ups with Congress. Get the picture yet? Americans say they are very unhappy with Congress. Of course, if you really believe that Americans hate Congress more than cockroaches or root canals, we have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. After all, people with roaches and root canals seek remedies to those problems; Americans who are overwhelmingly unhappy with Congress are doing very little about it, voting at the lowest levels on record this primary season. Also, as we've written before, Americans' declining faith in Congress tracks pretty nicely alongside their declining faith in a lot of American institutions. But even as everything else is on the downswing, Congress remains the worst of the worst. And indeed, the idea that 22 percent of Americans would even describe it as "somewhat productive" strains credulity, given that Congress hasn't addressed most of the major issues of today and, when it does, it often just delays the hardest choices for a few months or years at a time. We would argue that these 22 percent of people probably, like most Americans, haven't been paying much attention. Aaron Blake covers national politics and writes regularly for The Fix, the Post’s top political blog.
State Rep. Ford pleads guilty to misdemeanor in bank fraud case And yes, he will get a tiny, tiny slap on the wrist for his crimes. You certainly don't want to throw a professional politician in prison like you would a man on the street that commits the same crime. More of the old "Do as I say, not as I do" from our religious leaders, government masters and police??? http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/544/article/p2p-80993203/ State Rep. Ford pleads guilty to misdemeanor in bank fraud case By Jason Meisner, Tribune reporter 10:08 am, August 4, 2014 State Rep. LaShawn Ford pleaded guilty today to a single misdemeanor tax count after federal prosecutors agreed to drop 17 felony counts that he committed bank fraud and made false statements. Ford’s lawyer, Thomas Anthony Durkin, praised the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the courage to drop the most serious charges against the four-term West Side legislator. Ford appeared to have tears in his eyes after the court hearing. The move by prosecutors represented vindication for Ford, but “we’re not doing any tap dancing right now,” Durkin told reporters in the lobby of the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse after the hearing. By pleading guilty to only a misdemeanor, Ford will be able to hold onto his seat, Durkin said. Ford, 42, faced potentially years in prison if he had been convicted on any of the felony counts. Under federal sentencing guidelines, he could be sentenced to up to 6 months in prison for his misdemeanor conviction for filing a false federal income tax return for 2007, but he likely faces probation in part as a first-time offender. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer set sentencing for Nov. 7. Ford was charged in 2012 with lying to ShoreBank to obtain a $373,500 extension on a line of credit to fix six depressed real estate properties on the West Side. But the indictment alleged Ford used some of that money to pay off personal expenses, including car loans, credit cards, mortgages, campaign costs and payments to a Hammond casino. The charges had nothing to do with his responsibilities as a state lawmaker. From the beginning Ford had disputed the charges, blaming the indictment on the banks’s failure and declaring, “I’m no fraud.” In June his lawyers sought to dismiss the charges by alleging that prosecutors had targeted because of he was a politician and African-American. Prosecutors disputed the allegation, and Pallmeyer denied the motion to dismiss. Ford had once been scheduled to go on trial beginning today. jmeisner@tribune.com | Twitter: @jmetr22b
Don't these Chandler pigs have anything to do other then to find ingenious ways to prevent homeless people from legally begging? You know maybe like hunting down REAL criminals like robbers and rapists who hurt people???? "The Chandler Police Department is working with the Arizona Department of Transportation to add "no trespassing" signage to freeway on and off ramps" http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2014/08/01/increase-panhandler-sightings-around-chandler/13471457/ Why the increase in panhandler sightings around Chandler? Rick Heumann, Special for The Republic | azcentral.com 9:34 a.m. MST August 4, 2014 Many Chandler residents have noticed the increase in panhandlers throughout our community and are wondering what can be done about this issue. Indeed, individuals and families begging for money have been reported at numerous sites, including entrances and exits of freeways and shopping centers. Although this practice is legal, it is not necessarily ethical. Residents must realize that handing out money at street corners is not a solution. The timing of this practice coincides with a federal-court ruling, brought forward by the American Civil Liberties Union, against an Arizona law aimed at prohibiting panhandling. The state law was found to be unconstitutional because it infringed on the right of free speech, as prescribed in the First Amendment. Therefore, beggars are allowed on public property as long as they don't commit illegal acts. The Chandler Police Department is working with the Arizona Department of Transportation to add "no trespassing" signage to freeway on and off ramps and private-property owners can ask that "no trespassing" be enforced on their property. Additionally, Chandler has been proactive the past few years regarding homeless issues and city staff have developed successful