The New South Wales Police Commissioner has revealed a bold plan to include the names of police officers who have taken their own lives on the National Police Memorial in Canberra
By Lorna Knowles
ABC News Australia
November 1, 2016
In an exclusive interview with the ABC, Andrew Scipione said he had put the proposal to a meeting of state and territory police commissioners in Melbourne last week.
Mr Scipione said regardless of whether he gets an agreement, he will "go it alone" and include the names on the NSW Wall of Remembrance at The Domain in Sydney.
But he said he was confident the commissioners would reach an agreement.
Each year, the names of police officers who died while performing their duties are etched in police memorial walls across the country. But the current criteria excludes cases of suicide.
Families of police officers who have taken their lives after being psychologically injured on the job have long campaigned for change.
They point out the Australian Defence Force's policy of honouring soldiers on the Australian War Memorial, that "does not exclude psychological injury".
Janet Hill, who lost her son, Constable Morgan Hill, to suicide in 2009, applauded Mr Scipione for showing leadership on the contentious issue.
Constable Hill developed severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder after witnessing a series of traumatic incidents on the job. The 26-year-old took his life in 2009.
"Being honoured for being a police officer is not about how you died, what it should be about is how you lived," Mrs Hill said.
Mr Scipione told the ABC it was important to recognise police officers who had died as a result of mental harm they had suffered in the course of their duties.
"My view is that the work we require our officers to do now — and certainly it's becoming more and more intense — causes them to be injured," he said.
"Whether it's injured from jumping a fence, being involved in a motor vehicle accident, being confronted at a crime scene, unfortunately we have had too many officers that have lost their lives.
"The fact is you can be just as damaged psychologically as you can be physically. And so it's only appropriate that we recognise that the type of work that we're requiring our officers to do in support of their communities will cause them from time to time — not all, but some — from being psychologically damaged. And we need to respect that."
Mr Scipione said while the criteria for inclusion on the Police Memorial Wall was part of an inter-governmental agreement, he would introduce the change in NSW, irrespective of whether he could get agreement from other police commissioners.
"Whilst we are part of the national arrangements, I've indicated to my colleagues, the commissioners around the nation, that I intend NSW to — if you like — go it alone," he said.
"We are going to start recognising officers that have suicided, lost their lives, we will be recognising them."
Mr Scipione said, however, that he was confident his interstate counterparts would reach an agreement.
"There is general agreement across the nation that there needs to be a fresh look at this. So I look forward to that discussion continuing," he said.
Mrs Hill, who has been campaigning for "One Wall for All" since 2009, said she had not expected to see this change in her lifetime.
"It's extraordinarily good news and it's quite overwhelming. It goes a long way towards helping many other families in similar situations," Mrs Hill said.
"There are many, many serving officers and retired officers who suffer PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) and various forms of psychological injury and they will be heartened by seeing their colleagues honoured for the service that they gave, not for the way that they died".
'We need to front up to it'
Mr Scipione acknowledged that post traumatic stress disorder was a big problem for police services across the nation.
"It's real, it exists, we need to front up to it," he said.
"We need to make sure we have the resources around those that are suffering from it. Because this is about giving them a road to recovery. This is about having people that are well get well.
"I think it's critical for an organisation like mine that we continue to endeavour to do better."
Mr Scipione said he was keen to break down the stigma attached to mental illness and encouraged any police officer suffering from the symptoms of PTSD to come forward and seek help.
"My heart goes out to those that are suffering. There but for the grace of God goes all of us, because that's the type of work we are involved in.
"So my word of encouragement would be: 'You matter. You count. We care and we want you to come forward and tell us. Do as soon as you possibly can because we want to get you better'."
EDITOR’S NOTE: Great idea!
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
SAN FRANCISCO PD CLEARS RATHER NASTY HOMICIDE
By Bob Walsh
It happened almost tow years ago. Tai Lynn, 67, was homeless and had mental health issues. He was sleeping in a doorway on Sutter Street in the financial district when three men came up and began to stomp him to death. There was pretty decent surveillance footage of the attack but the local constabulary were unable to identify the bad guys. Eventually they released some of the footage in hopes that someone would be able to put a name to these vicious thugs.
As sometimes happen a DNA hit finally got the ball rolling. One of the two suspects currently in custody, Joseph Stull, 21, was arrested in Washington on a stolen car beef. At that time his DNA profile went into the system. For reasons unknown he did not remain in custody in Washington but the information eventually caught up and when Stull was again arrested in Kootenai County, Idaho the SFPD flew two officers there to interview him. He gave considerable detail on the crime and admitted his involvement. From that point the cops were able to identify Stockton, CA. resident David Peters as another of the perps and arrested his happy ass.
With any sort of luck these two quasi-humans will be in custody a very long time. Maybe the third man will also be identified and imprisoned as well.
It happened almost tow years ago. Tai Lynn, 67, was homeless and had mental health issues. He was sleeping in a doorway on Sutter Street in the financial district when three men came up and began to stomp him to death. There was pretty decent surveillance footage of the attack but the local constabulary were unable to identify the bad guys. Eventually they released some of the footage in hopes that someone would be able to put a name to these vicious thugs.
As sometimes happen a DNA hit finally got the ball rolling. One of the two suspects currently in custody, Joseph Stull, 21, was arrested in Washington on a stolen car beef. At that time his DNA profile went into the system. For reasons unknown he did not remain in custody in Washington but the information eventually caught up and when Stull was again arrested in Kootenai County, Idaho the SFPD flew two officers there to interview him. He gave considerable detail on the crime and admitted his involvement. From that point the cops were able to identify Stockton, CA. resident David Peters as another of the perps and arrested his happy ass.
With any sort of luck these two quasi-humans will be in custody a very long time. Maybe the third man will also be identified and imprisoned as well.
SOME PEOPLE DON’T HANDLE REJECTION WELL
By Bob Walsh
Last week Jason Eaton went to the home of his girlfriend in Indiana. It was his intent to propose marriage. She turned him down before he could even get the words out. He then pulled a gun from the nightstand and shot her in the head, killing her.
When he left the house he went to the home of another, unidentified woman. He told the woman that he had "messed up" and probably killed his girlfriend. The two of them went to the Greensburg PD and he advised the cops of the situation. They sent officers to the home where they found the dead woman, Wendy Sabatini, 44, and her son, who was unaware that his mother's dead body was upstairs in her bedroom. The recently fired handgun was also found.
According to the son Sabatini was divorced and uninterested in remarriage.
Last week Jason Eaton went to the home of his girlfriend in Indiana. It was his intent to propose marriage. She turned him down before he could even get the words out. He then pulled a gun from the nightstand and shot her in the head, killing her.
When he left the house he went to the home of another, unidentified woman. He told the woman that he had "messed up" and probably killed his girlfriend. The two of them went to the Greensburg PD and he advised the cops of the situation. They sent officers to the home where they found the dead woman, Wendy Sabatini, 44, and her son, who was unaware that his mother's dead body was upstairs in her bedroom. The recently fired handgun was also found.
According to the son Sabatini was divorced and uninterested in remarriage.
CHICAGO’S MURDER RATE HITS GRIM MILESTONE
After an especially deadly weekend, Chicago exceeded 600 murders so far this year, a level unseen in more than a decade
Blame it on the Ferguson Effect. Police administrators say that cops have backed off from doing their jobs while academics say blacks have backed off from helping the police
By Shibani Mahtani
The Wall Street Journal
October 31, 2016
CHICAGO—After an especially deadly weekend, Chicago’s spiraling violence passed a grim
new milestone: more than 600 murders so far this year, up 45% from the same period last year
and a level that hasn’t been seen in more than a decade.
Eighteen people were murdered from Friday through Sunday, bringing total homicides this year
to 614, according to the official police tally. The last time annual murders topped 600 was in
2003.
The murders have far outstripped the totals in some other large cities this year, with more
homicides than in New York and Los Angeles combined despite Chicago’s much smaller
population. Along with cities such as Baltimore and Houston, Chicago is driving a surge in the
national murder rate, which is projected to rise 31.5% this year from 2014.
While both 2003 and this year were chaotic and trying for many in the Chicago neighborhoods
affected, community involvement in 2003 was relatively strong, helping police solve 51% of the
murders that year.
Tale of Two Cities
Chicago has experienced more than 600 murders so far this year, a tally that hasn't
been seen since 2003. While murders remain concentrated in the South and West
Sides, the number of cases solved in the same year has tumbled to 21% from 51% in
2003.
This year’s murder spree seems relatively random by contrast. With little help from the
community to explain why most of these people were killed only 21% of the murders have been
solved so far.
City leaders are scrambling to grapple with the problem. Mayor Rahm Emanuel acknowledged in
a September speech that the “hopeful trend” of declining violent crime since the 1990s when
more than 900 people were murdered annually “has been reversed.”
Chicago is hiring almost a thousand new officers in coming months. There are fewer officers in
the city today than in 2003, about 12,500 vs. more than 13,500 then.
Police officials and those who study policing cite a change in gang structure and a breakdown of
trust between police and the community as major factors in fueling violence and harming the
department’s ability to rein it in.
While Chicago’s gangs were once highly organized and structured around drug sales, a major
crackdown on the drug trade has left them fragmented, with more than 600 gangs and more than
100,000 members, authorities say.
“What is random now is the intent” of murders, said a Chicago police sergeant who spent almost
a decade at the detectives division in the 2000s, and whose name was withheld at the
department’s request. “You used to be able to root it in ongoing gang wars…[now] it is hard to
pinpoint what it is that is making them continue this forever war,” he said.
Criminologists say another factor may be the so-called Ferguson effect. After Michael Brown
was killed in a confrontation with a policeman in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014, sparking days of protests and accusations of police brutality, some officers began to hesitate in doing their jobs
leading to a jump in crime, some law-enforcement officials believe.
But increasingly, academics note another dimension of the Ferguson effect: a pullback by the
African-American community from helping police in the wake of other highly publicized cases
of police shootings of black residents. The Justice Department is undertaking a broad
investigation of Chicago’s department over the death two years ago of Laquan McDonald, a
black 17-year-old shot 16 times by a white officer.
“Chicago is facing something like a perfect storm—the police have withdrawn from
communities, and those communities have withdrawn even further from police,” saidRichard
Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri at St. Louis.
If communities don’t feel they can trust police, they are more likely to “take dispute settlement
into their own hands,” snowballing the violence, he said.
Detectives try to solve a homicide by canvassing neighborhoods, relying on the community,
witnesses or even a gunshot victim to help them pinpoint why the crime happened.
Research published last month drew a link between acts of police violence and a drop in
community involvement with law enforcement. The study, focused on Milwaukee, found that
911 calls to police dropped 17% after residents in 2005 learned that a biracial man had been
beaten at a party by off-duty white police officers.
“People experience very traumatic events [at the hands of police], and people aren’t calling the
police,” said Andrew Papachristos, a sociologist at Yale who co-wrote the Milwaukee research.
“These things are related.”
Chicago police acknowledge a lack of trust between officers and the African-American
community, noting that the department is undergoing reforms to restore public trust including
changes to their use of force policy and increased transparency for police officer-involved
shootings.
“There is no sense of participation, no sense of community now,” said Dean Angelo Sr., a white
officer who is president of the city’s largest police union. He believes that community-police
relations are at a low point in his four decade career.
“Police used to walk the street, they knew us. I used to tell my kids, policemen are your friends,”
said Dorothy Coleman, a 78-year-old who lives in the predominantly African-American West
Side, the location of many of the murders. “Now, when young people see a police car, they break
and run.”
In 2003, police would deploy a large number of officers after a shooting and use now-
controversial techniques like stop-and-frisk and safety-belt checks to look for lawbreakers in the
most violent neighborhoods.
“There was a lot of community support for what looked to residents like effective policing,” said
Matt Crowl, who served as deputy chief of staff for public safety from 2003 to 2006, in which he
helped craft policies to reduce homicides. “Some of those tactics will not be as welcome today.”
In an agreement the city reached earlier this year with the American Civil Liberties Union,
officers must fill out a contact card whenever they stop someone. Since then, the number of
police stops in Chicago has gone down by 70%, compared with the year before.
Frank Giancamilli, a police spokesman, said detectives—whose ranks have fallen by about 30%
in the past 10 years, according to the city’s largest police union—will get new resources and a
new plan to focus on violent crimes.
Detectives are working with community-based organizations to better understand dynamics in
specific neighborhoods and using tools such as portable gunshot residue testing kits to help solve
crimes in real time.
“The level of violence in some neighborhoods on Chicago’s South and West Sides is absolutely
unacceptable and detectives work tirelessly to pursue leads and bring some level of closure to
families affected by gun violence,” Mr. Giancamilli said
Blame it on the Ferguson Effect. Police administrators say that cops have backed off from doing their jobs while academics say blacks have backed off from helping the police
By Shibani Mahtani
The Wall Street Journal
October 31, 2016
CHICAGO—After an especially deadly weekend, Chicago’s spiraling violence passed a grim
new milestone: more than 600 murders so far this year, up 45% from the same period last year
and a level that hasn’t been seen in more than a decade.
Eighteen people were murdered from Friday through Sunday, bringing total homicides this year
to 614, according to the official police tally. The last time annual murders topped 600 was in
2003.
The murders have far outstripped the totals in some other large cities this year, with more
homicides than in New York and Los Angeles combined despite Chicago’s much smaller
population. Along with cities such as Baltimore and Houston, Chicago is driving a surge in the
national murder rate, which is projected to rise 31.5% this year from 2014.
While both 2003 and this year were chaotic and trying for many in the Chicago neighborhoods
affected, community involvement in 2003 was relatively strong, helping police solve 51% of the
murders that year.
Tale of Two Cities
Chicago has experienced more than 600 murders so far this year, a tally that hasn't
been seen since 2003. While murders remain concentrated in the South and West
Sides, the number of cases solved in the same year has tumbled to 21% from 51% in
2003.
This year’s murder spree seems relatively random by contrast. With little help from the
community to explain why most of these people were killed only 21% of the murders have been
solved so far.
City leaders are scrambling to grapple with the problem. Mayor Rahm Emanuel acknowledged in
a September speech that the “hopeful trend” of declining violent crime since the 1990s when
more than 900 people were murdered annually “has been reversed.”
Chicago is hiring almost a thousand new officers in coming months. There are fewer officers in
the city today than in 2003, about 12,500 vs. more than 13,500 then.
Police officials and those who study policing cite a change in gang structure and a breakdown of
trust between police and the community as major factors in fueling violence and harming the
department’s ability to rein it in.
