Homeless in Arizona

Congress repeals 4th Amendment??? - Again

Federal Power to Intercept Messages Is Extended

Federal Power to Intercept Messages Is Extended

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: December 28, 2012

WASHINGTON — Congress gave final approval on Friday to a bill extending the government’s power to intercept electronic communications of spy and terrorism suspects, after the Senate voted down proposals from several Democrats and Republicans to increase protections of civil liberties and privacy.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 73 to 23, clearing it for approval by President Obama, who strongly supports it. Intelligence agencies said the bill was their highest legislative priority.

Critics of the bill, including Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, and Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican, expressed concern that electronic surveillance, though directed at noncitizens, inevitably swept up communications of Americans as well.

“The Fourth Amendment was written in a different time and a different age, but its necessity and its truth are timeless,” Mr. Paul said, referring to the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. “Over the past few decades, our right to privacy has been eroded. We have become lazy and haphazard in our vigilance. [We haven't become anything. Congress has become tyrannical] Digital records seem to get less protection than paper records.”

The bill, which extends the government’s surveillance authority for five years, was approved in the House by a vote of 301 to 118 in September. Mr. Obama is expected to sign the bill in the next few days. [Obama isn't a freedom fighter anymore then Hitler or Stalin was!!!]

Congressional critics of the bill said that they suspected that intelligence agencies were picking up the communications of many Americans, but that they could not be sure because the agencies would not provide even rough estimates of how many people inside the United States had had communications collected under authority of the surveillance law, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The inspector general of the National Security Agency told Congress that preparing such an estimate was beyond the capacity of his office.

The chief Senate supporter of the bill, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the proposed amendments were unnecessary. Moreover, she said, any changes would be subject to approval by the House, and the resulting delay could hamper the government’s use of important intelligence-gathering tools, for which authority is set to expire next week.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was adopted in 1978 and amended in 2008, with the addition of new surveillance authority and procedures, which are continued by the bill approved on Friday. The 2008 law was passed after the disclosure that President George W. Bush had authorized eavesdropping inside the United States, to search for evidence of terrorist activity, without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.

Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, said that he and Mr. Wyden were concerned that “a loophole” in the 2008 law “could allow the government to effectively conduct warrantless searches for Americans’ communications.”

James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told Congress, “There is no loophole in the law.”

By a vote of 52 to 43, the Senate on Friday rejected a proposal by Mr. Wyden to require the national intelligence director to tell Congress if the government had collected any domestic e-mail or telephone conversations under the surveillance law.

The Senate also rejected, 54 to 37, an amendment that would have required disclosure of information about significant decisions by a special federal court that reviews applications for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence cases.

The amendment was proposed by one of the most liberal senators, Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and one of the most conservative, Mike Lee, Republican of Utah.

The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, said the surveillance law “does not have adequate checks and balances to protect the constitutional rights of innocent American citizens.” [Yea, but the 4th Amendment does, and the law flushes the 4th down the toilet]

“It is supposed to focus on foreign intelligence,” Mr. Durbin said, “but the reality is that this legislation permits targeting an innocent American in the United States as long as an additional purpose of the surveillance is targeting a person outside the United States.”

However, 30 Democrats joined 42 Republicans and one independent in voting for the bill. Three Republicans — Mr. Lee, Mr. Paul and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — voted against the bill, as did 19 Democrats and one independent.

Mr. Merkley said the administration should provide at least unclassified summaries of major decisions by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

“An open and democratic society such as ours should not be governed by secret laws,” Mr. Merkley said, “and judicial interpretations are as much a part of the law as the words that make up our statute.”

Mrs. Feinstein said the law allowed intelligence agencies to go to the court and get warrants for surveillance of “a category of foreign persons,” without showing probable cause to believe that each person was working for a foreign power or a terrorist group.

Mr. Wyden said these writs reminded him of the “general warrants that so upset the colonists” more than 200 years ago. [Gasp - Are they saying the American government has become tyrannical and needs to be overthrown like the British tyrants were??? - Probably]

“The founding fathers could never have envisioned tweeting and Twitter and the Internet,” Mr. Wyden said. “Advances in technology gave government officials the power to invade individual privacy in a host of new ways.”

City Council members use discretionary accounts to rip off taxpayers???

Source

Discretionary council funds scrutinized

By David Madrid The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:16 AM

A Phoenix councilman [Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Johnson who is a former Phoenix Police Officer] used more than $20,000 to attend conferences.

A West Valley councilwoman [Glendale Councilwoman Norma Alvarez] used $18,000 to pave a road in her district.

A small-city mayor [Surprise Mayor Lyn Truitt] spent nearly $70 to buy shirts and monogram “mayor” on them.

All three tapped so-called discretionary funds, public money that is spent at a council member’s discretion with little public scrutiny.

In the last two years, 10 Valley cities have spent $1.2 million in taxpayer funds for meals, travel, construction projects and iPads, an investigation by The Arizona Republic has found.

The money also was used to pay for more run-of-the-mill expenses like photos, picture frames, candy for a parade and appreciation plaques. [Stuff that is really needed by the taxpayers - at least that's what these royal rulers say]

These purchases were made as recession-battered cities have cut jobs, delayed maintenance and asked residents to cope with fewer services.

Supporters of discretionary funds say they are a useful tool and can pay for neighborhood projects, charity donations, lobbying trips and training for newly elected leaders. [And increasing their income without the taxpayers finding out, well except when articles like this are published]

Critics worry that the main beneficiaries are council members themselves. [and the critics are right] While the funds are just a sliver of a multimillion-dollar city budget, local politicians can use the money to take pricey trips or raise their profile by splurging on favored projects in their districts, some say.

Despite city leaders’ best intentions, discretionary funds are ripe for misuse or even abuse, according to ethics experts and some city leaders.

“You can spend on just about anything you want,” said Surprise City Councilman Mike Woodard, who has been critical of the funds and helped change how they are handled in his city.

“It’s not appropriate,” he said.

How it works

A discretionary account is a pool of money, often taken from a city’s general fund, that is set aside for an individual council member to use at his or her discretion. It’s a common practice among city councils around the country. In the Valley, 10 cities, including Phoenix, Peoria, Glendale, Mesa, Chandler and Avondale, maintain discretionary funds, which range from $500 to more than $30,000 a year.

Council members vote on the amount they are allowed to spend each year. In some cities, mayors receive more than other council members. [If a council member votes themselves a $5,000 pay raise everybody finds out about it. If instead they vote themselves a $5,000 increase in discretionary money nobody finds out.]

Although the amounts are outlined in the city budget, details on how the money is spent is not discussed in public meetings.

Still, most communities have discretionary-fund policies, though they vary widely in the level of oversight. Some cities won’t cut a check unless an expense meets discretionary-fund rules. Others merely ask council members to provide receipts.

Avondale’s policy, for example, is informal. “Council member discretionary funds ... can be used for any legal public purpose such as official City travel, educational opportunities such as training or conferences, support of non-profit organizations, etc.,” it states. [And the taxpayers rarely find out when they are used for illegal purchases]

Several cities allow council members to “roll over” unused dollars to the next year or to borrow money from council colleagues when they run out of cash. [Sounds more like an illegal slush fund then a discretionary fund!!!]

The Phoenix council has an executive assistant who acts as a gatekeeper approving each expense. [Yea, an executive assistant that works for the person spending the money. Ask an accountant if this is a good "internal control" to keep the money from being used illegally and they will tell you it isn't!!!!]

Tracking the spending often falls to a city administrator, who can’t hold a public official accountable, said Judy Nadler, a senior fellow in government ethics at Santa Clara University, in Santa Clara, Calif.

The Republic examined council and mayor discretionary funds with travel and capital spending for fiscal years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Other Valley city councils without discretionary funds pay for these expenses through the budget process. The Republic did not examine those budgets.

Conferences and travel

The Republic analysis shows that about 15 percent of discretionary funds were spent on travel and conference-related expenses in 2010-11 and 2011-12. [So it's really travel and party money, that is kept secret from the taxpayers???]

Officials in Valley cities without discretionary funds also use taxpayer money to travel but do it through the budget process, allowing public input.

Local leaders who support the out-of-town trips say they help cement federal support for local programs. Conferences help council members learn how to better represent their constituents. [These guys were elected to city government officers, there is no need for them to hobnob with government officials in Washington D.C.]

The benefits of such travel, supporters and critics agree, can be hard to quantify. [And that's why city council members love these discretionary accounts]

Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Johnson spent more than $22,000 in discretionary funds on conference-related hotels and travel. He spent more discretionary funds on hotels and travel than any other council member or mayor in the Valley. That included hotel bills for National League of City conferences totaling more than $5,000 for two stays at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park Hotel. [Wow! I wonder when he has time to work at his real job in Phoenix as a Phoenix Council member]

For those conferences, he stayed in the hotel for at least a week, said Johnson, who serves on the Advisory Board of the National League of Cities. He was also the president of the National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials, a group within the league.

The benefits to the city of his trips far exceed the money he spent on travel, Johnson added. [Of course he didn't give the Arizona Republic any hard numbers] In addition to attending the conferences, he met with the state’s congressional delegation and had a sit-down meeting with President Barack Obama.

However, it is difficult to calculate how many dollars exactly those trips brought to Phoenix, Johnson said. “It’s hard to say, ‘Well, can you tell me the exact amount you were responsible for?’ That would be difficult to say,” he said.

Those meetings helped Phoenix get utility subsidies for the poor and allowed the city to keep its share of Community Development Block Grants, a federal program that aims to spur development in low-income neighborhoods, the councilman said. The trips also helped bring the league’s 2011 Congress of Cities conference to Phoenix, which generated $4.5 million in direct spending, Johnson said.

Avondale Mayor Marie Lopez Rogers, who is president of the National League of Cities, said conferences are valuable for new and experienced city leaders alike. At league conferences, council members learn about open-meeting laws, new technological advances and how to handle the relationships between city leaders and city employees, Rogers said. She used discretionary funds for her travel to conferences but was reimbursed for most of it by the national league.

But Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio said he doesn’t see the value in extensive conference attendance. “Quite frankly, if it was that important for someone to go, you don’t have to have more than one person go to those things to represent your city,” DiCiccio said.

And in the age of teleconferencing, such travel can be reduced, said Kevin McCarthy, president of the Arizona Tax Research Association.

But Rogers said that in politics a conference call is not always as effective as an in-person visit. When Goodyear and Litchfield Park needed to prod federal officials about polluted groundwater or when federal grants to cities were on the chopping block, local leaders had to travel to Washington, she said. [Of course the city council members will use any lame excuse they can to take the money and run.]

“Certainly we can use technology,” she said. “We use technology as much as we can, but politics is about relationships, and if you don’t build those face-to-face contacts, you lose something.”

Construction projects

Some city leaders pour discretionary funds into neighborhoods, using it to pay for projects that might not otherwise receive funding but also to bolster council members’ political profiles. The money can pay to stucco old walls, paint graffiti-covered fences, and help local homeowners associations pay for improvements. For example, Peoria City Councilwoman Joan Evans spent $1,275 for community-pool improvements at Lake Pleasant Estates.

Council members say this is often an ideal way to spend the money, making small, badly needed upgrades in their community. [So if the money is spent this way it means the normal way government operates isn't working???]

Ethics experts warn that this kind of spending may encourage council members to use the money for political advantage.

In February, Glendale Councilwoman Norma Alvarez paid Vulcan Materials Co. $18,138 from her discretionary account to provide asphalt for repairs to Griffin Lane, a quarter-mile-long, dead-end neighborhood street. City workers paved the road. [I bet everybody on that block voted to reelect Glendale Councilwoman Norma Alvarez. Of course she will say the $18,138 wasn't used to buy votes]

It was legitimate discretionary spending: Glendale’s policy allows each council member to spend up to $15,000 on construction or equipment. [Legitimate doesn't mean ethical. ]

Alvarez said that south Glendale is not the city’s priority but that the repaving was something constituents wanted. The city could not otherwise have afforded it at a time when Glendale was cutting library services and recreation programs. [Well if the city couldn't have afforded it she shouldn't have spent the money]

“The project was needed,” she said. “I was told I had miscellaneous money to go to conferences and so forth. ... I have spent all the money in the neighborhoods.”

Stuart Kent, Glendale executive director of public works, said Griffin Lane was on a list of streets identified as below standards and in need of work. City employees repaved the road at Alvarez’s request, he said.

In Peoria, Vice Mayor Ron Aames spends almost 75 percent of his discretionary funds on neighborhood-improvement projects, [buying votes in his district??? I'm sure he will have a lame excuse to deny that] some of which he features prominently in newsletters he sends to constituents. The articles feature photographs of Aames and residents smiling in front of the improvements such as neighborhood-entry signs.

Aames, who was unopposed in his bid for a second term in the November 2010 election, said he isn’t campaigning using discretionary funds. He defended the newsletters, saying his constituents have a right to know what he is doing. [But he didn't say it's a lot cheaper to spend the taxpayers money to get himself reelected, then spending his own money]

“Communication is important,” he said. “I do it primarily so people know who I am and are aware that they can make such requests, and we do this in the district.”

It is difficult to say whether officials are touting such projects to lay the groundwork for their next election, said James Svara, a professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “Is that a project of sufficient importance that it warrants being done, compared with other uses that money could be put to?” he asked. [Then if this stuff is so questionable, then it probably shouldn't be done]

Aames said the projects return tax money to citizens. [Liar, liar, pants on fire???] Using discretionary funds allows him to work directly with residents, instead of directing them to a city program. [And it sure buys a lot of votes when it comes to getting reelected]

Charities

Another popular, and significant, discretionary expenditure is donating money to charity. [There is nothing I hate more then charity at gun point. That's when our government rulers tax you so they can give YOUR money to THEIR favorite charity.]

Especially in bad economic times, discretionary money helps non-profits provide valuable services to residents, council members say. But the donations can raise questions about relationships between city leaders and those who benefit from the gift.

Phoenix City Councilwoman Thelda Williams spent almost $3,000 at Turf Paradise for a dance and dinner to raise money for the Pioneer Arizona Living History Museum and Village, a city park in her district. She said the Pioneer ball raised $15,000 for the museum. [Maybe, since the party was pay with taxpayer money, the public should have been invited to attend it free of charge. But Phoenix City Councilwoman Thelda Williams probably wouldn't like that!!]

“I do an annual fundraiser for them, and we do it there, because they give us the best price,” she said of Turf Paradise, a horse-racing track, which isn’t in her district.

Williams received a $430 campaign donation from Ronald Simms, a co-owner of Turf Paradise. But Williams said the donation had nothing to do withher choosing the racetrack for the event. “You’re talking horses. It’s in the pioneer theme,” she said. [Honest, it's not a bribe. Honest, it's not a bribe]

In 2010, Woodard, the Surprise councilman, donated $1,200 to a holiday-lights extravaganza at a private home known as the “Christmas House.” Woodard said he was criticized for giving money to private citizens, and people speculated that he bought decorations for the house or paid the electric bill. Rather, the money paid for toys to give to hundreds of children who came to see the house, Woodard said.

“I would do it again given the opportunity, but the way it is now, it would have to be approved by the council,” he said.

