A young Naval Officer was in a terrible car accident, but due to the heroics of the hospital staff the only permanent injury was the loss of one ear. Since he wasn't physically impaired he remained in the military and eventually became an Admiral. However, during his career he was alwayssensitive about his appearance.
One day the Admiral was interviewing two Navy Master Chiefs and a Marine Sergeant Major for his personal staff
The first Master Chief was a Surface Navy type and it was a great interview. At the end of the interview the Admiral asked him, "Do you notice anything different about me?"
The Master Chief answered, "Why yes. I couldn't help but notice you are missing your starboard ear, so I don't know whether this impacts your hearing on that side."
The Admiral got very angry at this lack of tact and threw him out of his office.
The next candidate, a Submarine Master Chief, when asked this same question, answered, "Well yes, you seem to be short one ear."
The Admiral threw him out also.
The third interview was with the Marine Sergeant Major. He was articulate, extremely sharp, and seemed to know more than the two Master Chiefs put together. The Admiral wanted this guy, but went ahead with the same question.
"Do you notice anything different about me?"
To his surprise the Sergeant Major said, "Yes sir, you wear contact lenses."
The Admiral was impressed and thought to himself, what an incredibly tactful Marine. "And how do you know that?" the Admiral asked.
The Sergeant Major replied, "Well sir, it's pretty hard to wear glasses with only one fucking ear."
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
SOMETIMES THEY MAKE IT EASY
by Bob Walsh
Obdelia Sanchez, 18, is currently a guest of the people of Merced County, though she is technically a resident of Stockton in San Joaquin County, CA. She was driving drun a couple of nights back with two 14-year olds in the back seat of the car. She wasn't very good at driving while drunk, possibly aggravated by the fact that she was live streaming her drunk driving while she was doing it.
She lost control of the car and rolled it into a field at high speed. Neither of the back-seat passengers was wearing a seat belt and both were ejected. One of them, Ms. Sanchez' younger sister, was killed in the crash. Ms. Sanchez is being held for felony DUI and vehicular manslaughter.
I'm guessing this one won't be too hard to prove.
Obdelia Sanchez, 18, is currently a guest of the people of Merced County, though she is technically a resident of Stockton in San Joaquin County, CA. She was driving drun a couple of nights back with two 14-year olds in the back seat of the car. She wasn't very good at driving while drunk, possibly aggravated by the fact that she was live streaming her drunk driving while she was doing it.
She lost control of the car and rolled it into a field at high speed. Neither of the back-seat passengers was wearing a seat belt and both were ejected. One of them, Ms. Sanchez' younger sister, was killed in the crash. Ms. Sanchez is being held for felony DUI and vehicular manslaughter.
I'm guessing this one won't be too hard to prove.
DEAD PRISONERS CAN BE SERIOUSLY INCONVENIENT
by Bob Walsh
Danny Pham, 27, was a guest of the people of Orange County, CA earlier this month. He was hanging out at the main jail for 180 days due to some misunderstanding over possession of an automobile that wasn't his. He turned up dead and five jail staff are on paid leave.
It appears that the jail staff are not suspected of rehabilitating Pham but they possibly screwed the pooch in an administrative manner. Pham was celled up with an accused (but not convicted) double murderer. Maybe somebody stole his car at some point.
The S. O. isn't saying if the cellie is a suspect. The D A is conducting a homicide investigation and the jail is doing an internal affairs investigation. Following the rules may not set you free but it can protect your ass if things go sideways.
Danny Pham, 27, was a guest of the people of Orange County, CA earlier this month. He was hanging out at the main jail for 180 days due to some misunderstanding over possession of an automobile that wasn't his. He turned up dead and five jail staff are on paid leave.
It appears that the jail staff are not suspected of rehabilitating Pham but they possibly screwed the pooch in an administrative manner. Pham was celled up with an accused (but not convicted) double murderer. Maybe somebody stole his car at some point.
The S. O. isn't saying if the cellie is a suspect. The D A is conducting a homicide investigation and the jail is doing an internal affairs investigation. Following the rules may not set you free but it can protect your ass if things go sideways.
LAS VEGAS POT SHOP KICKBACKS
Rideshare Drivers Reap Windfall From Legalized Weed
Vital Vegas
July 21, 2017
Vegas can’t help but be Vegas, so it’s perhaps no surprise Lyft and Uber drivers are getting some of the perks of their taxi-driving counterparts.
It’s an integral part of Las Vegas culture for cabbies to get kick-backs from places like strip clubs. Drop off customers, get cash from the strip club. (This is why it’s smart, by the way, to tell cashiers at strip clubs you’re a Las Vegas local or that you arrived in your personal vehicle. When they don’t pay the kick-back, your cost of entry is lower.)
Now, that time-honored Las Vegas custom is creating a windfall for Lyft and Uber drivers.
We’ve learned marijuana dispensaries are handing out hefty cash perks for drivers who deliver customers to their doors. Recreational marijuana became legal in Nevada on July 1, 2017, and demand has been high ever since. We’ll wait.
While we don’t know the exact dollar amount for Uber drivers, a Lyft driver confirmed they get $25 for any customer they deliver to a dispensary. The driver gets $15 for each additional passenger.
Our source says that on certain days, as many as 20% of his customers ask to be dropped at a marijuana dispensary.
The dispensaries pay the kick-backs in cash at the time of drop-off, often from a stand outside the establishment.
That’s a pretty sweet incentive to steer customers to a given dispensary, especially when you consider the average Lyft fare is about $12. The average fare for an Uber driver hovers around $16.
We’re not aware of any prohibition of such practices by the rideshare companies.
We trust cabbies are getting a piece of the action as well, but have yet to hear a first-hand account along those lines.
Rideshare services have changed the transportation game in Las Vegas in a variety of ways, and getting financial perks from marijuana dispensaries has been an unexpected boost for this budding industry.
Sorry, burgeoning. We probably meant burgeoning.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This pot of gold rush could soon be coming to an end. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reportedly going to enforce the federal prohibitory laws against Marijuana. One problem is that President Trump approves the legalization of marijuana if that’s what the voters of individual states want. Fuck Trump!.
Vital Vegas
July 21, 2017
Vegas can’t help but be Vegas, so it’s perhaps no surprise Lyft and Uber drivers are getting some of the perks of their taxi-driving counterparts.
It’s an integral part of Las Vegas culture for cabbies to get kick-backs from places like strip clubs. Drop off customers, get cash from the strip club. (This is why it’s smart, by the way, to tell cashiers at strip clubs you’re a Las Vegas local or that you arrived in your personal vehicle. When they don’t pay the kick-back, your cost of entry is lower.)
Now, that time-honored Las Vegas custom is creating a windfall for Lyft and Uber drivers.
We’ve learned marijuana dispensaries are handing out hefty cash perks for drivers who deliver customers to their doors. Recreational marijuana became legal in Nevada on July 1, 2017, and demand has been high ever since. We’ll wait.
While we don’t know the exact dollar amount for Uber drivers, a Lyft driver confirmed they get $25 for any customer they deliver to a dispensary. The driver gets $15 for each additional passenger.
Our source says that on certain days, as many as 20% of his customers ask to be dropped at a marijuana dispensary.
The dispensaries pay the kick-backs in cash at the time of drop-off, often from a stand outside the establishment.
That’s a pretty sweet incentive to steer customers to a given dispensary, especially when you consider the average Lyft fare is about $12. The average fare for an Uber driver hovers around $16.
We’re not aware of any prohibition of such practices by the rideshare companies.
We trust cabbies are getting a piece of the action as well, but have yet to hear a first-hand account along those lines.
Rideshare services have changed the transportation game in Las Vegas in a variety of ways, and getting financial perks from marijuana dispensaries has been an unexpected boost for this budding industry.
Sorry, burgeoning. We probably meant burgeoning.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This pot of gold rush could soon be coming to an end. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reportedly going to enforce the federal prohibitory laws against Marijuana. One problem is that President Trump approves the legalization of marijuana if that’s what the voters of individual states want. Fuck Trump!.
THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN KICKED OUT PERMANENTLY
Claremont college suspends students who blocked access to event with pro-police speaker Heather Mac Donald
By Howard Blume
Los Angeles Times
July 22, 2017
Claremont McKenna College has suspended three students for a year and two others for a semester for blocking access to a campus event to protest a speaker known for defending police against Black Lives Matter activists.
The action, announced last week, arises out of an April 6 demonstration during which students and others ignored temporary barriers and blocked entrances to the Athenaeum and Kravis Center, where author and commentator Heather Mac Donald was scheduled to speak.
Many participants chanted “black lives matter” and “black lives — they matter here.”
At the time, campus officials and security decided not to make arrests or force the estimated 250 protesters to disperse. Instead, Mac Donald spoke before a handful of observers while the college live-streamed the event. Her 30-minute talk also was made available for later viewing.
College President Hiram E. Chodosh quickly vowed to take disciplinary action. It was not an empty threat.
A college investigation included the review of “available video and photographic evidence” and witness interviews to identify 12 Claremont McKenna students as “potential participants in the blockade,” according to the college. Officials ultimately charged 10 students with violations of college policy. Of these, five received the suspensions, two were placed on probation and three were cleared.
The students have not come forward or been publicly identified, but their supporters said the students exercised free speech rights in a non-violent manner. Moreover, officials gave no indication at the time that the students’ status in school would be in jeopardy as a result, they said.
Four of the suspended students were seniors and had their degrees revoked pending completion of the suspensions, actions that affected their ability to compete for jobs that require a college degree, said Nana Gyamfi, co-founder and lead organizer of the L.A.-based group Justice Warriors 4 Black Lives.
Other affected students face the loss of financial aid because of the disciplinary action, which could leave them unable to complete their degree programs, Gyamfi said.
She accused the college of overreacting to a minor incident and of setting up students for discipline through a protest that authorities were fully expecting and prepared for.
“Universities should be places where students learn about the power and limitation of civic engagement and this completely shuts that down with the hot-button issues of our current time,” she said. “You don’t have to be a student to find that concerning.”
In May, nearly 800 signed an open letter to college officials expressing concern over the “criminalization” of the students.
The college has defended its review, saying that “students had an opportunity to be heard, pose questions, ask for further investigation, and raise objections throughout the process.”
The cases were decided by a three-member review panel consisting of a faculty member, another staff member and a student. The findings also reduced the estimated crowd size to 170.
In its statement, the college quoted a past commencement speech of Chodosh: “If we are to cherish free speech, we must support and hear the speech with which we most disagree.”
The election of Donald Trump as president has sparked a wave of campus activism directed at the appearances of outspoken conservatives, especially those supporting Trump. In February, UC Berkeley authorities canceled a speech by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Two hours before Yiannopoulos was to speak, more than 1,500 people had gathered in protest. Some smashed windows and set a small fire.
Mac Donald’s books include last year’s “The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe.” She has criticized the Black Lives Matter movement, whose supporters have denounced her.
Claremont McKenna is one of seven affiliated Claremont Colleges, and the school said it also turned over evidence involving students enrolled at the other campuses. Those schools have announced no plans to take action, but Claremont McKenna has provisionally banned four students from “non-academic” activities on its grounds.