collaborations with agencies to address these needs. Ask a Cop: Panhandlers on freeway ramps, medians, roadway against law Homeless advocates have approached panhandlers in an attempt to connect them with services. Most of the time, there does not appear to be any interest in receiving assistance, and in some cases, individuals have stated that they are not homeless. Chandler police check on individuals, particularly when children are present. Officers assess health and safety concerns and determine if any laws are violated. [Translation form government double speak to English - Chandler police harass homeless people] They can provide referrals for services, including food banks, shelters and medical treatment. Advocacy groups and non-profit organizations are dedicated to assisting people in need, especially those who are homeless or on the brink of homelessness. It is much better to support these efforts than to give money to random individuals. [Translation - The Chandler police are doing the best they can to make the lousy lives of homeless folks even sh*tty!!!!] Throughout Maricopa County, the Valley of the Sun United Way coordinates a strong homeless initiative referred to as Project Connect. It is a one-stop service at differing locations each month. Project Connect mobilizes local businesses, elected officials, faith-based organizations and diverse partners to serve those experiencing homelessness, in an effort to provide short-term and long-term solutions. Chandler has implemented a temporary housing solution by offering shelter several nights per week at church facilities. [Don't the rulers of Chandler know that mixing government and religion is unconstitutional???] The program is referred to as I-Help, Interfaith Homeless Emergency Lodging Program. Individuals in need are provided with shelter, meals and access to resources. Homeless veterans receive even more services. Specific programs are dedicated to locating and assisting them. Unfortunately, as long as people continue to give cash to panhandlers, they will see begging as a lucrative endeavor and will increase their visibility in our city. [Translation - The Chandler police are doing the best they can to run the homeless folks out of town!!!] Instead, residents wishing to help are encouraged to support established programs that serve those in need. Donating to faith organizations, non-profit and advocacy groups is not only tax deductible but it ensures that funds are used for the benefit of those who truly need it. Rick Heumann is vice mayor of Chandler.
I certainly support our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. When the government becomes tyrannical, guns are the only thing the people have to get rid of the government tyrants. And I am sure that is what the Founders were thinking when they wrote the Second Amendment. First Ernie Hancock isn't mentioned in this article. Second I don't know if Ernest Hancock is behind this publicity stunt. But this article sure sounds like another Ernie Hancock publicity stunt that blew up in his face and is making gun owners and Libertarians look like idiots instead of freedom fighters. Based on my experiences Ernie Hancock seems to be a publicity hound who uses Libertarians themes for his publicity stunts. Some of them work. And some of them blow up in his face and make us Libertarians look like idiots. When I first met Ernie, I thought he was a "good guy", now I think exactly the opposite. I think a lot of other people feel that way too. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2014/08/04/director-barrow-neurological-institute-says-sky-harbor-rifle-political-statement/13604789/ Doctor: Carrying rifle was political Megan Cassidy, The Republic | azcentral.com 12:30 a.m. MST August 5, 2014 A Tempe man who carried his AR-15 into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport says he has made his political point and won't do it again. Dr. Peter Steinmetz, a director at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, addressed the media on Monday for the first time since the July 25 incident. Steinmetz sparked national debate after toting his weapon while purporting to be on a coffee run at the airport. That act itself is not illegal, but Steinmetz was arrested on suspicion of two counts of disorderly conduct after the gun's muzzle reportedly faced toward and frightened a woman and her daughter, according to Phoenix police. Steinmetz spoke with reporters at his attorney Marc Victor's office in Chandler. Confirming public speculation, Steinmetz told reporters his actions were entirely political in nature and that he wanted to help educate the public by allowing them to observe a peaceful person doing normal things while responsibly carrying an AR-15. Steinmetz said he considers himself a "freedom activist, a man of peace and a responsible American citizen" who has always respected and complied with the rule of law. His demonstration, he said, was stationed at the airport to underline the stark contrast between society's liberties and the point where they erode. "On one side of a line of the floor, in the shopping area, we are relatively free, and can safely keep and bear arms," he said. "On the other side of that line we have the TSA (Transportation Security Administration), a large federal bureaucracy which completely disarms people and subjects them to gross invasions of privacy simply because those people want to travel somewhere." Steinmetz said he is a responsible gun owner and took care not to endanger or point the gun at anyone. In closing, Steinmetz said he did not plan to repeat his demonstration, as he felt he made his point. St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, site