Another Surprise politician, former Mayor Lyn Truitt, made several unusual purchases using discretionary funds. While Truitt was mayor, the council bought iPads using the funds. He said council members had a choice between iPads or laptops. Other cities have purchased iPads for council members but went through the public budgeting process to buy them.

Truitt also spent $68 on shirts and a jacket, which he had embroidered with his title and name. That way, residents and visitors who didn’t know him could identify him, he said. “I believe it was an appropriate council expenditure,” he said. [and the rest of us believe that he ripped off the taxpayers]

Future accountability

While some city leaders are uneasy about how discretionary funds are being spent, few outside groups monitor them.

The money is a small fraction of overall city budgets. For example, in Phoenix, City Council and mayoral discretionary spending totals about $80,000 annually, while the city budget is $3.5 billion. [I think what they are saying is since the city of Phoenix annually spends $3.5 billion it's no big deal if the members of the Phoenix city council rip off the taxpayers for $80,000 annually???]

Still, some are advocating changes in the way discretionary funds are handled.

In Surprise, Woodard has successfully pushed for change. This year, the council agreed to cut its discretionary budget and pool the money in a community-outreach pot. Any spending from the community-outreach fund requires a council vote.

Earlier this month, Glendale’s City Council offered to reduce each council member’s discretionary fund from $33,000 to $9,000 annually. The decision comes as city leaders consider eliminating 64 full-time positions to save $6 million during the next fiscal year.

Nadler, the university ethics fellow, said she doesn’t see any movement across the country to end discretionary funds or revise how they are handled. But, she said, given cities’ financial struggles, the time has come to do so. “We’ve reduced police forces. We’ve reduced the hours at the library,” she said.

“So we cannot afford to waste one dime on expenses that are not legitimate and that do not advance the work elected officials are charged to do on behalf of the public,” Nadler said.

Phoenix: Spending limit not exceeded - Honest that's what the mayor says!!!!

Phoenix: Spending limit not exceeded

By David Madrid The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:13 AM

Former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon overspent his discretionary funds while he was in office.

Or he didn’t.

City figures show that in fiscal year 2010-11 Gordon spent $17,000 more than the $5,000 limit on the taxpayer-funded account. [I'm sure he will say that this looks bad, but honest, he didn't rip off the taxpayers for $12,000]

A city spokeswoman sees it differently. [Well let's say a city spokeswoman that works for Mayor Gordon and is paid by Mayor Gordon, and is only accountable to Mayor Gordon sees it differently] Since Gordon’s total spending that year was lower than his total $1.6 million mayoral budget, it’s not important if the former mayor overspent in one category.

The Arizona Republic requested discretionary-fund spending data from 10 cities — including Phoenix — that have such accounts for city-council members. The other cities are Glendale, Peoria, Mesa, Avondale, Chandler, Tolleson, Litchfield Park, Goodyear and Surprise.

The funds are supposed to be spent on expenses that ultimately help residents. In many cities, council members and mayors must follow some guidelines. For some, however, there is little oversight and city leaders spend the money as they see fit.

Gordon was Phoenix’s mayor from 2004 to 2012.

Toni Maccarone, a Phoenix spokeswoman, said Gordon’s total office budget in fiscal year 2010-11 was $1,588,202. His year-end actual spending was $1,338,332, she said.

So therefore, Gordon’s office was $249,870 under its budget, she said.

“That is what is important for the overall city budgeting process, not whether one particular line item in the budget was over or under, because departments can make up for it with underspending in other areas of their budgets,” Maccarone said.

In Phoenix, the mayor’s and council members’ budgets are divided into several categories, said Mario Paniagua, Phoenix budget and research director.

Gordon’s overall $1.6 million budget included discretionary funds as well as money for personnel services that covered staff costs, contractual services and office supplies.

The discretionary budget is for the mayor and council’s miscellaneous expenses including constituent services, outreach and travel, Paniagua said.

In an interview, Gordon said he filled out proper paperwork for the discretionary-account expenses, which were approved.

According to city documents, Gordon spent $14,085 of his discretionary funds over the two fiscal years on conferences and business travel.

The rest of his discretionary money paid for event-support services and office supplies.

In addition to the taxpayer-funded money, Gordon controlled an account that was funded by donations from developers and other political supporters.

“What I call my discretionary funds, I raised all privately and had the downtown partnership oversee that,” he said.

Valley officials' purchases using discretionary funds

Valley officials' purchases using discretionary funds

The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:08 AM

In the last two years, 10 Valley cities have spent $1.2 million in taxpayer funds for meals, travel, construction projects and iPads, an investigation by The Arizona Republic has found.

Here is a closer look at some of the more unusual uses of discretionary funds:

Phoenix City Councilwoman Thelda Williams spent almost $3,000 at Turf Paradise to help pay for a museum fundraiser. The horse-racing track is co-owned by a campaign donor.

Glendale Councilwoman Norma Alvarez paid more than $18,000 to repave a road. Without her help, she says, the road would have remained a low city priority.

Former Surprise Mayor Lyn Truitt bought an iPad with discretionary funds. He said the council chose to purchase iPads because they are less cumbersome than laptops and help with constituent email and keeping a city calendar.

Truitt also spent $68 on shirts and a jacket, which he had embroidered with his title and name. He said that helped residents because people who didn’t know him were able to identify him when he was in public and could approach him. [Sorry Mayor Truitt a 50 cent name tag would have been a lot cheaper!!!]

Phoenix City Councilman Michael Nowakowski paid $5,822 over two years to a children’s inflatable bounce house business to rent a screen and projector used for a movies in the park program in Southwest Phoenix.

Former Surprise Councilman Mike Woodard, a foe of most discretionary spending, donated $1,200 to the “Christmas House” which featured many holiday lights. Woodard was criticized by residents for giving money to private citizens. He said the money was used to buy toys for children, and he would do it again.

Mayoral and city council discretionary fund spending

Mayoral and city council discretionary fund spending

A discretionary account is a pool of money, often taken from a city’s general fund, that is set aside for an individual council member to use at his or her discretion. The use of discretionary funds is a common practice among city councils around the country.

In the Valley, 10 cities, including Phoenix, Peoria, Glendale, Mesa, Chandler and Avondale maintain discretionary funds. Funds across the Valley range from $500 a year to $33,000.

Some cities allow their councils and mayors to roll over unspent discretionary funds into next year's budgets. Peoria, Glendale and Avondale all allow for this. Avondale and Goodyear allows council members to give some of their discretionary budget to other members.

The following individuals spent more than their budgets in either Fiscal Year 2011 or Fiscal Year 2012: Avondale Mayor Marie Lopez Rogers went over $500 in FY 2012 and Vice Mayor Stephanie Karlin went over her FY 2011 budget by $872.

Phil Gordon went over his FY 2011 budget of $5,000, spending $21,955.53.

In Mesa, Mayor Scott Smith spent $23,227.94 in FY 2012, going over his $18,000 by $5,227.94. [This is the same Mayor Scott Smith who is going to help the Feds reign in their spending and balance the budget??? What a joke!!!!]

[To see the graphs that came with this article check out the original article in the Arizona Republic here]

Reasonable Restrictions on your First and Second Amendment rights

Imagine that the First Amendment is subject to just a few 'reasonable restrictions.'

All you have to do, it turns out, is apply for a federal Churchgoing License, a federal Prayer Permit, a federal Publication Permit, or a federal Letter-to-the-Editor License, whichever is appropriate.

The forms are free! Of course, you have to submit to fingerprinting. You have to mail in with your application and your fingerprint card a signed letter from your local sheriff or chief of police, stating he has no objections.

The application fee is $200. The waiting period to hear whether you've been approved generally runs about six months.

If you ask me there are NO reasonable restrictions on your rights.

Simple Things to Protect Your Privacy

10 Incredibly Simple Things You Should Be Doing to Protect Your Privacy

By Kashmir Hill | Forbes – Mon, Dec 31, 2012 10:55 AM EST

Over the weekend, I wound up at Washington, D.C.’s Trapeze School with a group of friends. Before one of them headed up a ladder to attempt a somersault landing from the trapeze bar, she handed me her phone and asked me to take photos. “What’s the password?” I asked. “I don’t use one,” she replied. My jaw dropped as it often does when someone I know tells me they’re choosing not to take one of the very simplest steps for privacy protection, allowing anyone to snoop through their phone with the greatest of ease, to see whichever messages, photos, and sensitive apps they please.

So this post is for you, guy with no iPad password, and for you, girl who stays signed into Gmail on her boyfriend’s computer, and for you, person walking down the street having a loud conversation on your mobile phone about your recent doctor’s diagnosis of that rash thing you have. These are the really, really simple things you should be doing to keep casual intruders from invading your privacy.

1. Password protect your devices: your smartphone, your iPad, your computer, your tablet, etc. Some open bookers tell me it’s “annoying” to take two seconds to type in a password before they can use their phone. C’mon, folks. Choosing not to password protect these devices is the digital equivalent of leaving your home or car unlocked. If you’re lucky, no one will take advantage of the access. Or maybe the contents will be ravaged and your favorite speakers and/or secrets stolen. If you’re not paranoid enough, spend some time reading entries in Reddit Relationships, where many an Internet user goes to discuss issues of the heart. A good percentage of the entries start, “I know I shouldn’t have, but I peeked at my gf’s phone and read her text messages, and…”

2. Put a Google Alert on your name. This is an incredibly easy way to stay on top of what’s being said about you online. It takes less than a minute to do. Go here. [ http://www.google.com/alerts ] Enter your name, and variations of your name, with quotation marks around it. Boom. You’re done.

3. Sign out of Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, etc. when you’re done with your emailing, social networking, tweeting, and other forms of time-wasting. Not only will this slightly reduce the amount of tracking of you as you surf the Web, this prevents someone who later sits down at your computer from loading one of these up and getting snoopy. If you’re using someone else’s or a public computer, this is especially important. Yes, people actually forget to do this, with terrible outcomes.

4. Don’t give out your email address, phone number, or zip code when asked. Obviously, if a sketchy dude in a bar asks for your phone number, you say no. But when the asker is a uniform-wearing employee at Best Buy, many a consumer hands over their digits when asked. Stores often use this info to help profile you and your purchase. You can say no. If you feel badly about it, just pretend the employee is the sketchy dude in the bar.

5. Encrypt your computer. The word “encrypt” may sound like a betrayal of the simplicity I promised in the headline, but this is actually quite easy to do, especially if you’re a MacHead. Encrypting your computer means that someone has to have your password (or encryption key) in order to peek at its contents should they get access to your hard drive. On a Mac, you just go to your settings, choose “Security and Privacy,” go to “FileVault,” choose the “Turn on FileVault” option. Boom goes the encryption dynamite. PC folk need to use Bitlocker [ technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766295%28v=ws.10%29.aspx ].

6. Gmailers, turn on 2-step authentication in Gmail. The biggest takeaway from the epic hack of Wired’s Mat Honan was that it probably wouldn’t have happened if he’d turned on “2-step verification” in Gmail. This simple little step turns your phone into a security fob — in order for your Gmail account to be accessed from a new device, a person (hopefully you) needs a code that’s sent to your phone. This means that even if someone gets your password somehow, they won’t be able to use it to sign into your account from a strange computer. Google says that millions of people use this tool, and that “thousands more enroll each day.” Be one of those people. The downside: It’s annoying if your phone battery dies or if you’re traveling abroad. The upside: you can print a piece of paper to take with you, says James Fallows at the Atlantic. Alternately, you can turn it off when you’re going to be abroad or phone-less. Or you can leave it permanently turned off, and increase your risk of getting epically hacked. Decision’s yours.

7. Pay in cash for embarrassing items. Don’t want a purchase to be easily tracked back to you? You’ve seen the movies! Use cash. One data mining CEO says this is how he pays for hamburgers and junk food these days.

8. Change Your Facebook settings to “Friends Only.” You’d think with the many Facebook privacy stories over the years that everyone would have their accounts locked down and boarded up like Florida houses before a hurricane. Not so. There are still plenty of Facebookers that are as exposed on the platform as Katy Perry at a water park. Visit your Facebook privacy settings. Make sure this “default privacy” setting isn’t set to public, and if it’s set to “Custom,” make sure you know and are comfortable with any “Networks” you’re sharing with.

9. Clear your browser history and cookies on a regular basis. When’s the last time you did that? If you just shrugged, consider changing your browser settings so that this is automatically cleared every session. Go to the “privacy” setting in your Browser’s “Options.” Tell it to “never remember your history.” This will reduce the amount you’re tracked online. Consider a browser add-on like TACO to further reduce tracking of your online behavior. [If the police arrest you or get a search warrant they will definitely look at your browser history. Erase it to make life difficult for police who want to make life difficult for you. Also remember that even if you erase your browser history, many web sites keep logs showing each time you visited their sites. ]

10. Use an IP masker. When you visit a website, you leave a footprint behind in the form of IP information. If you want to visit someone’s blog without their necessarily knowing it’s you — say if you’re checking out a biz competitor, a love interest, or an ex — you should consider masking your computer’s fingerprint, which at the very least gives away your approximate location and service provider. A person looking at their analytics would notice me as a regular visitor from Washington, D.C. for example, and would probably even be able to tell that I was visiting from a Forbes network address. To hide this, you can download Tor [ https://www.torproject.org/ ] or use an easy browser-based option.

These are some of the easiest things you can do to protect your privacy. Ignoring these is like sending your personal information out onto the trapeze without a safety net. It might do fine… or it could get ugly. These are simple tips for basic privacy; if you’re in a high-risk situation where you require privacy from malicious actors, check out EFF’s surveillance self-defense tips [ https://ssd.eff.org/ ].

Tom Horne's spinmaster resigns!!!

Source

Horne spokeswoman to resign, cites ‘duress’

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Jan 7, 2013 11:42 AM

The longtime spokeswoman for the state’s top prosecutor will soon resign from the high-profile post, she confirmed to The Arizona Republic.

Amy Rezzonico, the loyal aide who first began working for Tom Horne a decade ago, said she can no longer work at the Arizona Attorney General Office because of the high-profile controversies that have enveloped the agency in the past year.

Rezzonico will work as director of public relations for Republican political strategist Max Fose’s consulting firm, Integrated Web Strategy.

“This was an extremely difficult decision to make,” she said. “I’ve been with Tom for 10 years and, you know, I’ve got to live my life and have a family, and to make a change. And I need to make a change professionally, and that’s not an easy change to leave somebody who needs assistance. But I can’t progress professionally under the duress that I’ve been faced with for the last year.”

Rezzonico said Horne has “been the best boss I’ve ever had. He’s irreplaceable in that regard as a mentor.”

Rezzonico’s departure underscores some of the challenges Horne faces amid allegations he acted illegally and unethically. Morale within the agency took a hit last year, when revelations of an investigation into Horne came to light, sources have told The Republic.

County prosecutors and federal investigators have accused Horne of violating state laws by coordinating election tactics in 2010 with an independent-expenditure committee chaired by Kathleen Winn, now a top Horne staffer. During that investigation, the FBI tailed Horne and another female staffer and saw them hit another vehicle while parking, and leave the scene without leaving a note. The FBI alleges Horne did not want a record of his presence in the garage of the staffer’s apartment complex because he was having an extramarital affair.

Horne and Winn repeatedly have said they have done nothing wrong and that they will be vindicated through legal proceedings.