By Howard Blume
Los Angeles Times
July 22, 2017
Claremont McKenna College has suspended three students for a year and two others for a semester for blocking access to a campus event to protest a speaker known for defending police against Black Lives Matter activists.
The action, announced last week, arises out of an April 6 demonstration during which students and others ignored temporary barriers and blocked entrances to the Athenaeum and Kravis Center, where author and commentator Heather Mac Donald was scheduled to speak.
Many participants chanted “black lives matter” and “black lives — they matter here.”
At the time, campus officials and security decided not to make arrests or force the estimated 250 protesters to disperse. Instead, Mac Donald spoke before a handful of observers while the college live-streamed the event. Her 30-minute talk also was made available for later viewing.
College President Hiram E. Chodosh quickly vowed to take disciplinary action. It was not an empty threat.
A college investigation included the review of “available video and photographic evidence” and witness interviews to identify 12 Claremont McKenna students as “potential participants in the blockade,” according to the college. Officials ultimately charged 10 students with violations of college policy. Of these, five received the suspensions, two were placed on probation and three were cleared.
The students have not come forward or been publicly identified, but their supporters said the students exercised free speech rights in a non-violent manner. Moreover, officials gave no indication at the time that the students’ status in school would be in jeopardy as a result, they said.
Four of the suspended students were seniors and had their degrees revoked pending completion of the suspensions, actions that affected their ability to compete for jobs that require a college degree, said Nana Gyamfi, co-founder and lead organizer of the L.A.-based group Justice Warriors 4 Black Lives.
Other affected students face the loss of financial aid because of the disciplinary action, which could leave them unable to complete their degree programs, Gyamfi said.
She accused the college of overreacting to a minor incident and of setting up students for discipline through a protest that authorities were fully expecting and prepared for.
“Universities should be places where students learn about the power and limitation of civic engagement and this completely shuts that down with the hot-button issues of our current time,” she said. “You don’t have to be a student to find that concerning.”
In May, nearly 800 signed an open letter to college officials expressing concern over the “criminalization” of the students.
The college has defended its review, saying that “students had an opportunity to be heard, pose questions, ask for further investigation, and raise objections throughout the process.”
The cases were decided by a three-member review panel consisting of a faculty member, another staff member and a student. The findings also reduced the estimated crowd size to 170.
In its statement, the college quoted a past commencement speech of Chodosh: “If we are to cherish free speech, we must support and hear the speech with which we most disagree.”
The election of Donald Trump as president has sparked a wave of campus activism directed at the appearances of outspoken conservatives, especially those supporting Trump. In February, UC Berkeley authorities canceled a speech by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Two hours before Yiannopoulos was to speak, more than 1,500 people had gathered in protest. Some smashed windows and set a small fire.
Mac Donald’s books include last year’s “The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe.” She has criticized the Black Lives Matter movement, whose supporters have denounced her.
Claremont McKenna is one of seven affiliated Claremont Colleges, and the school said it also turned over evidence involving students enrolled at the other campuses. Those schools have announced no plans to take action, but Claremont McKenna has provisionally banned four students from “non-academic” activities on its grounds.
FUCK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE YOU OLD FART
Blind WW2 Veteran Injured While Protecting His American Flag
CBS DFW
July 22, 2017
KAUFMAN, Texas -- Police are seeking information on who pushed down an elderly veteran as he was protecting his American flag that’s been targeted before.
World War II veteran Howard Banks is legally blind, but his memory is sharp at age 92.
A day before his birthday on July 11, the veteran said he heard someone outside his home pulling down his American flag from its pole, so he went outside to investigate.
“I walked out, hanging onto the railing and stepped down. That must’ve startled them,” said Banks.
Banks was determined to protect his flag after someone shredded his previous American flag and ripped up his Marine flag about a year ago.
“They could see me. I couldn’t see them,” said Banks. “I turned and looked in the other direction, and about then – ‘wham!’ They knocked me down.”
The person trying to take the flag down ran off while neighbors rushed in to help Banks.
Banks has numerous bumps and bruises and he said he even twisted his knee. “On this forearm, it’s kind of sore and rough,” he said. “Both of them. I’ve still got soreness here, but I’m durable. I can take it.”
The injuries he suffered won’t stop him from his life’s mission to honor veterans who sacrifice and serve by displaying his American flag.
“I think we all had that same feeling, that the flag was our identity. We were Americans,” said Banks. “The fact that I’m getting older, and the less I can do… at least I can still do that.”
Banks said he didn’t hear the suspect’s voice so he is unsure if the person was a man or woman. In the meantime, his daughter, neighbors and officers are keeping a close eye on him and his flags.
CBS DFW
July 22, 2017
KAUFMAN, Texas -- Police are seeking information on who pushed down an elderly veteran as he was protecting his American flag that’s been targeted before.
World War II veteran Howard Banks is legally blind, but his memory is sharp at age 92.
A day before his birthday on July 11, the veteran said he heard someone outside his home pulling down his American flag from its pole, so he went outside to investigate.
“I walked out, hanging onto the railing and stepped down. That must’ve startled them,” said Banks.
Banks was determined to protect his flag after someone shredded his previous American flag and ripped up his Marine flag about a year ago.
“They could see me. I couldn’t see them,” said Banks. “I turned and looked in the other direction, and about then – ‘wham!’ They knocked me down.”
The person trying to take the flag down ran off while neighbors rushed in to help Banks.
Banks has numerous bumps and bruises and he said he even twisted his knee. “On this forearm, it’s kind of sore and rough,” he said. “Both of them. I’ve still got soreness here, but I’m durable. I can take it.”
The injuries he suffered won’t stop him from his life’s mission to honor veterans who sacrifice and serve by displaying his American flag.
“I think we all had that same feeling, that the flag was our identity. We were Americans,” said Banks. “The fact that I’m getting older, and the less I can do… at least I can still do that.”
Banks said he didn’t hear the suspect’s voice so he is unsure if the person was a man or woman. In the meantime, his daughter, neighbors and officers are keeping a close eye on him and his flags.
JARED KUSHNER INSISTS HE DID NOTHING WRONG
Kushner's statement to the congressional committee in which he admits four contacts with the Russians but denies collusion
I am voluntarily providing this statement, submitting documents, and sitting for interviews in order to shed light on issues that have been raised about my role in the Trump for President Campaign and during the transition period.
I am not a person who has sought the spotlight.
First in my business and now in public service, I have worked on achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public perception.
Because there has been a great deal of conjecture, speculation, and inaccurate information about me, I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.
My Role in the Trump for President Campaign
Before joining the administration, I worked in the private sector, building and managing companies.
My experience was in business, not politics, and it was not my initial intent to play a large role in my father-in-law's campaign when he decided to run for President.
However, as the campaign progressed, I was called on to assist with various tasks and aspects of the campaign, and took on more and more responsibility.
Over the course of the primaries and general election campaign, my role continued to evolve.
I ultimately worked with the finance, scheduling, communications, speechwriting, polling, data and digital teams, as well as becoming a point of contact for foreign government officials.
All of these were tasks that I had never performed on a campaign previously. When I was faced with a new challenge, I would reach out to contacts, ask advice, find the right person to manage the specific challenge, and work with that person to develop and execute a plan of action.
I was lucky to work with some incredibly talented people along the way, all of whom made significant contributions toward the campaign's ultimate success.
Our nimble culture allowed us to adjust to the ever-changing circumstances and make changes on the fly as the situation warranted.
I share this information because these actions should be viewed through the lens of a fast-paced campaign with thousands of meetings and interactions, some of which were impactful and memorable and many of which were not.
It is also important to note that a campaign's success starts with its message and its messenger.
Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered his message perfectly.
The results speak for themselves. Not only did President Trump defeat sixteen skilled and experienced primary opponents and win the presidency - he did so spending a fraction of what his opponent spent in the general election.
He outworked his opponent and ran one of the best campaigns in history using both modern technology and traditional methods to bring his message to the American people.
Campaign Contacts with Foreign Persons
When it became apparent that my father-in-law was going to be the Republican nominee for President, as normally happens, a number of officials from foreign countries attempted to reach out to the campaign.
My father-in-law asked me to be a point of contact with these foreign countries.
These were not contacts that I initiated, but, over the course of the campaign, I had incoming contacts with people from approximately 15 countries.
To put these requests in context, I must have received thousands of calls, letters and emails from people looking to talk or meet on a variety of issues and topics, including hundreds from outside the United States.
While I could not be responsive to everyone, I tried to be respectful of any foreign government contacts with whom it would be important to maintain an ongoing, productive working relationship were the candidate to prevail.
To that end, I called on a variety of people with deep experience, such as Dr Henry Kissinger, for advice on policy for the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what messaging would resonate.
In addition, it was typical for me to receive 200 or more emails a day during the campaign.
I did not have the time to read every one, especially long emails from unknown senders or email chains to which I was added at some later point in the exchange.
With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign, there were hardly any.
The first that I can recall was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC in April 2016.
This was when then candidate Trump was delivering a major foreign policy speech.
Doing the event and speech had been my idea, and I oversaw its execution.
I arrived at the hotel early to make sure all logistics were in order.
After that, I stopped into the reception to thank the host of the event, Dimitri Simes, the publisher of the bi-monthly foreign policy magazine, The National Interest, who had done a great job putting everything together.
Mr. Simes and his group had created the guest list and extended the invitations for the event.
He introduced me to several guests, among them four ambassadors, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
With all the ambassadors, including Mr Kislyak, we shook hands, exchanged brief pleasantries and I thanked them for attending the event and said I hoped they would like candidate Trump's speech and his ideas for a fresh approach to America's foreign policy.
The ambassadors also expressed interest in creating a positive relationship should we win the election.
Each exchange lasted less than a minute - some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies.
I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions.
Reuters news service has reported that I had two calls with Ambassador Kislyak at some time between April and November of 2016.
While I participated in thousands of calls during this period, I do not recall any such calls with the Russian Ambassador.
We have reviewed the phone records available to us and have not been able to identify any calls to any number we know to be associated with Ambassador Kislyak and I am highly skeptical these calls took place.
A comprehensive review of my land line and cell phone records from the time does not reveal those calls.
I had no ongoing relationship with the Ambassador before the election, and had limited knowledge about him then.
In fact, on November 9, the day after the election, I could not even remember the name of the Russian Ambassador.
When the campaign received an email purporting to be an official note of congratulations from President Putin, I was asked how we could verify it was real.
To do so I thought the best way would be to ask the only contact I recalled meeting from the Russian government, which was the Ambassador I had met months earlier, so I sent an email asking Mr Simes, 'What is the name of the Russian ambassador?'
Through my lawyer, I have asked Reuters to provide the dates on which the calls supposedly occurred or the phone number at which I supposedly reached, or was reached by, Ambassador Kislyak.
The journalist refused to provide any corroborating evidence that they occurred.
The only other Russian contact during the campaign is one I did not recall at all until I was reviewing documents and emails in response to congressional requests for information.
In June 2016, my brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr asked if I was free to stop by a meeting on June 9 at 3pm.
