↧
BABES OF THE DAY
↧
USA - Can Police Be Improved?
OFF THE WIRE
The proper policing of a democracy is best undertaken by men and women who are formally educated, carefully selected, well-trained, controlled in their use of force, effective, honest and truthful in their actions, courteous to every person, led by mature, collaborative leaders, compassionate, and closely in touch with the communities they serve. This requires a breath-taking vision, hiring the right people, and leading them wisely. Improvement can happen and it can be sustained!
David Blogs at: Improving Police and has written a book “Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds Off…”
The proper policing of a democracy is best undertaken by men and women who are formally educated, carefully selected, well-trained, controlled in their use of force, effective, honest and truthful in their actions, courteous to every person, led by mature, collaborative leaders, compassionate, and closely in touch with the communities they serve. This requires a breath-taking vision, hiring the right people, and leading them wisely. Improvement can happen and it can be sustained!
David Blogs at: Improving Police and has written a book “Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds Off…”
David Couper is currently an Episcopal priest serving St Peter’s parish in North Lake near Hartland. He is a former Marine and served as Chief of Police in Madison (WI) from 1972-1993. He brought many new ideas to Madison: crafting a new response to public protest and integrating the basically all-white, all-male, heterosexual police department and aligning the department with Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s method of quality Improvement, customer focus, and protecting Constitutional rights. When David retired, the Madison Police Department was considered one of the best police departments in America and had an international reputation. After 33 years in policing, David went off to seminary and continued his lifelong pursuit of education, living one’s values, and continuously improving things. After his ordination, he served two parishes in southern Wisconsin and was a trustee for a number of years for the International Peace Council. He participated in a number of inter-faith missions especially a Buddhist peace march in Cambodia, mediating in Chiapas, and attending the Parliament of World Religions in South Africa. He has been married to Sabine for 29 years and they have a blended family of nine children and eleven grandchildren. He has graduate degrees in sociology and world religions from the University of Minnesota and Edgewood College in Madison.
↧
↧
Never Forget America's Wounded Heroes
OFF THE WIRE
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As if they aren't suffering enough already, many of America’s wounded heroes feel like they are being forgotten. But the injured warriors you have helped through Wounded Warrior Project® (WWP) are full of gratitude for your dedication. With injury reports from Afghanistan no longer prominent in the news, wounded service members feel like they are “out of sight, out of mind.” This is why it’s so important for you to continue your support of WWP programs that honor and empower Wounded Warriors in so many uplifting and healing ways. You are a vital and valued partner in the WWP mission by supporting our ongoing efforts to help veterans cope with burns, amputations, traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Please make an urgently needed donation to WWP today to ensure that America’s wounded heroes are never forgotten. With your gift of $50, $75, $100, or more today, you will receive a Wounded Warrior Project wallpaper design to proudly display on your computer screen or tablet. Thank you for your support, Steven Nardizzi Executive Director Wounded Warrior Project | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
↧
Alabama only state that doesn't require motorcycle license; pending bill would change that
OFF THE WIRE
http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/03/alabama_only_state_that_doesnt.html
Alabama only state that doesn't require motorcycle license; pending bill would change that
By Mike Cason
MONTGOMERY, Alabama --- A bill to end the Alabama’s distinction as the only state that does not require a motorcycle license failed to pass during the first half of the legislative session.
Every other state requires a motorcycle license or a motorcycle endorsement on a regular driver’s license to operate a motorcycle, said Anne Teigen, a policy specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In Alabama, anyone 16 and older with a regular driver’s license can also drive a motorcycle in the state, said Capt. Guy Rush, chief examiner of the Driver License Division for the Alabama Department of Public Safety.
Rush said an oversight in the 1990s led to the gap in the law and DPS is supporting legislation to fix the mistake.
The state Senate in February passed a bill to require motorcycle drivers to have a Class M endorsement on their license. The bill is pending in the House of Representatives.
As originally written, the bill required drivers to pass a motorcycle knowledge test to get the Class M designation. But the Senate amended the bill to limit the testing requirement to those under 19.
They would pay $5 to take the test and $18.50 to add the Class M endorsement, Rush said.
Those with a regular driver’s license age 19 and older would not be required to take the test, but would have to pay the $18.50 to add a Class M endorsement, Rush said.
Drivers who wanted to add the Class M at the time of license renewal would pay $23.50, Rush said.
“This is a first step to get us toward more safe operation of motorcycles,” Rush said.
Under current law, drivers can ask to take the knowledge test to get the Class M endorsement on their license. But the law does not require the endorsement to operate a motorcycle.
Rush said he would eventually like to see the state require a skills test before issuing a motorcycle license.
Rep. Allen Farley, R-McCalla, House sponsor of the bill, said he would also eventually like to see a skills test.
“The bottom line is just strictly nothing else but we’re trying to save a life,” said Farley, a former police officer and assistant sheriff in Jefferson County.
Farley said an inexperienced motorcyclist is a danger to other drivers who might crash or run off the road to avoid a motorcycle that has gone down in traffic or is operating erratically.
“A motorcycle is a lot of fun, but when you’re talking about putting a motorcycle on the highways today, as congested as they are, it automatically becomes something that’s not just fun, it becomes something that can be deadly,” Farley said.
As of 2010, 40 states required a skills test for a motorcycle license, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
As for the Class M endorsement on the license, many Alabama drivers already have the designation and might not even know it. Rush said when new driver’s license classes were assigned in 1995 those who already had licenses were “grandfathered” and given the M endorsement.
Those who don’t have the Class M endorsement are only legal driving a motorcycle as long as they are riding in Alabama, Rush said.
Alabama law allows those as young as 14 to be licensed to drive a “motor-driven cycle,” which is defined in the law as a motor scooter or any motorcycle weighing less than 200 pounds.
Legislators take next week off for spring break and will return April 2 to begin the final 15 meeting days of the session.
The motorcycle license bill, sponsored by Sen. Jabo Waggoner, R-Vestavia Hills, was changed slightly in a House committee. So it would have to return to the Senate if it passes the House.
http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/03/alabama_only_state_that_doesnt.html
Alabama only state that doesn't require motorcycle license; pending bill would change that
By Mike Cason
MONTGOMERY, Alabama --- A bill to end the Alabama’s distinction as the only state that does not require a motorcycle license failed to pass during the first half of the legislative session.