Rezzonico earned $105,000 a year, and planned to start her new job on March 1.

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

Whistle-blower files lawsuit against AG Tom Horne

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.

Mixing religion & government in Colorado City

I think Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne is 100 percent wrong here.

We don't need to reduce the power of religion, but we simply need to stop allowing the state of Arizona to mix government and religion.

If Tom Horne had been doing his job and enforcing the Arizona Constitution and not allowing local governments to mix religion and government we would not have any of these problems in this article.

Source

Horne pushes bill to reduce FLDS power

By Dennis Wagner The Republic | azcentral.com

Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:25 PM

A young mother with six children who fled the polygamist community of Colorado City has told state authorities she was forced into a marriage at age 14 and held against her will for 12 years before escaping in December.

Ruby Jessop Barlow appeared with her children at an emotional Phoenix news conference Tuesday, as Attorney General Tom Horne and others described her ordeal and denounced the practices of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Mohave County Sheriff Tom Sheahan and Barlow’s sister, Flora Jessop, who escaped from Colorado City in 1986, appeared with Horne and said Barlow’s ordeal illustrates the cultish control exercised by self-proclaimed prophet Warren Jeffs, who continues to lead the church from behind bars.

They also announced plans for new legislation to strip the Colorado City Town Marshal’s Office of its law-enforcement powers, which they believe would reduce the church’s clout. The bill, which is similar to legislation introduced last session, would also provide money for Sheahan’s deputies to patrol Colorado City.

“As long as that Marshal’s Office is in place, the FLDS and Warren Jeffs have the power to control and manipulate ... and keep children trapped inside the cult,” Jessop said.

Horne denounced Colorado City’s culture as “the biggest injustice that I know of in the state of Arizona.”

The FLDS church advocates plural marriages, often with underage girls, as a key to salvation. Numerous sect leaders, including Jeffs, have been prosecuted in Arizona, Utah and Texas for crimes against minors. Jeffs is serving a life sentence for his Texas conviction on a charge of sexual assault of a child.

Jessop, who lives in Phoenix, said she finally fulfilled a vow to help Barlow break free. “It was pure joy to have my sister back,” Jessop said, her voice breaking. “I thought the day would never come.”

Jessop and Barlow were among 27 siblings in an extended family with multiple mothers.

Jessop said Barlow pleaded for help as she was being forced into marriage as a teen but was whisked to a secret ceremony in Nevada, then moved to other locations over the years.

Jessop said her sister finally found the courage to run away five months ago as Jeffs, from behind bars, used his purported divine authority to impose austere rules on his followers. “In the last six months, Warren Jeffs has taken every dietary product away except beans and water,” she said. “They are to suffer as much as he is in prison.”

Jessop said her sister returned to the community after running away because her children were being kept from her by their father, John H. Barlow. But she fled a second time in December and filed for divorce.

According to Mohave County Superior Court records, she was granted temporary custody during a hearing, but the children remained hidden in the Arizona-Utah border towns of Colorado City and Hildale, Utah. Horne and Sheahan said marshals resisted a judicial order to produce the children but finally relented.

Jessop said her sister was reunited with the children, ages 2 through 10, last week. She said the children had been indoctrinated to believe that their mother was “wicked,” but they’ve already embraced the food, clothing and freedoms of an outside world.

“They came out of Colorado City with only the long skirts on their backs,” she added, referring to old-fashioned dresses worn by women in FLDS society. “It’s been interesting and amazing to watch them change from little soldiers to children ... who laugh and play.”

John Barlow did not return a phone call Tuesday.

The town government of Colorado City is controlled by the sect, which is not affiliated with the mainstream Mormon church. Authorities in Arizona and Utah have struggled for decades to deal with alleged underage marriages, fraud, banishment of young males and other FLDS practices.

Last year, Horne asked state lawmakers to adopt legislation voiding the Colorado City marshal’s authority while providing funds for sheriff’s deputies to patrol the community. The measure failed in part because lawmakers from Mohave County opposed it. Horne then provided $420,000 from his budget to pay for sheriff’s patrols.

Sheahan and Jessop described an atmosphere of fear, psychological manipulation and surveillance that form a virtual prison for disaffected church members. “There are more people like Ruby in Colorado City,” Sheahan said.

Besides criminal charges against sect members, authorities have taken over local schools and an FLDS trust that owns most of the town’s homes and businesses. The Justice Department sued Colorado City and Hildale last year, alleging two decades of civil-rights violations in connection with policing, housing and public facilities. The complaint accuses town leaders of religious discrimination against non-FLDS residents.

Jeff Matura, a Phoenix attorney who represents the town, said the portion concerning parks and other public facilities has been dismissed, but the remainder of the case is pending.

Tucson gun buyback effort raises legal questions

As the article points out ALL the guns bought back MUST be returned to their owners or resold. Well if the city of Tucson follows Arizona law, and you can't count on that. Our royal government masters frequently think they are above the law.

Source

Tucson gun buyback effort raises legal questions

Associated Press Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:43 PM

TUCSON — An effort to raise money for a gun buyback program in Tucson is prompting questions about a change in state law.

Councilman Steve Kozachik is raising $5,000 so Tucson residents may have a way to dispose of unwanted firearms while making money in the process.

“With the success other cities have had with voluntary gun buybacks, I want to test the water to see how Tucson residents respond,” Kozachik told the Arizona Daily Star. “The rules are simple: Bring in your gun on a totally voluntary basis, no questions asked, and you’ll trade it for a Safeway $50 gift card.”

But Todd Rathner, a member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, said any buyback program would be meaningless since the police department would be required to return or resell the weapons under a change made earlier this year to state law.

“The police would have to take the guns and run them through the national database. If they are stolen, they are returned to the owner,” he said. “If they are not stolen, (the Tucson Police Department) is mandated by state law to sell them to the public.”

The police department checks every gun it receives to ensure they aren’t stolen or have been used to commit a crime. Spokeswoman Sgt. Maria Hawke said the department holds several “destruction boards” throughout the year to dispose of things such as illicit drugs and guns and the same process would hold true for guns purchased through a buyback program.

Hawke said the department is researching how the statute applies to its practices regarding the disposal of firearms.

Rathner contends that destruction of firearms would put the department in violation of the law.

“If they are in violation of state law, we will see them in a courtroom or we will change the law and have them sanctioned financially,” he said.

City Attorney Mike Rankin believes the law is intended to apply to guns seized by police, not those firearms voluntarily surrendered by their owners.

Kozachik said he doesn’t understand why the NRA would oppose a voluntary program like the one he’s proposing.

Ken Rineer, president of Gun Owners of Arizona, said he has reservations over losing guns committed during a crime, people unwittingly selling antique firearms and the legal issues regarding who is a licensed gun dealer when large numbers of weapons are purchased.

“I don’t know if these issues can be laid to rest if they follow the no-question policy,” Rineer said. He added that buyback programs work well as symbolism but have minor impacts in the real world.

Do we need a cop that is paid $96,200 at every high school????

Do we need a police officer that is paid $96,200 at every high school????

Do we need a school resource officer that is paid $96,200 at every high school????

Funding affects West Valley school-resource officers

By Melissa Leu and Eddi Trevizo The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:47 AM

Some West Valley schools have police officers on campus, an idea that got a renewed push by the National Rifle Association.

The NRA is advocating for armed guards on every school campus after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 children and six educators this month.

Currently, there is a divide among high schools. Those in such cities as Avondale, Peoria and Surprise have police officers, called school-resource officers, on campus, while many high schools in Glendale do not.

It comes down to money. [So it sounds like most schools will gladly have a cop, police officer or school resource officers on their campus - As long as the school doesn't have to pay the cops $96,200 yearly salary]

As the recession hit, funding for school-resource officers dried up, causing the Glendale Police Department to pull back its officers from schools.

State funding for school officers was cut nearly in half amid tight finances the past five years. A Democrat state lawmaker is calling to renew that funding.

Beyond money, the proposal is one that is sure to spark conversation in West Valley communities and beyond.

“Obviously, we think it’s the right thing to do to have a police officer there for our middle schools and high schools — because they already are there,” said Christy Agosta, a school-board member in the Deer Valley Unified School District.

Whether to have armed guards in elementary schools is a tougher question.

“As a parent, as well as a school-board member, having my kids have to go by armed security arriving at schools is kind of a heartbreaking thought,” Agosta said. “I’m mixed. … If there had been an armed guard standing outside Sandy Hook, those parents still might have their children. So it’s hard to say we shouldn’t.”

She said such a decision would have to come after a community conversation.

School-resource officers are armed and have the authority of a police officer [and they ARE POLICE OFFICERS], but their duties go beyond security. They offer lessons on law-related issues and add a friendly face on campus for students and staff to turn to for advice.

Police officials credit them with reducing the number of student disciplinary problems.

In 2011, before Centennial High School in Peoria hired its resource officer, the school reported 318 disciplinary incidents. That dropped to 147 incidents, according to Peoria police.

Centennial resource Officer Dave Fernandez typically starts his day at 6:30 a.m. in the school parking lot, helping parents navigate traffic. [Why do you need a cop that is paid an average of $96,200 a year to help parents navigate traffic???]

After about an hour, he heads to his office to answer e-mails, and if nothing major is happening, he walks the campus. [So most of the time he does nothing. Well other then answer e-mails and help parents navigate traffic. And this guy is paid an average of $96,200]

“The best way to see if there is an issue is to be outside looking and talking to people,” Fernandez said.

He said the Sandy Hook shootings were a tragedy. “But we think about these things constantly not just after something has occurred.”

Dale Nicol, principal at Sunrise Mountain High School in Peoria, said resource officers act as a preventive measure.

“He can gather (information) as a result of making connections with students. [I suspect teachers and other school employees can also gather (information) as a result of making connections with students. Do you really need a cop that is making an average of $96,200 a year to do that???] Consequently, we can intervene and stop negative behaviors before they escalate,” Nicol said.

But a divide exists among the Peoria district schools, which stretch across Glendale and Peoria.

The district partners with the city to pay for resource officers in its Peoria-based high schools, but Glendale does not provide funding.

“The police department’s budget is not able to support funding of these positions at this time,” Glendale police spokeswoman Tracey Breeden said.

She noted districts can hire off-duty officers to work in schools.

For the Peoria district, the cost of having officers in Glendale high schools is beyond its budget.

“Grant opportunities are scarce. It becomes funding issues for both the city and the school district,” said Steve Savoy, Peoria’s administrator for K-12 academic services.

The salary of Peoria’s school-resource officers averages $96,200 per year including benefits, Peoria police spokeswoman Amanda Jacinto said. In the past, it was paid by a combination of grants and school district and city budgets.

When the money disappeared, the Peoria district and police partnered to continue the program. The district pays about $30,000 toward the officers’ salaries, and Peoria police pay the rest.

The district relies on neighborhood patrol officers at its Glendale high schools.

The Deer Valley district shoulders the cost of paying officers $30 to $35 an hour for each of its five high schools and three middle schools in Glendale and Phoenix, said Bill Gahn, the district’s director of school operations.

The district earmarks about $300,000 in its budget, which is supplemented through event ticket sales.

An officer is almost always on campus during school hours and after-school events, but the same officer doesn’t always work every day of the week, Gahn said.

“It adds a calming presence on campus,” Gahn said.

Two years ago, Glendale Union had to eliminate its school-resource officers. At one point, the district had officers at seven of its nine campuses in Glendale and Phoenix, district spokeswoman Kim Mesquita said.

That number declined with state grant funding. When the district failed to win the grant last school year, the officers disappeared completely. The district now relies mostly on teachers and administrators to pick up the slack.

Avondale’s Agua Fria Union High School District has a resource officer at each school, funded with state grants and shared costs with local police departments.

Surprise’s Dysart Unified School District has resource officers at each of its four high schools with grant funding.

The district’s 20 elementary schools do not have resource officers, Dysart spokesman Jim Dean said.

Resource officers are rare in elementary schools.

Sometimes it’s simply hard to fill the position, said Jim Cummings, spokesman for the Glendale Elementary School District.

His district received federal funding five years ago for officers at Challenger and Landmark schools, but had to return some of that money because of a lack of candidates, Cummings said.

As a result, schools rely on patrol officers.

“When we call, (police are) here in minutes,” Cummings said.

School officials note that elementary schools typically have less of a need for officers than in high schools, where drugs, theft and violence may be more common.

Patrol officers assigned to Peoria and Glendale neighborhoods regularly check in with elementary principals and students, Peoria’s Savoy said.

The Litchfield Elementary School District used to provide resource officers for its middle schools in partnership with the Avondale and Goodyear police departments and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

The program was cut amid budget constraints in 2009.

“We would approve of armed security at our schools if the state or federal government paid for it,” said Litchfield Elementary spokeswoman Ann Donahue, noting the district would not be able to cover the costs.

Whether that happens remains to be seen.

State Superintendent John Huppenthal on Friday noted the NRA’s proposal would be a large expense to an already financially stressed education system.

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he plans to introduce legislation in 2013 to fully fund and train school resource officers at every Arizona school.

Meanwhile, conversations will continue over what parents and residents want for their schools.

Dysart school board member Jerry Enyon said concerns are high, but school officials go through training and routinely practice safety drills.

“They know what to do to keep the kids as safe as possible,” Enyon said.

Reporter Anne Ryman contributed to this article.

Trial date set for AG Tom Horne in hit and run case

Trial date set for case involving Horne, fender-bender

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:24 PM

A trial date has been set for the case involving Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, who last March hit and damaged a Range Rover and left without notifying the owner.

Horne was scheduled to appear Friday in Phoenix Municipal Court for a pretrial disposition conference. Instead, Horne’s attorney asked to vacate the conference and take the case to trial, according to records released by the court. The trial date is scheduled for March 28.

But Horne’s attorney, Michael Kimerer, said filing the motion “does not necessarily mean we will be going to trial, but will give us the time we need to address some witness issues” and file other motions.

Horne’s fender-bender on March 27 last year was witnessed by two FBI special agents who were tailing Horne as part of a campaign-finance-violation investigation.

The FBI agents saw Horne bump into the Range Rover while driving a car he borrowed from a subordinate employee. An FBI report states Horne did not leave a note because he was having an extramarital affair with another subordinate who was with him during the accident.

Horne has said he didn't think the other vehicle was damaged. He has pleaded not guilty.

The State Bar of Arizona is investigating Horne over allegations stemming from the campaign-finance-violation investigation as well as his role in the fender-bender.

Horne did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.

Thu, Feb 7 - Medical Marijuana Support Rally at the Arizona Capital

Medical Marijuana Support Rally

Summary of the event

Rep John Kavanagh has introduced legislation in the Arizona House to repeal the Medical Marijuana Act. He cites a flawed study and would have Arizona taxpayers pay for yet another vote on whether or not to allow medical marijuana.

Mr. Kavanagh, the citizens of Arizona have spoken 3 times already. Yes to medical marijuana, yes to allowing Arizona citizens the right to choose an alternative to the legal, harmful pharmaceuticals available.

Medical Marijuana patients, advocates, activists and friends are invited to join in this rally and guided tour of the Arizona House of Representatives.

If you have any questions about the event please contact

Rain Baker
(623)349-0482

Phoenixisnorml@gmail.com

More information on this event

Meet Up

Arizona Weekly Weeder

Camp 420

70 percent of Phoenix's general fund is spent on the police!!!!