The campaign was headquartered in the same building as his office in Trump Tower, and it was common for each of us to swing by the other's meetings when requested.
He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4pm.
That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time.
As I did with most emails when I was working remotely, I quickly reviewed on my iPhone the relevant message that the meeting would occur at 4pm at his office.
Documents confirm my memory that this was calendared as 'Meeting: Don Jr.| Jared Kushner'. No one else was mentioned.
I arrived at the meeting a little late.
When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on US adoptions of Russian children.
I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting.
Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote 'Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting'.
I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since.
I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently.
I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees.
No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted.
Finally, after seeing the email, I disclosed this meeting prior to it being reported in the press on a supplement to my security clearance form, even if that was not required as meeting the definitions of the form.
There was one more possible contact that I will note.
On October 30, 2016, I received a random email from the screenname 'Guccifer400'.
This email, which I interpreted as a hoax, was an extortion attempt and threatened to reveal candidate Trump's tax returns and demanded that we send him 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing that information.
I brought the email to the attention of a US Secret Service agent on the plane we were all travelling on and asked what he thought.
He advised me to ignore it and not to reply - which is what I did. The sender never contacted me again.
To the best of my recollection, these were the full extent of contacts I had during the campaign with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.
Transition Contacts with Foreign Persons
The transition period after the election was even more active than the campaign.
Starting on election night, we began to receive an incredible volume of messages and invitations from well-wishers in the United States and abroad.
Dozens of messages came from foreign officials seeking to set up foreign leader calls and create lines of communication and relationships with what would be the new administration.
During this period, I recall having over fifty contacts with people from over fifteen countries.
Two of those meetings were with Russians, neither of which I solicited.
On November 16, 2016, my assistant received a request for a meeting from the Russian Ambassador.
As I mentioned before, previous to receiving this request, I could not even recall the Russian Ambassador's name, and had to ask for the name of the individual I had seen at the Mayflower Hotel almost seven months earlier.
In addition, far from being urgent, that meeting was not set up for two weeks - on December 1.
The meeting occurred in Trump Tower, where we had our transition office, and lasted twenty- thirty minutes.
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (Ret), who became the President's National Security Advisor, also attended.
During the meeting, after pleasantries were exchanged, as I had done in many of the meetings I had and would have with foreign officials, I stated our desire for a fresh start in relations.
Also, as I had done in other meetings with foreign officials, I asked Ambassador Kislyak if he would identify the best person (whether the Ambassador or someone else) with whom to have direct discussions and who had contact with his President.
The fact that I was asking about ways to start a dialogue after Election Day should of course be viewed as strong evidence that I was not aware of one that existed before Election Day.
The Ambassador expressed similar sentiments about relations, and then said he especially wanted to address US policy in Syria, and that he wanted to convey information from what he called his 'generals'.
He said he wanted to provide information that would help inform the new administration.
He said the generals could not easily come to the US to convey this information and he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation.
General Flynn or I explained that there were no such lines.
I believed developing a thoughtful approach on Syria was a very high priority given the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and I asked if they had an existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would be comfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn.
The Ambassador said that would not be possible and so we all agreed that we would receive this information after the Inauguration.
Nothing else occurred. I did not suggest a 'secret back channel'.
I did not suggest an on-going secret form of communication for then or for when the administration took office.
I did not raise the possibility of using the embassy or any other Russian facility for any purpose other than this one possible conversation in the transition period.
We did not discuss sanctions.
Approximately a week later, on December 6, the Embassy asked if I could meet with the Ambassador on December 7. I declined.
They then asked if I could meet on December 6, I declined again.
They then asked when the earliest was that I could meet.
I declined these requests because I was working on many other responsibilities for the transition.
He asked if he could meet my assistant instead and, to avoid offending the Ambassador, I agreed.
He did so on December 12.
My assistant reported that the Ambassador had requested that I meet with a person named Sergey Gorkov who he said was a banker and someone with a direct line to the Russian President who could give insight into how Putin was viewing the new administration and best ways to work together.
I agreed to meet Mr Gorkov because the Ambassador has been so insistent, said he had a direct relationship with the President, and because Mr Gorkov was only in New York for a couple days.
I made room on my schedule for the meeting that occurred the next day, on December 13.
The meeting with Mr Gorkov lasted twenty to twenty-five minutes.
He introduced himself and gave me two gifts - one was a piece of art from Nvgorod, the village where my grandparents were from in Belarus, and the other was a bag of dirt from that same village. (Any notion that I tried to conceal this meeting or that I took it thinking it was in my capacity as a businessman is false. In fact, I gave my assistant these gifts to formally register them with the transition office).
After that, he told me a little about his bank and made some statements about the Russian economy.
He said that he was friendly with President Putin, expressed disappointment with US-Russia relations under President Obama and hopes for a better relationship in the future.
As I did at the meeting with Ambassador Kislyak, I expressed the same sentiments I had with other foreign officials I met.
There were no specific policies discussed.
We had no discussion about the sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration.
At no time was there any discussion about my companies, business transactions, real estate projects, loans, banking arrangements or any private business of any kind.
At the end of the short meeting, we thanked each other and I went on to other meetings.
I did not know or have any contact with Mr Gorkov before that meeting, and I have had no reason to connect with him since.
To the best of my recollection, these were the only two contacts I had during the transition with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.
Disclosure of Contacts on My Security Clearance Form
There has been a good deal of misinformation reported about my SF-86 form.
As my attorneys and I have previously explained, my SF-86 application was prematurely submitted due to a miscommunication and initially did not list any contacts (not just with Russians) with foreign government officials.
Here are some facts about that form and the efforts I have made to supplement it.
In the week before the Inauguration, amid the scramble of finalizing the unwinding of my involvement from my company, moving my family to Washington, completing the paper work to divest assets and resign from my outside positions and complete my security and financial disclosure forms, people at my New York office were helping me find the information, organize it, review it and put it into the electronic form.
They sent an email to my assistant in Washington, communicating that the changes to one particular section were complete; my assistant interpreted that message as meaning that the entire form was completed.
At that point, the form was a rough draft and still had many omissions including not listing any foreign government contacts and even omitted the address of my father-in-law (which was obviously well known).
Because of this miscommunication, my assistant submitted the draft on January 18, 2017.
That evening, when we realized the form had been submitted prematurely, we informed the transition team that we needed to make changes and additions to the form.
The very next day, January 19, 2017, we submitted supplemental information to the transition, which confirmed receipt and said they would immediately transmit it to the FBI.
The supplement disclosed that I had 'numerous contacts with foreign officials' and that we were going through my records to provide an accurate and complete list.
I provided a list of those contacts in the normal course, before my background investigation interview and prior to any inquiries or media reports about my form.
It has been reported that my submission omitted only contacts with Russians.
That is not the case. In the accidental early submission of the form, all foreign contacts were omitted.
The supplemental information later disclosed over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries that might be responsive to the questions on the form.
These included meetings with individuals such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more. All of these had been left off before.
Over the last six months, I have made every effort to provide the FBI with whatever information is needed to investigate my background.
In addition, my attorneys have explained that the security clearance process is one in which supplements are expected and invited.
The form itself instructs that, during the interview, the information in the document can be 'update[d], clarif[ied], and explain[ed]' as part of the security clearance process. A good example is the June 9 meeting.
For reasons that should be clear from the explanation of that meeting I have provided, I did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it as one with anyone who had to be included on an SF-86.
When documents reviewed for production in connection with committee requests reminded me that meeting had occurred, and because of the language in the email chain that I then read for the first time, I included that meeting on a supplement.
I did so even though my attorneys were unable to conclude that the Russian lawyer was a representative of any foreign country and thus fell outside the scope of the form.
This supplemental information was also provided voluntarily, well prior to any media inquiries, reporting or request for this information, and it was done soon after I was reminded of the meeting.
As I have said from the very first media inquiry, I am happy to share information with the investigating bodies.
I have shown today that I am willing to do so and will continue to cooperate as I have nothing to hide.
As I indicated, I know there has been a great deal of speculation and conjecture about my contacts with any officials or people from Russia.
I have disclosed these contacts and described them as fully as I can recall.
The record and documents I am providing will show that I had perhaps four contacts with Russian representatives out of thousands during the campaign and transition, none of which were impactful in any way to the election or particularly memorable.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I also have tried to provide context for my role in the campaign, and I am proud of the candidate that we supported, of the campaign that we ran, and the victory that we achieved.
It has been my practice not to appear in the media or leak information in my own defense.
I have tried to focus on the important work at hand and serve this President and this country to the best of my abilities.
I hope that through my answers to questions, written statements and documents I have now been able to demonstrate the entirety of my limited contacts with Russian representatives during the campaign and transition.
I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts.
I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.
I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above and beyond what is required. Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.
I am voluntarily providing this statement, submitting documents, and sitting for interviews in order to shed light on issues that have been raised about my role in the Trump for President Campaign and during the transition period.
I am not a person who has sought the spotlight.
First in my business and now in public service, I have worked on achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public perception.
Because there has been a great deal of conjecture, speculation, and inaccurate information about me, I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.
My Role in the Trump for President Campaign
Before joining the administration, I worked in the private sector, building and managing companies.
My experience was in business, not politics, and it was not my initial intent to play a large role in my father-in-law's campaign when he decided to run for President.
However, as the campaign progressed, I was called on to assist with various tasks and aspects of the campaign, and took on more and more responsibility.
Over the course of the primaries and general election campaign, my role continued to evolve.
I ultimately worked with the finance, scheduling, communications, speechwriting, polling, data and digital teams, as well as becoming a point of contact for foreign government officials.
All of these were tasks that I had never performed on a campaign previously. When I was faced with a new challenge, I would reach out to contacts, ask advice, find the right person to manage the specific challenge, and work with that person to develop and execute a plan of action.
I was lucky to work with some incredibly talented people along the way, all of whom made significant contributions toward the campaign's ultimate success.
Our nimble culture allowed us to adjust to the ever-changing circumstances and make changes on the fly as the situation warranted.
I share this information because these actions should be viewed through the lens of a fast-paced campaign with thousands of meetings and interactions, some of which were impactful and memorable and many of which were not.
It is also important to note that a campaign's success starts with its message and its messenger.
Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered his message perfectly.
The results speak for themselves. Not only did President Trump defeat sixteen skilled and experienced primary opponents and win the presidency - he did so spending a fraction of what his opponent spent in the general election.
He outworked his opponent and ran one of the best campaigns in history using both modern technology and traditional methods to bring his message to the American people.
Campaign Contacts with Foreign Persons
When it became apparent that my father-in-law was going to be the Republican nominee for President, as normally happens, a number of officials from foreign countries attempted to reach out to the campaign.
My father-in-law asked me to be a point of contact with these foreign countries.
These were not contacts that I initiated, but, over the course of the campaign, I had incoming contacts with people from approximately 15 countries.
To put these requests in context, I must have received thousands of calls, letters and emails from people looking to talk or meet on a variety of issues and topics, including hundreds from outside the United States.
While I could not be responsive to everyone, I tried to be respectful of any foreign government contacts with whom it would be important to maintain an ongoing, productive working relationship were the candidate to prevail.