Every other state requires a motorcycle license or a motorcycle endorsement on a regular driver’s license to operate a motorcycle, said Anne Teigen, a policy specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In Alabama, anyone 16 and older with a regular driver’s license can also drive a motorcycle in the state, said Capt. Guy Rush, chief examiner of the Driver License Division for the Alabama Department of Public Safety.
Rush said an oversight in the 1990s led to the gap in the law and DPS is supporting legislation to fix the mistake.
The state Senate in February passed a bill to require motorcycle drivers to have a Class M endorsement on their license. The bill is pending in the House of Representatives.
As originally written, the bill required drivers to pass a motorcycle knowledge test to get the Class M designation. But the Senate amended the bill to limit the testing requirement to those under 19.
They would pay $5 to take the test and $18.50 to add the Class M endorsement, Rush said.
Those with a regular driver’s license age 19 and older would not be required to take the test, but would have to pay the $18.50 to add a Class M endorsement, Rush said.
Drivers who wanted to add the Class M at the time of license renewal would pay $23.50, Rush said.
“This is a first step to get us toward more safe operation of motorcycles,” Rush said.
Under current law, drivers can ask to take the knowledge test to get the Class M endorsement on their license. But the law does not require the endorsement to operate a motorcycle.
Rush said he would eventually like to see the state require a skills test before issuing a motorcycle license.
Rep. Allen Farley, R-McCalla, House sponsor of the bill, said he would also eventually like to see a skills test.
“The bottom line is just strictly nothing else but we’re trying to save a life,” said Farley, a former police officer and assistant sheriff in Jefferson County.
Farley said an inexperienced motorcyclist is a danger to other drivers who might crash or run off the road to avoid a motorcycle that has gone down in traffic or is operating erratically.
“A motorcycle is a lot of fun, but when you’re talking about putting a motorcycle on the highways today, as congested as they are, it automatically becomes something that’s not just fun, it becomes something that can be deadly,” Farley said.
As of 2010, 40 states required a skills test for a motorcycle license, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
As for the Class M endorsement on the license, many Alabama drivers already have the designation and might not even know it. Rush said when new driver’s license classes were assigned in 1995 those who already had licenses were “grandfathered” and given the M endorsement.
Those who don’t have the Class M endorsement are only legal driving a motorcycle as long as they are riding in Alabama, Rush said.
Alabama law allows those as young as 14 to be licensed to drive a “motor-driven cycle,” which is defined in the law as a motor scooter or any motorcycle weighing less than 200 pounds.
Legislators take next week off for spring break and will return April 2 to begin the final 15 meeting days of the session.
The motorcycle license bill, sponsored by Sen. Jabo Waggoner, R-Vestavia Hills, was changed slightly in a House committee. So it would have to return to the Senate if it passes the House.
↧
“THE BIKERS OF AMERICA, THE PHIL and BILL SHOW”
OFF THE WIRE
Listen to my new episode THE BIKERS OF AMERICA, THE PHIL & BILL SHOW at http://tobtr.com/s/4375147. #BlogTalkRadio
JOIN US FOR THE SHOW..
“ THE BIKERS OF AMERICA, THE PHIL and BILL SHOW ” GO`S Live! at 6 pm PAC, 9:00 pm EST every Tuesday & Thursday on BlogTalk Radio.
Check us out!
Hits Like a bored and stroked big V-twin is the hardcore biker right’s talk show that will shift the thoughts and minds of all! Screwdriver is a member of Bikers of Lesser Tolerance, which is a "No Compromise" philosophy that rights cannot ever be negotiated and the west coast Representative of B.A.D (Bikers Against Discrimination) & Bill Kennedy of Kennedy’s Custom Cycles !!! Join us each week as we give you straight talk on what is happening to Bikers on the Left Coast along with what YOU can do to join the cause! Tune in and check us out..!!!!
![]()
Go`s Live! at 6 pm PAC, 9:00 pm EST every Tuesday & Thursday on BlogTalk Radio. Check us out!AND REMEMBER, IF YOU CAN’T TUNE INTO THE “LIVE” SHOW YOU CAN LISTEN TO/DOWNLOAD THE SHOW AT YOU CONVENIENCE ANY DAY/TIME FREE OF CHARGE FOR UP TO 90 DAYS SINCE SHOWS ARE ARCHIVED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE!
And do not forget, if you want to call in live and speak with the host, be sure to dial (347)826-7753.
You will be placed into the caller queue, where you will still be able to hear the show while you are on hold.
If you miss this above event you can listen to the archive anytime by clicking on the same link below.
Enjoy the show, We invite you to participate by clicking the web address,
www.blogtalkradio.com/bikersofamerica.
Two ways to listen on Tuesday`s & Thursday`s
1. Call in: (347) 826-7753 ... Listen live right from your phone..
2. Stream us live on your computer:
Link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bikersofamerica.
The next “THE BIKERS OF AMERICA (THE PHIL and BILL SHOW)”
will be on Tuesday, OCT /23/ 2012 at 6pm Pacific and 9pm Eastern.
as Well As Thursday OCT /25/ 2012 night`s 6pm Pacific and 9pm Eastern.
SO PLEASE TUNE IN AND SUPPORT US, Because were here to support you...
THANK YOU,
Screwdriver & Bill
"IF YOU VIOLATE OUR BIKER RIGHTS...
YOU BETTER WATCH OUT FOR OUR BIKER LEFTS!"
Screwdriver and Bill are hosting,
“THE BIKERS OF AMERICA, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS”
Daily Information Blog, & the Blog can be reached at,
bikersofamerica.blogspot.com
Screwdriver at Countermeasures Division (strokerz383@gmail.com).
Please note that this e-mail address is being protected from spambots so you will need JavaScript enabled to view it.
We will be featuring different topics Guests from around the World.
Bikers Rights, News off the wire and B.O.L.T updates from across the country.
Other potential topics –
• How Bill and I have been involved, in The Biker Community,
Supporting different cause`s the years.
• The unconstitutional roadside checkpoints.
• The motorcycle only checkpoints.
• The Helmet Law’s Unconstitutional Enforcement.
• Legislation and Politics.
• The Veterans Groups, The V.A. Hospitals,
& Helping Our Brothers and Sisters when asked.