While Chicago’s gangs were once highly organized and structured around drug sales, a major
crackdown on the drug trade has left them fragmented, with more than 600 gangs and more than
100,000 members, authorities say.
“What is random now is the intent” of murders, said a Chicago police sergeant who spent almost
a decade at the detectives division in the 2000s, and whose name was withheld at the
department’s request. “You used to be able to root it in ongoing gang wars…[now] it is hard to
pinpoint what it is that is making them continue this forever war,” he said.
Criminologists say another factor may be the so-called Ferguson effect. After Michael Brown
was killed in a confrontation with a policeman in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014, sparking days of protests and accusations of police brutality, some officers began to hesitate in doing their jobs
leading to a jump in crime, some law-enforcement officials believe.
But increasingly, academics note another dimension of the Ferguson effect: a pullback by the
African-American community from helping police in the wake of other highly publicized cases
of police shootings of black residents. The Justice Department is undertaking a broad
investigation of Chicago’s department over the death two years ago of Laquan McDonald, a
black 17-year-old shot 16 times by a white officer.
“Chicago is facing something like a perfect storm—the police have withdrawn from
communities, and those communities have withdrawn even further from police,” saidRichard
Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri at St. Louis.
If communities don’t feel they can trust police, they are more likely to “take dispute settlement
into their own hands,” snowballing the violence, he said.
Detectives try to solve a homicide by canvassing neighborhoods, relying on the community,
witnesses or even a gunshot victim to help them pinpoint why the crime happened.
Research published last month drew a link between acts of police violence and a drop in
community involvement with law enforcement. The study, focused on Milwaukee, found that
911 calls to police dropped 17% after residents in 2005 learned that a biracial man had been
beaten at a party by off-duty white police officers.
“People experience very traumatic events [at the hands of police], and people aren’t calling the
police,” said Andrew Papachristos, a sociologist at Yale who co-wrote the Milwaukee research.
“These things are related.”
Chicago police acknowledge a lack of trust between officers and the African-American
community, noting that the department is undergoing reforms to restore public trust including
changes to their use of force policy and increased transparency for police officer-involved
shootings.
“There is no sense of participation, no sense of community now,” said Dean Angelo Sr., a white
officer who is president of the city’s largest police union. He believes that community-police
relations are at a low point in his four decade career.
“Police used to walk the street, they knew us. I used to tell my kids, policemen are your friends,”
said Dorothy Coleman, a 78-year-old who lives in the predominantly African-American West
Side, the location of many of the murders. “Now, when young people see a police car, they break
and run.”
In 2003, police would deploy a large number of officers after a shooting and use now-
controversial techniques like stop-and-frisk and safety-belt checks to look for lawbreakers in the
most violent neighborhoods.
“There was a lot of community support for what looked to residents like effective policing,” said
Matt Crowl, who served as deputy chief of staff for public safety from 2003 to 2006, in which he
helped craft policies to reduce homicides. “Some of those tactics will not be as welcome today.”
In an agreement the city reached earlier this year with the American Civil Liberties Union,
officers must fill out a contact card whenever they stop someone. Since then, the number of
police stops in Chicago has gone down by 70%, compared with the year before.
Frank Giancamilli, a police spokesman, said detectives—whose ranks have fallen by about 30%
in the past 10 years, according to the city’s largest police union—will get new resources and a
new plan to focus on violent crimes.
Detectives are working with community-based organizations to better understand dynamics in
specific neighborhoods and using tools such as portable gunshot residue testing kits to help solve
crimes in real time.
“The level of violence in some neighborhoods on Chicago’s South and West Sides is absolutely
unacceptable and detectives work tirelessly to pursue leads and bring some level of closure to
families affected by gun violence,” Mr. Giancamilli said
CHICAGO STRUGGLES TO SOLVE MURDERS
As the number of killings in the city has risen dramatically, police struggle to solve the crimes as few witnesses come forward
By Shibani Mahtani
The Wall Street Journal
October 31, 2016
CHICAGO—Michael Lucas, a 61-year-old retired welder, was on his sister’s porch when two
masked assailants shoved his 3-year-old grandnephew out of the way, fired a hail of bullets and
fled.
Brian Yarbrough, 19 years old, was killed in a gunfight with a rival gang member.
The two murders—13 years and a few blocks apart on the two deadliest days in 2016 and 2003
—offer a window into the changing nature of Chicago’s violent crime and the decline in the
ability to solve it, as the city grapples with a dramatic rise in the number of murders here.
Mr. Lucas was among nine people killed Aug. 8 this year. After nearly three months, police have
been stymied in solving all nine murders that day. Not one arrest has been made, nor one suspect
brought in for questioning.
Most of the victims, including 22-year-old Ireal Mitchell and Anthony Hatchett, 44, were
standing on street corners when assailants quickly appeared, fired bullets and fled in cars,
according to police reports.
Thirteen years earlier, on a tree-lined street of small, single-family homes a few blocks from
where Mr. Lucas was killed, Mr. Yarbrough became one of 10 people killed in a single day over
the Fourth of July weekend.
After the gunfight, Mr. Yarbrough was dragged outside with eight gunshot wounds and left to
bleed to death.
Multiple witnesses to his murder came forward offering information to detectives. One even
captured the shooting on a cellphone camera and handed it over to police, according to a family
member.
Jerry Dean, then 31, who was also hit multiple times in the shootout, was arrested for the murder
just days after but argued self-defense and wasn’t charged.
Including Mr. Dean, police arrested suspects in seven of the 10 murders on July 5, 2003—
including a husband who confessed to stabbing his wife, two brothers who robbed a taxi driver
and shot her to death and a teenager who stabbed her ex-boyfriend in self-defense—police
records show.
Suspects in four of the cases were apprehended on the day of the murder itself.
By contrast, case reports from this year show that police have scant information on most of the
offenders and little knowledge of how the murders came to be.
The first to witness Mr. Lucas’s murder was his grandnephew, C.J., who ran into the house
screaming “Uncle Mike is in the blood—the firecrackers got him.”
“The individuals we are dealing with today are heartless people; they don’t care about the age of
their victim, the gender, nor the place they are shooting at,” said Richard Wooten, a former police officer who patrolled the South Side neighborhood where Mr. Lucas and Mr. Yarbrough were killed
By Shibani Mahtani
The Wall Street Journal
October 31, 2016
CHICAGO—Michael Lucas, a 61-year-old retired welder, was on his sister’s porch when two
masked assailants shoved his 3-year-old grandnephew out of the way, fired a hail of bullets and
fled.
Brian Yarbrough, 19 years old, was killed in a gunfight with a rival gang member.
The two murders—13 years and a few blocks apart on the two deadliest days in 2016 and 2003
—offer a window into the changing nature of Chicago’s violent crime and the decline in the
ability to solve it, as the city grapples with a dramatic rise in the number of murders here.
Mr. Lucas was among nine people killed Aug. 8 this year. After nearly three months, police have
been stymied in solving all nine murders that day. Not one arrest has been made, nor one suspect
brought in for questioning.
Most of the victims, including 22-year-old Ireal Mitchell and Anthony Hatchett, 44, were
standing on street corners when assailants quickly appeared, fired bullets and fled in cars,
according to police reports.
Thirteen years earlier, on a tree-lined street of small, single-family homes a few blocks from
where Mr. Lucas was killed, Mr. Yarbrough became one of 10 people killed in a single day over
the Fourth of July weekend.
After the gunfight, Mr. Yarbrough was dragged outside with eight gunshot wounds and left to
bleed to death.
Multiple witnesses to his murder came forward offering information to detectives. One even
captured the shooting on a cellphone camera and handed it over to police, according to a family
member.
Jerry Dean, then 31, who was also hit multiple times in the shootout, was arrested for the murder
just days after but argued self-defense and wasn’t charged.
Including Mr. Dean, police arrested suspects in seven of the 10 murders on July 5, 2003—
including a husband who confessed to stabbing his wife, two brothers who robbed a taxi driver
and shot her to death and a teenager who stabbed her ex-boyfriend in self-defense—police
records show.
Suspects in four of the cases were apprehended on the day of the murder itself.
By contrast, case reports from this year show that police have scant information on most of the
offenders and little knowledge of how the murders came to be.
The first to witness Mr. Lucas’s murder was his grandnephew, C.J., who ran into the house
screaming “Uncle Mike is in the blood—the firecrackers got him.”
“The individuals we are dealing with today are heartless people; they don’t care about the age of
their victim, the gender, nor the place they are shooting at,” said Richard Wooten, a former police officer who patrolled the South Side neighborhood where Mr. Lucas and Mr. Yarbrough were killed
PROP 57: NOT JUST A ‘JUVENILE’ INITIATIVE
By Caroline Aguirre and Katherine Russ
City Watch
October 31, 2016
TRUTH & CONSEQUENCES-When touting the merits of The Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (also known as Proposition 57,) the 2016 California voters guide addresses the question surrounding juvenile arrests for violent or serious criminal offenses to be charged as adults. Those convicted could spend years incarcerated in California State prisons. Prop 57 strips away the power of prosecutors to try juveniles as adults, overturning Proposition 21 which was approved by 62% of the voters in 2000. Prop 21 gave prosecutors, instead of judges, the right to decide whether juveniles should be charged as adults.
A prosecutor could file directly against a juvenile in adult court under W&I 707(d), but could also file a “fitness hearing” in Juvenile Hall. Under W&I 707(c), a juvenile is presumed to be unfit for juvenile court.
Prop. 57 will also strip judges of the power to set sentencing guidelines, transferring that power to Governor Brown's appointed members of the Board of Parole Hearings instead.
Prop. 57 overturns key provisions not only in Marsy's Law, a Constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008, but also the “Three Strikes Law” (Prop. 35), The Human Trafficking law (Prop. 35), The Street Terrorism and Prevention Act (Penal Code Section 186.22) and The Victim’s Bill of Rights (Prop. 8.)
If the court order does not have the enhancement under PC 667.5 of the California Penal code, then a current incarcerated criminal can be released early from state prison. Prop 57 allows the worst “career criminals” to be treated equal to first‐time offenders, prohibiting strong sentences that judges could impose.
The Voter Guide also hides the fact that Proposition 57 seeks to set new guidelines to allow both appointed Board members and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff to enhance “good time” credit for current incarcerated adult inmates convicted of very violent and serious criminal offenses and also grants early release from state prison. Presumably, these credits will apply if they attend educational or work/vocational programs -- even if there is no availability for those programs in a particular prison.
Prop. 57 is a Constitutional Amendment that affords new rights and privileges for even the most dangerous criminals. If passed, it cannot be overturned by the Legislature.
The devastating effects of AB 109 and Prop. 47 have threatened the safety of all communities and claimed the lives of many innocent victims. Adding the negative impacts of Prop. 57 into the mix would ultimately weaken all of California’s anti-crime laws.
Did you know that violent crimes across the State have escalated over 10% last year? In Los Angeles, crime statistics point to a 20% rise in violent crime last year. Those charged with enforcing the laws of the State know this only too well.
Each side claims the other side is lying. Supporters insist Prop. 57 will help fix the broken system that would rehabilitate prisoners and reduce the recidivism rate. They want inmates to have the “tools” to “stop the revolving door to prison.”
Gov Brown and his band of followers insist that, “To be granted parole, all inmates, current and future, must demonstrate that they are rehabilitated and do not pose a danger to the public.” But ask yourself, how can anyone “prove” they’ve been rehabilitated during a hearing? Does a simple promise to not harm another guarantee public safety at that inmate’s hands? What happens to all that “rehabilitation” when an inmate is released from prison and cannot assimilate back into society or cannot find a job to support him or herself?
The California District Attorney’s Association (CDAA) wrote an analysis of the Governor’s Initiative (Prop. 57) in February 2016.
They note, “The term ‘non-violent felony offense’ is not defined in the initiative, or elsewhere in California law. However, Penal Code section 667.5(c), which has been the law in California since 1977, defines ‘violent felony’ with a list of some 23 offenses. That list currently includes crimes such as murder and attempted murder, mayhem, forcible rape (but not all rapes,) forcible sexual assault crimes (but not all of them), felonies involving great bodily injury being inflicted on a victim, felonies involving firearm use, robbery, some arsons, kidnapping, carjacking, some felonies involving explosives, and any felony punishable by death or in the state prison for life. Logic dictates that any felony not included in the definition of ‘violent felony’ would be a ‘non-violent felony’ for purposes of the initiative.”
The CDAA also notes that, “not all ‘non-violent felonies’ are limited to low-level crimes like drug possession or auto burglary. Proposition 8 provided California with a ‘serious felony’ list passed by voters in 1982. The ‘serious felonies’ list far outweighs the “violent felonies” list that is found in Penal Code section 1192.7(c).
“The ‘violent felony’ list is a subset of the ‘serious felony’ list, meaning that violent felonies are also serious felonies. There are numerous serious felonies that are referred to as ‘not violent’ under California law, but which are, in fact, violent in nature.
In fact, 56 out of 58 major cities across the State, including Chief’s of Police, District Attorneys and members of the Law Enforcement community stand in staunch opposition to Prop. 57.
Governor Brown, through his ballot committee has contributed over 40% of the $10.5 M raised in support of Prop 57.
Prop. 57 makes for great “political speak” just like AB 109 and Prop. 47 that have proven to be epic fails. So, too, will Prop. 57. Politicians know far more about the salesmanship in peddling bills but far less than law enforcement officials who actually patrol the streets -- your streets.
The choice belongs to voters in November. In today’s current political climate it is difficult to know who is actually telling the truth. But is it really worth gambling away safety in our homes, neighborhoods and schools -- putting our families at risk?
CALIFORNIA VOTERS: Get the facts on Prop. 57 before you vote because it can’t be undone down the road.
City Watch
October 31, 2016
TRUTH & CONSEQUENCES-When touting the merits of The Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (also known as Proposition 57,) the 2016 California voters guide addresses the question surrounding juvenile arrests for violent or serious criminal offenses to be charged as adults. Those convicted could spend years incarcerated in California State prisons. Prop 57 strips away the power of prosecutors to try juveniles as adults, overturning Proposition 21 which was approved by 62% of the voters in 2000. Prop 21 gave prosecutors, instead of judges, the right to decide whether juveniles should be charged as adults.
A prosecutor could file directly against a juvenile in adult court under W&I 707(d), but could also file a “fitness hearing” in Juvenile Hall. Under W&I 707(c), a juvenile is presumed to be unfit for juvenile court.
Prop. 57 will also strip judges of the power to set sentencing guidelines, transferring that power to Governor Brown's appointed members of the Board of Parole Hearings instead.