To that end, I called on a variety of people with deep experience, such as Dr Henry Kissinger, for advice on policy for the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what messaging would resonate.
In addition, it was typical for me to receive 200 or more emails a day during the campaign.
I did not have the time to read every one, especially long emails from unknown senders or email chains to which I was added at some later point in the exchange.
With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign, there were hardly any.
The first that I can recall was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC in April 2016.
This was when then candidate Trump was delivering a major foreign policy speech.
Doing the event and speech had been my idea, and I oversaw its execution.
I arrived at the hotel early to make sure all logistics were in order.
After that, I stopped into the reception to thank the host of the event, Dimitri Simes, the publisher of the bi-monthly foreign policy magazine, The National Interest, who had done a great job putting everything together.
Mr. Simes and his group had created the guest list and extended the invitations for the event.
He introduced me to several guests, among them four ambassadors, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
With all the ambassadors, including Mr Kislyak, we shook hands, exchanged brief pleasantries and I thanked them for attending the event and said I hoped they would like candidate Trump's speech and his ideas for a fresh approach to America's foreign policy.
The ambassadors also expressed interest in creating a positive relationship should we win the election.
Each exchange lasted less than a minute - some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies.
I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions.
Reuters news service has reported that I had two calls with Ambassador Kislyak at some time between April and November of 2016.
While I participated in thousands of calls during this period, I do not recall any such calls with the Russian Ambassador.
We have reviewed the phone records available to us and have not been able to identify any calls to any number we know to be associated with Ambassador Kislyak and I am highly skeptical these calls took place.
A comprehensive review of my land line and cell phone records from the time does not reveal those calls.
I had no ongoing relationship with the Ambassador before the election, and had limited knowledge about him then.
In fact, on November 9, the day after the election, I could not even remember the name of the Russian Ambassador.
When the campaign received an email purporting to be an official note of congratulations from President Putin, I was asked how we could verify it was real.
To do so I thought the best way would be to ask the only contact I recalled meeting from the Russian government, which was the Ambassador I had met months earlier, so I sent an email asking Mr Simes, 'What is the name of the Russian ambassador?'
Through my lawyer, I have asked Reuters to provide the dates on which the calls supposedly occurred or the phone number at which I supposedly reached, or was reached by, Ambassador Kislyak.
The journalist refused to provide any corroborating evidence that they occurred.
The only other Russian contact during the campaign is one I did not recall at all until I was reviewing documents and emails in response to congressional requests for information.
In June 2016, my brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr asked if I was free to stop by a meeting on June 9 at 3pm.
The campaign was headquartered in the same building as his office in Trump Tower, and it was common for each of us to swing by the other's meetings when requested.
He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4pm.
That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time.
As I did with most emails when I was working remotely, I quickly reviewed on my iPhone the relevant message that the meeting would occur at 4pm at his office.
Documents confirm my memory that this was calendared as 'Meeting: Don Jr.| Jared Kushner'. No one else was mentioned.
I arrived at the meeting a little late.
When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on US adoptions of Russian children.
I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting.
Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote 'Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting'.
I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since.
I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently.
I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees.
No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted.
Finally, after seeing the email, I disclosed this meeting prior to it being reported in the press on a supplement to my security clearance form, even if that was not required as meeting the definitions of the form.
There was one more possible contact that I will note.
On October 30, 2016, I received a random email from the screenname 'Guccifer400'.
This email, which I interpreted as a hoax, was an extortion attempt and threatened to reveal candidate Trump's tax returns and demanded that we send him 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing that information.
I brought the email to the attention of a US Secret Service agent on the plane we were all travelling on and asked what he thought.
He advised me to ignore it and not to reply - which is what I did. The sender never contacted me again.
To the best of my recollection, these were the full extent of contacts I had during the campaign with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.
Transition Contacts with Foreign Persons
The transition period after the election was even more active than the campaign.
Starting on election night, we began to receive an incredible volume of messages and invitations from well-wishers in the United States and abroad.
Dozens of messages came from foreign officials seeking to set up foreign leader calls and create lines of communication and relationships with what would be the new administration.
During this period, I recall having over fifty contacts with people from over fifteen countries.
Two of those meetings were with Russians, neither of which I solicited.
On November 16, 2016, my assistant received a request for a meeting from the Russian Ambassador.
As I mentioned before, previous to receiving this request, I could not even recall the Russian Ambassador's name, and had to ask for the name of the individual I had seen at the Mayflower Hotel almost seven months earlier.
In addition, far from being urgent, that meeting was not set up for two weeks - on December 1.
The meeting occurred in Trump Tower, where we had our transition office, and lasted twenty- thirty minutes.
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (Ret), who became the President's National Security Advisor, also attended.
During the meeting, after pleasantries were exchanged, as I had done in many of the meetings I had and would have with foreign officials, I stated our desire for a fresh start in relations.
Also, as I had done in other meetings with foreign officials, I asked Ambassador Kislyak if he would identify the best person (whether the Ambassador or someone else) with whom to have direct discussions and who had contact with his President.
The fact that I was asking about ways to start a dialogue after Election Day should of course be viewed as strong evidence that I was not aware of one that existed before Election Day.
The Ambassador expressed similar sentiments about relations, and then said he especially wanted to address US policy in Syria, and that he wanted to convey information from what he called his 'generals'.
He said he wanted to provide information that would help inform the new administration.
He said the generals could not easily come to the US to convey this information and he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation.
General Flynn or I explained that there were no such lines.
I believed developing a thoughtful approach on Syria was a very high priority given the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and I asked if they had an existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would be comfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn.
The Ambassador said that would not be possible and so we all agreed that we would receive this information after the Inauguration.
Nothing else occurred. I did not suggest a 'secret back channel'.
I did not suggest an on-going secret form of communication for then or for when the administration took office.
I did not raise the possibility of using the embassy or any other Russian facility for any purpose other than this one possible conversation in the transition period.
We did not discuss sanctions.
Approximately a week later, on December 6, the Embassy asked if I could meet with the Ambassador on December 7. I declined.
They then asked if I could meet on December 6, I declined again.
They then asked when the earliest was that I could meet.
I declined these requests because I was working on many other responsibilities for the transition.
He asked if he could meet my assistant instead and, to avoid offending the Ambassador, I agreed.
He did so on December 12.
My assistant reported that the Ambassador had requested that I meet with a person named Sergey Gorkov who he said was a banker and someone with a direct line to the Russian President who could give insight into how Putin was viewing the new administration and best ways to work together.
I agreed to meet Mr Gorkov because the Ambassador has been so insistent, said he had a direct relationship with the President, and because Mr Gorkov was only in New York for a couple days.
I made room on my schedule for the meeting that occurred the next day, on December 13.
The meeting with Mr Gorkov lasted twenty to twenty-five minutes.
He introduced himself and gave me two gifts - one was a piece of art from Nvgorod, the village where my grandparents were from in Belarus, and the other was a bag of dirt from that same village. (Any notion that I tried to conceal this meeting or that I took it thinking it was in my capacity as a businessman is false. In fact, I gave my assistant these gifts to formally register them with the transition office).
After that, he told me a little about his bank and made some statements about the Russian economy.
He said that he was friendly with President Putin, expressed disappointment with US-Russia relations under President Obama and hopes for a better relationship in the future.
As I did at the meeting with Ambassador Kislyak, I expressed the same sentiments I had with other foreign officials I met.
There were no specific policies discussed.
We had no discussion about the sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration.
At no time was there any discussion about my companies, business transactions, real estate projects, loans, banking arrangements or any private business of any kind.
At the end of the short meeting, we thanked each other and I went on to other meetings.
I did not know or have any contact with Mr Gorkov before that meeting, and I have had no reason to connect with him since.
To the best of my recollection, these were the only two contacts I had during the transition with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.
Disclosure of Contacts on My Security Clearance Form
There has been a good deal of misinformation reported about my SF-86 form.
As my attorneys and I have previously explained, my SF-86 application was prematurely submitted due to a miscommunication and initially did not list any contacts (not just with Russians) with foreign government officials.
Here are some facts about that form and the efforts I have made to supplement it.
In the week before the Inauguration, amid the scramble of finalizing the unwinding of my involvement from my company, moving my family to Washington, completing the paper work to divest assets and resign from my outside positions and complete my security and financial disclosure forms, people at my New York office were helping me find the information, organize it, review it and put it into the electronic form.
They sent an email to my assistant in Washington, communicating that the changes to one particular section were complete; my assistant interpreted that message as meaning that the entire form was completed.
At that point, the form was a rough draft and still had many omissions including not listing any foreign government contacts and even omitted the address of my father-in-law (which was obviously well known).
Because of this miscommunication, my assistant submitted the draft on January 18, 2017.
That evening, when we realized the form had been submitted prematurely, we informed the transition team that we needed to make changes and additions to the form.
The very next day, January 19, 2017, we submitted supplemental information to the transition, which confirmed receipt and said they would immediately transmit it to the FBI.
The supplement disclosed that I had 'numerous contacts with foreign officials' and that we were going through my records to provide an accurate and complete list.
I provided a list of those contacts in the normal course, before my background investigation interview and prior to any inquiries or media reports about my form.
It has been reported that my submission omitted only contacts with Russians.
That is not the case. In the accidental early submission of the form, all foreign contacts were omitted.
The supplemental information later disclosed over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries that might be responsive to the questions on the form.
These included meetings with individuals such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more. All of these had been left off before.
Over the last six months, I have made every effort to provide the FBI with whatever information is needed to investigate my background.
In addition, my attorneys have explained that the security clearance process is one in which supplements are expected and invited.
The form itself instructs that, during the interview, the information in the document can be 'update[d], clarif[ied], and explain[ed]' as part of the security clearance process. A good example is the June 9 meeting.
For reasons that should be clear from the explanation of that meeting I have provided, I did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it as one with anyone who had to be included on an SF-86.
When documents reviewed for production in connection with committee requests reminded me that meeting had occurred, and because of the language in the email chain that I then read for the first time, I included that meeting on a supplement.
I did so even though my attorneys were unable to conclude that the Russian lawyer was a representative of any foreign country and thus fell outside the scope of the form.
This supplemental information was also provided voluntarily, well prior to any media inquiries, reporting or request for this information, and it was done soon after I was reminded of the meeting.
As I have said from the very first media inquiry, I am happy to share information with the investigating bodies.
I have shown today that I am willing to do so and will continue to cooperate as I have nothing to hide.
As I indicated, I know there has been a great deal of speculation and conjecture about my contacts with any officials or people from Russia.
I have disclosed these contacts and described them as fully as I can recall.
The record and documents I am providing will show that I had perhaps four contacts with Russian representatives out of thousands during the campaign and transition, none of which were impactful in any way to the election or particularly memorable.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I also have tried to provide context for my role in the campaign, and I am proud of the candidate that we supported, of the campaign that we ran, and the victory that we achieved.
It has been my practice not to appear in the media or leak information in my own defense.
I have tried to focus on the important work at hand and serve this President and this country to the best of my abilities.
I hope that through my answers to questions, written statements and documents I have now been able to demonstrate the entirety of my limited contacts with Russian representatives during the campaign and transition.