of Barrow Neurological Institute, issued a statement last week that said Steinmetz was placed on administrative leave "following his arrest at Sky Harbor Airport and after careful analysis and review." Steinmetz, 54, is director of the neuroengineering program at the Barrow Neurological Institute, according to Barrow's website. On Monday, Steinmetz did not accept questions from the media and allowed his attorney to field all inquiries. Victor defended his client's actions and deflected comments from reporters who questioned the wisdom in bringing an assault rifle to an airport in a post-9/11 world. "I'd suspect that if there were 300 Dr. Steinmetzes in the airport that day, we'd be pretty clear that there wouldn't have been any bad guys with guns," Victor said. It was Steinmetz's second attempt at making such a statement. Steinmetz took his rifle into Sky Harbor on Nov. 13, when he and his minor son, who was armed with a handgun, went to pick up Steinmetz's wife. He was not booked into jail and told police that he was protesting the TSA. Although he was arrested, Steinmetz has not yet been charged with a crime, Victor pointed out. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said he's sent the case back for further investigation. Victor then turned the stage over to Alan Korwin, a pro-gun activist and author of "The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide." Korwin used the opportunity as a platform to promote his book and advocate for gun education for Arizona youths. "You have a man exercising his civil rights, and it scares people," he said. "Why don't the schools teach gun safety and marksmanship already? We have adults running around who don't understand the subject." When reached after the press conference, Arizonans for Gun Safety founder Gerry Hills said Steinmetz was being deliberately provocative. The demonstration, she said, aligned with the open-carry movement, in which some advocates display their firearms in public places. The movement elicited a negative response from some gun-rights advocates and prompted several chain restaurants to ban firearms altogether. "Attempts like these, whether they're at the airport, Target, Home Depot ... backfire terribly," Hills said. Hills said she feels actions like these are radical attempts to deprogram or desensitize society. http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmontini/2014/08/04/peter-steinmetz-rifle-at-sky-harbor-airport-second-amendment-gun-control/13590703/ Reasons to envy, not condemn, gun-toting Dr. Steinmetz EJ Montini, columnist | azcentral.com 1:45 p.m. MST August 4, 2014 I don't look down on Peter Steinmetz, the guy who got arrested last week after carrying an AR-15 rifle into Sky Harbor airport. I envy him. I want to be him. I just don't understand him. Any goofball can walk into an airport with a rifle. It will get you a little attention. It will start an argument over gun rights. It could even land you temporarily in jail and then get you on TV a few days later when you hold a press conference. It allows a bunch of small-brained, small-minded people like me – like most of us – to waste a little time talking about what you did and whether it has some implication for Second Amendment rights and so on. But in the end it won't accomplish anything. It's a noisy and somewhat entertaining waste of time. But I don't understand it coming from Steinmetz, a big-brained individual with the kind of talent and intelligence to – in a very real way – accomplish something profound. Consider his academic accomplishments and his professional responsibilities. He graduated from college with a physics major. He earned a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins in biomedical engineering, and then also earned a degree as a medical doctor. He is a researcher at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, where, according to his resume, they investigate "plasticity of single-unit neural responses in human cortex and how these may be exploited to control neuro-prosthetic devices." And are working on a "program of recording single neurons from human epilepsy and hamartoma patients." Can you even remotely understand what that kind of work involves? Me neither. But I get the idea it has the possibility of changing people's lives for the better, which strikes me as a considerably bigger accomplishment than walking into an airport with a rifle. This is not to say that Steinmetz can't do whatever he wants, within the law. It's just that there are few people among us who are blessed with rare gifts. Sometimes it is in athletics. Or it might be as a painter or singer or actor. Or in math and science. The rest of us use our less extraordinary intellectual abilities to pursue other professions (while being entertained by the athletes and artists and, hopefully, being saved by the scientists.) A person with a vast scientific knowledge doesn't give up any of his rights, of course. If such a person wants to make a political statement by walking into an airport with a rifle he can do so, as long as he's willing to risk of being arrested if there is some breach of legal protocol. And that person has every right to hold a press conference a few days later to talk about the situation. But that's not a press conference I'm interested in attending. I don't look down on Dr. Steinmetz for toting around an AR-15 in order to make a political point or to get his 15 minutes of fame. Or both. I envy him. I want to be him. Not the gun-toting part, but the part with the skills and the intelligence to ease suffering, prolong lives and (in a way that most of us can only dream about) save the world.