Prop. 57 overturns key provisions not only in Marsy's Law, a Constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008, but also the “Three Strikes Law” (Prop. 35), The Human Trafficking law (Prop. 35), The Street Terrorism and Prevention Act (Penal Code Section 186.22) and The Victim’s Bill of Rights (Prop. 8.)
If the court order does not have the enhancement under PC 667.5 of the California Penal code, then a current incarcerated criminal can be released early from state prison. Prop 57 allows the worst “career criminals” to be treated equal to first‐time offenders, prohibiting strong sentences that judges could impose.
The Voter Guide also hides the fact that Proposition 57 seeks to set new guidelines to allow both appointed Board members and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff to enhance “good time” credit for current incarcerated adult inmates convicted of very violent and serious criminal offenses and also grants early release from state prison. Presumably, these credits will apply if they attend educational or work/vocational programs -- even if there is no availability for those programs in a particular prison.
Prop. 57 is a Constitutional Amendment that affords new rights and privileges for even the most dangerous criminals. If passed, it cannot be overturned by the Legislature.
The devastating effects of AB 109 and Prop. 47 have threatened the safety of all communities and claimed the lives of many innocent victims. Adding the negative impacts of Prop. 57 into the mix would ultimately weaken all of California’s anti-crime laws.
Did you know that violent crimes across the State have escalated over 10% last year? In Los Angeles, crime statistics point to a 20% rise in violent crime last year. Those charged with enforcing the laws of the State know this only too well.
Each side claims the other side is lying. Supporters insist Prop. 57 will help fix the broken system that would rehabilitate prisoners and reduce the recidivism rate. They want inmates to have the “tools” to “stop the revolving door to prison.”
Gov Brown and his band of followers insist that, “To be granted parole, all inmates, current and future, must demonstrate that they are rehabilitated and do not pose a danger to the public.” But ask yourself, how can anyone “prove” they’ve been rehabilitated during a hearing? Does a simple promise to not harm another guarantee public safety at that inmate’s hands? What happens to all that “rehabilitation” when an inmate is released from prison and cannot assimilate back into society or cannot find a job to support him or herself?
The California District Attorney’s Association (CDAA) wrote an analysis of the Governor’s Initiative (Prop. 57) in February 2016.
They note, “The term ‘non-violent felony offense’ is not defined in the initiative, or elsewhere in California law. However, Penal Code section 667.5(c), which has been the law in California since 1977, defines ‘violent felony’ with a list of some 23 offenses. That list currently includes crimes such as murder and attempted murder, mayhem, forcible rape (but not all rapes,) forcible sexual assault crimes (but not all of them), felonies involving great bodily injury being inflicted on a victim, felonies involving firearm use, robbery, some arsons, kidnapping, carjacking, some felonies involving explosives, and any felony punishable by death or in the state prison for life. Logic dictates that any felony not included in the definition of ‘violent felony’ would be a ‘non-violent felony’ for purposes of the initiative.”
The CDAA also notes that, “not all ‘non-violent felonies’ are limited to low-level crimes like drug possession or auto burglary. Proposition 8 provided California with a ‘serious felony’ list passed by voters in 1982. The ‘serious felonies’ list far outweighs the “violent felonies” list that is found in Penal Code section 1192.7(c).
“The ‘violent felony’ list is a subset of the ‘serious felony’ list, meaning that violent felonies are also serious felonies. There are numerous serious felonies that are referred to as ‘not violent’ under California law, but which are, in fact, violent in nature.
In fact, 56 out of 58 major cities across the State, including Chief’s of Police, District Attorneys and members of the Law Enforcement community stand in staunch opposition to Prop. 57.
Governor Brown, through his ballot committee has contributed over 40% of the $10.5 M raised in support of Prop 57.
Prop. 57 makes for great “political speak” just like AB 109 and Prop. 47 that have proven to be epic fails. So, too, will Prop. 57. Politicians know far more about the salesmanship in peddling bills but far less than law enforcement officials who actually patrol the streets -- your streets.
The choice belongs to voters in November. In today’s current political climate it is difficult to know who is actually telling the truth. But is it really worth gambling away safety in our homes, neighborhoods and schools -- putting our families at risk?
CALIFORNIA VOTERS: Get the facts on Prop. 57 before you vote because it can’t be undone down the road.
DANGEROUS FELONS WOULD BE RELEASED UNDER PROP 57
Rape, Domestic Violence, and Human Trafficking Can Fall Outside Violence Definition
By Stephen P. Foley
Santa Barbara Independent
November 1, 2016
Prop. 57 pushes the criminal justice pendulum too far in favor of dangerous felons. Inaptly described as a “public safety” measure, Prop. 57 aims to save taxpayers money by granting early parole for dangerous felons. However, the voters are being misled by the campaign in favor of Prop. 57. Proponents say it only applies to prisoners who committed nonviolent crimes, but there is an eight-page list of violent crimes that fall outside of a legal, technical definition of “violent.” Some of these so-called nonviolent felonies include rape, domestic violence, arson, human trafficking, vehicular manslaughter, gang crime, and assault with a firearm. Furthermore, Prop. 57 allows prison bureaucrats the constitutional power to grant sentence reductions for all felons — including those who committed violent felonies — without any input from voters, legislators, or judges.
In 2007 California’s prison population ballooned to over 170,000 inmates. Since then the Legislature adopted Prison Realignment, the voters approved Prop. 36 and Prop. 47, and the prison system has enacted its own policies. Due to those changes, the inmate population is down to below 130,000. After this massive, unprecedented release of prison inmates back into our communities, crime has started to go back up. Now is not the time for a misguided, far-reaching change in the law that will allow dangerous criminals to get released early from prison.
Proposition 57 will make tens of thousands of dangerous inmates eligible for significantly earlier release. Proponents claim that only “rehabilitated” criminals will receive early release. In principle, the concept of rehabilitated felons returning to our neighborhoods sounds great. However, Prop. 57 fails to mention how prisons — with their already well-established lousy record of rehabilitation — will accomplish this and, more importantly, how the prison system will pay for new rehabilitation programs.
We have heard this promise before — rehabilitation leads to less crime. Back in 2011 the California Legislature passed Prison Realignment which shifted the incarceration burden from the state to the local level for many lower-level felonies. Along with this shift, we were promised that tax dollars would be available to rehabilitate inmates with “evidence-based” programs, and crime would go down. However, crime has increased. Prop. 57 promises rehabilitation of extremely dangerous criminals. We should ensure that we can successfully rehabilitate low-level felons before we grant early release of dangerous felons.
Furthermore, the rights of victims that were guaranteed over the past 40 years in a host of public safety initiatives will be cast aside in Prop. 57 in order to give prisons the power to release dangerous felons early without listening to the voices of victims, victims’ families, prosecutors, law enforcement, and sentencing judges.
We all want to reduce our prison population, but not at the expense of public safety. California spending on prisons has plateaued at $10 billion, and spending on education now exceeds $80 billion. As an alternative to releasing hardened, dangerous criminals early, let’s allow our investment in our children and young adults to work to keep people out of prison in the first place.
By Stephen P. Foley
Santa Barbara Independent
November 1, 2016
Prop. 57 pushes the criminal justice pendulum too far in favor of dangerous felons. Inaptly described as a “public safety” measure, Prop. 57 aims to save taxpayers money by granting early parole for dangerous felons. However, the voters are being misled by the campaign in favor of Prop. 57. Proponents say it only applies to prisoners who committed nonviolent crimes, but there is an eight-page list of violent crimes that fall outside of a legal, technical definition of “violent.” Some of these so-called nonviolent felonies include rape, domestic violence, arson, human trafficking, vehicular manslaughter, gang crime, and assault with a firearm. Furthermore, Prop. 57 allows prison bureaucrats the constitutional power to grant sentence reductions for all felons — including those who committed violent felonies — without any input from voters, legislators, or judges.
In 2007 California’s prison population ballooned to over 170,000 inmates. Since then the Legislature adopted Prison Realignment, the voters approved Prop. 36 and Prop. 47, and the prison system has enacted its own policies. Due to those changes, the inmate population is down to below 130,000. After this massive, unprecedented release of prison inmates back into our communities, crime has started to go back up. Now is not the time for a misguided, far-reaching change in the law that will allow dangerous criminals to get released early from prison.
Proposition 57 will make tens of thousands of dangerous inmates eligible for significantly earlier release. Proponents claim that only “rehabilitated” criminals will receive early release. In principle, the concept of rehabilitated felons returning to our neighborhoods sounds great. However, Prop. 57 fails to mention how prisons — with their already well-established lousy record of rehabilitation — will accomplish this and, more importantly, how the prison system will pay for new rehabilitation programs.
We have heard this promise before — rehabilitation leads to less crime. Back in 2011 the California Legislature passed Prison Realignment which shifted the incarceration burden from the state to the local level for many lower-level felonies. Along with this shift, we were promised that tax dollars would be available to rehabilitate inmates with “evidence-based” programs, and crime would go down. However, crime has increased. Prop. 57 promises rehabilitation of extremely dangerous criminals. We should ensure that we can successfully rehabilitate low-level felons before we grant early release of dangerous felons.
Furthermore, the rights of victims that were guaranteed over the past 40 years in a host of public safety initiatives will be cast aside in Prop. 57 in order to give prisons the power to release dangerous felons early without listening to the voices of victims, victims’ families, prosecutors, law enforcement, and sentencing judges.
We all want to reduce our prison population, but not at the expense of public safety. California spending on prisons has plateaued at $10 billion, and spending on education now exceeds $80 billion. As an alternative to releasing hardened, dangerous criminals early, let’s allow our investment in our children and young adults to work to keep people out of prison in the first place.
Tuesday, November 01, 2016
DOJ PLAYS POLITICS IN GARNER PROBE
Is Attorney General Loretta Lynch putting her thumb on the scale of justice? After two years of investigating the Eric Garner case, FBI agents are being replaced by agents from outside New York in a bid to prosecute NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo
By Tom Wrobleski
Staten Island Advance
October 26, 2016
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. – Somebody sure wants to make certain we get an indictment in the Eric Garner case.
Why else would Department of Justice officials in Washington, D.C., take the investigation away from New York?
They should be careful what they wish for.
The federal investigation of Garner's death has dragged on for 22 months. The probe was launched after a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo in Garner's death.
With no criminal indictment coming from the grand jury, it was up to the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office in Brooklyn to decide whether Pantaleo had violated Garner's civil rights.
And after all these months, it's been reported that they have decided that there's not enough evidence to bring an indictment. They do not feel it would be a winning case to bring to trial.
Normally, you would think that that would be enough for the bosses in Washington. After all, the local folks are the men and women on the ground here. It's their job to make these determinations. They have done the investigating.
But the DOJ, under the leadership of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, herself a former U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, has decided for whatever reason not to accept that decision. They're going to do their own investigating now.
It takes them almost two years to make that determination?
An unusual development, but not really a surprise. There had been reports for a while now that officials in the DOJ's Civil Rights DIvision in Washington felt that there was plenty enough evidence to go forward with a civil rights prosecution of Pantaleo. And that officials in Brooklyn disagreed.
So now it looks like the clock is going to start all over again. FBI agents from outside New York have been assigned to the case, according to published reports. Brooklyn prosecutors have been removed. Witnesses will have to be re-interviewed, evidence re-examined.
But it looks like a foregone conclusion is being sought: Get an indictment. If Brooklyn won't do it, Washington will.
Is that justice or politics?
Even if there is an indictment in the case, we're sure that the feds are aware that these civil rights cases against police don't always result in convictions.
For example, the NYPD cops involved in the Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo and Ernest Sayon cases, three hot-button, high-profile cases, were cleared after federal investigations determined that the victims' civil rights had not been violated.
And let's not forget that the DOJ also cleared the Ferguson, Mo., officer in the Michael Brown shooting of violating Brown's civil rights after after a grand jury had declined to indict.
The Rodney King cops in Los Angeles did do time on civil right charges, but the track record for prosecutions in these cases is dicey.
Part of the difficulty, according to legal experts, is that finding an officer guilty of violating somebody's civil rights means getting inside the officer's head and determining their intent. A high bar to get over. Pantaleo has said he meant to do Garner no harm.
And add to that the fact that this profound disagreement between Washington and New York is now out there in the open, and you see how a defense attorney could have a field day. The FBI and Brooklyn prosecutors themselves have provided reasonable doubt.
Meanwhile, nobody in the Garner case gets the closure that they've been looking for. Not Garner's family. Not Pantaleo and his family. It's just going to drag on and on.
We hope Washington knows what it's doing.
By Tom Wrobleski
Staten Island Advance
October 26, 2016
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. – Somebody sure wants to make certain we get an indictment in the Eric Garner case.
Why else would Department of Justice officials in Washington, D.C., take the investigation away from New York?
They should be careful what they wish for.
The federal investigation of Garner's death has dragged on for 22 months. The probe was launched after a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo in Garner's death.
With no criminal indictment coming from the grand jury, it was up to the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office in Brooklyn to decide whether Pantaleo had violated Garner's civil rights.
And after all these months, it's been reported that they have decided that there's not enough evidence to bring an indictment. They do not feel it would be a winning case to bring to trial.
Normally, you would think that that would be enough for the bosses in Washington. After all, the local folks are the men and women on the ground here. It's their job to make these determinations. They have done the investigating.
But the DOJ, under the leadership of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, herself a former U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, has decided for whatever reason not to accept that decision. They're going to do their own investigating now.
It takes them almost two years to make that determination?
An unusual development, but not really a surprise. There had been reports for a while now that officials in the DOJ's Civil Rights DIvision in Washington felt that there was plenty enough evidence to go forward with a civil rights prosecution of Pantaleo. And that officials in Brooklyn disagreed.
So now it looks like the clock is going to start all over again. FBI agents from outside New York have been assigned to the case, according to published reports. Brooklyn prosecutors have been removed. Witnesses will have to be re-interviewed, evidence re-examined.
But it looks like a foregone conclusion is being sought: Get an indictment. If Brooklyn won't do it, Washington will.
Is that justice or politics?
Even if there is an indictment in the case, we're sure that the feds are aware that these civil rights cases against police don't always result in convictions.
For example, the NYPD cops involved in the Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo and Ernest Sayon cases, three hot-button, high-profile cases, were cleared after federal investigations determined that the victims' civil rights had not been violated.
And let's not forget that the DOJ also cleared the Ferguson, Mo., officer in the Michael Brown shooting of violating Brown's civil rights after after a grand jury had declined to indict.
The Rodney King cops in Los Angeles did do time on civil right charges, but the track record for prosecutions in these cases is dicey.