I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts.
I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.
I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above and beyond what is required. Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.
SCAMMED PARENTS IN TEXAS, CALIFORNIA AND IDAHO PAY RANSOM TO KEEP MEXICANS FROM CUTTING FINGERS OFF THEIR DAUGHTERS
Houston Woman Charged in "Virtual Kidnapping" Scam
By Craig Malisow
Houston Press
July 24, 2017
You're going about your day when you get a call from a stranger with a Mexican phone number, and the caller tells you your daughter has been kidnapped, and unless you pay a ransom, your child's fingers will be cut off.
What do you do?
Freaked-out parents in Texas, California and Idaho paid the ransom, which federal prosecutors say went into the pockets of a Houston woman named Yanette Rodriguez Acosta, aka Yanette Patino, and co-conspirators in Mexico.
Acosta last week was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to launder money in what prosecutors call "a virtual kidnapping for ransom," according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas.
The release also states:
"Victims were typically instructed to wire money to individuals in Mexico. However, two of those victims were directed to make money drops at specified locations in the Houston area on Sept. 17, and Sept. 30, 2015, respectively, according to the charges. Both victims were allegedly told their daughters had been kidnapped because they had witnessed a crime and that their fingers would be cut off if the parents did not comply with demands.
Acosta allegedly picked up the ransom payments following the victims’ money drops. The indictment alleges that after taking her portion of the ransom money, Acosta wired the remainder to her co-conspirators in Mexico. She also allegedly recruited others to send money to Mexico."
The two Houston victims paid a combined $28,000, according to prosecutors, who also claim that there were additional victims in Idaho and California.
Acting U.S. Attorney Abe Martinez stressed in the press release how the scam tricked victims "into believing their loved ones are in danger, and the horror and helplessness they feel as they scramble to secure what they think is their release. It is important for people to know about these scams and to be cautious and mindful when getting these types of calls.”
Multiple agencies conducted the investigation, including the Montgomery County Sheriff's office; the police departments of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills; ICE's Homeland Security Investigations; and FBI and IRS agents in Los Angeles.
By Craig Malisow
Houston Press
July 24, 2017
You're going about your day when you get a call from a stranger with a Mexican phone number, and the caller tells you your daughter has been kidnapped, and unless you pay a ransom, your child's fingers will be cut off.
What do you do?
Freaked-out parents in Texas, California and Idaho paid the ransom, which federal prosecutors say went into the pockets of a Houston woman named Yanette Rodriguez Acosta, aka Yanette Patino, and co-conspirators in Mexico.
Acosta last week was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to launder money in what prosecutors call "a virtual kidnapping for ransom," according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas.
The release also states:
"Victims were typically instructed to wire money to individuals in Mexico. However, two of those victims were directed to make money drops at specified locations in the Houston area on Sept. 17, and Sept. 30, 2015, respectively, according to the charges. Both victims were allegedly told their daughters had been kidnapped because they had witnessed a crime and that their fingers would be cut off if the parents did not comply with demands.
Acosta allegedly picked up the ransom payments following the victims’ money drops. The indictment alleges that after taking her portion of the ransom money, Acosta wired the remainder to her co-conspirators in Mexico. She also allegedly recruited others to send money to Mexico."
The two Houston victims paid a combined $28,000, according to prosecutors, who also claim that there were additional victims in Idaho and California.
Acting U.S. Attorney Abe Martinez stressed in the press release how the scam tricked victims "into believing their loved ones are in danger, and the horror and helplessness they feel as they scramble to secure what they think is their release. It is important for people to know about these scams and to be cautious and mindful when getting these types of calls.”
Multiple agencies conducted the investigation, including the Montgomery County Sheriff's office; the police departments of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills; ICE's Homeland Security Investigations; and FBI and IRS agents in Los Angeles.
Monday, July 24, 2017
NO COUNTY SODA TAX, NO ADDITIONAL SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES
Cook County sheriff's office lays off recruits, trainees because of soda tax holdup
By Megan Crepeau
Chicago Tribune
July 18, 2017
CHICAGO -- More than 110 Cook County sheriff's office recruits and trainees were laid off this week after a proposed countywide tax on soda was put on hold, officials said.
The sheriff's office layoffs are in addition to more than 300 county job cuts announced last week to make up for the loss of anticipated revenue from the soda tax.
"These are very difficult times for everyone," said Cara Smith, chief policy officer for the sheriff's office.
Sixty-six incoming recruits who were expected to start training next week have been notified that their class is suspended, and 47 trainees who began at the academy last month were laid off.
In addition, 12 other employees, including eight people who work at county courthouses, were laid off. Members of two specialty units will be reassigned to the Cook County Jail.
Smith said she is hopeful that the budget crisis passes and the training classes can be resumed, but in the meantime, security is the first priority.
"We're going to do everything we can to keep our staff safe and keep the public safe," Smith said.
The sheriff's office is responsible for several essential operations in the county's justice system, including the Cook County Jail, the sheriff's police and courthouse security.
Other county agencies felt the budget pinch last week as 10 percent across-the-board cuts were ordered after the soda tax was held up by a Cook County judge.
The Cook County state's attorney's office announced last week that 17 prosecutors and 22 other employees would be laid off. The Public Defender's office cut 69 employees, most of them lawyers.
The soda tax was supposed to go into effect July 1. But a judge issued a temporary restraining order June 30 after the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and several grocers filed a lawsuit against the county Department of Revenue seeking to block the tax as unconstitutional and too vague.
Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak is scheduled to take up the county's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Friday, but he isn't expected to announce his decision until a week later, according to Frank Shuftan, County Board President Toni Preckwinkle's spokesman.
"We can't predict what the judge may or may not do, how long the court case may last, and, as such, have to proceed with the holdback," Shuftan wrote in an email to the Tribune last week.
Cook County had projected collecting about $67.5 million in revenue from the tax this year and more than $200 million for fiscal year 2018.
EDITOR’S NOTE: For those who may not know, the county seat of Cook County is in Chicago.
By Megan Crepeau
Chicago Tribune
July 18, 2017
CHICAGO -- More than 110 Cook County sheriff's office recruits and trainees were laid off this week after a proposed countywide tax on soda was put on hold, officials said.
The sheriff's office layoffs are in addition to more than 300 county job cuts announced last week to make up for the loss of anticipated revenue from the soda tax.
"These are very difficult times for everyone," said Cara Smith, chief policy officer for the sheriff's office.
Sixty-six incoming recruits who were expected to start training next week have been notified that their class is suspended, and 47 trainees who began at the academy last month were laid off.
In addition, 12 other employees, including eight people who work at county courthouses, were laid off. Members of two specialty units will be reassigned to the Cook County Jail.
Smith said she is hopeful that the budget crisis passes and the training classes can be resumed, but in the meantime, security is the first priority.
"We're going to do everything we can to keep our staff safe and keep the public safe," Smith said.
The sheriff's office is responsible for several essential operations in the county's justice system, including the Cook County Jail, the sheriff's police and courthouse security.
Other county agencies felt the budget pinch last week as 10 percent across-the-board cuts were ordered after the soda tax was held up by a Cook County judge.
The Cook County state's attorney's office announced last week that 17 prosecutors and 22 other employees would be laid off. The Public Defender's office cut 69 employees, most of them lawyers.
The soda tax was supposed to go into effect July 1. But a judge issued a temporary restraining order June 30 after the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and several grocers filed a lawsuit against the county Department of Revenue seeking to block the tax as unconstitutional and too vague.
Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak is scheduled to take up the county's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Friday, but he isn't expected to announce his decision until a week later, according to Frank Shuftan, County Board President Toni Preckwinkle's spokesman.
"We can't predict what the judge may or may not do, how long the court case may last, and, as such, have to proceed with the holdback," Shuftan wrote in an email to the Tribune last week.
Cook County had projected collecting about $67.5 million in revenue from the tax this year and more than $200 million for fiscal year 2018.
EDITOR’S NOTE: For those who may not know, the county seat of Cook County is in Chicago.
TEXAS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS UPSET OVER STATE CRIME LAB FEES
Officials rush to secure funding after DPS announces fees
Associated Press
July 22, 2017
AUSTIN, Texas -- Law enforcement agencies across Texas are rushing to secure additional funding after the state Department of Public Safety surprised them by announcing it will start charging for crime lab services.
Police chiefs and sheriffs said they weren't expecting Thursday's announcement that charges will be imposed starting Sept. 1.
Ryan Phipps, the police chief in Manor, northeast of Austin, told the Austin American-Statesman that his budget is due in the coming days so he needs to scramble to determine just how much additional funding he must request from the city.
"It is going to have a big impact," Phipps said. "This is going to be DWI-related, sexual assault-related (and) drug cases. There's quite a bit of stuff that we take over there to them."
Some of the charges will include $75 to analyze a controlled substance and $550 for a DNA analysis.
Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett said the announcement "caught us off-guard."
"Our budget is in solid draft form and has already been sent to the city manager," he said. "I wouldn't say (it's) too late because our budgets are not finalized, but it certainly did not give us advanced warning or time for preparation."
Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger said the new charges became necessary after state lawmakers approved an agency budget that required the department to collect $11.5 million to fully cover the cost of operating the state crime lab.
The agency notified law enforcement departments of the fees as quickly as possible, Vinger said.
The department plans to provide vouchers to cover some services in an effort to minimize the impact, but the value hasn't been determined.
"We understand that they have costs," Phipps said of the state agency. "But at the same time, the citizens are already paying taxes that fund the DPS. It's like they are being double taxed to pay out of our tax base to have these tests done."
EDITOR’S NOTE: Looks like the free ride is over for the small town and rural police agencies.
Associated Press
July 22, 2017
AUSTIN, Texas -- Law enforcement agencies across Texas are rushing to secure additional funding after the state Department of Public Safety surprised them by announcing it will start charging for crime lab services.
Police chiefs and sheriffs said they weren't expecting Thursday's announcement that charges will be imposed starting Sept. 1.
Ryan Phipps, the police chief in Manor, northeast of Austin, told the Austin American-Statesman that his budget is due in the coming days so he needs to scramble to determine just how much additional funding he must request from the city.
"It is going to have a big impact," Phipps said. "This is going to be DWI-related, sexual assault-related (and) drug cases. There's quite a bit of stuff that we take over there to them."
Some of the charges will include $75 to analyze a controlled substance and $550 for a DNA analysis.
Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett said the announcement "caught us off-guard."
"Our budget is in solid draft form and has already been sent to the city manager," he said. "I wouldn't say (it's) too late because our budgets are not finalized, but it certainly did not give us advanced warning or time for preparation."
Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger said the new charges became necessary after state lawmakers approved an agency budget that required the department to collect $11.5 million to fully cover the cost of operating the state crime lab.
The agency notified law enforcement departments of the fees as quickly as possible, Vinger said.
The department plans to provide vouchers to cover some services in an effort to minimize the impact, but the value hasn't been determined.
"We understand that they have costs," Phipps said of the state agency. "But at the same time, the citizens are already paying taxes that fund the DPS. It's like they are being double taxed to pay out of our tax base to have these tests done."