Ethics concerns in Pinal death-penalty cases You think your going to get a fair trial??? Don't make me laugh!!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/08/05/pinal-county-prosecutors-hit-barrage-ethics-concerns/13611183/ Ethics concerns in Pinal death-penalty cases Sean Holstege, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:52 p.m. MST August 4, 2014 When a judge declared a mistrial in a Pinal County murder case last week due to the actions of county prosecutors, it marked the third time in a month that ethics concerns were raised about the handling of death-penalty murder cases by the Pinal County Attorney's Office. Superior Court Judge Boyd Johnson declared a mistrial after learning that prosecutors misled him by secretly interviewing, without an attorney present, a defense witness who was facing charges in another case. The miscued murder case came days after the State Bar of Arizona opened an inquiry into how and why Pinal County prosecutors ignored a court order by viewing sealed documents in another death-penalty case. AZCENTRAL Babeu cleared in election case And aday after the mistrial, prosecutors disclosed that a paralegal in the office "inadvertently" accessed off-limits documents in a third death-penalty case. Court officials and representatives of the County Attorney's Office blame the misstepson a flawed case-management system, inadequate training and misguided judges. "We will continue to prosecute in an ethical manner and allow the public to form its own opinion," County Attorney Lando Voyles said in a prepared statement. "When the courts have finally spoken, I believe the image of the Pinal County Attorney's Office will vindicate the confidence the public continually expresses to me." Observers and critics of the Pinal County prosecutors office say the ethical judgments of top attorneys there are alarming. "It's a bit mind-boggling," said former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, who served as lead prosecutor for more than 16 years. "There are serious problems in the Pinal County Attorney's Office." Those problems showed up in the murder trial of Ronald James Thompson on July 24. As the trial was resuming, Deputy County Attorney Matthew Long asked to approach the bench and told Johnson he needed to excuse himself to deal with "administrative matters," according to court transcripts. But the transcripts show he intercepted a witness for the defense, ushered him into a room and interviewed him for about 15 minutes without an attorney present. It turned out that the witness was facing charges in Pinal County himself, and when that came up, Long offered to bring in his attorney. Defense attorney Eric Kessler got wind of the meeting, told the court and asked for the case to be thrown out or, at a minimum, be declared a mistrial. In an immediate side hearing, Kessler argued that prosecutors lied to the judge about their intentions and intimidated a witness. The witness testified at that hearing that the encounter made him nervous because of the other unrelated charges against him. He told the judge he was afraid of going to prison labeled as a snitch. Kessler pointed out that "this is a scared man, and he wasn't scared a week ago." Prosecutor David Powell told the court his office had every right to interview the witness. Johnson didn't feel lied to, but noted, "Was I personally misled? Probably. I probably thought he was going to the office to take care of business and not to interview a witness." Johnson reasoned that no rules of conduct were broken, but he said he was concerned about the effect of the encounter on the witness. "I don't think it was done in any unethical or illegal manner," he said, but, "there can be no other conclusion than (the witness) feeling the need to cooperate with the state, perhaps, and feeling that he has to tailor his testimony." He reasoned that the encounter created a conflict of interest requiring a mistrial because the interview could have influenced the witness. "Nothing illegal or unethical was done in violation of a rule by the state, as noted by the judge, and PCAO looks forward to bringing justice to the victim's family," said Jim Knupp, a county attorney spokesman. The mistrial came less than a month after visiting Judge Peter Cahill disqualified the Pinal County Attorney's Office from trying a separate murder case. Cahill determined July 7 that several top county lawyers accessed, read and distributed off-limits documents marked "sealed," deliberately violating a court order. He ruled that they acted above the law. The order singled out Voyles, Long, Deputy County Attorney Richard