Part of the difficulty, according to legal experts, is that finding an officer guilty of violating somebody's civil rights means getting inside the officer's head and determining their intent. A high bar to get over. Pantaleo has said he meant to do Garner no harm.
And add to that the fact that this profound disagreement between Washington and New York is now out there in the open, and you see how a defense attorney could have a field day. The FBI and Brooklyn prosecutors themselves have provided reasonable doubt.
Meanwhile, nobody in the Garner case gets the closure that they've been looking for. Not Garner's family. Not Pantaleo and his family. It's just going to drag on and on.
We hope Washington knows what it's doing.
GETTING SHOT IN CHI-TOWN
By Bob Walsh
The Chicago TRIBUNE has reported that, in this most recent weekend, there were 57 shooting victims in Chicago. Of that number 17 are dead. I wonder where the BLM thugs are? Perhaps hiding in the bathtub for fear of getting their asses shot off in the crossfire.
I wonder what their clearance rate is on homicide?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Clearance rate? I don’t think Chicago PD really gives a rat’s ass.
57 shootings and only 17 dead? Man, them gangbangers are in need of some serious time on the firing range.
The Chicago TRIBUNE has reported that, in this most recent weekend, there were 57 shooting victims in Chicago. Of that number 17 are dead. I wonder where the BLM thugs are? Perhaps hiding in the bathtub for fear of getting their asses shot off in the crossfire.
I wonder what their clearance rate is on homicide?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Clearance rate? I don’t think Chicago PD really gives a rat’s ass.
57 shootings and only 17 dead? Man, them gangbangers are in need of some serious time on the firing range.
THE NEXT WEEK WILL BE REAL INTERESTING
By Bob Walsh
Most of the polls now show Hillary ahead of Trump but well within the margin of error. A few even show Trump up by one or two points. That isn't wonderful, but it is better than a sharp stick in the eye.
However the total of the national vote is NOT what elects the president. You might remember that Al Gore got slightly more of the overall popular vote but Bush got the brass ring. What happens in North Carolina, Florida and Ohio will probably tell the tale.
WikiLeaks promises to keep dropping bombshells large and small over the next week. The former head of the DNC and now former CNN contributor Donna Brazil was just shitcanned by CNN for feeding debate questions to the Hillary team in advance. It looks more and more like there is more and more evidence that Hillary is essentially dishonest. Will anybody care? The 20% in the middle that usually decide these questions just might. Various media talking heads have run computer models that show that 5,000 votes in the right precincts could twist the election one way or the other.
IMHO the most "interesting" outcome would be for Hillary to win and be indicted before she is inaugurated. Also possibly the most dangerous. I would of course be much happier if Trump won outright and maintained the margin in both houses of congress. It wouldn't be as much fun.
I have always thought that the predictions that Hillary would win by 10% were horsecrap. I have always thought there would be a large closet Trump vote, and a significant closet anti-Hillary vote. It could be enough.
In any event except for the non-stop barrage of moronic and dishonest commercials and the irritating phone calls it will be a very interesting next eight days.
I will have my supply of 'ludes, valium, Hennesy 5-star, Green Death and pepperoni pizza. I will sit with my lady friend (who is a Hillary supporter) and our two dogs (who don't give a shit about the election but want their share of pizza) and either gloat and moan as the vote rolls in.
Decisions are made by those who show up. Vote early and often, at least if you are a Trump voter. Otherwise, stay home, don't vote and watch Gilligan's Island reruns. You will be happier in the long run (I hope).
EDITOR’S Note: If Hillary wins and is indicted before she id inaugurated, Obama will simply pardon her. But it will never come to that as Attorney General Lynch will not let it happen. After all, she has already assured Bill Clinton that Hillary will not face any criminal charges, and you wouldn’t want the AG to break her promise, would you?
As the returns come in on election night and your lady friend jumps up and down clapping her hands, get liquored up. But while you get sloshed don’t forget to give the dogs their share of the pizza.
Most of the polls now show Hillary ahead of Trump but well within the margin of error. A few even show Trump up by one or two points. That isn't wonderful, but it is better than a sharp stick in the eye.
However the total of the national vote is NOT what elects the president. You might remember that Al Gore got slightly more of the overall popular vote but Bush got the brass ring. What happens in North Carolina, Florida and Ohio will probably tell the tale.
WikiLeaks promises to keep dropping bombshells large and small over the next week. The former head of the DNC and now former CNN contributor Donna Brazil was just shitcanned by CNN for feeding debate questions to the Hillary team in advance. It looks more and more like there is more and more evidence that Hillary is essentially dishonest. Will anybody care? The 20% in the middle that usually decide these questions just might. Various media talking heads have run computer models that show that 5,000 votes in the right precincts could twist the election one way or the other.
IMHO the most "interesting" outcome would be for Hillary to win and be indicted before she is inaugurated. Also possibly the most dangerous. I would of course be much happier if Trump won outright and maintained the margin in both houses of congress. It wouldn't be as much fun.
I have always thought that the predictions that Hillary would win by 10% were horsecrap. I have always thought there would be a large closet Trump vote, and a significant closet anti-Hillary vote. It could be enough.
In any event except for the non-stop barrage of moronic and dishonest commercials and the irritating phone calls it will be a very interesting next eight days.
I will have my supply of 'ludes, valium, Hennesy 5-star, Green Death and pepperoni pizza. I will sit with my lady friend (who is a Hillary supporter) and our two dogs (who don't give a shit about the election but want their share of pizza) and either gloat and moan as the vote rolls in.
Decisions are made by those who show up. Vote early and often, at least if you are a Trump voter. Otherwise, stay home, don't vote and watch Gilligan's Island reruns. You will be happier in the long run (I hope).
EDITOR’S Note: If Hillary wins and is indicted before she id inaugurated, Obama will simply pardon her. But it will never come to that as Attorney General Lynch will not let it happen. After all, she has already assured Bill Clinton that Hillary will not face any criminal charges, and you wouldn’t want the AG to break her promise, would you?
As the returns come in on election night and your lady friend jumps up and down clapping her hands, get liquored up. But while you get sloshed don’t forget to give the dogs their share of the pizza.
BUT THEIR PIZZA STILL SUCKS
By Bob Walsh
Something very interesting and socially valuable went down on Sunday at a Pizza Hut in Charlotte, N.C.
It was about 1:40 a.m. and the store was closed. Employees were doing a clean-up and close-up when three bad guys managed to access the store and attempted to rob it. One of the employees was armed and opened fire, killing one armed bad guy on the spot. The other two fled and are being actively sought.
The employee was placed on a leave of absence (presumably without pay) pending "further review." I strongly suspect he will be sacked unless the franchise holder is much more favorable to self-defense than are most employers. For them it is a fiscal decision. If you, as an employee, are killed by the bad guys the store isn't out squat. Their workers comp insurance covers everything. If you, as an employee, pull your gat and start blasting and the store is sued, even if the whole thing is 100% legal and justified, the employer is not covered for those costs.
Generally speaking the employer would rather you be shot and killed than they take the legal risk.
Something very interesting and socially valuable went down on Sunday at a Pizza Hut in Charlotte, N.C.
It was about 1:40 a.m. and the store was closed. Employees were doing a clean-up and close-up when three bad guys managed to access the store and attempted to rob it. One of the employees was armed and opened fire, killing one armed bad guy on the spot. The other two fled and are being actively sought.
The employee was placed on a leave of absence (presumably without pay) pending "further review." I strongly suspect he will be sacked unless the franchise holder is much more favorable to self-defense than are most employers. For them it is a fiscal decision. If you, as an employee, are killed by the bad guys the store isn't out squat. Their workers comp insurance covers everything. If you, as an employee, pull your gat and start blasting and the store is sued, even if the whole thing is 100% legal and justified, the employer is not covered for those costs.
Generally speaking the employer would rather you be shot and killed than they take the legal risk.
PTSD FROM SERVING AS GUARDS AT GITMO
Exclusive documents show that the Guantanamo prison's guards suffer high rates of post-traumatic stress and severe depression
By Jason Leopold
VICE News
October 27, 2016
Just a few weeks into her deployment as a medic working with detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Navy corpsman Nichole York started having nightmares.
“I was being attacked by detainees,” she said of the dreams she had during her nine-month deployment in 2010. “I had nightmares where they would somehow get ahold of me and grab my hair and slam my face off a steel door.”
York felt totally isolated and often afraid; to cope, she started drinking heavily. But her experience of suffering, largely in silence, was hardly unique among the 28,000 troops who have served at the U.S. military prison since it opened in 2002 to indefinitely detain captives in the “war on terror.”
Between 2008 and 2011, the joint task force that operates the detention facility secretly evacuated at least 19 troops who had worked in detainee operations due to severe “behavioral health reasons,” according to an Army Institute of Public health study obtained exclusively by VICE News.
This study, combined with two internal military reports on the mental health of troops and interviews with two former Guantanamo guards, show that the invisible wounds of war largely associated with combat-related deployments also affected troops who worked at the detention facility. President Obama has said he still hopes to close the prison, located in an isolated corner of the 45-square-mile naval base that overlooks Guantanamo Bay in southeastern Cuba, by the time he leaves office. At its peak, Gitmo held 779 detainees; today, 60 remain.
For years, journalists have tried to obtain information from the military about whether Guantanamo personnel suffer from post-traumatic stress during and after their deployments. The military never supplied any figures, but in 2010 the Army Institute of Public Health conducted a behavioral health study at the base after a number of troops were evacuated. A year later, two reports were prepared. The findings, which have remained secret until now, paint a dire picture of deteriorating mental health among personnel who served there.
The study found that of the 1,422 troops who were surveyed, 565 developed behavioral health conditions and showed signs of post-traumatic stress that were directly associated with their Guantanamo deployments. Nearly 300 who were screened, or 1 in 5, were considered a “high [behavioral health] risk,” meaning they had suicidal thoughts or a behavioral health condition, such as anxiety or severe depression, requiring “intensive medication management and/or therapy.”
The study noted that the Army did not pre-screen soldiers to determine whether they suffered from behavioral health conditions before they were sent to work with detainees, though it also found that 75 percent of the troops who were evaluated did not have pre-existing behavioral health conditions before arriving at the base. (The Navy, on the other hand, did conduct pre-screenings.)
The highest rates of positive screening for behavioral health conditions were found among Army and Navy troops whose work required them to have “routine detainee exposure” — interacting with detainees for an hour or more per day. The study said that within the Army, troops who worked in detainee operations “had greater positive screenings for suicidal ideation, severe depression & trouble sleeping,” while Navy troops showed “greater positive screenings for severe PTS [post-traumatic stress], aggressive behavior & problematic alcohol use.”
Forty-four percent of personnel surveyed engaged in “potentially hazardous alcohol use,” according to the study, and that use was “highest” within the unit that worked directly on detainee operations. Forty-four percent of those in the Navy specifically said their deployment was “harming my relationship with my spouse/significant other” and exacerbating stress associated with 12-hour work shifts.
The severity and rate of behavioral health conditions affecting Guantanamo troops — aside from alcohol use — was on par with U.S. troops who served at detention facilities in Iraq.
VICE News obtained the reports from United States Southern Command, which oversees the joint task force that operates Guantanamo, in response to a 3-year-old Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
The study found that the stress troops experienced during their average nine-month deployment was due in part to poor living conditions — troops felt the detainees received better food than they did, and 82 percent of Army and 60 percent of Navy troops surveyed said that overall, detainees were treated better than they were. Troops also cited an inability to “react” to detainees’ verbal and physical abuse, and inadequate training prior to being sent to Guantanamo as contributing to their stress.
Andrew Turner, a Navy petty officer first class when he was discharged, served at Guantanamo in 2009 and 2010. Both he and Nichole York were members of Task Force Platinum, the military unit that works out of the infamous and top-secret Camp 7, where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 14 other former CIA captives are held. Both York and Turner said they had no idea what Task Force Platinum was before they arrived, and that they did not receive any special training to deal with the high-value detainees.
“We were taught how to do forced cell extractions,” said Turner, now 43, referring to a procedure in which guards in riot gear restrain and remove a combative detainee from his cell. “We were taught how to cuff detainees in different ways. We had a few days of combatives training, which is the Army’s version of mixed martial arts…. I felt incredibly unprepared and very vulnerable.”
VICE News made numerous email and telephone queries over the past month to spokespeople for the Army, the Navy, and the Department of Defense seeking comment on the Army Institute of Public Health study and the treatment of troops before and after their deployment to Guantanamo. Those spokespeople directed us to Capt. John Filostrat, a spokesman for the detention facility. When VICE News asked Filostrat about the study and York’s and Turner’s deployments, he said he could not answer questions about individual service members nor could he answer questions about the study because he was not familiar with it.
Turner and York spoke with VICE News about their Guantanamo experience in the hopes that it would encourage current and former Gitmo troops who suffer from PTSD symptoms to seek diagnosis and medical treatment. Because they worked at a top-secret camp whose location and operational procedures are highly classified, neither Turner nor York would discuss individual Guantanamo detainees with whom they interacted or the extent of their work with Task Force Platinum. No other member of Task Force Platinum has ever spoken publicly about Camp 7.
Turner initially thought his deployment to Guantanamo would be a “cakewalk,” he said. He wasn’t alone. According to the study, before being sent to Guantanamo, 70 percent of troops surveyed “perceived the assignment as less stressful than a combat deployment.” But once they got to work, only 40 percent still believed that — and among the troops who interacted directly with detainees, the share was even smaller: 25 percent.
York was 20 years old at the time of her deployment in 2010. When she arrived on the island and discovered she would be working with high-value detainees — and that she was the only female medic on Task Force Platinum — she wept.
“We got in our temporary rooms, and I was the only female,” she said. “I literally sat there and bawled for three days…. I kind of thought like, where the fuck am I, and what the fuck is gonna happen? Or what did the Navy get me into?”
Even though her deployment did not entail physical combat, “mentally [and] emotionally, it’s combat.” She says she has nightmares to this day about being attacked by detainees.
Turner, however, did suffer physical harm during his deployment. Just two weeks in, his hand was crushed during a forced cell extraction when he and a team of guards tried to prevent a detainee from slamming his own head into the concrete floor of his cell.
“I was so fucking scared, and I still have nightmares of that day,” Turner said. “I was trying to keep that fear down inside me. That was the only way I could deal with it. To just be twice as tough as everybody else, when really inside I was scared to fucking death…. You just didn’t know what was coming around that next corner, and it was 99 percent boredom and then 1 percent just pure, unadulterated craziness.”
Turner never regained full use of his hand; the injury effectively ended his military career.