Wow!!! 70 percent of Phoenix's general fund is spent on cops or the police!!!!

"70 percent of the city’s general fund is spent on public safety"

Councilman Michael Nowakowski

I think when you consider the total budget as opposed to the general budget the figure is about 40 percent of it. Most city fire departments grab the next 20 percent of the total budget, with all other departments combined grabbing splitting up the final 40 percent of the budget up.

Now considering that two thirds of the people in prison are there for victimless drug war crimes, you could easily tell the police to stop arresting pot smokers and not affect public safety at all!!!!

And of fire a whole bunch of unneeded cops at the same time and save a whole bunch of money.

Of course the war on drugs is a jobs program for cops and the police union would hate that!!!! Even if those jobs are 100 percent unneeded the police union is not going to let them go without a fight!!!

Repeal the stinking sale tax. We don't need those cops!!!

Source

Food-tax repeal may hit Phoenix hard

By Dustin Gardiner The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Feb 1, 2013 10:38 AM

As political pressure builds to repeal Phoenix’s food tax, city officials have outlined several financial obstacles that could complicate such a move.

City Manager David Cavazos this week sent a memo to the mayor and City Council listing major budget constraints to ending the tax, including concerns that it could affect the city’s perfect credit rating or result in a loss of revenue needed to help support police and fire services. [screw the credit rating, I want lower taxes. and it certainly wouldn't hurt to fire a bunch of cops who mainly arrest people for victimless drug war crimes]

The update comes as some council members have renewed calls to repeal the tax this spring, roughly two years before its 2015 sunset. The 2 percent tax on residents’ grocery bills is shaping up to be a contentious point of spring budget negotiations.

Mayor Greg Stanton, who pledged during his 2011 campaign to repeal the tax by April, has been a focus of much of the debate. He has yet to take a definitive position on the issue and could provide the crucial fifth vote needed to abolish the tax early.

“We still have significant challenges,” Stanton said, describing the city’s murky budget picture. “The economy is not bouncing back as quickly as people had hoped.”

He said Cavazos’ memo points out the “stark circumstances” Phoenix faces as it weighs the food-tax repeal: revenue for the current budget year is less than projected. Stanton said he hopes the city can still eliminate or reduce the tax but that he plans to review detailed spending-cut options before making a decision.

Two of the council’s more fiscally conservative members, Jim Waring and Sal DiCiccio, said the city could immediately repeal the tax without affecting public-safety services. DiCiccio has questioned why the city spent tens of millions of dollars on employee raises and bonuses these past few years, costs that are fixed as part of the city’s contracts with unions.

“Delaying the promised repeal of the food tax is the kind of tactic that hurts the middle class and working families,” DiCiccio said. “If the food tax is to be removed by April 1, the public needs time to consider the details of how that will be done without affecting public safety, as promised.”

Council members created the emergency food tax in February 2010 as Phoenix was facing an unprecedented $277 million general-fund shortfall. The tax was proposed as a way to prevent large layoffs of public-safety personnel and keep libraries and senior centers open. [really the expense of libraries and senior centers is insignificant compare to the cops of paying police officers who account for 70 percent of Phoenix's budget] So far, it has generated about $127 million in additional revenue, or about $50million per year.

Although some council members hoped to remove the tax by April, Cavazos’ proposed time line makes that appear unlikely. He plans to present options for cutting the tax on March 26, along with the rest of his trial budget for the next fiscal year, which starts July 1. The council would have months to make a final decision.

City officials said two primary challenges will be maintaining the city’s AAA bond rating and continuing to provide support for public safety.

Phoenix has relied on money from the food tax to help pay for about $30 million in general-fund expenses per year, most of which goes toward public safety and court expenses. On top of that, $8 million goes to help support specialty police and fire funds that have run a negative balance.

“Because 70 percent of the city’s general fund is spent on public safety, I am concerned about how it would be affected by a possible repeal of the tax,” Councilman Michael Nowakowski said recently. “Phoenix’s leaders must consider that and all other consequences in the process.”

A loss in revenue from the food tax could also hurt how credit-rating agencies evaluate Phoenix, Cavazos said. A lower credit rating would require the city to pay higher interest rates when it borrowed money.

Cavazos and city budget staff will spend the next several weeks outlining the council’s specific options, including a budget with recommended service levels and another with cuts to compensate for the loss of the food tax. He said both options will be shown to residents at numerous public meetings.

“I think it’s pretty clear that we have lots of constraints, ” Cavazos said. “We have to work very carefully with our departments and listen very carefully to the public before we can fully identify what those consequences are.”

Gun Grabbing Phoenix Area Mayors

Most of them pretend to support the Second Amendment, and say "I support the 2nd Amendment but ... " and of course the but is followed by a whole bunch of reasons that show they don't support the Second Amendment.

Remember their names, and when you vote throw these tyrants who want to flush the Second Amendment down the toilet out of office.

Source

Valley mayors weigh in on gun reform

By Maria Polletta The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Feb 2, 2013 11:23 PM

Valley mayors have joined the national chorus of officials saying when it comes to gun violence, something has to give.

But there’s no consensus on what that something is.

The mayors, who range from avid hunters and National Rifle Association members to those who have never owned a firearm, have suggested tentative solutions as diverse as their backgrounds.

Some have hesitated to offer any sort of directive, and most have held off on membership in gun-control organizations. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton for a time was the only Valley representative in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition 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.

Lewis said he prefers to wait and weigh in on specific legislation, such as a 2012 guns-on-campus bill he opposed, rather than sign on to more sweeping efforts.

Mesa Mayor Scott Smith, a former NRA member and a gun owner for most of his life, also worries that acting too quickly on the gun issue would lead to an inadequate or ineffective solution. He said he refuses to “jump on the gun-control bandwagon,” lamenting what he described as the U.S. tendency to seek knee-jerk solutions after major crises.

Still, Smith and other mayors have said they’d support or at least be open to certain measures to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, in effect limiting firearm privileges to responsible citizens.

Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers, a hunter, NRA member and gun-safety instructor, said he supports efforts to curtail the spread of illegal guns, for instance. “If it’s an illegal gun, it’s an illegal gun,” he said. “Why wouldn’t everybody support trying to stop (that)?”

Smith also believes the law has a legitimate role in forbidding the willful sale of guns to criminals and forbidding “straw buyers” who would channel weapons inappropriately.

Other mayors, such as Phoenix’s Stanton, have looked to the types and grades of weapons people are allowed to own. President Barack Obama recently unveiled a broad set of proposed gun-control measures that include bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Stanton has described requiring universal background checks as a “good, commonsense approach.” Checks are not done now on users who purchase firearms at gun shows and through other private sales.

Glendale’s Weiers and Peoria Mayor Bob Barrett have said training is a key component of responsible gun ownership. Weiers argued that gun-safety classes for youngsters make for “better citizens and … less problems.”

Barrett, a gun owner, has opposed legislation to allow guns in schools and city buildings and said training should be required to carry a concealed weapon.

“When you are under stress, when you are under fire … you’re more likely, A, to miss or, B, to hit somebody else,” Barrett said. “The idea of people walking around with concealed weapons and no training is not a good thing.”

Barrett contends that any initiative focused solely on how and which guns are obtained will help little if the country does not start placing a greater emphasis on mental-health care. Changing that, he said, would go further than trying to eliminate extended magazines and military-style weapons.

“What I think we need to do as a society is make mental-health treatment regarded the same way physical-health treatment is,” he said. “There is a sense of shame connected with getting counseling and getting help.”

Chandler Mayor Jay Tibshraeny said that “a lot of these folks that have done this (mass shootings) are seriously mentally disturbed” and mental-health-care funding is a “a factor that I look at on this issue.”

“At the state level, better reporting of mental-health records would be good,” Tibshraeny 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.”

All Valley mayors said they believe a balance between protective measures and Second Amendment rights is vital as the gun-control debate moves forward, especially in Arizona, with the state’s historically pro-gun culture.

“I am a gun owner and a supporter of the Second Amendment,” said Surprise Mayor Sharon Wolcott. “But my right to own and carry a gun does not trump your right to live in a safe and civil society.”

Republic reporters Gary Nelson, Parker Leavitt, Dianna Náñez, Allie Seligman, John Yantis,Jen Kuhney and Paul Giblin contributed to this article.

Mayor's for Knife Control???

How many of these mayors think you should have to pass a Brady Bill test before buying really a sharp steak or cooking knife.

Or perhaps a $200 tax on the purchase of any weapons grade knives which would include steak and cooking knifes.

Or have a two week waiting period before picking up the steak or cooking knife you just purchased.

Or banning minors from using anything but dull table knives.

Source

Stabbed Scottsdale bouncer dies, played ASU football

By By D.S. Woodfill and Paola Boivin Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Sat Feb 2, 2013 10:24 PM

Those who remembered a former Arizona State University football player who died a week after he was stabbed at Scottsdale nightclub described their friend as a gentle giant.

Tyrice Thompson, a former tight end and wide receiver, passed away surrounded by friends and family at about 8:30 a.m. Saturday at Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn Medical Center.

Thompson, a 27-year-old former tight end and receiver for ASU from 2003 to 2007, was working as a bouncer at Martini Ranch in Scottsdale at 1 a.m. on Jan. 27 when a scuffle started between patrons, police said.

Although details of the investigation are still not clear, police said at some point during the scuffle, someone stabbed Thompson 5 times in the back hip and arm.

In a statement released Saturday, Martini Ranch said Thompson had become a member of the family who had a “remarkable ability to connect with people and will always be remembered for his warm smile, sense of humor and positive attitude.”

The business has created a Facebook page to help raise money for his loved ones. That can be found at https://www.facebook.com/remembertyrice

It was sadly ironic way for such a good-natured person to die, said Marques Elliott, a friend of Thompson’s since college.

“He always was a very calm, kind individual,” Elliott said. “He’s always been extremely humble, soft spoken (and) has always had a very clear head on his shoulders. (He was) a very good human being.”

Doug Yazzie, a close friend Thompson who was with his family when he passed away, said Thompson was a kind and positive man.

“He could fill any room with light,” Yazzie said.

Yazzi, who said he is the godfather to Thompson’s 2-year-old son Takai, would likely have forgiven his attacker.

“He didn’t have an angry bone in his body,” he said.

Dennis Erickson, Thompson’s coach during his senior year of school, was heartbroken over the death of his former player.

“He was an unbelievable guy, so coachable,” Erickson said. “Everything we asked, he did. It's so sad.”

Police reported that no one at the bar the night of the attack, including employees, identified who stabbed Thompson and no knife was found at the scene.

Police on Tuesday arrested, but then released pending further investigation, a 26-year-old Tempe resident Ian MacDonald.

“During interviews, Mr. MacDonald admitted to fighting with the bouncers, but denied stabbing Mr. Thompson,” a police statement said.

“Police have questioned all those we believe were witnesses or involved in the incident,” said Sgt. Mark Clark in a statement. “MacDonald remains the sole suspect at this time.”

“We are waiting for lab results to forward charges to the MCAO,” he added.

Thompson, a Laveen resident, played with 13 games his senior year as a Sun Devil, catching 15 passes for 272 yards. He was a key special teams player his final two seasons at Arizona State.

Thompson was signed as an undrafted free agent by the Indianapolis Colts, but did not play an NFL game.

Stan Ogwel mentored Thompson, who was a sophomore at South Mountain High School in Phoenix, as part of public service work he performed with his ASU fraternity.

Ogwel said Thompson was alert before he died, but unable to talk because he was on a respirator.

“I held his hands and prayed with him,” he said. “ I was able to at least spend about 10 minutes with him in the room.”

ASU Associate Athletic Director Mark Brand released a statement that said “the Thompson family is in the thoughts of everyone in the Sun Devil Athletics family.”

“The words of his teammates, our fans and media who came in contact with him are true measures of how much his smile was appreciated,” the statement said.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Obama loves HIS guns????

Like Obama, most government rulers love guns. They love guns, because guns allow them to stay in power. Ask Hitler, Stalin and Mao if they loved guns and they will all say yes.

The only people that rulers like Obama, Hitler, Stalin and Mao don't want to have guns are the serfs they rule over.

Source

White House photo shows Obama firing shotgun

By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Howard Schneider, Published: February 2

On his 51st birthday last August, President Obama hit the links with a group of buddies and then flew by helicopter to Camp David. There, he changed into jeans and picked up a shotgun. And then, before it got too dark, he started a round of clay target shooting.

You’d be forgiven if you didn’t think this was headline-worthy news. But on Saturday morning, the White House released and promoted a photograph of Obama shooting skeet at the presidential retreat in Maryland.

White House aides were trying to end a growing distraction just as the president plans to make a fresh push to rally public support behind his ambitious agenda to tighten gun laws, traveling to Minnesota on Monday.

The photo, taken by White House photographer Pete Souza, depicts a sunglasses-wearing Obama firing what appears to be a Browning Citori 725, the shotgun wedged against his left shoulder, a pillow of white smoke emerging from the barrel.

The photo was published a week after Obama claimed in an interview with the New Republic that he routinely shoots skeet at Camp David. The surprising assertion — Obama’s golfing and basketball hobbies are far better known — instantly stirred the political zeitgeist.

Jay Carney, Obama’s press secretary, was asked for evidence in the White House briefing room. “The Daily Show’s” Jon Stewart poked fun at the president’s apparent hobby. Gun-rights activists dismissed it, and some were skeptical that Obama was a routine skeet shooter.

A Republican congresswoman even challenged the president to a shooting contest.

“I’m sure they released the photo because there were folks raising questions about his answer, and those questions are a silly distraction in the midst of a serious debate,” David Axelrod, a longtime adviser to Obama, said in an e-mail.

“I know him pretty well. He doesn’t embellish,” Axelrod added. “If he says he’s done some shooting up there on occasion, I’m sure he has. He’s not a hunter or marksman and doesn’t pretend to be.”

The White House did not say how often Obama has gone shooting.

In the interview with the New Republic, Obama was asked if he had ever shot a gun.

“Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,” he said.

Asked if his whole family goes shooting, Obama replied: “Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.”

But while the White House made clear Saturday that the president has shot skeet at least once, the release of the photo seemed more likely to inflame passions around the issue than douse them.

Current and former advisers to Obama compared skeptics of Obama’s skeet-shooting prowess to a group of conservatives, known as birthers, who cast doubt on whether Obama was born in the United States and kept exerting pressure until the president released a long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii.

“Attn skeet birthers. Make our day — let the photoshop conspiracies begin!” David Plouffe, Obama’s senior adviser until last week, wrote on Twitter early Saturday. Later in the day, he wrote, “Day made. The skeet birthers are out in full force in response to POTUS pic. Makes for most excellent, delusional reading.”

Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s senior adviser, coined a term for those who didn’t believe Obama had gone shooting: “skeeters.”

On the other side, Obama’s critics in the gun-rights community were not impressed by the photo.

“One picture does not erase a lifetime of supporting every gun ban and every gun-control scheme imaginable,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association.

Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, regarded the whole episode as a sideshow.

“If that’s something the president enjoys doing, God bless him,” he said. “I’m no more offended by this photo than by one showing him throwing a Frisbee.”