Wintory and former county prosecutor Greg Hazard. On July 23, Voyles asked county supervisors permission to hire a lawyer to defend himself and his staff as the state Bar looks into allegations stemming from the2013 murder case, which involvesdefendant Richard Wilson. "I disagree with the court's order and the far-reaching conclusions contained therein," Voyles wrote supervisors. "I assure you that I and my lawyers do not 'set themselves above the law,' as claimed in Judge Cahill's order." Cahill, in his July 7 ruling that disqualified prosecutors from the murder case, flagged statements they made in a special hearing. Specifically, Hazard testified that the ruling to seal records was a "bad call" and that if a paralegal opened such a file under the same circumstances, he'd handle it the same way as in the Wilson case. After the ruling, Pinal County Clerk of the Superior Court Chad Roche issued his own statement: "The security of court records is an absolute non-negotiable," adding, "This was an issue of a department seeing something they should not have been able to see, and we are fixing it." Later, he said in interviews that problems with the court's case-management system had been resolved. In a July 16 candidate forum, Roche, who is running for re-election, said "documents today are extremely secure, more secure than they've ever been." But on July 25, Voyles andWintory disclosed in court that their paralegal had accessedsealed records in a death-penalty murder case against Jose Luis Martinez. In that disclosure, paralegal David Tascoe signed a sworn statement describing an almost identical series of events paralegal Tari Parish had performed a year before in the Wilson murder case. Tascoe explained how when checking the county's case-management system to keep case files in the Martinez prosecution current, he came across an entry for a document described as "Miscellaneous: Sealed Document," he wrote. "It appeared that anyone could access this document," he wrote, "so in an abundance of caution and without attempting to access the document, I took a picture of the screen and I immediately notified Deputy County attorney Susan Eazer." Eazer directed him to look at an entry in an aggravated-assault case involving the same defendant, which the office "knew to be sealed and inaccessible," Tascoe wrote. In the assault case, there was a red flag next to the docket entry, indicating it was sealed, but when Tascoe went back to the filing in the murder case, there was no red flag. He later opened a document identified as an order in the murder case, which was labeled in the comment section of the docket as "ex parte," indicating it was in confidence between one party and the judge. He opened it, saw "filed under seal" was noted on the document and, he wrote, "immediately closed the document without reading anything else." Roche said that prosecutors' description of events is inaccurate and that no sealed records were ever accessed. He added that there is confusion in the courts about what constitutes a sealed record and that he and the presiding judge in Pinal County are clarifying the matter. Due to how the computerized document-management software was set up, Roche said he inherited a system that allowed either all-or-nothing access to sealed records. A year ago, he opted to set up county prosecutors with a terminal that granted universal access, trusting them to follow the rules. After the 2013 incident, he switched it to zero access and now requires prosecutors to get a judge's order to access sealed files. "There have been a lot of misperceptions about this. The bottom line is the public's records are secure," Roche said. He said the documented problems are a result of differing interpretations of how documents are sealed in the Digital Age. Romley said, "They need to understand what a sealed document is. It's sealed from everybody. It sounds like they have a system that is not adequate." Former Pinal County Attorney Jim Walsh, who lost re-election to Voyles, said he has never seen prosecutors open files ordered sealed by the court. Had such files been improperly accessed under his watch, Walsh said, he would have ordered a thorough internal investigation and would have "disclosed it to the court and disclosed it to the other side, automatically." That did happen on July 25in the Martinez case,but not a year ago. The unauthorized access to records in 2013 was discoveredonly when defense attorney Bret Huggins read a prosecutors' motion, he said. The state Bar was alerted after the judge's ruling to disqualify prosecutors in the Wilson case on July 7. Walsh saw some