York and Turner’s combined 15-month deployments to Guantanamo have left them with profound psychological scars; Veterans Administration doctors diagnosed both with PTSD.
“Each day I’ve got to figure out how I’m gonna function, and it sucks,” Turner said. “I didn’t have to do that before. I don’t like crowds; I used to not have any problem with them, but now they cause me to have a little bit of a panic issue. Loud noises [and] really bright lights kind of can cause me some issues. These are all things that weren’t going on before I went on that deployment.”
Both York and Turner said they were aware that Guantanamo had a facility that assisted troops with emotional and psychological stress but that seeking treatment there was not encouraged and carried stigma. It wasn’t until they both returned to the mainland that they realized something was wrong and they needed help. Their spouses pushed them to get it.
A spokesperson for the Guantanamo facility said anyone on the joint task force can take advantage of counseling on the base to deal with depression and stress through the Joint Stress Mitigation and Restoration Team.
The Army public health study recommended that Southern Command work with the joint task force to “revise pre-deployment training to be more mission-specific, better preparing troopers mentally and emotionally for what to expect by making the training.”
Additionally, the study recommended the military pre-screen all troops prior to their deployment to Guantanamo to identify pre-existing behavioral health conditions in order to prevent “those at increased risk for negative behavioral health outcomes from being assigned” to the base.
“This would, in turn, likely reduce the number of soldiers evacuated from [Guantanamo] for behavioral health conditions,” the study said.
Filostrat, the Guantanamo spokesman, would not confirm whether the study’s recommendations were implemented.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Turner also told VICE News that “Typically, around the detention camps, it wasn't uncommon for urine to be thrown. It wasn't uncommon for feces and food to get thrown. Verbal abuse was pretty common. Being called every name imaginable in multiple languages throughout all those camps, that kind of just tears people down.”
Welcome to the world of the Correctional Officer.
By Jason Leopold
VICE News
October 27, 2016
Just a few weeks into her deployment as a medic working with detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Navy corpsman Nichole York started having nightmares.
“I was being attacked by detainees,” she said of the dreams she had during her nine-month deployment in 2010. “I had nightmares where they would somehow get ahold of me and grab my hair and slam my face off a steel door.”
York felt totally isolated and often afraid; to cope, she started drinking heavily. But her experience of suffering, largely in silence, was hardly unique among the 28,000 troops who have served at the U.S. military prison since it opened in 2002 to indefinitely detain captives in the “war on terror.”
Between 2008 and 2011, the joint task force that operates the detention facility secretly evacuated at least 19 troops who had worked in detainee operations due to severe “behavioral health reasons,” according to an Army Institute of Public health study obtained exclusively by VICE News.
This study, combined with two internal military reports on the mental health of troops and interviews with two former Guantanamo guards, show that the invisible wounds of war largely associated with combat-related deployments also affected troops who worked at the detention facility. President Obama has said he still hopes to close the prison, located in an isolated corner of the 45-square-mile naval base that overlooks Guantanamo Bay in southeastern Cuba, by the time he leaves office. At its peak, Gitmo held 779 detainees; today, 60 remain.
For years, journalists have tried to obtain information from the military about whether Guantanamo personnel suffer from post-traumatic stress during and after their deployments. The military never supplied any figures, but in 2010 the Army Institute of Public Health conducted a behavioral health study at the base after a number of troops were evacuated. A year later, two reports were prepared. The findings, which have remained secret until now, paint a dire picture of deteriorating mental health among personnel who served there.
The study found that of the 1,422 troops who were surveyed, 565 developed behavioral health conditions and showed signs of post-traumatic stress that were directly associated with their Guantanamo deployments. Nearly 300 who were screened, or 1 in 5, were considered a “high [behavioral health] risk,” meaning they had suicidal thoughts or a behavioral health condition, such as anxiety or severe depression, requiring “intensive medication management and/or therapy.”
The study noted that the Army did not pre-screen soldiers to determine whether they suffered from behavioral health conditions before they were sent to work with detainees, though it also found that 75 percent of the troops who were evaluated did not have pre-existing behavioral health conditions before arriving at the base. (The Navy, on the other hand, did conduct pre-screenings.)
The highest rates of positive screening for behavioral health conditions were found among Army and Navy troops whose work required them to have “routine detainee exposure” — interacting with detainees for an hour or more per day. The study said that within the Army, troops who worked in detainee operations “had greater positive screenings for suicidal ideation, severe depression & trouble sleeping,” while Navy troops showed “greater positive screenings for severe PTS [post-traumatic stress], aggressive behavior & problematic alcohol use.”
Forty-four percent of personnel surveyed engaged in “potentially hazardous alcohol use,” according to the study, and that use was “highest” within the unit that worked directly on detainee operations. Forty-four percent of those in the Navy specifically said their deployment was “harming my relationship with my spouse/significant other” and exacerbating stress associated with 12-hour work shifts.
The severity and rate of behavioral health conditions affecting Guantanamo troops — aside from alcohol use — was on par with U.S. troops who served at detention facilities in Iraq.
VICE News obtained the reports from United States Southern Command, which oversees the joint task force that operates Guantanamo, in response to a 3-year-old Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
The study found that the stress troops experienced during their average nine-month deployment was due in part to poor living conditions — troops felt the detainees received better food than they did, and 82 percent of Army and 60 percent of Navy troops surveyed said that overall, detainees were treated better than they were. Troops also cited an inability to “react” to detainees’ verbal and physical abuse, and inadequate training prior to being sent to Guantanamo as contributing to their stress.
Andrew Turner, a Navy petty officer first class when he was discharged, served at Guantanamo in 2009 and 2010. Both he and Nichole York were members of Task Force Platinum, the military unit that works out of the infamous and top-secret Camp 7, where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 14 other former CIA captives are held. Both York and Turner said they had no idea what Task Force Platinum was before they arrived, and that they did not receive any special training to deal with the high-value detainees.
“We were taught how to do forced cell extractions,” said Turner, now 43, referring to a procedure in which guards in riot gear restrain and remove a combative detainee from his cell. “We were taught how to cuff detainees in different ways. We had a few days of combatives training, which is the Army’s version of mixed martial arts…. I felt incredibly unprepared and very vulnerable.”
VICE News made numerous email and telephone queries over the past month to spokespeople for the Army, the Navy, and the Department of Defense seeking comment on the Army Institute of Public Health study and the treatment of troops before and after their deployment to Guantanamo. Those spokespeople directed us to Capt. John Filostrat, a spokesman for the detention facility. When VICE News asked Filostrat about the study and York’s and Turner’s deployments, he said he could not answer questions about individual service members nor could he answer questions about the study because he was not familiar with it.
Turner and York spoke with VICE News about their Guantanamo experience in the hopes that it would encourage current and former Gitmo troops who suffer from PTSD symptoms to seek diagnosis and medical treatment. Because they worked at a top-secret camp whose location and operational procedures are highly classified, neither Turner nor York would discuss individual Guantanamo detainees with whom they interacted or the extent of their work with Task Force Platinum. No other member of Task Force Platinum has ever spoken publicly about Camp 7.
Turner initially thought his deployment to Guantanamo would be a “cakewalk,” he said. He wasn’t alone. According to the study, before being sent to Guantanamo, 70 percent of troops surveyed “perceived the assignment as less stressful than a combat deployment.” But once they got to work, only 40 percent still believed that — and among the troops who interacted directly with detainees, the share was even smaller: 25 percent.
York was 20 years old at the time of her deployment in 2010. When she arrived on the island and discovered she would be working with high-value detainees — and that she was the only female medic on Task Force Platinum — she wept.
“We got in our temporary rooms, and I was the only female,” she said. “I literally sat there and bawled for three days…. I kind of thought like, where the fuck am I, and what the fuck is gonna happen? Or what did the Navy get me into?”
Even though her deployment did not entail physical combat, “mentally [and] emotionally, it’s combat.” She says she has nightmares to this day about being attacked by detainees.
Turner, however, did suffer physical harm during his deployment. Just two weeks in, his hand was crushed during a forced cell extraction when he and a team of guards tried to prevent a detainee from slamming his own head into the concrete floor of his cell.
“I was so fucking scared, and I still have nightmares of that day,” Turner said. “I was trying to keep that fear down inside me. That was the only way I could deal with it. To just be twice as tough as everybody else, when really inside I was scared to fucking death…. You just didn’t know what was coming around that next corner, and it was 99 percent boredom and then 1 percent just pure, unadulterated craziness.”
Turner never regained full use of his hand; the injury effectively ended his military career.
York and Turner’s combined 15-month deployments to Guantanamo have left them with profound psychological scars; Veterans Administration doctors diagnosed both with PTSD.
“Each day I’ve got to figure out how I’m gonna function, and it sucks,” Turner said. “I didn’t have to do that before. I don’t like crowds; I used to not have any problem with them, but now they cause me to have a little bit of a panic issue. Loud noises [and] really bright lights kind of can cause me some issues. These are all things that weren’t going on before I went on that deployment.”
Both York and Turner said they were aware that Guantanamo had a facility that assisted troops with emotional and psychological stress but that seeking treatment there was not encouraged and carried stigma. It wasn’t until they both returned to the mainland that they realized something was wrong and they needed help. Their spouses pushed them to get it.
A spokesperson for the Guantanamo facility said anyone on the joint task force can take advantage of counseling on the base to deal with depression and stress through the Joint Stress Mitigation and Restoration Team.
The Army public health study recommended that Southern Command work with the joint task force to “revise pre-deployment training to be more mission-specific, better preparing troopers mentally and emotionally for what to expect by making the training.”
Additionally, the study recommended the military pre-screen all troops prior to their deployment to Guantanamo to identify pre-existing behavioral health conditions in order to prevent “those at increased risk for negative behavioral health outcomes from being assigned” to the base.
“This would, in turn, likely reduce the number of soldiers evacuated from [Guantanamo] for behavioral health conditions,” the study said.
Filostrat, the Guantanamo spokesman, would not confirm whether the study’s recommendations were implemented.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Turner also told VICE News that “Typically, around the detention camps, it wasn't uncommon for urine to be thrown. It wasn't uncommon for feces and food to get thrown. Verbal abuse was pretty common. Being called every name imaginable in multiple languages throughout all those camps, that kind of just tears people down.”
Welcome to the world of the Correctional Officer.
Monday, October 31, 2016
HILLARY CAMPAIGN RESORTS TO ‘SHOOTING THE MESSENGER’ STRATEGY
The revelation that the computer belonging to the weenie waving ex-hubby of Hillary’s close chum Huma Abedin contains thousands of State Department emails has pissed off Hillary and top campaign staffer John Podesta. So, how does the Hillary campaign handle this damaging news with less than two weeks to go until the November 8 election day?
The Hillary campaign counters the revelation by resorting to the tried and true ‘shooting the messenger’ strategy. For Hillary and the Democrats, it’s now an all-out war against FBI Director James Comey.
During a campaign rally Saturday in Daytona Beach, Hillary attacked Comey by saying:
“If you're like me, you probably have a few questions about it. It is pretty strange. It's pretty strange to put something like that out with such little information, right before an election. In fact, it's not just strange it's unprecedented and it's deeply troubling. Voters deserve to get full and complete facts. And so we call on Director Comey to explain everything right away and put it all out on the table.”
And during an impromptu press conference during a flight to Des Moines she said:
“We are 11 days out from perhaps the most important election of our lifetimes. The American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately. We've heard these rumors. We don't know what to believe and I'm sure there will be even more rumors. That's why it is incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they're talking about. Because right now your guess is as good as mine and I don't think that's good enough.”
In a call to reporters Saturday, Hillary’s campaign chairman John Podesta blasted Comey’s letter to Congress about the renewed email investigation as being “long on innuendo and short on facts.” He said:
“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election. The more information that’s come out, the more overblown it seems. Despite initial reporting the letter amounted to a quote unquote reopening of the investigation … it seems that that is not at all the case. It's had to see how this amounts to anything. Comey has not been forthcoming with the facts. What little told us: hard to understand why this was warranted at all.
The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.”
Hillary’s VP candidate Tim Kaine accused Comey of breaking two Department of Justice protocols. Here is what he said Sunday on ABC’s This Week:
“Now this is an unprecedented move … because it happens close to an election. which is in violation of normal Justice Department protocol and it involves talking about an ongoing investigation, which also violates the protocol. And as far as we know now, Director Comey knows nothing about the content of these e-mails. We don’t know whether they’re to or from Hillary at all.”
In a letter to Comey, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested that the FBI Director violated the Hatch Act which prohibits government employees in their capacity as such from involving themselves in a partisan political campaign. Here are excerpts from Reid’s letter:
“Through your partisan action, you may have broken the law.
… your actions strongly suggests that your highly selective approach to publicizing information, along with your timing, was intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group.”
That ‘shoot the messenger’ strategy may be working. Reports from all around the country indicate Democrats are really riled up over Comey’s action and plan to vote in increasing numbers.
So, please disregard the bad news message and let us shoot the messenger instead.
Comey is not just being attacked by the Hillary campaign. FBI sources report that Attorney General Loretta Lynch did not want Comey to send his letter to Congress.
While FBI agents obtained a search warrant in September to obtain evidence from weenie waver Weiner’s computer regarding his sexting a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina, the Justice Department blocked the FBI until late Sunday from getting a search warrant to extract the State Department emails from that computer.
Lynch is thoroughly pissed off at the FBI Director. And I am sure President Obama is pissed off too. It remains to be seen how much longer James Comey can remain as head of the FBI.
The Hillary campaign counters the revelation by resorting to the tried and true ‘shooting the messenger’ strategy. For Hillary and the Democrats, it’s now an all-out war against FBI Director James Comey.
During a campaign rally Saturday in Daytona Beach, Hillary attacked Comey by saying:
“If you're like me, you probably have a few questions about it. It is pretty strange. It's pretty strange to put something like that out with such little information, right before an election. In fact, it's not just strange it's unprecedented and it's deeply troubling. Voters deserve to get full and complete facts. And so we call on Director Comey to explain everything right away and put it all out on the table.”
And during an impromptu press conference during a flight to Des Moines she said:
“We are 11 days out from perhaps the most important election of our lifetimes. The American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately. We've heard these rumors. We don't know what to believe and I'm sure there will be even more rumors. That's why it is incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they're talking about. Because right now your guess is as good as mine and I don't think that's good enough.”