The White House would not confirm what firearm Obama used. But gun dealers and enthusiasts said that from the picture, it appeared to be a Browning Citori, a model popular among those involved in the sport.

The “over and under” design features two barrels, one on top of the other, allowing the gun to hold and fire two shotgun shells.

The smoke in the photo is emanating from air vents in the barrel, a feature known as “porting” that reduces recoil shock and allows for steadier aim.

Gun dealers said the shotgun appeared to be a stock model of the Browning, which retails for $2,000 to $3,000. According to the Browning Web site, some of the Citori models are made in a left-handed version, with a slight bend near the butt — though it was not apparent from the photo whether the left-handed president was using one of those.

“It looked like he was shooting regular American skeet,” said Michael Hampton Jr., head of the National Sporting Clays Association. “It’s a gun that is used for this discipline — a good middle-of-the-road gun, very functional and very standard.”

The sport originated early in the 20th century when hunters were looking for ways to practice and improve their marksmanship.

Over time, the activity developed as a sport of its own. There are several variations, all involving a shooter attempting to down a roughly three-ounce clay disk that has been launched from a spring-loaded machine.

In skeet shooting — the activity the White House said Obama was pursuing at Camp David — the clay targets are launched at different heights and travel across the shooter’s field of vision.

Hampton said that even novices can get quick satisfaction. In a 100-target session, he said even beginners will hit 25 or 30 targets and quickly develop 50-50 proficiency.

Supreme Court to hear fight over taking DNA from arrested people

The Fifth Amendment says:

nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sadly I suspect the same thing will happen with DNA tests.

Source

Supreme Court to hear fight over taking DNA from arrested people

Supreme Court to hear DNA challenge

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

February 2, 2013, 10:12 p.m.

WASHINGTON — On a cold February night three years ago, police in suburban Arlington, Va., received a frantic call. A young woman said her roommate had been abducted at gunpoint by a short, clean-shaven man who sped away in a silver SUV.

At dawn, a motorist spotted the victim in a snowy field near a highway, raped and strangled, but alive. An alert officer, hearing the lookout report, recalled that he'd jotted down the license tag of a silver Dodge Durango whose driver lurked near bars at midnight, leading to the quick arrest of a short, clean-shaven Marine named Jorge Torrez.

Ten years ago, Virginia became the first state to require, upon arrest for a serious crime, a mouth swab for DNA. The sample from Torrez, sent to a state crime lab and entered into the FBI's DNA database, confirmed he was the rapist. A few weeks later a DNA match also led to charges against him in the rape and murder of two girls, ages 8 and 9, in Zion, Ill., where Torrez had gone to high school. Jerry Hobbs, the father of one of the girls, had been in prison for the crimes.

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a privacy rights challenge to taking DNA from people who are arrested. The case could either end the practice or make it the norm nationwide.

Arlington County Deputy Police Chief Daniel Murray says the Torrez case shows the value of taking DNA when someone is arrested for a serious crime. "It's extremely important to quickly identify someone who would be a danger to society if he were on the loose," he said. And in this instance, he said, the DNA match freed an innocent man.

Nationwide, DNA samples are taken from people who are convicted of violent crimes.

Going further, the federal government and 28 states, including California, Illinois and Florida, now take DNA samples from some or all who are arrested but not yet convicted of serious crimes. Besides taking fingerprints, the standard jail booking now often includes taking a DNA swab, which prosecutors say is as simple and painless as brushing your teeth.

Last month, President Obama signed into law the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, which will help pay the start-up costs for other states to begin testing people who are arrested.

"The whole purpose of this is to find serial rapists and murderers and to get them early to save innocent lives," said Jayann Sepich, a New Mexico mother whose daughter Katie was raped and murdered. Her attacker was arrested several times, but he was not identified until he was convicted of another crime and his DNA was taken.

California prosecutors say arrests for nonviolent crimes, including drug offenses, credit card fraud and burglary, have led them to rapists and murderers, thanks to DNA tests.

But the constitutionality of taking DNA upon arrest remains in doubt, particularly when it is not needed to identify the suspect. For example, police do not need DNA to identify someone who is caught with drugs or breaking into a house.

A state appeals court in San Francisco and a federal judge in Sacramento ruled it was unconstitutional to require a DNA sample from someone who had been arrested but not convicted. The California Supreme Court and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have put the issue on hold pending a ruling from U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices will hear the case of Maryland vs. King to decide whether requiring DNA from someone taken into custody but not convicted is an "unreasonable search" forbidden by the 4th Amendment.

In 2009, Alonzo King from Salisbury, Md., was arrested for waving a shotgun in a threatening manner. That was a felony charge, calling for a DNA test. He later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge for which no DNA test was required. But the DNA sample taken upon arrest pointed to him as the man who had broken into a house and raped a woman six years earlier. King was convicted and given a life term.

But Maryland's high court threw out his conviction and ruled police may not take DNA without a search warrant and some reason to believe the suspect had committed another offense. "DNA samples contain a massive amount of deeply personal information," far more than a fingerprint, the state judges said.

Civil liberties advocates have urged the court to hold the line and to bar DNA searches until someone has been convicted.

"This could be an unprecedented expansion of search power. The rule has been the government has to have a specific suspicion before they search," said Erin Murphy, a DNA law expert at New York University. "If you are arrested for a drug crime, that doesn't mean the police can walk into your house looking for evidence of other crimes."

But victims rights groups, the Obama administration and the top state attorneys from California and 48 other states have urged the court to rule that routine DNA testing upon arrest is reasonable and constitutional. They say the mouth swab is a minor invasion of privacy at most and that it has an extraordinary potential for solving heinous crimes.

david.savage@latimes.com

Nude photos of Tucson cop Lt. Diana Lopez

I wonder when these cops ever have time to hunt down real criminals.

Now I said real criminals, and I meant real criminals, not busting harmless pot smokers and other victimless drug war criminals which account for two thirds of the people the police send to prison.

I don't have a problem if Tucson cop Lt. Diana Lopez wants to shoot naked photos of her self and send them to her co-workers, but maybe she should limit these activities to her off time and not do it at work.

And the same for here boyfriend cop. I don't have a problem if he and his buddies look at naked pictures of Lt. Diana Lopez, but they shouldn't be doing it at work.

Source

Tucson policewoman demoted after explicit videos

Associated Press Mon Feb 4, 2013 7:47 PM

TUCSON — A Tucson police lieutenant has been demoted after allegedly taking sexually explicit photos and videos of herself wearing her police uniform.

Police said Monday that Lt. Diana Lopez used her personal cellphone to send videos and photos to a subordinate officer with whom she was in a relationship. They say Lopez was reduced to the rank of sergeant following an investigation that began last August.

The Arizona Daily Star (http://bit.ly/WMXjxM ) says anonymous letters sent to the police department about Lopez prompted the probe.

A police report says Lopez’s boyfriend apparently showed the videos and photos to other officers from May 2011 through August 2011.

Police say Lopez violated several department regulations, code of ethics and professional standards. They say a recommendation was made to reduce her in rank.

Source

Tucson policewoman demoted over sexually explicit photos, video

Carmen Duarte Arizona Daily Star

A Tucson police lieutenant was demoted after officials said she took sexually explicit videos and sexually provocative photos of herself wearing her police uniform and sent them to a subordinate officer with whom she was in a relationship, department officials said Monday.

Lt. Diana Lopez, a former public information officer for the department, was reduced to the rank of sergeant following an investigation that began in August 2012. Anonymous letters sent to the department about Lopez prompted the probe, according to a report that was released Monday.

The department did find that Lopez took sexually explicit videos and at least one provocative photo where she was wearing a Tucson police uniform shirt. She sent those images and videos using her personal cell phone to the subordinate officer.

That officer then apparently showed the videos and photos to other TPD officers, the report said. This happened between May 2011 through August 2011, the report said.

Lopez violated several department regulations, code of ethics and professional standards and a recommendation was made to reduce her in rank from lieutenant to sergeant, the report said.

"Justice Dept justifies killing Americans if they pose ‘imminent threat

Of course you have to remember that MSNBC reports the news as objectively and unbiased as the FOX network reports it so you have to take that with a grain of salt.

Here is a link to the 16 page document is titled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaeda or An Associated Force.” which was released by NBC. [http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf ]

Source

Justice Dept. document justifies killing Americans overseas if they pose ‘imminent threat’

By Karen DeYoung, Published: February 4

The United States can lawfully kill a U.S. citizen overseas if it determines the target is a “senior, operational leader” of al-Qaeda or an associated group and poses an imminent threat to the United States, according to a Justice Department document published late Monday by NBC News. [http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf ]

The document defines “imminent threat” expansively, saying it does not have to be based on intelligence about a specific attack since such actions are being “continually” planned by al-Qaeda. “In this context,” it says, “imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity” as well as possible collateral damage to civilians.

Guiding the evolving U.S. counterterrorism policies: White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan is compiling a “playbook” that will lay out the administration’s evolving procedures for the targeted killings that have come to define its fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

The memos outline the case for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens in counterterror operations overseas.

It says that such determinations can be made by an “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.”

NBC said the document was provided by the Obama administration last summer to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees as a summary of a classified memo on targeted killings of U.S. citizens prepared by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

The memo was written months prior to a September 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born Muslim cleric accused of helping al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate plan attacks against the United States. Three other Americans, including Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, have also been killed in U.S. strikes in Yemen.

The Obama administration, in decisions upheld in federal court rulings, has repeatedly denied demands by lawmakers, civil rights groups and the media to release the memo and other information on targeted killings — or even to acknowledge their existence. Senators are expected to closely question John O. Brennan, President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, on drone strikes, the memo and the Awlaki killing during Brennan’s confirmation hearing Thursday on his nomination to become Obama’s new CIA director.

Justice officials could not be reached for comment on the document, which NBC posted on its Web site. The 16-page document is titled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaeda or An Associated Force.”

In announcing Awlaki’s death, Obama described him as the leader of “external affairs” of Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday night called the document a “profoundly disturbing” summary of “a stunning overreach of executive authority — the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact.”

The ACLU sought the original Justice Department memo as part of a case dismissed last month by a federal judge in New York. Last Friday, the ACLU filed a notice of appeal in that case.

“Needless to say, the white paper is not a substitute for the legal memo. But it’s a pretty remarkable document,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said. [http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf ]

Source

Justice Department memo: Drone strikes on U.S. citizens can be legal

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Washington Times

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

The U.S. Justice Department finds it legal to target American citizens with drone strikes under certain circumstances, according to a memo that just surfaced.

The undated memo, titled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operation Leader of al Qaeda or An Associated Force,” was obtained by NBC News. The memo defines as legal drone attacks on U.S. citizens who were involved in violent attacks, according to United Press International. [ The memo can be viewed here http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf ]

Specifically, the memo states: “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” according to UPI. Citizens who present such “imminent threats” were defined as those who participated in violent acts — and maintained the views that led to their violent acts, according to UPI.

In those instances, a fatal drone attack would be considered a “legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban,” according to the memo.

The memo was distributed to various members of Senate and House intelligence committees.

Source

Drone strikes on Americans on U.S. soil are LEGAL, says confidential Justice Department memo

By Damian Ghigliotty

PUBLISHED: 23:58 EST, 4 February 2013

The U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be ‘senior operational leaders’ of the Islamic terrorist organization Al Qaeda or ‘an associated force,’ according to a confidential Justice Department memo leaked on Monday.

The U.S. government can do so even if there is no clear evidence that the American targeted is engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The news was first reported by NBC’s Open Channel, which obtained a copy of the 16-page document and released it to the public.

The undated memo, which is not an official legal document, sheds new light on the reasoning behind a reported increase in the number of drone strikes used against Al Qaeda suspects in recent years -- including those aimed at American citizens -- under the Obama administration.

The memo, ‘Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force,’ was reportedly provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by unnamed administration officials.

It was provided on the condition that authorities keep the memo confidential and not discuss its contents publicly, according to NBC.

‘The condition that an operational leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,’ the memo states.

Insight: The document sheds new light on the legal reasoning behind a reported increase in the number of drone strikes used against al-Qaida suspects in recent years, including those aimed at American citizens

Insight: The document sheds new light on the legal reasoning behind a reported increase in the number of drone strikes used against al-Qaida suspects in recent years, including those aimed at American citizens

The Justice Department told MailOnline that it would not comment on the news.

The Obama administration has remained relatively hush about reports of increased drone strikes carried out since 2008.

The Long War Journal reports that the U.S. has been conducting a covert program to target and kill Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders in Pakistan's northwest region.

‘The US ramped up the number of strikes in July 2008, and has continued to regularly hit at Taliban and Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan,’ the non-profit news outlet writes.

‘There have been 332 strikes total since the program began in 2004; 322 of those strikes have taken place since January 2008.’

The New York Times reported in November that the Obama administration had been mapping out a strategy weeks before the presidential election to develop definitive rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by drones, so that a new president would ‘inherit clear standards and procedures’ if Obama was not re-elected.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes may soon be unraveled, as indicated by the release of the 16-page Justice Department memo.

Proponent: John Brennan, Obama's pick for CIA director, has called drone strikes 'consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense'

John Brennan, a White House counter-terrorism adviser, one of the leading architects behind the government’s drone policy and Obama’s pick to become the country’s new CIA director, is expected to face tough questions about his involvement in Obama’s drone program during his Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday.

Brennan was the first administration official to formally acknowledge drone strikes in a speech he gave at the Woodrow Wilson Center in April 2012, calling drone strikes ‘consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense.’

A bipartisan group of 11 senators wrote a letter to Obama on Monday asking his administration to provide its legal justification for its use of drone strikes over the past four years.

‘We ask that you direct the Justice Department to provide Congress, specifically the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, with any and all legal opinions that lay out the executive branch's official understanding of the President's authority to deliberately kill American citizens,’ the senators lead by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote in their letter.

Political blogger Marcy Wheeler, who says she has closely tracked the group’s repeated requests, writes that it was at least the 12th time Congress had asked for those documents.

Among the overseas attacks that have killed U.S. citizens with terrorist ties on Obama's watch, a September 2011 missile strike in Yemen took out alleged Al Qaeda members Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.

Both men were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government or charged with any specific crimes.

Read the full Justice Department white paper released on Monday night here. [http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf ]

Cops over react to trivial comments as they always do.

Police take precautions for trivial Dobson HS bomb threat

But don't think of it as a waste of our tax dollars. I am sure the cops who do this view it as a jobs program to justify the high pay they receive.

And of course H. L. Mencken had it nailed perfectly with his comment:

"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."

Incidents like Dobson HS bomb threat force schools, police to take extra precautions

Posted: Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:12 am

By Michelle Reese, Tribune

Just one day after schools in Tempe were put into lockdown, Mesa’s Dobson High School was partially evacuated Friday following a bomb threat.

School and police officials said they collaborate to determine when to ask school principals and teachers to lock their doors and keep students away from potential harm.

“We work together with the schools to try to determine, for the safety of the students and staff, when it would be best to lockdown a school, depending on the situation,” said Mesa Police’s Det. Steve Berry.

Friday’s lockdown of Dobson High was prompted after a student made a comment about a bomb during class, Berry said. It was heard by students and his teacher, who contacted the school resource officer — a licensed Mesa Police officer — who was on campus.