EDITOR’S NOTE: Looks like the free ride is over for the small town and rural police agencies.
BUSTED PREACHER WAS ONLY PLANNING TO HAVE ONE-ON-ONE BAPTISM FOR HOOKER TO COME TO JESUS
Pastor of Woodlands First Baptist Church charged with prostitution
By Mayra Moreno
KTRK
July 29, 2017
THE WOODLANDS, Texas - -A Montgomery County religious leader has been charged with prostitution.
According to charging documents, 52-year-old Eddie Hilburn was taken into custody after he agreed to pay for sex.
Officials at The Woodlands First Baptist Church confirmed that Hilburn is an associate pastor. According to the church's website, Hilburn has been with the church since 2012 and had previously served at other churches across Texas and Wisconsin.
Hilburn appeared in court Thursday morning just hours after he had been arrested in a hotel.
Charging documents allege Hilburn paid an undercover Harris County Sheriff's deputy $80 for sexual activities. Soon after the alleged money exchange, deputies moved in to arrest him.
The Woodlands First Baptist Church issued the following statement following Hilburn's arrest:
The Woodlands First Baptist Church is still gathering information regarding our staff member Eddie Hilburn. We can assure you that a statement will be issued once all facts are known, and administration has had an opportunity to review them. We appreciate your patience in the meantime, and we continue to look to God for guidance.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Woodlands is an up-scale development just north of Houston.
By Mayra Moreno
KTRK
July 29, 2017
THE WOODLANDS, Texas - -A Montgomery County religious leader has been charged with prostitution.
According to charging documents, 52-year-old Eddie Hilburn was taken into custody after he agreed to pay for sex.
Officials at The Woodlands First Baptist Church confirmed that Hilburn is an associate pastor. According to the church's website, Hilburn has been with the church since 2012 and had previously served at other churches across Texas and Wisconsin.
Hilburn appeared in court Thursday morning just hours after he had been arrested in a hotel.
Charging documents allege Hilburn paid an undercover Harris County Sheriff's deputy $80 for sexual activities. Soon after the alleged money exchange, deputies moved in to arrest him.
The Woodlands First Baptist Church issued the following statement following Hilburn's arrest:
The Woodlands First Baptist Church is still gathering information regarding our staff member Eddie Hilburn. We can assure you that a statement will be issued once all facts are known, and administration has had an opportunity to review them. We appreciate your patience in the meantime, and we continue to look to God for guidance.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Woodlands is an up-scale development just north of Houston.
COMBINING FAST-TRACK TRAINING AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS A PATH TO TRAGEDY
Fast-track training put officer Mohamed Noor on Minneapolis police force
By Jennifer Bjorhus
Star Tribune
July 23, 2017
In this May 2016 image provided by the city of Minneapolis, police officer Mohamed Noor poses for a photo at a community event welcoming him to the Minneapolis police force.
Text size
Minneapolis made a significant financial investment in Mohamed Noor.
The officer who fatally shot Justine Damond graduated in 2015 from the city’s accelerated police cadet program. The seven-month training is a quicker, nontraditional route to policing aimed at helping those who already have a college degree enter law enforcement.
The Minneapolis program covers tuition at Hennepin Technical College and pays trainees a $20-an-hour salary with benefits while they work to get licensed. After that their salary bumps up.
More than a year into the job, Noor, 31, rose from a beat cop’s obscurity to international headlines after shooting Damond, a 40-year-old spiritual healer from Australia, after she called 911 to report a possible sexual assault behind her southwest Minneapolis home. When she approached the driver’s side window of the squad car, Noor, who was in the passenger seat, fired across his partner in the driver’s seat, killing Damond.
Since then the MPD has been dogged by questions about Noor’s experience and training. On the night of the shooting, he was paired with officer Matthew Harrity, who had been a cop for about one year.
Some law enforcement professionals say the cadet program and others like it are exactly what policing needs — a way to attract more diverse people with broader life experiences. The average age of the more than two dozen aspiring officers in Noor’s cadet class was around 30. It included a former firefighter pushing age 50.
Before heading into law enforcement, Noor worked in commercial and residential property management and managed a hotel. He has a degree in business administration, management and economics from Augsburg College.
Former police chief Janeé Harteau, who resigned late Friday, stood by Noor’s training last week.
“We have a very robust training and hiring process,” Harteau told reporters at a news conference on Thursday. “This officer completed that training very well, just like every officer. He was very suited to be on the street.”
Not everyone is sold on the fast-track training. In Minnesota, the more traditional route to a job as a peace officer includes a two- or four-year degree in criminal justice or a related field. The state is unique in its educational requirement for officers, although Wisconsin has a similar requirement.
James Densley, who teaches criminal justice at Metropolitan State University, said he thinks too many cadet programs are “all tactics and no strategy,” overemphasizing assessing threats and conducting tactical protocols.
“The cadet program is rigorous, no doubt, but it is also an immersive paramilitary experience, taught by practitioner faculty without advanced degrees, and I suspect it leaves students with a limited view of the profession,” Densley said.
Critics of police training across the United States have called it long on command and control and short on instructing common sense approaches to slowing down confrontations and defusing hostile situations.
When asked on Thursday whether Noor did well in his field training, Harteau said, “He absolutely did.”
“We have a very robust field training officer program which, I’ve been told by the training officers, he did well,” Harteau said. “There was no indication there would be any issues.”
By Jennifer Bjorhus
Star Tribune
July 23, 2017
In this May 2016 image provided by the city of Minneapolis, police officer Mohamed Noor poses for a photo at a community event welcoming him to the Minneapolis police force.
Text size
Minneapolis made a significant financial investment in Mohamed Noor.
The officer who fatally shot Justine Damond graduated in 2015 from the city’s accelerated police cadet program. The seven-month training is a quicker, nontraditional route to policing aimed at helping those who already have a college degree enter law enforcement.
The Minneapolis program covers tuition at Hennepin Technical College and pays trainees a $20-an-hour salary with benefits while they work to get licensed. After that their salary bumps up.
More than a year into the job, Noor, 31, rose from a beat cop’s obscurity to international headlines after shooting Damond, a 40-year-old spiritual healer from Australia, after she called 911 to report a possible sexual assault behind her southwest Minneapolis home. When she approached the driver’s side window of the squad car, Noor, who was in the passenger seat, fired across his partner in the driver’s seat, killing Damond.
Since then the MPD has been dogged by questions about Noor’s experience and training. On the night of the shooting, he was paired with officer Matthew Harrity, who had been a cop for about one year.
Some law enforcement professionals say the cadet program and others like it are exactly what policing needs — a way to attract more diverse people with broader life experiences. The average age of the more than two dozen aspiring officers in Noor’s cadet class was around 30. It included a former firefighter pushing age 50.
Before heading into law enforcement, Noor worked in commercial and residential property management and managed a hotel. He has a degree in business administration, management and economics from Augsburg College.
Former police chief Janeé Harteau, who resigned late Friday, stood by Noor’s training last week.
“We have a very robust training and hiring process,” Harteau told reporters at a news conference on Thursday. “This officer completed that training very well, just like every officer. He was very suited to be on the street.”
Not everyone is sold on the fast-track training. In Minnesota, the more traditional route to a job as a peace officer includes a two- or four-year degree in criminal justice or a related field. The state is unique in its educational requirement for officers, although Wisconsin has a similar requirement.
James Densley, who teaches criminal justice at Metropolitan State University, said he thinks too many cadet programs are “all tactics and no strategy,” overemphasizing assessing threats and conducting tactical protocols.
“The cadet program is rigorous, no doubt, but it is also an immersive paramilitary experience, taught by practitioner faculty without advanced degrees, and I suspect it leaves students with a limited view of the profession,” Densley said.
Critics of police training across the United States have called it long on command and control and short on instructing common sense approaches to slowing down confrontations and defusing hostile situations.
When asked on Thursday whether Noor did well in his field training, Harteau said, “He absolutely did.”
“We have a very robust field training officer program which, I’ve been told by the training officers, he did well,” Harteau said. “There was no indication there would be any issues.”
HE LOST IT ALL
I talked to a homeless man this morning and asked him how he ended up this way.
He said, "Up until last week, I still had it all. I had plenty to eat, my clothes were washed And pressed, I had a roof over my head, I had TV and Internet, and I went to the gym, The pool, and the library. I was working on my MBA on-line. I had no bills and no debt. I Even had full medical coverage."
I felt sorry for him, so I asked, "What happened? Drugs? Alcohol? Divorce?"
"Oh no, nothing like that," he said. "No, no.... I was paroled."
He said, "Up until last week, I still had it all. I had plenty to eat, my clothes were washed And pressed, I had a roof over my head, I had TV and Internet, and I went to the gym, The pool, and the library. I was working on my MBA on-line. I had no bills and no debt. I Even had full medical coverage."
I felt sorry for him, so I asked, "What happened? Drugs? Alcohol? Divorce?"
"Oh no, nothing like that," he said. "No, no.... I was paroled."
Sunday, July 23, 2017
OFF-DUTY DEPUTY IN CHOKING DEATH FIRED AND FOUR OTHER HARRIS COUNTY OFFICERS DISCIPLINED
Chauna Thompson, who together with her husband has been indicted for the murder of John Hernandez, has been fired by the Harris County Sheriff’s Department
You may recall that last May a man was choked to death in the parking lot of a Houston area Denny’s because a father took offense to the victim peeing within sight of his two young daughters. Terry Thompson, a MMA fighter confronted the public peer and a physical altercation occurred. Thompson got on top of John Hernandez who was face down and held him in a choke hold. While he was choking Hernandez his wife, an off-duty Harris County deputy, showed up and on a video clip appeared to be helping her husband. Chauna Thompson and Terry Thompson were both indicted for murder last month.
On Friday Sheriff Ed Gonzalez announced that Chauna Thompson had been fired. She had been on administrative leave since the incident occurred.
Sheriff Gonzalez also announced that four other officers had been disciplined in the Hernandez choking death.
• One sergeant has been transferred to a new assignment, ordered to complete additional training, and suspended for five days.
• One sergeant received a letter of documented counseling.
• One sergeant received a letter of reprimand and was ordered to complete additional training.
• One deputy received a one-day suspension and 30 days’ probation.
While the Sheriff would not give any details about the discipline, it appears likely that the four officers were punished for the way they conducted and reported the investigation of this case. They failed to interview any witnesses at the scene and rushed out a report that was obviously designed to cover up fellow deputy Chauna Thompson’s part in Hernandez’s death. Their cover up was uncovered by cellphone videos taken by witnesses at the scene.
You may recall that last May a man was choked to death in the parking lot of a Houston area Denny’s because a father took offense to the victim peeing within sight of his two young daughters. Terry Thompson, a MMA fighter confronted the public peer and a physical altercation occurred. Thompson got on top of John Hernandez who was face down and held him in a choke hold. While he was choking Hernandez his wife, an off-duty Harris County deputy, showed up and on a video clip appeared to be helping her husband. Chauna Thompson and Terry Thompson were both indicted for murder last month.
On Friday Sheriff Ed Gonzalez announced that Chauna Thompson had been fired. She had been on administrative leave since the incident occurred.