In a call to reporters Saturday, Hillary’s campaign chairman John Podesta blasted Comey’s letter to Congress about the renewed email investigation as being “long on innuendo and short on facts.” He said:
“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election. The more information that’s come out, the more overblown it seems. Despite initial reporting the letter amounted to a quote unquote reopening of the investigation … it seems that that is not at all the case. It's had to see how this amounts to anything. Comey has not been forthcoming with the facts. What little told us: hard to understand why this was warranted at all.
The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.”
Hillary’s VP candidate Tim Kaine accused Comey of breaking two Department of Justice protocols. Here is what he said Sunday on ABC’s This Week:
“Now this is an unprecedented move … because it happens close to an election. which is in violation of normal Justice Department protocol and it involves talking about an ongoing investigation, which also violates the protocol. And as far as we know now, Director Comey knows nothing about the content of these e-mails. We don’t know whether they’re to or from Hillary at all.”
In a letter to Comey, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested that the FBI Director violated the Hatch Act which prohibits government employees in their capacity as such from involving themselves in a partisan political campaign. Here are excerpts from Reid’s letter:
“Through your partisan action, you may have broken the law.
… your actions strongly suggests that your highly selective approach to publicizing information, along with your timing, was intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group.”
That ‘shoot the messenger’ strategy may be working. Reports from all around the country indicate Democrats are really riled up over Comey’s action and plan to vote in increasing numbers.
So, please disregard the bad news message and let us shoot the messenger instead.
Comey is not just being attacked by the Hillary campaign. FBI sources report that Attorney General Loretta Lynch did not want Comey to send his letter to Congress.
While FBI agents obtained a search warrant in September to obtain evidence from weenie waver Weiner’s computer regarding his sexting a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina, the Justice Department blocked the FBI until late Sunday from getting a search warrant to extract the State Department emails from that computer.
Lynch is thoroughly pissed off at the FBI Director. And I am sure President Obama is pissed off too. It remains to be seen how much longer James Comey can remain as head of the FBI.
THE EARTH IS SAFE … YET AGAIN
By Bob Walsh
For the 78th year in a row the Martians did NOT attack the earth, at Grover's Mill, New Jersey, or anyplace else for that matter.
There is actually a commemorative monument at the site where the Martian's didn't land on October 30,. 1938. Every year I listen to a recording of the Mercury Theater presentation of the War of the Worlds. Every year I have to remind myself that radio was relatively new and audiences were less sophisticated than they are now. The time line and compression is way off, what seemed to be happening could not possibly be happening in the time presented in the pseudo-news broadcast but many people believed that it was. In fact the remains of a water tower still stand there, it was shot up by locals who believed it was one of the Martian war machines attacking.
Still, it could have been worse. The same broadcast, in Spanish of course, with the geography tweaked for local audiences, was put out in Venezuela shortly after the end of WW II. When the locals found out that it was a "hoax" they attacked the radio station, killed several people and burned the building to the ground.
For the 78th year in a row the Martians did NOT attack the earth, at Grover's Mill, New Jersey, or anyplace else for that matter.
There is actually a commemorative monument at the site where the Martian's didn't land on October 30,. 1938. Every year I listen to a recording of the Mercury Theater presentation of the War of the Worlds. Every year I have to remind myself that radio was relatively new and audiences were less sophisticated than they are now. The time line and compression is way off, what seemed to be happening could not possibly be happening in the time presented in the pseudo-news broadcast but many people believed that it was. In fact the remains of a water tower still stand there, it was shot up by locals who believed it was one of the Martian war machines attacking.
Still, it could have been worse. The same broadcast, in Spanish of course, with the geography tweaked for local audiences, was put out in Venezuela shortly after the end of WW II. When the locals found out that it was a "hoax" they attacked the radio station, killed several people and burned the building to the ground.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
IGNORANT AMERICAN COLLEGE GRADS
College grads are six times likelier to know who won "American Idol" than they are to know the name of the speaker of the House
By Walter E. Williams
Townhall
October 26, 2016
Do you wonder why Sen. Bernie Sanders and his ideas are so popular among American college students? The answer is that they, like so many other young people who think they know it all, are really uninformed and ignorant. You say, "Williams, how dare you say that?! We've mortgaged our home to send our children to college." Let's start with the 2006 geographic literacy survey of youngsters between 18 and 24 years of age by National Geographic and Roper Public Affairs.
Less than half could identify New York and Ohio on a U.S. map. Sixty percent could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East, and three-quarters could not find Iran or Israel. In fact, 44 percent could not locate even one of those four countries. Youngsters who had taken a geography class didn't fare much better. By the way, when I attended elementary school, during the 1940s, we were given blank U.S. maps, and our assignment was to write in the states. Today such an assignment might be deemed oppressive, if not racist.
According to a Philadelphia magazine article, the percentage of college grads who can read and interpret a food label has fallen from 40 to 30. They are six times likelier to know who won "American Idol" than they are to know the name of the speaker of the House. A high-school teacher in California handed out an assignment that required students to use a ruler. Not a single student knew how.
An article on News Forum for Lawyers titled "Study Finds College Students Remarkably Incompetent" cites a study done by the American Institutes for Research that revealed that over 75 percent of two-year college students and 50 percent of four-year college students were incapable of completing everyday tasks. About 20 percent of four-year college students demonstrated only basic mathematical ability, while a steeper 30 percent of two-year college students could not progress past elementary arithmetic. NBC News reported that Fortune 500 companies spend about $3 billion annually to train employees in "basic English."
Reported by Just Facts, in 2009, the Pentagon estimated that 65 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. were unqualified for military service because of weak educational skills, poor physical fitness, illegal drug usage, medical conditions or criminal records. In January 2014, the commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command estimated this figure at 77.5 percent, and in June 2014, the Department of Defense estimated this figure at 71 percent (http://tinyurl.com/guz7pqy).
A few weeks ago, my column discussed the dishonesty of college officials (http://tinyurl.com/zgmhzkc). Here's more evidence: Among high-school students who graduated in 2014 and took the ACT college readiness exam, here's how various racial/ethnic groups fared when it came to meeting the ACT's college readiness benchmarks in at least three of the four subjects: Asians, 57 percent; whites, 49 percent; Hispanics, 23 percent; and blacks, 11 percent. However, the college rates of enrollment of these groups were: Asians, 80 percent; whites, 69 percent; Hispanics, 60 percent; and blacks, 57 percent. What I am labeling as dishonest, fraudulent or deceitful comes from the fact that many more students are admitted to college than are in fact college-ready. Admitting such students may satisfy the wants and financial interests of the higher education establishment, but whether it serves the interests of students, families, taxpayers and the nation is another question.
To accommodate less college-ready students, colleges must water down their curricula, lower standards and abandon traditional tools and topics. Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein writes in his book "The Dumbest Generation": Tradition "serves a crucial moral and intellectual function. ... People who read Thucydides and Caesar on war, and Seneca and Ovid on love, are less inclined to construe passing fads as durable outlooks, to fall into the maelstrom of celebrity culture, to presume that the circumstances of their own life are worth a Web page."
EDITOR’S NOTE: Unless they graduated with a degree in the sciences, engineering or math, today’s college grads are very likely to be educated idiots. And among the educated idiots I include many college profs.
Compare the sad state of our colleges and universities with their worthless African-American Studies and Gender Studies among other nonsensical programs to the no-nonsense studies in the universities of China, South Korea and Japan.
By Walter E. Williams
Townhall
October 26, 2016
Do you wonder why Sen. Bernie Sanders and his ideas are so popular among American college students? The answer is that they, like so many other young people who think they know it all, are really uninformed and ignorant. You say, "Williams, how dare you say that?! We've mortgaged our home to send our children to college." Let's start with the 2006 geographic literacy survey of youngsters between 18 and 24 years of age by National Geographic and Roper Public Affairs.
Less than half could identify New York and Ohio on a U.S. map. Sixty percent could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East, and three-quarters could not find Iran or Israel. In fact, 44 percent could not locate even one of those four countries. Youngsters who had taken a geography class didn't fare much better. By the way, when I attended elementary school, during the 1940s, we were given blank U.S. maps, and our assignment was to write in the states. Today such an assignment might be deemed oppressive, if not racist.
According to a Philadelphia magazine article, the percentage of college grads who can read and interpret a food label has fallen from 40 to 30. They are six times likelier to know who won "American Idol" than they are to know the name of the speaker of the House. A high-school teacher in California handed out an assignment that required students to use a ruler. Not a single student knew how.
An article on News Forum for Lawyers titled "Study Finds College Students Remarkably Incompetent" cites a study done by the American Institutes for Research that revealed that over 75 percent of two-year college students and 50 percent of four-year college students were incapable of completing everyday tasks. About 20 percent of four-year college students demonstrated only basic mathematical ability, while a steeper 30 percent of two-year college students could not progress past elementary arithmetic. NBC News reported that Fortune 500 companies spend about $3 billion annually to train employees in "basic English."
Reported by Just Facts, in 2009, the Pentagon estimated that 65 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. were unqualified for military service because of weak educational skills, poor physical fitness, illegal drug usage, medical conditions or criminal records. In January 2014, the commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command estimated this figure at 77.5 percent, and in June 2014, the Department of Defense estimated this figure at 71 percent (http://tinyurl.com/guz7pqy).
A few weeks ago, my column discussed the dishonesty of college officials (http://tinyurl.com/zgmhzkc). Here's more evidence: Among high-school students who graduated in 2014 and took the ACT college readiness exam, here's how various racial/ethnic groups fared when it came to meeting the ACT's college readiness benchmarks in at least three of the four subjects: Asians, 57 percent; whites, 49 percent; Hispanics, 23 percent; and blacks, 11 percent. However, the college rates of enrollment of these groups were: Asians, 80 percent; whites, 69 percent; Hispanics, 60 percent; and blacks, 57 percent. What I am labeling as dishonest, fraudulent or deceitful comes from the fact that many more students are admitted to college than are in fact college-ready. Admitting such students may satisfy the wants and financial interests of the higher education establishment, but whether it serves the interests of students, families, taxpayers and the nation is another question.
To accommodate less college-ready students, colleges must water down their curricula, lower standards and abandon traditional tools and topics. Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein writes in his book "The Dumbest Generation": Tradition "serves a crucial moral and intellectual function. ... People who read Thucydides and Caesar on war, and Seneca and Ovid on love, are less inclined to construe passing fads as durable outlooks, to fall into the maelstrom of celebrity culture, to presume that the circumstances of their own life are worth a Web page."
EDITOR’S NOTE: Unless they graduated with a degree in the sciences, engineering or math, today’s college grads are very likely to be educated idiots. And among the educated idiots I include many college profs.
Compare the sad state of our colleges and universities with their worthless African-American Studies and Gender Studies among other nonsensical programs to the no-nonsense studies in the universities of China, South Korea and Japan.
UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS ARE NOT CRIMINALS
At least according to the democrat California Attorney General they are not
By Bob Walsh
Kamala Harris, the current California A.G. is running for the available U.S. Senate seat from California against another Democrat Latina. Harris is very likely to win the contest. She is, however, trying to shore up her polling in the Hispanic community against Ms. Sanchez, her opponent.
Personally I will be happy to see her go, get her the hell out of California. That being said I am unsure that having a state A.G. or a member of the U.S. Senate who says up front that being an illegal alien is not a crime is helpful or reasonable. It may very well, however, be helpful to get her liberal ass elected, which is of course what is important (to her).
By Bob Walsh
Kamala Harris, the current California A.G. is running for the available U.S. Senate seat from California against another Democrat Latina. Harris is very likely to win the contest. She is, however, trying to shore up her polling in the Hispanic community against Ms. Sanchez, her opponent.
Personally I will be happy to see her go, get her the hell out of California. That being said I am unsure that having a state A.G. or a member of the U.S. Senate who says up front that being an illegal alien is not a crime is helpful or reasonable. It may very well, however, be helpful to get her liberal ass elected, which is of course what is important (to her).
RETIRED FBI AGENT MIKE CALLAHAN’S ANALYSIS OF CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION
Below is my take on captioned matter. It is my belief that the FBI was politically manipulated to insure a particular outcome. I think there is substantial evidence to support my belief and the manner in which the investigation was handled tarnished the Bureau’s reputation for conducting impartial and apolitical investigations. I am not trying to influence how people vote. I could not care less. My concern is what those in authority did to our FBI. My reasons are set forth below.
Part One:
1. The statute that was used to judge HRC’s actions, makes it a criminal felony violation to mishandle classified information intentionally OR with gross negligence. Director Comey stated that HRC acted with “extreme carelessness” in the handling of classified info. Extreme Carelessness is Gross Negligence. She violated this statute which Congress, not Director Comey created. As an executive branch member, he has no authority to ignore the express language of a statute created by Congress. His mission is to follow the law, not abolish congressional statutory language that he does not like. He decided to arbitrarily modify the statute by de facto elimination of the “Gross Negligence portion of the statute. By doing so, he acted outside the scope of his authority.
2. In my 30 yrs in the FBI and total of 44 yrs in Law enforcement, I was never involved in or even heard of an investigation which ignored evidence of “other crimes” uncovered while investigating the original crime under investigation.` But in this case, the FBI began by investigating mishandling of classified info on a private email system – then recovered thousands of emails that HRC and her team destroyed (recovered from recipients' computers). Some of those emails disclosed that certain donors to the Clinton Foundation gave huge amts of money to the Foundation and in return rec’d meetings with HRC at the State Dept. Many of the donors were from Foreign Countries. While access alone is not criminal, it provides a “Reasonable Indication” (which is sufficient to open a new investigation under DOJ Guidelines,) into the likelihood of Quid Pro Quo/Bribery.
No one donates thousands/millions of dollars to a Private Foundation for a meeting with the Secretary of State to talk about the NFL football season/ or the weather forecast. What deals were made or discussed in those meetings? The FBI had blinders on and refused to widen the investigation when there was clear probable cause to do so. This my friends never happened when I was in the FBI. In my career, if we started with a stolen property case and it lead to drugs, guns and murder, we expanded to include all the new crimes. It is unprecedented that it did not happen with the HRC investigation. This is wrong. I don’t know whether DOJ ordered the FBI to ignore other avenues of investigation or whether the Bureau restricted itself to ignore these obvious avenues of inquiry.
3.) In all my 44 yrs of service, I never saw a case where deliberate destruction of evidence was ignored instead of thoroughly investigated. Deliberate destruction of evidence is not only felonious in and of itself (i.e. felonious per se) but also indicative of Knowledge that the original conduct of HRC and her Aides was intentional/deliberate. (This goes back to my point in section one above and is indicative of the fact that the handling of classified info was even more than gross negligent and was instead likely deliberate/intentional).--- Nevertheless when you find evidence that HRC’s lawyer Cheryl Mills called one of the private server operators after a Congressional subpoena was issued for the emails and ordered him to destroy thousands of emails relevant to the subpoena, this is prima facie evidence of obstruction of justice. Moreover, there is evidence that 13 of HRC’s phones were deliberately destroyed and /or “missing”—some of the phones were smashed with a hammer/ and bleach bit was used to destroy 33,000 emails.