Participation Options: Our show is flexible so we can either control the topic or we will be happy to turn the podium over to you. Should you wish to hold the podium, please email me, Screwdriver at Countermeasures Division (strokerz383@gmail.com).
Please note that this e-mail address is being protected from spambots,
so you will need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Let’s Not Forget, To support are Good Friend, Hermis..
Hermis LIVE, Wednesdays at 9 pm Est or 6 pm Pac, http://www.%20hermislive.com./
For broader communication, since these shows are open to the public, please pass this email along to your family and/or friends, who you know are interested in Motorcyclist Rights. Remember the bottom-line; we all have a sincere involvement with knowing, sharing, and/or enhancing our understanding about our rights as members of the biker community so I am asking for you, family, and friends to support the above two (3) shows.
Thank you, in advance, for your anticipated support and participation in these important discussions.
Philip (aka Screwdriver)
BOLT of California
(760) 207-2965 or strokerz383@gmail.com
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
For more information about Bikers Of A Lesser Tolerance, please visit http://boltusa.org/ or for California Rights information see http://www.boltofca.com/
Listen to my new episode THE BIKERS OF AMERICA, THE PHIL & BILL SHOW at http://tobtr.com/s/4375147. #BlogTalkRadio
JOIN US FOR THE SHOW..
“ THE BIKERS OF AMERICA, THE PHIL and BILL SHOW ” GO`S Live! at 6 pm PAC, 9:00 pm EST every Tuesday & Thursday on BlogTalk Radio.
Check us out!
Hits Like a bored and stroked big V-twin is the hardcore biker right’s talk show that will shift the thoughts and minds of all! Screwdriver is a member of Bikers of Lesser Tolerance, which is a "No Compromise" philosophy that rights cannot ever be negotiated and the west coast Representative of B.A.D (Bikers Against Discrimination) & Bill Kennedy of Kennedy’s Custom Cycles !!! Join us each week as we give you straight talk on what is happening to Bikers on the Left Coast along with what YOU can do to join the cause! Tune in and check us out..!!!!
Go`s Live! at 6 pm PAC, 9:00 pm EST every Tuesday & Thursday on BlogTalk Radio. Check us out!AND REMEMBER, IF YOU CAN’T TUNE INTO THE “LIVE” SHOW YOU CAN LISTEN TO/DOWNLOAD THE SHOW AT YOU CONVENIENCE ANY DAY/TIME FREE OF CHARGE FOR UP TO 90 DAYS SINCE SHOWS ARE ARCHIVED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE!
And do not forget, if you want to call in live and speak with the host, be sure to dial (347)826-7753.
You will be placed into the caller queue, where you will still be able to hear the show while you are on hold.
If you miss this above event you can listen to the archive anytime by clicking on the same link below.
Enjoy the show, We invite you to participate by clicking the web address,
www.blogtalkradio.com/bikersofamerica.
Two ways to listen on Tuesday`s & Thursday`s
1. Call in: (347) 826-7753 ... Listen live right from your phone..
2. Stream us live on your computer:
Link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bikersofamerica.
The next “THE BIKERS OF AMERICA (THE PHIL and BILL SHOW)”
will be on Tuesday, OCT /23/ 2012 at 6pm Pacific and 9pm Eastern.
as Well As Thursday OCT /25/ 2012 night`s 6pm Pacific and 9pm Eastern.
SO PLEASE TUNE IN AND SUPPORT US, Because were here to support you...
THANK YOU,
Screwdriver & Bill
"IF YOU VIOLATE OUR BIKER RIGHTS...
YOU BETTER WATCH OUT FOR OUR BIKER LEFTS!"
Screwdriver and Bill are hosting,
“THE BIKERS OF AMERICA, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS”
Daily Information Blog, & the Blog can be reached at,
bikersofamerica.blogspot.com
Screwdriver at Countermeasures Division (strokerz383@gmail.com).
Please note that this e-mail address is being protected from spambots so you will need JavaScript enabled to view it.
We will be featuring different topics Guests from around the World.
Bikers Rights, News off the wire and B.O.L.T updates from across the country.
Other potential topics –
• How Bill and I have been involved, in The Biker Community,
Supporting different cause`s the years.
• The unconstitutional roadside checkpoints.
• The motorcycle only checkpoints.
• The Helmet Law’s Unconstitutional Enforcement.
• Legislation and Politics.
• The Veterans Groups, The V.A. Hospitals,
& Helping Our Brothers and Sisters when asked.
Participation Options: Our show is flexible so we can either control the topic or we will be happy to turn the podium over to you. Should you wish to hold the podium, please email me, Screwdriver at Countermeasures Division (strokerz383@gmail.com).
Please note that this e-mail address is being protected from spambots,
so you will need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Let’s Not Forget, To support are Good Friend, Hermis..
Hermis LIVE, Wednesdays at 9 pm Est or 6 pm Pac, http://www.%20hermislive.com./
For broader communication, since these shows are open to the public, please pass this email along to your family and/or friends, who you know are interested in Motorcyclist Rights. Remember the bottom-line; we all have a sincere involvement with knowing, sharing, and/or enhancing our understanding about our rights as members of the biker community so I am asking for you, family, and friends to support the above two (3) shows.
Thank you, in advance, for your anticipated support and participation in these important discussions.
Philip (aka Screwdriver)
BOLT of California
(760) 207-2965 or strokerz383@gmail.com
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
For more information about Bikers Of A Lesser Tolerance, please visit http://boltusa.org/ or for California Rights information see http://www.boltofca.com/
↧
↧
U.S.A.- Shamefully slow to help vets
OFF THE WIRE
U.S. shamefully slow to help vets..
By Paul Rieckhoff, Special to CNN
Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan facing PTSD and other injuries can face wait times in processing their disability benefits of 600 days, says Paul Rieckhoff.STORY HIGHLIGHTS Paul Rieckhoff: Afghanistan, Iraq veterans can wait 600 days or longer for claim response He says after 10 years of war, 97% of claims are still on paper, a logjam that hurts vets He says VA says it has hired processors, but high turnover keeps number low Rieckhoff: Veteran leaders in D.C. to "Storm the Hill," get officials to deal with backlog Editor's note: Paul Rieckhoff is an Iraq veteran, the founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and the author of "Chasing Ghosts." Follow him on Twitter @PaulRieckhoff.