Sheriff Gonzalez also announced that four other officers had been disciplined in the Hernandez choking death.
• One sergeant has been transferred to a new assignment, ordered to complete additional training, and suspended for five days.
• One sergeant received a letter of documented counseling.
• One sergeant received a letter of reprimand and was ordered to complete additional training.
• One deputy received a one-day suspension and 30 days’ probation.
While the Sheriff would not give any details about the discipline, it appears likely that the four officers were punished for the way they conducted and reported the investigation of this case. They failed to interview any witnesses at the scene and rushed out a report that was obviously designed to cover up fellow deputy Chauna Thompson’s part in Hernandez’s death. Their cover up was uncovered by cellphone videos taken by witnesses at the scene.
NO ONE CAME TO AID OF COP BEATEN WHILE UNCONSCIOUS UNTIL ASSAILANT LEFT
Black Woman Bus Driver Is Only One Who Comes to Aid of Brutally Beaten Cop
By Karen Kucher
The San Diego Union-Tribune
July 21, 2017
EL CAJON, California -- After watching in terror as a man violently attacked a police officer in an El Cajon fast-food restaurant, Iesha Booker checked for a pulse on the bloody, unconscious officer and yelled into the radio on his belt.
“I just grabbed it and kept screaming in there that they have an officer down, they have an officer down,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I hoped they heard me because I didn’t know how to work the walkie-talkie.”
Booker said she kept repeating that the officer was down — eventually pulling the radio off his belt — until she heard a dispatcher say they were sending help.
“I did the best I (could) to try to help him,” she said.
The attack Monday morning inside the KFC restaurant on Fletcher Parkway left the officer, a 28-year veteran, hospitalized with significant head trauma. The department has not identified him.
Booker said the attack lasted at least six minutes and that the suspect kept hitting the officer even after he was unconscious.
Daniel Moses Cook, 42, was arrested nearby. Police said they used a Taser on him after he squared off and took a fighting stance toward approaching officers.
Cook was supposed to be arraigned in El Cajon Superior Court Wednesday afternoon but he refused to leave his cell, Deputy District Attorney Jeff Lazar said. The hearing was rescheduled for Thursday.
Cook is charged with assault on a police officer, resisting a police officer with force, robbery, possession of methamphetamine and being under the influence of meth. He also faces added allegations of causing bodily injury to the officer.
State prison records show Cook was released from prison in June after he was convicted of resisting and deterring an officer with threats and violence. Cook also was convicted in 2001 for assault with a deadly weapon and making a terrorist threat and in 2014 for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse.
Booker, 34, who has driven a MTS bus for the past three years, had stopped at the KFC for her lunch break. She didn’t know police were searching for a robbery suspect in the area. She talked briefly with the man, who was seated at a corner table, complaining to him about the floors and tables being untidy.
“He was just like, ‘Yeah,’ ” she said. “I didn’t know he was in trouble or anything.”
When the officer entered the KFC, he went to talk to the man, who didn’t respond, Booker said. Then he stood up, crossed his arms over his chest and pushed the officer backward before hitting him.
The officer seemed surprised by the attack, Booker said. The assailant, who she described as large and strong, seemed to be a trained fighter.
She said the officer tried to fight back, but the man kept up his violent assault. The officer never pulled his gun or Taser, she said.
“I seen the officer stop and think, like, what to do,” she said. “I feel like at that moment he could have done what he needed to protect himself.
“But because we were there, he thought and he just went ahead and tried to struggle him back” instead of pulling his weapon, she said.
Booker said the assailant pushed the officer to the ground and started “slamming on his face, really violently.”
Customers and employees were screaming and running for cover, sending tables and chairs flying. “Everybody was screaming ‘Stop! You’re hitting an officer.’ We all were panicking,” she said.
Booker, who has seven children, has been living in hotels and staying with friends since Memorial Day after the house she was renting was sold.
She told her older kids about what happened Monday and they told her she was a “superhero Mom.”
By Karen Kucher
The San Diego Union-Tribune
July 21, 2017
EL CAJON, California -- After watching in terror as a man violently attacked a police officer in an El Cajon fast-food restaurant, Iesha Booker checked for a pulse on the bloody, unconscious officer and yelled into the radio on his belt.
“I just grabbed it and kept screaming in there that they have an officer down, they have an officer down,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I hoped they heard me because I didn’t know how to work the walkie-talkie.”
Booker said she kept repeating that the officer was down — eventually pulling the radio off his belt — until she heard a dispatcher say they were sending help.
“I did the best I (could) to try to help him,” she said.
The attack Monday morning inside the KFC restaurant on Fletcher Parkway left the officer, a 28-year veteran, hospitalized with significant head trauma. The department has not identified him.
Booker said the attack lasted at least six minutes and that the suspect kept hitting the officer even after he was unconscious.
Daniel Moses Cook, 42, was arrested nearby. Police said they used a Taser on him after he squared off and took a fighting stance toward approaching officers.
Cook was supposed to be arraigned in El Cajon Superior Court Wednesday afternoon but he refused to leave his cell, Deputy District Attorney Jeff Lazar said. The hearing was rescheduled for Thursday.
Cook is charged with assault on a police officer, resisting a police officer with force, robbery, possession of methamphetamine and being under the influence of meth. He also faces added allegations of causing bodily injury to the officer.
State prison records show Cook was released from prison in June after he was convicted of resisting and deterring an officer with threats and violence. Cook also was convicted in 2001 for assault with a deadly weapon and making a terrorist threat and in 2014 for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse.
Booker, 34, who has driven a MTS bus for the past three years, had stopped at the KFC for her lunch break. She didn’t know police were searching for a robbery suspect in the area. She talked briefly with the man, who was seated at a corner table, complaining to him about the floors and tables being untidy.
“He was just like, ‘Yeah,’ ” she said. “I didn’t know he was in trouble or anything.”
When the officer entered the KFC, he went to talk to the man, who didn’t respond, Booker said. Then he stood up, crossed his arms over his chest and pushed the officer backward before hitting him.
The officer seemed surprised by the attack, Booker said. The assailant, who she described as large and strong, seemed to be a trained fighter.
She said the officer tried to fight back, but the man kept up his violent assault. The officer never pulled his gun or Taser, she said.
“I seen the officer stop and think, like, what to do,” she said. “I feel like at that moment he could have done what he needed to protect himself.
“But because we were there, he thought and he just went ahead and tried to struggle him back” instead of pulling his weapon, she said.
Booker said the assailant pushed the officer to the ground and started “slamming on his face, really violently.”
Customers and employees were screaming and running for cover, sending tables and chairs flying. “Everybody was screaming ‘Stop! You’re hitting an officer.’ We all were panicking,” she said.
Booker, who has seven children, has been living in hotels and staying with friends since Memorial Day after the house she was renting was sold.
She told her older kids about what happened Monday and they told her she was a “superhero Mom.”
7-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER TAKES WHEEL OF LEXUS WHEN DEAR OLD DAD OVERDOSES
Overdosing Brooklyn man’s 7-year-old daughter takes the wheel after he falls unconscious
By Ginger Adams Otis
New York Daily News
July 21, 2017
Daddy's little girl turned into a lifesaver.
The 7-year-old daughter of a drug-addled Brooklyn man climbed into his lap and steered their Lexus to safety after his opioid overdose while behind the wheel, police sources said Friday.
Eric Roman, 37, remained hospitalized Friday — one day after two astonished FDNY Emergency Medical Technicians spotted his small child steering the car on Ocean Ave. toward the busy Belt Parkway during rush hour on Thursday.
“We turned with the car and saw this little girl behind the wheel,” said EMT Arlene Garcia, a mother of three, ages 9, 10, and 11. “I’m a mom, so I was freaking out. I started yelling at her to pull over and stop the car.”
The diminutive driver seemed small for her age, Garcia told the Daily News.
“There’s no way her feet could reach the pedals. We were turning with her, telling her to pull over, waving our arms wildly at her, but she wasn’t pulling over.”
As the child kept a snail’s pace, the first responders came up with a plan.
“We said to ourselves, ‘How do you stop her?’ So we pulled right in front of her with the ambulance and that’s how we stopped it,” Garcia explained.
The slow-moving Lexus smacked the truck’s back bumper and came to a stop.
Garcia and her partner EMT Charles Zimring found a disturbing scene in the luxury vehicle.
“When we asked her what happened, she said ‘My dad was sleeping so I was going to finish driving him home,’ ” Garcia explained.
The quick thinking kid told the medics that she was in the back seat when her doped-up dad passed out.
So she unbuckled herself and took the wheel.
“She wasn’t scared at all. She was so great,” Garcia said. “All she was worried about was getting grounded for driving without permission.”
Police sources said first responders brought Roman back with a life-saving dose of the opioid antidote Naloxone.
He was taken to a Brooklyn hospital for treatment.
A relative who answered the door at the Roman home Friday declined to comment on the bizarre case. “I’ve got nothing to say,” the man said before closing the door.
Roman was due for arraignment in Brooklyn court Friday on charges of reckless endangerment, acting in a manner injurious to a child and driving while impaired by drugs.
Neighbors said the 7-year-old is the older of Roman’s two daughters, and expressed surprise about his alleged drug use.
“He seems very family-oriented. He’s a very nice guy,” said Brian Zheng, 39. He said Roman was complaining of tennis elbow, and his arm was in a sling last month.
“Probably he hurts very much,” Zheng said.
EMTs Garcia and Zimring were heralded for their efforts by their peers.
“Our members situational awareness training works, and this is a perfect example. They placed themselves at risk to prevent others from getting injured,” said EMS Local 2507 president Oren Barzilay.
By Ginger Adams Otis
New York Daily News
July 21, 2017
Daddy's little girl turned into a lifesaver.
The 7-year-old daughter of a drug-addled Brooklyn man climbed into his lap and steered their Lexus to safety after his opioid overdose while behind the wheel, police sources said Friday.
Eric Roman, 37, remained hospitalized Friday — one day after two astonished FDNY Emergency Medical Technicians spotted his small child steering the car on Ocean Ave. toward the busy Belt Parkway during rush hour on Thursday.
“We turned with the car and saw this little girl behind the wheel,” said EMT Arlene Garcia, a mother of three, ages 9, 10, and 11. “I’m a mom, so I was freaking out. I started yelling at her to pull over and stop the car.”
The diminutive driver seemed small for her age, Garcia told the Daily News.
“There’s no way her feet could reach the pedals. We were turning with her, telling her to pull over, waving our arms wildly at her, but she wasn’t pulling over.”
As the child kept a snail’s pace, the first responders came up with a plan.
“We said to ourselves, ‘How do you stop her?’ So we pulled right in front of her with the ambulance and that’s how we stopped it,” Garcia explained.
The slow-moving Lexus smacked the truck’s back bumper and came to a stop.
Garcia and her partner EMT Charles Zimring found a disturbing scene in the luxury vehicle.
“When we asked her what happened, she said ‘My dad was sleeping so I was going to finish driving him home,’ ” Garcia explained.
The quick thinking kid told the medics that she was in the back seat when her doped-up dad passed out.