I have never seen a case like this in all my yrs where deliberate destruction of evidence was simply ignored by the FBI and not investigated. Again, I don’t know whether this was ordered by DOJ or whether the FBI restricted itself. Either way, it is totally inappropriate.
4.) The DOJ/ apparently with FBI concurrence/ gave Cheryl Mills and HRC’s other lawyer so called “Act of Production” immunity for their computers which contained highly classified information. “Act of Production” immunity is strictly limited to the very act of turning over the computers. It is never given to include what is actually found on the computers –It is only given for the act of turning them over. In all other cases that I am aware of when this is done, the FBI agent receiving the computer cannot take the stand and testify that he/she rec’d the computer from the person receiving the immunity. If the FBI wants to use the info they find on the computer against the provider, they have to show that it belonged to the provider by means unrelated to the Act of Production. In the HRC investigation, the immunity grant, as I understand it was all encompassing, not limited to the act of production but extended to the contents of the computer and even included any contents the lawyers may have destroyed. This is both incredible and unprecedented.—I have never seen a case handled in this fashion. Immunity grants should be limited to what is necessary to obtain the needed evidence and not extended beyond what is absolutely necessary. The fact that there was no grand jury, subpoena power and Federal judge controlling the grand jury to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt probably contributed to these broad immunity grants. Ask yourself why no grand jury was convened?
5.DOJ/apparently with FBI acquiescence agreed to limit the scope of their inquiry to a date prior to when the major destruction of evidence occurred. How could this be agreed to unless the fix was in? There was reason to believe that massive obstruction occurred and the FBI/DOJ not only declined to investigate it but also inexplicably agreed to stop the investigation before the dates when the destruction occurred. I have never seen or heard of anything like it. Moreover, knowing full well that a multitude of Congressional inquiries were ongoing with respect to these matters, the FBI agreed to destroy the contents of the computers rec’d from HRC’s 2 lawyers. When have you ever seen or heard of anything like this?
6. The DOJ/apparently with FBI acquiescence refused to use a grand jury to investigate this case. The FGJ could have issued subpoenas and compelled witness testimony under oath. It was not done here. With respect to gathering evidence from HRC’s Private Server Company, the State Dept and HRC’s staff, including her lawyers, search warrants could have been obtained before critical evidence was destroyed. None of this was done. All of these steps would have been taken in every other case but not this one.
7.) According to published news reports, President Obama, using a pseudonym was the sender/receiver of several emails containing classified info that went thru HRC’s non secure set up. Even Cheryl Mills was horrified when she read one of the emails without knowing it came from Obama.
8.) DOJ or the FBI decided to permit Cheryl Mills to be present during the questioning of HRC. Mills at that time was an immunized Subject of the investigation. Probable cause existed to believe that Mills had ordered the destruction of numerous HRC emails. This decision was simply amazing and beyond the pale.
My guess is that a lot more negative info will trickle out before this is over. I am upset with Director Comey for allowing the apolitical reputation of the FBI to come under question. What happened is a severe blight upon the reputation of an agency that we served with distinction for so many years. It will take many years to reconstruct our reputation.
Part Two:
I appreciate that Director Comey held a press conference in July, explaining the FBI investigative findings, which was unprecedented. What he did was necessary but not sufficient to protect the reputation of the Bureau. I also believe that he was under enormous pressure from the President/AG to limit the scope of the investigation. President Obama’s public commentary during his “60 minutes” interview gave us a preview of how this was all going to come out. He said HRC made a mistake but basically it was not a big deal. (Now we know that he was communicating with HRC on the unsecured server using a pseudonym). We are supposed to be a Nation of Laws/not men. It is often said that No man (or woman) is above the law. This ideal was abandoned in this case. Anyone else would have been prosecuted. Expediency rather than honor was the winner here.
By refusing to convene a Federal Grand Jury, DOJ placed the FBI into a World Series Game without a bat and a glove. This eliminated sworn witness testimony and subpoena power (as you are well aware, these are some of the absolute main investigative methods necessary to break open a case where cooperation is limited or non existent/It allows recalcitrant witnesses to be brought before a Federal Judge and be held in contempt and jailed for refusal to cooperate after an immunity grant). Have FBI Agents conducting a major investigation ever in Bureau history been so handcuffed in conducting that investigation?
Director Comey was faced with a very difficult choice. He could either send his team onto the field without bats and gloves in front of the entire nation/world or tell Lynch to go to hell and threaten to resign. He chose the former. He should have chosen the latter and called their bluff.----I am sorry that he did not do so. His resignation, if required, would have preserved the integrity and reputation of the FBI. The reputation of the FBI has been severely damaged in the process not just among many xagents but also many outside the FBI family as well.
Copyright © 2016 Boston Chapter-Former Special Agents of the FBI
Mike Callahan, among FBI positions he held, was the Principle Legal Adviser (PLA) to the Special Agent in Charge of each FBI Division.
Part One:
1. The statute that was used to judge HRC’s actions, makes it a criminal felony violation to mishandle classified information intentionally OR with gross negligence. Director Comey stated that HRC acted with “extreme carelessness” in the handling of classified info. Extreme Carelessness is Gross Negligence. She violated this statute which Congress, not Director Comey created. As an executive branch member, he has no authority to ignore the express language of a statute created by Congress. His mission is to follow the law, not abolish congressional statutory language that he does not like. He decided to arbitrarily modify the statute by de facto elimination of the “Gross Negligence portion of the statute. By doing so, he acted outside the scope of his authority.
2. In my 30 yrs in the FBI and total of 44 yrs in Law enforcement, I was never involved in or even heard of an investigation which ignored evidence of “other crimes” uncovered while investigating the original crime under investigation.` But in this case, the FBI began by investigating mishandling of classified info on a private email system – then recovered thousands of emails that HRC and her team destroyed (recovered from recipients' computers). Some of those emails disclosed that certain donors to the Clinton Foundation gave huge amts of money to the Foundation and in return rec’d meetings with HRC at the State Dept. Many of the donors were from Foreign Countries. While access alone is not criminal, it provides a “Reasonable Indication” (which is sufficient to open a new investigation under DOJ Guidelines,) into the likelihood of Quid Pro Quo/Bribery.
No one donates thousands/millions of dollars to a Private Foundation for a meeting with the Secretary of State to talk about the NFL football season/ or the weather forecast. What deals were made or discussed in those meetings? The FBI had blinders on and refused to widen the investigation when there was clear probable cause to do so. This my friends never happened when I was in the FBI. In my career, if we started with a stolen property case and it lead to drugs, guns and murder, we expanded to include all the new crimes. It is unprecedented that it did not happen with the HRC investigation. This is wrong. I don’t know whether DOJ ordered the FBI to ignore other avenues of investigation or whether the Bureau restricted itself to ignore these obvious avenues of inquiry.
3.) In all my 44 yrs of service, I never saw a case where deliberate destruction of evidence was ignored instead of thoroughly investigated. Deliberate destruction of evidence is not only felonious in and of itself (i.e. felonious per se) but also indicative of Knowledge that the original conduct of HRC and her Aides was intentional/deliberate. (This goes back to my point in section one above and is indicative of the fact that the handling of classified info was even more than gross negligent and was instead likely deliberate/intentional).--- Nevertheless when you find evidence that HRC’s lawyer Cheryl Mills called one of the private server operators after a Congressional subpoena was issued for the emails and ordered him to destroy thousands of emails relevant to the subpoena, this is prima facie evidence of obstruction of justice. Moreover, there is evidence that 13 of HRC’s phones were deliberately destroyed and /or “missing”—some of the phones were smashed with a hammer/ and bleach bit was used to destroy 33,000 emails.
I have never seen a case like this in all my yrs where deliberate destruction of evidence was simply ignored by the FBI and not investigated. Again, I don’t know whether this was ordered by DOJ or whether the FBI restricted itself. Either way, it is totally inappropriate.
4.) The DOJ/ apparently with FBI concurrence/ gave Cheryl Mills and HRC’s other lawyer so called “Act of Production” immunity for their computers which contained highly classified information. “Act of Production” immunity is strictly limited to the very act of turning over the computers. It is never given to include what is actually found on the computers –It is only given for the act of turning them over. In all other cases that I am aware of when this is done, the FBI agent receiving the computer cannot take the stand and testify that he/she rec’d the computer from the person receiving the immunity. If the FBI wants to use the info they find on the computer against the provider, they have to show that it belonged to the provider by means unrelated to the Act of Production. In the HRC investigation, the immunity grant, as I understand it was all encompassing, not limited to the act of production but extended to the contents of the computer and even included any contents the lawyers may have destroyed. This is both incredible and unprecedented.—I have never seen a case handled in this fashion. Immunity grants should be limited to what is necessary to obtain the needed evidence and not extended beyond what is absolutely necessary. The fact that there was no grand jury, subpoena power and Federal judge controlling the grand jury to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt probably contributed to these broad immunity grants. Ask yourself why no grand jury was convened?
5.DOJ/apparently with FBI acquiescence agreed to limit the scope of their inquiry to a date prior to when the major destruction of evidence occurred. How could this be agreed to unless the fix was in? There was reason to believe that massive obstruction occurred and the FBI/DOJ not only declined to investigate it but also inexplicably agreed to stop the investigation before the dates when the destruction occurred. I have never seen or heard of anything like it. Moreover, knowing full well that a multitude of Congressional inquiries were ongoing with respect to these matters, the FBI agreed to destroy the contents of the computers rec’d from HRC’s 2 lawyers. When have you ever seen or heard of anything like this?
6. The DOJ/apparently with FBI acquiescence refused to use a grand jury to investigate this case. The FGJ could have issued subpoenas and compelled witness testimony under oath. It was not done here. With respect to gathering evidence from HRC’s Private Server Company, the State Dept and HRC’s staff, including her lawyers, search warrants could have been obtained before critical evidence was destroyed. None of this was done. All of these steps would have been taken in every other case but not this one.
7.) According to published news reports, President Obama, using a pseudonym was the sender/receiver of several emails containing classified info that went thru HRC’s non secure set up. Even Cheryl Mills was horrified when she read one of the emails without knowing it came from Obama.
8.) DOJ or the FBI decided to permit Cheryl Mills to be present during the questioning of HRC. Mills at that time was an immunized Subject of the investigation. Probable cause existed to believe that Mills had ordered the destruction of numerous HRC emails. This decision was simply amazing and beyond the pale.
My guess is that a lot more negative info will trickle out before this is over. I am upset with Director Comey for allowing the apolitical reputation of the FBI to come under question. What happened is a severe blight upon the reputation of an agency that we served with distinction for so many years. It will take many years to reconstruct our reputation.
Part Two:
I appreciate that Director Comey held a press conference in July, explaining the FBI investigative findings, which was unprecedented. What he did was necessary but not sufficient to protect the reputation of the Bureau. I also believe that he was under enormous pressure from the President/AG to limit the scope of the investigation. President Obama’s public commentary during his “60 minutes” interview gave us a preview of how this was all going to come out. He said HRC made a mistake but basically it was not a big deal. (Now we know that he was communicating with HRC on the unsecured server using a pseudonym). We are supposed to be a Nation of Laws/not men. It is often said that No man (or woman) is above the law. This ideal was abandoned in this case. Anyone else would have been prosecuted. Expediency rather than honor was the winner here.
By refusing to convene a Federal Grand Jury, DOJ placed the FBI into a World Series Game without a bat and a glove. This eliminated sworn witness testimony and subpoena power (as you are well aware, these are some of the absolute main investigative methods necessary to break open a case where cooperation is limited or non existent/It allows recalcitrant witnesses to be brought before a Federal Judge and be held in contempt and jailed for refusal to cooperate after an immunity grant). Have FBI Agents conducting a major investigation ever in Bureau history been so handcuffed in conducting that investigation?
Director Comey was faced with a very difficult choice. He could either send his team onto the field without bats and gloves in front of the entire nation/world or tell Lynch to go to hell and threaten to resign. He chose the former. He should have chosen the latter and called their bluff.----I am sorry that he did not do so. His resignation, if required, would have preserved the integrity and reputation of the FBI. The reputation of the FBI has been severely damaged in the process not just among many xagents but also many outside the FBI family as well.
Copyright © 2016 Boston Chapter-Former Special Agents of the FBI
Mike Callahan, among FBI positions he held, was the Principle Legal Adviser (PLA) to the Special Agent in Charge of each FBI Division.
JUDGE ACCUSES HOUSTON’S PUBLIC DEFENDERS OF FLOUTING RULES
State District Judge Mary Lou Keel accuses the public defender’s office of overstepping her authority as a judge
By Meagan Flynn
Houston Press
October 27, 2016
It was by accident in 2012 that the Texas Department of Public Safety stumbled upon a troubling discovery affecting the validity of nearly 5,000 drug cases across Texas: One of its analysts at a Houston crime lab had intentionally falsified lab results.
Soon, after further review of the analyst's full body of work since 2006, DPS cautioned district attorneys across the state that nearly 4,900 cases — all of those that the analyst, Jonathan Salvador, had tested — could be in jeopardy due to his fabrications. Four hundred of them were in Harris County, leading the district attorney's office to ask the Harris County Public Defender's Office to help represent potentially hundreds of defendants in new trials, according to a 2014 memo obtained by the Houston Press.
Two years later, however, because of a dispute that arose between State District Judge Mary Lou Keel and the public defender's office about how, or even if, public defenders were allowed to help those 400 people get new trials, Keel has since then refused to work with any public defenders. In at least two years, she has appointed only one in her court. And today, she accuses the public defender's office of lying to her, saying they were not trying to help those defendants in the interest of justice, but only to “make themselves look good.”
“They think, 'oh, we're doing all this great work. We're gonna be the hero,'” says Keel, who is running in the upcoming election for the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, the state's highest criminal appellate court. “They certainly wanted to take on all these easy cases — it makes their stats look good. If they can get a bunch of these slam-dunk writs where almost everybody's going to be granted relief, yeah, they got carried away — but not out of the goodness of their heart.”
It is an accusation that the public defender's office strongly denies, saying that Keel blew a simple misunderstanding out of proportion, severing their otherwise productive relationship (even Keel says she used to be their "best customer"). “We were trying to make sure that justice was done, so I don't know how that's self-serving,” said Chief Public Defender Alex Bunin. “And it wasn't really our idea. If you talk to anyone at the DA's office, they'll say they asked us to do this.”