“The boy was detained. The wheels were set in motion to make sure this was not a credible threat,” Berry said. “Once he realized he was going to be taken serious, that this was not a joke, he tried to recant. That’s not going to stop us from moving forward to assure everything is safe.”

After students were evacuated from parts of the school — and other parts were put on lockdown — police determined it was safe to return to class.

Since December’s tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., East Valley school officials say they are fielding more calls and questions from parents about safety.

“Since December, many people are on heightened alert mode,” Tempe Elementary School District spokesperson Monica Allread said. “Parents want to know anything that happens at the school that’s out of the ordinary. We’re working hard to make sure they know that.”

Mesa Unified School District spokesperson Helen Hollands said there are a few reasons for lockdowns in a school.

“There are lockdowns that happen because of an external incident. That would be if police are dealing with a suspect in an area. Those are always called by the law enforcement agency,” she said. “The other would be if we go into a lockdown for a campus related or internal reason. Most of the time, it’s a collaboration between the school district and the police or law enforcement agency to decide if it’s appropriate to go into lockdown.”

A school principal may also put a school in lockdown if there is an active situation, she said.

“If the event is active and there is an immediate threat or danger, the site administrator would call the lockdown immediately and then notify police,” she said.

After the Sandy Hook shooting, the Mesa school district decided to move up plans to do a campus-by-campus safety analysis. The Mesa school district governing board will hear that report Tuesday during a work study session that begins after an executive session at 5 p.m.

“That will look at what we need to do to make our sites physically more safe for students and staff,” Hollands said.

The district is also looking at the policies, procedures, practices and protocol that are used on campuses.

“That’s underway right now. That will be a report that could change protocol. Sometimes it’s helping to close a gap between practice and protocol,” she said.

Tempe’s Allread said during the last two school years, she sent out three letters each year notifying parents that a lockdown took place. This year, including Thursday’s incident, she has already sent out five.

A handful of schools in Tempe were put on lockdown while police searched an area for a suspect from a road rage incident.

Mesa didn’t have a count of the number of lockdowns used so far this school year as of press time.

Allread said the Tempe Elementary School District looked at its safety and security measures last summer.

“But we’re always looking a safety and security and certainly after what happened in December, we took a look at what they had in place and tried to learn any lessons we could,” she said.

The 16-year-old student detained by police could face charges, Mesa Police’s Berry said. The student could also face punishment from the district, from a short suspension to expulsion, depending on the circumstances, Hollands said.

“At this point, without having any due process evaluation, I couldn’t say where within this guideline it would fall. It has a range, because you need to take into account all the mitigating circumstances,” she said.

Contact writer: (480) 898-6549 or mreese@evtrib.com

A serial killer speaks out against the death penalty

Source

Ex-Virginia executioner becomes opponent of death penalty

By Justin Jouvenal, Published: February 10

Jerry Givens executed 62 people.

His routine and conviction never wavered. He’d shave the person’s head, lay his hand on the bald pate and ask for God’s forgiveness for the condemned. Then, he would strap the person into Virginia’s electric chair.

Former executioner opposes death penalty: Jerry Givens executed 62 people in Virginia’s electric chair. Since leaving his job he has become one of the state’s most visible — and unlikely — opponents to capital punishment.

Givens was the state’s chief executioner for 17 years — at a time when the commonwealth put more people to death than any state besides Texas.

“If you knew going out there that raping and killing someone had the consequence of the death penalty, then why are you going to do it?” Givens asked. “I considered it suicide.”

As Virginia executed its 110th person in the modern era last month, Givens prayed for the man, but also for an end to the death penalty. Since leaving his job in 1999, Givens has become one of the state’s most visible — and unlikely — opponents of capital punishment.

His evolution underscores that of Virginia itself and the nation. Although polls show that the majority of state residents still support the death penalty, Virginia has experienced a sea change on capital punishment in recent years that is part of a national trend.

The state has had fewer death sentences over the past five years than any period since the 1970s. Robert Gleason, who was put to death Jan. 16, was the first execution in a year and a half. As recently as 1999, the state put 13 to death in a single year.

Nationwide, the number of death sentences was at record lows in 2011 and 2012, down 75 percent since 1996, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Five states have outlawed capital punishment in the past five years, and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) affirmed plans to push for a moratorium there. Gallup polls show support for capital punishment ebbing.

Givens’s improbable journey to the death chamber and back did not come easily or quickly for the 60-year-old from Richmond. A searing murder spurred his interest in the work, but it was the innocent life he nearly took that led him to question the system. And he was changed for good when he found himself behind bars.

His story helps explain how a state closely associated with the death penalty for decades has entered a new era.

“From the 62 lives I took, I learned a lot,” Givens said.

The first execution

Friends and strangers regularly ask Givens the essential question: What is it like to take another man’s life? In answering, he vividly recalls his first execution, in 1984.

That it involved one of America’s most notorious killers helped solidify Givens’s feelings then that the death penalty was just.

Linwood Briley was one of three brothers in a gang responsible for one of the bloodiest murder sprees — and death row escapes — in state history.

The day before Briley’s execution, Givens said, the death row team began a standard 24-hour vigil, monitoring Briley at the now-shuttered Virginia State Penitentiary in Richmond. The goal, as Givens put it, was to keep the condemned from killing himself before the state could. [Wow, those government folks will do anything to get their bloodthirsty wish of killing people they consider scum]

Nevertheless, the first execution took a toll. Givens said the most difficult part of that execution — or any other — was something he called the “transformation.”

Givens worked as a prison guard “saving lives” most of the time, as he put it, but when he took on the role of executioner, he had to become a killer.

Before Briley was put to death, he asked to be baptized, Givens said. The death team took him to the penitentiary’s chapel, and Givens prayed alongside the man whose life he would soon end.

Find Virginia executions from 1982 to present by year, method of execution and by the victims’ names.

“We don’t know our day and time, but these guys do,” Givens said of death row inmates. “They can repent. This is the advantage they have.”

The team moved Briley to the death chamber, and he was strapped in the electric chair. Givens took up a position along a wall outside, where the button was located. He could see Briley’s back through a small window.

At these moments, Givens said, he would empty his mind to avoid fear, insecurities or regret. He was solely focused on the grisly mechanics of electrocution.

“You are concentrating on the body itself,” he said. “With that much electricity, you are going to get burning and smoke. You want to make sure the current is right.”

At 11 p.m. Oct. 12, 1984, Givens pushed the button. He saw Briley’s body spasm through the window. And then it was over. He had taken his first life.

Inevitably, Givens said the emotion of an execution would come flooding back.

“You are not going to feel happy,” Givens said. “You feel for the condemned man’s family and the victim’s family. You have two sets of families that are losing someone.”

The chamber and back

Givens grew up in the Creighton Court housing complex in Richmond, where he also graduated from high school in the early 1970s. By 1974, he had gotten a job at a Philip Morris plant and then lost it after fighting with a co-worker.

He recalled someone telling him that he should apply for a job at the state penitentiary before he got sent there. Givens did just that.

After two years as a prison guard, he said, a supervisor approached him about working on death row. He would not be paid extra, but he accepted the job. The deciding factor, he said, was an event that marked him early in life.

When he was 14, Givens said, he was at a house party in Creighton Court. He spied a girl next to a window, and as he was trying to get up the confidence to ask her to dance, a gunman burst up a flight of stairs.

The man was looking for someone at the party, but he fired randomly and killed the girl.

Givens was furious. The incident left him with a firm conviction: Killers such as that shooter deserved to die.

In the years ahead, Givens said, he would recall the girl’s shooting each time he had to prepare for an execution. It was a touchstone that helped him carry out the grim work of the death chamber.

After Briley, the executions would come in quicker succession through the 1980s and 1990s. Givens executed Linwood Briley’s brother James in 1985. In 1993, it was Syvasky Poyner, who killed five women during an 11-day spree in southeast Virginia, and David Mark Pruett, who admitted to raping and killing his best friend’s wife.

Ultimately, though, it was a man he didn’t execute who would make the biggest impression. Earl Washington Jr. was sentenced to death in 1984 in the rape and killing of a 19-year-old mother of three in Culpeper.

Washington, who has an IQ of about 69, admitted to the killing, although many of his answers were inconsistent with the facts of the case. Just days before his scheduled execution in 1985, lawyers secured a stay based on doubts about his guilt.

In 1993, DNA tests provided strong evidence that Washington was not the killer. Then-Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (D) commuted his sentence to life in prison. After testing with a more advanced forensic science, Washington was cleared and eventually granted an absolute pardon, making him the first person on Virginia’s death row to be exonerated by DNA evidence.

It was a landmark moment locally and nationally. The case was among the first in a wave of exonerations based on post-conviction DNA testing. There have been 302 such cases across the nation, including 18 death row inmates, according to the Innocence Project.

Experts and opponents of the death penalty say the exonerations have been a key factor in the recent decline in death sentences in Virginia and elsewhere. They say judges and juries have become more sophisticated about how the system can fail and therefore more leery of applying a penalty that cannot be reversed.

The DNA testing “was a scientific process totally outside the system that said, ‘You’ve got the wrong guy,’ ” said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center and an opponent of the death penalty. “The fact that you had the entirely wrong person was a revelation to some people.”

The man who would have been Washington’s executioner was one of them. Givens said the case shook his faith in the justice system. He came within days of putting an innocent man to death.

“If I execute an innocent person, I’m no better than the people on death row,” Givens said.

From executioner to inmate

Despite his growing reservations, Givens continued to work as Virginia’s chief executioner through the late 1990s. He had risen to the rank of captain in the Department of Corrections, raised a family and become an assistant football coach at a Richmond area high school.

But then it fell apart. Givens was charged with money laundering and lying to a federal grand jury about it in 1999. Prosecutors said Givens and an old friend from Creighton Court purchased a car together using proceeds Givens knew came from drug dealing. Givens was put on trial.

“There’s a fine line between lawfulness and unlawfulness,” the U.S. attorney reportedly told the jury in the case. “There are a lot of good things about Jerry Givens. He is by no means the worst criminal any of us will ever meet, but he did cross the line.”

Givens maintains his innocence, but he was convicted and forced to resign from the Department of Corrections. His distrust of the justice system was cemented.

The prison guard became an inmate and spent four years behind bars.

“This was God’s way of waking me up,” Givens said.

His incarceration gave him time to think and deepened his Baptist faith. He said he read the Bible more often — the story of Jesus’s crucifixion held a lot for a man who had spent his adult life putting people to death.

Givens said a pivotal moment came one day as he was walking around the prison track, where he often talked with God. He said God asked him a thorny question: Would Givens have executed His son if He were on death row?

Givens said he could give only one reply: No, because Jesus was the son of God. He said he realized what he had done as executioner was not compatible with Jesus’s teachings of forgiveness. He realized that he could no longer support the death penalty. He said God told him to share his story.

Evelyn Givens said she thought her brother’s change was possibly the result of guilt about what he had done and a desire to spare others from “walking in his shoes.”

“He doesn’t want anyone else to feel what he felt,” she said.

After he was released from prison in 2004, he found work as a truck driver. Jonathan Sheldon, a lawyer and former executive director of Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (VADP), recalls hearing about Givens through a mutual acquaintance.

They agreed to meet at a Burger King off Interstate 95 outside Richmond. The activist and the former chief executioner sat across from each other, talking about the death penalty.

“It was quite a funny meeting,” Sheldon said.

It also planted a seed that would grow in the coming years.

Givens started attending VADP meetings and joined the board about 2009. He began giving speeches across the country about his experiences as chief executioner and his newfound opposition to the death penalty.

The work hit a high point in 2010, when he testified at a state legislative hearing on a bill that would expand the death penalty to accomplices in murders. Givens’s emotional testimony about the impact of death row work helped defeat it.

“The people who pass these bills, they don’t have to do it,” Givens said afterward. “The people who do the executions, they’re the ones who suffer through it.”

Sen. J. Chapman “Chap” Peterson (D-Fairfax) said it was a key moment.

“It was so dramatic, you could have heard a pin drop,” Peterson said. “No one knew who he was, and then he announced he had been the state’s chief executioner and gave an emotional and raw speech. It was something out of Dickens.”

All the while, Virginia was changing as well.

David Bruck, a law professor at Washington and Lee University’s law school and an opponent of capital punishment, said a number of other factors have contributed to the decline in use of the death penalty in Virginia.

Like most states, Virginia has enacted sentences of life without parole, giving juries and prosecutors an alternative. The creation of the state’s capital public defender system has given those facing the death sentence better representation.

Bruck also said the state’s prosecutors, who are elected in Virginia, feel less public pressure to pursue the death penalty than in years past because it has faded as a key political issue.

“Our death sentencing rate is becoming similar to states like Colorado that have the death sentence on the books but hardly use it,” Bruck said.

That’s good news to someone such as Givens. He said he has gained a measure of peace through his new calling. He wrote a book about his experiences, which was released last year.

Nevertheless, he still wonders whether there were any innocents among the 37 people he executed via the electric chair and the 25 by lethal injection. The man who prayed for the forgiveness of each of the condemned said he may need it himself.

“The only thing I can do is pray to God to forgive me if I did,” Givens said. “But I do know this — I will never do it again.”

Will Tom Horne-inspired bill to punish cheating politicians die?

Will Tom Horne-inspired bill to punish cheating politicians die?

On Tuesday, our leaders in the Senate Education Committee will hear a little bill I like to call the Tom Horne Cheaters Should Never (Again) Prosper plan.

Or, as it turns out, will they?

Sen. Steve Gallardo says his proposal has been gutted, eliminating any hope of punishing politicians who blatantly ignore campaign finance laws in order to boost themselves into public office.

“If you’re doing something illegally, why aren’t you being held accountable for it?” the Phoenix Democrat asked.

It’s an excellent question. Sadly, as we have seen in recent years, trying to hold public officials accountable is a little like trying to hold Jello.

It’s squishy and sticky and it generally leaves you with a mess on your shoes.

Gallardo’s bill is aimed at making sure that never again do we see a repeat of the Tom Horne affair. (And by affair, I mean his questionable campaign-finance activities.)

Last fall, Horne was accused of creating what amounts to a phony independent-campaign committee — where there are no contribution limits — to raise a quick $500,000 to bury Felecia Rotellini in the final days of the 2010 attorney general’s race. State law forbids candidates from having any involvement with independent campaigns.

Horne, who contends the Business Leaders for Arizona campaign was truly independent, wasn’t charged with so much as a misdemeanor because apparently, it isn’t a crime to cheat your way into office in Arizona.

Instead, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said the best that he could do was to pursue a civil fine. He vowed at the time to lobby for stronger campaign-finance laws and in January he called Gallardo’s bill “a really good start.”

Gallardo’s Senate Bill 1197 would make it a class-five felony both for a candidate to coordinate with an independent campaign and for the person running an independent campaign to coordinate with the candidate.

Gallardo says Senate Elections Committee Chairman Michele Reagan told him last week that the bill needed to be “tweaked” and that it would likely be reintroduced as a strike-everything amendment to another bill.

Reagan, R-Scottsdale, says Gallardo’s bill was assigned to two committees rather than one, making it more difficult to get through the Senate. So she says she asked Sen. Robert Meza, D-Phoenix, to amend Gallardo’s bill onto his own SB 1336 – which, I must point out, is also assigned to two committees.