So she unbuckled herself and took the wheel.
“She wasn’t scared at all. She was so great,” Garcia said. “All she was worried about was getting grounded for driving without permission.”
Police sources said first responders brought Roman back with a life-saving dose of the opioid antidote Naloxone.
He was taken to a Brooklyn hospital for treatment.
A relative who answered the door at the Roman home Friday declined to comment on the bizarre case. “I’ve got nothing to say,” the man said before closing the door.
Roman was due for arraignment in Brooklyn court Friday on charges of reckless endangerment, acting in a manner injurious to a child and driving while impaired by drugs.
Neighbors said the 7-year-old is the older of Roman’s two daughters, and expressed surprise about his alleged drug use.
“He seems very family-oriented. He’s a very nice guy,” said Brian Zheng, 39. He said Roman was complaining of tennis elbow, and his arm was in a sling last month.
“Probably he hurts very much,” Zheng said.
EMTs Garcia and Zimring were heralded for their efforts by their peers.
“Our members situational awareness training works, and this is a perfect example. They placed themselves at risk to prevent others from getting injured,” said EMS Local 2507 president Oren Barzilay.
IRATE CITIZEN OF SOUTH HOUSTON ATTACKS TEEN FOR TRYING TO TAKE HIS PICTURE
Teen and grandfather say monkey attacked them in South Houston
By Kevin Quinn
KTRK
July 20, 2017
SOUTH HOUSTON, Texas -- Authorities are looking for a monkey on the loose in the city of South Houston after it allegedly attacked a teenager.
The incident happened Tuesday near Austin Street and Iowa Street, according to Mariah Schliesing.
The 16-year-old was in the passenger seat of her grandfather's truck as they spotted the monkey in the street.
"I wanted her to take a picture of it, but we never thought it would jump in the window," said Michael Schliesing, Mariah's grandfather.
Michael says moments after he rolled down her window, the monkey jumped into the cab.
"It hops onto the window of our truck and it does that thing that it does. I'm scared. It jumps on me," said Mariah.
She showed us scratches on her shoulder, neck and head which she says were caused by the monkey.
The attack only ceased when her grandfather hit the monkey.
"I hollered at it and I hit it right in the head right in the face and knocked it out the window," said Michael Schliesing.
Just like that, the monkey was gone. They don't know where it came from or where it went.
The monkey did not bite Mariah, so she didn't have to get a rabies shot. Her doctor did give her antibiotics for the scratches.
The city of South Houston's Humane Department is trying to locate the monkey.
By Kevin Quinn
KTRK
July 20, 2017
SOUTH HOUSTON, Texas -- Authorities are looking for a monkey on the loose in the city of South Houston after it allegedly attacked a teenager.
The incident happened Tuesday near Austin Street and Iowa Street, according to Mariah Schliesing.
The 16-year-old was in the passenger seat of her grandfather's truck as they spotted the monkey in the street.
"I wanted her to take a picture of it, but we never thought it would jump in the window," said Michael Schliesing, Mariah's grandfather.
Michael says moments after he rolled down her window, the monkey jumped into the cab.
"It hops onto the window of our truck and it does that thing that it does. I'm scared. It jumps on me," said Mariah.
She showed us scratches on her shoulder, neck and head which she says were caused by the monkey.
The attack only ceased when her grandfather hit the monkey.
"I hollered at it and I hit it right in the head right in the face and knocked it out the window," said Michael Schliesing.
Just like that, the monkey was gone. They don't know where it came from or where it went.
The monkey did not bite Mariah, so she didn't have to get a rabies shot. Her doctor did give her antibiotics for the scratches.
The city of South Houston's Humane Department is trying to locate the monkey.
FURIOUS BLACK NYT REPORTER FAILS TO REALIZE NY WOMEN DO NOT GET OUT OF THE WAY WHILE WALKING DOWN THE SIDEWALK
New York Times reporter Greg Howard accuses white women of being racist because they won’t give him room on New York sidewalks
What a schmuck! Greg Howard, a black reporter for The New York Times, accuses white women of being racist because they won’t give him room on New York sidewalks. Howard needs to get a life because that’s just the way New York women are – they won’t move aside for anybody, black, white, green or whatever color.
I’ve spent a number of years in New York and found that women walking down the sidewalk just don’t move over to let somebody pass by. When I found myself having to step off the sidewalk into the gutter to get by, I certainly did not think it was because those broads were anti-Semitic.
Here is Howard’s absurd attack on white women:
POWER PLAY
By Greg Howard
The New York Times
July 19, 2017
In New York, so much of my life consists of walking in and through crowds. I am, I think, a good walker. I don’t dawdle, and even when walking at high speeds, I’m courteous — always willing to sway to one side, change speed in traffic or even take wide berths around large, lost, child-toting or otherwise compromised gaggles of pedestrians.
There are many times in a day when a person is walking toward me and in my path. In these situations, we both generally make minor adjustments upon our approach. Sometimes, and especially with pedestrians who are black, as I am, there’s eye contact or even a nod. Almost always, we shift our bodyweight or otherwise detour to make the pass easier for the other. Walking courteously doesn’t take much, just soupçons of spatial awareness, foresight and empathy. In seven years of living and walking here, I’ve found that most people walk courteously — but that white women, at least when I’m in their path, do not.
Sometimes they’re buried in their phones. Other times, they’re in pairs and groups, and in conversation. But often, they’re looking ahead, through me, if not quite at me. When white women are in my path, they almost always continue straight, forcing me to one side without changing their course. This happens several times a day; and a couple of times a week, white women force me off the sidewalk completely. In these instances, when I’m standing in the street or in the dirt as a white woman strides past, broad-shouldered and blissful, I turn furious.
I turn furious because in these instances I feel small. I always get out of the way, because I was taught at a young age not to bodycheck random people. But I also get out of the way because, as a black man, I’ve learned that bodychecking, bumping or even rubbing against a random white woman can be personally hazardous. So I acknowledge other pedestrians, and reroute. White men and all people of color do the same to me. They offer some form of acknowledgment that we are in each other’s path, that I am there at all.
After these encounters, I’m always left with questions. Why only and specifically white women? Do they refuse to acknowledge me because they’ve been taught that they should fear black men, and that any acknowledgment of black men can invite danger? Do they refuse to acknowledge me because to alter their route would be to show their fear? Do they not see me? Can they not see me?
I wonder, too, why I always get out of the way. Why haven’t I ever just walked headlong into a rude white woman? What lessons tug at me, force me off the sidewalk, tell me that my personal space is not necessarily mine? Because explicit in every white woman’s decision not to get out of my way is the expectation that I’ll get out of theirs.
There have always been white women in my life, and I’ve counted them as friends and sisters, mothers and lovers. Whenever I ask white women I know why they don’t reroute for black men, they invariably express ignorance. Whenever that happens, another question always arises: Wait, am I crazy? But then I ask black men. Invariably, they know what I’m talking about.
A couple of weeks ago, I asked an Asian friend if he had the same experience of white women not getting out of his way. He said no. For whatever reason, white women see him just fine. The people who don’t, he said, are white men.
What a schmuck! Greg Howard, a black reporter for The New York Times, accuses white women of being racist because they won’t give him room on New York sidewalks. Howard needs to get a life because that’s just the way New York women are – they won’t move aside for anybody, black, white, green or whatever color.
I’ve spent a number of years in New York and found that women walking down the sidewalk just don’t move over to let somebody pass by. When I found myself having to step off the sidewalk into the gutter to get by, I certainly did not think it was because those broads were anti-Semitic.
Here is Howard’s absurd attack on white women:
POWER PLAY
By Greg Howard
The New York Times
July 19, 2017
In New York, so much of my life consists of walking in and through crowds. I am, I think, a good walker. I don’t dawdle, and even when walking at high speeds, I’m courteous — always willing to sway to one side, change speed in traffic or even take wide berths around large, lost, child-toting or otherwise compromised gaggles of pedestrians.
There are many times in a day when a person is walking toward me and in my path. In these situations, we both generally make minor adjustments upon our approach. Sometimes, and especially with pedestrians who are black, as I am, there’s eye contact or even a nod. Almost always, we shift our bodyweight or otherwise detour to make the pass easier for the other. Walking courteously doesn’t take much, just soupçons of spatial awareness, foresight and empathy. In seven years of living and walking here, I’ve found that most people walk courteously — but that white women, at least when I’m in their path, do not.
Sometimes they’re buried in their phones. Other times, they’re in pairs and groups, and in conversation. But often, they’re looking ahead, through me, if not quite at me. When white women are in my path, they almost always continue straight, forcing me to one side without changing their course. This happens several times a day; and a couple of times a week, white women force me off the sidewalk completely. In these instances, when I’m standing in the street or in the dirt as a white woman strides past, broad-shouldered and blissful, I turn furious.
I turn furious because in these instances I feel small. I always get out of the way, because I was taught at a young age not to bodycheck random people. But I also get out of the way because, as a black man, I’ve learned that bodychecking, bumping or even rubbing against a random white woman can be personally hazardous. So I acknowledge other pedestrians, and reroute. White men and all people of color do the same to me. They offer some form of acknowledgment that we are in each other’s path, that I am there at all.
After these encounters, I’m always left with questions. Why only and specifically white women? Do they refuse to acknowledge me because they’ve been taught that they should fear black men, and that any acknowledgment of black men can invite danger? Do they refuse to acknowledge me because to alter their route would be to show their fear? Do they not see me? Can they not see me?
I wonder, too, why I always get out of the way. Why haven’t I ever just walked headlong into a rude white woman? What lessons tug at me, force me off the sidewalk, tell me that my personal space is not necessarily mine? Because explicit in every white woman’s decision not to get out of my way is the expectation that I’ll get out of theirs.
There have always been white women in my life, and I’ve counted them as friends and sisters, mothers and lovers. Whenever I ask white women I know why they don’t reroute for black men, they invariably express ignorance. Whenever that happens, another question always arises: Wait, am I crazy? But then I ask black men. Invariably, they know what I’m talking about.
A couple of weeks ago, I asked an Asian friend if he had the same experience of white women not getting out of his way. He said no. For whatever reason, white women see him just fine. The people who don’t, he said, are white men.
ROMANTIC EXCHANGE OF TEXTS
An elderly couple had just learned how to send text messages on their mobile phones.
The wife was a romantic type and the husband was more of a no-nonsense guy.
One afternoon the wife went out to meet a friend for coffee.
She decided to send her husband a romantic text message and she wrote:
"If you are sleeping, send me your dreams. If you are laughing, send me your smile. If you are eating, send me a bite. If you are drinking, send me a sip. If you are crying, send me your tears…….. I love you."
The husband texted back to her:
"I'm on the crapper. Please advise."
The wife was a romantic type and the husband was more of a no-nonsense guy.
One afternoon the wife went out to meet a friend for coffee.
She decided to send her husband a romantic text message and she wrote:
"If you are sleeping, send me your dreams. If you are laughing, send me your smile. If you are eating, send me a bite. If you are drinking, send me a sip. If you are crying, send me your tears…….. I love you."
The husband texted back to her:
"I'm on the crapper. Please advise."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)