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals started granting relief and reversing convictions in cases arising out of the Jonathan Salvador snafu in 2013. It wasn't long after that Harris County found itself entangled in yet another crime lab scandal affecting a huge amount of convictions — and again in need of help from public defenders. Due to massive backlogs in drug testing at the former Houston Police Department crime lab, hundreds of defendants pleaded guilty to drug possession in order to get out of jail — even though months or even years later, the lab results finally came back as negative, proving their innocence. As of this summer, nearly 300 people have been found wrongfully convicted (so far).
Here's where the public defender's office came in, in both of these scandals, according to the 2014 memo written by Bunin: Normally, in order to obtain post-conviction relief, judges must appoint attorneys on a case-by-case basis, reviewing the facts of each individually. But because of the magnitude of the scandals, with every case having similar defects, Bunin says the district attorney asked them to step in and represent the defendants in blanket fashion, since prosecutors had already agreed in most cases to grant relief. Plus, Bunin wrote in the memo, if they didn't reach out to the defendants to offer assistance, few would "have the wherewithal to contact the court and ask for representation" themselves. (We asked DA's office spokesman Jeff McShan to verify Bunin's account of the DA's office's actions, but he did not respond.)
According to Keel, however, public defender Bob Wicoff, who specializes in post-conviction writs, took the DA's office's instructions a step too far, overstepping her authority as a judge.
After the DA's office began directing defendants from the Salvador batch his way, Wicoff got in touch with the defendants and, believing they were due relief, started filing writs of habeas corpus in various courts, including Keel's. Keel's problem: Wicoff never got her permission or official appointment before filing them, and she never determined whether the defendants were indigent first. (Public defenders generally only represent poor defendants after a judge's finding of indigence.)
“There was no authority whatsoever for them to take those cases,” Keel says. “And this is the thing that kills me: They tried to double-talk their way out of it and pretend like there was some arrangement that gave them the authority. And they have still not come clean on it.”
Today, Wicoff says that he regrets how the dispute unfolded. Firstly, he says, he misunderstood Judge Keel's primary complaint the first time she confronted him. Even though no other judges appeared to have a problem with public defenders proactively hopping on these potential wrongful convictions and filing the writs, Wicoff says, in retrospect, he wishes he would have simply asked Keel before filing them. After Keel's complaint, Wicoff says he and other public defenders stopped filing writs without official appointment.
Still, Wicoff maintains that the idea that he would do this for personal gain is a wrong assumption on Keel's part, and that he was only assisting the potentially wrongfully convicted defendants because, well, the DA's office put down his name in its letters to them.
“I respected Judge Keel for many years, and it simply pains me that she has reacted like this," Wicoff says. "She was under some assumption that this would solidify our standing in the criminal justice community, or it would work to our benefit. That never entered my mind. What entered my mind was I was happy to help.”
Keel is running on the Republican ticket for Place 2 on the Court of Criminal Appeals. She hopes to replace Democratic incumbent Larry Meyers, the only Democrat on the high court's bench and only Democrat in Texas's 29 statewide elected offices. Asked if she had anything to say about her race, she said, "If I get elected to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the PD won't have to worry anymore about me catching them."
And the public defenders will probably get their appointments back.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Harris County (Houston) has a half-ass public defender’s office. Unlike the federal system and the court systems in other states where the public defender’s office represents all indigent defendants, Harris County judges still appoint attorneys to represent indigents and the public defender’s office is limited to the kinds of cases they are allowed to handle..
In this instance, Judge Keel is a horse’s ass! She’s just bent out of shape because the public defender’s office bypassed her in representing the wrongly convicted. Fuck her!
By Meagan Flynn
Houston Press
October 27, 2016
It was by accident in 2012 that the Texas Department of Public Safety stumbled upon a troubling discovery affecting the validity of nearly 5,000 drug cases across Texas: One of its analysts at a Houston crime lab had intentionally falsified lab results.
Soon, after further review of the analyst's full body of work since 2006, DPS cautioned district attorneys across the state that nearly 4,900 cases — all of those that the analyst, Jonathan Salvador, had tested — could be in jeopardy due to his fabrications. Four hundred of them were in Harris County, leading the district attorney's office to ask the Harris County Public Defender's Office to help represent potentially hundreds of defendants in new trials, according to a 2014 memo obtained by the Houston Press.
Two years later, however, because of a dispute that arose between State District Judge Mary Lou Keel and the public defender's office about how, or even if, public defenders were allowed to help those 400 people get new trials, Keel has since then refused to work with any public defenders. In at least two years, she has appointed only one in her court. And today, she accuses the public defender's office of lying to her, saying they were not trying to help those defendants in the interest of justice, but only to “make themselves look good.”
“They think, 'oh, we're doing all this great work. We're gonna be the hero,'” says Keel, who is running in the upcoming election for the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, the state's highest criminal appellate court. “They certainly wanted to take on all these easy cases — it makes their stats look good. If they can get a bunch of these slam-dunk writs where almost everybody's going to be granted relief, yeah, they got carried away — but not out of the goodness of their heart.”
It is an accusation that the public defender's office strongly denies, saying that Keel blew a simple misunderstanding out of proportion, severing their otherwise productive relationship (even Keel says she used to be their "best customer"). “We were trying to make sure that justice was done, so I don't know how that's self-serving,” said Chief Public Defender Alex Bunin. “And it wasn't really our idea. If you talk to anyone at the DA's office, they'll say they asked us to do this.”
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals started granting relief and reversing convictions in cases arising out of the Jonathan Salvador snafu in 2013. It wasn't long after that Harris County found itself entangled in yet another crime lab scandal affecting a huge amount of convictions — and again in need of help from public defenders. Due to massive backlogs in drug testing at the former Houston Police Department crime lab, hundreds of defendants pleaded guilty to drug possession in order to get out of jail — even though months or even years later, the lab results finally came back as negative, proving their innocence. As of this summer, nearly 300 people have been found wrongfully convicted (so far).
Here's where the public defender's office came in, in both of these scandals, according to the 2014 memo written by Bunin: Normally, in order to obtain post-conviction relief, judges must appoint attorneys on a case-by-case basis, reviewing the facts of each individually. But because of the magnitude of the scandals, with every case having similar defects, Bunin says the district attorney asked them to step in and represent the defendants in blanket fashion, since prosecutors had already agreed in most cases to grant relief. Plus, Bunin wrote in the memo, if they didn't reach out to the defendants to offer assistance, few would "have the wherewithal to contact the court and ask for representation" themselves. (We asked DA's office spokesman Jeff McShan to verify Bunin's account of the DA's office's actions, but he did not respond.)
According to Keel, however, public defender Bob Wicoff, who specializes in post-conviction writs, took the DA's office's instructions a step too far, overstepping her authority as a judge.
After the DA's office began directing defendants from the Salvador batch his way, Wicoff got in touch with the defendants and, believing they were due relief, started filing writs of habeas corpus in various courts, including Keel's. Keel's problem: Wicoff never got her permission or official appointment before filing them, and she never determined whether the defendants were indigent first. (Public defenders generally only represent poor defendants after a judge's finding of indigence.)
“There was no authority whatsoever for them to take those cases,” Keel says. “And this is the thing that kills me: They tried to double-talk their way out of it and pretend like there was some arrangement that gave them the authority. And they have still not come clean on it.”
Today, Wicoff says that he regrets how the dispute unfolded. Firstly, he says, he misunderstood Judge Keel's primary complaint the first time she confronted him. Even though no other judges appeared to have a problem with public defenders proactively hopping on these potential wrongful convictions and filing the writs, Wicoff says, in retrospect, he wishes he would have simply asked Keel before filing them. After Keel's complaint, Wicoff says he and other public defenders stopped filing writs without official appointment.
Still, Wicoff maintains that the idea that he would do this for personal gain is a wrong assumption on Keel's part, and that he was only assisting the potentially wrongfully convicted defendants because, well, the DA's office put down his name in its letters to them.
“I respected Judge Keel for many years, and it simply pains me that she has reacted like this," Wicoff says. "She was under some assumption that this would solidify our standing in the criminal justice community, or it would work to our benefit. That never entered my mind. What entered my mind was I was happy to help.”
Keel is running on the Republican ticket for Place 2 on the Court of Criminal Appeals. She hopes to replace Democratic incumbent Larry Meyers, the only Democrat on the high court's bench and only Democrat in Texas's 29 statewide elected offices. Asked if she had anything to say about her race, she said, "If I get elected to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the PD won't have to worry anymore about me catching them."
And the public defenders will probably get their appointments back.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Harris County (Houston) has a half-ass public defender’s office. Unlike the federal system and the court systems in other states where the public defender’s office represents all indigent defendants, Harris County judges still appoint attorneys to represent indigents and the public defender’s office is limited to the kinds of cases they are allowed to handle..
In this instance, Judge Keel is a horse’s ass! She’s just bent out of shape because the public defender’s office bypassed her in representing the wrongly convicted. Fuck her!
THE NEXT 10 YEARS WILL BE UGLY FOR YOUR 401(K)
We’re about to pay the price for all the good times
By Suzanne Woolley
Bloomberg
October 26, 2016
It doesn’t seem like much to ask for—a 5 percent return. But the odds of making even that on traditional investments in the next 10 years are slim, according to a new report from investment advisory firm Research Affiliates.
The company looked at the default settings of 11 retirement calculators, robo-advisers, and surveys of institutional investors. Their average annualized long-term expected return? 6.2 percent. After 1.6 percent was shaved off to allow for a decade of inflation1, the number dropped to 4.6 percent, which was rounded up. Voilà .
So on average we all expect a 5 percent; the report tells us we should start getting used to disappointment. To show how a mainstream stock and bond portfolio would do under Research Affiliates’ 10-year model, the report looks at the typical balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds. An example would be the $29.6 billion Vanguard Balanced Index Fund (VBINX). For the decade ended Sept. 30, VBINX had an average annual performance of 6.6 percent, and that’s before inflation. Over the next decade, according to the report, “the ubiquitous 60/40 U.S. portfolio has a 0% probability of achieving a 5% or greater annualized real return.”
One message that John West, head of client strategies at Research Affiliates and a co-author of the report, hopes people will take away is that the high returns of the past came with a price: lower returns in the future.
“If the retirement calculators say we’ll make 6 percent or 7 percent, and people saved based on that but only make 3 percent, they’re going to have a massive shortfall,” he said. “They’ll have to work longer or retire with a substantially different standard of living than they thought they would have.”
Research Affiliates’ forecasts for the stock market rely on the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio, known as the CAPE or Shiller P/E. It looks at P/Es over 10 years, rather than one, to account for volatility and short-term considerations, among other things.
The firm’s website lets people enter their portfolio’s asset allocation into an interactive calculator and see what their own odds are, as well as how their portfolio might fare if invested in less-mainstream assets (which the company tends to specialize in). The point isn’t to steer people to higher risk, according to West. To get higher returns, you have to take on what the firm calls “maverick” risk, and that means holding a portfolio that can look very different from those of peers. “It’s hard to stick with being wrong and alone in the short term,” West said.
At least as hard though is seeing the level of return the calculator spits out for traditional asset classes. Splitting a portfolio evenly among U.S. large-cap equities, U.S. small-cap equities, emerging-market equities, short-term U.S. Treasuries, and a global core bond portfolio produced an expected return of 2.3 percent. Taking 20 percent out of short-term U.S. Treasuries and putting 10 percent of that into emerging-market currencies, and 10 percent into U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, lifted the return to 2.7 percent. Shifting the 20 percent U.S. large-cap chunk into 10 percent commodities and 10 percent high-yield pushed the expected return up to 2.9 percent. Not a pretty picture.
Moral of the story: Since most people’s risk tolerance isn’t likely to change dramatically, the amount you save may have to.
By Suzanne Woolley
Bloomberg
October 26, 2016
It doesn’t seem like much to ask for—a 5 percent return. But the odds of making even that on traditional investments in the next 10 years are slim, according to a new report from investment advisory firm Research Affiliates.
The company looked at the default settings of 11 retirement calculators, robo-advisers, and surveys of institutional investors. Their average annualized long-term expected return? 6.2 percent. After 1.6 percent was shaved off to allow for a decade of inflation1, the number dropped to 4.6 percent, which was rounded up. Voilà .
So on average we all expect a 5 percent; the report tells us we should start getting used to disappointment. To show how a mainstream stock and bond portfolio would do under Research Affiliates’ 10-year model, the report looks at the typical balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds. An example would be the $29.6 billion Vanguard Balanced Index Fund (VBINX). For the decade ended Sept. 30, VBINX had an average annual performance of 6.6 percent, and that’s before inflation. Over the next decade, according to the report, “the ubiquitous 60/40 U.S. portfolio has a 0% probability of achieving a 5% or greater annualized real return.”
One message that John West, head of client strategies at Research Affiliates and a co-author of the report, hopes people will take away is that the high returns of the past came with a price: lower returns in the future.
“If the retirement calculators say we’ll make 6 percent or 7 percent, and people saved based on that but only make 3 percent, they’re going to have a massive shortfall,” he said. “They’ll have to work longer or retire with a substantially different standard of living than they thought they would have.”
Research Affiliates’ forecasts for the stock market rely on the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio, known as the CAPE or Shiller P/E. It looks at P/Es over 10 years, rather than one, to account for volatility and short-term considerations, among other things.
The firm’s website lets people enter their portfolio’s asset allocation into an interactive calculator and see what their own odds are, as well as how their portfolio might fare if invested in less-mainstream assets (which the company tends to specialize in). The point isn’t to steer people to higher risk, according to West. To get higher returns, you have to take on what the firm calls “maverick” risk, and that means holding a portfolio that can look very different from those of peers. “It’s hard to stick with being wrong and alone in the short term,” West said.
At least as hard though is seeing the level of return the calculator spits out for traditional asset classes. Splitting a portfolio evenly among U.S. large-cap equities, U.S. small-cap equities, emerging-market equities, short-term U.S. Treasuries, and a global core bond portfolio produced an expected return of 2.3 percent. Taking 20 percent out of short-term U.S. Treasuries and putting 10 percent of that into emerging-market currencies, and 10 percent into U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, lifted the return to 2.7 percent. Shifting the 20 percent U.S. large-cap chunk into 10 percent commodities and 10 percent high-yield pushed the expected return up to 2.9 percent. Not a pretty picture.
Moral of the story: Since most people’s risk tolerance isn’t likely to change dramatically, the amount you save may have to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)