“I think it’s a great bill,” Reagan told me, of Gallardo’s proposal. “I was trying to find a vehicle that would have more of a chance so I found one late last week and we were rushing, trying to get everything posted in time. We had the county attorney review the language because there was some stuff in Gallardo’s bill that they were like, that wouldn’t work.”

The county attorney’s office, however, says it supports Gallardo’s bill as written and opposes the watered-down version being heard this afternoon.

Gallardo’s bill creates a criminal penalty for both independent committees and politicians who thumb their noses at the law requiring independent campaigns to actually be independent. Meza’s bill creates a criminal penalty only for the independent committees, leaving politicans ollie ollie oxen free.

Meza says he took out the part about holding politicians accountable.

“My gut told me if I include that part the bill does not get heard,” he said.

There’s certainly ample historical evidence to support his gut.

But here’s the curious thing. Meza says his bill was never intended to hold the Tom Hornes of the world accountable. He’s only after the independent committees, which he believes are blatantly ignoring the law and giving money to candidates.

It’s a good measure – a good half measure, that is. But why not insist on accountability all around?

“We are protecting bad candidates, candidates that now are able to orchestrate these IE’s (independent-expenditure campaigns) on their behalf and walk away without getting punished for doing it,” Gallardo said. “We are rewarding bad actors, that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re rewarding bad actors.”

Reagan, meanwhile, says the bill can be changed.

“If there are things that aren’t right in it,” she said, “we have the ability to make it right.”

That’s certainly good to hear. My mother always told me that cheaters never prosper.

Or, as it turns out, do they?

The Senate Elections Committee meets at 2 p.m. Tuesday.

Dorner manhunt: Officers opened fire on mother, daughter

Look I will trust the teachers with a gun any day of the year, but I wouldn't let these trigger happy cops get anywhere near the school campus

Source

Dorner manhunt: Officers opened fire on mother, daughter

February 9, 2013 | 7:47 am

In their pursuit of a fugitive ex-cop, at least seven officers opened fire on what turned out to be a mother and daughter delivering newspapers on a quiet residential street, law enforcement sources told The Times.

It was "a tragic misinterpretation" by officers working under "incredible tension," LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said Friday in an interview with The Times. Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, were the victims.

Early Thursday morning, Christopher Jordan Dorner, 33, allegedly shot three police officers, one fatally. And, in an online posting authorities attributed to him, Dorner threatened to kill more police and seemed to take responsibility for the slaying over the weekend of the daughter of a retired LAPD captain and her fiance.

Then around 5 a.m. Thursday in Torrance, police from nearby El Segundo saw a pickup truck exit a freeway and head in the general direction of the Redbeam Avenue residence of a high-ranking Los Angeles police official, which was being guarded by a group of LAPD officers.

A radio call indicated that the truck matched the description of Dorner's gray Nissan Titan. As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn't gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn't Dorner inside the truck, but Carranza and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.

Beck and others stressed that the investigation into the shooting was in its infancy. They declined to say how many officers were involved, what kind of weapons they used, how many bullets were fired and, perhaps most important, what kind of verbal warnings — if any — were given to the women before the shooting began.

"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large, black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave "no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender" before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.

As bullets tore through the cabin, the two women "covered their faces and huddled down," Jonas said. "They felt like it was going on forever."

Hernandez was shot twice in her back and is expected to recover. Her daughter escaped with only minor wounds from broken glass.

Beck said he had not yet received a detailed briefing, which typically occurs a few days after officer-involved shootings to give investigators time to collect evidence and put together the basic summary of what happened. But he did say that the gunfire occurred in two bursts: The first came from an officer positioned down the block from the LAPD official's residence, and the second when Carranza accelerated away from the gunfire and toward other officers.

After the investigation is completed, Beck and an oversight board will decide if officers were justified in the shooting or made mistakes that warrant either punishment or training.

Arizona AG Tom Horne wants his hit and run case tossed

Source

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne wants traffic case tossed

Associated Press Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:10 PM

PHOENIX — Lawyers for Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne asked a judge Wednesday to dismiss a misdemeanor hit-and-run case against him, arguing he’s being singled out for prosecution and FBI agents who witnessed the incident while tailing him are refusing to answer questions.

A court filing obtained by The Associated Press accused the FBI’s top agent in Arizona of personally calling Phoenix Police Chief Daniel V. Garcia and asking him to investigate after FBI agents tailing Horne saw him back into another vehicle and leave. Horne’s lawyer, Michael D. Kimerer, wrote in his court filing that police did so even though it violated their own written policy of not investigating cases involving less than $5,000 in private property damage.

Kimerer wrote that singling out Horne for prosecution violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. The only logical explanation for doing so when others are not investigated or prosecuted for similar crimes is that Horne is an elected official.

Horne is accused in Phoenix city court of not stopping or leaving a note after he backed a borrowed car he was driving into another vehicle. FBI reports released by Phoenix police in October say he left the scene because he was having an affair with a female employee who was in the car and he didn’t want their relationship to be reported.

Horne has declined comment on allegations of an affair and repeatedly said he didn’t know he had caused any damage. He declined comment Wednesday, referring instead to the court filing.

The agents who were following Horne in March 2012 had apparently been doing so during the course of a campaign finance investigation, although agents interviewed by Kimerer refused to say that was the case.

The FBI waited seven months before notifying Phoenix police, until after the Maricopa County attorney’s office filed civil charges in the campaign finance case.

“It just shows animus the way they pursued this,” Kimerer said in an interview. “They were just rabid to get him.”

In the campaign finance case, Horne and employee Kathleen Winn are accused of illegally coordinating with an independent expenditure committee during the 2010 election. Horne is appealing Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery’s findings that Horne illegally coordinated his 2010 campaign with a group that was supposed to be operating independently. The group aired television advertising critical of Horne’s general election opponent.

Montgomery is demanding that Horne’s 2010 campaign and the other group, Business Leaders for Arizona, return up to $513,000 of contributions. There also could be large civil fines.

Because of the alleged coordination, the contributions made to a group headed by a Horne ally who now works in his office actually were contributions that exceeded campaign finance limits on money given to candidates, Montgomery said. Candidates aren’t allowed to discuss strategy or other matters with so-called independent expenditure committees, but there’s evidence that Horne was involved in both raising money and deciding how to spend it on advertising by Business Leaders for Arizona, Montgomery said in October.

Horne, a lawyer who is the top-elected law enforcement official for the state, denied any coordination. He had been considering running for governor but now says he’ll seek re-election in 2014.

Sassing a cop is constitutionally protected free speech!!!

Sassing a cop may be unwise, but it’s constitutionally protected

Talking back to a police officer while you’re under arrest is usually not the smartest move, a bit like tugging on Superman’s cape, or spitting into the wind. But it’s legal, according to a federal appeals court — and if the officer retaliates in some way, like hauling you off to jail instead of giving you a ticket and letting you go, you might be entitled to damages.

“Police officers may not use their authority to punish an individual for exercising his First Amendment rights,” the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 2-1 ruling Feb. 8 that reinstated a lawsuit against the city of Yakima, Wash., and two of its policemen.

Eddie Ford, an African American who grew up in the central Washington community, was driving to his night-shift job at a bottling company in July 2007 when a police car came up from behind and stopped him, apparently for playing his stereo too loud. As Officer Ryan Urlacher approached, Ford got out of the car shouting that the stop was racially motivated. Urlacher told him to get back in the car, then said he would arrest Ford for violating a city noise ordinance, and commented, according to the court, that “he might only get a ticket if he cooperates.”

Ford kept talking for awhile after Urlacher handcuffed him, put him in the patrol car and threatened to jail him unless he shut up. He quieted down, but the officer drove him away and booked him at the suggestion of a superior officer, telling Ford that “your mouth and your attitude talked you into jail.” Urlacher later testified that he jailed Ford because of “his rageful … behavior towards the law enforcement,” which, the officer said, put public safety at risk.

Ford went to trial on the noise-violation charge, was found not guilty, and then sued for damages. A judge dismissed the suit, ruling that Urlacher had acted reasonably and had not punished Ford for freedom of speech, but the appeals court said a jury might conclude otherwise.

The Constitution protects “a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers,” the court said, quoting a 1987 Supreme Court ruling. Even if police had reason to arrest Ford in the first place, they were not entitled to jail him in retaliation for speaking his mind, said the court majority, Judges Procter Hug and Dorothy Nelson.

Dissenting Judge Connie Callahan looked at the case through the other end of the telescope, the viewpoint of the officers. Once someone is under arrest, she said, that person’s free-speech rights are reduced, and police are entitled to jail someone like Ford based on what he says, which might indicate he posed a danger to himself or others. In this case, Callahan said, Urlacher may have simply been trying to give Ford “an opportunity to change his attitude,” and the court oversteps its bounds when it tries to “impose such etiquette upon peace officers.”

Robert Christie, a lawyer for the city and its police, said they agreed with Callahan and were considering whether to ask the full appeals court for a rehearing. Ford’s lawyer, William Pickett, said the court had reaffirmed a basic constitutional principle.

“Citizens have an absolute right to be critical of law enforcement, and they can vocalize that criticism without any fear of being retaliated against,” Pickett said.

The ruling can be viewed here.

Let the police decide which rights we have???

Vanessa Goldberg thinks the police should decide which rights we are allowed to have

And of course the police are the arm of government that tyrants use to force their will on us.

So if we let the "police" pick and choose which "rights" we get to keep, we will soon have no rights.

Source

Listen to police, not NRA

Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:08 PM

Listen to the police on the weapons issue!

Who would know the weapons issue better than the police, who are on the front lines of combating gun-related crimes and dealing with the horrific aftermaths? Should we not therefore listen to what they have to say about the question of gun control?

Should we not be made thoughtful by the fact that the International Association of Chiefs of Police has historically backed gun-control measures?

Their IACP website recently stated: “Our membership was, and remains, a leading proponent of universal background checks for gun purchases, the ban on military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and ensuring that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (and Explosives) has both a permanent director and sufficient resources to enforce our nation’s gun laws.”

I ask my fellow readers: Should we listen to police chiefs or to the NRA?

— Vanessa Goldberg

Scottsdale

Drones will be coming to the "drug war" in Arizona???

Of course later on in the article it says there will be exceptions for cops in the "drug war".

When you consider that two thirds of the people in American prisons are their for victimless drug war crimes, that means the police will be allowed to use drones in two thirds of police work they do which is about drug war crimes.

I am a little bit more negative on this issue, and my question is when will the police begin using drones to murder suspected "drug war" criminals, like the American government uses drones to murder suspected "terrorists" in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries throughout the world.

Source

Arizona seeks to be a key player in drone work

By Alia Beard Rau The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:35 PM

Arizona lawmakers are bidding to make the state a center for aerial-drone research, but they also want to make sure local police don’t use the unmanned surveillance aircraft to spy on Americans.

As the sophisticated eye-in-the-sky technology deployed by the military in the war on terror in Afghanistan and against drug cartels on the Mexican border becomes a Pentagon fixture, state lawmakers have introduced several bills this session to ensure that the state is part of the high-tech revolution, without turning Arizona into a “police state.”

The U.S. military has used drones around the world for more than a decade, patrolling hot spots, gathering evidence and launching airstrikes. The unmanned craft are nothing new to Arizona, either.

The federal government has used them within the state to help fight forest fires and patrol the border. The Fort Huachuca Army base in southern Arizona houses the largest unmanned-aircraft-system training center in the world, according to the Army, employing hundreds of private contractors and civilian instructors and training more than 1,300 students a year.

Arizona-based defense contractors are cashing in on what has become a $4 billion-a-year investment for the military alone, not to mention the growing private and foreign government uses.

And local universities are pushing to develop the necessary workforce. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, the University of Arizona and Arizona State University offer programs related to drones.

Arizona lawmakers are doing their part via legislation to prepare for greater growth.

House Concurrent Resolution 2009, sponsored by Rep. Tom Forese, R-Chandler, reinforces Arizona’s push to be selected by the Federal Aviation Administration as one of six national drone- testing sites.

The National Defense Authorization Act, which President Barack Obama signed in 2011, authorized the establishment of sites where officials could test drones in civil airspace near commercial air traffic. The sites were scheduled to be chosen in December, but the FAA delayed a decision indefinitely, saying it needed to address safety and privacy concerns.

Arizona officials said they are hopeful the state will still be chosen. HCR 2009 has passed the House Public Safety, Military and Regulatory Affairs Committee with unanimous bipartisan support. It now awaits a vote of the full House.

Officials are also preparing for what they fear could be a worst-case scenario in the future of drone technology.

House Bill 2574, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Dial, R-Chandler, makes it illegal for state or local law-enforcement officials to use a drone to collect information unless they have a search warrant.

It also makes it illegal to monitor individuals inside their homes or places of worship. It has exceptions for law-enforcement officials investigating human trafficking or drug smuggling as long as they are doing so on public property or with permission on private property.

Dial said he is working on the bill and expects to make some changes. It has been assigned to the House public-safety committee but is not yet scheduled for a hearing.

Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, also introduced a bill that would forbid the state and local governments from assisting in any way with enforcing portions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that allows the military to detain a U.S. citizen. But Seel said he is putting his support behind Dial’s bill.

The bills come amid controversy surrounding a White House legal argument justifying drone-missile strikes against U.S. citizens who are part of terrorist groups overseas.

“We need to protect something called the Fourth Amendment,” Seel said, adding that he has heard “unverified” reports of drones being used to survey citizens in Arizona. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches.

He said the bills restricting drones are not intended to limit the federal government’s use of drones to protect the border.

Dial said his bill is intended to be pre-emptive.

“What I want to do is protect citizens’ rights,” he said. “We don’t want to live in a police state. We don’t want to have drones everywhere in society.”

Dial also supports the resolution seeking to make Arizona a test site and efforts to promote drone research and business opportunities in the state. “I want the jobs here, and there are definitely uses for drones,” he said. “But I don’t want civil liberties and privacy invaded.”

He said the two bills address separate issues and can work together.

“The problem isn’t technology,” Dial said. “It’s how humans use the technology.”

Assistant House Minority Leader Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, a former Marine who serves on the House public-safety committee, said he wants to see the final details of Dial’s bill but supports the effort in general.

“Technology is always advancing, and we have to put safeguards in place to protect people’s civil liberties while still allowing drones to be used as a law-enforcement tool,” he said. “As long as we can find that balance, I don’t have any problem with the bill.”

Tom Horne continues to self destruct

Of course one group of people the police routinely let violate the law are elected officials, and government employees. Cops are rarely if ever arrested and put on trial for crimes they commit. Source

Posted on February 14, 2013 8:25 am by Laurie Roberts

Tom Horne continues to self destruct

The attorney general of the state of Arizona is asking a judge to dismiss his misdemeanor hit-and-run charge.

Tom Horne says he’s being singled out because the head of the FBI in Arizona actually called the Phoenix police chief and asked him to investigate after his agents saw Horne back into a Land Rover and drive away without even checking for damage. Then, the Phoenix police chief actually agreed to investigate.

Oh, the agony, the utter unfairness of it all.

Horne’s attorney, Mike Kimerer, says police violated their own policy of not investigating such cases when the damage is less than $5,000.

And so it seems Horne’s constitutional rights have been trampled, shredded into bits just like his credibility.