(CNN) -- Imagine you served for one year with the U.S. Army in Iraq. Imagine you served an additional tour in Afghanistan a year later.
And imagine being injured in that last tour after a roadside bomb exploded from beneath a trashcan as your Humvee rolled by. Your buddy sitting next to you was killed. After you left the Army and returned home, you had trouble focusing. You had headaches and issues with your vision. You realize you returned with what might be a Traumatic Brain Injury. And maybe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, too.
Imagine you also have two kids younger than 7 who haven't seen you very much for the last half decade. Imagine you're struggling to find a job. You've got a lot on your plate. And you're understandably stressed.
You don't want to let down your family. And you don't want to be viewed as weak or a wimp by your buddies.
Opinion: Why women are less free after Iraq War
You summon the courage to overcome the stigma, and you go to your local Department of Veterans Affairs to get some help. You file a claim for disability benefits to get the care and compensation you've earned and the support you need to keep your family afloat financially. You're hopeful.
Now imagine waiting 600 days before you get an answer from the Department of Veterans Affairs. 600 days.
600 days of staring at your mailbox. 600 days of phone calls to check in. 600 days of bills piling up. 600 days of disappointment.
Sounds crazy, right? Well, for thousands of veterans nationwide, it's real life.
If you are a young vet who's filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs in New York or Los Angeles, you will wait an average of 600 days. And you're not alone.
More than 900,000 veterans of all generations are stuck in a bureaucratic logjam that, in 2013, is the almost too absurd to believe. After 10 years of war, three VA secretaries, and an increase in the overall department budget of 40% since 2009, an incredible 97% of veteran's claims are still on paper.
Yep, paper.
When should vets receive benefits?
Pentagon offers high honor for drone ops America has soldiers in Nevada piloting drones remotely that can strike a target thousands of miles and two continents away, but 97% of our veterans' benefits claims are still on paper.
Earlier this month, the Center for Investigative Reporting released a leaked internal VA document that showed the entire world what veterans nationwide have known for years: the VA backlog problem is even worse than reported.
The VA has reported that the average claim wait time was 273 days. For the first claim filed, it's longer: 316 to 327 days. In Los Angeles, that figure is 619. In New York, it's 642. In Indianapolis, it's 612 days. And vets with first-time claims in Reno, Nevada, wait 681 days.
The VA has testified that it has hired 3,300 new claims processors, but it has failed to report that, because of staff turnover, the net increase in processors is only 300 since 2010. And, in Chicago; Waco, Texas; and Oakland, California, the overall number of claims processors has gone down.
Since the internal documents were leaked last week, we've yet to see a public response from VA Secretary Eric Shinseki or from the commander in chief.
Some 2.6 million men and woman answered the call to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now, a decade later, President Barack Obama is not answering their calls for help. And the public still doesn't seem to get it.
That's why this week I'm joining veterans from across America as we take our stories to Washington.
Hans Blix: Why invading Iraq was a terrible mistake
Veteran leaders from some 22 states are converging on the Capitol to "Storm the Hill," where we'll be pressing elected officials to confront and solve the backlog. You can see their faces and read about their stories at the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America website, www.IAVA.org. They are an amazing group of men and women (and one dog) that have overcome tremendous obstacles. And now, they're taking on another one: the VA backlog.
Just like we've been trained, we won't quit until the job is done. No matter how long it takes, we'll keep fighting.
Our brothers and sisters deserve support for their sacrifices. And every single American should stand with us to #EndTheVAbacklog once and for all.
Ten years after the start of the Iraq War, there are a lot of folks who say they support the troops. Now is the time for them to show it.
By Paul Rieckhoff, Special to CNN
Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan facing PTSD and other injuries can face wait times in processing their disability benefits of 600 days, says Paul Rieckhoff.STORY HIGHLIGHTS Paul Rieckhoff: Afghanistan, Iraq veterans can wait 600 days or longer for claim response He says after 10 years of war, 97% of claims are still on paper, a logjam that hurts vets He says VA says it has hired processors, but high turnover keeps number low Rieckhoff: Veteran leaders in D.C. to "Storm the Hill," get officials to deal with backlog Editor's note: Paul Rieckhoff is an Iraq veteran, the founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and the author of "Chasing Ghosts." Follow him on Twitter @PaulRieckhoff.
(CNN) -- Imagine you served for one year with the U.S. Army in Iraq. Imagine you served an additional tour in Afghanistan a year later.
And imagine being injured in that last tour after a roadside bomb exploded from beneath a trashcan as your Humvee rolled by. Your buddy sitting next to you was killed. After you left the Army and returned home, you had trouble focusing. You had headaches and issues with your vision. You realize you returned with what might be a Traumatic Brain Injury. And maybe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, too.
Imagine you also have two kids younger than 7 who haven't seen you very much for the last half decade. Imagine you're struggling to find a job. You've got a lot on your plate. And you're understandably stressed.
You don't want to let down your family. And you don't want to be viewed as weak or a wimp by your buddies.
Opinion: Why women are less free after Iraq War
You summon the courage to overcome the stigma, and you go to your local Department of Veterans Affairs to get some help. You file a claim for disability benefits to get the care and compensation you've earned and the support you need to keep your family afloat financially. You're hopeful.
Now imagine waiting 600 days before you get an answer from the Department of Veterans Affairs. 600 days.
600 days of staring at your mailbox. 600 days of phone calls to check in. 600 days of bills piling up. 600 days of disappointment.
Sounds crazy, right? Well, for thousands of veterans nationwide, it's real life.
If you are a young vet who's filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs in New York or Los Angeles, you will wait an average of 600 days. And you're not alone.
More than 900,000 veterans of all generations are stuck in a bureaucratic logjam that, in 2013, is the almost too absurd to believe. After 10 years of war, three VA secretaries, and an increase in the overall department budget of 40% since 2009, an incredible 97% of veteran's claims are still on paper.
Yep, paper.
When should vets receive benefits?
Pentagon offers high honor for drone ops America has soldiers in Nevada piloting drones remotely that can strike a target thousands of miles and two continents away, but 97% of our veterans' benefits claims are still on paper.