significance in the different approach between how the Pinal County Attorney's Office handled the two incidents. "Somebody felt somebody was looking over his shoulder this time," Walsh said. Knupp, the Pinal County attorney spokesman, said the department is reviewing legal options on the Wilson case and since that incident has "trained our staff on what steps to take when encountering a document ordered 'sealed,' which was not properly sealed." "PCAO will continue to notice the court of this access and the failure of the clerk to uphold the (state's) rules," Knupp added. Sheriff Babeu cleared: Federal investigators clear Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu of any wrongdoing during the 2012 election and have closed the case. A12
Legal twist in Phoenix FD investigation You think your going to get a fair trial??? Don't make me laugh!!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/08/05/phoenix-defense-attorneys-want-accusations-disclosed/13610915/ Legal twist in Phoenix FD investigation To impeach the testimony or credibility of fire investigators at center of 12 News investigation. Matthew Casey, The Republic | azcentral.com 12:13 a.m. MST August 5, 2014 Attorneys for a Phoenix man charged with capital murder want jurors to know that two Phoenix Fire Department arson investigators are accused of lying under oath should prosecutors call them to testify during the trial, records show. Dwandarrius Robinson's defense team filed a motion that, if approved by a judge, would require the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to disclose to jurors the criminal charges recommended against Phoenix Fire Captain Sam Richardson and Captain Fred Andes. Robinson, 23, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the 2012 death of his girlfriend and their unborn child at their Phoenix apartment. Police said Robinson bound Shaniqua Hall with duct tape and hand cuffs, doused her with lighter fluid and set her on fire. AZCENTRAL 3 Phoenix arson investigators put on paid leave Submittal of the motion, which is referred to as a Brady motion, follows an investigation by the Arizona Department of Public Safety that recommended Richardson be charged with six counts of false swearing and that Andes be charged with one count. The charges are based on the men's alleged testimonial inconsistencies regarding a May 2009 arson investigation. Robinson's trial is not set to begin in Maricopa County Superior Court until March 2015. A County Attorney's Office plans to file a response. "Our office complies with all disclosure requirements and court orders," spokesman Jerry Cobb wrote in a statement. Use of the term Brady refers to a U.S. Supreme Court case that found prosecutors must disclose evidence that could be favorable to the defense, including evidence that may hurt a law-enforcement officer's credibility while testifying, according to the motion. The county attorney maintains a Brady list, a database of law enforcement officers with questionable integrity due to past behavior. Cobb would not comment on whether Richardson and Andes have been recommended for the Brady list. Hall was nine months pregnant when she died. Police said Robinson admitted to buying duct tape and lighter fluid that day and reportedly told investigators that he used to work in security when they found handcuff keys in his pocket. According to the motion, Andes used his accelerant sniffing dog, Sadie, to inspect Robinson's clothing two days after the fatal fire. Sadie alerted to both of Robinson's shoes, his T-shirt and his shorts, the motion said. Lab tests later showed that an unidentifiable flammable liquid was present on one of the shoes, but none of the other items, the motion said. Robinson's attorneys interviewed the lab analyst who said he wasn't sure whether the liquid was actually an accellerant or a product used in manufacturing the shoe. But Andes said in his report that dogs like Sadie have been proven more accurate than labs, the motion said. Andes made similar statements during the 2009 arson investigation, according to the DPS investigation accusing him of lying under oath. In May, he told DPS investigators that he did not compile lab-analysis results because it could show that his dog was "right half the time." The Phoenix Fire Department recently placed the men and their supervisor, Fire Marshal Jack Ballentine, on administrative leave with full pay and benefits. It also launched an administrative investigation that is expected to last up to 120 working days, said Shelly Jamison, a Fire Department spokeswoman. Deputy Chief David Carter has been named acting fire marshal. |