There certainly are questions about why the FBI was following Horne in March 2012, as he and one of his employees at the AGs office were en route for a little lunchtime rendezvous at her apartment. Perhaps Horne will escape a misdemeanor conviction given the oh-so-outrageous conduct of the FBI and police chiefs.

Horne has denied doing anything wrong and pointed out that the damage, if any, was minor.

Perhaps so, as far as the Land Rover goes.

But damage to Horne’s career? That’s significant — and getting worse all the time as the top law enforcement official in the state attempts to wiggle his way out of responsibility for his own actions.

Politics seen in Tom Horne hit and run prosecution

Politics seen in Horne prosecution

By Lindsey Collom The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:03 PM

Lawyers for state Attorney General Tom Horne said they have delayed settling a misdemeanor hit-and-run case against their client in a bid to discover whether there was political motivation behind his prosecution.

Attorney Michael Kimerer told The Arizona Republic on Thursday that he believes Horne was the victim of selective prosecution because he is a politician. Kimerer also said he wants to find out what role the FBI may have played in pursuing a case that he says may violate the U.S. Constitution.

Kimerer said that, although Horne had been willing to settle the case, the lawyer advised the Republican attorney general against it so they could use the legal proceedings for fact-finding purposes.

But Kimerer claims that facts have been few, in part because of federal agents’ refusal to “answer relevant questions posed by defense counsel during discovery interviews.”

For that reason, he filed a motion Wednesday to dismiss the case in Phoenix Municipal Court. In a separate motion for dismissal filed at the same time, Kimerer argued that Horne is the victim of selective prosecution.

“Makes you think there is some type of political motivation to go after Tom Horne. And why do you single him out?” Kimerer said Thursday, adding that both Arizona’s top FBI agent and the Phoenix police chief have refused to discuss the issue with him.

“I doubt if they will give me a clear answer, but I would like to hear one,” Kimerer said.

A city attorney who is prosecuting the case declined to comment Thursday. Horne’s trial date has been set for April 2, although Kimerer said the case will likely be settled before then.

Phoenix police allege that, last March, Horne left the scene of an unreported accident that left paint damage to another vehicle. Two FBI agents witnessed the fender-bender in a parking lot while tailing Horne as part of an investigation into possible campaign-finance violations, for which he is now facing civil charges.

Horne denies any wrongdoing.

Seven months later, the FBI turned the accident information over to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and officials referred the matter to Phoenix.

Police cited Horne in October with one count of leaving the scene of a collision with an unattended vehicle, a Class 3 misdemeanor punishable by fines of up to $500 or 30 days in jail. Horne has pleaded not guilty to the charge in court.

“Tom was ready to accept responsibility for it,” Kimerer said. “If he did damage, he certainly wants to take responsibility for it. Then, we started getting police reports, and there were all sorts of questions.”

Specifically, according to his court filing, Kimerer wanted the FBI agents involved to answer why they had Horne under surveillance and why they didn’t immediately go to police with the hit-and-run allegation.

Agents didn’t disclose what Kimerer wanted, but they did give him ammunition by revealing that the FBI’s senior agent in Arizona contacted Phoenix Police Chief Daniel V. Garcia about the parking-lot incident.

Kimerer alleges that the call was made only after County Attorney Bill Montgomery announced he would not pursue criminal campaign-violation charges against Horne.

By moving forward, Kimerer said, police violated their own written policy of not investigating cases involving less than $5,000 in private-property damage.

Additionally, Kimerer wrote, singling out Horne for prosecution violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, the argument being that Horne was targeted simply because he’s an elected official.

“I’m really using this to get a clarification,” Kimerer said. “Why would they pick him out to prosecute him when they don’t prosecute others under those guidelines?”

Phoenix police Sgt. Trent Crump said Kimerer’s interpretation of department policy is almost right. Crump said officers aren’t dispatched to collisions that involve less than $5,000 in private-property damage, but “if information is presented to us in some fashion, there’s nothing that precludes us from doing something.”

“The policy doesn’t trump state law,” Crump said. “It’s a guideline for responses by the Police Department.”

Legal Loophole Could Hold Up $1M Christopher Dorner Reward

Legal Loophole Could Hold Up $1M Dorner Reward

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN | ABC News

A legal loophole could prevent good Samaritans, instrumental in ending the manhunt for a fugitive ex-cop accused of killing four people, from claiming more than $1 million in reward money because Christopher Dorner died and was not captured.

Last weekend, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa pledged $1 million, sourced from private individuals, companies and unions, "for information that will lead to Mr. Dorner's capture."

The L.A. City Council followed up with its own promise of a $100,000 reward, for information "leading to the identification, apprehension and conviction of Christopher Dorner."

But Dorner, accused of killing four people and threatening the lives of several dozen more, was never captured, apprehended or convicted. Instead, he died following a standoff with police near Big Bear, Calif., when the cabin in which he was barricaded burned down with him inside.

The mayor's office has not yet determined if the reward could still be paid out given Dorner died.

"At this time, no decision has been made on the reward," Villaraigosa's spokesman Peter Sanders told ABC News.com in an email.

So far, none of the privately sourced "funds have been deposited into the City's 'Special Reward Trust Fund,'" according to the Frank T. Mateljan, spokesman for the city attorney.

That still leaves an additional $100,000 that the city council could pay with municipal money, but there legal questions there, as well.

"The reward is definitely still on the table," said Jessica Tarman, spokeswoman for Councilman Daniel Zine.

But there are still plenty of questions.

The council ultimately decides how and to whom the reward will get paid. If its members are feeling generous, they could interpret the language of the original offer to make sure a worthy recipient gets paid.

"Arguably, city law is broad enough to allow payment to persons who assisted in the "identification, apprehension OR arrest and conviction" of a suspect," Metaljan said in an email [emphasis his].

If the city decides to honor the reward, there are still multiple steps before a claimant can be paid.

Anyone who thinks they are worthy must apply in writing. That claim would then be reviewed by the LAPD robbery and homicide division, and a recommendation would be made to the police commissioner. The commissioner would tell the council to consider the claim, and the council would vote on it.

So far, no one has come forward to ask for the reward. More than 1,000 leads were called to a city hotline

One couple seems most deserving, if they decide to seek the reward. Jim and Karen Reynolds, a couple in whose Big Bear, Calif., home Dorner is believed to have hidden for days, called in the tip Tuesday that ultimately put police on the trail to Dorner's final location.

On Tuesday, the couple found Dorner at their home. He briefly held them captive, but they managed to escape and call in their tip.

Montgomery: No politics behind Horne decision

Montgomery: No politics behind Horne decision

By Lindsey Collom The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:10 PM

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery denies there was any political motivation behind his decision to refer a misdemeanor hit-and-run case against state Attorney General Tom Horne to the Phoenix Police Department.

Montgomery’s office issued a statement Friday that rejected any such claims after Horne’s attorney told The Arizona Republic Thursday that the Republican attorney general was the victim of selective prosecution because he is a politician.

“There was no political motivation to either refer the case to the City of Phoenix or to give the Phoenix Police Department courtesy notification that the case would be coming to them,” Montgomery said. “Likewise, the courtesy notification to the City of Phoenix prosecutor’s office was not politically motivated.

“In the course of reviewing cases and making charging decisions, these types of referrals and notifications are a regular course of business.”

Phoenix police allege that last March, Horne left the scene of an unreported accident that caused paint damage to another vehicle. Two FBI agents witnessed the fender-bender in a parking lot while tailing Horne as part of an investigation into possible campaign-finance violations, for which he is now facing civil penalties.

Horne denies any wrongdoing.

The FBI turned the accident information over to Montgomery’s office, and he referred the matter to Phoenix. In his statement Friday, Montgomery, a Republican, said it was appropriate for him to refer the misdemeanor incident only after he decided he wouldn’t pursue felony charges against Horne in the campaign-finance case.

Police cited Horne in October with one count of leaving the scene of a collision with an unattended vehicle, a Class 3 misdemeanor punishable by fines of up to $500 or 30 days in jail. Horne has pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Horne’s attorney, Michael Kimerer, filed two motions Wednesday to dismiss the case in Phoenix Municipal Court. Kimerer argued that the FBI agents who witnessed the fender-bender have not been cooperative in interviews and that Horne is the victim of selective prosecution.

By moving forward with the misdemeanor case, Kimerer wrote in the court filings, police violated their own written policy of not investigating cases involving less than $5,000 in private-property damage. A Phoenix police spokesman has said the policy dictates when to dispatch an officer and would not prevent the department from opening a case.

Additionally, Kimerer wrote, singling out Horne for prosecution violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause, the argument being that Horne was targeted simply because he’s an elected official.

“I’m really using this to get a clarification,” Kimerer said. “Why would they pick him out to prosecute him when they don’t prosecute others under those guidelines?”

Kimerer did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment Friday.

Mandatory Gun Insurance??? A round about way to disarm Americans???

I suspect this so called "mandatory gun insurance" is designed to do the same thing.

Requiring people who own guns to purchase insurance which will be made unaffordable to prevent people from legally buying and owning guns by making the insurance too expensive.

And of course after the government passes a law requiring mandatory gun insurance, the next step would be to pass laws that make it impossible for insurance companies to sell the mandatory gun insurance, effectively making guns illegal.

This isn't a new trick by our government rulers. They did the same thing when they made drugs illegal.

The "1914 Harrison Narcotic Tax Act" and the "1937 Marihuana Tax Act" effectively made drugs illegal by slapping a tax on them, while at the same time the government stopped issuing the tax licenses.

Source

Latest Front in the Gun Debate Is Mandatory Insurance

By MICHAEL COOPER and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

Published: February 21, 2013 609 Comments

In a nation sharply divided over efforts to curb violence and the right to bear arms, both sides of the gun debate seem to agree on at least one thing: a bigger role for the insurance industry in a heavily armed society.

David P. Linsky is a Democratic state representative in Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance.

But just what that role should be, and whether insurers will choose to accept it, are very much in dispute.

Lawmakers in at least half a dozen states, including California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, have proposed legislation this year that would require gun owners to buy liability insurance — much as car owners are required to buy auto insurance. Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope, as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for lower rates.

“I believe that if we get the private sector and insurance companies involved in gun safety, we can help prevent a number of gun tragedies every year,” said David P. Linsky, a Democratic state representative in Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance. He believes it will encourage more responsible behavior and therefore reduce accidental shootings. “Insurance companies are very good at evaluating risk factors and setting their premiums appropriately,” he added.

Groups representing gun owners oppose efforts to make insurance mandatory, arguing that law-abiding people should not be forced to buy insurance to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. But some groups, including the National Rifle Association, endorse voluntary liability policies for their members. And as several states pass laws making it easier for people to carry concealed weapons and use them for self-defense, some gun groups are now selling policies to cover some of the legal costs stemming from self-defense shootings.

The United States Concealed Carry Association recently began selling what it calls Self-Defense Shield. “If you’re forced to justifiably use your gun in self-defense,” its Web site says, “Self-Defense Shield will help pay for your expert pro-2nd Amendment lawyer by reimbursing your legal-defense expenses following your acquittal — an ingenious system critical to the arsenal of any responsibly armed citizen.”

Premiums for such insurance range from around $200 to $300 per year; in general, the coverage is narrowly written and excludes cases where a gun is used to commit a crime.

Some specialized underwriters are reviewing what their policies cover when it comes to shootings, and weighing whether they should offer new types of coverage for gun owners. And as more states pass laws allowing people to bring guns to public venues — including restaurants, bars, churches and the parking lots of their workplaces — some business groups have expressed concerns that they could be held liable for shootings on their properties, which could drive up their insurance costs.

On Thursday, when Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut outlined his proposals to reduce gun violence — which included universal background checks, a ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines and a stronger assault weapons ban — he called for officials to study “whether owners of firearms should be required to carry additional insurance.”

The insurance industry is wary of some of the proposals to require gun owners to buy liability coverage — and particularly of bills, like one that was filed in New York that would require coverage for damages resulting not only from negligence but also from “willful acts.”

Robert P. Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute, said that insurance generally covered accidents and unintentional acts — not intentional or illegal ones. “Insurance will cover you if your home burns down in an electrical fire, but it will not cover you if you burn down your own house, and you cannot insure yourself for arson,” he said.

Some claims stemming from shootings have been covered by homeowners’ insurance — even by policies that said they did not cover illegal acts.

The families of the two students responsible for the 1999 killings at Columbine High School in Colorado were able to use money from their homeowners’ policies to settle a lawsuit brought by families of most of the victims. In 2001, a California court ordered an insurance company to defend a policyholder whose 16-year-old son shot and killed a friend with a Beretta handgun that he had found in his mother’s coat. But the year before, a North Carolina court ruled that an insurance company did not have to cover the expenses of a policyholder who had shot and wounded a prowler on his property.

Christopher J. Monge, an insurance agent and gun owner in Verona, Wis., recently wrote a book, “The Gun Owner’s Guide to Insurance for Concealed Carry and Self-Defense,” which he sells at gun shows. Mr. Monge said that the problem with most liability insurance is that it promises coverage only in cases of a gun owner’s negligence, or an accidental shooting — and not if the gun owner shoots someone intentionally in self-defense. “A negligent act is covered by your liability policy, but if you intentionally shoot somebody, it could be excluded,” he said.

So as more states pass self-defense laws, Mr. Monge said that he found several insurance companies that would specifically offer liability coverage in cases of self-defense, usually in the form of an “umbrella” policy that added a higher level of coverage than the routine coverage for negligence in a homeowners’ policy. An umbrella policy adds coverage for unusual, but potentially expensive, incidents.

But he opposes proposals to make liability insurance mandatory. “They’re barking up the wrong tree, if you ask me,” he said. “Ninety-nine percent of gun owners are going to be safe and not go crazy.”

States have been considering mandatory gun insurance bills for years, but no state has passed one yet, said Jon Griffin, a policy associate at the National Conference of State Legislatures. When Illinois considered a bill in 2009, the National Rifle Association wrote that it would “put firearms ownership out of reach for many law-abiding Illinoisans.” The N.R.A. endorses a policy that offers excess liability coverage — “because accidents do happen no matter how careful you are” — and another that offers “self-defense insurance.”

The recent trend of allowing guns in more public places has alarmed some business groups. When Ohio enacted a law allowing guns in bars in 2011, the Ohio Restaurant Association opposed it, writing officials that restaurant owners “expect that this law would be perceived by insurance companies as increasing the risk of injury in establishments that sell alcohol, which of course would result in increased liability insurance costs.” Owners have not reported higher premiums because of the new law, said a spokesman for the association, Jarrod A. Clabaugh, but some worry that a shooting could drive up their insurance costs.

The current debate over mandatory liability laws is being watched with interest by Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University School of Law. Professor Lund proposed the idea of mandatory insurance in a 1987 article in the Alabama Law Review, seeing it as a form of gun control that could be consistent with the constitutional right to bear arms. But he said that he had not studied any of the current proposals, and noted that it made a great deal of difference how they are written.

“If this were done, the private insurance market would quickly and efficiently make it prohibitively expensive for people with a record of irresponsible ownership of guns to possess them legally,” he wrote in the 1987 article, “but would not impose unreasonable burdens on those who have the self-discipline to exercise their liberty in a responsible fashion.”

More articles on Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne

More articles on Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne.