Homeless in Arizona

Source

Chandler police: Man left 3-month-old alone in unlocked apartment

By Jackee Coe The Arizona Republic-12 News

Breaking News Team Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:54 PM

Chandler police arrested a man Tuesday who told officers he left a 3-month-old baby alone in his apartment for at least an hour and a half, officials said.

Chandler officers responded about 11:30 a.m. Tuesday to a home near Alma School Road and Chandler Boulevard for a call of a burglary in progress, Chandler Police Department spokesman Detective Seth Tyler said. An officer found a man matching the description but determined he was not involved in the burglary.

But police discovered the man, identified as Tyler Jeffrey Dotson, 26, had heroin and Dotson told the officer he had left his infant son alone in his apartment, Tyler said. Officers immediately went to his apartment, located about a mile away near Alma School and Pecos Road, where they found the 3-month-old inside the unlocked apartment.

Officers changed the baby’s diaper and fed him, he said. They contacted his mother at work and she went to the apartment to take the baby. The boy was in good health. The Police Department notified Child Protective Services.

Dotson was arrested and booked on counts of possession of narcotic drugs and paraphernalia and child abuse, according to Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office records.

The burglary report was taken by other officers, Tyler said.

Chandler police arrest man for leaving 3-month-old home alone

Chandler police arrest man for drugs, leaving 3-month-old home alone

Posted: Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:46 pm | Updated: 5:48 pm, Thu Jan 10, 2013.

Tribune

A man was arrested for leaving a 3-month-old child unattended and on suspicion of drug possession after Chandler police contacted him about a burglary around noon Tuesday.

Chandler police officers responded to a burglary in progress at the 1200 block of W. Park Lane Boulevard. Tyler Jeffery Dotson, 26, was contacted because he matched the description of the suspect, police said. Click here to find out more!

While he was not involved in the burglary, police discovered Dotson had narcotics, Chandler police said. He told police that he had left a 3-month-old child in his apartment unattended.

Concerned for the child’s safety, went to Dotson’s apartment and found the infant in the unlocked apartment at 875 W. Pecos Rd., police said. They changed the baby’s diaper and fed him. His mother was contacted at work and she picked up her child.

Child Protective Services has been notified.

Legalizing marijuana point of sale a safer option

Letter: Legalizing marijuana point of sale a safer option

Posted: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 10:37 am

Letter to the Editor

If your son or daughter uses marijuana, where would you prefer they purchase it from? Drug dealers who also sell other drugs like cocaine and heroin, or medical marijuana cardholders?

Kirk Muse

Mesa

Texas cops used junk science to frame Ed Graf for arson and murder???

Texas judge to examine old arson case amid statewide review

By Molly Hennessy-Fiske

January 11, 2013, 6:00 a.m.

HOUSTON -- A Texas judge is expected to consider Friday whether to grant a new trial for a man serving a life sentence for murdering his two stepsons by arson, or even to declare him innocent.

Ed Graf, 60, was convicted in 1988 of locking his 8- and 9-year-old stepsons in a backyard storage shed in Hewitt, Texas, just outside Waco, and setting the shed afire.

Graf’s is among a handful of arson cases under review by the Lubbock-based Innocence Project of Texas and an expert state fire panel, an unprecedented investigation of closed cases recommended by the state’s Forensic Science Commission. The expert panel includes the leader of the science commission.

Innocence Project officials hope the review will help overturn wrongful convictions that relied on so-called “junk science,” discredited approaches of determining whether fires were intentionally set.

Earlier this week, the officials brought their findings to the fire panel assembled by Texas Fire Marshal Chris Connealy in Houston.

The panel convened after a report last year by the Forensic Science Commission found that unreliable science helped lead to Cameron Todd Willingham's conviction for murder by arson in 1992. Willingham, 24, had been convicted in the deaths of his three children in a 1991 fire at their home in Corsicana, about 55 miles south of Dallas, and was executed in 2004.

Last year’s science commission report did not draw conclusions about Willingham's guilt, instead recommending the arson review currently underway.

Innocence Project staff found about 30 problematic arson cases they want to investigate, and brought them to the six-member state fire panel when it met for the first time Tuesday.

One case involved weak evidence about how a house fire started. Another concerned questionable arson evidence from a fire in the 1980s in Pasadena, about 15 miles east of Houston. The person convicted in the latter case is serving a 75-year sentence.

Connealy, a former fire chief working in the field since 1978, said the expert panel reviewed five questionable cases, including Graf’s. He declined to identify the other cases, since he said the panel had yet to notify the officials who originally handled them.

He said the group planned to contact local officials, gather more information about the cases at least 30 days before their next meeting in April, then draft reports of their findings in time for their next meeting in June.

Those reports would be sent to local district attorneys, who have the option of reopening the cases. But, Connealy noted, “We can’t compel anything.”

“We’re just trying to make sure justice is served,” Connealy said. “What’s happening here isn’t just in Texas, it’s all across the United States. We need to make sure what we’re doing is indeed supported by up-to-date science.”

In Graf’s case, after the inmate filed to have the case reopened, Connealy said the McLennan County District Attorney’s office “reached out to us to get an expert to assist them in their review,” eventually working with the state fire marshal’s former chief investigator, Tommy Sing.

Sing attended the fire panel meeting in Houston and discussed the case, as did a panel member who reviewed the case in 2010, Connealy said. “So we had some broad background, but there are some additional things the forensic science commission would like provided” before they issue their findings, he said.

Graf’s evidentiary hearing before retired Judge George Allen, who originally heard his case, is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. Friday. Having exhausted his appeals, Graf has requested that the judge call for a new trial or issue a finding of actual innocence.

The judge will review Graf’s conviction and hear witnesses. Then he will make findings and a recommendation to the state’s court of criminal appeals, which will make the final decision.

NYC to restrict painkillers in emergency rooms

This is insane, the government telling hospital to restrict the use of pain killers because it might let a few dopers feel good. I guess the governments position is f*** all the really sick and hurt people who are in real pain.

Sure I think it's wrong for the government to tell doctors what drugs they can and can't prescribe. But I also think it is wrong for the government to force hospitals to provide free medical care for people too.

Source

New York City to Restrict Prescription Painkillers in Public Hospitals’ Emergency Rooms

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS

Published: January 10, 2013

Some of the most common and most powerful prescription painkillers on the market will be restricted sharply in the emergency rooms at New York City’s 11 public hospitals, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Thursday in an effort to crack down on what he called a citywide and national epidemic of prescription drug abuse.

Under the new city policy, most public hospital patients will no longer be able to get more than three days’ worth of narcotic painkillers like Vicodin and Percocet. Long-acting painkillers, including OxyContin, a familiar remedy for chronic backache and arthritis, as well as Fentanyl patches and methadone, will not be dispensed at all. And lost, stolen or destroyed prescriptions will not be refilled.

City officials said the policy was aimed at reducing the growing dependency on painkillers and preventing excess amounts of drugs from being taken out of medicine chests and sold on the street or abused by teenagers and others who want to get high.

“Abuse of prescription painkillers in our city has increased alarmingly,” Mr. Bloomberg said in announcing the new policy at Elmhurst Hospital Center, a public hospital in Queens. Over 250,000 New Yorkers over age 12 are abusing prescription painkillers, he said, leading to rising hospital admissions for overdoses and deaths, Medicare fraud by doctors who write false prescriptions and violent crime like “holdups at neighborhood pharmacies.”

But some critics said that poor and uninsured patients sometimes used the emergency room as their primary source of medical care. The restrictions, they said, could deprive doctors in the public hospital system — whose mission it is to treat poor people — of the flexibility that they need to respond to patients.

“Here is my problem with legislative medicine,” said Dr. Alex Rosenau, president-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians and senior vice chairman of emergency medicine at Lehigh Valley Health Network in Eastern Pennsylvania. “It prevents me from being a professional and using my judgment.”

While someone could fake a toothache to get painkillers, he said, another patient might have legitimate pain and not be able to get an appointment at a dental clinic for days. Or, he said, a patient with a hand injury may need more than three days of pain relief until the swelling goes down and an operation could be scheduled.

Dr. Rosenau said that the college of emergency physicians had not developed an official position on the prescribing of painkillers in emergency rooms and that he appreciated Mr. Bloomberg’s activism in the face of a serious public health problem. But he said pain clinics in states like Florida and California, states where prescription drug abuse is rampant, as well as the household medicine cabinet, were probably a more common source of unneeded painkillers than emergency rooms.

City health officials said the guidelines would not apply to patients who need prescriptions for cancer pain or palliative care, and drugs would still be available outside the emergency room. They said that in this era of patient-satisfaction surveys, doctors were often afraid to make patients unhappy by refusing drugs when they are requested, and the rules would give those doctors some support when they suspected that a patient might be faking pain to get drugs.

“There will be no chance that the patients who need pain relief will not get pain relief,” said Dr. Ross Wilson, senior vice president and chief medical officer of the Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs the city’s public hospitals.

Similar rules have been adopted in Washington State and Utah. Dr. Thomas A. Farley, the city’s health commissioner, said opioid painkillers were not much different from highly addictive and more taboo street drugs like heroin. He called them “heroin in pill form.”

More than two million prescriptions for opioid painkillers are written in New York City each year, the equivalent of a quarter of the city’s population, Dr. Farley said, and about 40,000 New Yorkers are already dependent on painkillers and need treatment. Painkillers were involved in 173 accidental overdose deaths in New York City in 2010, a 30 percent rise from five years earlier.

Officials could not say how many prescriptions were written at emergency rooms. Libby Holman, a spokeswoman for Purdue Pharma, which manufactures OxyContin, declined to comment.

Dr. Farley said the city lacked the regulatory authority to impose the new guidelines on its 50 or so private hospitals. But several private hospitals, including NYU Langone Medical Center in Manhattan and Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, said they would adopt them voluntarily.

Dr. Hillary Cohen, medical director of emergency medicine at Maimonides, said that even now, OxyContin was rarely prescribed in the emergency room.

Porn producer sues to block L.A. condom law

Porn producer sues to block L.A. condom law

Associated Press Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:06 PM

LOS ANGELES — A major adult filmmaker sued to block a new Los Angeles County law requiring porn actors to wear condoms, calling it a threat to free expression.

Vivid Entertainment contends that Measure B, passed by county voters last fall, violates the First Amendment right to free speech and expression and is unnecessary because the adult industry already has safeguards, such as regular blood testing of actors, to prevent the spread of AIDS and other venereal diseases.

The suit, filed Thursday in federal court, also contends that the law is vague, burdensome and ineffective and is pre-empted by California laws and regulations. It asks the court to block the measure’s enforcement and to rule it unconstitutional.

A call to the county counsel’s office seeking comment from attorneys involved in the case was not immediately returned.

The measure requires adult film producers to apply for a permit from the county Department of Public Health to shoot sex scenes. Permit fees will finance periodic inspections of film sets to enforce compliance.

However, public health authorities have not announced specific enforcement measures for the law.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which sponsored the initiative, said the measure will help safeguard the public, as well as porn workers, from sexually transmitted infections.

Adult film actors rallied to oppose the law before its November passage.

“The idea of allowing a government employee to come and examine our genitalia while we’re on set is atrocious,” sex film star Amber Lynn told the Los Angeles Daily News at the time.

Industry critics also said that fans don’t want to see actors using condoms. They contend that if the law is enforced, the 200 or so companies that now produce adult films in Los Angeles, primarily in the San Fernando Valley, will simply move elsewhere, taking with them as many as 10,000 jobs.

“Overturning this law is something I feel very passionate about. I believe the industry’s current testing system works well,” Steven Hirsch, Vivid’s founder and co-chairman, said in a statement. “Since 2004 over 300,000 explicit scenes have been filmed with zero HIV transmission. The new law makes no sense and it imposes a government licensing regime on making films that are protected by the Constitution.”

The law also will have “have vast unintended consequences which may undermine industry efforts to protect the health of our actors and actresses,” Hirsch said.

Califa Productions, which produces adult films for Vivid, and actors who uses the stage names Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, joined the suit, which names the county, its district attorney and public health director.

Some states unhappy about the idea of happy hours

To really screw up things it takes GOVERNMENT

You had a lousy day and are looking for a cheep cold brew after work to unwind, but a lot of elected officials think they know how to run your life better then you do and have passed laws to prevent you form doing that.

Source

Some states unhappy about the idea of happy hours

Posted: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:00 pm | Updated: 9:53 am, Wed Jan 9, 2013.

Associated Press

During "happy hour" at the Summer Winter bar in Burlington, Mass., the bargain is on the bivalves, not the brews.

That's because Massachusetts legislators passed a law in 1984 banning bars from offering cut-price drinks. So James Flaherty, the bar's director of food and beverage, decided to use shellfish specials to draw customers.

"We've had to get creative by offering something other than a typical happy hour," he said. "Having a raw bar at the heart of the restaurant, we launched Oyster Happy Hour to appeal to the after work crowd with fresh, local selections and it's become a popular draw."

And Massachusetts isn't alone. The concept of happy hour — when bars offer lower prices or two-for-one specials — may seem like an American tradition, but is in fact illegal or restricted in quite a few places.

Laws vary by state, and even districts within states, so it's hard to get a handle on the national picture, but Ben Jenkins, vice president of government communications for the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), has noted some recent activity aimed at updating happy hour laws.

A few states, including Oklahoma, Massachusetts and Virginia, recently have considered changes to existing restrictions. The bills failed, but are likely to re-emerge.

Meanwhile, happy hour became legal in Kansas last year after a 26-year ban. In 2011, Pennsylvania extended happy hour potentials from two to four hours and New Hampshire changed its law to allow establishments to advertise drinks specials.

DISCUS does not take a position on happy hour bills, but Jenkins sees the activity in the context of a larger modernization trend. "States across the country are updating their liquor laws to provide better consumer convenience and increased revenue without raising taxes," he says.

The patchwork nature of the laws is a holdover from Prohibition, when states were left to set regulations once the federal ban had been repealed. Some of the laws written then are still on the books, which can strike an anachronistic note today. For instance, it's still illegal to sell alcohol in South Carolina on Election Day. And it may surprise you to know that Moore County in Tennessee is "dry" and also home to the Jack Daniel Distillery.

The reasoning behind happy hour bans or restrictions generally stems from concerns that lowering prices will encourage high consumption and its ensuing problems.

"Some communities have issues of morality regarding promoting the drinking of alcohol or concerns regarding the kinds of behavior that can come from drinking too much," notes Kyle-Beth Hilfer, an advertising and marketing attorney with the New York-based law firm Collen IP.

Having so many different rules means bar owners and restaurateurs need to keep up with changes in the laws and read existing statutes carefully, says Hilfer.

Some states allow happy hours, but ban advertising them. Oregon, on the other hand, is OK with bars advertising general happy hours but not specific price discounts. Utah outlawed happy hours in 2011.

Advertising also can be tricky. A state may OK advertising happy hour specials, but going beyond the simple price and inviting customers to "lose weight at our low-carb beer happy hour," could be subject to regulation by state alcohol beverage officials, Hilfer explains. She recommends that proprietors of venues that serve alcohol and have happy hours have a lawyer vet advertising copy.

Social media has added a new twist to the mix. In Virginia, it's illegal for bars and restaurants to advertise happy hours in electronic media, radio, TV and the Internet, a law that goes back to 1984, long before Twitter had left the nest. This year, Virginia legislators considered changing the rules, though the bill ultimately was withdrawn, partly due to concerns about underage drinking.

This wasn't Virginia's first time to update old laws. In 2006, a tapas restaurant was cited for serving sangria because its recipe, a mix of red wine, brandy and fruit, violated a 1934 law prohibiting the mixing of wine or beer and spirits.

In 2008, lawmakers passed a bill sanctioning sangria.

U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick is a gun grabber!!!!

Kirkpatrick now more receptive to gun control

Associated Press Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:24 PM

FLAGSTAFF -- U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick was a staunch supporter of gun owners’ rights when she first served in Congress, but the Flagstaff Democrat is not making blanket statements supporting all such rights since the December school shooting in Connecticut.

Kirkpatrick wrote in a recent guest column for the Arizona Daily Star that “everything should be on the table,” including assault-weapon laws.

“The mass shooting in Connecticut has launched our nation to a new level of grief and outrage. It’s all painfully familiar to southern Arizonans. As a former prosecutor and congresswoman — and as a mother — I know we must act. Our children’s safety is at stake,” Kirkpatrick said in the column.

Her mention of southern Arizonans was an apparent reference to the 2011 mass shooting outside Tucson in which several people were killed and then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was gravely wounded.

Kirkpatrick served one term in the U.S. House before losing a re-election bid in 2010 to Republican Paul Gosar. Gosar ran for re-election in a different district in 2012 following redistricting, and Kirkpatrick beat Republican Jonathan Paton in November to return to Congress.

Kirkpatrick represents the largely rural 1st Congressional District, which runs from Flagstaff and the Navajo Nation on the north to the outskirts of Tucson on the south.

Kirkpatrick said in 2010 that she opposed bans on some types of weapons, and she called firearm ownership a fundamental right. [Like most politicians she will say anything to get elected]

“I think people should be able to legally purchase and carry the gun that they want,” she told a caller to a radio show in 2010.

During a public call-in meeting she held in 2010, Kirkpatrick said she opposed bans on some types of firearms, opposed District of Columbia and Chicago laws barring private ownership of some types of guns, and supported allowing guns in national parks.

“It may be more important than ever to protect the right to bear and keep arms, because too many people in Washington right now do not share or understand our values,” she said in a 2010 prepared statement.

Disabled Arizona man's giant controller helps other video gamers

Source

Disabled Arizona man's giant controller helps other video gamers

Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:01 am

By Scott McNutt, Casa Grande Dispatch

CASA GRANDE — A Casa Grande man who is a former U.S. Border Patrol agent created and patented a video game controller for people with severe spinal cord injuries.

Luis Pena formed LP Accessible Technologies and created the controller out of necessity. He was injured in an auto accident on the job in 2007 and is a quadriplegic.

His company focuses on building video game controllers that disabled people can use to play video games.

A longtime video game buff, Pena missed playing games after he recovered from the accident. So, he set out to create a controller he, and other people with disabilities, could use.

The result is the LP Pad, which Pena says is just like an Xbox remote control except for its size. It operates like a regular remote through Bluetooth technology and is fully compatible with the Xbox 360 gaming system.

It weighs less than a pound and is made specifically to sit on the user's lap. The controller features large buttons that are activated simply by brushing a hand across them.

"People who are like me can only push with like three or four pounds of pressure," Pena said.

Or, users can plug a "chin stick" into the LP Pad, and they're ready to play any video game made for the Xbox.

Pena said he is working hard to get the controller available for use on PS3 gaming systems and hopes to have one developed within a year.

For now, he is taking his controller all over the country to show people with disabilities how they can again enjoy playing video games.

"I'm hoping eventually we can get a licensing agreement from Microsoft so we can sell these game controllers at a lower cost at Best Buy, GameStop, Wal-Mart, anywhere," Pena said.

Pena's controllers sell for $399.99. The controller can be purchased at www.lpaccessibletechnologies.com.

<SNIP>

Pena requires assistance from a caregiver, and after four years of help from Kaylin Winkelmann, he says she's his best friend. Winkelmann is also Pena's business partner in LP Accessible Technologies.

Starting the company was a big step for Pena.

"It's hard not to get excited and at the same time we're nervous because we spent so much time and money just trying to get the prototype pad working correctly," he said. Pena and Winkelmann travel to hospitals, rehabilitation centers, trade shows and conventions to demonstrate the controller.

"Everybody that has used it absolutely falls in love with it. There is nothing out there at all for people like us," with spinal cord injuries, Pena said.

Dream Act activist’s family taken into custody in Mesa

Dream Act activist’s family taken into custody in Mesa

By Daniel Gonzáles and Danielle Grobmeier

The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:30 PM

The mother and brother of a Mesa leader of the Dream Act movement were picked up by federal immigration officers Thursday night, drawing a national outcry from immigration reform advocates.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials released the brother of Erika Andiola on Friday morning and indicated Andiola’s mother was released a short time later amid an outpouring of criticism from immigrant and Latino advocates.

ICE officials said Friday that they did not target the Andiola family because of their involvement in the Dream Act movement.

Andiola, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, is a founder of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, a group of immigrant youths that advocate for the legalization of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. In July 2012, she drew national attention when Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, a main proponent of the Dream Act, held up a large color poster of Andiola on the Senate floor while describing how Andiola had managed to graduate with honors with a bachelor’s degree in pyschology from Arizona State University despite her undocumented status.

On Thursday, Andiola posted a tearful video on YouTube moments after ICE officials came to her home in Mesa and took away her mother and brother. The video, along with tweets Andiola posted on social media, helped mobilize a national outcry from immigrant and Latino advocates demanding that ICE release Andiola’s mother, Maria Arreola, and brother, Heriberto Andiola Arreola.

In a conference call with reporters this morning, Andiola said she believes ICE may have come to arrest her mother as the result of a traffic stop for speeding in September by Mesa police.

After the traffic arrest, Andiola posted videos on YouTube accusing the Mesa police of racial profiling under a provision of the state’s immigration enforcement law Senate Bill 1070, which took effect a few days before Arreola’s arrest.

Today, Andiola also suggested that ICE may have targeted her relatives to retaliate against her for her work as an immigrant activist.

What remains unclear is why ICE arrested the two only to decide to release them so soon afterward.

Guidelines implemented by the Obama administration in 2011 direct ICE officers in the field to focus on arresting illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds that pose a threat to public safety or national security.

A statement released by ICE spokeswoman Amber Cargile did not say what led to the arrests.

The statement said the two were being released because an initial review of the two cases showed they met ICE’s policy for prosecutorial discretion, even though one of them had previously been removed from the country.

“A fuller review of the cases is currently ongoing,” the statement said. “ICE exercises prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances in an individual case.”

Andiola said ICE officers came to her house about 9 p.m. Thursday and asked for her mother. She said they handcuffed her mother and as they were leaving, the ICE officers spotted her brother outside and asked him for his ID.

She said when her brother said he was not carrying an ID the ICE officers began asking him if he was undocumented. She said the ICE officers arrested him after he refused to answer any questions about his immigration status.

High electric use lets cops find marijuana farmers????

But because marijuana is illegal, pot farmers resort to stealing electricity to grow their pot inside.

I suspect the marijuana farmers are stealing the electricity because they think the government has ordered electric companies to report people with large electric bills to the police as suspected marijuana farmers.

So as usual the government is the cause of the problem, not the solution to the problem.

Source

San Jose: Tip leads to grow houses, marijuana worth $700,000

By Eric Kurhi

ekurhi@mercurynews.com

Posted: 01/11/2013 06:15:23 PM PST

SAN JOSE -- A tip led the Santa Clara County drug enforcement squad to more than $700,000 worth of marijuana at a pair of grow houses rigged with wiring to bypass the electricity meter to avert suspicion, officials said.

Hai Minh Vo, 37, and Tiffany Huynh, 41, were arrested Thursday without incident at their residence on Rue Lyon in San Jose. They are believed to be involved in the grow houses on the 1300 block of Trestlewood Drive and 4300 block of Crescendo Avenue, which were both modified to serve the sole purpose of cultivating marijuana, according to Santa Clara County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Jose Cardoza.

"We got an anonymous tip a month ago, and from there the Marijuana Enforcement Team investigators started a surveillance operation," Cardoza said.

He said it was "not your average small operation."

"This took time, this took planning," he said. "It involved bypassing power lines and more than one home. It was a sophisticated setup." [Not really, bypassing an electric meter is a trivial task if you know what you are doing.]

While Cardoza said the electrical modification was likely done "so it so doesn't alert power companies to additional power brought into residence," a PG&E spokeswoman said they don't investigate usage unless alerted by authorities or a complaint of tampering. [The question is does PG&E report large residential users of electricity to the police as suspected marijuana farmers?]

"There are a lot of home-based businesses, and a lot of people telecommuting," said Monica Tell of PG&E. "Even though there might be a huge spike in a bill, we can't assume it's a grow house, and we respect the privacy rights of our customers."

However, she said "people have gotten very creative in terms of how to tamper with equipment" and added that ultimately it puts them in danger of causing a fire or even an outage in the area.

Between the two homes, 307 plants were seized along with 45 pounds of processed marijuana. Cardoza said each plant translates to a pound of pot, which in turn has a street value of $2,000. [$2,000 a pound??? That's sounds too high. That means the pot is selling on the street for $125 an ounce?]

Vo and Huynh were arrested on suspicion of unlawful marijuana cultivation, possession of marijuana for sale, conspiracy and theft of utilities.

Cardoza said the county's marijuana squad usually works on tracking down outdoor operations in rural areas during the grow season from spring to early winter, focusing on in-house crops in the off months.

Last year, the team removed more than 91,000 plants and 500 pounds of marijuana from grow operations, 22 of which were outdoors and seven indoors. They made 21 arrests and confiscated nine guns.

Contact Eric Kurhi at 408-920-5852. Follow him at Twitter.com/erickurhi.

Arizona National Guard Crimes Covered Up

Businessman in fraud case ties Utah AG to scheme

Businessman in fraud case ties Utah AG to scheme

Associated Press Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:38 PM

SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah businessman accused of running a fraudulent $350 million software scheme says the state attorney general arranged a deal to pay Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a federal investigation into the software business disappear.

St. George businessman Jeremy Johnson, who’s accused of billing hundreds of thousands of consumers for products they never ordered, told The Salt Lake Tribune that newly elected Attorney General John Swallow set up a deal in 2010 for Johnson to pay $600,000 to people connected to Reid.

Johnson says be believed that Reid, a Nevada senator, might intervene in the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation.

Swallow strongly denies the allegations and maintains he only offered to connect Johnson with a lobbying firm. At the time, he was serving as Utah’s chief deputy attorney general.

The FBI and Reid’s office would not comment on the allegations.

Federal prosecutors initially charged Johnson, 37, with one count of mail fraud. He was set to enter a guilty plea Friday to two additional charges of bank fraud and money laundering as part of an agreement with the government.

But that deal fell apart Friday after Johnson and prosecutors disagreed over the terms. Johnson instead decided to maintain his not guilty plea and the case is set to go to trial.

If convicted, Johnson could face decades in prison. He is currently free on a $2.8 million bond.

On Saturday, The Tribune reported (http://bit.ly/UGd4Ww) that Johnson provided emails, financial statements, photos, and a transcript of a recorded meeting with Swallow to the newspaper. Only one email from Johnson was available on the newspaper’s website.

After the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against Johnson and nine business associates in December 2010, Johnson said he asked Swallow to return part of the $250,000 he had paid. Johnson said he doesn’t know if anyone connected to Reid received it.

Indicted businessman: Utah A.G. tied to alleged scheme

Indicted businessman: Utah A.G. tied to alleged scheme

By Tom Harvey and Robert Gehrke

The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Jan 11 2013 11:59 pm

Embattled St. George businessman Jeremy Johnson says new Utah Attorney General John Swallow helped broker a deal in 2010 in which Johnson believed he was to pay Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid $600,000 to make a federal investigation into Johnson’s company go away.

But when the federal government filed a lawsuit Johnson thought he had paid to quash, he demanded Swallow return some of the $250,000 initial payment. Then, just days before the Nov. 6 election, Johnson engaged in a frenetic but unsuccessful effort to get Swallow to drop out of the race, saying information about what Johnson called a "bribe" would come out and force the Republican’s resignation if he became attorney general.

Johnson’s allegations come less than a week after Swallow took the oath of office. Federal agents have interviewed several Utahns about Johnson’s relationship with Swallow, among other issues, according to those interviewed. The FBI would not comment.

Johnson said he does not know if any of the money he paid in the deal actually reached anyone connected to Reid.

Reid’s office declined to comment, spokeswoman Kristen Orthman said Friday.

To back his allegations, Johnson provided an email from Swallow that Johnson identified as key in supporting his claims. Johnson also granted access to at least several dozen other emails, two financial records, several photos and a transcript of about 60 pages of a secretly recorded April 2012 meeting Johnson had with Swallow, who was then Utah’s chief deputy attorney general.

The documents appear to support Johnson’s story that in 2010 Swallow brokered a deal between Johnson and Richard M. Rawle, owner of the Provo-based payday-loan company Check City, to enlist Rawle to use his influence to get Reid involved on behalf of Johnson and I Works, Johnson’s Internet marketing company that was under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.

Swallow emphatically denies Johnson’s allegations and said he doesn’t understand why Johnson is spreading lies about him.

"Any suggestion by Mr. Johnson that I have been involved in illegal or inappropriate activity regarding his FTC case or any other matter is false and defamatory," Swallow said.

Swallow insists Johnson approached him in 2010 and sought help to hire a lobbyist to deal with his FTC issues. "I told Jeremy I could not and would not intervene with the FTC on his behalf, given my position with the state [attorney general]," Swallow said. Johnson later asked Swallow to approach the U.S. attorney on his behalf, but Swallow said he refused.

Political clout » Johnson sought help from Swallow in early 2010, when he felt the FTC was unjustly targeting him and I Works with an investigation into the company’s business practices.

At the time, Johnson was largely known in Utah as a wealthy philanthropist who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferry supplies into Haiti after the devastating 2010 earthquake.

Johnson, his business partners and family members also were generous political donors, having given more than $200,000 in campaign contributions to then-Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff starting in 2008 while Swallow served as Shurtleff’s lead fundraiser. Johnson also supported charities and Attorney General’s Office initiatives in which Shurtleff was involved. Johnson flew Shurtleff on his private jet to a fundraiser in California. Photographs from the summer of 2009 show the two men sitting in Johnson’s yellow Lamborghini sports car.

Copies of emails show Swallow worked with Shurtleff to arrange meetings between Johnson and top Utah officeholders.

Then, with the FTC investigation continuing, Johnson said Swallow suggested Reid could make problems with regulators go away — for a price.

"I said, ‘OK, what do I need to do?’ He’s like, ‘OK, it costs money,’ " Johnson said, who claimed Swallow was adamant he make a deal.

"I think he told me, ‘Richard Rawle has a connection with Harry Reid,’ " Johnson said.

He said Swallow at first wanted $2 million to enlist Reid’s help. But I Works was no longer profitable and he did not have the money, Johnson said, so they eventually agreed on $300,000 upfront and $300,000 later.

Swallow put Johnson in contact with Rawle, whose company has operations in Nevada. Rawle had given generously to Swallow’s failed congressional bids and hired Swallow as Check City’s lobbyist and in-house legal counsel, a position Swallow held until he became chief deputy attorney general in December 2009.

Rawle, who died of cancer last month, had contributed to Reid’s 2010 re-election bid and later bragged to Johnson that the Nevada Democrat helped him delay new federal payday-loan regulations, Johnson said.

On Sept. 29, 2010, Swallow sent an email to Johnson with the subject line "Mtg. with Harry Reid’s contact."

"Richard [Rawle] is traveling to LV tomorrow and will be able to contact this person, who he has a very good relationship with. He needs a brief narrative of what is going on and what you want to happen. I don’t know the cost, but it probably won’t be cheap."

On Oct. 7, Johnson emailed Rawle, insisting there was "rock solid proof" the FTC allegations against I Works were false. "We will do whatever it take[s] to get Senator Reid on our side and hopefully you can help make it happen. Let me know."

They arranged an Oct. 9 meeting at Check City’s Provo headquarters. Johnson said he, Swallow and Rawle attended, along with at least two other people.

Five days later, on Oct. 14, Rawle registered a new company called RMR Consulting LLC with the state, Department of Commerce records show. On Nov. 2, an official with a Check City-related company called Softwise Inc. emailed Johnson, with a copy to Rawle: "We wanted to let you know that we have our people in Washington D.C. currently working with the FTC on your case. … Also, the initial retainer of $50,000 can now be wired to RMR Consulting, LLC."

The writer provided an account number at Bonneville Bank.

A copy of I Works’ general ledger that same day shows $50,000 was paid to RMR Consulting for "legal fees." Another $200,015 was paid Dec. 2.

—

FTC proceeds with suit » But less than three weeks later, on Dec. 21, 2010, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Johnson, I Works and others in federal court in Las Vegas.

The suit alleges illegal marketing and billing practices for online sales of kits and access to websites with information about such things as obtaining government grants for personal expenses and making money online. It also alleges Johnson created a number of shell companies whose connections to I Works were hidden so they could continue to bill customers after Visa and Mastercard threatened to cut him off because a large number of cardholders had reversed charges.

Johnson said he called Swallow and asked him why the lawsuit was filed after he had paid for it to go away. According to Johnson, Swallow told him it was because Johnson hadn’t paid the second $300,000 they had agreed on and that Reid believed he had the money.

Johnson said he had no documentation or direct knowledge that any of the money went to Reid or the senator’s associates.

Because the money he paid had done nothing for him and I Works, Johnson began a months-long effort to pressure Swallow and Rawle into returning at least some of the money, which Johnson had borrowed from a friend who also was an I Works executive.

In June 2011, Johnson was charged with a single criminal count of mail fraud and was arrested at the Phoenix airport while waiting to board a plane for Costa Rica, where he hoped to start a helicopter tourism business after I Works had been taken over by a court-appointed receiver and his assets were frozen.

Johnson spent 96 days in jail until federal prosecutors relented and a judge granted bail of $2.8 million.

While he was in jail, Johnson said, Swallow worried Johnson was cutting a deal with federal prosecutors. Just after Johnson’s release, and with Swallow a candidate for attorney general, Johnson said Swallow and his campaign consultant, Jason Powers, met him at a St. George hotel, where Johnson said he again pressured Swallow to come up with the money.

Powers said his memory about the meeting is hazy, but he recalls the atmosphere as being cordial and remembers discussion of a meeting with Rawle that Johnson claimed Swallow attended, but Swallow said he had not. According to Powers, Johnson agreed.

—

Secret recording » Swallow and Johnson then met on April 30 of last year at the Krispy Kreme doughnut shop in Orem, according to Johnson. Swallow said he believed the meeting’s purpose was to persuade him to encourage Rawle to return the money.

Without Swallow’s knowledge, Johnson had the meeting photographed and recorded. Photos show Johnson and Swallow seated at a table facing each other.

In a transcript of the recording prepared by Intermountain Court Reporters, Swallow at first denies having met with Rawle and Johnson at the October meeting at Check City’s offices and said all his interactions with Johnson focused on hiring lobbyists to influence the FTC.

Johnson takes none of it, and points to Swallow’s Sept. 29, 2010, email in which Swallow mentions Reid and money. Johnson also tells him Rawle bragged about getting help from Reid to delay new payday-loan rules.

"I’d like to have it legally through lobbyists," Swallow tells Johnson, who replies, "I understand."

They discuss what the FBI might have, including emails from Swallow that were stored on I Works computers the federal government seized.

"Probably the only one they’d like to roast more than me would be a public official," Johnson at one point tells Swallow, whom Johnson described as being pale, nervous and visibly sweating during the meeting.

"I don’t feel like it’s a crime at all," Swallow says.

Johnson tells Swallow that others at I Works knew of their deal and could corroborate Swallow’s involvement and the purpose of the payments, according to the transcript.

Swallow insists the money was meant to hire a lobbying firm.

"There’s nothing wrong with that," Swallow says. "As long as I’m not interfering with a government agency as a government official, there’s nothing wrong with me being involved."

Swallow insists during the meeting he did nothing wrong "criminally," but "politically — politically, I go whoa."

Later, Swallow says, "Let’s assume that you paid me to put the deal together. … What’s wrong with that?"

Johnson reminds him, "The problem is that email you sent. ... You sent me an email about what this money was gonna do and how it was gonna go to Reed [original spelling in transcript]."

"No wonder they’re after me," Swallow replies.

Swallow eventually acknowledges he had received $20,000 from an unspecified Rawle company about the time when I Works made the payments to RMR Consulting, according to the transcript. But Swallow claims the payments were for consulting work on a proposed cement plant on Paiute tribal land in Nevada. He says he first billed Rawle in October 2010 and then billed him for $15,000 in March 2011.

"I’m really vulnerable," Swallow says later in the conversation, acknowledging after that, "I’m worried about RMR."

Swallow agrees to press Rawle to return some of the money.

—

Swallow responds » Swallow maintained he only helped put Johnson in contact with someone who could help hire lobbyists. He said he had no part in any deal and received no compensation.

"I can say this emphatically: I have never had a financial arrangement with Mr. Johnson and no money has ever been offered or solicited," Swallow said.

He acknowledged doing consulting for Rawle on a Nevada limestone project, but said the payments did not violate Utah law.

Swallow said he has hired the law firm of Clyde Snow & Sessions, which is working on a defamation case against those who are spreading lies about him.

"[Johnson] is extremely intelligent," Swallow said, "and appears to have a well-conceived plan to divert attention from his problems and draw attention to someone else."

By October, Johnson had agreed to a deal in the criminal case in which he would admit guilt to two charges, which prosecutors added as part of the plea deal. In exchange, Johnson said, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said it would not prosecute his family, friends, associates or Swallow. Johnson said the cases brought against him ruined his life and he believed that, although Swallow had done wrong, he did not deserve to also have his life destroyed.

On Oct. 26, as the election approached, Johnson said he told Swallow in a text message that he needed to pay back some of the money. By that time, Rawle was suffering from cancer and the extensive treatments to combat it. He died Dec. 8.

Cort Walker, a spokesman for Check City who according to an email also arranged the payment to RMR, did not return phone messages Friday.

—

Election flurry » Just days before the Nov. 6 election, Johnson said he would try to make Swallow quit the race to save Swallow the pain and embarrassment of having to resign and be investigated after he won.

First, Johnson wanted to meet Democratic candidate Dee Smith to assess his character as a prosecutor, arranging a dinner meeting at Bambara restaurant in Salt Lake City.

"I went and met with him," Smith said. "He just indicated that he wanted to talk with me and wanted to make sure that, as he termed it, that I was a good guy because he told me he was going to be dropping what he called a bomb and it was going to end the attorney general’s race and, as a result of it, I was going to be the next attorney general."

Smith said Johnson didn’t give him any specifics and Smith didn’t ask for details.

Johnson said he immediately liked Smith and believed him to be an honest prosecutor.

After the meeting with Smith, on Oct. 30, Johnson said he left a voicemail and sent a text message to Shurtleff, saying he wanted to meet to discuss Swallow.

The two met the next day outside a Salt Lake City Gateway condo, where Johnson was staying, Johnson said. He told Shurtleff about Swallow’s deal and that the information would come out soon. He urged Shurtleff to press Swallow to drop out. Shurtleff said it was unlikely Swallow would quit at that late date, according to Johnson, but Shurtleff agreed to speak to Swallow about the allegations.

Swallow said Shurtleff didn’t talk to him about getting out of the race.

Shurtleff did not return requests for comment Friday.

On Nov. 6, Swallow collected about 65 percent of the vote to become Utah’s attorney general.

On Dec. 3, Johnson said Swallow paid $75,000, but sent it to his friend’s attorney and notified the FTC, which could have a claim to the funds. Swallow said the payment was made by Rawle as a partial refund on the lobbying agreement.

Swallow was sworn into office Monday.

On Friday, Johnson and federal prosecutors aborted a deal in which he was to plead guilty to bank fraud and money laundering, with an 11-year prison sentence recommended to the judge.

"The truth is the worst thing I think I’ve done was I paid money knowing it was going to influence Harry Reid," he said. "So I’ve felt all along that I’ve committed bribery of some sort there."

In another conversation, Johnson said, "I shouldn’t have done it. I regret it."

tharvey@sltrib.com,

gehrke@sltrib.com

Mesa Police Officer Bill Richardson is a gun grabber???

Source

Richardson: Arizona cities shouldn’t be turned into gun supermarkets

Retired Mesa master police officer Bill Richardson lives in the East Valley and can be reached at bill.richardson@cox.net.

Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 8:31 am

Guest commentary by Bill Richardson

How would you like to buy a gun [or a used car] that killed an Arizona police officer?

Would you like to be the owner of the gun that delivered a fatal bullet into a police officer and took away a spouse, a father, mother or a someone’s child?

If a cop killer gun isn’t available how would like to buy the military grade rifles that were taken from the scene of a Gilbert mass murder that was carried out by an avowed white supremacist?

Or what about guns [or used cars] that were used to murder two Arizona State University students in Tempe?

The .22 pistol that was used to execute five women and children at a Mesa beauty school might still be available for purchase?

How about the rifle [or used car] that was used to murder nine people at the Wat Promkunaram Buddhist Temple in western Maricopa County? The dead included six monks and an elderly nun.

All of the murder weapons I mentioned and thousands more could end up in a gun store for sale if a new Arizona law that went into effect in August is interpreted in a manner that would force police departments, sheriff’s offices and the Arizona Department of Public Safety to sell all seized firearms used in crimes.

The guns that were used to seriously wound a Phoenix police officer on Monday and a Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputy on Tuesday could soon be in a gun store near you.

Should the guns used to murder three police officers from Chandler and Gilbert be sold to the highest bidder?

The law designed to prevent police agencies from destroying seized guns, Arizona Revised Statutes 12-941, was pushed through the legislature last year on the premise that it could raise money for the communities where the weapons were seized following the commission of a crime.

On Jan. 5, the Arizona Republic reported that the Citizens Defense League told the State Senate Judiciary Committee last year that local agencies were “leaving money on the table” by not selling the weapons. The story went on to say the Citizens Defense League “could provide no estimate of how much the bill could save taxpayers, nor could any law-enforcement agency that currently trades weapons or is preparing to do so.”

Maybe a cop killer’s gun might bring high dollar in a less than scrupulous gun store, weirdo memorabilia auction or on eBay, but most of the guns I’ve seized and seen police in police custody aren’t in the best of shape. Some were even potentially dangerous.

I can see it now: police are forced to sell an unsafe weapon to a gun dealer who in turn sells it to a citizen who has the gun blow-up and who then sues the police agency that was forced by the legislature to sell it.

While our legislature is fixated on taking guns seized by officers and forcing police agencies to sell them, I have yet to hear a peep from the law and order crowd at the state capital on the issue of funding a statewide law enforcement effort to target those who sell weapons to the felons and careers criminals who keep committing new crimes, including murdering police officers and innocent citizens.

Police officers I’ve spoken with have told me Arizona is a wide open supermarket when it comes to illegal guns that flow easily into the hands of criminals.

The legislature’s move to turn cities into gun dealers is a misguided role for state government.

What might work in Show Low could be a far cry from what’s needed in the East Valley and metro Phoenix.

Instead of making local governments gun dealers, creating potential liability for mayors, city councils and police chiefs, the legislature needs to make Arizona streets safer by targeting illegal sellers of guns to career criminals.

Retired Mesa master police officer Bill Richardson lives in the East Valley and can be reached at bill.richardson@cox.net.

Jan Brewer wants to create a jobs program for cops in schools?

Source

Brewer in favor of officers on AZ campuses over arming educators

Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:41 am

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Parting ways with some other Republicans, Gov. Jan Brewer said Thursday she does not want armed teachers, principals and volunteers in public schools.

In an interview with Capitol Media Services, the governor said she is instead leaning toward the idea of restoring at least some of the state funds that schools used to hire trained police officers.

Cash for these "school resource officers'' has been cut sharply in prior years to help the state balance its budget. But Arizona now is looking at a possible $600 million surplus for the coming fiscal year.

Her stance puts her in the same camp as House Minority Leader Chad Campbell who advanced his own plan for more school resource officers earlier in the week.

"I believe in safe areas,'' she said.

"We need to make sure that our most precious resources are safe,'' the governor continued. "I will do what it is I can do moving forwards in regards to school safety.''

But Brewer said that, given all the demands on state funding, she cannot agree to the $100 million price tag on Campbell's plan for more officers. She called that unrealistic.

Details of her own plan will come Monday when she gives her State of the State address.

Brewer acknowledged that some of her Republican colleagues believe the best way to protect children is to have more people with guns in schools to offer protection.

Attorney General Tom Horne proposed having each school designate a single individual who would have access to weapons that presumably would remain locked up until needed. Horne offered to make his 36 investigators, all of whom are sworn peace officers, available to provide training to those who are designated.

And earlier this week, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said he sees no reason why individual teachers who own guns should not be able to bring them to work.

Brewer said she's not interested in anything like that.

"I guess they're entitled to their opinion,'' she said. "I'm not a supporter of that.''

Brewer also has to make a decision soon on whether the state will expand the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid program, to cover everyone up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. That's about $25,400 a year for a family of three.

Arizona currently provides care up to the federal poverty level. But even there, there are exceptions as the state, in a budget-cutting move, stopped enrolling single adults even if their income put them below the federal poverty level.

While the main focus is providing health coverage, with the federal government picking up most of the cost, the governor's decision is also linked to the question of gun safety.

That is because an expanded program would also mean more people who could get mental health coverage. And there is evidence that some people involved in mass shootings, including Jared Loughner in the 2011 Tucson incident that left six dead, had fallen through the cracks and not received treatment that might have precluded their action.

Brewer, though, reiterated her stance that additional restrictions on weapons are not appropriate. And she chastised those who are making such calls.

"You know, some people want to make this such an exaggerated issue,'' she said.

"But the bottom line is that it's part of the Constitution,'' the governor continued. "It's the Second Amendment of the land.''

Utah narcs bust restaurants who serve liquor before the customer orders food!!!

Source

Utah liquor cops clamp down on drinks before food

The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Jan 09 2013 07:26 am

On the eve of one of the year’s biggest gatherings of out-of-state visitors, restaurant owners in Utah are learning the hard way that it’s illegal for diners to sip an alcoholic beverage while deciding what to order from the menu.

Compliance officers and the state’s liquor-control agency say they are warning owners that their employees are in violation of Utah law if they serve alcohol before diners actually request food. To back up the effort, authorities in undercover stings have issued citations to eateries for this type of violation, which in the past was rarely enforced.

In December alone, nine restaurants paid fines, compared with five who were cited during the 11 previous months and with only one the year before. None of the restaurants had a history of previous violations.

The violation carries a liquor license suspension of five to 30 days or fines from $500 to $3,000.

The stricter enforcement comes just before the opening of the Sundance Film Festival on Jan. 17. Undercover officers will be patrolling restaurants that serve many of the tens of thousands of people from Utah and worldwide who attend the 11-day event, which brings in nearly $70 million to the state’s economy. Now, when restaurants are crowded, diners waiting for tables will have to forgo an alcoholic beverage, including people who have made reservations, and customers who are seated may not have a beverage until they place an order for food.

"This will hurt tourism," said Joe Fraser, co-owner of seven ‘Bout Time Pub & Grub restaurants and bars in the state. "Utah already has a stigma that it’s difficult to get a drink, and now there’s one more hurdle people will have to face."

A spokeswoman for the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control says the enforcement effort is a reaction to restaurants becoming lax in their procedures, but those associated with dining establishments in the state contend there’s been shift toward a stricter interpretation of the law, evidenced by recent DABC warnings to all restaurant owners.

"There’s absolutely been a change in policy — a huge change," said attorney Rick Golden, who worked at the DABC from 1977 to 1988 and has since represented clients before the board that oversees the agency’s operations.

In the past, compliance officers told restaurant servers they needed evidence that diners intended to order food before serving them an alcoholic beverage, said Golden. This could include a query such as, "Are you intending to dine with us tonight?"

While having a drink, patrons also were allowed to study the menu before deciding what to order, he contends.

Speaking Tuesday on behalf of the DABC, which since the fall has been under the direction of Salvador Petilos, who took over after a series of critical legislative audits led to departure of several top agency officials, spokeswoman Vickie Ashby denied there had been any broad change of policy. She referred to a statute which states "restaurant licensee may not sell, offer for sale, or furnish an alcoholic product except in connection with an order for food prepared, sold, and furnished at the licensed premises."

Ashby added that because some restaurants were not following the law, the DABC issued a reminder within the body of a holiday newsletter. Under the title, "Warning!" it said in bold print that to avoid penalties "the best practice would be to require that the food order be placed prior to service of the alcoholic beverage."

New DABC compliance director Nina McDermott was even more direct in a December memo to trainers who instruct servers on alcohol laws: "I have heard from quite a few licensees (restaurants) that a patron may order one drink while reviewing the menu but no second drink will be served without an order of food. The law does not allow for a one drink exception."

Both McDermott and director Petilos referred questions to Ashby.

Lt. Troy Marx of the State Bureau of Investigation, whose agency conducts the undercover stings, said the rise in citations could be the result of stepped-up enforcement efforts mandated by the Legislature. He added that the majority of recent violations occurred after officers told servers they wanted only an alcoholic beverage — without any food.

"The majority of restaurants we visit are complying with the law," he said. "There are more violations only because there are more officers visiting restaurants."

Last June, lawmakers increased funding for four additional liquor enforcement officers (for a total of 19 sting team members), while also addressing a chronic shortage of restaurant liquor licences by adding 90 to the mix. The money for the additional enforcement comes from a 10 percent increase on fees businesses pay for liquor licenses.

“The majority of restaurants we visit are complying with the law,” said Lt. Troy Marx of the State Bureau of Investigation. “There are more violations only because there are more officers visiting restaurants.”

At the time, lawmakers said the beefed up enforcement was necessary, citing the number of citations issued to restaurants for liquor violations.

But Melva Sine, president of the Utah Restaurant Association, said 41 violations in the previous 18-month period were miniscule, given how many meals that restaurants serve. Regardless of why certain aspects of the state’s liquor law are now being enforced, she thinks restaurant owners deserve a more clear explanation of why there’s been a change.

Sine said restaurants serving alcoholic beverages to diners while they study menus "has been the standard. Call it lax, call it overlooking the law, but what’s happening is the state is enhancing its enforcement procedures. People need to know what’s been altered."

dawn@sltrib.com

In Utah, it’s eat, drink and be wary — and in that order

McEntee: In Utah, it’s eat, drink and be wary — and in that order

By peg mcentee

Tribune Columnist

First Published Jan 11 2013 04:02 pm

Francis Liong, owner of Salt Lake City’s iconic Lamb’s Grill, sounded a bit disheartened when I asked him about Utah’s crackdown on serving liquor in a restaurant until after the diner has ordered a meal.

"In a civilized world, when people go out to dine, they want to relax, have a drink and then order," said Liong, a transplant from an upscale restaurant in Beverly Hills, Calif. "Most people don’t go to a restaurant for a drink."

Evidently, the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC) doesn’t think that’s true. And the State Bureau of Investigation has launched an undercover sting campaign that nailed nine restaurants in December alone (a violation can lead to suspended liquor licenses or hefty fines).

This clampdown comes at a time when tens of thousands of people, many with sophisticated tastes and generous expense accounts, will stream into Utah for the Outdoor Retailer Winter Market and the Sundance Film Festival.

Can you say, "lights, camera, reaction?"

Utah law, long-standing but heretofore unknown to many restaurateurs, says diners must order food before they can get a cocktail or a glass of wine. It’s a counterintuitive statute, since most patrons — particularly those from out of state — are accustomed to dining in a relaxed mood helped along by a drink before dinner.

And what happens, Liong asked, when Outdoor Retailer attendees reserve a table for 30, and five come in early? Give them a glass of water? Some lemonade?

"It’s just bad overall," said Liong, who found out about the law in a DABC holiday newsletter.

Every Utahn who drinks knows how peculiar the state’s liquor laws are. You can’t buy a cold sixpack of so-called heavy beer at a state store. Prices are far higher here than in other states — a fifth of Stolichnaya vodka, for example, costs twice as much here as in California. All cocktails are metered.

I’ve pretty much lost hope that Utah lawmakers will one day understand that a cocktail, beer or glass of wine isn’t intrinsically dangerous. Certainly some people drink too much or are too young, but most adults don’t abuse alcohol. And certainly not by having a drink while perusing a menu.

Finally, state officials work hard to bring in new businesses, and they’re very good at it. But for Liong, whose restaurant is just a few blocks from the Outdoor Retailer market, every quirky liquor law is bad for business.

"It’s bad for tourists, it’s bad for restaurants," he said. "It’s bad overall. [Liquor officials] just have to think about the business owners."

And listen to them.

Peg McEntee is a news columnist. Reach her at pegmcentee@sltrib.com, facebook.com/pegmcentee and Twitter, @pegmcentee.

Rolly: New DABC boss shows Utah’s liquor wackiness dies hard

Rolly: New DABC boss shows Utah’s liquor wackiness dies hard

By PAUL ROLLY

The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Jan 11 2013 04:36 pm

In the 1988 movie "Die Hard," Bruce Willis runs around a high-rise office tower trying to save his wife and dozens of other hostages from a gang of East German terrorists who are also trying to hunt him down as he knocks off one terrorist at a time.

His only lifeline outside the building is a police radio contact with Los Angeles Police Department Sgt. Al Powell as city, state and federal officers form a perimeter around the building.

But the sergeant and the Willis character keep getting thwarted by an incompetent LAPD deputy chief named Dwayne Robinson. This bumbler’s ego demands he be the one in charge, so he keeps interfering with the sergeant to make the point he is in command and his gaffes almost screw up everything.

Utah’s newly appointed Alcoholic Beverage Control director, Salvador Petilos, reminds me of Dwayne.

Just in time for the tens of thousands of out-of-staters coming to Utah this month, the DABC has a new interpretation of a 44-year-old law concerning the requirement that alcohol served in restaurants must be accompanied by food orders.

For decades, restaurants have used the practice, unmolested by liquor law enforcers, of allowing patrons to have a glass of wine while perusing the menu. But now, restaurants are told no wine can be served until the patron has ordered a meal.

That means no areas in restaurants for customers to lounge with an alcoholic drink while waiting for a table.

That means the tens of thousands of people in town this month for the Sundance Film Festival and the Outdoor Retailer trade show will have a negative experience at Utah restaurants — unlike just about anywhere else in the country.

And this comes at the same time Utah economic development officials are doing everything they can to keep the Outdoor Retailer show from jumping to another city in the future.

But, hey, there is a new sheriff in town and he has to show off his moxie.

Just like Dwayne.

—

Joke of the day » During the confirmation hearings for Salvador Petilos last fall, Utah senators, weary of the scandals generated by previous DABC leaders, gave the nominee one directive: Keep the DABC out of the news.

It didn’t take long for him to fail on that one.

Jim Fikar sent an email last week to Rep. Jim Bird, R-West Jordan, responding to Bird’s proposal that $37 million be diverted to education from state liquor profits and the lawmaker’s comment that "if they have an idea to come up with $37 million in some other way, I’m all ears."

Fikar suggested the Legislature eliminate the child tax credit after the third child. "That way, those burdening the school system with a lot of kids pay their fair share."

Bird responded from his government-issued email account:

"Jim,

Thanks for your email.

Jim Bird

Oak Leaf Financial, your Insurance Professionals."

—

Fun times at the MTC » What do former Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups, a Republican, and failed 2012 gubernatorial candidate Peter Cooke, a Democrat, have in common?

They are both going to become mission presidents for the LDS Church somewhere in the world later this year.

Waddoups, who is stepping down from the Legislature, accepted a call to be a mission president a couple of months ago. Cook just received his call.

The assignments for new mission presidents will be revealed in March.

Their transition from politician to mission president is not unusual. One politico told me it’s the LDS Church’s way of sending Mormon political junkies to detox.

prolly@sltrib.com

Nevada to give DMV photos to the elections department?

Source

One paranoid hearing

Posted: Jan. 13, 2013 | 2:06 a.m.

Secretary of State Ross Miller's electronic poll book bill is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation that ought to have little trouble achieving a consensus in the Nevada Legislature.

The bill would marry voter registration lists with photos from the DMV database, allowing poll workers to compare a voter's face with his or her driver's license photo. Registered voters without a driver's license would be photographed when they cast a vote at the polls. And those people whom poll workers suspect of being somebody else would be asked to sign an affidavit, affirming under oath they are who they say they are.

Nobody would be disenfranchised, everybody would still get to cast a vote. And the process would be more secure than the current system, in which voters sign a book at the polls and the signature is compared to the one on file.

Oh, and in case you're worried: This bill would not provide for same-day voter registration, although it would be possible to institute a same-day registration system more securely and accurately under Miller's system than it would be today.

The initial criticism from Democrats was that Miller's bill was an expensive solution in search of an exceedingly rare problem: voters posing as another person to cast an illegal ballot. But at a UNLV forum about the bill on Friday afternoon, you'd get the impression that voter fraud was rampant. Audience questions - and shouted comments - ranged from the somewhat implausible to the overtly racist.

The problem with allegations of voter fraud is that there's very little proof of any widespread, election-changing voting taking place. But a lack of evidence is no deterrent to increasingly paranoid conspiracy theorists slinging fictional or exaggerated allegations that election outcomes were influenced by fraud.

Here in Nevada, for example, supporters of former U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle have maintained the absolute myth that Sen. Harry Reid won the 2010 election by fraudulent means. They cite polls that predicted an Angle victory as well as reports of union members bused to polling places.

Actual explanation: Bad polling and a good union ground game.

Paranoid explanation: Fraud!

Part of the appeal of voter fraud charges is that they relieve the losing side of facing hard truths. They didn't lose because they had an inferior candidate, with ideas that didn't appeal to a majority of voters. It was fraud! It wasn't that their campaign fundraising, messaging or get-out-the-vote effort was badly executed. It was fraud!

Hucksters like to encourage these ideas - and to blow real instances of voter fraud or attempted voter fraud out of proportion. In part, it's to get ratings. In part, it's to gain support for onerous voter identification laws that disenfranchise people, generally people they don't want to vote anyway.

The ones who don't know any better are simply ignorant. The ones who are doing it on purpose are evil, because they're intentionally subverting a pillar of democracy in order to frustrate people exercising a fundamental civil right.

In either case, the result of their irresponsibility was Friday's hearing, a room half-full of people who peppered Miller, Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a couple of respected activists with questions that showed they were clearly concerned about a fictional wave of voter fraud.

Lee Rowland, a former Nevada ACLU official now with the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice, tried to calm the crowd by telling them the George W. Bush administration combed voter registration records for evidence of widespread fraud and didn't find any. It's important not to overreact and pass a law to prevent something that's not actually a problem, she said. (The Brennan Center is neutral on Miller's bill.)

Many members of the crowd didn't believe it.

Because, you know, fraud!

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.

Chicago bans electronic devices from courts???

Source

Ban on electronics at Cook County courts is delayed

By Naomi Nix, Chicago Tribune reporter

8:17 p.m. CST, January 13, 2013

Visitors will have a little more time to bring their cellphones into Cook County criminal courthouses.

A hard-line policy prohibiting the public from bringing smartphones, computer tablets and other electronics into court was supposed to start Monday. But in the wake of criticism, Chief Judge Timothy Evans has relented, offering a three-month grace period to get courtgoers familiar with the looming ban.

"We understand this may be an inconvenience to some, but our primary goal is to protect those inside our courthouses and perhaps save lives in the process," Evans said Friday in a statement.

Sheriff's deputies plan to warn people who enter the courts about the new rule, which bans any device that is capable of connecting to the Internet or making an audio or video recording. Information about the ban also has been posted online and in county facilities.

"We will be diligently reminding people that this is going to be taking effect," Cook County sheriff's spokesman Frank Bilecki said Sunday. "It's just going to be about public awareness."

Last month, Evans said the new policy will help prevent people from using technology to influence court proceedings, such as texting testimony to witnesses awaiting their turn to testify. Anyone who is caught violating the ban could face prosecution for contempt of court, Evans said.

But critics said the ban would be difficult to carry out and cause confusion and delays during the security screening process.

On Sunday, those attending proceedings at the Leighton Criminal Court Building weren't excited about the new policy, which now is scheduled to take effect April 15.

Apryl Russell, 23, said the ban would be inconvenient for her because she uses public transportation to get to the courthouse.

"How can you attend to your business if you can't have your phone?" Russell said. "Where are you supposed to put them?"

Nicole Carman, 20, said the ban might also be a problem for those who want to use their phone to keep track of time or to check their bank account balances for posting bail. "I think people need their phones," she said. "It's a hassle."

The ban applies to all criminal court buildings, but not the Daley Center, where mostly civil cases are heard. Exempt from the ban are attorneys, judges, some government employees, reporters, and those seeking an order of protection or involved with the domestic violence assistance program.

nnix@tribune.com

Twitter @nsnix87

Massive corruption case going to trial in LA

Massive corruption case going to trial

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent

Updated 2:31 am, Monday, January 14, 2013

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Six former officials of the scandal-ridden city of Bell go on trial this week in a massive corruption case that nearly bankrupted the Los Angeles suburb.

The former mayor and vice mayor and four former City Council members are charged with misappropriation of public funds in a 20-count felony complaint.

Prosecutors claim they looted the city's treasury in order to pay themselves exorbitant salaries. The complaint says sham commissions were created to enrich the defendants.

Two major figures in the scam are not part of this trial. Former City Manager Robert Rizzo and Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia are scheduled to be tried separately. They have been accused of making millions while hiking taxes and fees for residents in the modest, blue-collar suburb where many live in poverty.

Jury selection begins Tuesday and the trial is scheduled to last seven weeks. Key witnesses are expected to be former city employees and officials who discovered the shady dealings and were granted immunity from prosecution for their testimony.

A judge who presided at a preliminary hearing for the officials concluded they had shirked their responsibilities and sold out their constituents for financial gain.

"These people were elected to be the voice of the people, to be a safeguard," said Superior Court Judge Henry Hall, who ordered them held for trial. "And they basically sold that off."

Defense attorneys had argued that the council members earned their salaries, working full time on the city's behalf, not only attending monthly council meetings but taking part in community projects that benefited low-income people, the aged and numerous others.

Prosecutors contend that Rizzo had an annual salary and compensation package worth $1.5 million and masterminded a scheme to loot the city of Bell of more than $6 million. His assistant city manager, Spaccia, was paid $376,288 a year

Council members drew salaries of about $100,000 a year, which Hall said was about 20 times more than they were entitled to make.

The six defendants are expected to claim they worked hard for the city and were unaware of Rizzo's financial manipulations.

Those set to go on trial Tuesday are former Mayor Oscar Hernandez, former vice mayor Teresa Jacobo and former council members George Mirabal, George Cole, Victor Bello and Luis Artiga.,

Testimony at the trial is expected to focus on the creation of sham boards and commissions such as the city's Surplus Property Authority which met a handful of times between 2005 and 2010 and never for more than a minute or two. Hall calculated that resulted in council members being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour for sitting on the authority's board.

He said the city's Solid Waste and Recycling Authority was never legally created and, in any case, met only one time in 2006 -- to vote its members a pay raise.

"It was a sham agency," said the judge.

Former District Attorney Steve Cooley, who filed the Bell corruption cases, said more than $5.5 million was taken from the city coffers.

After disclosure of the scandal, Bell residents revolted, turning out in the thousands to protest at city council meetings and ultimately staging a successful recall election at which they threw out the entire City Council and elected a slate of new leaders.

Facebook helps the government jail people for looking at "dirty pictures"

Source

Cassidy: Facebook is part of a high-tech posse fighting child pornography

By Mike Cassidy

Mercury News Columnist

Posted: 01/13/2013 03:00:00 PM PST

Emily Vacher's work at Facebook offers a jarring juxtaposition to the Menlo Park company's whimsically decorated cubicles and upbeat, thumbs-up logo. She is the force behind the effort to stop pedophiles from sharing child pornography on the world's biggest social networking site.

Think of it as Facebook CSI.

"What I'm good at," says Vacher, a former FBI agent, "and what I enjoy doing, is bringing these bad guys to justice."

Bearing the reassuring title "trust & safety officer, the Americas," Vacher oversees dozens of Facebook employees who use the latest innovations to spot child porn and scour it from the company's site, or block it from ending up there in the first place. But that's just the start.

It turns out Facebook is a link in a virtuous chain: The company detects child pornography and reports it to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which receives reports from companies and individuals nationwide. The national center then forwards the tip, sometimes adding helpful information of its own, to the proper local police agency.

When things work right, the result can be the arrest and conviction of a bad guy or the rescue of a child being sexually abused. At the very least, a damaging photo is removed from the digital landscape -- or blocked from being uploaded.

Even that's huge: Like everything on the Internet, child porn can spread at light speed. When photos of child sexual abuse and exploitation are e-mailed or uploaded, the image can go from one person to 20 to hundreds to thousands in a matter of hours. The digital images can live on forever, following young victims through childhood and into adulthood.

"When people view an image again and again, what it does is it re-victimizes the child," says Vacher, who adds that Facebook wants to help other companies use the available tools "to get all child pornography off the Web as best we can."

All along the virtuous chain, investigators are deploying high-tech tools -- from complex algorithms that brand a photo as child porn to computer-packed vans that roll up to suspected child pornographers' homes and serve as instant forensic labs. Within minutes, police investigators armed with search warrants can pour over a seized hard drive, thumb drive, DVD collection or other storage devices and find evidence justifying an arrest -- or determine that the suspect is innocent after all.

And while the battle between high-tech good guys and high-tech child pornographers is something of an arms race -- new technology on the law enforcement side leads to new methods on the bad guy side -- a relatively new tool, called PhotoDNA, has made it advantage good guys for now.

PhotoDNA, which was developed by Microsoft and Dartmouth College, is a tool that assigns an algorithm, something of a digital fingerprint, to child pornography photos. The fingerprint can be used to find copies of the photos (even if they've been edited) posted on the Internet. And as new images are discovered, they are assigned their own fingerprints.

For its part, Facebook has deployed PhotoDNA not only to find child pornography on its site, but to block images from being uploaded. Just as important, PhotoDNA alerts Facebook to the attempted upload, which allows the company to report the attempt to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which begins an initial investigation and contacts local law officers.

Facebook is certainly not the only Internet company taking aggressive steps to stamp out child pornography, but given the company's enormous size (its one billion users upload 300 million photos a day) it seemed like an illuminating case study. PhotoDNA, for instance, is also used by Microsoft, of course, and other companies, which have not publicly announced that they've deployed it, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

"It's basically made things easier, so that we can find people who are sharing child porn on the Internet much easier," San Jose Police Sgt. Greg Lombardo says of the technology. "They can just have a computer running all the time, searching."

And when an Internet company gets a hit, it becomes a tip that makes its way to local cops. "We get three or four every single day, seven days a week," says Lombardo, who heads the 11-county Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The number, which reached more than 1,500 last year, is increasing steadily.

While the so-called cybertips are only one way police build cases against child-porn traffickers, they're a valuable tool. The task force doesn't keep a specific count, but there is no doubt that cybertips do lead to arrests and convictions. On Thursday, an 18-member task force team followed a cybertip initially provided by Microsoft to a first-floor apartment in Alum Rock. Inside they found a 22-year-old man with a custom PC bearing digital files containing roughly a dozen photos they identified as child pornography.

The man was arrested on the spot.

Contact Mike Cassidy at mcassidy@mercurynews.com or 408-920-5536. Follow him at Twitter.com/mikecassidy.

18 SWAT Team members to bust 1 guy for looking at dirty pictures???

Source

Cassidy: Microsoft tip on child porn case is only the beginning

By Mike Cassidy Mercury News Columnist

Posted: 01/13/2013 03:00:00 PM PST

Watching the team of cops assembled in the big church parking lot in the cold morning sunshine, it occurred to me: No matter how much modern crime-fighters rely on high-tech gizmos, gadgets and software, police work still comes down to knocking on doors and confronting bad guys.

The 18 members of the Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force at the church were strapping on bullet-resistant vests and black helmets and getting ready to serve a search warrant on a suspected child pornography case. They'd been led to San Jose's Alum Rock district by a tip that originated with Microsoft, where company investigators had discovered child porn being uploaded to its cloud service known as SkyDrive.

The task force, led by San Jose police Sgt. Greg Lombardo, receives an average of four such tips a day, which are funneled through the Center for Missing & Exploited Children. The red flags set off a chain reaction of digital detective work, starting with computer forensic examiner Mike Bui, who reviews the tip to determine whether it appears that a crime has been committed and to place a priority on the case.

"I love doing this stuff," says Bui, a San Jose police officer. He loves it, he says, because he is making a difference. There have been cases in which investigators have discovered child porn that leads them to a child who is being exploited -- sometimes a relative or someone in a child-porn trafficker's circle. And who knows when a guy looking at child porn is a guy who would move on to molesting children?

When a tip turns out to be a promising lead, task force members obtain a search warrant and gather for a briefing the way the 18 did in the parking lot at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church.

Every member of the team has a role. Detective Nick Jourdenais, who was leading a search warrant team for the task force for the first time, ran down the suspect's specifics: A 22-year-old man. Microsoft detected a dozen photos believed to be child pornography on his SkyDrive account. He doesn't work and was expected to be home. It's a small apartment.

"We're going to fill up that apartment really fast," Jourdenais says.

Another officer picked up the biography: No known criminal history. No known gang affiliations. Another ran down the order in which officers will line up, single-file, to approach the apartment door. Yet another laid out the plan in case the suspect shot the first officer to reach the apartment door: The next two officers in line were to step over the wounded officer and subdue the shooter. The next two officers were to move the wounded officer to safety.

The suspect in the case hardly sounded dangerous, but the truth is, as the task force members started down the narrow hallway of the Alum Rock Avenue apartment building, they had no idea what they would find.

At the front of the long line of helmeted task force members, an officer pounded on the apartment door, shouting, "San Jose Police! Search warrant. Open the door. Abre la puerta!"

The door opened and in less than a minute, the 22-year-old man in a T-shirt, boxer shorts and bare feet was in handcuffs and up against the wall.

Officers took the suspect outside to a white Dodge Ram panel van and seated him in an interview area. In the back of the same van, which was equipped with electronic gear and five computer monitors, forensic specialists Michelle Hinch and Chris Hardin combed through files found on a laptop, a desktop and a spare hard drive in the apartment. They used tools such as EnCase forensic software and the suspect's own words to search for child pornography.

Within an hour of knocking on the suspect's door, Hinch and Harden found what they were looking for: about a dozen photos they say were child pornography. The 22-year-old was arrested. Unless and until he's charged, this newspaper won't name him. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office is expected to review the case and decide on charges this week.

"It's a good day," Hinch says. "This is a good case."

Contact Mike Cassidy at mcassidy@mercurynews.com or 408-920-5536. Follow him at Twitter.com/mikecassidy.

Mesa Police violate people's rights with mobile fingerprint scans???

Source

Mesa police tout mobile print scans

By Gary Nelson The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:19 AM

As Mesa police officers talked last week about their newest whiz-bang technology, Mayor Scott Smith couldn’t help thinking about an old movie.

“It reminds me of the time I saw a girl passed out in an alleyway, and the police came and did a retina scan” to figure out who she was, he said. “Oh, wait — that was ‘Back to the Future II.’ ”

The cops weren’t demonstrating retina scans during Thursday’s City Council study session. They were demonstrating fingerprint scans — on the council members themselves. Evidently, the council has no outstanding warrants; no one was hauled away in handcuffs.

But Mesa police spokesman Sgt. Tony Landato said that has happened on the streets since the department began using six scanners in a pilot program during last Fourth of July weekend.

Now the department is buying 30 more, pending council permission.

The cost is a bit over $53,000, $50,000 of which is from a federal grant under auspices of the 2009 federal stimulus package.

The payback, Landato said, is in better use of officers’ time and more efficient apprehension of crooks.

“It’s pretty common practice for a bad guy not to carry any ID or at least not let us know that they have any on them,” Landato said. “So when we’re trying to sort through what we have, this is a great tool that allows us to take care of it right there. The turnaround time is one to two minutes.” [Translation - if they don't have any ID we are going to force them to give us their fingerprints so we can find out who they are. Of course that is a violation of their 4th and 5th Amendment rights but cops never get arrested for breaking the law]

If it turns out the person isn’t wanted by police, the matter can be dropped right there, as opposed to taking a subject to the station to clear things up.

In one recent case, Landato said, police responded to a domestic-violence call where the alleged abuser had fled.

“We set up a perimeter,” Landato said. “Our officers stopped a subject who matched the description who was acting very suspicious. ... We ran his fingerprint. It was not our suspect in the domestic violence. It was a homicide suspect,” who was arrested.

In another case, he said, Phoenix police used a scanner to identify the victim of a fatal crash who was still trapped in a mangled car.

Landato said people sometimes ask him whether there’s a “Big Brother” element in the scanners, but he said the machines are not collecting data on citizens. They compare only a person’s fingerprint with those already on file with the state police, although that capacity soon may be expanded to include federal databases.

“None of this information is saved,” Landato said. “This isn’t documented any more than the stop itself.” [Why don't I believe that????]

The state fingerprint database includes every print for at least the last 15 years, and fingerprints taken in Mesa go further back than that; the city’s entire print inventory has been transferred to the electronic archive. [Which is why I don't believe the last statement. The cop want to add every fingerprint they take to their database]

Councilman Alex Finter said the technology offers what former Police Chief George Gascón called a “force-multiplying effect,” keeping officers in the field instead of pulling them back to headquarters for suspect ID checks. [If a person refuses to cooperate and help the police identify them it is illegal for the police to force them do do so. And arresting a person who refuses, to take them downtown in an attempt to id them is certainly a violation of their constitutional rights]

“It sounds like a great opportunity to make the best use of our people,” Finter said.

The next step, Landato said, will be scanners that can identify latent prints at a crime scene.

“You can imagine how helpful that would be to an investigation,” he said. “Instead of a day or two, we’re getting it on the spot. We can go track down the suspect before they have time to get rid of the evidence or come up with an alibi or flee. We will be the only department using that when it comes.”

Assistant Police Chief John Meza said Mesa is one of the first agencies in the state to embrace the concept on a large scale. “It’s really a cutting-edge technology in law enforcement,” he said.

And, it’s on hand two years earlier than 2015, when the “future” part of Michael J. Fox’s famous movie was set.

Still, Smith suggested technology hasn’t advanced as far as he had hoped.

“We just don’t have hover skateboards yet,” he said.

New York tyrants to pass more gun control laws???

Source

NY poised to be 1st to pass post-massacre gun bill

Associated Press Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:55 PM

Days after calling for an overhaul of gun control in New York following the Connecticut school shooting, Gov. Andrew Cuomo worked out a tough proposal on gun control with legislative leaders who promised to pass the most restrictive gun law in the nation.

The measure passed the Senate 43-18 on the strength of support from Democrats, many of whom previously sponsored the bills that were once blocked by Republicans.

The Democrat-led Assembly gaveled out before midnight and planned to take the issue up at 10 a.m. Tuesday. It is expected to pass easily.

“This is a scourge on society,” Cuomo said Monday night, one month after the Newtown, Conn., shooting that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. “At what point do you say, ‘No more innocent loss of life.’”

“It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment,” said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island. “And there is no confiscation of weapons, which was at one time being considered.

“This is going to go after those who are bringing illegal guns into the state, who are slaughtering people in New York City,” Skelos said. “This is going to put people in jail and keep people in jail who shouldn’t be out on the street in the first place.”

“This will be the toughest gun control package in the nation,” said Sen. Jeffrey Klein, leader of the Independent Democrat Conference that shares majority control with Republican senators. “All in all, it is a comprehensive, balanced approach that will save lives,” Klein said in an interview.

Cuomo said he wanted quick action to avoid a run on assault rifles and ammunition as he tries to address what he estimates is about 1 million assault rifles in New York state. He made it a centerpiece of his progressive agenda in last week’s State of the State address.

Republican Sen. Greg Ball called that political opportunism in a rare criticism of the popular and powerful governor seen by his supporters as a possible candidate for president in 2016.

“We haven’t saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president,” said Ball who represents part of the Hudson Valley. “We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. … We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals.”

The governor confirmed the proposal, previously worked out in closed session, called for a tougher assault weapons ban and restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns, as well as a mandatory police registry of assault weapons, grandfathering in assault weapons already in private hands.

It would create a more powerful tool to require the reporting of mentally ill people who say they intend to use a gun illegally and would address the unsafe storage of guns, the governor confirmed.

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two “military rifle” features spelled out in the law. The proposal would reduce that to one feature and include the popular pistol grip.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. Also Internet sales of assault weapons would be banned, and failing to safely store a weapon could be subject to a misdemeanor charge.

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report the incident to a mental health director who would have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient’s gun could be taken from him or her.

The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the “Webster provision.” Last month in the western New York town of Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself.

Legislators wouldn’t comment on the tentative deal or the provisions discussed in closed-door conferences.

“It’s a tough vote,” said Senate Deputy Majority Leader Thomas Libous of Broome County. “This is a very difficult issue depending on where you live in the state. I have had thousands of emails and calls … and I have to respect their wishes.” He said many of constituents worry the bill will conflict with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms while others anguish over shootings like at Newtown, Conn., and Columbine, Colo.

A vote Monday would come exactly one month after a gunman killed 20 children and six educators inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

The closed-door meetings prompted about a dozen gun workers to travel more than two hours to Albany to protest the legislation they say could cost 300 to 700 jobs in the economically hard-hit Mohawk Valley.

“I have three small kids myself,” said Jamie Rudall, a unionized worker who polishes shotgun receivers. “So I know what it means, the tragedy … we need to look at ways to prevent that, rather than eliminate the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

In the gun debate, one concern for New York is its major gun manufacturer upstate.

Remington Arms Co. makes the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that was used in the Connecticut shootings and again on Christmas Eve when the two firefighters were slain in Webster. The two-century-old Remington factory in Ilion in central New York employs 1,000 workers in a Republican Senate district.

Assemblyman Marc Butler, a Republican who represents the area, decried the closed-door meetings by Senate Republicans and the Democratic majority of the Assembly as “politics at its worst.”

The bill would be the first test of the new coalition in control of the Senate, which has long been run by Republicans opposed to gun control measures. The chamber is now in the hands of Republicans and five breakaway Democrats led by Klein, an arrangement expected to result in more progressive legislation.

Former Republican Sen. Michael Balboni said that for legislators from the more conservative upstate region of New York, gun control “has the intensity of the gay marriage issue.” In 2011, three of four Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for same-sex marriage ended up losing their jobs because of their votes.

———

AP Writer Michael Virtanen contributed to this report from Albany.

Arizona drug-related DUIs rising

2) I also suspect that a large number of people arrested for drug related DUI are not really drunk or stoned enough impair their driving.

In Arizona having any detectable trace of an illegal drug makes you guilty of DUI.

While a person who smoked marijuana several days ago is legally guilty of DUI, because the drug is detectable, most people would agree smoking pot several days ago is going make you too stoned to drive today.

3) I suspect this press release is mostly a propaganda piece put out by the police to make the police look like heroes and to justify giving more tax dollars to the police.

Source

Arizona drug-related DUIs rising

By Jim Walsh The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:58 PM

A growing percentage of arrests statewide for driving under the influence are related to prescription and illicit drugs, not alcohol, authorities say.

Overall DUI arrests are down, but authorities attribute the surge in DUI drug arrests to a combination of better enforcement and the continuing fallout from the prescription-drug epidemic.

Arizona has nearly 500 officers trained to recognize the symptoms of drug impairment, compared with only a few two decades ago.

“I think the availability of prescription drugs in great quantities has created this,” said Alberto Gutier, director of the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety. “This has created a prescription-drug epidemic.” [I will have to disagree. I suspect the new demon of DUI on drugs is mostly about increasing the revenue from DUI tickets and has almost nothing to do with safety. If a normal person or cop can't tell a person is stoned, the person certainly shouldn't be charged with DUI]

He said prescription painkillers and synthetic drugs such as “spice” are common culprits.

Gilbert police Sgt. Jim Lahti, who supervises the night traffic squad, said he remembers meeting two officers who were the only drug-recognition officers in the state 22 years ago when he was police recruit.

Officers would suspect someone was impaired by a substance other than alcohol but were unable to pinpoint it because of a lack of training, he said. [That sounds like a lame excuse. Under Arizona law a person can receive a DUI ticket without having a breath test for liquor]

“We have officers that are better trained now in recognizing drug impairment,” Lahti said. “The other factor is that there are more people driving who are impaired by drugs.” [Of course he doesn't give us any numbers to back up that statement]

While the number of DUI arrests dropped more than 13 percent in 2012 from 2011, the number of DUI drug arrests increased 12 percent, according to Governor’s Office of Highway Safety statistics.

The percentage of DUI arrests that were drug-related increased to 14 percent in 2012 from 11 percent a year earlier.

Even more dramatic is the increase in drug-related DUI arrests over a longer period, with the number rising 18-fold from 2003 to 2012.

The trend was spotlighted during the holiday season by the annual East Valley DUI Task Force.

Mesa officers working with other agencies throughout the region made 540 DUI arrests from Nov. 21 to New Year’s Day.

Of those arrests, 344, or 63 percent, were for drug DUIs. Other participating agencies made fewer drug arrests, but nearly one out of three arrests was drug-related.

The 2012 East Valley Task Force figures further confirm a trend noted in Mesa during the 2011 calendar year, when DUI drug arrests outpaced alcohol arrests for the first time.

Mesa police Lt. Thomas Intrieri, who supervises the traffic unit, said there has been a 10-year trend toward gradually increasing numbers of DUI drug arrests.

All Mesa motorcycle officers are drug-recognition officers, trained to recognize symptoms of drug use, he said. Most of them also have 10 or more years of experience enforcing traffic laws.

“If you are not trained to recognize a problem, how do you know of one?” Intrieri wrote in an e-mail. [So if a normal untrained person can't determine that a person is intoxicated on drugs why should the person be arrested for DUI if it's not effecting their driving??? OK, because the cops get a cut of the $2,000 fine] Lahti said officers see a gamut of impairment from a wide range of prescription drugs, along with prescription drugs mixed with alcohol.

“It’s a wide spectrum,” he said. “You see people using muscle relaxers where they can hardly keep their eyes open, and they want to drive a car.”

Lahti points out that although alcohol has been legal for years, that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable for anyone to drive impaired on any drug, including medical marijuana.

Cop left child to die in hot car, prosecutor says

Source

Cop left child to die in hot car, prosecutor says

Associated Press Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:31 PM

UPPER MARLBORO, Md. — A District of Columbia police officer embroiled in a paternity suit fatally shot his mistress before leaving their infant child to die in an overheated car, prosecutors said as the officer’s murder trial opened Monday.

Richmond Phillips committed the crimes because he was facing a paternity lawsuit and didn’t want to pay child support for a baby girl he fathered out of wedlock, prosecutor Angela Alsobrooks told the jury in her opening statement. A defense lawyer countered that his client “didn’t do this thing” and there wasn’t evidence for a conviction.

Phillips was arrested in June 2011 after police located the bodies of 20-year-old Wynetta Wright and her daughter, Jaylin, in a park outside Washington. Prosecutors say Phillips shot Wright and then drove the child — still strapped in the car seat of her mother’s car with the doors closed and the windows up — a short distance away, leaving her to die in stifling heat. The girl was just days shy of her first birthday.

When Phillips invited Wright to meet him at the park to try to work things out ahead of a scheduled court date, one of only two things was going to happen, Alsobrooks told the jury.

“He was either going to talk her out of that paternity suit or he was going to kill her,” said Alsobrooks, the state’s attorney in Prince George’s County, Md.

Phillips is charged with first-degree murder, punishable by life in prison if convicted, along with other crimes. Surveillance video and phone records connect Phillips to the park where the killing occurred, DNA evidence links him to the murder, and he lied to investigators about his relationship with Wright, prosecutors say.

But defense lawyer Brian Denton said his client was innocent and that the case hinged on circumstantial evidence.

He said that although prosecutors have surveillance footage showing Phillips and Wright talking at Oxon Run Stream Valley Park, the video does not capture the moment when Wright was killed. He said the DNA evidence was unreliable and that many people, not just his client and Wright, would have had access to a park where cigarette butts, alcohol bottles and condoms are commonly found.

“They’re suggesting that no one else would have been in that park on a warm summer night,” Denton said of the authorities.

Phillips met Wright at a nightclub while off-duty and their relationship soon turned sexual. But Phillips, who was already married with another child, ended contact with her after learning that she was pregnant, the jury heard. Wright served Phillips with a paternity suit early in 2011 and a subsequent test confirmed that he was the father of her child.

The two got back in touch as Phillips faced the prospect of a paternity test. He invited Wright to meet her at the park on the eve of a scheduled court date in their paternity case, and Wright was excited to bring Jaylin so that she could see her father, Alsobrooks said.

The two spoke for hours, but the encounter turned deadly when Phillips shot Wright and moved her vehicle with the child still inside. A heat advisory was in effect at the time, and temperatures inside the car reached 125 degrees, Alsobrooks added.

“He allowed her to essentially cook in that car, hoping and praying that she would never be found,” said the prosecutor, referring to Phillips as a “deceptive, double-sided man.”

The first witness, Wright’s cousin, Donna Leggett, testified that she had helped Wright with the baby’s care and that she suggested that Wright approach Phillips about providing his share of financial support.

“I told her she (needed) to stop stressing and take the father up for child support,” she said.

The courtroom in Prince George’s County Circuit Court was crowded with Wright’s family and supporters, many of whom dabbed their eyes and wept quietly.

Phillips, who was assigned to a vice squad, has been suspended without pay pending the outcome of the case, police said.

Cops evacuate Mesa apartment complex because of imaginary gun fire.

Mesa apartment complex evacuated after police hear gunfire

Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013 7:31 am | Updated: 4:26 pm, Mon Jan 14, 2013.

ABC15.com

Police responded quickly Sunday afternoon after hearing the sound of gunfire at a Mesa apartment complex.

Police spokesman Steve Berry said the incident happened around 12:30 p.m. near Gilbert Road and Main Street.

Berry said officers were talking to a man on a sidewalk when they thought they heard shots fired from a nearby apartment complex.

Officers shut down the complex while they searched the apartment they thought the shots were fired from.

Berry said officers found no one home, and no evidence of a shooting. Authorities said with so many officer involved shootings recently, they are taking every precaution.

Residents were allowed back into their homes around 4 p.m.

NYPD looks to GPS bottles to combat pill bandits

If drugs were legal a bottle of opiate based pain killers wouldn't cost any more then a bottle of aspirin.

But because of the governments insane and unconstitutional war on drugs, the drug war has created a black market that has jacked up the price of drugs like opiate based pain killers and makes it very profitable for criminals to steal them.

Source

NYPD looks to GPS bottles to combat pill bandits

By TOM HAYS, Associated Press

Updated 1:15 am, Tuesday, January 15, 2013

NEW YORK (AP) — Police in New York City plan to combat the theft of painkillers and other highly addictive prescription medicines by asking pharmacies around the city to hide fake pill bottles fitted with GPS devices amid the legitimate supplies on their shelves.

The New York Police Department believes the so-called "bait bottles" could help investigators track stolen drugs and locate suspects.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly is expected to unveil the plan Tuesday at a La Quinta, Calif., conference on health issues hosted by former President Bill Clinton's foundation.

In prepared remarks provided in advance of his appearance, Kelly says the initiative was prompted by a spate of high-profile crimes associated with the thriving black market for prescription drugs, including the slaying of four people on Long Island during a pharmacy holdup in 2011. He also cites the case of a retired NYPD officer who, after retiring with an injury and getting hooked on painkillers, began robbing drug stores at gunpoint.

Prescription drug abuse "can serve as a gateway to criminal activities, especially among young people," the commissioner says. "When pills become too expensive, addicts are known to resort to cheaper drugs such as heroin and cocaine. They turn to crime to support their habit."

The NYPD has begun creating a database of the roughly 6,000 pharmacies in the New York City area with plans to have officers visit them and recommend security measures like better alarm systems and lighting of storage areas. Kelly says it also will ask them to stock the GPS bottles containing fake oxycodone.

"In the event of a robbery or theft, we'll be able to track the bottle, which may lead us to stash locations across the city," he says.

There have been similar attempts to track prescription drugs on a limited basis but the NUYPD claims this would be the first widespread effort.

Maricopa County Supervisor Andy Kunasek shakes the county down for $123,000

Source

Kunasek gets $123,000 settlement from Maricopa County

By Michelle Ye Hee Lee The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:39 PM

Maricopa County has agreed to pay Board of Supervisors Chairman Andy Kunasek $123,110 in attorneys’ fees and defense costs to settle a claim against the county stemming from failed investigations into county administrators and judges by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

The payment will come from the county’s self-insured risk trust.

Kunasek put the county on notice in 2010 that he might file a claim, signing an agreement to suspend relevant statutes of limitations and allowing him to sue at any time over the actions of Arpaio and Thomas.

Kunasek said he waited to file his notice of claim because he anticipated being a witness in potential criminal prosecutions of various other county officials. However, federal prosecutors last September announced they had closed their four-year criminal investigation and grand-jury probe without filing charges.

“I didn’t want to have any kind of financial interest out there clouding up my testimony,” Kunasek said.

Kunasek was re-elected in November.

He filed his notice of claim, a precursor to a lawsuit, in December. Kunasek was the last to file a claim tied to those investigations, and the quickest to get a payout approved. Most of the related lawsuits took years to settle. Some continue to linger.

The risk trust fund Board of Trustees approved the settlement last Friday. The trustees can settle claims of up to $200,000 without supervisors’ approval. The county would not immediately release a copy of the settlement, saying it will be released publicly next week.

Kunasek’s claim stems from the so-called government-corruption investigations by Thomas and Arpaio between 2008 and 2010 that targeted county administrators, supervisors and some judges. Ten people targeted in those probes sued the county, and seven of their suits were settled for at least $2.3 million, not including litigation fees.

Included in that sum is Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox’s $975,000 settlement, which is under dispute in court. It has not been paid and has been accruing interest since June, increasing the pending amount to over $1 million.

Kunasek signed an affidavit saying the former county manager who signed Wilcox’s settlement did not have authority to do so, and voted to appeal her settlement. He has maintained supervisors should recoup only attorneys’ fees, and has said he believes Wilcox’s settlement exceeded her attorneys’ fees.

“I said all along I think everybody that was victimized by these people should have their fees and costs covered,” Kunasek said.

The new county manager, Tom Manos, has authority to settle claims relating to the Thomas and Arpaio abuse-of-power cases, but deferred the handling of Kunasek’s claim to the risk trust fund Board of Trustees.

“To me, especially given that I work for Supervisor Kunasek, to maintain the public trust, I think it was a better option to have a group of citizens (whose) sole purpose is to review and evaluate claims and settle claims within their authority,” Manos said.

Manos said a state statute requiring one county supervisor and the county treasurer to sign off on claims made by county supervisors, such as reimbursements, would apply to Kunasek’s legal claim.

Thomas pursued indictments against Kunasek, among others, but a grand jury refused to indict. Kunasek testified during last year’s State Bar disciplinary hearings against Thomas and two former deputies that he believed he was the third of five supervisors targeted by Thomas in an attempt to jeopardize the Board of Supervisors’ voting quorum. Thomas ultimately was disbarred.

In Kunasek’s notice of claim, criminal-defense attorney David Derickson outlined physical and financial damages to Kunasek and his family.

“Mr. Kunasek was targeted, not because he had committed a criminal act, but because Arpaio, Thomas and their agents believed they could ‘decapitate’ county government by indicting three of the five supervisors or force the board to give financial benefits to their offices,” Derickson wrote. “Despite the existence of significant physical and financial loss to Mr. Kunasek, he is limiting his demand to the actual attorney fees and costs he has incurred in defending himself for the past four years.”

Mesa Police Department offering free self-defense classes for women only

Mesa Police Department offering free self-defense classes

Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:32 pm

Tribune

The Mesa Police Department is offering a free self-defense class for women 18 years and older. Six, three-course sessions are available this year, and participants must attend all classes.

The first session begins Thursday. All classes are held on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The next session begins Feb. 21. Click here to find out more!

For more information or to register please contact Brenda Thorek at Brenda.Thorek@mesaaz.gov or (480) 644-4423.

Obama to announce expansive gun-control agenda

Source

Obama to announce most expansive gun-control agenda in generations

By Philip Rucker, Published: January 15

President Obama on Wednesday will formally announce the most aggressive and expansive national gun-control agenda in generations as he presses Congress to mandate background checks for all firearms buyers and prohibit assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

The announcement will set off a fierce confrontation with Congress over an issue that has riven American society for decades. Obama’s far-reaching firearms agenda has at best tepid support from his party leaders and puts him at loggerheads with Democratic centrists.

Days before his second inauguration, Obama is seeking to drive the gun debate in a way that contrasts with the accommodating approach he often took during his first term. In the weeks ahead, he will attempt to rally popular support to bend the will of lawmakers to vote for what he considers the ideal, not merely the possible.

“Yes, we can reduce gun violence, but it’s something we have to do together,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday. “It’s something that cannot be done by a president alone. It can’t be done by a single community alone or a mayor or a governor or by Congress alone. We all have to work together.”

Obama will begin this effort Wednesday in the presence of children who wrote him letters after last month’s mass shooting at a grade school in Newtown, Conn., and who have been invited to Washington to attend the rollout.

In addition to background checks and restrictions on military-style guns and ammunition magazines, Obama is expected to propose mental health and school safety initiatives such as more federal funding for police officers in schools, according to lawmakers and interest group leaders whom White House officials briefed on the plans.

Bruce Reed, Vice President Biden’s chief of staff, told liberal activists late Tuesday that Obama’s package would also include a federal gun trafficking measure to stop straw-man purchases and crack down on trafficking rings after a number of mayors raised the issue, said a person familiar with the plan.

Obama also is expected to present up to 19 executive actions that his administration will take, the lawmakers and advocates said. These steps include enhanced federal scientific research on gun violence and a modernized federal database system to track guns, criminals and the mentally ill.

Most of these actions are relatively narrow in scope, however, and experts have said that without accompanying legislation they will do little to curb gun violence, at least in the near term.

Asked about the constraints on Obama’s executive powers, Carney said, “It is a simple fact that there are limits on what can be done within existing law.”

After Biden led a month-long task force, Obama decided to push an expansive agenda that in many ways represents his liberal base’s wish list rather than proposals that may be more politically viable to a divided Congress.

Obama’s proposals amount to the most comprehensive federal regulations of the firearms industry since 1968, when President Lyndon B. Johnson acted in the aftermath of high-profile assassinations.

“My starting point is not to worry about the politics,” Obama said. “My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works, what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we’re reducing the incidents of gun violence.”

Lawmakers, he added, “are going to have to have a debate and examine their own conscience.”

Already, there are warning signs about the hurdles Obama’s agenda may face on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said it would be exceedingly difficult to pass an assault-weapons ban, which appears to be the most polarizing of Obama’s proposals.

“Let’s be realistic,” Reid told a Nevada PBS affiliate last week. “In the Senate, we’re going to do what we think can get through the House, and I’m not going to go through a bunch of these gyrations just to say we’ve done something.”

House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) echoed that calculation on Tuesday by acknowledging the difficulties that gun-control legislation would face in the Republican-led House.

“That’s been the case based on past history,” Hoyer told reporters.

More than half of all Americans say the Newtown shootings have made them more supportive of gun control, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday. An assault-weapons ban has the support of 58 percent of Americans, the poll shows.

In New York on Tuesday, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) signed into law what he called the most comprehensive package of state gun measures in the nation. The centerpiece is an expanded ban on assault weapons that would prohibit semiautomatic pistols and rifles as well as ammunition clips holding more than seven rounds.

Congress will take up the federal proposals next week — first in the Democratic-controlled Senate and then the House.

Gun control will be only one point of friction between the White House and the Capitol. Policy fights loom over raising the nation’s debt ceiling as well as overhauling immigration laws.

Obama’s gun control proposals are sure to face stiff opposition from the National Rifle Association, which released a video Tuesday on its Web site calling Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for having the Secret Service protect his daughters at school while voicing skepticism about an NRA effort to place armed guards in all schools.

Even some of the administration’s allies on Capitol Hill, including some rural Democrats, have criticized parts of Obama’s agenda.

“An assault-weapons stand-alone ban on just guns alone, in the political reality we have, will not go anywhere,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Sunday on CNN.

Lawmakers who have been part of Biden’s discussions said the White House is well aware of the political difficulty it faces in advancing this agenda.

“I think there’s a commitment to do the big things,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.). “I also think that they’re realists, and in addition to doing the big things, they want to make sure that they do as many of the effective things that we can find some level of consensus on.”

Consensus appears more possible around universal background checks and a ban on magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) said she has spoken discreetly with several Republican lawmakers who may be open to backing a ban on high-capacity clips. “What I said to them is, ‘Do your own press conference. Come out as a group. There’s power in numbers,’ ” she said.

Some gun-control advocates say universal background checks could do more to stem gun violence than an assault-weapons ban because they would keep more firearms — including handguns used in most shootings — out of the hands of criminals or those with mental illnesses.

Matt Bennett, a senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank consulted by Biden’s task force, said of the assault-weapons ban: “We support it, but we don’t think it will be easy to do. And we’re not sure that it is worth the expenditure of a tremendous amount of political capital to get.”

The long-dormant debate over gun laws was revived in December after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown.

Obama and his allies plan to pressure Congress from the outside, just as they did in the recent “fiscal cliff” negotiations that resulted in tax increases for the wealthiest Americans.

“The president can play a vital role in rallying the public support that already exists,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “It’s not a question of muscling anything through. It’s a question of changing the political calculus on this issue.”

Ed O’Keefe, Rosalind S. Helderman, Sari Horwitz and Peter Wallsten contributed to this report.

Worlds largest gun show is in Las Vegas

SHOT Gun Show - Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show

Their web site is here: www.nssf.org

You can register for the show here: www.shotshow.org and here

Source

Defiance, discretion at Vegas gun show

Justin Berton

Updated 7:26 am, Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Las Vegas -- A month after the elementary school massacre that threatens to change the American gun industry, a group based where that atrocity took place mixed defiance with discretion Tuesday in opening the doors to the world's largest gun show.

More than 60,000 gun dealers, retailers and apparel makers are in Las Vegas this week for the annual Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, hosted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation of Newtown, Conn.

The four-day "SHOT Show" is not for the public - it's for those who sell to the public. With the killings of 20 schoolchildren and seven adults in Newtown prompting the Obama administration to move quickly on proposing changes in federal gun laws, the attitude in Las Vegas this week is a combination of aggressiveness, attention to image and adaptation to a new environment.

"You didn't cause the monstrous crime in Newtown and neither did we," Steve Sanetti, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told members in opening-night remarks. A new product

On the floor of the Sands Expo and Convention Center, browsers gripped sleek new AR-15 rifles, such as the latest version of the Bushmaster Predator, which has an automatic option and can fire 30 rounds in a few seconds. Retailers showed off new inventions, including the iPhone case that doubles as a stun gun, a woman's bra that can holster a handgun - and a product from a Florida company designed to protect schoolchildren from a killer with a gun.

Unlike in past years, the SHOT Show isn't going out of its way to attract attention. Foundation officials declined interview requests from non-trade outlets and denied credentials to mainstream media a month before the trade show opened. A spokesman said a large media presence would be a distraction for people trying to do business at the show.

Gun control proponents interpreted the silence as an attempt to limit coverage of the convention, where assault weapons are on display and the latest military-style weaponry is geared up to amaze potential clients. Not 'puffed up' now

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said industry executives were "puffed up" last year and happy to be interviewed on the convention floor after they reported record sales and estimated the value of the sporting gun industry at $4.1 billion.

"This industry is circling the wagons now," Sugarmann said. "The last thing the industry wants America to see and to think about right now is that these are the very guns the industry is promoting. Most people today would be shocked by what the gun industry has become - primarily marketing military-style weapons because that's the profit center."

Sanetti, the SHOT Show organizer, was among industry leaders who met Thursday with Vice President Joe Biden, who is leading an administration group that will recommend changes in federal gun laws.

On Monday, Sanetti issued a statement saying, "A prerequisite to any dialogue involving our industry and its products is an honest recognition of the legitimacy of what we do and the important part of the national culture we represent. Hunting and the recreational shooting sports are here to stay. And so are we."

The national debate dominated the concerns of conventioneers on the first day of the SHOT Show.

Gregg Thompson, co-owner of Crye Precision of Brooklyn, N.Y., which makes camouflage-pattern apparel including vests and helmets, said foot traffic appeared to be light.

"We are not in a good environment for what we do," said Thompson, whose sales team wore T-shirts that took a dig at the Obama administration: "Freedom Was Awesome 1776-2008."

Thompson added, "We should be looking for the solutions that give us more freedoms, not take them away."

Bad rap for rifle

For others, the trade show was an opportunity to network and try to put a new face on the gun industry.

Chris Cheng, a San Francisco resident and winner of the History Channel's reality marksman competition, "Top Shot," said he hoped to show that competitive shooters come from diverse backgrounds.

Cheng, an Asian American who left a job at Google to pursue his career as a marksman, uses the AR-15 as his primary rifle. It's the same gun that was used by Newtown killer Adam Lanza, which AR-15 fans say has given it a bad rap.

"Not only do thousands of other competitive shooters use the AR-15, but it is also the most popular modern sporting rifle in America," Cheng said. "That's an important piece of information to understand why talk of an 'assault weapons' ban is resonating with many gun owners."

Cheng was mindful of presenting a positive picture of gun owners. He answered questions through e-mail after his responses were vetted by his History Channel sponsors, and he declined to be photographed next to a poster of hunting rifles at the show.

School market

With the gun control debate focusing on the elementary school killings, Mike Hengstebeck was earning a lot of attention at his booth with a new item for schoolteachers called the LAD - Lockdown and Defend.

The $795 device resembles a fire extinguisher when it's not in use. If a teacher hears gunshots, Hengstebeck said, he or she can unfurl a bullet-resistant 2-by-4-foot sheet from LAD. The device also has two doorstops, which can be used to try to bar a gunman from breaking into the classroom.

Hengstebeck said the teacher can also hang the canvas over the window to protect the class or use it as a shield while students huddle behind it.

He said his company, SRT Supply of St. Petersburg, Fla., had just completed the product days before the show started and had already won the attention of local lawmakers.

"Unfortunately, a lot of times the people who get killed in school shootings are in the hallway," Hengstebeck said. "They hear the shots and they go running. With LAD, we're telling them to lock it down and defend themselves to give them a chance."

Justin Berton is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jberton@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @justinberton

Menlo Park police officer caught naked with prostitute

Source

Menlo Park police officer caught naked with prostitute while on duty

By Bonnie Eslinger

Daily News Staff Writer

Posted: 01/15/2013 08:12:09 PM PST

A Menlo Park police detective arrested in Sunnyvale after being caught naked in a Motel 6 with a prostitute is still working for the city's law enforcement department.

According to an incident report from the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, officers went to the motel at 806 W. Ahwanee Ave. at about 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 18, 2011, to conduct a probation warrant search on 32-year-old Natalia Ramirez. When police opened the door, they found Ramirez dressed in a black cat suit with several rolled-up $20 bills tucked into her cleavage.

Inside the bathroom, they found Menlo Park police Officer Jeffrey Kenneth Vasquez unclothed and "on his knees on the bathroom floor," according to the report, which does not say what the 48-year-old man was doing other than to note it did not appear he was trying to destroy contraband.

Vasquez eventually told Sunnyvale police he's a Menlo Park officer, said he was there for sex and said he had found Ramirez on My Redbook, a website commonly used to advertise sexual services. Ramirez confirmed she was there as a prostitute, according to the police report.

The Menlo Park detective said he was on duty when he went to Sunnyvale to serve a subpoena and had an "hour to kill" because the person he was trying to serve wasn't home yet, according to the police report. It was not the first time he had solicited a prostitute for sex, he told the officers. [Yea, it's always the "first time" when a cop gets caught committing crimes. ]

Throughout the incident, "Vasquez was remorseful and fully cooperated with the investigation," according to the report. [What do you expect, this cop wants to keep his high paying job. I think he is remorseful because he got caught] Asked by one officer why he would call a prostitute, Vasquez initially replied he didn't know, but a minute later said he was divorced and his mother had recently died.

"I feel like a loser," he told another officer.

According to the police report, Vasquez was released into the custody of two Menlo Park Police Department officers: Watch Commander Tim Brackett and internal affairs Sgt. Matt Brackett.

Charged with misdemeanor solicitation, Vasquez pleaded not guilty in June 2011 and by July his case was dismissed because the officer who interviewed Ramirez was unable to testify in court, according to Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker, who supervised the case. [How convenient his fellow cops just forgot to testify against him!!!!]

"The investigator's wife was extremely ill," Baker said. "I wasn't going to ask a person who was going through that to come to court and deal with a misdemeanor situation." [Does he only use that lame excuse to keep cops from testifying against cops???]

Baker said the case wasn't postponed because Ramirez had not waived her right to a speedy trial. Knowing that the Sunnyvale officer wasn't available to testify, Vasquez's attorney, William Rapoport, filed to have his client's case dismissed.

Baker said he wanted to prosecute both cases, but when Ramirez "got the benefit" of having her case dismissed, it "didn't sit well" with him to continue to go after Vasquez.

Officials from Menlo Park would not confirm that Vasquez had been arrested or discuss any disciplinary measures that may have been taken against him for the alleged crime. [Of course the cops always have time to demonize people who are not police officers that were arrested for prostitution]

According to The Almanac, a local print and online news outlet, Menlo Park had to reinstate the officer after he challenged the city's undisclosed disciplinary action against him. An arbitrator sided with Vasquez, according to a conversation an Almanac reporter overheard between City Manager Alex McIntyre and former city manager Glen Rojas while sitting near the men at a table in the Menlo Hub restaurant. McIntyre and Rojas did not identify Vasquez by name, but the Almanac reporter was able to track down the arrest information using information from the conversation about the officer's gender and tenure with the police department.

According to salary data provided by Menlo Park to The Daily News, Officer Jeffrey K. Vasquez earned a base salary of $133,468.78 in 2010 for a full year of service, and $111,056.87 in 2011, a year in which it is noted that he did not work the entire year.

Vasquez was not available for comment; he did not work on Tuesday, according to the police department. Rapoport did not respond to a request for comment.

Email Bonnie Eslinger at beslinger@dailynewsgroup.com; follow her at twitter.com/bonnieeslinger.

NRA hits Obama over ‘hypocrisy’ of armed guards for daughters

I suspect most government tyrants don't like guns because they know the Second Amendment was created to allow "The People" to protect themselves against government tyrants.

But it sounds so much better to say they want to take our guns away from us to protect innocent children from violence, rather then to protect themselves from "The People".

Source

NRA hits Obama over ‘hypocrisy’ of armed guards for daughters

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket

In a sign of how brutal, emotional and deeply personal the coming battle over gun violence is likely to be, the National Rifle Association on Tuesday accused President Barack Obama of hypocrisy for having the Secret Service protect his daughters even as he opposes the NRA's call for armed guards in schools.

The Web video, first obtained by The Blaze, opens with a narrator asking, “Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?”

The 35-second video makes no effort to hide the tension and animosity between the NRA and Obama, even stepping into the recent "fiscal cliff" debate.

The video continues, “Mr. Obama demands that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security” as an altered image of the president peers over a stack of dollar bills, followed by images of “Meet the Press” host David Gregory, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.

A White House official declined to comment on the video. However, spokesman Jay Carney did announce that Obama would outline his administration’s plan to address gun violence on Wednesday.

Eric Pfeiffer contributed to this report.

Gun grabbing Obama unveils $500 million gun violence package

Obama unveils $500 million gun violence package

By Julie Pace and Erica Werner Associated Press

Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:43 AM

President Barack Obama on Wednesday launched the most sweeping effort to curb U.S. gun violence in nearly two decades, announcing a $500 million package that sets up a fight with Congress over bans on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines just a month after a shooting in Connecticut killed 20 school children.

Obama also signed 23 executive actions, which require no congressional approval. But the president, speaking at the White House, acknowledged the most sweeping, effective actions must be taken by lawmakers.

“To make a real and lasting difference, Congress must act,” Obama said. “And Congress must act soon.” He added, “I’ll put everything that I’ve got into this.”

Obama was joined by children who wrote him letters about gun violence in the weeks following the Connecticut shooting. Families of the children killed in the shooting, as well as survivors, were also in the audience.

The president appealed to the nation’s conscience, but his announcement promises to set up a bitter fight with a powerful pro-gun lobby that has long warned supporters that Obama wanted to take away their guns.

The U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership of any country in the world, and pro-gun groups see any move on gun restrictions as an offense against the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Critics counter that the country’s founding fathers never could have foreseen assault weapons more than two centuries ago, when guns were intended for the common, not individual, defense, guns were often stored in community areas and rifles fired one shot at a time.

“This is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and always will be,” Obama said, acknowledging the right to possess and bear firearms. “But we’ve also long realized … that with rights come responsibilities.”

Emotions have been high since the Connecticut shooting, which Obama has called the worst day of his presidency. He largely ignored the issue of gun violence during his first term but appears willing to stake his second term on it now. He’ll have to contend with looming fiscal issues that have threatened to push whatever he proposes aside, at least for a while.

Gun control advocates also worry that opposition from the powerful National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress will be too great to overcome. The NRA released an online video Tuesday that called Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for having armed Secret Service agents protect his daughters at school while not committing to installing armed guards in all schools. The NRA insists that the best way to prevent more mass shootings is to give more “good guys” guns.

The White House called the NRA video “repugnant and cowardly.” [What's cowardly about calling a hypocrite a hypocrite?]

The public appears receptive to stronger federal action on guns, with majorities of Americans favoring a nationwide ban on military-style rapid-fire weapons, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. Three-quarters of Americans said they reacted to the Connecticut shooting with deep anger, while 54 percent said they felt deeply ashamed it could happen in the United States.

The poll also shows 51 percent said they believed laws limiting gun ownership infringe on the public’s right to bear firearms.

White House officials, seeking to avoid setting the president up for failure, have emphasized that no single measure — even an assault weapons ban — would solve the scourge of gun violence. But without such a ban, or other sweeping Congress-approved measures, it’s unclear whether executive actions alone can make any noticeable difference. [It will certainly take the guns away from the good guys. Of course criminals who never do obey the law will continue to have guns!]

The president asked Congress to renew the ban on high-grade, military-style assault weapons that was first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994 but expired in 2004. Obama also called for limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds or fewer, and he proposed a federal statute to stop purchases of guns by buyers who are acting for others.

The president also called for a focus on universal background checks. Some 40 percent of gun sales take place without background checks, including those by private sellers at gun shows or over the Internet, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The president’s framework is based on recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden, who led a wide-ranging task force on gun violence. Beyond the gun control measures, Biden also gave Obama suggestions for improving mental health care and addressing violent images in video games, movies and television.

States and cities have been moving against gun violence as well. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday signed into law the toughest gun control law in the U.S., and the first since the Connecticut shooting. The law includes a tougher assault-weapons ban and provisions to try to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people who make threats.

The NRA criticized the bill, saying in a statement, “These gun control schemes have failed in the past and will have no impact on public safety and crime.”

In Washington, it’s unclear how much political capital Obama will use in pressing for congressional action.

The White House and Congress will soon be consumed by three looming fiscal deadlines, each of which is expected to be contentious. And the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has warned the White House that it will be at least three months before the chamber considers gun legislation.

Congress, in any case, can move slowly. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he’ll begin hearings in two weeks on gun safety proposals. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, a gun owner, said he envisions a series of hearings examining violence in popular media and how to keep guns safe, among other topics.

Leahy’s plan could take more time than Obama has urged.

Obama’s long list of executive orders includes the following:

— Ordering tougher penalties for people who lie on background checks and requiring federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

— Ending limits that make it more difficult for the government to research gun violence, such as gathering data on guns that fall into criminal hands.

— Requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

— Giving schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers. [Wow! Looks like President Obama is going to implement the dumb NRA suggestion of putting a cop in every school - I guess Obama loves jobs programs for cops!!!!]

— Giving communities grants to institute programs to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.

New NRA ad denounces Obama as a hypocrite

New NRA ad denounces Obama as a hypocrite

By Morgan Little and Melanie Mason This post has been updated. See below for details.

January 16, 2013, 8:34 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Denouncing President Obama as an “elitist hypocrite,” the National Rifle Assn. released a new video attacking the president for opposing universal armed guards in schools while his own daughters are protected by the Secret Service.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the ad asks, “Then why is he skeptical of putting armed security in schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards in their school?”

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, during the organization’s controversial response to the shootings in Newtown, Conn., called for armed guards to protect students in schools nationwide, and previewed the organization’s line of attack against the president.

“We care about our president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by Capitol police officers,” LaPierre said in December. “Yet when it comes to our most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family, our children, we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless. And the monsters and the predators of the world know it and exploit it. That must change now.”

Obama had previously declared his skepticism over the NRA’s idea during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in December.

“I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools, and I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” he said.

[Updated, 9:02 a.m. PST Jan. 16: The ad was roundly critiqued Wednesday morning, with former Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs calling it “stupid” and “disgusting” on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“This reminds me of an ad that somebody made about 2 o'clock in the morning,” he said.

And David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, said the ad falls “beyond the pale.”

"Generally speaking, a president’s family should not be subject to political criticism," he said.

The White House swiftly condemned the NRA’s ad.

"Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."]

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said that those criticizing the commercial for pulling Sasha and Malia Obama into the political debate are “completely missing the point” and that the ad is about ”keeping our children safe.”

“There is a double standard when the president said that he’s skeptical about having policemen in school yet his family is the beneficiary of multiple armed law enforcement officers,” Arulanandam said.

Arulanandam said the ad is currently running on the Sportsman Channel, as well as on its online site NRAstandandfight.org. He said the ad foreshadows an increased television presence from the NRA as the debate over gun laws moves over to Capitol Hill.

On the other side of the debate, Americans for Responsible Solutions, a group established by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly to counteract the NRA’s well-documented influence in Washington, is looking to comb supporters for possible solutions to the country’s gun violence.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

melanie.mason@latimes.com

President Obama’s 23 gun grabbing policy

You will have to click here to view the actions, because it's a PDF file and I can't include it here.

Source

President Obama’s actions on gun policy

Pres­id­ent Obama de­clared Wed­nes­day 23 ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions his ad­min­is­tra­tion would be tak­ing in re­sponse to a series of shoot­ing sprees over the past year. In­cluded in the list are broad­er back­ground checks on gun buy­ers, the nom­in­a­tion of a new ATF dir­ect­or and more.

Sen. Rich Crandall wants a cop in every classroom in Arizona???

Source

Ariz. lawmaker, sheriff propose armed officers in schools

By Alia Beard Rau The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:23 PM

A Republican state lawmaker and an influential Republican sheriff have jumped on the bandwagon of state political leaders proposing plans to improve school safety in Arizona by hiring more armed officers.

Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu announced at a joint news conference Tuesday a $30 million plan they propose to introduce into the Legislature, which appears to be a melding of some of other recent plans to boost security in schools in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting.

They propose spending $24 million to hire 300 more school resource officers, as well as $4.5 million on mental health services and $1 million for additional training for school counselors.

They said they also will support legislation to allow school districts to arm school staff if the district chooses to do so and if the staff gets sufficient training, but Crandall didn’t go so far as to say he will be the one to sponsor such a bill. Babeu has been a strong supporter of this idea in recent weeks.

Unlike prior plans that either don’t yet have legislative support or are being pushed by the minority Democratic party, Crandall and Babeu said they believe this one actually has a chance of success.

“A lot of ideas have been discussed, but we’re trying to bring something today that has a chance of being funded and moving forward,” Crandall said.

The Crandall/Babeu plan is also unique in that it proposes to find a funding source other than the general fund. They are proposing three possibilities: using excess Clean Elections funds, which would require a 2014 ballot referendum; create a transfer tax for private party auto sales; or increase the tax on alcohol sales.

Crandall said the most likely possibility is using Clean Elections funding. He said he will ask the governor and Legislature to fund the plan for the first two years until they can get it on the ballot.

Whistle-blower files lawsuit against AG Tom Horne

If you ask me Tom Horne is just using the medical marijuana issue as a smoke screen to cover his own criminal trail.

Source

Whistle-blower files lawsuit against AG Horne

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:05 PM

The state criminal investigator who informed the FBI that Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne may have acted illegally and unethically, as a candidate for the office and in his duties as the state’s top prosecutor, has filed a lawsuit against Horne and his chief aide, saying they continue to retaliate against her and have ruined her reputation and ability to do her job.

Margaret “Meg” Hinchey, who still works for Horne, filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Maricopa County Superior Court against the state and Horne and his Chief Deputy Eric “Rick” Bistrow, both personally and in their capacities as state officials. The Arizona Republic obtained a copy of the lawsuit.

Hinchey, who had indicated in June she planned to file a lawsuit, alleges conspiracy, federal civil rights violations, slander, abuse of process, negligence, invasion of privacy, retaliation against a police officer, and other violations she claims occured during the course of her work. She seeks damages for economic loss, pain and suffering, attorneys fees and other damages caused by their conduct. Her earlier notice of claim, which was a precursor to this lawsuit, demanded $10 million.

A spokeswoman for Horne said the office was unable to comment in detail on lawsuit because she had not yet seen a copy of it.

In a statement, spokeswoman Amy Rezzonico said, "the allegations set forth in the press account are baseless. We expect that the state and the employees of the Attorney General's Office will be fully vindicated in a court of law. The AG's office treats its employees with dignity and respect and that principle has been applied to Ms. Hinchey."

Horne, in a response last year to Hinchey’s earlier notice of claim, had said in a statement: “The charges are false, absurd and completely without merit, and I’m confident the courts will see it that way.”

The complaint reasserts Hinchey’s allegations that Horne and his staff engaged in a coverup to keep secret alleged violations of state campaign finance law; that they wanted to destroy or re-classify investigative records tied to an internal probe to prevent them from becoming public; and sought to discredit Hinchey once Horne learned she had reported the allegations to federal agents.

The lawsuit provides new information about retaliatory actions she says Horne and his staff have taken against her since Horne last year learned she went to federal agents.

Among those allegations, the lawsuit says Horne and his staff slandered her by publicly questioning her integrity as an investigator; and that Horne and his staff wrongfully created the impression she is a political “hack,” a liar and “rogue” investigator. Hinchey also reiterates prior claims that Horne and others spread false rumors that she was intimate with Horne’s Democratic opponent, Felecia Rotellini, and was therefore disloyal to her boss.

The lawsuit also says Horne and his staff initiated a baseless internal investigation to determine whether she was untruthful during grand jury proceedings in an unrelated case in an attempt to discredit her as a witness to their actions. Hinchey claims she was forced to investigate herself; that she was stripped of some duties — including her duties with the FBI Public Corruption Squad — and denied repeated requests for re-assignments.

The lawsuit also raises questions about how Horne is conducting business in the Attorney General’s Office. The complaint says Horne’s assistant summoned Hinchey’s supervisor, Andy Rubacalva, to a three-hour “defense interview” by his and Bistrow’s private attorneys during normal work hours regarding Hinchey’s notice of claim. Hinchey’s attorney, Suzanne Dallimore, says it is unusual that an attorney representing the state was not present during the interview and it is unusual that it occured during work hours.

Hinchey also claims Criminal Division Chief Andrew Pacheco directed her to investigate herself and was feeding information to Horne and Bistrow that he obtained from a private attorney who was conducting the internal investigation against her. Hinchey also says Horne’s staff improperly left her alone with evidence tied to the internal investigation against her.

“Horne stood to benefit from discrediting plaintiff’s reputation for honesty in criminal proceedings in that plaintiff could one day be called to testify against Horne in the event of an enforcement action following the FBI investigation,” the lawsuit says.

One of the attorney general’s top investigators, Hinchey oversaw some of the agency's high-profile investigations, most recently its inquiries into illegal campaign contributions by high-level Fiesta Bowl employees and alleged improprieties into county officials stemming from investigations into Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

As part of her duties with the state, she also worked as a deputized federal agent.

Hinchey says the ordeal has triggered various medical conditions, and on May 7 she had to tun in her service weapon because she was using antidepressants and other medications. She is now assigned to desk work.

The complaint says Hinchey in April 2011 began to have “serious concerns about the agenda and intent of Horne and his inability to understand criminal law.”

Soon after, she blew the whistle to federal agents on potentially illegal conduct within Horne’s office. Based on her information, federal and county law-enforcement officials initiated a 14-month investigation into whether Horne collaborated with an independent expenditure committee to raise more than $500,000 for his 2010 bid for office. State law prohibits a candidate from having any involvement in the operation of an independent campaign committee.

Federal and county investigators found Horne and his polticial ally Kathleen Winn deliberately broke campaign-finance laws during the 2010 general election, when Horne allegedly collaborated with Business Leaders for Arizona, an independent expenditure committee that raised more than $500,000 to run negative ads against his Democratic opponent, Felecia Rotellini. Montgomery ordered Horne and Winn, who now works for Horne’s agency and ran the independent campaign committee, to accurately report and refund an estimated $400,000 in contributions.

Horne and Winn have said they have done nothing wrong and that they will be vindicated in court proceedings, scheduled for next month. Horne has said the entire case is based on “misleading speculation.”

The FBI file, reviewed by The Arizona Republic, shows witnesses described to investigators a sorority-type environment at the Attorney General's Office with women vying for Horne’s attention. Another witness told investigators that Horne, a Republican, kept lists of employees’ political affiliations and campaign contributions to Rotellini. Still another witness said Horne wanted her to contact another witness interviewed by the FBI to determine the line of questioning.

The ordeal has seriously damaged staff morale in the AG’s office, sources have told The Republic. Last week, Horne’s spokeswoman Amy Rezzonico said she was leaving Horne’s side after 10 years partly because of the “duress” of the inquiries into her boss. She follows other staff, including Jim Keppel, a former judge and Horne’s former criminal division chief, who said, he too, left because of the investigation.

Political observers say the scandal — which includes tawdry details about an alleged intimate relationship between Horne and a subordinate — has damaged him politically. Many insiders considered Horne a contender for governor in 2014, but now say he is too wounded to seek higher office. Others question whether he could survive re-election attempts: already, Rotellini has said she will again run for the office.

NRA begins pushback with Web ad criticizing Obama

NRA begins pushback with Web ad criticizing Obama

Associated Press Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:50 PM

WASHINGTON — In a sharp pushback against any new gun regulations, the National Rifle Association posted a Web video that labels President Barack Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for allowing his daughters to be protected by armed Secret Service agents while not embracing armed guards for schools. [Oddly one of Obama's proposals is to fund armed police officers for schools like the NRA suggested. Of course I think that is a really dumb idea.]

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” a male narrator asks in the video. “Then why is he skeptical of putting armed security in schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards in their school?” [Again one of Obama's proposals is to fund armed police officers for schools like the NRA suggested]

The spot, posted even before Obama unveiled his gun policy proposals on Wednesday, drew an indignant response from the White House.

“Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. “But to go so far as to make the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.” [What's the problem??? Obama is clearly a hypocrite on this issue. He has armed Secret Service police officers guard his children, while he wants to take away our guns]

The group’s confrontational video bore the hallmarks of a conventional political attack ad. It uses grainy, unflattering visuals of Obama, has a grim-sounding narrator and ominous music. It also invokes a seemingly unrelated issue, Obama’s insistence on a tax increase for the wealthiest Americans, as it argues that Obama is hypocritical because he’s expressed skepticism about putting armed guards in schools in response to the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. [For the third time one of Obama's proposals is to fund armed police officers for schools like the NRA suggested]

The ad equates Secret Service protection provided to Obama and his family with a proposal by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre to put armed guards in schools after the Newtown shootings. LaPierre suggested that would have prevented the shootings that ended 26 lives.

“Protection for their kids,” the narrator says, “and gun-free zones for ours.”

The video is part of what’s expected to be an aggressive NRA lobbying push to thwart new gun regulations. The group has been raising money in response to the outcry for new gun laws. The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that a fresh fundraising appeal, circulated this week by LaPierre to the group’s membership, calls the current debate “the fight of the century.”

“I warned you this day was coming and now it’s here,” LaPierre wrote. “This is the fight of the century and I need you on board with NRA now more than ever. My strength, and the strength of our entire NRA organization, comes from you and your strong commitment to our membership. I need you in our corner TODAY.”

The group’s formal response to Obama’s announcement of legislative proposals and executive actions on Wednesday was more muted but still skeptical. “The NRA will continue to focus on keeping our children safe and securing our schools, fixing our broken mental health system, and prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law,” the statement said.

“We look forward to working with Congress on a bipartisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America’s most valuable asset - our children,” it said. “Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.”

ER visits tied to energy drinks double since 2007

After reading this article about the dangers of "energy drinks" I am beginning to suspect that using "spice" or "bath salts" isn't any more harmful then using an "energy drink" like Red Bull.

I suspect cops, firemen and doctors like to make a big deal out of anybody takes a drug and has a bad reaction to justify their jobs and make themselves look like heroes.

Vaguely I remember the same hype back when I was a child reading about people on bad LSD trips going to emergency rooms. And of course all the dangers from so called bad trips from LSD was almost all hype. Yes, you can have bad trips on acid, but they rarely cause any real damage.

Remember what H. L. Mencken said:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

ER visits tied to energy drinks double since 2007

Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:00 pm | Updated: 2:45 pm, Wed Jan 16, 2013.

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The young man stumbled into the emergency room late one night after a house party, saying his heart wouldn't stop pounding and he could barely breathe after downing liquor mixed with energy drinks.

Emergency physician Steve Sun soon found the patient was so dehydrated he was going into kidney failure — one of many troubling cases Sun says he has treated in recent years tied to energy drink consumption.

Sun's changing caseload appears in line with a new government survey that suggests the number of people seeking emergency treatment after consuming energy drinks has doubled nationwide during the past four years, the same period in which the supercharged drink industry has surged in popularity in convenience stores, bars and on college campuses.

"Five years ago, perhaps I would see one or two cases every three months or so. Now we're consistently seeing about two cases per month," said Sun, assistant medical director of the emergency department at St. Mary's Medical Center, on the edge of San Francisco's Golden Gate Park.

From 2007 to 2011, the government estimates the number of emergency room visits involving the neon-labeled beverages shot up from about 10,000 to more than 20,000. Most of the cases involved teens or young adults, according to the survey of the nation's hospitals released late last week by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

More than half of the patients considered in the survey told doctors they had consumed only energy drinks. In 2011, about 42 percent of the cases involved energy drinks in combination with alcohol or drugs, such as the stimulants Adderall or Ritalin.

The beverage industry says energy drinks are safe and there is no proof linking the products to adverse reactions.

The report doesn't specify which symptoms brought people to the emergency room, but it calls energy drink consumption a "rising public health problem" that can cause insomnia, nervousness, headache, fast heartbeat and seizures that are severe enough to require emergency care.

Several emergency physicians said they had seen a clear uptick in the number of patients suffering from irregular heartbeats, anxiety and heart attacks who said they had recently downed an energy drink.

"A lot of people don't realize the strength of these things. I had someone come in recently who had drunk three energy drinks in an hour, which is the equivalent of 15 cups of coffee," said Howard Mell, an emergency physician in the suburbs of Cleveland, who serves as a spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians. "Essentially he gave himself a stress test and thankfully he passed. But if he had a weak heart or suffered from coronary disease and didn't know it, this could have precipitated very bad things."

The findings came as concerns over energy drinks have intensified following reports last fall of 18 deaths possibly tied to the drinks and so-called energy shots — including a 14-year-old Maryland girl whose family filed a lawsuit after she drank two large cans of Monster Energy drinks and died. Monster says its products were not responsible for the death.

Two senators are calling for the Food and Drug Administration to investigate safety concerns about energy drinks and their ingredients.

Late last year, the FDA asked the U.S. Health and Human Services to update the figures its substance abuse research arm compiles about emergency room visits tied to energy drinks.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's survey was based on responses it receives from about 230 hospitals each year, a representative sample of about 5 percent of emergency departments nationwide. The agency then uses those responses to estimate the number of energy drink-related emergency department visits nationwide.

The more than 20,000 cases estimated for 2011 represent a small portion of the annual 136 million emergency room visits tracked by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The FDA said it was considering the findings and pressing for more details as it undertakes a broad review of the safety of energy drinks and related ingredients this spring.

"We will examine this additional information ... as a part of our ongoing investigation into potential safety issues surrounding the use of energy-drink products," FDA spokeswoman Shelly Burgess said in a statement.

Beverage manufacturers fired back at the survey, saying the statistics were misleading and taken out of context.

"This report does not share information about the overall health of those who may have consumed energy drinks, or what symptoms brought them to the ER in the first place," the American Beverage Association said in a statement. "There is no basis by which to understand the overall caffeine intake of any of these individuals — from all sources."

Energy drinks remain a small part of the carbonated soft drinks market, representing only 3.3 percent of sales volume, according to the industry tracker Beverage Digest. Even as soda consumption has flagged in recent years, energy drinks sales are growing rapidly.

In 2011, sales volume for energy drinks rose by almost 17 percent, with the top three companies — Monster, Red Bull and Rockstar — each logging double-digit gains, Beverage Digest found. The drinks are often marketed at sporting events that are popular among younger people such as surfing and skateboarding.

From 2007 to 2011, the most recent year for which data was available, people from 18 to 25 were the most common age group seeking emergency treatment for energy drink-related reactions, the report found.

"We were really concerned to find that in four years the number of emergency department visits almost doubled, and these drinks are largely marketed to younger people," said Al Woodward, a senior statistical analyst with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration who worked on the report.

Obama takes on gun extremists

Source

Obama takes on gun extremists

This time, the moderate is willing to fight

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: January 16

President Obama went big in offering a remarkably comprehensive plan to curb gun violence, and good for him. But his announcement Wednesday is only the beginning of a protracted struggle for national sanity on firearms. Extremists have controlled the debate on guns for many years. They will do all they can to preserve a bloody status quo. The irrationality of their approach must be exposed and their power broken.

Far from acting as if his work was now done, the president made clear that he is fully invested in seeing his agenda realized — and fully prepared to lead a national movement to loosen the grip of resignation and cynicism in the face of brutality and carnage. Gun violence is not some “boutique” issue, as it is occasionally called. We are in danger of having mass shootings define us as a nation. As a people, we must rise up against this obscenity.

This fight is especially challenging for many who view themselves as “moderates” or “centrists.” Moderation is a thoroughly honorable disposition, and Obama’s proposals are moderation incarnate. By international standards, they are very cautious. The president did not call for registering all guns or confiscating assault weapons. He strongly endorsed the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He is operating within a broad consensus about what is possible and what can work.

An assault-weapons ban received 38 Republican votes in the House in 1994 and is backed by 58 percent of Americans, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll. Were those Republicans outside the mainstream? And what about that 58 percent of Americans? The poll also found that 65 percent favored a ban on high-capacity magazines, another part of the Obama plan, and 86 percent favored closing the gun-show loophole, part of the effort to make sure there are background checks for all gun purchases.

But the lobbies that purport to speak for gun owners (while actually representing the interests of gun manufacturers) don’t care what the public thinks. They tried to pretend the president’s ideas are radical. And it shows how perverse our national conversation can become when those who speak in the name of civility, reason and bipartisanship give in to timidity.

Too often, moderation has become a synonym for cowardice. Too often, moderates lack the guts to define the sensible middle of the road themselves — as Obama has done on the gun issue — and then to defend it. Instead, they yield to the temptation to calibrate where everyone else stands before deciding what they believe. This allows extremists who lack any shame to drag our discourse off the road entirely, into a ditch of unreason, fear and invective.

After the NRA’s vile new advertisement that uses Secret Service protection for the president’s daughters to make a small-minded political point, can anyone take the organization’s arguments seriously again? Aren’t politicians who continue to bow low before the NRA complicit with a crowd that lacks any sense of decency?

It tells us all we need to know, that the gun lobby is deeply afraid of the facts and the evidence. This is why one of the most important actions the president took was to end the ban on research into gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which the weapons lobby had forced through a compliant Congress.

Yet Obama and Vice President Biden also worked hard to find middle ground in their anti-violence program in drawing on concerns raised since the Sandy Hook tragedy by gun rights advocates. Obama thus addressed not only firearms issues but also the imperative to improve school security and our mental health system, as well as the need to know more about the impact of violent video games.

Most heartening of all was the tone the president took. He did not cast himself as an evenhanded umpire far above the fray, handing down ideas that all people of good will would inevitably accept. He acknowledged that the battle ahead would be difficult. He predicted he would have to fight the lie that his plan constituted “a tyrannical assault on liberty.” And he sought to mobilize a new effort to counteract the entrenched power of those who have dictated submissiveness in the face of bloodshed.

“Enough,” Obama declared, insisting that change would come only “if the American people demand it.”

Will we?

Read more from E.J. Dionne’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Obama’s far-reaching gun-proposals face uncertain fate in divided Congress

Of course the White House hypocrites had Obama pose with a bunch of children in the photo used for this this article.

Source

Obama’s far-reaching gun-proposals face uncertain fate in divided Congress

By Philip Rucker and Ed O’Keefe, Published: January 16

The gun-control agenda that President Obama unveiled with urgency on Wednesday now faces an uncertain fate in a bitterly divided Congress, where Republican opposition hardened and centrist Democrats remained noncommittal after a month of feverish public debate.

By pursuing an expansive overhaul of the nation’s gun laws, Obama is wagering that public opinion has evolved enough after a string of mass shootings to force passage of politically contentious measures that Congress has long stymied.

Yet there was no indication on Wednesday that the mood on Capitol Hill has changed much. Within hours of Obama’s formal policy rollout at the White House, Republicans who had previously said they were open to a discussion about gun violence condemned his agenda as violating the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

“I’m confident there will be bipartisan opposition to his proposal,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said in a statement.

The Senate plans to begin taking up Obama’s proposals next week, with the House waiting to see what the Democrat-controlled Senate passes first, congressional aides said. The Senate is likely to take a piecemeal approach, eventually holding up-or-down votes on the individual elements of Obama’s plan rather than trying to muscle through a single comprehensive bill, aides said.

Obama, in an emotional White House ceremony, outlined four major legislative proposals aimed at curbing what he called “the epidemic of gun violence in this country”: universal background checks for all gun buyers, a crackdown on gun trafficking, a ban on military-style assault weapons and a ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 10 bullets.

Obama also signed paperwork initiating 23 executive actions that include steps to strengthen the existing background-check system, promote research on gun violence and provide training in “active shooter situations.” He also nominated Todd Jones, acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to become the agency’s permanent director.

As important as the executive actions are, Obama said, “they are in no way a substitute” for the legislative proposals he sent to Congress.

“We have to examine ourselves in our hearts and ask yourselves: What is important?” Obama said. He added, “If parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, if hunters and sportsmen, if responsible gun owners, if Americans of every background stand up and say, enough, we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue, then change will — change will come.”

But on Capitol Hill, where two decades of gun-control efforts have landed in the political graveyard, leaders of Obama’s own party do not necessarily share his views.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) stopped short of embracing Obama’s proposals, calling them “thoughtful recommendations” and saying that he would “consider legislation that addresses gun violence and other aspects of violence in our society early this year.”

In contrast with his role in the major policy debates during Obama’s first term, Reid is likely to step back on guns, according to Senate Democratic aides. He will leave it to Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) to shepherd the legislation, at least for now.

Reid is concerned about the potential political impact on fellow Democrats representing rural or conservative states, and he believes gun control could become a significant issue for at least 10 of the 23 Democratic Senate seats up for grabs in 2014, aides said.

The four measures Obama presented — which, taken together, rank among the most ambitious legislative projects of his presidency — appear to have varying levels of support in Congress.

The White House and Democratic lawmakers have calculated that the assault-weapons ban — a version of which passed in 1994 but expired a decade later — has the toughest odds, according to gun-control advocates in regular contact with administration officials. Also in jeopardy, they said, is the proposal to prohibit high-capacity magazines.

But a broad consensus seems more likely to build around universal background checks, which senior administration officials said is Obama’s top priority. Schumer said the idea is “at the sweet spot” of what is politically possible.

The gun trafficking proposal, which would impose new penalties on those who buy multiple firearms and hand them off to criminals, also could find majority support.

“If you are left in a position of having to oppose universal background checks and a firearms trafficking statute, that’s tough for responsible Republicans,” said Matt Bennett, a senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) adopted a wait-and-see approach Wednesday. His spokesman, Michael Steel, said House committees will consider Obama’s proposals and “if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that.”

But the statements from many other Republicans at both ends of the Capitol were far tougher. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Tex.), who has threatened to initiate impeachment proceedings against Obama, condemned what he described as Obama’s “anti-gun sneak attack” and promised a legislative battle to protect “the God-given right to keep and bear arms.”

A potential presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), said: “President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence.”

And Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who last week said he would be open to some form of gun control, said on Wednesday that Obama’s executive actions amounted to a “power grab” to “poke holes in the Second Amendment.”

No Republican lawmakers attended Wednesday’s White House ceremony. The only vestige of bipartisanship came when Obama invoked former president Ronald Reagan. He noted that Reagan, “one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment,” wrote to Congress in 1994 to urge support for the assault-weapons ban.

Obama acknowledged that getting his proposals through Congress “will be difficult,” making a veiled reference to powerful lobbying groups such as the National Rifle Association.

“There will be pundits and politicians and special-interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty — not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves,” Obama predicted. “And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any common-sense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever.”

In its official response, the NRA adopted a more muted tone than it has in recent weeks, saying it would work with Congress “on a bipartisan basis” to develop solutions that secure the nation’s schools and fix broken mental health systems. The statement did not specifically address Obama’s proposals, which include a $150 million school-safety initiative to help communities hire 1,000 new school resource officers.

But at a huge annual gun show in Las Vegas, the NRA said its opposition to Obama’s plans was “the fight of the century.”

“I warned you this day was coming, and now it’s here,” NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre wrote in a fundraising letter circulated at the trade show. “It’s not about protecting your children. It’s not about stopping crime. It’s about banning your guns . . . PERIOD!”

Gun-control advocates say their strategy will be to highlight popular support for most of Obama’s proposals and rally voters across the country to press their representatives in Congress to act.

“There’s an extraordinary disconnect between what the American public wants — including gun owners and NRA members — and what our elected officials are doing about it,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “It is going to be up to us, the American public, to close that disconnect.”

Obama vowed Wednesday to “put everything I’ve got into this.” In a moving event one month and two days after a gunman killed 20 small children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Obama was flanked by children who wrote him letters in the days after the massacre, pleading with him to do something to curb gun violence.

The president urged Americans to put pressure on their members of Congress and “get them on record” on whether they support universal background checks on gun buyers and renewal of the bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“And if they say no, ask them why not,” Obama said. “Ask them what’s more important: Doing whatever it takes to get an ‘A’ grade from the gun lobby that funds their campaigns, or giving parents some peace of mind when they drop their child off to first grade?”

Vice President Biden, who headed the task force that developed Wednesday’s proposals, said “we have a moral obligation” to reduce the chances that tragedies such as the one in Newtown could happen again.

“I have no illusions about what we’re up against,” Biden said. But he added: “The world has changed, and it’s demanding action.”

Sari Horwitz in Las Vegas and William Branigin, Scott Wilson and Lyndsey Layton in Washington contributed to this report.

The latest shooting victim - The Bill of Rights

3 Schaumburg cops accused of robbing drug dealers

Source

3 Schaumburg cops accused of robbing drug dealers

Staff report

7:10 a.m. CST, January 17, 2013

Three Schaumburg police officers will appear in court this morning accused of robbing drug dealers, officials said.

John Cichy, Matthew Hudak and Terrance O’Brien were taken into custody by agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration on Wednesday, sources said. They were arrested following an investigation by DuPage County authorities working with the DEA, a village source said.

The investigation involved a sting and an informant who wore a wire, said a source close to the investigation. The source added that DEA agents went to the Schaumburg police station on Wednesday to confiscate records related to the arrests.

Cichy and Hudak were each charged with manufacturing or delivering between 100 and 400 grams of cocaine, armed violence, criminal drug conspiracy, conspiracy to manufacture or deliver between 100 and 400 grams of cocaine, official misconduct, theft between $10,000 and $100,000 in a school or place of worship, and burglary.

O'Brien was charged with manufacturing or delivering between 100 and 400 grams of cocaine, armed violence, drug conspiracy, official misconduct, theft of stolen property between $10,000 and $100,000 from a school or place of worship, and burglary.

All three are being held on $750,000 bond, according to the DuPage County sheriff’s office. They are expected to appear in bond court this morning, and a news conference is scheduled afterward.

Schaumburg police spokesman Sgt. John Nebl said late Wednesday that the three have been placed on leave pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

Nebl said the department has launched its own investigation into the matter and has “pledged its ongoing assistance” in the criminal probe.

Nebl referred inquiries to the DuPage County state’s attorney’s office. DuPage County spokesman Paul Darrah confirmed the arrests but declined additional comment.

triblocalfeedback@tribune.com

I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.

I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.

By JOHN HOWARD

Published: January 16, 2013

SYDNEY, Australia

It is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.

I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country — where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere — sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.

Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)

Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.

To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.

City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.

The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife.

Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australia’s northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural.

The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my government’s decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws.

For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. [He conveniently forgot to say if the gun control laws reduced crime. I read that crime actually increased] The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.

Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?

Gun control won't stop Obama from committing more drone murders!!!!

Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?

By VICKI DIVOLL

Published: January 16, 2013

WASHINGTON

PRESIDENT OBAMA has refused to tell Congress or the American people why he believes the Constitution gives, or fails to deny, him the authority to secretly target and kill American citizens who he suspects are involved in terrorist activities overseas. So far he has killed three that we know of.

Presidents had never before, to our knowledge, targeted specific Americans for military strikes. There are no court decisions that tell us if he is acting lawfully. Mr. Obama tells us not to worry, though, because his lawyers say it is fine, because experts guide the decisions and because his advisers have set up a careful process to help him decide whom he should kill.

He must think we should be relieved.

The three Americans known to have been killed, in two drone strikes in Yemen in the fall of 2011, are Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who had lived in New York and North Carolina, and was killed alongside Mr. Awlaki; and, in a strike two weeks later, Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado.

Most of us think these people were probably terrorists anyway. So the president’s reassurances have been enough to keep criticism at an acceptable level for the White House. Democrats in Congress and in the press have only gingerly questioned the claims by a Democratic president that he is right about the law and careful when he orders drone attacks on our citizens. And Republicans, who favor aggressive national security powers for the executive branch, look forward to the day when one of their own can wield them again.

But a few of our representatives have spoken up — sort of. Several months ago, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began limply requesting the Department of Justice memorandums that justify the targeted killing program. At a committee hearing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., reminded of the request, demurred and shared a rueful chuckle with the senator. Mr. Leahy did not want to be rude, it seems — though some of us remember him being harder on former President George W. Bush’s attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, in 2005.

So, even though Congress has the absolute power under the Constitution to receive these documents, the Democratic-controlled Senate has not fought this president to get them. If the senators did, and the president held fast to his refusal, they could go to court and demand them, and I believe they would win. Perhaps even better, they could skip getting the legal memos and go right to the meat of the matter — using oversight and perhaps legislating to control the president’s killing powers. That isn’t happening either.

Thank goodness we have another branch of government to step into the fray. It is the job of the federal courts to interpret the Constitution and laws, and thus to define the boundaries of the powers of the branches of government, including their own.

In reining in the branches, the courts have been toughest on themselves, however. A long line of Supreme Court cases require that judges wait for cases to come to them. They can take cases only from plaintiffs who have a personal stake in the outcome; they cannot decide political questions; they cannot rule on an issue not squarely before them.

Because of these and other limitations, no case has made it far enough in federal court for a judge to rule on the merits of the basic constitutional questions at stake here. A pending case filed in July by the families of the three dead Americans does raise Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges to the president’s killings of their relatives. We will see if the judge agrees to consider the constitutional questions or dismisses the case, citing limitations on his own power.

In another case, decided two weeks ago, a federal judge in Manhattan, Colleen McMahon, ruled, grudgingly, that the American Civil Liberties Union and two New York Times reporters could not get access, under the Freedom of Information Act, to classified legal memorandums that were relied on to justify the targeted killing program. In her opinion, she expressed serious reservations about the president’s interpretation of the constitutional questions. But the merits of the program were not before her, just access to the Justice Department memos, so her opinion was, in effect, nothing but an interesting read.

So at the moment, the legislature and the courts are flummoxed by, or don’t care about, how or whether to take on this aggressive program. But Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, should know, of all people, what needs to be done. He was highly critical when Mr. Bush applied new constitutional theories to justify warrantless wiretapping and “enhanced interrogation.” In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama demanded transparency, and after taking office, he released legal memos that the Bush administration had kept secret. Once the self-serving constitutional analysis that the Bush team had used was revealed, legal scholars from across the spectrum studied and denounced it.

While Mr. Obama has criticized his predecessor, he has also worried about his successors. Last fall, when the election’s outcome was still in doubt, Mr. Obama talked about drone strikes in general and said Congress and the courts should in some manner “rein in” presidents by putting a “legal architecture in place.” His comments seemed to reflect concern that future presidents should perhaps not wield alone such awesome and unchecked power over life and death — of anyone, not just Americans. Oddly, under current law, Congress and the courts are involved when presidents eavesdrop on Americans, detain them or harshly interrogate them — but not when they kill them.

It is not just the most recent president, this one and the next whom we need to worry about when it comes to improper exercise of power. It is every president. Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens.

Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.

Vicki Divoll is a former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center.

Gun-friendly Arizona may feel bigger impact than other states

Source

Gun-friendly Arizona may feel bigger impact than other states

By Dennis Wagner The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:45 AM

If President Barack Obama’s proposed gun-control measures are enacted by Congress, the impact on firearms access and public safety may be more pronounced in Arizona than almost anywhere else in America, say experts on both sides of the debate.

The Grand Canyon State is among the nation’s worst or best when it comes to firearms regulation, depending on where one stands on the polarizing issue.

Put simply, Arizonans can buy, own and carry guns with few limitations, whether the weapons are concealed or not.

Obama’s 23-point plan outlined Wednesday calls on Congress to adopt measures that already exist in some states — but not in Arizona.

Among the key proposals: mandatory background checks on all firearms purchases, a ban on military-style assault weapons and a limit on high-capacity magazines.

The prospects for passage are uncertain, but reaction in the state made famous by Wyatt Earp’s gunfight at the O.K. Corral was predictably passionate.

Charles Heller, co-founder of the Tucson-based Arizona Citizens Defense League, said Obama is trying to undermine a fundamental right to bear arms.

“The idea of the Second Amendment was so we could shoot the cops and the soldiers ... who are trying to overthrow the U.S. Constitution,” Heller said. “The Founding Fathers wanted the citizens to be armed with the same equipment as the government.”

Mari Bailey, president of the Greater Phoenix Million Mom March, which is affiliated with the national Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Arizona and the nation must reflect on the damage done because of unfettered access to assault-style weapons.

“We’ve already seen that allowing these things isn’t working,” said Bailey, whose 21-year-old son was slain by a gunman in 2004. “I know it will make a difference. ... It will show a decline in mass shootings.”

Arizonans for Gun Safety President Hildy Saizow, who met with Vice President Joe Biden last week to discuss the public-safety plan, said Obama’s proposals are “fabulous.”

“His plan mirrors the recommendations I gave to Vice President Biden,” Saizow added. “He’s taking a very comprehensive approach by looking at not only the mass shootings and what we can do to prevent those, but what we can do to reduce gun violence generally.”

The National Rifle Association does not maintain a ranking list for states, but its website shows Arizona conforming to nearly every NRA barometer for Second Amendment support.

On Wednesday, the nation’s largest gun lobby responded to Obama’s plan with a news release that said: “Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected, and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.”

Heller, the Tucson gun-rights advocate, said he sees little chance of Obama’s firearms legislation passing congressional muster. He scoffed at the idea of limiting magazines to 10 rounds of ammunition when some can hold three times that number. “Are they saying it’s moral to shoot 10 people but not 30?” he asked.

The California-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Arizona an F for firearms-safety regulation. “Out of 50 states, Arizona came in 49th behind only South Dakota,” said Lindsay Nichols, an attorney who worked on the report card. “It has some of the weakest gun laws in the country.”

Nichols noted that Arizona does not require background checks for private or gun-show transactions and the state does not limit certain semiautomatic weapons. When asked if a federal law mandating those regulations would affect firearm accessibility and lethality more in Arizona than other states, she said, “Yes, and it might cause a larger reduction in the number of gun deaths.”

An online scorecard issued by the Brady Campaign ranks Arizona last (with Utah and Alaska) for firearms-safety provisions. The state received a “0” score.

Bailey said it seems absurd that Americans need licenses to drive cars and buy prescriptions for drugs, but they can walk into Walmart and purchase an assault-style gun with the groceries. [Wrong!!! To buy a gun at Walmart you need a government issued photo ID, like a driver's license to start the process and then you need to pass a Brady Bill check.]

“We’ve done nothing as a gun-culture nation for long enough,” she added. “Let’s try something.”

Randy Gardner, a Tucson man who was shot in the foot during gunman Jared Loughner’s shooting spree two years ago, said Obama came up with reasonable policies that don’t jeopardize Second Amendment rights.

“Why can’t we make an attempt to have a safer society?” asked Gardner, 62. “It’s all common-sense stuff for those of us who were involved in gunplay here.”

There are more than 10,000 firearms homicides in the United States annually, and Gardner said a reduction of even 10 percent would be significant.

“No one is naive enough to think this will be the end of mass slayings,” he added. “But just one person being killed tears at the fabric of a whole family, and then it goes out to friends. We’re talking millions of people affected.” [If you really want to make America safer make cars illegal!!! In 2011 32,367 people died in auto accidents. In 2010 31,672 people died from guns.]

Arizona’s congressional delegation responded to the president’s plan along predictably partisan lines.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said he will consider “common-sense legislation” to keep guns away from criminals, but Obama’s plan “goes too far.”

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., said the president launched an “attack on personal gun ownership, the Second Amendment and our God-given rights.”

Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., said Obama came up with a common-sense plan to combat violence, especially in schools. “This is the right thing to do, now more than ever,” he added.

At the Republican-controlled Legislature in Phoenix, Obama’s ideas present a dramatic contrast to gun-rights bills enacted in recent years.

Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, criticized Obama for using executive orders in a quest to increase firearms regulation.

“He’s governing like Caesar Augustus or Adolf Hitler,” Shooter said. “This is just more insanity and tyranny from Washington, when what we need to be doing is taking a real, hard look at our mental-health system.”

House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, said in a news release that Obama has “shown his unwillingness to develop real solutions to ensure the safety of our children and has instead opted to infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens for his own political aggrandizement.”

Democrats in the Legislature, meanwhile, welcomed Obama’s public-safety initiative as a plan that includes mental-health initiatives and school protections along with gun control.

Sen. Robert Meza of Phoenix said he plans state legislation to complement the plan by outlawing the possession of an unregistered firearm.

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, who introduced a bill last week with proposals similar to Obama’s, applauded the presidential initiative.

Reporters Alia Beard Rau, Erin Kelly and Mary K. Reinhart contributed to this article.

Court weighs San Francisco public nudity ban

Court weighs San Francisco public nudity ban

By Associated Press Paul Elias Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:00 AM

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge is set to consider San Francisco’s new law that bans public nudity.

Public nudity activists are requesting that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on Thursday block the law from going into effect on Feb. 1 while he considers their lawsuit seeking to invalidate the ordinance.

The activists argue that ban violates their 1st Amendment freedom of speech because their nudity is a political statement.

They also argue the law violates equal protection rights because it exempts children younger than 5 and public nudity at certain events such as an annual street fair, the city’s Gay Pride Parade and its Bay-to-Breakers foot race, which is noted for the wacky costumes — or lack thereof — of participants.

Attorneys representing the city counter that the ban is a matter of public health, safety and the “general welfare” of all residents.

The Board of Supervisors authorized the ban on a 6-5 vote last month after enduring several vocal and naked protests from nudists and their supporters. They argued that the citywide ban is unnecessary and would draw police officers’ attention away from bigger problems while undermining San Francisco values like tolerance and appreciation for the offbeat.

Supervisor Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco’s largely gay Castro District, introduced the legislation after receiving constituent complaints about the naked men who gather in a small neighborhood plaza most days and sometimes walk the streets naked.

The ban requires clothing below the waist of all appearing in public.

If the ban becomes law, a first offense carries a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail.

The Second Amendment is not about killing unarmed children!!!

Dear Editor:

Lets face it the Founders didn't create the Second Amendment to allow people to kill defenseless, unarmed school children.

The Second Amendment was created to allow people to kill well armed government tyrants.

In 1776 that meant allowing the people to have swords, flintlock rifles and canons.

In 2013 it means allowing the people to have machine guns, rocket launchers, anti-tank guns and all the other weapons the well armed government tyrants have.

Mike Ross
Tempe, Arizona

Using kids as props limits the gun debate

Source

Using kids as props limits the gun debate

By Doug MacEachern, columnist The Republic

Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:18 AM

As a former gun owner — my inherited 20-gauge antique shotgun was, ahem, stolen in a burglary — I’m nevertheless sympathetic to the national furor calling for more serious gun control.

Not that I have much hope anything proposed Wednesday by President Barack Obama will accomplish much. I simply respect the fact that there is a growing (and, yes, passionate) national desire to keep weapons out of the wrong people’s grip.

More to the point, though, I’m anxious to take the debate out of the control of the zealots.

I don’t like policy discussions being controlled by unreasonable lots like Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association any more than I like public-education discourse determined by agitprop experts from the National Education Association. Let’s have a real discussion, eh?

That is what was most discouraging about Obama’s event on Wednesday advancing his executive orders on gun control. It was staged agitprop using children as foils — not as a means of engaging in a national-policy debate over effective gun control, but simply for browbeating the other side.

Politicians don’t use children as stage props to talk policy.

They use children to shut up their political opponents. I’m for the children, and you’re not. I find that reprehensible.

Politicians have been using “regular people” as sympathy magnets for exactly 30 years. In the circle of political stage-managers, they are known as “Lenny Skutniks.”

Lenny Skutnik was the heroic regular guy who flung himself into the icy Potomac to save survivors of the crash of Air Florida Flight 90. Reagan wanted to honor him, so he brought him to Congress for his 1982 State of the Union address.

Acknowledging Skutnik was nice, of course, but it begat the habit of presidents and other pols becoming ever more inventive at involving sympathetic non-public figures for ever-more-dubious purposes.

I thought the practice had hit a crescendo when Obama pointlessly surrounded himself with “middle-class taxpayers” at his Republican-baiting press event on New Year’s Eve at the end of the fiscal-cliff crisis. As if his GOP opponents could not have used the same group of people as props to show how Obama’s deal would be hiking their payroll taxes, which it did.

But Wednesday’s shameless use of children was still worse.

You may not like LaPierre’s idea of putting armed guards in schools to protect against the madmen out there. I’m not crazy about it. (Although Obama’s “school-resource officers” seems like a soft-soap, politically correct version of the same thing.)

But can you imagine the Vesuvian uproar if he had proposed it while surrounded by a group of kids backed up by a squad of well-armed toughs?

Same goal as Obama, after all. He wants to protect the kids.

Not all cops are gun grabbers who want to disarm you!!!!!

Sheriffs, state lawmakers push back on gun control

By JEFF BARNARD | Associated Press – 23 mins ago

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — From Oregon to Mississippi, President Barack Obama's proposed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines struck a nerve among rural lawmen and lawmakers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restrictions — and even try to stop federal officials from enforcing gun policy in their jurisdictions.

"A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, 'Follow the Constitution,'" said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon.

But their actual powers to defy federal law are limited. And much of the impassioned rhetoric amounts to political posturing until — and if — Congress acts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said recently it's unlikely an assault weapons ban would actually pass the House of Representatives. Absent action by Congress, all that remains are 23 executive orders Obama announced that apply only to the federal government, not local or state law enforcement.

Gun advocates have seen Obama as an enemy despite his expression of support for the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a personal right to have guns. So his call for new measures — including background checks for all gun buyers and Senate confirmation of a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — triggered new vows of defiance.

In Mississippi, Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican, urged the Legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution.

"If someone kicks open my door and they're entering my home, I'd like as many bullets as I could to protect my children, and if I only have three, then the ability for me to protect my family is greatly diminished," Bryant said. "And what we're doing now is saying, 'We're standing against the federal government taking away our civil liberties.'"

Tennessee Republican state Rep. Joe Carr wants to make it a state crime for federal agents to enforce any ban on firearms or ammunition. Carr instead called for more armed guards at schools.

"We're tired of political antics, cheap props of using children as bait to gin up emotional attachment for an issue that quite honestly doesn't solve the problem," Carr said.

Legislative proposals to pre-empt new federal gun restrictions also have arisen in Wyoming, Utah and Alaska.

A Wyoming bill specifies that any federal limitation on guns would be unenforceable. It also would make it a state felony for federal agents to try to enforce restrictions.

"I think there are a lot of people who would want to take all of our guns if they could," said co-sponsor Rep. Kendell Kroeker, a Republican. "And they're only restrained by the opposition of the people, and other lawmakers who are concerned about our rights."

Republican state Sen. Larry Hicks credited Wyoming's high rate of gun ownership for a low rate of gun violence.

"Our kids grow up around firearms, and they also grow up hunting, and they know what the consequences are of taking a life," Hicks said. "We're not insulated from the real world in Wyoming."

In Utah, some Republicans are preparing legislation to exempt the state from federal gun laws — and fine any federal agents who try to seize guns. A bill in the Alaska House would make it a misdemeanor for a federal agent to enforce new restrictions on gun ownership.

While such proposals are eye-catching, they likely could never be implemented.

"The legislature can pass anything it wants," said Sam Kamin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. "The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes that clearly unconstitutional. Where there's a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme."

Kamin and other legal experts said such disdain of Obama's proposals is reminiscent of former Confederate states' refusal to comply with federal law extending equal rights for blacks after the Civil War.

The National Sheriff's Association has supported administration efforts to combat gun violence after the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. President Larry Amerson, sheriff of Calhoun, Ala., said he understands the frustrations of people in rural areas with the federal government. But he feels his oath of office binds him to uphold all laws.

"Any sheriff who knows his duty knows we don't enforce federal law, per se," said Amerson, a longtime firearms instructor and hunter.

Some rural sheriffs view the federal government as an adversary, with gun ownership at the core of that belief.

In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents saying he did not believe the federal government had the right to tell the states how to regulate firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate he felt violated constitutional rights.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, based in Fredericksburg, Texas, encourages that point of view. Founder Richard Mack, a former sheriff of Apache County, Ariz., speaks regularly at gatherings of Tea Party groups and gun rights organizations.

"I will tell Mr. Obama and everybody else who wants to impose gun control in America, that whether you like it or not, it is against the law," said Mack. "Now we have good sheriffs who are standing up and defending the law against our own president."

___

Associated Press writers contributing to this report: Nicholas Riccardi in Denver, Ben Neary in Cheyenne, Wyo., Erik Schelzig in Nashville, Tenn., John O'Connor in Springfield, Ill., Amy Forliti in Minneapolis and Emily Wagster Pettus in Jackson, Miss.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton is a gun grabber???

Source

2 Valley mayors agree on need for better background checks

By Erin Kelly Republic Washington Bureau Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:27 PM

WASHINGTON -- If Congress wants to find consensus on reducing gun violence, universal background checks on everyone who wants to buy a firearm may be the best place to start, the mayors of Phoenix and Mesa said Thursday.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat, and Mesa Mayor Scott Smith, a Republican, disagree on many of President Barack Obama’s proposed gun-control measures but agree on the need for better background checks to keep guns from criminals and the mentally ill.

The two addressed the issue while attending the annual winter meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors here.

Stanton supports the president’s wide-ranging approach, which includes a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Smith says he believes such bans infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

But both support the idea of ensuring that everyone who buys a gun should undergo a background check. Currently, those checks aren’t done on buyers who purchase firearms at gun shows and other private sales. The president’s plan, unveiled Tuesday, would change that.

Smith said he wants more details about how the background checks would work, but supports the general idea.

“There is wide support among gun owners — of which I am one — to make sure guns don’t end up in the hands of the wrong people,” said Smith, who is vice president of the mayors’ group. “I think most everyone can agree that convicted criminals and people with serious mental illness should not have guns.”

David Keene, president of the National Rifle Association said Thursday on “CBS This Morning” that the organization is “generally supportive” of strong background checks.

Stanton said passing legislation to require universal background checks is the least that Congress can do in the wake of last month’s mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

“I think America is saying it’s time to take reasonable measures to reduce gun violence,” Stanton said. “If we can deal with the issue of background checks, that’s part of a good consensus approach.”

While the issue of gun violence dominated the news coverage of the first day of the mayors’ three-day meeting, Stanton and Smith said the federal fiscal crisis still tops their list of concerns.

When Congress reached a last-minute deal on New Year’s Day to stop middle-class tax increases from taking effect, lawmakers postponed for two months a decision on what to do about $1.2 trillion in automatic, across-the-board cuts in federal spending on defense and domestic programs.

Arizona stands to lose 50,000 jobs if Congress does not stop the cuts from taking effect on March 1, Stanton said.

“It’s not acceptable that we’re still facing this looming threat,” he said. “We understand that some federal budget cuts are coming, but this is too much. This would throw us back into recession.”

Smith agreed, calling the automatic cuts “a dumb idea.” He said he is especially concerned that some lawmakers are talking about eliminating the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds.

“Those bonds are our lifeblood for financing our local projects,” Smith said.

With gun violence and fiscal issues dominating Washington, Stanton also said he fears that comprehensive immigration reform will once again be pushed aside by Congress.

“Congress should be able to multi-task and address gun violence and immigration at the same time,” Stanton said.

Senator Dennis DeConcini is a gun grabber???

Gun-control debates of past show political risks

By Dan Nowicki The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:55 AM

One of the driving forces behind the last federal ban on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines believes President Barack Obama and gun-control allies have a chance at getting an updated version passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn.

Former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., acknowledged that Second Amendment advocates and the gun lobby are poised to put up fierce opposition, just as they did nearly 20 years ago, when Congress adopted similar curbs after a hard-fought and politically costly battle on Capitol Hill.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, DeConcini took up the cause against assault weapons in 1989, after one of the guns was used to shoot children during a schoolyard killing spree in Stockton, Calif. Back home in Arizona, critics organized a short-lived recall effort against him.

“The reality is it takes a lot of courage,” said DeConcini, who sat on the joint House-Senate conference committee that considered the 1994 ban. “It wasn’t telling people they can’t own guns. It was just restricting some guns.” [And that is nothing more then double talk saying I was telling people they can't own guns!!!]

However, the legislation banning the manufacturing, transport and possession of certain types of guns, which was included as part of a sweeping anti-crime bill, contained loopholes that allowed gunmakers to sidestep the law by changing some of the physical features of the weapons. The 10-year ban expired without congressional reauthorization in 2004.

DeConcini previously had sponsored assault-weapon legislation that passed the Senate but couldn’t get out of the House. He credits development of the ban to then-Judiciary Committee aide Dennis Burke, the future U.S. attorney for Arizona who years later was at the center of the “Operation Fast and Furious” gun-trafficking scandal.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., took the lead on the issue in 1994 because the three-term DeConcini was preparing to retire. Even though Democrats controlled the House at the time, conservative Democrats such as powerful House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks, D-Texas, were antagonistic toward gun-control legislation. The 10-year sunset clause was included as part of a deal to win support from skeptics such as Brooks, DeConcini said.

“That was the compromise — the only way you could have passed it,” DeConcini told The Arizona Republic on Wednesday, hours after President Barack Obama unveiled his plan.

Brooks, who died Dec. 4, lost his House seat in the 1994 election as part of a backlash to the assault-weapons ban that is believed to have contributed to that year’s “Republican Revolution.”

Other political casualties included one-term Rep. Karan English, D-Ariz., whose vote for the ban likely was a factor in her loss to GOP challenger J.D. Hayworth. English’s district included part of rural Arizona, where many voters cherish gun rights.

Ten years later, there was little political interest in renewing the ban or in pursuing any new gun-control measures in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The 1994 ban’s definition of assault weapons also proved problematic in practice. In addition to targeting specific types of guns such as AK-47s, AR-15s and TEC-9s, the measure extended the definition of “assault weapons” to semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines in conjunction with at least two other features such as a pistol grip, a bayonet mount or a flash suppressor.

Semiautomatic pistols also could be assault weapons if the guns had a certain combination of features. Gun manufacturers started making cosmetic alterations to get around the ban.

It is unclear how new legislation would define assault weapons.

“On one of them, they changed the grip, and it qualified as a different weapon,” DeConcini recalled.

Assault weapons manufactured before 1994 were exempt, which caused some to question the ban’s effectiveness. Pre-ban models remained in circulation and could still be sold. In 1997, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s posse attracted national criticism for offering one such pre-ban semiautomatic AR-15 rifle as a raffle prize.

“There were loopholes that obviously mitigated some (of the impact) of the ban,” said veteran Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., who voted for the 1994 legislation and would support a 2013 version, although he is pessimistic one could pass.

Although gun control has more momentum than it has had in years, another political expert agreed that a new assault-weapons ban is unlikely to make it out of the Republican-run House.

“It seems to me right now that the politics of this issue are just really, really difficult,” said William Dixon, a professor of political science at the University of Arizona.

No charges in $33,000 theft from Surprise Police evidence room

Source

No charges in missing Surprise Police Department evidence

By Jen Lebron Kuhney The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:25 PM

No one will face criminal charges in connection with $33,000 taken from the Surprise Police Department’s evidence facility more than two years ago, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said.

In the meantime, Surprise police have revamped evidence-storage procedures to prevent similar incidents, the department announced this week.

An extensive 25-year audit conducted by the department after the money was reported missing revealed that an additional $18,600 and more than 60 guns are unaccounted for. The problems that allowed police to lose track of the items are resolved, officials said.

Councilman Mike Woodard said he is disappointed investigators could not gather enough evidence for a successful prosecution.

He is pleased, however, with the steps the Police Department has taken to prevent further losses, he said.

“They found a problem, we went after it to find out exactly what the problem was, and now we’re fixing it. That’s about all you can do,” Woodard said.

Surprise police discovered that $33,000 seized in two separate drug investigations was missing in September 2010. The department launched an internal inquiry and asked Phoenix police to conduct an independent criminal investigation to avoid any conflicts of interest.

Phoenix shelved the case in March. The department pursued “investigative leads” but failed to identify any suspects.

The County Attorney’s Office ultimately did not have enough evidence to prosecute anyone, spokesman Jerry Cobb said.

“We can’t really go to trial on a hunch,” he said. The office does not press charges unless there is likely enough evidence to win the case, he added.

“We are a public agency at the end of the day, and we have to be prudent when we spend the taxpayers’ dollars,” Cobb said.

Surprise’s internal investigation was also inconclusive. But the case prompted the department to examine how it handles evidence and to audit 25 years of evidence-locker records.

“The currency incident in 2010 made it clear we needed a floor-to-ceiling inventory and complete a review of our procedures,” said Surprise Police Chief Michael Frazier, who was appointed in 2011.

Surprise police discovered 6,752 items, or 4percent of evidence collected from 1986 to 2011, were unaccounted for. That includes $18,600 in cash from 43 incidents, 72 drug-related items and 66 guns.

It’s likely the weapons were returned to their owners or destroyed, said Cmdr. Terry Young, who led the evidence-inventory project.

“There is no evidence that unaccounted-for weapons, which include handguns and rifles, were illegally or improperly removed from police custody,” he said in a statement.

Until 1991, evidence records were handwritten, which made them more difficult to track, police said.

The department used its first automated system from 1991 until 2003, when it switched to its current computer program. Many of the records kept prior to 2003 were inaccessible when the old system became obsolete, police officials said.

Many of the items are considered “unaccounted for” because of the record-keeping, but Young said no prosecutions were hindered by the missing items.

Surprise police property custodians became certified to meet international property- and evidence-managing standards in 2012.

In addition, the department has increased the number of security cameras used at the facility. Now, authorized workers must use key cards to enter the evidence-storage area. The fence around the facility will be upgraded and new lighting has been put in place, Frazier said.

All the evidence collected in 2012 has been accounted for, Frazier said in a Tuesday memo to City Manager Chris Hillman.

The results show the new policies and procedures were working, he wrote.

Cop accused of groping women gets 2 years

Source

Cop accused of groping women gets 2 years

Associated Press Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:56 AM

LAS VEGAS — An ex-Las Vegas police officer accused of groping female drivers and forcing them to expose their breasts during traffic stops has been sentenced to two years in prison.

KSNV-TV reports that Clark County District Court Judge Abbi Silver handed down the sentence to John Norman on Thursday morning.

Norman had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor lewdness and oppression under the color of office. He will serve a year for each count.

Prosecutors dropped felony charges.

Before sentencing, the 34-year-old said he recognized the error of his ways. Two of his victims asked the judge for the maximum sentence.

Norman resigned from the police department last year after two women came forward.

Prosecutors: Cops caught on tape robbing drug dealers

Source

3 Schaumburg cops accused of drug ring

By Christy Gutowski, Dan Hinkel and John Keilman Tribune reporters

January 18, 2013

When Carol Stream police discovered nearly 10 ounces of cocaine in an apartment storage locker early this month, the alleged owner of the drugs had a story to tell.

He said that after serving as an informant for three Schaumburg tactical police officers, he had become their business partner. The cops, he said, stole cash and narcotics from drug dealers. The informant peddled the dope they seized.

That claim led the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to mount a sting operation against the Schaumburg officers. When it allegedly bore fruit, federal agents pounced, arresting the men Wednesday outside of Woodfield Mall.

The officers now face a barrage of felony charges that could land them in prison for decades. It's the second recent blot on the Schaumburg Police Department's reputation: Chief Brian Howerton was recently investigated on allegations he harassed his ex-girlfriend, though prosecutors declined to press charges.

Now village officials are left grasping for answers at how this case of alleged corruption could take place in their town.

"I think that this is going to leave a mark on the department," Village Manager Ken Fritz said Thursday after the charges against the officers were outlined at a bond hearing. "It's sad for those people that have to carry on in the future and it's going to take us a long time to earn back some of the trust of the community."

DuPage County Assistant State's Attorney Audriana Anderson said in court that the roots of the alleged conspiracy stretch back to 2010, when officer Matthew Hudak arrested a man on drug charges and convinced him to become an informant.

But that relationship changed in mid-2012, Anderson said, when Hudak and his colleagues John Cichy and Terrance O'Brien — all tactical officers in Schaumburg's special investigations division, which handles drugs, gangs and undercover work — approached the informant with a new deal in mind: They wanted him to buy and sell drugs on their behalf.

Marijuana, cocaine and thousands of dollars repeatedly exchanged hands, prosecutors said. Hudak allegedly funded one buy with $14,000 in cash; he allegedly gave his share of marijuana to another drug dealer to sell.

Other times, prosecutors said, the officers gave the informant a portion of the narcotics they had recovered in legitimate busts. He allegedly sold it for them and split the profits.

Hudak, 29, tried to keep an eye on his partner, Anderson said, by illegally using a law enforcement computer system to check whether the informant had been in contact with other police agencies.

The officers allegedly stashed 6 pounds of marijuana at the Hoffman Estates home of Nicole Brehm, 44, who prosecutors said was O'Brien's longtime girlfriend and the mother of one of his children. O'Brien, 46, who has been a police officer for 20 years, is married and has four other children with his wife, prosecutors said.

A woman at O'Brien's northwest suburban home declined comment to a Tribune reporter Thursday.

The scheme went on for six to nine months, prosecutors said, until Carol Stream police, acting on an unrelated tip, got a search warrant for the informant's apartment. Once they found the drugs, the informant told them about his relationship with the Schaumburg police officers, prosecutors said.

That led to DEA surveillance, in which allegedly illegal exchanges were secretly recorded, and finally a sting operation.

Prosecutors said the informant told the officers that an out-of-state associate was coming into town, and they decided to rip him off. On Saturday, prosecutors said, the officers went to a Roselle storage unit where they believed the dealer had stashed $20,000.

Audio and video equipment captured what happened next, prosecutors said: The officers, wearing masks, broke in and took the cash. Then they brought the money back. Then they returned one more time and retrieved it. Cichy was caught on video lifting his mask, prosecutors said.

On Wednesday, federal agents arrested the officers in a parking lot outside of Woodfield Mall and executed 20 search warrants at the police station, the officers' homes and their cars. They found $10,000 of the bait money in Hudak's home and $5,000 each with Cichy and O'Brien, authorities said.

"Everything you have on tape, I did. You got me on that," Anderson quoted Hudak as telling authorities.

O'Brien told investigators that the trio committed the crimes "for the thrill of it," Anderson said.

The men answered a few perfunctory questions in bond court. Only Cichy, 30, showed any sign of emotion.

He choked back tears, buried his head in his hands and repeatedly shook his head as prosecutors detailed the allegations and possible prison terms. Cichy's girlfriend, mother and aunt sat quietly in the back row of the courtroom gallery as the men were ordered held on $750,000 cash bond.

The two most serious charges the men face — unlawful delivery of a controlled substance and calculated criminal drug conspiracy — carry a prison term of up to 40 years.

Brehm, O'Brien's girlfriend, was charged with calculated criminal drug conspiracy for allegedly letting the officers use her house to stash drugs.

Thomas Glasgow, Hudak's attorney, said his client had been set up by a "snitch" who was trying to wriggle out of trouble. Narcotics officers often make deals with "little fish" to zero in on bigger criminals, he said.

"In order to collar the bad guys, you've got to act like the bad guys," Glasgow said.

The offices of the Cook County state's attorney and public defender are looking at cases in which the officers were involved to determine whether any have been compromised. Criminal defense experts said some prosecutions could be tainted because of questions about the officers' credibility and their unavailability to testify.

A 1998 federal report on drug-related police corruption found that insufficiently supervised narcotics bureaus could be "high-risk environments" for illegal activity.

Howerton, Schaumburg's police chief, said he felt there was sufficient oversight of his department's special investigations unit.

"We believe this is the actions of three individuals, not a pervasive situation within the department," he said.

Freelance reporters Clifford Ward, George Houde and Amanda Marrazzo and Tribune reporter Jonathan Bullington contributed.

cmgutowski@tribune.com

dhinkel@tribune.com

jkeilman@tribune.com

US commandos teach Mexico how to track drug cartels

Source

Congressmen: Operation will improve safety on border

Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:23 pm

By LAURA B. MARTINEZ The Brownsville Herald

Two South Texas congressmen have thrown their support toward a program in which U.S.-based commandos will teach Mexican security forces how to track drug cartels similar to the way the U.S. hunts al-Qaida terrorists.

The Pentagon is stepping up training for Mexico’s security forces and will train them how to focus on drug criminal networks that have left at least 70,000 dead during a six-year period, The Associated Press reported.

U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, said such a program will make both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border safe and could possibly give Mexicans who have fled their country for safety concerns a chance to return home. [Rubbish - The only way to make American and Mexico safer is to end the insane "War on Drugs"]

“I think this is the kind of robust effort that our country needs to put forward so that we can make Mexico safe for its own citizens along the border — safe enough so people who have moved over who want to go back can go back and live in their homes, and for us to visit” there, Vela said.

The program, based out of the U.S. Northern Command in Colorado, will show Mexican security forces how U.S. special troop operations built an interagency network to target al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden and his followers, The AP reported.

“I think the bottom line is, making Mexico safe help keeps us safe here,” Vela said.

The special operations program already has helped Mexico establish its own intelligence center in Mexico City to target networks, patterned after similar centers in war zones built to search for al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Iraq, the AP reported.U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, said the program is an extension of the Mérida Initiative that he helped establish around 2007 and 2008 that provides extensive military assistance to Mexico.

“I am in full agreement with what the Pentagon is doing to help Mexico in the drug war that they are in. I think the experience that our U.S.-based special operations folks can teach Mexican security forces to find and disable the drug cartels, the way they did al-Qaida, is something that I think the Mexicans, if they take advantage of this, will be extremely helpful to them,” Cuellar said.

Statistics show the U.S. has spent $821 billion in direct operations on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than $9 billion in Colombia. [Wow! That is about 5 percent of the $16.5 trillion national debt] It has spent $1.9 billion on the Mérida Initiative. The Obama administration is seeking to spend an additional $234 million on this plan.

Statistics also show 50,168 Iraqi casualties in the Iraq War, compared to the more than 70,000 killed in the Mexico drug wars. When Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto took office Dec. 1 he said it is important that the U.S. and Mexico work together to fight border violence, sharing intelligence information and cooperation between law enforcement authorities.

Cuellar said helping Mexico curtail drug violence is something he has supported for a while and he is glad that the Department of Defense is offering its assistance.

He emphasized that the U.S. will not go into Mexico to hunt down the drug cartels or conduct any raids there. “We respect Mexican sovereignty and we will do as much as Mexico wants us to do.”

“This is something that is long overdue,” Cuellar said. “What is happening in Mexico, it is alarming in certain areas and I think all of this comes in at the appropriate time.”

lmartinez@brownsvilleherald.com

Pentagon offers boost in aid to Mexico’s security forces

Pentagon offers boost in aid to Mexico’s security forces

Posted on January 17, 2013 By AP Mexico

Will Mexico agree?

Mexican and U.S. military officials played down the change, and it’s unclear whether the Mexican government will agree to boost its training.

“We are merely placing a component commander in charge of things we are already doing,” said Northcom spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis in a written statement.

Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Department emailed a statement saying it had been briefed on the changes, and had no further comment.

The creation of the new command marks another expansion of Adm. Bill McRaven’s special operations empire, as he seeks to migrate special operators from their decade of service in war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan to new missions, even as the rest of the military fights post-war contraction and multi-billion-dollar budget cuts.

The new headquarters will also coordinate special operations troops when needed for domestic roles like rescuing survivors after a natural disaster, or helping the U.S. Coast Guard strike ships carrying suspect cargo just outside U.S. territorial waters, according to multiple current and former U.S. officials briefed on the mission. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the Pentagon has not formally announced the new headquarters.

The initial document petitioning Panetta for the command stresses the command’s role in military-to-military cooperation with Mexico. The document was signed in September 2012 by McRaven and Northcom commander Gen. Charles Jacoby.

Northcom’s current special operations training missions are an outgrowth of the Merida Initiative that was formalized in 2008, to provide extensive military assistance to Mexico. The extra special operations staff, including both troops and civilians, will help coordinate more missions as Mexico requests them, current and former officials said.

Pena Nieto is likely to welcome the continued training to help him build and coordinate the forces he needs to reduce drug violence, according to Rand Corp.’s Dr. Agnes Gereben Schaefer.

“He has talked about setting up a paramilitary force…made up of former military and police forces, which he has described as more surgical,” than the current campaign by Mexican army and police, Schaefer said. He would dispatch the force into towns that have been overrun by drug violence, where police don’t have the numbers to fight it, she said.

These news don’t mean U.S. special operations teams will be conducting raids in Mexico

Mexican military, intelligence and law enforcement chiefs have already toured the Joint Special Operations Command headquarters at Fort Bragg in North Carolina to see how U.S. officers coordinate efforts by special operations aircraft, naval vessels and air- and sea-based raiders, according to one current military official.

A small group of top Mexican military and intelligence officials also visited the command’s targeting center at the Balad air base in Iraq before the U.S. troop withdrawal in 2011, a former U.S. official said.

U.S. officials stress that sharing this expertise does not mean U.S. special operations teams will be conducting raids against targets in Mexico, nor will they be entering the country with their own weapons. Mexico forbids U.S. military or law enforcement officers from carrying guns inside their borders, with few exceptions, though American commandos have conducted training missions in the past, two current and one former U.S. military official said. They were speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the sensitive missions.

Kindergartner suspended for bubble GUN remark

Source

Kindergartner suspended for bubble-gun remark

Associated Press Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:49 PM

MOUNT CARMEL, Pa. — A central Pennsylvania family has hired an attorney to fight their 5-year-old daughter’s 10-day suspension from kindergarten for telling another girl she was going to shoot her with a bubble gun.

Attorney Robin Ficker says Mount Carmel Area School District officials labeled the girl a “terrorist threat” for the remark made as both girls stood waiting for a school bus on Jan. 10. The girl was referring to a device that shoots out soap bubbles — which she didn’t even have with her at the time.

Ficker says the girl has never shot a real gun and “is the least terroristic person in Pennsylvania.”

School district solicitor Edward Greco tells pennlive.com that officials are looking into the incident, but says he and school officials aren’t at liberty to discuss disciplinary actions.

Fired Goodyear officer may lose credentials in Arizona

Fired Goodyear officer may lose credentials in Arizona

By David Madrid The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:12 PM

A Goodyear cop who was fired after he participated in a fake emergency call to a dispatcher last year could lose his ability to work as a police officer in Arizona.

Matthew Manzano, 32, of Goodyear, is to have a hearing before the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, but no date has been set.

The board could suspend or revoke Manzano’s Arizona peace officer certificate, said Lyle Mann, the board’s executive director. If it is revoked, he could not serve as a police officer in the state.

In May, the Goodyear Police Department fired Manzano for making the call and for a time-sheet violation. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute because, officials say, there was little likelihood of conviction.

Manzano declined to comment when reached Thursday.

Mark Hall, a former Avondale police officer involved in the incident, couldn’t be reached.

Hall had not been an Avondale officer since 2011, Avondale police say. Hall voluntarily gave up his peace officer certification 11 days after the fake call, Goodyear police reports say.

Manzano and his friend Hall, 36, were at Manzano’s home April 7 when Hall called the Goodyear police dispatcher, according to police reports.

The pair had been been drinking, documents say.

Manzano and Hall, classmates in police academy, discussed making a “fake” call to police, Manzano later told investigators. He sent a text message to a fellow officer to be ready because he was going to make the call.

Hall asked Manzano for the Goodyear police dispatch phone number, and Manzano pulled it up on his cellphone and handed the phone to Hall, police reports say. Hall gave Manzano’s neighbor’s address.

“There’s guys running around yelling and screaming with masks on in the street,” Hall told the dispatcher.

Manzano put on a child’s frog mask and waited for police outside, according to police reports.

He turned on his police radio to listen as the call went out to police, documents say.

Hall told police he didn’t intend to cause problems.

He knew most of the officers in Manzano’s squad because they had been on the same shift for years. He wanted officers from Manzano’s squad to come out so he could “mess with some co-workers.”

Three officers responded to the call, including one who reported the incident. Members of Manzano’s squad didn’t come because they were in training.

Manzano also put false information on his time sheet, investigators say.

Manzano was off work on the night of the April 7 call because he had been approved for 10 hours of compensatory time. However, Manzano reported that he had worked those hours plus overtime.

Police say Manzano should have deducted $292 from his vacation or compensatory-time balance by filing a time-sheet correction form. He did not.

Manzano said he forgot to record the day in his ledger, which led him to accidentally claim the 10 hours of work.

Manzano is not eligible for pension benefits because he hasn’t contributed to the system long enough, said Jim Hacking, administrator for the state Public Safety Personnel Retirement System.

Manzano could apply to have his contributions refunded, Hacking said.

Manzano was on paid administrative leave during the city investigation. When it was complete, he was terminated within weeks of the April 7 incident, Goodyear city officials said in a statement.

“The City of Goodyear holds all its employees to a high standard and will not tolerate unethical misconduct by either its sworn or non-sworn professionals,” the statement said.

More on that police biker gang that beat up a Glendale man!!!!

Source

Report outlines chaotic scene in Prescott bar

Associated Press Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:11 PM

PRESCOTT — An investigative report released Friday provides new details about a raucous fight at a Prescott bar that has affected the highest level of law enforcement in the region, including surveillance video and eyewitness accounts that indicate members of a police motorcycle club were involved.

Witnesses said “everyone was swinging at everybody” during the Dec. 22 brawl at Moctezuma’s on the night that the Iron Brotherhood Motorcycle Club was having its Christmas party on Prescott’s Whiskey Row, according to the report. The Department of Public Safety released police reports to The Associated Press and other media organizations.

The state is investigating whether the men involved in the fight were off-duty police officers who belong to the Iron Brotherhood, whose Arizona chapter is named after Whiskey Row and has members statewide.

State investigators had to take over the probe because of a conflict of interest involving local law enforcement. The interim police chief of the Prescott Police Department is a member of the club but wasn’t involved in the scuffle, DPS spokesman Bart Graves said. The police chief of neighboring Prescott Valley said he has since withdrawn from the motorcycle club. The Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office has at least three employees in the group.

The heavily redacted police reports did not name any of the people involved in the fight or witnesses, but the victim recounted details in an interview with The Associated Press.

Justin Stafford, who acknowledged he was drunk, said he was out with a friend when he started up a conversation with a biker wearing a black leather motorcycle jacket with a patch that said “president” on the front. Stafford, 23, said as he asked about what motorcycles the man and his buddies rode, the biker grabbed him by the throat and pushed him toward the bar. Stafford said he looked back to make sure he wasn’t going to fall, and when he turned around again, someone punched him in the nose.

“Apparently one of them didn’t like the fact that I was talking to them, or something like that,” said Stafford, who grew up in Chino Valley and now lives in Colorado.

Stafford said his friend didn’t see who hit him and immediately whisked him out of the bar and took him to a hospital with a bloodied and swollen nose. He has been interviewed by authorities but didn’t learn until last week that police officers could have been involved.

“I never saw the guy who did it,” Stafford said. “I couldn’t even begin to tell you what he looks like.”

That wouldn’t stop the investigation, Graves said.

“We have a lot of witnesses, people at the bar at the time that saw everything,” he said.

Graves wouldn’t say which officers, if any, were directly involved in the fight. A full report should be ready in 30 to 45 days and will be turned over to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, he said.

“We’re very thorough, we take our time, we’re never in a rush,” Graves said.

The motorcycle club had reserved a room at nearby Hooligan’s Pub earlier that night for its party. A representative of Hooligans told police that the group of about 20 bikers, some of whom had brought guests, was rowdy and that he had to stop serving alcohol to nearly all of them by the time the three-hour party ended. The whole group “was acting like they were some outlaw motorcycle gang,” according to the report.

Some of them walked down Whiskey Row to Moctezuma’s, which denies entry to members of motorcycle clubs who are wearing their colors. The bar made an exception for members of the Iron Brotherhood because they were recognized as law enforcement officers, the reports state.

No officers or deputies have been placed on leave as a result of the fight, the three local agencies said. No one has been arrested or charged in the alleged assault. The owner of the bar declined comment.

While members insist that the Iron Brotherhood is a law-abiding organization, Prescott has seen its share of illegal activity by street and motorcycle gangs in recent years. It voted to become part of a regional effort in 2013 to combat the problem.

Suit over prison medication wins $12M award

Source

Lawyer: Suit over prison medication wins $12M award

By Bridget Doyle Tribune reporter

10:02 p.m. CST, January 18, 2013

A federal jury on Friday awarded $12 million to a man who said he was deprived of prescribed epilepsy medication while serving time at Statesville Correction Center, leading to permanent injuries, according to the law firm which represented the man.

Andy Thayer, spokesman for Chicago-based law office Loevy and Loevy, said the jury awarded Raymond Fox $11 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

Fox, 50, was “severely disabled” in 2007 after he was denied the epilepsy medication after his need for medication was ignored by prison staff, Thayer said.

“This is a very significant verdict if you know anything about prisoner rights,” Thayer said. “It’s very difficult to get any kind of significant settlement for prisoners when their rights are violated.”

The death penalty doesn't work!!!!

Maryland and the Death Penalty

Published: January 18, 2013

Maryland’s governor, Martin O’Malley, chose Jan. 15, the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., to announce his determination to repeal the state’s law allowing capital punishment. “Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence,” he said, quoting Dr. King.

The death penalty does not deter murders, the governor said, since states with the penalty have had higher murder rates than states without it. And prosecuting a capital case in Maryland costs three times as much as pursuing a homicide conviction that carries a sentence of life without parole. In short, the penalty has been a huge waste of taxpayer money on a policy that manifestly does not work. Significantly, he said, the state has gathered sobering proof that its use of the death penalty has been so unfair — so arbitrary and capricious — as to be unjust and immoral.

The Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment reported in 2008 that the “administration of the death penalty clearly shows racial bias” and that the chances of a state prosecutor’s “seeking and imposing a death sentence differs alarmingly across jurisdictions in Maryland, even when the cases are similar.”

In addition, the reversal rate in Maryland death penalty cases has been stunningly high; it was 80 percent for the years 1995 to 2007, the commission reported. Prosecutors have withheld potentially exculpatory evidence. Judges have made decisions that were unfair to defendants. The police have forced involuntary confessions.

Four years ago, the Maryland Legislature chose not to repeal the state’s death penalty law and instead made it the most stringent in the country. A person cannot be sentenced to death without DNA evidence tying a defendant to the murder, a videotaped voluntary confession or a videotape of the crime. But this law makes the state’s administration of capital punishment even more arbitrary and capricious, since this evidence is so rarely collected.

As a practical matter, Maryland cannot execute anyone now. Its highest court ruled in 2006 that the state cannot use the lethal injection protocol devised by the corrections department because the Legislature did not review and approve it, as state law requires. In fact, the state has not executed anyone since 2005. But the law remains on the books, and the time has come to abolish it.

As Governor O’Malley said: “We know what does not work. And we know that the way forward is always found through greater respect for the human dignity of all.”

Australia's gun control: Success or failure?

Source

Australia's gun control: Success or failure?

Steve Chapman

4:55 p.m. CST, January 18, 2013

After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia enacted a sweeping package of gun restrictions far more ambitious than anything plausible here -- including a total ban on semiautomatic weapons, a mandatory gun buyback, and strict limits on who could own a firearm. John Howard, who was prime minister at the time, wrote the other day that his country "is safer today as a consequence of gun control."

You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.

It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote.

Howard says the country has had no mass shootings since 1996. But mass shootings are such a tiny share of all homicides that any connection may be purely a matter of chance.

We learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban that modest gun control measures don't work. What Australia suggests is that even if radical ones could be passed, they wouldn't work either.

The war on pot is no safe bet - Protecting teens? It hasn't worked

The war on pot is no safe bet

Protecting teens? It hasn't worked

Steve Chapman

January 20, 2013

As recreational drugs go, marijuana is relatively benign. Unlike alcohol, it doesn't stimulate violence or destroy livers. Unlike tobacco, it doesn't cause lung cancer and heart disease. The worst you can say is that it produces intense, unreasoning panic. Not in users, but in critics.

Those critics have less influence all the time. Some 18 states permit medical use of marijuana, and in November, Colorado and Washington voted to allow recreational use. Nationally, support for legalization is steadily rising. A decade ago, one of every three Americans favored the idea. Today, nearly half do — and among those under 50, a large majority does.

These trends have die-hard drug warriors screaming bloody murder. Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., has formed a new organization to stop what he imagines to be the "300-miles-per-hour freight train to legalization." He says that such a change would be especially harmful to teenagers.

White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske insists that even allowing medicinal pot "sends a terrible message" to adolescents. Mitchell Rosenthal, a psychiatrist who founded the substance-abuse treatment group Phoenix House, says there is "mounting evidence of the dangers it poses, especially to young users."

They might have a point if existing drug laws were keeping weed out of the hands of wayward kids. In truth, they're about as effective as a picket fence in a tidal wave. In a 2009 survey, high school students said they found it easier to get than beer. In 2011, 23 percent of 12th-graders said they had used weed in the preceding month.

In the past five years, drinking and cigarette smoking have dropped by more than 10 percent among high school seniors. But pot smoking has risen by 23 percent. Alcohol and tobacco are legal for adults. Marijuana is not.

What these trends indicate is that authorizing the sale and use of a substance does not necessarily mean more people will use it. There is no contradiction between letting adults make up their own minds, with some government regulation, and providing effective education for youngsters about the hazards of underage consumption.

No one, after all, is talking about putting pot in vending machines or handing out blunts at Taylor Swift concerts. The idea is to treat pot like booze — permitting its sale and use to adults in a government-regulated market, with penalties for behavior (like driving under the influence) that endangers other people.

The tolerance-fuels-use theory is thunderously lacking in real-world support. In the Netherlands, where "coffee shops" are allowed to sell pot, teenagers are far less likely to use it than their American peers.

The experience here falls short of bloodcurdling. "In the states that have passed medical-marijuana laws, youth marijuana use has decreased," Amanda Reiman, policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, told me. In California, "the number of seventh-, ninth- and 11th-graders reporting marijuana use in the last six months and in their lifetimes all declined" after 1996, when the state passed its medical marijuana law.

The alleged harms of cannabis on the teen mind and body are generally exaggerated. Critics have trumpeted a study last year that said teenagers with a heavy habit turn out to have lower IQs as adults than their peers who avoided the stuff.

But a new assessment by Norwegian scientist Ole Rogeberg, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that the IQ differences might well stem from differences in income, education and other factors. "The true effect," he said, "could be zero." It's pretty clear that heavy drinking is a far bigger danger to developing brains.

Those worried about the welfare of potheads might also want to take into account the dangers that exist only because cannabis is illegal. Criminals who grow or supply the stuff have little incentive to monitor quality, prevent adulteration or assure consistent doses.

A kid who gets his hands on beer doesn't have to worry about getting toxic chemicals or nasty fillers. Buying pot in illicit markets may also expose users of all ages to violence, robbery or extortion. But you don't see innocent bystanders getting killed in shootouts among liquor store owners.

The alternative to legalization is sticking with a policy that has produced millions of arrests, squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and turned many harmless people into criminals in the eyes of the law — all while failing to stem the popularity of pot. For kids or adults, there is nothing healthy in that.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman.

schapman@tribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Obama's gun grabbing won't prevent crime???

A political fight over gun violence that won’t make much difference

Let’s assume everything President Obama has proposed regarding gun violence were adopted. How much would it reduce the likelihood of future mass killings such as at Newtown?

The only honest answer to that question is: Hardly at all.

This is not an argument that gun control cannot be effective. If the United States adopted Australian-style gun control, in which guns were not only banned but confiscated, the incidence of gun violence in the United States might very well go down.

But the United States is not going to discuss, much less implement, Australian-style gun control. There’s virtually no political support for it and it would require amending the U.S. Constitution.

So, Obama is proposing a prospective ban on the sale of some rapid-fire rifles and high-capacity magazines. The United States had such a ban for ten years, beginning in 1994. The incidence of gun violence generally and mass killings specifically did not subside materially.

A prospective ban leaves an ample supply of such weapons in circulation. And if the ban were left in place for a longer period of time, it would primarily fuel a black market in such weapons. Current owners are unlikely to simply accept the federal government rendering their property worthless in terms of resale.

And even what Obama proposes is politically unlikely. Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid says he doesn’t want to force his members to vote on gun control measures that won’t be passed by the House. Republican House Speaker John Boehner says he will be happy to consider gun control measures that pass the Senate. You can read between the lines.

Even the proposal for which there is widest support – universal background checks – is likely to run into political difficulty once people start concentrating on the details.

A large portion of gun sales are between individuals. A hunk of them occur during organized gun shows but a hunk of them are truly private transactions.

There are only two options for implementing a universal background check. Either everyone with Internet access is given the ability to check the eligibility of any other resident of the United States to purchase a gun; or private guns sales have to be essentially outlawed and all gun purchases required to go through federally licensed dealers. Both options will have political problems.

Other than the gun control components, the president’s plan consists of small-scale federal initiatives that won’t make much of a difference. This is best illustrated by the proposal regarding school resource officers and counselors.

Obama proposes that the federal government spend $150 million to put 1,000 cops or counselors in American schools. But there are 100,000 schools in the United States. So, the initiative would reach about 1 percent of all schools.

The Obama plan is stuffed with similar proposals of highly limited reach. The federal government is not only broke, it is dangerously broke – broke in a way that endangers the U.S. economy. This is not a time to be throwing federal money at problems so that politicians can say that they are doing something.

In reality, meaningful initiatives regarding school safety and mental health screening will have to take place at the state and local level. But even there, what is being proposed is more about doing something than about accomplishing something that will actually make a difference.

Mass killings are rare and highly random events. Since 1980, there have been about 20 such incidents a year in the United States, resulting in an average of about 100 deaths each year.

The pace of such incidents has not been increasing, nor has the homicide rate generally. In fact, the homicide rate in the United States today is not materially different than it was in 1900.

What is different is the saturation media coverage mass killings receive. And that changes the political dynamic.

I understand it. The Newtown massacre, and similar slaughters, stun the senses and stir the soul. The desire to do something to stop them is universal. And politicians have to respond.

It’s just sad that we are going to have such a wrenching and emotional political fight over things that aren’t really going to make much of a difference, if any at all.

Alcohol kills 10 times as many people as guns do!!!

The CDC reports for every gun related death, there are ten alcohol related deaths.

On the other hand we already did that and the Prohibition was a dismal failure, just like the insane and unconstitutional "War on Drugs"

Source

Turley-Hansen: Time to get real about the world’s addiction to alcohol

Posted: Friday, January 18, 2013 9:45 am | Updated: 10:43 am, Fri Jan 18, 2013.

Guest Commentary by Linda Turley-Hansen | 11 comments

She’s young, tall-model-slender, beautiful and with a song bird voice. I’ll call her Annie. And, today she sits in jail, serving a lengthy term for her history with drugs. Like so many others, her road to trouble started with alcohol.

So, we all want our children safe, right? Few debates elicit unity in the way child protection issues do. Here in the East Valley we’re a family community and we work hard at providing every opportunity for the next generations. But still many are not willing to provide safety at adult expense. Case in point: the world’s addiction to alcohol.

Did you know Arizona ranks at the top nationally in regards to youth drinking (U.S. Center for Disease Control, June 8, 2012)? Arizona high schools surveyed rank No. 1 “for alcohol use and binge drinking” and No. 2 “for cocaine use and drinking alcohol on school property.”

We yip and carry on about gun dangers, yet right in our own homes are the roots of not only death, some of them slow and torturous, but also the collapse of marriages, endless lost jobs and more sorrows than can be recounted in one little column. Just ask Annie.

It’d be a wonderful world if there were no killing machines, but humans have proven we’ll still find a way to do ourselves and others in. It’s when we lead our kids down destructive paths that we really stand condemned. Yet we remain complacent because we don’t binge and are not addicted — so what’s the big deal, right?

I’ve harped on this before, but when we see news reports about high school students binging, and dying, and involved in alcohol related rapes and other violence, the topic cries to be revisited with the same passion as gun control, infant car seats and fast food.

Experts tell us in today’s culture, teens feel extreme social pressure to drink. Then, as their youth/adult crossroads overflow with confusion they discover alcohol suppresses feelings. Without adults to show them a better way, their choices are predictable.

Still not convinced?

Think about this: Women are the fastest growing segment of the alcohol abusing population. Yet, women’s bodies are less tolerant to alcohol than men. Further, “binge drinking can increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer, heart disease, unintentional pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and auto accidents” (CDC).

Of 23,000 annual deaths attributed to excessive alcohol use among females, binge drinking accounts for more than half (CDC).

One other small fact: The CDC reports for every gun related death, there are ten alcohol related deaths. Yeah. Let’s “get the guns.”

Politics drive this issue; we know that, while one of the biggest killers ever is sitting right in children’s homes, used by their parents, night after night “just to relax,” or as a primary social beverage.

Not your problem? Really? This is one monster failure of society. The affects touch everyone from taxes to spiritual deprivation. Ask Annie and all the others.

Why wait for social norms to change? As just one parent, your example and educated outreach might save a child, or dozens. One of them might just belong to you.

East Valley resident Linda Turley-Hansen (turleyhansen@gmail.com) is a syndicated columnist and former Phoenix veteran TV anchor.

Kyrsten Sinema pretends to be a big fan of the Second Amendment???

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said

“those of us in Arizona, we believe very strongly in the Second Amendment”

Anybody who says they are a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment" followed by the word "BUT" tends to be a gun grabber.

Source

Arizona delegation seeks common ground on gun reform

By Dan Nowicki and Rebekah L. Sanders The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:19 AM

If Arizona’s split delegation is a barometer of Congress on the issue of gun control, there may be a path forward for at least one proposal put forth last week by President Barack Obama: universal background checks.

Echoing many of his lower-chamber colleagues on Friday, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said he likely would have a hard time supporting a new federal ban on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines but suggested there may be common ground on universal background checks.

“I’ve always said we’ve got to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them,” Flake said. “There have been some technological issues with gun shows, and you want to make sure that people can legally buy guns for protection or recreation or collection without untimely delays. But I think technology has moved so that we can better deal with that issue and have broader background checks.”

He noted that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has expressed misgivings about revisiting the assault-weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004.

“That’s a heavy lift in both bodies,” Flake said. “It’s a tough case to make that this would change the dynamic of gun violence very much.”

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., who represents southern Arizona’s 3rd District, said the Senate will be able to find compromise more easily than the House, where Republicans hold a majority and leadership has not indicated an appetite for a debate.

“What is doable and what should we have are two different things,” Grijalva said.

Obama’s executive orders, including ending the freeze on research into gun-related violence, were “low-hanging fruit,” he said. The heavy lifting, on controversial bills such as a renewed assault-weapons ban, will have to be done by Congress.

Grijalva has heard the argument that it would be victory enough for Democrats to drop the assault-weapons ban as a bargaining chip for other measures such as ammunition magazine-size restrictions and universal background checks.

“Is it a step in the right direction? Yes. Is it the comprehensive change that we need? No,” Grijalva said. “Many people would vote for a third of a loaf, instead of no loaf at all. But I think it’s still cowardly to not confront the whole issue.”

One national political expert told The Arizona Republic that he has talked to many lawmakers and staff members about the issue and said a compromise is possible but not necessarily probable.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, said a compromise package would include certain gun reforms with some measures sought by the National Rifle Association.

“The consensus is that if anything passes, it would be universal background checks, or at least closing the gun-show loophole, combined with some mental-health reforms and perhaps some money for hiring guards at participating school districts,” Sabato said. “And maybe something about violent movies: It looks like, because of the First Amendment, about the only thing they can do is strengthen warning labels.”

Rodolfo Espino, an associate professor of political science at Arizona State University, said the Congress of 2013 and the Congress of 1994, when lawmakers adopted the now-expired 10-year ban on assault weapons, are much different. Because it has been so long since Congress tackled gun control, it’s unclear whether either side is willing to compromise.

“The last time that gun-control legislation was introduced or talked about at this level ... polarization in Congress was much lower,” Espino said. “It’s much higher now, and that also affects the ability to compromise.”

Unlike in 1994, the House is controlled by Republicans, and “it’s a much more conservative GOP,” he said.

A divisive topic

On other issues in Obama’s gun-control plan, there is far less agreement among the state’s members of Congress.

Some Republican members say they won’t even entertain talk of a law that would touch the Second Amendment. Others say there may be room for compromise on certain issues. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has been out of the country and could not be reached for comment.

Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., told The Republic that he thought Democrats and Republicans might be able to come together on background checks, some mental-health measures and school-safety improvements.

“But I think limiting the number of bullets in a magazine or any type of ban on assault weapons or anything to do with registration will be very difficult,” said Pastor, who supported the 1994 assault-weapons ban. “The NRA and their supporters are not going to go for that.”

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., suggested that any compromise on Second Amendment-related issues might be elusive. He said he was offended that President Barack Obama included children in his news conference to announce the gun proposals.

“The thing that is apparent to me is that the Obama administration’s motto that one should never let any crisis go to waste certainly is in vogue here,” said Franks, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution. “The administration is using one of the most tragic things to ever happen to families here to promote a policy, using them as props, that will not protect them.”

When Obama unveiled his proposals last week, he was joined by children who had written him following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., urging him to take action against gun violence.

Given the potential Second Amendment implications, Franks said his subcommittee may have some jurisdiction on gun issues.

“One of my deepest desires is to protect the lives and the constitutional rights of all Americans,” he said. “I want to search for solutions that really will protect children, rather than use them to posture politically.”

Mental health

Freshman Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said because she has been in Congress only for a couple of weeks, it is somewhat difficult for her to say which proposals have a realistic chance of attracting bipartisan support.

“There is a shared concern about finding a balance that protects the Second Amendment,” Sinema said. “Particularly those of us in Arizona, we believe very strongly in the Second Amendment. We believe that it provides an individual right for people to bear arms and own weapons, but we also are concerned about having folks who are mentally ill or have a violent history getting access to firearms. So, I do think that there is room and there is opportunity to have a discussion to find that right balance.”

Sinema said she is particularly interested in the mental-health aspects of the debate. “That’s a difficult issue to address — it’s very complex — but I think it’s also the most important in this conversation,” she said.

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., who represents rural northwest Arizona’s 4th District, was traveling and unavailable for comment. In a written statement, he said experience has shown tough gun restrictions have not reduced gun violence.

“When you limit an individual’s ability to lawfully purchase or carry firearms you are allowing only those with the intent to break the law to have weapons,” he said.

However, Gosar agreed with Obama on two points: the need for greater school-safety measures and improved mental-health services.

It’s unclear how much money House Republicans like Gosar, many of whom are focused on cutting the nation’s deficit, are willing to spend to support those objectives.

Background checks

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., who represents the rural northeast Arizona 1st District, said she is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, as are many in her district.

“But we also have to do something,” she said. “It’s a balancing of those interests, and I’m listening to people in the district about what makes sense to them.”

She plans to talk to police chiefs, sheriffs, mayors and residents from Flagstaff to near Tucson over the next few months to get their input.

But some proposals are no-brainers, she said. Kirkpatrick said she could easily get behind Obama’s request to stiffen penalties for gun traffickers and require universal background checks, which she has heard support for already.

“I hope that we can work across the aisle to find a consensus around this issue,” she said.

Sinema said she also has long supported closing the gun-show loophole that allows firearms to be purchased from private sellers without the background screening that buyers must submit to at a gun store.

“It doesn’t make sense that someone who would fail a background check can easily, knowingly and legally buy a cache of weapons at a gun show when this is a person that we know would not be able to get one otherwise,” she said.

GOP reaction

Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., who represents the East Valley’s conservative 5th Congressional District, was not available for comment. But on his Facebook page, he said he was disappointed in Obama’s response to the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Salmon said the proposals would “limit the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.” He argued that the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, which occurred when the assault-weapons ban was in place, proved that renewing such a ban would “not stop individuals from committing horrific crimes.”

He told a Maricopa County GOP meeting last weekend, according to a YouTube video: “We have a president that believes that because of some very cataclysmic events over the last few months, it’s time to erode some of our freedom.”

Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., who represents the northeast Valley’s 6th District, was unavailable for comment. But in a fundraising e-mail to campaign supporters Friday, Schweikert called Obama’s moves a “gun grab.”

“They may say otherwise, but we know the truth,” the e-mail said. “The liberal left has never been shy about hiding their real intentions — the elimination of most Americans’ right to own a firearm.”

Hopeful survivor

Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., who represents southern Arizona’s 2nd District and is a survivor of the shooting near Tucson that wounded Gabrielle Giffords, said he thinks three proposals can make it through Congress: improved mental-health services, size limits on ammunition magazines and universal background checks.

Barber recently introduced a bill to provide training to teachers, firefighters and the general public about spotting and helping people with mental illness get treatment.

As for Obama’s executive orders, Barber believes the president did not overstep his authority. The orders put in motion things such as emergency safety plans for schools, reviewing standards for gun locks and gun safes, and launching a national dialogue on mental health.

But on the proposals Obama asked Congress to take up, so far, Barber said he has not heard support from any of his Republican colleagues.

Arizona’s delegation is deeply divided, as well, though Barber wouldn’t talk specifically.

“We’ve had some conversations,” he said. “Hopefully, we will continue to do so until we can find common ground.”

Las Vegas cop murder wife and son

Source

Vegas officer, wife and son dead in murder-suicide

By KEN RITTER, Associated Press

Updated 12:17 am, Tuesday, January 22, 2013

LAS VEGAS (AP) — A police lieutenant, his wife and son are dead after an apparent double murder, suicide and arson at their home, authorities said.

Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie and other officials didn't immediately identify the police officer or the family members on Monday. Identifications would probably be made sometime on Tuesday.

"There was an incident today involving one if Metro's lieutenants," a somber Gillespie said in brief statement to reporters. "Several bodies were discovered."

Gillespie, the elected head of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said the lieutenant was a 20-year veteran of the force. Gillespie spoke of "untold grief" for family members, friends and co-workers. He took no questions.

The sheriff said the investigation in Boulder City, about 20 miles southeast of Las Vegas, was being handled by police in neighboring Henderson.

Henderson police spokesman Keith Paul said a man called 911 at about 8:20 a.m. Monday and told a dispatcher he killed his wife and child, set his house afire and would shoot anyone who approached.

The home is owned by Hans Walters, according to Clark County assessor records. Many know Walters as a Las Vegas police lieutenant married to a former Las Vegas police officer, Kathryn Walters. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that she left the department in 2005.

Boulder City police arrived to find the homeowner with a handgun in the doorway of the burning house before he retreated inside and apparently killed himself, Paul said.

No shots were fired by police or SWAT officers from Henderson and North Las Vegas who later found the bodies of a 52-year-old man, a 46-year-old woman and a boy inside, Paul said. Officials said the boy was believed to be about 7.

"We're investigating the incident as a murder-suicide at this time," Paul said.

Source

Police: Officer kills wife, son, himself in Boulder City

By Mike Blasky AND Antonio Planas

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Posted: Jan. 21, 2013 | 10:38 a.m.

Nothing seemed unusual with Lt. Hans Walters on Saturday night.

"He didn't seem out of the ordinary at all," said one Las Vegas police officer, who asked to be anonymous. "Cops are pretty intuitive. They can tell when something's wrong with someone.

"He seemed totally fine."

But two days later, something clearly changed.

Authorities said Walters killed his family, set his Boulder City home ablaze and then killed himself Monday morning.

"You just wonder how and why this could happen," the officer said.

Sheriff Doug Gillespie acknowledged "it's human nature" to speculate but asked the public to reserve judgment.

"I urge you to wait and allow the facts to come forward first," Gillespie said at a brief, morose news conference Monday afternoon.

Boulder City police responded to a call at 8:20 a.m. Monday from a 52-year-old man at 1313 Esther Drive who said he had killed his wife and son and was setting his house on fire. The man also threatened to harm responding officers, Henderson police spokesman Keith Paul said. Henderson police are handling the investigation for the Boulder City department, which lacks resources for such major investigations.

Paul would not confirm that Walters was the man who called police but said the caller was an "off-duty Las Vegas police officer."

The home is owned by Walters and his wife, Kathryn Michelle Walters, 46.

Gillespie confirmed that the incident involved a Las Vegas police lieutenant with more than 20 years of experience. Hans Walters, 52, was hired in 1991.

When officers responded, the man was outside the house carrying what appeared to be a handgun. He ignored officers' commands and returned to the burning house, where he apparently killed himself.

Clark County Coroner Mike Murphy confirmed that three bodies were found in the house but did not release the names of the dead.

Walters supervised patrols in the department's Enterprise Area Command, which serves the southwest valley.

Kathryn Walters also was a Las Vegas police officer. She received a community service award in 1999 and a lifesaving award in 2004. She left the department in 2005.

At the news conference, Gillespie deferred to the Henderson police investigation and refused to take questions out of respect for the victims' families.

"We will stand by your side and move through this unspeakable grief and support you any way we can," he said in remarks intended for the families.

The murder-suicide sent shock waves through the Metropolitan Police Department on Monday morning as rumors began swirling.

"Terrible," one veteran supervisor said.

"I can't think of a reason for this, where something can get so bad that you'd do this," another officer said.

The incident also rattled Boulder City.

A neighbor who asked not to be identified said, "It's horrific. It's hard to understand what would drive someone to do something like that."

Authorities took down crime tape blocking off Esther Drive shortly after 5 p.m. The smell of smoke lingered on the block of ranch-style homes.

Neighbor after neighbor told the same story: Gunshots weren't heard; the family was reclusive, so much so that several neighbors didn't know a child lived in the house.

Some neighbors said Hans Walters would give them the occasional hello as he went to his mailbox.

"He was normal. He was nice," said Alyssa Gossard, 21. "He would wave to us every now and then."

Much of the roof of the family's house caved in because of the blaze, and the portion of the roof above the garage collapsed. A charred sport utility vehicle sat inside the garage.

Three women, who declined to comment or give their names, placed a vase with yellow and white flowers on the sidewalk in front of the Walters' home. They also placed a red stuffed animal next to the vase.

They said a prayer for the family. "Please let (Kathryn) Michelle hold onto Max in their next journey," a woman said.

Patrick Brewer was getting coffee about 8:45 a.m. when he looked outside and noticed smoke coming from his neighbor's house.

He was startled when he saw that first responders were not firefighters but Boulder City police officers carrying rifles and moving with caution.

SWAT units with Henderson and North Las Vegas police also responded to the burning house.

One neighbor said he heard an officer yell to "put your gun down" two or three times.

Brewer, 44, said he moved his family to the bedroom.

Firefighters arrived soon after the officers and began dousing the flames, even as the officers continued to circle the house with guns drawn.

"The house was definitely not secure, let's put it that way," he said. "I realized I was looking at something that was definitely not normal."

Brewer said he heard a person yell, "I did not do this," as authorities circled the house, but he wasn't sure who spoke.

Karlee Kovacevich, 18, lives four houses away. She said that shortly after 9 a.m. she saw flames 15 feet high shooting from her neighbor's roof. The house was surrounded by police and firefighters.

She said she later saw what appeared to be the body of a child under a white sheet beneath a canopy set up in the street.

In the five years Brewer lived next to the family, he never had a real conversation with them.

He didn't know Walters was a police lieutenant. He also never saw children around the house.

"If I saw him in person, I could say, 'Yeah, that's my neighbor,' but I couldn't even describe him to you right now," Brewer said. "It's a pretty friendly, warm neighborhood, but I've never spoken to him."

David Gossard, Alyssa's father, said that after an officer told him a neighbor might be armed and suicidal, he called his family, prompting some of them to run out of their house without shoes.

Gossard said that despite the tragedy, life goes on. He said Boulder City is no different than anywhere else because murder-suicides happen everywhere.

"You just never know when people are going to snap," Gossard said.

Boulder City Review editor Arnold M. Knightly and Review-Journal staff writer Brian Haynes contributed to this report.

Contact reporter Mike Blasky at mblasky@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0283.

Ben Arredondo, a regular Honest Abe

Posted on January 21, 2013 5:00 pm by Laurie Roberts

Ben Arredondo, a regular Honest Abe

He is, we are told, a man for all seasons, a champion of the underdog, a regular Abraham Lincoln.

No, literally, one former congressmen actually compared disgraced ex-Rep. Ben Arredondo to Honest Abe.

Of course, both men were obsessed with the word “free”. Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. Arredondo wanted free football tickets. And free baseball tickets. And, well, you get the idea.

Arredondo will be sentenced on Wednesday for taking bribes and soliciting donations to a college scholarship fund for needy students – about a third of whom turned out to be his relative

Federal prosecutors are asking that the longtime Tempe city councilman and former Democratic state legislator serve 30 months in prison. Arredondo is hoping to score probation, based upon his “advanced age” (he’s 65), his deteriorating mental and physical health and his decades of public service. [I think she means decades of screwing the public. It sure wasn't decades of public service]

It’ll be up to U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Martone to decide punishment.

Arredondo spent four decades working in positions of public trust: teacher, coach, school board member, county supervisor, city councilman and finally, state legislator.

He didn’t become a household name, however, until 2011 when the Fiesta Bowl scandal oozed into public view. That’s when we learned that this paragon of public service was ordering up football tickets like the rest of us order pizza – only the rest of us pay for our pizza. In all, he took $6,240 worth of tickets, according to Fiesta Bowl records.

Turns out the Fiesta Bowl wasn’t his only source for freebies.

Last year, he was indicted after being caught in an FBI sting operation that spanned most of 2009 and 2010. Agents posed as real-estate developers looking to do a land deal and they dangled bribes in the form of free football tickets to see who would bite.

Arredondo’s insatiable appetite for freebies became his undoing as he paved the way for the developers/FBI agents to get their project through city hall, arranging entrée into city offices and leaking confidential information to help them acquire city-owned property.

For nearly two years, prosecutors say Arredondo basically acted “as though he were on retainer” for the phony development company. In exchange, he got $5,268 in goodies, including tables at two charity events collectively worth $1,100 and 26 tickets to sporting events, including a playoff game at Yankee Stadium and a Duke-Michigan basketball game.

As Arredondo prepared to move to the Legislature in 2010, he introduced the developers/FBI agents to others on the city council — including his niece Robin Arredondo-Savage — and assured them of his continued support once he reached the state Capitol. [Hmmm ... I wonder is his niece Robin Arredondo-Savage also a crook????]

“You guys will ask, you guys will have,” he told them, channeling Don Corleone. “I don’t know how else to say it. We’ll be just fine because not only we’re covered at the city, we’re covered now at the state.”

He was covered all right, in slime so thick it’ll never rub off. In addition to the bribes, prosecutors say he spent 10 years raising money for scholarships for needy kids. He just forgot to tell donors that 30 percent of the money – nearly $50,000 – would go to seven of his needy relatives.

In October, Arredondo pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud.

His attorney is making a plea for probation, hoping to downplay the value of the bribes and play up the value of his public service, with a little help from Arredondo’s friends.

In a letter to the judge, Eddie Basha calls Arredondo “a man of great character.” Sen. Ed Ableser, D-Tempe, says he was “a mentor, an inspiration and a role-model in my own life.” [I wonder is Sen. Ed Ableser a crook like his buddy Ben Arredondo???]

“I intimately saw Ben’s dedication to honesty and openness in all actions as a candidate and legislator,” Ableser wrote.

Like, say, in March 2010 when Arredondo asked the developers/FBI agents not to give him Diamondbacks tickets that day but to instead mail the tickets to his house on July 1, once his council term ended? “Because, I’m through with this council after that and then I can honestly say I’ve never taken a look at these guys until after this,” Arredondo said at the time.

Speaking of honest, former U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell lauded Arredondo’s “reputation for honesty, trustworthiness and integrity” and likened him to certain a celebrated president. [U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell - another crook vouching for crook Ben Arredondo]

“In the recent move ‘Lincoln,’ one is struck by the number of actions taken by President Lincoln that were of questionable legality but justified because they resulted in the 13th amendment of the U.S. Constitution that ended slavery,” Mitchell wrote. [Well at least Harry Mitchell admits he thinks it's OK to break the law if you are pretending to be a crook with good intentions. I guess that means all those illegal and unconstitutional laws passed in Tempe are OK!!!] “I do believe that many of Ben’s actions were more to further his legislative agenda of helping those in need than for helping himself. While his actions did result in relative small illegitimate personal gains, they also resulted in larger legitimate gains for those who needed assistance. [What a way to justify a crooked politicians crimes!!!] This does not justify the actions but helps explain why a person of such standing stooped to such means.”

Actually, no, Harry, it doesn’t.

It just makes me wonder how long he was on the take.

(Column published Jan. 22, 2013, The Arizona Republic.)

Sarasota police run homeless out of town???

Sarasota homeless: We're being harassed

ACLU filesfive lawsuitsagainst city

Jan 19, 2013 |

SARASOTA — On a recent sunny winter day on a downtown Sarasota street corner, a cluster of homeless men lounged on the back steps of a building, grimy backpacks and bags at their feet, while a few folks ambled to the nearby bus station.

Parked at a meter just feet from them was a red Ferrari and around the corner was Sur la Table, an upscale cookware store offering $400 juicers.

Newer, wealthy residents in the Gulf Coast city known for its arts scene and beautiful beaches are buying expensive downtown condos so they can live an urban lifestyle — but don't want the problems associated with a city, including the 700 or so homeless people who inhabit the county, the American Civil Liberties Union and others contend.

They also say authorities, including police, are trying to harass the homeless into leaving the town of 53,000 full-time residents.

Recently, the ACLU uncovered a surveillance video showing an officer throwing a homeless man against a metal grate and received public records that show officers sent messages to each other about "bum hunting."

"We thought those messages were beyond just being juvenile, but was sort of indicative of the atmosphere that existed in the city," said Michael Barfield, the legal chair of the ACLU in Sarasota.

To be sure, other warm-weather cities have grappled with problems associated with the homeless. In Florida, Key West has periodically cracked down on "quality of life" offenses such as aggressive panhandling and using residents' outdoor showers. Miami-Dade County counted nearly 4,000 homeless people either sleeping on the street or in shelters within its borders one year ago.

Barfield said that in the past 18 months, the city has targeted the homeless by removing benches and banning smoking in downtown parks and arrested a homeless man for charging his cell phone on a city-owned outlet in a park. The charge was later dropped.

"I think for a long time we've had a lot of issues. The fact that we have a lot of wealthy people downtown, we have a few condos that cater to that type of people, and they're not quite used to dealing with the lowly and downtrodden," said Steve McAllister, a Sarasota native who says he chooses to be homeless and live a lifestyle based on bartering. "And so when we have homeless people come here because of the weather or the opulence or whatnot, we get a lot of clashes between the two classes."

The ACLU has filed five lawsuits against the city — some have been settled and the smoking ban has been struck down by a judge.

Police Chief Bernadette DiPino — who took the helm of the department in late December — says the agency is conducting an internal investigation of both police issues raised by the ACLU.

"The city of Sarasota is working aggressively to learn as much as it can to learn about homeless issues in this community," DiPino said. "There's been a number of complaints from citizens and business owners about people who are sleeping or on the sidewalks or are begging for money. We try to apply the appropriate response to the complaints we're getting from citizens."

She and other city officials say Sarasota actually offers many more services to the homeless than other communities. Officials point to statistics that show there have been about 25,000 instances of documented police contact with the homeless between 2004 and 2012, with 1,416 people referred to various social service programs by officers.

DiPino said that like other communities, Sarasota must balance its responsibility to help people with drug, alcohol and mental health issues with keeping other residents safe and happy.

Phil Grande is a downtown business owner and one-time resident who spearheaded the effort to remove benches from the parks.

Grande, a syndicated radio host, in 2010 purchased an expensive condo in the same building as his downtown studio. He quickly noticed that student groups fed the homeless in a nearby park and that people congregated near the library, used drugs and hassled people on the street.

He said the troublemakers are often aggressive, younger men.

"This isn't a homeless problem," Grande said. "The homeless are pretty much taken care of. This is a vagrant situation."

Some of the homeless contend that only a few troublemakers cause all problems.

Coroner IDs Vegas officer who killed family, committed suicide

Source

Coroner IDs Vegas officer who killed family, committed suicide

By Marisa Gerber

January 22, 2013, 7:57 p.m.

The Las Vegas police lieutenant who killed his wife, son and himself was Hans Pieter Walters, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, the Clark County Office of the Coroner/Medical Examiner said in a statement Tuesday.

Walters told a dispatcher Monday that he had shot his family and threatened to set his home on fire and harm any officers who responded, authorities said. When police arrived, they found the family’s Boulder City, Nev., home partially engulfed in flames and Walters in the doorway with a gun. He ignored police commands and went back into the house, authorities said.

When a SWAT team entered the home, they found Walters, his 46-year-old wife, Kathryn Michelle, and their 5-year-old son, Maximilian, all with fatal gunshot wounds to the head.

Walters joined the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 21 years ago and was promoted to lieutenant in 2010. His wife worked for the department 13 years before leaving voluntarily in 2004, officials said.

During a brief news conference Monday, Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie -- the elected head of the police department -- spoke of the loss: “Anyone who has been in law enforcement for any amount of time is usually prepared for any scenario. No one, however, can prepare us for something like this.”

Court: Sex-offender Facebook ban unconstitutional

Court: Sex-offender Facebook ban unconstitutional

Associated Press Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:18 AM

INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana law that bans registered sex offenders from accessing Facebook and other social networking sites that can be accessed by children is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Chicago overturned a federal judge’s decision upholding the law, saying the “blanket ban” was too broad and didn’t protect children.

“It broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors,” the judges said in a 20-page decision.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled in June that the state has a strong interest in protecting children and found that social networking had created a “virtual playground for sexual predators to lurk.” She noted that the Internet remains open to those who have been convicted of sex offenses.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the class-action suit on behalf of a man who served three years for child exploitation and other sex offenders who are restricted by the ban even though they are no longer on probation.

Federal judges have barred similar laws in Nebraska and Louisiana.

Officials at the ACLU and the Indiana attorney general’s office said they hadn’t yet reviewed the ruling and had no immediate comment.

Who the h*ll is Jesus Malverde????

Board Recommends Firing Phoenix Sergeant Phil Roberts

Source

A Review Board Recommends Firing PPD Sergeant Phil Roberts for Rampant Allegations Against Fellow Cops

By Monica Alonzo Thursday, Jan 24 2013

Phoenix Police Chief Daniel Garcia is mulling whether to fire Sergeant Phil Roberts, who investigators say lobbed numerous false allegations against fellow cops and city officials — and did so in a very public way. Sergeant Phil Roberts remains on paid leave pending Chief Daniel Garcia's decision.

Sergeant Phil Roberts remains on paid leave pending Chief Daniel Garcia's decision.

Roberts gained notoriety in 2010 after accusing former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, former Public Safety Manager (Police Chief) Jack Harris, and others of conspiring to defraud the federal government of grant money in 2009 by exaggerating the number of home invasions and kidnappings tied to drug and human smuggling.

Roberts complained that when he "blew the whistle" on the "corruption and fraud," he became a victim of retaliation. He claimed he was transferred to unwanted assignments, given undesirable work shifts, and wasn't permitted to work off-duty jobs (which can mean lucrative extra pay for cops.)

However, a series of internal, state, and federal investigations revealed there was little truth in the multitude of allegations that Roberts fired off through some 500 pages in the more than 40 memos he wrote between August 2009 and August 2010.

After investigating Roberts' mountain of allegations — and exonerating those he accused of engaging in discrimination, covering up botched investigations, and creating a hostile work environment — the Phoenix Police Department's Professional Standards Bureau turned its attention to Roberts.

An internal affairs investigation completed on October 12, 2012, also revealed that Roberts failed to notify his superiors "when releasing information pertinent to the department" and used city resources and his position "for personal benefit or gain."

A month later, an in-house disciplinary review board recommended that Garcia fire Roberts, and the 28-year police veteran was placed on paid administrative leave.

The investigative report — largely based on 20 hours of interviews with Roberts and, ironically, his plethora of memos — concluded, in part, that Roberts' false allegations "caused irreversible damage to the reputations of the city of Phoenix, the Phoenix Police Department, and the employees named in his documents."

Investigators say Roberts violated a police policy that prohibits employees from revealing official police business "except as directed by a supervisor or under due process of law."

Although Roberts told investigators he was unaware of such a policy, he was warned in November 2009 about "providing memos to unauthorized persons." And his own memos reflect his understanding of the "seriousness of 'leaking' information," according to the report.

Roberts sent his inflammatory memos to many organizations and individuals, including the leaders of police and civilian employee unions, the Department of Public Safety, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, the state Attorney General's Office, the FBI, the U.S. Department of Labor, then-state Senator Russell Pearce, the U.S. Attorney General, and individual City Council members.

He told investigators he sent the memos to various entities because "he believed his chain of command might have been compromised" and so outside law enforcement agencies could "start 'probing around' because there was a cover-up," an internal affairs report says.

City policies don't bar cops from filing complaints through the proper channels, but once reported, employees have to allow appropriate entities the opportunity to investigate, the internal affairs report notes.

"Sergeant Roberts chose instead to bombard them with additional memoranda containing redundant and embellished information," the report states. "Sergeant Roberts' 'facts' were often based upon hearsay, rumor, or innuendo, [and] his conduct was so outrageous that attempts to correct performance would be fruitless."

Investigators also determined that Roberts violated department policies by writing many of his complaints on official city letterhead and accessing criminal databases, not for a "criminal justice purpose" but to build his "defense" against the city and its police department. And, investigators say, he did it while out for several months on voluntary "stress leave."

The investigative report also details eight examples of false allegations that Roberts leveled against police officials. Lieutenant Lauri Burgett was among his primary targets.

A New Times investigation in 2011 traced Roberts' animus toward Burgett to 2008 and 2009 when she twice passed him over for a job managing the Home Invasion and Kidnapping Enforcement unit, which tracks down kidnappers.

Before Burgett became his supervisor, he had headed up such high-profile investigations. He relished the media attention, making more than a dozen appearances on national TV, where he repeatedly cited the same statistics he later alleged were inflated.

When he was in charge, he also pocketed hefty overtime pay associated with working complicated cases that involved trying to locate and rescue kidnapping victims from drug dealers and human smugglers.

City records show that Roberts pocketed more than $150,000 worth of overtime and on-call pay in the four years he worked on kidnap and extortion cases.

His resentment of Burgett only intensified in late 2009, when her team moved to the Drug Enforcement Bureau and out of the Robbery unit, where Roberts was stationed ("The Numbers Game," July 7, 2011).

In his memos, which started a month before HIKE's scheduled relocation, he frequently accused Burgett of felony crimes — and he wrote that then-Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon granted her immunity from criminal or administrative investigations.

He wrote in nine separate memos between February and July 2010 a variation on his claim that Burgett told fellow lieutenants (who in turn told him) that Gordon assured her "she had nothing to worry about."

Roberts later denied making allegations against Gordon and Burgett, but his own memos plainly show he repeatedly did.

Investigation after investigation of Roberts' assertions — dating back to complaints he filed as early as 2008 — has cleared Burgett and others.

In 2010, the Attorney General's Office investigated Roberts' accusations that Burgett had discriminated against him, but it found no evidence to substantiate his claims.

About a year ago, federal investigators concluded that Roberts neither was the whistle-blower he fancied himself nor the victim of retaliation from his superiors. Police investigators determined that "pretty much everything" in Roberts' nearly 500 pages of memos was "untruthful."

Phoenix police officials' lackluster effort to review the veracity of their own kidnapping statistics allowed Roberts to continue his attacks, further damaging the department's integrity. Then-Chief Harris stood by the figures, even claiming they had been verified.

It wasn't until March 2011, when City Manager David Cavazos convened a panel of experts to review the home-invasion and kidnapping statistics that it was made public that the figures actually were grossly under-reported — not inflated, as Roberts alleged.

The panel discovered there were twice as many kidnapping cases than first believed. It attributed the problems mostly to shoddy record keeping.

While the panel vindicated the city against Roberts' allegations, it also criticized officials for failing to call for an audit sooner. The fracas effectively ended Harris' reign — he retired shortly after Cavazos reassigned him to oversee the security of municipal buildings at Sky Harbor International Airport.

A scandal of Roberts' creation caused his colleagues the anguish of fighting false allegations, called into question police and city officials' integrity, and cost a police chief his decades-long law enforcement career.

But, in the end, the controversy he sparked with a yearlong memo-writing campaign may be what ends Roberts' own decades-long career with the PPD.

Medical pot advocates: Target illegal clubs, leave law alone

Hmmm... just who are these unnamed "medical pot advocates" that want to shut down “compassion clubs”???

Personally I suspect these unnamed "medical pot advocates" are really elected officials or cops who want to shut down the “compassion clubs”!!!

Source

Medical pot advocates: Target illegal clubs, leave law alone

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:55 PM

Dispensary owners, patients and advocates of medical marijuana are asking state lawmakers to reconsider an attempt to repeal the 2010 law that legalized the drug to treat certain medical conditions.

Instead of taking the medical marijuana issue back to voters, they urged the Legislature Thursday to clamp down on unregulated marijuana clubs — often called “compassion clubs,” — to ensure patients receive their recommended drugs within the guidelines of the new law.

There are no provisions for such clubs in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, and they are not regulated by the Department of Health Services, which oversees the medical marijuana program and regulates dispensaries where patients and caregivers can legally buy marijuana.

The compassion clubs typically ask patients to pay a fee to obtain marijuana even though the law does not allow people to exchange anything of value for the drug except in dispensaries. However, the clubs popped up statewide as patients waited for the opening of dispensaries, which were delayed because of prolonged legal battles between medical marijuana advocates and state and county officials. In a few known instances, law enforcement has taken action against the clubs. In the two most high profile cases, police raided the clubs and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office prosecuted the operators under existing drug laws.

Ryan Hurley, an attorney specializing in medical marijuana law, said the law should not be repealed, but that police, prosecutors and lawmakers, should target the unregulated clubs to ensure patients receive their medication in a controlled and secure environment.

“If there are abuses in the system, that's where they can be addressed, with law enforcement, the Department of Health Services, (and) we're happy to work with the Arizona Legislature to regulate and to reform, where needed," he said.

Medical marijuana advocates say lawmakers who want to repeal the law either don’t understand how the drug helps patients, or they are putting their politics before the will of voters.

Jim Dyer, 60, a Republican and former attorney said during a Thursday news conference that conventional painkillers and muscle relaxants aren’t an effective treatment for his Multiple Sclerosis because they put him to sleep or further affect his muscles. Medical cannabis, he said, is the only remedy.

“I don’t understand why the legislature wants to get in the face of the voters again and tell them, oh hey, we want you to vote on this again,’” he said. “That’s insulting to me, and it should be insulting to the rest of the voters in Arizona.”

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, has introduced a bill that would refer the marijuana law back to the ballot in November 2014. House Concurrent Resolution 2003 would require the Legislature's approval but not Gov. Jan Brewer's signature.

Kavanagh said voters deserve the right to rethink whether the law, approved by them in 2010, should have passed in the first place, pointing out that voters approved the law by a narrow margin of about 4,300 votes.

He said the program is seriously flawed, citing recent findings that only a portion of the state’s physicians are recommending marijuana, that some teens report they are obtaining pot from medical-marijuana cardholders, and that most patients are citing chronic pain as debilitating conditions —not cancer, as he says voters were led to believe.

Kavanagh questioned the effectiveness of marijuana in treating medical conditions and cited a decision by a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which rejected a petition to reclassify marijuana from its status as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use.

“There are so many yellow flags that say this program is full of abuse … that the voters should be allowed to reconsider,” he said. “Everybody’s heart has to go out to people who have debilitating and painful illnesses, and mine does also. But these people have to be protected from ineffective and dangerous drugs.”

About 34,000 Arizonans are allowed to smoke or grow marijuana, according to the state Department of Health Services. Of them, 3.76 percent use marijuana to ease cancer symptoms; less than 2 percent cite glaucoma. The overwhelming majority, 90 percent, cite severe and chronic pain.

Voters’ will goes to pot — again

For the record Arizonans have voted at least 4 times on medical marijuana and at least 2 of those measures have passed.

Source

Voters’ will goes to pot — again

If state legislators believe that Arizona citizens want to reconsider the medical marijuana law they should go out and collect signatures and put an initiative on the ballot, just like Arizona citizens have done three times, passing a medical marijuana law each time.

Instead, Rep. John Kavanagh and the Republicans who control the legislature want to put the issue on the ballot in 2014 without having collected a single signature. (See the latest article here by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez.)

It’s a little perk legislators have that the rest of us do not.

Not long ago, when I wrote a column about this, I asked Kavanagh if he thought he could get the question on the ballot if he weren’t a member of the legislature.

“No,” he said. “The opposition to the medical-marijuana initiative raised a grand total of about $10,000. While we call it the people’s initiative, unless you’ve got big bucks in today’s modern, high-population Arizona, you are not getting an initiative on the ballot. They just can’t raise the money.”

But is it the money or the desire?

Have you seen any large group of people demonstrating at the capitol to reverse the medical marijuana law?

Me neither.

Because there is none.

Some politicians simply don’t like citizens taking matters into their own hands when it comes to issues like this.

Instead of beating the opposition in a fair fight, they keep putting the issue before voters, making it difficult, if not impossible, to get a workable system up and running.

Investors get squeamish, not knowing if their business will suddenly become illegal.

It’s a backhanded attempt to thwart the will of the voters.

You.

The people they’re supposed to represent.

Ex-Mesa cop convicted of tasing stepson

Source

Ex-Mesa cop convicted of tasing stepson says it was self-defense

Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:15 pm

By Navideh Forghani, ABC15.com | 0 comments

A former Mesa police officer could lose his badge for good after being convicted for using his department-issued stun gun on his stepson.

An investigation into the 2007 incident revealed Officer Larry Kelso was upset at his stepson for getting a bad grade on his report card.

“He was ironing clothes in my room, and I was looking at his report card. I started to yell at him about his grades. He started cursing and yelling. Suddenly, he came at me with the iron,” said Kelso.

Kelso went on to say, ”I reacted naturally as a trained officer. I just grabbed my Taser and tased him. I had to get the situation under control."

Kelso says his actions would have been justified if he had told police the truth. Instead, he says he lied telling Mesa PD he used to Taser to get an aggressive dog under control. He says it was to protect his son from having charges on his record.

“He had dreams of joining the air force. I know if I had told the truth, it would have destroyed his future,” said Kelso.

The allegations didn’t surface until years later, when the officer was getting a divorce from the boy's mother.

“She wanted to take everything away from me,” said Kelso.

Kelso was convicted of the abuse, and now could lose his certification to be a police officer in Arizona.

“I truly regret the situation. I really do,” said Kelso.

The Arizona Peace Officers Standard and Training Board is still reviewing his case.

San Bernardino deputy arrested on suspicion of sex with inmate

San Bernardino deputy arrested on suspicion of sex with inmate

January 24, 2013 | 10:32 am

A San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputy has been arrested after allegedly engaging in sexual activity with a jailed inmate, authorities said.

Deputy Johnathan Miller, 27, was booked into West Valley Detention Center Wednesday, according to a department report. He was released Thursday after posting a $25,000 bond and is on paid administrative leave.

Investigators received an allegation of improper sexual conduct between him and a 25-year-old female inmate at Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center, a department-run lockup for inmates serving time for misdemeanors, according to the report.

Detectives interviewed Miller and searched his home, then placed him under arrest.

Anyone with information in the case is asked to call the department’s Specialized Investigations Division at (909) 387-3589.

U.N. expert launches investigation of drones, targeted killings

Personally I don't have any more faith in the corrupt UN, then I do in the corrupt American government.

But drone murders by the American government are a serious problem if you ask me!!!!!

Source

U.N. expert launches investigation of drones, targeted killings

By Emily Alpert

January 24, 2013, 1:16 p.m.

A United Nations expert has launched an investigation of drone attacks and targeted killings, scrutinizing a deeply controversial tool in the United States’ battle against Al Qaeda.

“The plain fact is that this technology is here to stay,” U.N. special rapporteur Ben Emmerson announced Thursday in London, “and its use … is a reality with which the world must contend.”

Drones are not the only way to carry out targeted killings, but the relative ease with which they are used and their devastating effects have spotlighted the legal unease around them, the U.N. expert said. The world urgently needs ways to regulate their use and keep it in line with international law, which has yet to settle how to handle such killings, he stated.

“To shine the light of factual truth on some of these very abstract debates,” a team of investigators will delve into targeted killings, Emmerson told the Los Angeles Times. The experts will scrutinize 25 attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, the U.N. rapporteur said at the London press briefing.

Though other countries are believed to have drones or the technology behind them, the debate over the unmanned aircraft most often swirls around the United States, which has intensified drone use under the Obama administration.

U.S. officials have defended drone strikes as a justified use of force against Al Qaeda and its allies that has spared pilots’ lives and forestalled deeper military involvement abroad. Such strikes have killed major militants, including Abu Yahya al Libi, the second-in-command in Al Qaeda.

However, the rising use of drones as a tool of war has alarmed human rights groups around the world, who argue that the secretive practice of targeted killings runs afoul of international law. The U.S. has been sued over drone killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen, including an Al Qaeda cleric and his 16-year-old son.

“The Obama administration seems to have decided that wherever it conducts a targeted killing, it is by definition engaged in armed conflict, even far from any obvious battlefield,” James Ross of Human Rights Watch said last year. “What would the U.S. say if Russia or China took the same approach to attack perceived enemies in the streets of New York or Washington?”

The New America Foundation estimates that since 2004 as many as 3,279 people have been were killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, including as many as 305 civilians and hundreds of others “unknown.” U.S. lawmakers have challenged the accuracy of such tallies, The Times reported in June.

Emmerson said investigators will gather evidence until May, probably visiting Pakistan, Yemen and the Sahel, then seek reactions from the countries involved. In October, Emmerson plans to make recommendations to the U.N. about nations’ duty to investigate such attacks.

He was optimistic that the U.S., Britain, Pakistan and Yemen would cooperate. “I approach this inquiry with an entirely open mind,” Emmerson said.

Fontana school police are armed with semiautomatic rifles

Fontana school police are armed with semiautomatic rifles

By Stephen Ceasar, Los Angeles Times

January 23, 2013, 7:26 p.m.

Police officers in the Fontana Unified School District were armed recently with semiautomatic rifles, drawing sharp criticism and sparking an effort to ban such weapons on school campuses.

The Colt military-style rifles, which cost about $1,000 each, are kept in safes when officers are on campus and will be used only in "extreme emergency cases" like the massacre in Newtown, Conn., Supt. Cali Olsen-Binks said.

The district purchased the rifles in October and received them in December, before the tragedy in Newtown, where a gunman killed 26 people — 20 of them children — at an elementary school. The shooting sparked debate on whether armed school guards could prevent these types of tragedies.

The purchase was not spurred by a specific event, Fontana Unified School District police Chief Billy Green said. The rifles are designed to increase shooting accuracy and provide the 14 officers with more effective power against assailants wearing body armor, Green said, adding that those capabilities are necessary for officers to stop a well-armed gunman.

"If you know of a better way to stop someone on campus that's killing children or staff members with a rifle, I'd like to hear it," he said. "I don't think it's best to send my people in to stop them with just handguns."

"I hope we would never have to use it," Green said. "But if we do, I'd like them to be prepared."

Several other school districts have similar weapons but policies differ on whether they are brought on campus or left in patrol car trunks or administration buildings.

Fontana school police bought the guns for about $14,000, which fell below the threshold that requires school board approval. School board members were not informed until after the purchase.

Board member Leticia Garcia said the police chief and superintendent should have alerted the five-member board and held a public hearing on the issue. She said arming officers with such weapons is a policy matter and should have been decided by the entire school district community, especially in light of the ongoing debate around the country.

Garcia, whose son attends Fontana High School, said she is working with local state legislators to draft a bill that would keep school police departments from taking these types of weapons onto campuses.

"We're turning our schools into a militarized zone," she said.

But the Fontana school superintendent said she believes it's a necessary evil to have the guns on campus to keep the 40,000-plus students and staff members safe. Officers have gone through training for the weapons, Olsen-Binks said.

"It balances providing that community-oriented openness at schools without compromising any kind of security for students and employees," she said.

Although she stopped short of saying the matter should have been put before the board, Olsen-Binks said doing so might have helped ease concerns.

"Having an opportunity for more community discussion is always a good thing," she said.

The rifles are kept either in the trunk of the police officer's vehicle or in a safe on campus.

Still, Garcia worries that bringing such a weapon on campus could lead to it falling into the wrong hands. An officer could be overtaken or someone could gain access to the safe, she said.

"Teenagers can get creative," Garcia said.

Green, however, dismissed that concern as unrealistic.

The Los Angeles Unified School District's police department has issued "patrol rifles" to officers on an as-needed basis, the district said in a statement. The department does not disclose the number of rifles given to officers.

Most San Diego Unified School District police officers have AR-15 rifles, Lt. Joe Florentino said. But the department did not buy the weapons; rather, officers were allowed to purchase their own — which many did, he said.

The rifles are kept in the trunk of the officer's vehicle and are not brought into school buildings. Although there is no policy yet, bringing the rifles into buildings is something the department is looking at, Florentino said.

"From a safety standpoint, we have police officers that want the weapons close by," he said. "If we keep them in the vehicle trunk, they would have to run to the car and grab it if they need it."

stephen.ceasar@latimes.com

Woman gets 10 years for giving child a pain killer

Source

Mom gets 10 years giving boy Methadone

By Cecilia Chan

Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team

Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:52 PM

A woman accused of overdosing her son with a mixture of Kool Aid and methadone was sentenced Thursday to 10 years in prison, the Maricopa County Superior Court reported.

Judge Edward Bassett, following a plea agreement, also gave Jennifer Campos a lifetime probation for child abuse and attempted child abuse, officials said.

Campos, 26, and Anthony Casillas, 38, were arrested in 2011 after suspecting of giving their then-2-year-old son a mixture of the punch and prescription painkiller, according to court documents.

The couple were staying at a motel near Black Canyon Highway and West Griswold Road in Phoenix when the incident occurred.

At some point during the motel stay, the boy apparently became fussy. His gums were bleeding and his teeth were rotting, according to the documents.

The parents mixed the narcotic with Kool Aid and gave the drink to the child, authorities said.

The child's lips swelled, prompting friends at the motel room to call authorities. Responding police officers found the toddler unresponsive and not breathing, according to the documents.

The court records indicate the child had methadone, amphetamine, acetone and nicotine in his system.

Gilbert, Arizona declares war on alcohol!!!!

Source

The hypocritical war on alcohol

MORNING UPDATE, JAN. 25:

Tea-totaler: The war on alcohol has resurfaced in Gilbert. Jared Taylor, a newly elected town councilman, has pledged to vote against all liquor licenses, while Mayor John Lewis and Vice Mayor Ben Cooper joined him in voting against alcohol samples at Sprouts because — gasp! — children could see adults drinking in a grocery store.

Efforts to curb alcohol in town have surfaced several times over the last few years, almost exclusively from its socially conservative elected leaders. They seem to think booze degrades Gilbert’s “family-friendly image,” whatever that means.

In reality, their efforts make the town seem boring and backward — hardly the place young, educated types would want to live, much less visit. Which leads me to this excerpt from a 2010 column I wrote:

This viewpoint doesn’t square with the reality of life in Gilbert. If anything, it perpetuates a stereotype that doesn’t exist.

Don’t believe me? Pay attention to what people are buying the next time you’re in line at the grocery-store checkout. I see lots of six-packs and bottles of wine in carts, and there are always people in the alcohol aisle, often with kids in tow. …

Though some might suggest otherwise, not everyone who lives here takes such a hard-line view on alcohol. There are plenty of us who think that society will be just fine if kids witness adults drinking responsibly.

If looks could kill: If a picture is worth a thousand words, two shots say all that needs to be said about Wednesday’s congressional hearings on Benghazi. BuzzFeed offers two hilariously curt images from departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Arizona Sen. John McCain, one of her loudest critics. Clearly, there is no love lost here.

Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe and Chandler Mayors are gun grabbers????

Source

Southeast Valley mayors cautiously tuned to debate on guns

By Maria Polletta The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:50 AM

Mesa Mayor Scott Smith, a former National Rifle Association member and a gun owner for most of his life, took safety classes from the NRA as a youngster and later put his children through the same program.

Chandler Mayor Jay Tibshraeny is not and has never been a member of the NRA.

Though their personal histories with guns differ, all Southeast Valley mayors have adopted a measured approach when it comes to the public gun debate sparked in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting. They say they’re following the federal conversation closely, offering starting-point suggestions in the meantime rather than definitive solutions.

Most have held off on membership in gun-control organizations. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton was the only Valley mayor in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, for example, until Tempe Mayor Mark Mitchell recently joined.

“There’s just a lot of dialogue right now, and it’s hard to bring it all together,” said Gilbert Mayor John Lewis, who is not a member of the NRA.

Lewis said he prefers to wait and weigh in on specific legislation rather than sign on to efforts like the mayors’ initiative or other groups.

Last year, for example, Lewis said he opposed a bill that would have allowed guns on university campuses and used his connections at the state level to voice his opinion.

“I think that’s the approach I’ll take, as the ideas and thoughts are starting to come more on the basis of what the proposals are,” he said.

Smith said he refuses to “jump on the gun-control bandwagon,” lamenting the U.S. tendency to seek knee-jerk solutions after major crises such as 9/11 and recent financial scandals.

“To me, it’s not a sound-bite issue,” he said.

Smith believes that there must be some way to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people and has said he is open to the idea of closing background-check loopholes. He says there should be stern punishments for what he called poor stewardship with guns, such as allowing them to fall into the hands of children.

Smith also said the law has a legitimate role in forbidding the willful sale of guns to criminals and in forbidding “straw buyers” who would channel weapons inappropriately.

But overall, he said, gun violence is “a complex issue that involves a culture of violence, involves society, involves mental health.” In particular, he says that the country is devoting inadequate resources to mental-health issues.

“I believe we should strengthen our gun laws,” Smith said.

But whatever is done must be within the context of the Second Amendment, which the courts have ruled confers the right to individual gun ownership.

“I don’t think someone who is an honest person who owns guns legally should have their rights infringed,” he said.

Tibshraeny said he believes in Second Amendment rights, “but I also believe in making sure our citizens can live a full and productive and safe life.”

“We need a legitimate debate without people being so entrenched that you can’t have any meaningful dialogue,” he said. “That’s what I’m going to be looking for as we move forward.”

Tibshraeny echoed Smith’s mental-health-related concerns, saying, “A lot of these folks that have done this (mass shootings) are seriously mentally disturbed” and mental-health-care funding is “a factor that I look at on this issue.”

“At the state level, better reporting of mental-health records would be good,” he said. “We’ve got folks that are unstable and applying to get guns. A lot of their health history is on record, and it needs to go into a database that is checked as they’re applying.”

Tibshraeny said Chandler has been focusing on doing what it can at the local level, with public-safety officials sitting down to talk safety policies and procedures with Chandler schools.

Mitchell also has experience with local efforts to combat gun violence, an issue thrust into the Tempe spotlight last year when a March shooting at a club during a rap concert injured 16 people.

“First and foremost, for any elected official, the public safety and well-being of our residents is at the forefront,” he said. “Whether it’s working with the police chief and Police Department to make sure they have the necessary resources, it’s important that we work together collaboratively for the public safety of children as well as adults.”

Mitchell, who is not an NRA member, said he considered joining the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition a responsible decision, but he declined to say whether he would support additional gun restrictions, including an assault-weapons ban.

He said he would need to further research a sweeping package of federal gun-control measures proposed by President Barack Obama, as well as similar policies to limit gun violence recently approved in New York, before making a decision.

“That’s something I need to look at,” he said.

Republic reporters Gary Nelson, Parker Leavitt, Dianna Náñez and Erin Kelly contributed to this article.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery tries to can Prop 203 - Again!!!!

I suspect it's tyrants like Bill Montgomery that caused the Founders to write the Second Amendment!!!

Source

County attorney seeks Arizona Supreme Court ruling on medical pot

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:47 PM

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery is petitioning the Arizona Supreme Court to bypass the appellate court and hear his arguments on a high-profile medical-marijuana case.

The case centers on whether the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act is pre-empted by federal law.

A Maricopa County Superior Court in December ruled that federal drug laws do not pre-empt the state’s medical-marijuana program and that public officials must implement the voter-mandated law.

In his petition, filed Friday, Montgomery stressed the importance of quickly resolving whether that ruling should stand.

“The issue presented — whether the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act is pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act — is an important issue of statewide impact,” the petition says.

Voters approved the state’s medical-marijuana law in 2010.

More than 33,000 people have permission to use medical marijuana in Arizona.

State health officials in August selected nearly 100 dispensary owners who are authorized to sell and grow marijuana if they meet state regulations.

In his ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Gordon made it clear that marijuana is illegal under federal law, but he wrote that the U.S. Constitution allows Arizona to make different policy choices from the federal government when it comes to decriminalizing and regulating medical marijuana.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not undermine the federal Controlled Substances Act, which makes possession, sale or use of marijuana a crime, he wrote.

Border Patrol agent steals water, food, blanks left for Mexicans!!!

Tucson group claims agent took immigrant supplies

Associated Press Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:09 PM

TUCSON — A Tucson-based immigrants’ rights group claims a hidden-camera video shows a U.S. Border Patrol agent removing food and blankets intended for illegal immigrants.

No More Deaths officials say the 33-second video is dated Jan. 8 and was shot near Arivaca, about 12 miles north of the international border.

A spokesman for the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector said Thursday that officials are aware of the video and are preparing a response.

Humanitarian organizations leave food, water and blankets on desert trails often traveled by illegal immigrants crossing the Arizona border from Mexico.

The No More Deaths group says temperatures in southern Arizona dropped to record lows between Jan. 9-15. They say blankets and food were left to help prevent death and illness for border crossers in extreme weather conditions.

There is a paid snitch in your jail cell????

Source

Defense in salon killings will get data on jail informant

By Nicole Santa Cruz, Los Angeles Times

January 25, 2013, 8:13 p.m.

Prosecutors were ordered Friday to hand over material about a jailhouse informant who helped authorities secretly record hours of conversation with the man accused of gunning down eight people in the deadliest mass shooting in Orange County history.

The recordings were made a week after the arrest of Scott Dekraai, 43, in the 2011 midday rampage at a Seal Beach salon where his ex-wife worked.

Defense attorney Scott Sanders argued that he needs more information about the informant and his involvement with other criminal cases, including Dekraai's, to determine whether his client's right to a fair trial has been violated.

In court filings, Sanders said the informant, who is facing two life sentences for various crimes, including drug-related felonies, has had three years of delays on his cases and has been the "beneficiary of special treatment."

Prosecutors argued that because the informant would not be called as a witness in the trial, the information did not need to be turned over. But Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals disagreed and ordered prosecutors to turn over the information.

The informant, referred to as "Fernando P." in court documents, alerted law enforcement after Dekraai began talking about the case in his jail cell, according to court documents.

After prosecutors, investigators and law enforcement officers met with the man, a recording device was placed in Dekraai's cell for six days.

The recordings include 132 segments of one-hour audio files, many of which include conversations about Dekraai's "crimes and personal history," according to court documents.

Prosecutors intend to use the recordings at a jury trial, Assistant Dist. Atty. Dan Wagner said.

In a court filing, Wagner said that the inmate did not initiate the conversations, and responded only with words such as "really," "wow" and "huh."

He also said that the district attorney does not intend to give the informant any leniency on his sentencing. [Yea, sure!!!!! If you believe that I have some land in Florida I would like to sell you!!!!]

In court Friday, Wagner said that Dekraai babbled "on and on" to the informant without being prompted and made "inflammatory" statements such as "I wrecked my life."

"We want the jury to hear everything the defendant said," Wagner said after the hearing.

He added that he believes the evidence in the tapes will show Dekraai's "mind-set" about the crimes.

In January 2012, Dekraai was indicted on eight counts of murder with special circumstances and one felony count of attempted murder. Dekraai has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors said they will seek the death penalty.

A tentative trial date has been set for March 25, though Sanders said the defense is "not close to being ready."

nicole.santacruz@latimes.com

TSA thugs steal 54 guns at Sky Harbor Airport

In ’12, authorities took 54 guns at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

David Wallace/The Republic

By Christina Silvestri Cronkite News Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:34 AM

Authorities confiscated 54 guns at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport checkpoints in 2012, the third-highest total in the nation, according to the Transportation Security Administration.

Sky Harbor followed Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, which had 95 confiscations, and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, which had 80.

Sky Harbor had 44 gun confiscations in 2011.

Four guns were confiscated at Tucson International Airport in 2012, down from 16 the year before, while security at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport confiscated three guns last year compared with one in 2011.

TSA checkpoints confiscated 1,525 guns nationally in 2012, up 16 percent from 2011 and 36 percent from 2010, according to the Medill National Security Journalism Initiative, which tracks and analyzes the agency’s data. The most-common type of weapon confiscated nationally and at Sky Harbor was a .38-caliber handgun, according to the TSA.

Robert Baker, program chair for Global Security and Intelligence Studies at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, said state gun laws may play a role in the top of the rankings.

“Those top-three airports are in states with laws that allow people to carry weapons for personal defense, publicly and on their person,” Baker said.

In Arizona, those who are 21 and older may carry concealed weapons without a permit.

“I don’t think there’s enough statistics out there to show a direct relationship between rise of confiscations in relation to shootings like Newtown,” Baker said. “If more people are legally carrying that means there is more of a likelihood someone would carry it aboard an aircraft.”

Nico Melendez, a TSA spokesman, agreed, noting that the most-referenced excuse from passengers found with guns at security checkpoints is forgetfulness.

“These are gun owners of America,” Melendez said. “I don’t think there’s cause for concern in terms of aviation security because our employees are there to find these things.”

The TSA allows passengers to fly with guns that are unloaded and stored in hard-sided checked baggage. All firearms, including accompanying ammunition and firearm parts, are prohibited in carry-on baggage.

When TSA workers find guns and other illegal items on a passenger or in carry-on baggage, the agency has the legal authority to assess civil penalties up to $10,000, Melendez said.

The TSA then calls law enforcement to assess if there was criminal intent.

“The passenger is not really committing a crime unless they are intentionally bringing the gun into a secure area,” said Sgt. Chuck Trapani of the Mesa Police Department, citing a state law against intentionally carrying, possessing or exercising control over a deadly weapon in a secured area of an airport.

If there was no criminal intent, a passenger may check the firearm in luggage or give it to a family member or friend who is not flying, Trapani said.

Miranda rights in Mexico???

Fifth Amendment rights in Mexico???

Of course the cops always tell me I don't have any stinking 5th Amendment rights and make all kinds of nasty evil threats on what will happen to me if I don't answer their questions.

I suspect the Mexican cops will behave the same way.

Believe it or not the Mexican Constitution has it's own version of the 5th Amendment which is Article 20 and allows people charged to remain silent.

Artículo 20

II. No podrá ser compelido a declarar en su contra, por lo cual queda rigurosamente prohibida toda incomunicación o cualquier otro medio que tienda a aquel objeto;

Second Amendment rights in Mexico???

Artículo 10

Los habitantes de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos tienen derecho a poseer armas en su domicilio, para su seguridad y legitima defensa, con excepción de las prohibidas por la ley federal y de las reservadas para el uso exclusivo del Ejército, Armada, Fuerza Aérea y Guardia Nacional. La ley federal determinara los casos, condiciones, requisitos y lugares en que se podrán autorizar a los habitantes la portaron de armas.

Mexican suspects to get Miranda-style warnings

Associated Press Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:02 PM

MEXICO CITY — Reading suspects their rights is something most Mexicans have only seen in American movies.

But authorities say they are starting a program to require police to read suspects their rights or risk letting them go free.

The assistant secretary of the interior says all federal police will have to advise detainees of their right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer.

Eduardo Sanchez says the warning will also advise foreigners they have a right to consular assistance and Indians that they can have translators.

The Interior Department said Friday that suspects could appeal to win their release if they are not read their rights, but that would not necessarily void the charges against them.

The United States has required so-called “Miranda Rights” warnings since the 1960s. [Yea, but the police routinely ignore your Miranda Rights. About the only place you will ever see a cop read somebody their Miranda Rights is on a TV show. As I said at the beginning I always tell the cops I am taking the 5th and refusing to answer their questions. And they have always threaten to harm me if I didn't answer their questions.]

More government money won’t solve school safety problem

Source

Patterson: More government money won’t solve school safety problem

Posted: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:03 am

Guest Commentary by Tom Patterson

In American political culture, we prove we’re concerned about something by spending money on it. Americans are obviously concerned about protecting schools from more mass shootings after Newtown. But in this case, the best response may not be the most expensive.

It’s not clear why Newtown would be seen as a mandate to devote more resources to crime prevention. Yes, it was an horrific act. Our hearts went out to the young victims and their families.

Yet violent crimes have fallen in America over past years. There has been no uptick in gun violence and the incidence of mass shootings is stable. Still, the debate over guns and school safety has dominated our political discourse for over a month now.

As always, the assumption is that it’s going to take some money. “The responsibility of the Legislature is now clear: fully fund school safety” said one public commentator, evidently speaking for many.

But more government money doesn’t always solve problems. Sure, we went to the moon, we discovered how to treat AIDS and we ameliorated the misery of old age. Yet we spent trillions trying to eradicate poverty and all we have to show for it is a permanent, dependent underclass. We shoveled money by the boatload into dysfunctional schools but achievement levels haven’t budged. We’ve pumped billions into politically popular green energy schemes that seem no closerthan before to supplying real energy needs.

Have we learned from our misspending? State Senate Minority Leader Chad Campbell has stepped up with a plan to spend a lot more on school safety. His $261 million Arizona Safer Schools, Safer Communities Plan would include more money for “school resource officers”, more money for video equipment and security gates and even more money for counselors.

That seems like a lot to prevent school mass shootings, since statistically they don’t exist in our state. A more sensible solution would be to permit each principal to authorize one (or two) school employees with a concealed carry permit to bring firearms to school, a variation on AG Tom Horne’s idea. They would be trained, of course, and anonymous.

It’s at least arguable that this plan would be a more effective deterrent to mass shooters then an identifiable guard. Shooters know that once they have neutralized the guard, they are effectively back in their desired “gun free zone”. But an unidentified, invisible heat packer or two would be harder to account for.

The cost would be modest. Concealed carry permit holders would probably provide this public service for minimal reimbursement, since most of the weapons carriers would never bring out their firearm in the course of a career.

Ironically some of the criticism of Horne’s idea is that it doesn’t cost enough money. “We can’t protect our children on the cheap”, you know.

Others argue that it’s too risky to add more guns to our school environment. But the record of concealed carry holders has been remarkably positive. They tend to be stable individuals with strong feelings about using guns responsibly. They virtually never use their weapons in road rage situations or nonviolent personal disputes. On the contrary, the strong statistical evidence is that crime rates fall when there are more carriers around.

But can armed citizens stop mass shootings? Like most questions around gun-control, both sides claim mounds of statistics support their position. Ed Schultz of MSNBC recently reported that “we’ve never had a civilian stop a mass shooting”.

It’s a little more complicated. His definition of a mass shooting is four or more deaths. But there are scores of incidents where armed citizens have stopped shootings in theaters, restaurants, churches and schools before four people were killed – two in last December alone. The take-home is that our children would be safer with a trained, armed adult on the premises.

Obviously, we want our to be as safe as possible at school, but our efforts to prevent mass shootings should be appropriate and, yes, cost-effective. We’re in a lot of trouble now from our habit of spending public money as if it were limitless. It just doesn’t make sense to spend hundreds of millions so politicians can appear to be doing something.

• East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.

LA cops shoot man who had his hands up in the air???

Man killed in shooting by deputies was shot in the back, report says

January 27, 2013 | 1:14 pm

A Culver City man who was fatally shot by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies after a police pursuit in November was struck by bullets five times in the back and twice more in the right hip and right forearm, also from behind, according to an autopsy report obtained by The Times.

Jose de la Trinidad, a 36-year-old father of two, was shot Nov. 10 by deputies who believed he was reaching for a weapon following a police pursuit. But family members and a witness to the shooting said that De la Trinidad, who was unarmed, was complying with deputies and had his hands above his head when he was shot.

The shooting is being investigated by multiple law enforcement agencies.

De la Trinidad was shot five times in the upper and lower back, according to the Los Angeles County coroner's report dated Nov. 13. The report describes four of those wounds as fatal. He was also shot in the right forearm and right hip, with both shots entering from behind, the report found.

“Here's a man who complied, did what he was supposed to, and was gunned down by trigger-happy deputies,” said Arnoldo Casillas, the family’s attorney, who provided a copy of the autopsy report to The Times. He said he plans to file a lawsuit against the sheriff’s department.

[Updated: 1:40 p.m., Jan. 27: A sheriff's official declined to discuss specifics of the autopsy report because of the ongoing investigation but stressed that the findings in the report would be included in the department's determination of what happened that night.

"The sheriff and our department extend its condolences to the De la Trinidad" family, said Steve Whitmore, a sheriff's spokesman.

"Deadly force is always a last resort," he said. "The deputies involved were convinced that the public was in danger when they drew their weapons."

The two deputies were assigned desk duties immediately after the shooting but returned to patrol five days later, Whitmore said. This is standard practice in dealing with deputies involved in shootings, he said.

Although investigations like this one typically take months, Whitmore said, the department has given special urgency to this case and hopes to complete its probe in a timely manner.

"We want to have answers about what happened that night soon rather than later," he said. "Even then, we know it doesn't change the grief the family is experiencing."]

On Saturday, relatives of De la Trinidad and about 100 other people marched through the streets of Compton, shouting “No justice, no peace. No killer police.” Rosie de la Trinidad, Jose’s widow, joined the march with the couple’s two young daughters.

“He was doing everything he was supposed to,” she said of her husband, fighting back tears. “All we're asking for is justice.”

De la Trinidad was shot just minutes after leaving his niece’s quinceañera with his brother, Francisco, 39. He was riding in the passenger seat of his brother's car when deputies attempted to pull them over for speeding about 10:20 p.m., authorities said. After a brief car chase, De la Trinidad exited the car in the 1900 block of East 122nd Street in Compton and was shot by deputies.

The sheriff’s department maintains that the deputies opened fire only after De la Trinidad appeared to reach for his waist, where he could have been concealing a weapon.

But a woman who witnessed the officer-involved shooting told investigators that De la Trinidad had complied with deputies’ orders to stop running and put his hands on his head to surrender when two deputies shot and killed him. The witness said she watched the shooting from her bedroom window across the street.

“I know what I saw,” said the witness, Estefani, who asked that her last name not be used, saying she did not want to be harassed by the news media. “His hands were on his head when they started shooting.”

According to the deputies' account, De la Trinidad jumped out of the passenger seat.

His brother, Francisco, took off again in the car. One of the four deputies on the scene gave chase in his cruiser, leaving Jose de la Trinidad on the sidewalk and three deputies standing in the street with their weapons drawn.

The deputies said Jose de la Trinidad then appeared to reach for his waistband, prompting two of them to fire multiple shots into the unarmed man. He died at the scene. Unknown to the deputies at the time, Estefani sat at her bedroom window, looking out at the shooting. She said she did not count the number of shots fired by the deputies.

“As soon as I saw [De la Trinidad] hit the floor, I couldn't look up any longer,” Estefani said at the time. “Then I ran downstairs and started to cry.”

She said she was still crying half an hour later when two sheriff’s deputies canvassing the area for witnesses came to her door.

The deputies, she said, repeatedly asked her which direction De la Trinidad was facing, which she perceived as an attempt to get her to change her story.

“I told them, 'You're just trying to confuse me,' and then they stopped,” she said at the time.

Sheriff’s Department officials initially denied speaking to Estefani or any other potential witnesses that night.

But officials now acknowledge that deputies interviewed her on the night of the shooting, attributing previous denials to a lack of communication between deputies and lieutenants involved in the investigation. Estefani was later interviewed a second time.

As with all deputy-involved shootings, De la Trinidad’s killing will be subject to investigation by the district attorney, the sheriff’s homicide and internal affairs bureaus and the Sheriff’s Executive Force Review Committee.

[For the record: This story initially said that the two deputies involved in the shooting were place on administrative leave immediately following the shooting. They were taken off patrol and returned to duty five days later.]

Hitler & Mussolini were great guys????

Source

Berlusconi defends backing of Hitler

Associated Press Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:21 AM

ROME - Former Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi praised Benito Mussolini for “having done good” despite the Fascist dictator’s anti-Jewish laws, immediately provoking outrage as Europe on Sunday held Holocaust remembrances.

Berlusconi also defended Mussolini for allying himself with Hitler, saying he likely reasoned that it would be better to be on the winning side.

The media mogul, whose conservative forces are polling second in voter surveys ahead of next month’s parliamentary election, spoke to reporters on the sidelines of a ceremony in Milan to commemorate the Holocaust. In 1938, before the outbreak of World War II, Mussolini’s regime passed the so-called “racial laws,” barring Jews from Italy’s universities and many professions, among other bans. When Germany’s Nazi regime occupied Italy during the war, thousands from the tiny Italian Jewish community were deported to death camps.

“It is difficult now to put oneself in the shoes of who was making decisions back then,” Berlusconi said of Mussolini’s support for Hitler. “Certainly the (Italian) government then, fearing that German power would turn into a general victory, preferred to be allied with Hitler’s Germany rather than oppose it.”

Berlusconi added that “within this alliance came the imposition of the fight against, and extermination of, the Jews. Thus, the racial laws are the worst fault of Mussolini, who, in so many other aspects, did good.”

More than 7,000 Jews were deported under Mussolini’s regime, and nearly 6,000 were killed.

Outrage, along with a demand that Berlusconi be prosecuted for promoting Fascism, quickly followed his words.

“It is the height of revisionism to try to reinstate an Italian dictator who helped legitimize and prop up Hitler as a ‘reincarnated good guy,’” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which monitors anti-Semitic incidents worldwide. Berlusconi’s praise of Mussolini constitutes “an insult to the democratic conscience of Italy,” said Rosy Bindi, a center-left leader. “Only Berlusconi’s political cynicism, combined with the worst historic revisionism, could separate the shame of the racist laws from the Fascist dictatorship.”

Illinois now issues driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants

Source

Fraud concerns linger over new Ill. license law

Associated Press Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:49 PM

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — As Illinois becomes the fourth and most populous state to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, there are still nagging concerns that the measure doesn’t have enough safeguards to avoid the identity fraud and other pitfalls faced by the three other states with similar laws.

Backers of the proposal, who tout it as a public-safety measure, argue that required facial recognition technology is reliable enough to prevent fraud, but opponents point to hundreds of fraudulent cases in New Mexico, Washington and Utah after those states began giving illegal immigrants permission to drive. Illinois will not require applicants to be fingerprinted, for fear that would discourage immigrants from applying.

“How many people would apply for this document knowing that fingerprints will be going to (federal authorities)? Probably not all that many,” said Fred Tsao, policy director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a driving-force behind the measure.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to sign the measure that grants driving privileges to illegal immigrants Sunday. Proponents say it will allow an estimated 250,000 individuals unlawfully residing in the state to apply for a three-year temporary driver’s license and require them to get training and insurance.

The licenses will be like those already issued to certain foreign-born, legal visitors. Under the new law, applicants will be photographed at a driver services facility, and their photo will be entered into the state’s facial recognition database — like the rest of Illinois’ licensed drivers— to verify their identity.

But the other states’ driving programs for illegal immigrants have been abused. New Mexico and Washington both issue licenses, while Utah issues a permit.

An Associated Press investigation last year found a striking pattern in New Mexico, suggesting immigrants tried to game the system to obtain a license. In one instance, 48 foreign-born individuals claimed to live at a smoke shop in Albuquerque to fulfill a state residency condition. New Mexico does not have a fingerprinting requirement, though it asks applicants to show two proofs of state residency.

Authorities also busted a fraud ring last year that forged documents for illegal immigrants to use after driving from as far as Illinois and North Carolina to obtain a New Mexico license. Gov. Susana Martinez has vowed for years to repeal the decade-old measure, but the legislature has repeatedly rejected such efforts.

Washington’s requirements attracted national attention when Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and then-Washington license-holder, revealed his illegal immigration status in an essay for the New York Times Magazine in 2011. Vargas chronicled how he obtained his license. State authorities conducted an investigation that revealed Vargas did not reside at the address he stated in his application, and canceled his license a month after his essay was published.

Utah issues three different driving privilege cards: one for U.S. citizens and permanent residents, another for legal visitors and a third for illegal immigrants. Utah’s permit for illegal immigrants is not valid for identification. Illinois’ law will follow suit.

Utah’s Republican-controlled legislature amended the state’s law in 2011 to require illegal immigrants to be fingerprinted, and mandates that the state notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement if an applicant’s fingerprint check yields a felony on record. If the individual applying has a misdemeanor warrant outstanding, the state must notify the agency that is seeking the person’s arrest.

That kind of information-sharing between state and immigration authorities worries Illinois’ immigrant-rights advocates, like Tsao, who pushed for the legislation without a fingerprinting requirement. They say fingerprinting could deter potential licensees from applying for fear of being identified and deported.

Local law enforcement officials argue in favor of fingerprinting.

“We could see if they have committed a crime; it could be a crime in another state or it could be a crime in their home country,” said John Kennedy, executive director of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police.

The Illinois secretary of state’s office has vehemently defended its facial recognition database as highly sophisticated and accurate. The program uses an algorithm to match more than a dozen facial features that are not easy to alter, such as eye sockets and sides of the mouth.

“The integrity of our driver’s license system is a priority,” said Henry Haupt, a spokesman for the office.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Edward Acevedo, a Chicago Democrat, said state roads will be safer because illegal immigrants will receive training and be tested before obtaining a license. They also will be required to purchase insurance, an aspect that would save millions for currently insured drivers, Acevedo said.

Tsao’s organization estimates uninsured illegal immigrant drivers cause $64 million in damage claims each year, an expense currently covered by increased premiums.

Arizona to require hospitals to report illegals????

Source

Ariz. lawmaker: Require hospitals to check immigration status of patients

Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:37 am | Updated: 11:43 am, Sun Jan 27, 2013.

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

A state legislator is moving to put Arizona's hospitals on the front line in the fight against illegal immigration.

The proposal by Rep. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, would require hospitals to "reasonably confirm'' that those who show up at their doors are in the country legally if they do not produce proof of valid health insurance. HB 2293 lists methods that hospital officials and employees can use to make that determination.

But the measure also says if legal status cannot be verified, someone from the hospital "must immediately contact the local federal immigration office or a local law enforcement agency to report the incident.''

The legislation is drawing alarm from the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.

"When does this begin or end?'' asked Pete Wertheim, the organization's vice president of strategic communication. "What other industry should be screening their customers for citizenship verification?''

The hospital proposal is just part of what Smith wants the Legislature this session to enact to deal with illegal immigration.

A separate measure, HB 2289, would require the state Department of Education to collect data on how many of students are not in this country legally.

Federal law, at least as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, requires public schools to educate all children who live within each district, without charge, whether they are in this country legally or not. And nothing in Smith's plan would permit schools to turn away those who cannot provide citizenship proof.

Instead, Smith said the legislation is aimed at gathering data on the financial burden that illegal immigrants put on schools -- data he said Arizona could use to try to get reimbursement from the federal government.

But Dan Pochoda of the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said even just asking for that information is illegal because it would deter families of illegal immigrant children from sending their youngsters to school.

Smith said he does not understand the opposition of the hospitals to HB 2293, saying he's just asking them to do their civic duty. [Yea, in the USA in 2013 that's turning in Mexicans, in Nazi Germany in 1933 it was turning in Jews.]

"I would hope if you witnessed somebody who is not lawfully present in this country taking advantage of, getting, acquiring any benefit or social service or something that they're not entitled to, or something they're abusing or neglected, I would hope somebody would pick up the phone and go, 'Maricopa police, Buckeye police, I think -- I'm not sure -- but I think this is happening,' '' he said.

And Smith said hospitals already have legal responsibilities to call police if someone shows up in the emergency room with a gunshot wound.

Wertheim, however, said he sees the directive to demand citizenship information as an unfunded mandate on the hospitals that are busy seeing more than three million patients a year. Anyway, he said, it's not like hospital employees have the kind of training necessary to determine someone's immigration status.

Smith countered that his measure does not require immigration expertise, pointing out anyone with a driver's license from any state is presumed to be legal. [So no driver's license means you are a criminal in the eyes of Rep. Steve Smith]

Foreigners from countries where the U.S. does not require a visa to visit need produce only documentation of their own citizenship. And others could show a valid nonimmigrant visa.

He was undeterred by the fact there are others without documentation who are considered by federal officials to be in this country legally, including the latest "deferred action'' program aimed at those who arrived in the United States illegally as children.

As to why he singled out hospitals for special attention, Smith said it's a matter of money. "Hospitals and uninsured care is one of the largest burdens on the taxpayers,'' he said.

But Wertheim said he does not see how Smith's legislation helps any of that.

"We cannot detain them,'' he said of those suspected of being illegal immigrants. And he said not every one of the 1.2 million uninsured in Arizona -- people who would lack the evidence of valid health insurance that triggers what Smith's bill would require -- are here illegally.

He did concede conceded that the fear of being reported to federal agents might convince some who do not have emergency situations to stay away. Still, Wertheim said it makes no sense to have to check everyone to keep away what he believes is "a fairly small percent'' of patients without legal presence in the country.

Smith said his separate bid to get a census of illegal immigrant children in public schools is a simple question of data.

"We just want a count,'' he said, saying no one knows how many students are in the public school system. But Smith said there are financial implications.

"The first thing I do is send a bill to the federal government for an unfunded mandate,'' he said.

The closest thing to an estimate came four years ago from Pew Hispanic Center. It estimated that 60,000 to 65,000 of the 1.2 million youngsters in Arizona schools at that time were not in this country legally.

Pochoda said Smith's reason for wanting the numbers is irrelevant. He said a court would see the move as a bid to keep children away from a right to which they are entitled.

Less clear is exactly how Smith would enforce the law.

The directive is aimed not at individual schools but instead at the state Department of Education. He said it would be up to that agency to tell the state's more than 200 school districts what data it needs.

He acknowledged the legislation contains no mechanism to punish districts that choose to ignore the requests. But Smith said he believes the state agency could decide on its own whether to sanction districts that refuse to do the checks and provide the data.

Tyrant Bill Montgomery tries to destroy Arizona's medical marijuana law!!!!

Maricopa County attorney asks court for quick medical marijuana response

Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:08 am

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Hoping for a speedy conclusion, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery on Friday asked the Arizona Supreme Court to immediately take up his challenge to the state's medical marijuana law.

In legal papers filed with the high court, Montgomery told the justices that his bid to overturn a lower court ruling upholding the law is proceeding at the Court of Appeals at a very slow pace. Montgomery filed his formal brief Friday; now the other side gets time to respond, with Montgomery then getting a chance to reply to that.

He said quick resolution is needed.

"The issue presented -- whether the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act is preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act -- is an important issue of statewide impact,'' Montgomery told the justices.

Key to all that is whatever the high court rules will affect not just his fight with a proposed Sun City dispensary but ultimately whether any of the 126 dispensaries envisioned under the 2010 voter-approved law can operate.

Six already have opened their doors -- three in Tucson and one each in Glendale, Bisbee and Williams -- and would be forced to shutter if the justices agree with Montgomery.

But Montgomery claims the impact would be greater. He contends if the Supreme Court accepts his legal arguments it would wipe out the entire Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

That would mean not only no more dispensaries but no more individuals given state permission to obtain and ingest the drug. And it would immediately invalidate the nearly 36,000 cards already issued to authorized medical marijuana users.

Jeffrey Kaufman, attorney for the White Mountain Health Center which is at the heart of the dispute, said Friday he has no problem having the case expedited.

The 2010 initiative allows those with a doctor's recommendation to get a card from the state health department allowing them to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. It also envisions state-regulated privately run dispensaries to grow and sell the drug to cardholders.

This dispute flared when White Mountain, seeking to locate in the unincorporated area of Sun City, sought the necessary certification from Maricopa County that the site was properly zoned. Montgomery instructed county officials not to respond, contending that would make them guilty of violating federal laws which still prohibit not just the possession and sale of marijuana but doing anything to facilitate either. And he argued those federal laws supersede the Arizona law.

But Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Gordon last month ruled there is no conflict and ordered the county to provide the required zoning information. He said nothing in the state statute precludes federal agents from arresting Arizonans who violate federal law.

In seeking to overturn Gordon's ruling, Montgomery told Capitol Media Services he is not limiting his arguments to dispensaries.

"You start with the very basic premise that the distribution, cultivation and use of marijuana as set forth in Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act is in direct violation of federal law,'' he said.

"The way the Controlled Substances Act is written means states can't authorize prohibited conduct,'' he said. Montgomery said for the court to rule on whether county officials are facilitating the violation of federal law means the justices have to address the entire question of federal preemption.

"If a court were to simply say, 'You're not allowed to dispense it because that's preempted,' the basis for that preemption would necessarily have to apply to all the other elements of the Medical Marijuana Act,'' he said. "I don't see how a court could say, 'We're going to address dispensaries and let everything else stand.' ''

But Dan Pochoda of the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed out that the facts before Gordon -- the case on appeal -- deal specifically with the question of whether the county would be facilitating the violation of federal laws in providing the zoning information. Pochoda said the Supreme Court may decide to limit any decision strictly to that issue rather than making a sweeping ruling.

If Montgomery wins but the court limits its decision to the dispensaries, that creates a different dynamic.

The Arizona law says cardholders have to buy their drugs from the licensed dispensaries -- but only if they are located within 25 miles of one of the shops.

Right now, with dispensaries in the Tucson and Phoenix areas, that covers most of the state's population. But if the court requires dispensaries to shut down, then no cardholder would be within 25 miles of a dispensary and all would be free to grow their own.

DNA Technique Yields Little Success for the Police

Source

3 Years After Inception, a DNA Technique Yields Little Success for the Police

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN and J. DAVID GOODMAN

Published: January 27, 2013

The robber fled through a backyard in Queens, dropping a jacket and gloves and with them, genetic material.

Detectives failed to find a suspect in tests comparing the material against a DNA database of convicted criminals. But the search yielded a near match to a convict with an unusually similar DNA profile. The convict may not have been the robber, but perhaps one of his relatives was. [But more then likely the relatives the cops locate are NOT the criminal]

The process of turning crime-scene DNA into a family tree of possible leads has been quietly undertaken in more than two dozen cases in New York City since 2009, when a divided state committee voted to allow the release of so-called partial match DNA data to investigators.

Three years in, the street-level experience in New York has been decidedly mixed: Law enforcement officials said they knew of no cases solved in New York City because of a lead generated by a partial match.

The reason, investigators suggest, may be because New York — unlike states like California, Colorado and Virginia — has not allowed authorities to use existing software that explicitly searches state databases for kinship connections in specific investigations. Instead, during routine searches for exact matches in the databases, detectives and prosecutors are notified each time a piece of evidence matches most but not all of a database profile, suggesting a possible relationship.

In the case of the Queens robbery in 2010, detectives could not request a family search be performed; they were merely informed that a DNA sample partially matched a profile in the database. Detectives chose to pursue the potential lead, developing a family tree from the DNA sample; that led them to secretly securing a genetic sample from the father of a convict. But after tests ruled him out, they concluded the robber in Queens had no blood connection to the family under scrutiny, said Phil T. Pulaski, the chief of detectives, at a public hearing.

It is not clear whether the more tailored search software used in other states would have ruled out the family in this case before any detective work was done. “It is incredibly inefficient because you can’t target a particular case,” Melissa Mourges, the chief of forensic sciences at the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said of the process in New York. “Therefore a lot of work gets done upfront in cases that we would not ultimately pursue.”

Chief Pulaski explained that New York City detectives had used searches of the DNA database to pursue potential kinship leads in 25 cases, but had hit dead ends in four of them: the Queens robbery, a 1996 rape in a Manhattan hospital, a 2005 murder in south Queens and a 2007 Bronx murder. Chief Pulaski described those cases in detail to the DNA subcommittee of the State Commission on Forensic Science last year. (A fifth case was closed after the victim recanted, Chief Pulaski said.)

The four cases described by Chief Pulaski offer a unique glimpse at new genealogical procedures being honed by detectives. “In this family tree, we have 17 family members,” Chief Pulaski said, discussing the hospital rape case. “We have ancestors, siblings, nephews,” he continued. The police took DNA from two brothers and two nephews of the convict, he said, as well as from autopsy samples from two relatives.

But none of that matched the evidence from the rape case. “We’re at a point where we don’t believe there is a biological relationship,” Chief Pulaski said.

He did not publicly discuss the 20 cases in which detectives are actively looking at relatives and could still result in leads.

Before the policy change in 2009, medical examiners were permitted to share only the names of offenders whose DNA appeared to exactly match crime-scene DNA. When medical examiners saw a partial match — suggestive of a familial relationship — they kept it to themselves. The 2009 change allowed the medical examiner’s office to notify investigators, inquiring whether they wanted to know the name.

“It’s up to them to do the legwork and see if they can find relatives that might be appropriate to test,” said Marie Samples, an assistant director of the New York City medical examiner’s office.

Wary of setting off a civil liberties debate that has so far been mostly avoided, law enforcement officials in New York have been reluctant to call for using familial search software, content to experiment with the results from partial matches.

“It’s not like we were jumping for joy that this was going to be the elixir,” said Joseph L. Giacalone, a retired commander of the Bronx cold case squad. “But you have a suspect where in the past you wouldn’t have anybody.”

But in roughly two-thirds of the cases, New York detectives and prosecutors have declined to learn the names. Of more than 140 names generated from partial matches, Chief Pulaski said, the police declined in 93 cases.

Asked in what circumstances the police might forgo the information, Deputy Inspector Emanuel J. Katranakis told the subcommittee that in some of these instances there had already been “a conviction and an individual is serving a sentence.”

Chief Pulaski added, however, that the police were “very careful to use this and consider this as an exoneration tool, as well as an investigative tool to see who did it.”

Critics worry the authorities have too much discretion to use — or ignore — partial-match information, which routinely brings innocent family members under suspicion. “It’s a directive to the police to use your imagination,” said Robert Perry of the New York Civil Liberties Union. In addition, the group argues, minority communities may disproportionately fall under suspicion because the underlying DNA database, based on convicted felons, contains a greater percentage of black and Hispanic offenders.

Chief Pulaski said the police usually declined information about partial matches because of skepticism that the evidence was relevant to a case. At crime scenes, the police often collect cigarettes or beer bottles for testing even though passers-by may have left them. [It's not about locating the criminal, but about generating lots of overtime pay for the cop collecting the evidence and grabbing every bit of evidence, even stuff that isn't related to the case is a great way to increase your over time hours]

Chief Pulaski described a 2007 murder in a Bronx park in which the police had found a baseball cap some 60 feet away from bullet casings.

Testing of the cap showed similarities to the DNA of a convicted offender, prompting detectives to learn more about three of his male relatives — his father and his two sons. Witness descriptions of the shooter, however, excluded the father as too old and the sons as too young, Chief Pulaski said, leading detectives to conclude the baseball cap had no connection to the killing.

Some here have looked to the expanding number of states where more highly targeted searches for family members have provided breaks in high-profile cold cases, notably the 2010 arrest of a suspect in the so-called Grim Sleeper case.

In that case, California law enforcement officials identified a Los Angeles serial killer, whose crimes stretched back to the 1980s, after a 2010 database search turned up a possible relation. Detectives gathered DNA from that man’s father, which matched the old crime scenes; he was charged with the killings.

Such highly tailored software searches, so-called familial searches, are believed to detect family relationships better — particularly those among siblings — than partial-match results generated in New York.

“Being able to pursue partial match is important,” said Mitch Morrissey, the district attorney in Denver and a leading advocate of familial database searching. “It does work sometimes, but if you’re going to be doing this type of work, you really need familial search software.”

But, he cautioned, the results are still just one step in solving a hard-to-close case. “The science gets you to a viable lead, but then you have to do a conventional investigation,” he said.

Anybody want to buy some cocaine????

Source

Houston officers charged in cocaine conspiracy

Associated Press

By Associated Press Associated Press Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:42 AM

HOUSTON (AP) — Two police officers have been charged with accepting bribes and allowing cocaine to be smuggled and distributed in the Houston area.

Federal prosecutors on Monday announced the arrest of Houston police Officer Emerson Canizales of Kingwood and Officer Michael Miceli of Humble (UHM’-buhl).

Both face court appearances on charges of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and accepting bribes for protection services.

The indictment was returned last Wednesday. Canizales and Miceli were arrested Sunday as they reported for duty.

Investigators say the 26-year-old officers in late December conspired to possess cocaine and received $1,000 payments for providing protection.

Police Chief Charles A. McClelland Jr. says the officers were relieved of duty with pay pending the outcome of the investigation.

Twitter says government requests for user information are rising

Twitter says government requests for user information are rising

January 28, 2013, 12:04 p.m.

Twitter said Monday that requests from governments around the globe for information on its users jumped nearly 20% in the second half of 2012.

The company said it received 1,009 requests from July through December, up from 849 in the first half of the year.

"Over the course of 2012, we saw a steady increase in government requests (with a slight decline in copyright takedown notices). All signs suggest that these government inquiries will continue to climb into the foreseeable future," Twitter noted.

This is Twitter's second "transparency" report. It revamped the report to make it more like Google’s and timed the release to "Data Privacy Day."

"It is vital for us (and other Internet services) to be transparent about government requests for user information and government requests to withhold content from the Internet; these growing inquiries can have a serious chilling effect on free expression — and real privacy implications," Twitter legal policy manager Jeremy Kessel wrote in a blog post. "It's our continued hope that providing greater insight into this information helps in at least two ways: first, to raise public awareness about these invasive requests; second, to enable policymakers to make more informed decisions. All of our actions are in the interest of an open and safe Internet."

Twitter said most of the requests — 815 — came from the United States. The company complied — at least in part — with 69% of those requests. Typically the requests involved user account information for criminal investigations or cases.

In the U.S., Twitter said 60% of the requests used subpoenas, while 19% used a search warrant and 11% a court order.

Twitter said it informs users about the requests except when barred from doing so by law.