Earlier this month, the Center for Investigative Reporting released a leaked internal VA document that showed the entire world what veterans nationwide have known for years: the VA backlog problem is even worse than reported.
The VA has reported that the average claim wait time was 273 days. For the first claim filed, it's longer: 316 to 327 days. In Los Angeles, that figure is 619. In New York, it's 642. In Indianapolis, it's 612 days. And vets with first-time claims in Reno, Nevada, wait 681 days.
The VA has testified that it has hired 3,300 new claims processors, but it has failed to report that, because of staff turnover, the net increase in processors is only 300 since 2010. And, in Chicago; Waco, Texas; and Oakland, California, the overall number of claims processors has gone down.
Since the internal documents were leaked last week, we've yet to see a public response from VA Secretary Eric Shinseki or from the commander in chief.
Some 2.6 million men and woman answered the call to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now, a decade later, President Barack Obama is not answering their calls for help. And the public still doesn't seem to get it.
That's why this week I'm joining veterans from across America as we take our stories to Washington.
Hans Blix: Why invading Iraq was a terrible mistake
Veteran leaders from some 22 states are converging on the Capitol to "Storm the Hill," where we'll be pressing elected officials to confront and solve the backlog. You can see their faces and read about their stories at the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America website, www.IAVA.org. They are an amazing group of men and women (and one dog) that have overcome tremendous obstacles. And now, they're taking on another one: the VA backlog.
Just like we've been trained, we won't quit until the job is done. No matter how long it takes, we'll keep fighting.
Our brothers and sisters deserve support for their sacrifices. And every single American should stand with us to #EndTheVAbacklog once and for all.
Ten years after the start of the Iraq War, there are a lot of folks who say they support the troops. Now is the time for them to show it.
↧
MASS - The Yarmouth Town Warrant can be viewed here
OFF THE WIRE
![]()
http://www.massmotorcycle.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=769540&item_id=22379
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MMA
CTA: Yarmouth Residents needed to speak Against proposed MC Sound Warrant 22 March 2013
In February, the Massachusetts Motorcycle Association (MMA) learned of a proposal to be raised at the Yarmouth Selectmen Meeting to hear a proposed bylaw concerning Motorcycle Sound Levels. The MMA attended the meeting in coordination with the Yarmouth Chief-of-Police and Deputy Chief; the result was convincing the Selectmen that such a Bylaw would be unsuccessful. The Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 against the bylaw, however the article is on the Town Warrant to be heard at the Town Meeting on April 1, 2013.
Town Warrant Article #36 is to be heard on April 1, 2013 at the Yarmouth Town Meeting and seeks to fine riders $300 if Police Officers cannot see an EPA stamp on the exhaust, even when parked. In other words, your motorcycle doesn't even need to be RUNNING!!
The Yarmouth Town Warrant can be viewed here:
http://www.yarmouth.ma.us/archives/41/April%201,%202013%20Annual%20Town%20Meeting%20_RN4527.pdf
This ill advised proposal mimics the Boston Ordinance which was enacted under the cover of darkness without motorcycle representation, but has yet to be enforced anywhere in the Commonwealth. Further, other attempts to pass such legislation in the Commonwealth have been struck down as illegal to exceed State Law, either by Town Officials or by the State's Attorney General. Also, as previously noted, the Board of Selectmen, the Police Department, and the Town's Legal Advisor do NOT support this proposed bylaw, but it hasn't deterred angry activists from pounding the Public Relations Drum with misinformation, accusing YOU of being a criminal without the benefit of a hearing.
The MMA is strongly opposed to the use of the OEM EPA Stamp as an enforcement tool simply because it is a consumer protection mechanism, not meant to be used against the consumer. It is also hard to locate on many models of motorcycle, hidden under seats on sport bikes, under saddle bags of cruisers, or simply facing the wrong way for aesthetic reasons. Most critically, per the very regulation that entitles it, it expires in one year or 3,729 miles, whichever comes first!!
Instead, the MMA continues to hold a firm belief that the existing laws on the books are sufficient if properly implemented and enforced, specifically that simple test procedures do exist for muffled exhaust, whether replaced with after-market or not, with a reasonable sound level. Even the activists who've written PR agree that existing laws have not been enforced which leaves one to question whether there is a real problem or not in Yarmouth. Further, that Education, not Legislation, is key to changing the behavior of a select few who either remove their mufflers or rev throttles simply to "sound cool"…
The MMA's "When in Town, Throttle Down©" (click on the banner on the MMA Website: http://www.MassMotorcycle.org) details the realities of the current law, the "EPA Stamp" and programs that are designed to work with local riders and/or Law Enforcement to create awareness of the issue and actual sound levels.
The original announcement from the MMA concerning the Yarmouth Town Selectmen Meeting can be seen here:
http://www.massmotorcycle.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=769540&item_id=22195
Although this current issue is in Yarmouth, MA, the spring is when town's enact bylaws and when all the anti-Motorcycle venom begins to fly, especially in tourist areas. The MMA asks all riders to remain vigilant by checking their town meeting schedules and reviewing their town warrants for potential bylaws or articles that may impact motorcyclists and contact the MMA immediately with any concerns or questions.
The MMA needs Yarmouth Residents willing the speak at the town meeting; the MMA will provide written testimony for anyone wishing to speak on behalf of all riders. All are welcome to attend, but only Yarmouth Residents will be heard.
If you are willing to speak at the Yarmouth Town Meeting, please contact Rick Gleason, MMA Legislative Director.
For more information, please contact LegislativeDirector@MassMotorcycle.org or see http://www.MassMotorcycle.org
###
http://www.massmotorcycle.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=769540&item_id=22379
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MMA
CTA: Yarmouth Residents needed to speak Against proposed MC Sound Warrant 22 March 2013
In February, the Massachusetts Motorcycle Association (MMA) learned of a proposal to be raised at the Yarmouth Selectmen Meeting to hear a proposed bylaw concerning Motorcycle Sound Levels. The MMA attended the meeting in coordination with the Yarmouth Chief-of-Police and Deputy Chief; the result was convincing the Selectmen that such a Bylaw would be unsuccessful. The Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 against the bylaw, however the article is on the Town Warrant to be heard at the Town Meeting on April 1, 2013.
Town Warrant Article #36 is to be heard on April 1, 2013 at the Yarmouth Town Meeting and seeks to fine riders $300 if Police Officers cannot see an EPA stamp on the exhaust, even when parked. In other words, your motorcycle doesn't even need to be RUNNING!!
The Yarmouth Town Warrant can be viewed here:
http://www.yarmouth.ma.us/archives/41/April%201,%202013%20Annual%20Town%20Meeting%20_RN4527.pdf
This ill advised proposal mimics the Boston Ordinance which was enacted under the cover of darkness without motorcycle representation, but has yet to be enforced anywhere in the Commonwealth. Further, other attempts to pass such legislation in the Commonwealth have been struck down as illegal to exceed State Law, either by Town Officials or by the State's Attorney General. Also, as previously noted, the Board of Selectmen, the Police Department, and the Town's Legal Advisor do NOT support this proposed bylaw, but it hasn't deterred angry activists from pounding the Public Relations Drum with misinformation, accusing YOU of being a criminal without the benefit of a hearing.
The MMA is strongly opposed to the use of the OEM EPA Stamp as an enforcement tool simply because it is a consumer protection mechanism, not meant to be used against the consumer. It is also hard to locate on many models of motorcycle, hidden under seats on sport bikes, under saddle bags of cruisers, or simply facing the wrong way for aesthetic reasons. Most critically, per the very regulation that entitles it, it expires in one year or 3,729 miles, whichever comes first!!
Instead, the MMA continues to hold a firm belief that the existing laws on the books are sufficient if properly implemented and enforced, specifically that simple test procedures do exist for muffled exhaust, whether replaced with after-market or not, with a reasonable sound level. Even the activists who've written PR agree that existing laws have not been enforced which leaves one to question whether there is a real problem or not in Yarmouth. Further, that Education, not Legislation, is key to changing the behavior of a select few who either remove their mufflers or rev throttles simply to "sound cool"…
The MMA's "When in Town, Throttle Down©" (click on the banner on the MMA Website: http://www.MassMotorcycle.org) details the realities of the current law, the "EPA Stamp" and programs that are designed to work with local riders and/or Law Enforcement to create awareness of the issue and actual sound levels.
The original announcement from the MMA concerning the Yarmouth Town Selectmen Meeting can be seen here:
http://www.massmotorcycle.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=769540&item_id=22195
Although this current issue is in Yarmouth, MA, the spring is when town's enact bylaws and when all the anti-Motorcycle venom begins to fly, especially in tourist areas. The MMA asks all riders to remain vigilant by checking their town meeting schedules and reviewing their town warrants for potential bylaws or articles that may impact motorcyclists and contact the MMA immediately with any concerns or questions.
The MMA needs Yarmouth Residents willing the speak at the town meeting; the MMA will provide written testimony for anyone wishing to speak on behalf of all riders. All are welcome to attend, but only Yarmouth Residents will be heard.
If you are willing to speak at the Yarmouth Town Meeting, please contact Rick Gleason, MMA Legislative Director.
For more information, please contact LegislativeDirector@MassMotorcycle.org or see http://www.MassMotorcycle.org
###
↧
TAKE ACTION!
OFF THE WIRE
House Resolution 499: The Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013, would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, transfer the Drug Enforcement Administration’s authority to regulate marijuana to a newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, require commercial marijuana producers to purchase a permit, and ensure that federal law distinguishes between individuals who grow marijuana for personal use and those involved in commercial sale and distribution.
Click here to quickly and easily write your Representative and urge him or her to support this historic legislation!
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/
Click here to quickly and easily write your Representative and urge him or her to support this historic legislation!
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/
↧
Florida Lawmakers Set to Repeal Driving Permit Law
OFF THE WIRE
By Lloyd Dunkelberger
LEDGER TALLAHASSEE BUREAU
TALLAHASSEE | With no debate, the Florida House on Tuesday moved to repeal a law that created an international stir and threatened to undermine a key component of the state's tourism industry.
The House is expected to vote today to reverse a 2012 law that required Canadians and other foreign visitors in Florida to obtain an international driving permit before they could operate a vehicle. The Senate is scheduled to take up the bill Tuesday and send it to Gov. Rick Scott for immediate approval.
The law took effect on Jan. 1 — at the height of Florida's winter tourist season — and caught thousands of Canadian visitors by surprise, forcing them to scramble to obtain the driving permits, which are only issued in their country.
The impact on Canadians was particularly significant since they represent the largest cohort of foreign tourists who come to Florida each year.
As the controversy took hold, Florida law enforcement officials announced they would not enforce the law, in part, because it appeared to violate international treaties governing driving rights in foreign countries.
Lawmakers said the legislation was originally passed to help Florida law enforcement officers more easily determine whether a foreign visitor had a valid driver license. But they have moved quickly in their annual session to repeal it after realizing the potential negative impact on foreign visitors and tourism in the state.
"From time to time, we will pass legislation and find out there were some unintended consequences," House Transportation and Highway Safety Chairman Daniel Davis, R-Jacksonville, told the House.
He said the quick passage of the repeal would send a message to the Canadians and other tourists "that our state is open for business and we want to make sure we let them know we will roll out the red carpet."
After the House gave preliminary approval to the bill (HB 7059), Rep. Ben Albritton, R-Wauchula, who had formally apologized to Canadian officials for the passage of the 2012 law, said he felt "relieved" that lawmakers were moving to correct the problem.
"And I hope the folks in Canada feel relieved," Albritton said.
Meanwhile, the Senate has sent its version of the repeal bill (SB 1766) to the Community Affairs Committee, which has scheduled a Thursday hearing on the legislation.
Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said his chamber will take up the bill next week "without a lot of delay."
"We certainly plan to take care of that issue," Gaetz said. "I think that falls under the general category of unintended consequences. And we certainly don't want to discourage our Canadian visitors. I come from Northwest Florida and we have a lot of Canadians who come down to our beaches and we want them to keep coming."
Ironically, the House's final vote on the bill will come on "Tourism Day" at the state Capitol.
Lawmakers say it was never their intention to create any barriers for Canadians or any other foreign tourists.
With the repeal of the 2012 law, Canadians and other foreign visitors will be able to drive on Florida's roadways if they have a valid driver license from their home countries.
By Lloyd Dunkelberger
LEDGER TALLAHASSEE BUREAU
TALLAHASSEE | With no debate, the Florida House on Tuesday moved to repeal a law that created an international stir and threatened to undermine a key component of the state's tourism industry.
The House is expected to vote today to reverse a 2012 law that required Canadians and other foreign visitors in Florida to obtain an international driving permit before they could operate a vehicle. The Senate is scheduled to take up the bill Tuesday and send it to Gov. Rick Scott for immediate approval.
The law took effect on Jan. 1 — at the height of Florida's winter tourist season — and caught thousands of Canadian visitors by surprise, forcing them to scramble to obtain the driving permits, which are only issued in their country.
The impact on Canadians was particularly significant since they represent the largest cohort of foreign tourists who come to Florida each year.
As the controversy took hold, Florida law enforcement officials announced they would not enforce the law, in part, because it appeared to violate international treaties governing driving rights in foreign countries.
Lawmakers said the legislation was originally passed to help Florida law enforcement officers more easily determine whether a foreign visitor had a valid driver license. But they have moved quickly in their annual session to repeal it after realizing the potential negative impact on foreign visitors and tourism in the state.
"From time to time, we will pass legislation and find out there were some unintended consequences," House Transportation and Highway Safety Chairman Daniel Davis, R-Jacksonville, told the House.
He said the quick passage of the repeal would send a message to the Canadians and other tourists "that our state is open for business and we want to make sure we let them know we will roll out the red carpet."
After the House gave preliminary approval to the bill (HB 7059), Rep. Ben Albritton, R-Wauchula, who had formally apologized to Canadian officials for the passage of the 2012 law, said he felt "relieved" that lawmakers were moving to correct the problem.
"And I hope the folks in Canada feel relieved," Albritton said.
Meanwhile, the Senate has sent its version of the repeal bill (SB 1766) to the Community Affairs Committee, which has scheduled a Thursday hearing on the legislation.
Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said his chamber will take up the bill next week "without a lot of delay."
"We certainly plan to take care of that issue," Gaetz said. "I think that falls under the general category of unintended consequences. And we certainly don't want to discourage our Canadian visitors. I come from Northwest Florida and we have a lot of Canadians who come down to our beaches and we want them to keep coming."
Ironically, the House's final vote on the bill will come on "Tourism Day" at the state Capitol.
Lawmakers say it was never their intention to create any barriers for Canadians or any other foreign tourists.
With the repeal of the 2012 law, Canadians and other foreign visitors will be able to drive on Florida's roadways if they have a valid driver license from their home countries.
↧
↧
CALIFORNIA - Mongols Win Yet Again
OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel.com
A legal case named Ramon Rivera v. Ronnie Carter et al. was finally settled yesterday after more than four years. It went on as long as it did because the United States Department of Justice, with unlimited money, unlimited manpower and unlimited time delayed, denied and counterattacked in order to maliciously frustrate the interests of justice. The government took the actions it did because its attorneys intended to use the rules of federal court procedure to maliciously punish innocent men.
Eight days ago, on March 18, Stephen R. Welk, the Assistant U.S. Attorney who unnecessarily prolonged this travesty of justice, finally gave up on the case and moved to dismiss an appeal filed with the Ninth Circuit Court. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case.
At the end the argument was over whether the Rivera’s attorneys were entitled to be paid $243,824.00 in fees, $8,642.00 in additional fees and $740.78 in costs. Now those attorneys, David Loy of the American Civil Liberties Union and consumer attorney Alan M. Mansfield can finally get their money.
The Mongols Case
In the Mongols case, United States versus Doc Cavazos et al., the United States tried to outlaw membership in the Mongols Motorcycle Club by criminalizing the use of the clubs principal identifiers, the name “Mongols” and the Mongols center patch. The club’s former president, Ruben “Doc” Cavazos had trademarked those two marks in the name of his corporation, Shotgun Productions. After his arrest, and possibly before his arrest, Cavazos agreed to forfeit his “ownership” of those two “trademarks” to the government in return for a lighter sentence.
When Doc Cavazos made his deal is unclear because although he was not arrested until October 21, 2008 a temporary restraining order effecting the marks was requested by the government on October 17th. The government’s original request asked that the court (1) proscribe subsequent sale of the Club’s Marks; (2) enjoin use or display of the Club’s Marks by defendants in the criminal case and “those persons in active concert or participation with them”; and (3) authorize seizure of “all . . . materials bearing the [Club’s] trademark.”
The government originally wanted much more. And a press release issued on the day Cavazos was arrested stated:
“’In addition to pursuing the criminal charges set forth in the indictment, for the first time ever, we are seeking to forfeit the intellectual property of a gang,’ said United States Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien. ‘The name Mongols, which is part of the gang’s patch that members wear on their motorcycle jackets, was trademarked by the gang. The indictment alleges that this trademark is subject to forfeiture. We have filed papers seeking a court order that will prevent gang members from using or displaying the name Mongols. If the court grants our request for this order, then if any law enforcement officer sees a Mongol wearing his patch, he will be authorized to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back.’”
Cooper Intervenes
For the next eight months, various federal, state and local police agencies treated the press release as if it had the power of law and seized not simply patches but other insignia, mementos and even personal photographs that referenced the Mongols from numerous innocent persons – including people who were not affiliated with the club in any way.
But under American law, Cavazos never owned the marks because they were not trademarks. They were instead “collective membership marks.” The name Mongols and the center patch indicated membership in the motorcycle club and belonged to the collective membership of the club. And collective membership marks are Constitutionally protected forms of expression – they are “free speech.”
Ramon Rivera, an unindicted Mongols patch holder from San Diego filed a civil rights suit over the issue The judge handling the case at the time, the late Honorable Florence Marie Cooper, ruled on both the Rivera suit and Cavazos forfeiture of the marks that summer. She said the marks were owned by the club and not Cavazos. Cooper also pointed out that she had been lied to by the government.
Judge Cooper ruled on July 31, 2009 that the government had no right to Rivera’s patch and on August 6 she ruled on the issue of Cavazos’ ownership. On that matter she wrote:
“Even if the Court were to accept the Government’s evidence that Ruben Cavazos controlled the use of the mark during his tenure as National President,” Cooper wrote, “there is no support for the notion that a defendant’s control of property belonging to a RICO enterprise is sufficient to establish a forfeitable ownership interest in the property. In addition, there is no evidence that Ruben Cavazos owned a majority interest or any interest in the Mongol Nation that would equate to an ownership interest in the mark. There is no evidence that Shotgun Productions, LLC ever used the mark as a collective membership mark – to indicate membership in an organization substantially similar to that of the Mongol Nation. The purported assignment to Shotgun Productions, LLC is therefore without legal effect. Moreover, the Government’s evidence demonstrates that the Mongol Nation began using the collective mark in approximately 1969, and either Mongol Nation or Mongols Nation, Inc. continues to use the mark to identify their members. The Mongol Nation and Mongols Nation, Inc, by virtue of having used the collective membership mark since 1969, having registered the mark in 2005, and having continued use of the mark to identify members of the club, have acquired and maintained exclusive ownership in the collective membership mark at issue.”
“At the June 22 hearing,” she wrote, “the Government revealed for the first time that the mark it sought to forfeit was a collective membership mark. Previously, in its Ex Parte Application for Post-Indictment Restraining Order, the Government (in this case ATF Case Agent John Ciccone) referred to the mark simply as a trademark, which was ‘purportedly for use in commerce in connection with promoting the interests of persons interested in the recreation of riding motorcycles.’ In contrast to commercial trademarks, which are used in commerce and generally not entitled to full First Amendment protections, collective membership marks are used by members of an organization to ‘indicate membership in a union, an association, or other organization.’ The use and display of collective membership marks therefore directly implicate the First Amendment’s right to freedom of association. The Supreme Court has recognized that ‘implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment’ is ‘a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.’ This right is crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas.’ Furthermore, clothing identifying one’s association with an organization is generally considered expressive conduct entitled to First Amendment protection…. If speech is noncommercial in nature, it is entitled to full First Amendment protection, which prohibits the prior restraint and seizure of speech-related materials without a judicial determination that the speech is harmful, unprotected, or otherwise illegal.
“Prohibiting speech of this nature constitutes an attack on a particular viewpoint. In Sammartano (v. First Judicial District Court, in and for the County of Carson City) the Carson City courthouse enacted a rule to prohibit admission of those with ‘clothing, attire or colors which have symbols, markings or words indicating an affiliation with street gangs, biker or similar organizations,’ because ‘such clothing or attire can be extremely disruptive and intimidating, especially when members of different groups are in the building at the same time.’ The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the rule singles out bikers and similar organizations for the message their clothing is presumed to convey, and held that the rule impermissibly discriminates against a particular point of view – the view of biker clubs as opposed to garden clubs and gun clubs. In this case, the Government targets an even narrower group of individuals, a single motorcycle club. In addition, the Government has been seizing property, which imposes a greater restriction on individual rights than the denial of access to a public facility. Accordingly, the seizure of property bearing a Mongols membership mark should be considered viewpoint-discriminatory. The Government’s ability to seize property bearing the trademark acts as a prior restraint and cannot stand without a judicial determination that the speech is harmful, unprotected, or otherwise illegal. No such determination was ever sought by the Government, and no such determination was ever made by the Court.”
Judges Wright And Carter
After Judge Cooper died in the middle of the Cavazos case, the forfeiture matter was transferred to Judge Otis Wright. Wright eventually ruled: “no amount of discovery could affect the dispositive legal issue: whether Cavazos, or any other individual defendant, had a forfeitable ownership interest in the Marks . . . There is no evidence that Cavazos or any other individual member of the organization holds or ever held an ownership interest in the Marks.”
But the government still refused to give up and eventually the issue was decided by Judge David Carter on February 28, 2012. Carter ordered the government to pay Loy and Mansfield for their work under a federal law called the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government argued that the two attorneys were asking for too much. Carter replied:
“The purpose of Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) ‘is to eliminate financial disincentives for those who would defend against unjustified governmental action and thereby to deter the unreasonable exercise of Government authority.’”
“In sum, the novelty of the government’s position did not make it substantially justified. Rather, it took unlawful ‘action based on an ungrounded and unsubstantiated legal theory, and without sufficient factual support.’”
“Furthermore, Counsel’s hours were reasonable given the government’s obstinacy in continuing to litigate legal theories that have now been rejected by all three judges to hear this case. The government could have, at any time, spared itself the expense of Counsel’s EAJA fees by simply conceding that it was wrong on the law. Instead, the government took advantage of the changes in judges in this case by advancing unsupportable legal theories before each judge. In advancing these theories, the government submitted voluminous documents through which Counsel and the Court were forced to wade.”
The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Last week they finally gave up. Today it is over. The government cannot seize the patch of any motorcycle club without first proving that every member of the club and the club as an entity constitute a criminal enterprise.
agingrebel.com
A legal case named Ramon Rivera v. Ronnie Carter et al. was finally settled yesterday after more than four years. It went on as long as it did because the United States Department of Justice, with unlimited money, unlimited manpower and unlimited time delayed, denied and counterattacked in order to maliciously frustrate the interests of justice. The government took the actions it did because its attorneys intended to use the rules of federal court procedure to maliciously punish innocent men.
Eight days ago, on March 18, Stephen R. Welk, the Assistant U.S. Attorney who unnecessarily prolonged this travesty of justice, finally gave up on the case and moved to dismiss an appeal filed with the Ninth Circuit Court. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case.
At the end the argument was over whether the Rivera’s attorneys were entitled to be paid $243,824.00 in fees, $8,642.00 in additional fees and $740.78 in costs. Now those attorneys, David Loy of the American Civil Liberties Union and consumer attorney Alan M. Mansfield can finally get their money.
The Mongols Case
In the Mongols case, United States versus Doc Cavazos et al., the United States tried to outlaw membership in the Mongols Motorcycle Club by criminalizing the use of the clubs principal identifiers, the name “Mongols” and the Mongols center patch. The club’s former president, Ruben “Doc” Cavazos had trademarked those two marks in the name of his corporation, Shotgun Productions. After his arrest, and possibly before his arrest, Cavazos agreed to forfeit his “ownership” of those two “trademarks” to the government in return for a lighter sentence.
When Doc Cavazos made his deal is unclear because although he was not arrested until October 21, 2008 a temporary restraining order effecting the marks was requested by the government on October 17th. The government’s original request asked that the court (1) proscribe subsequent sale of the Club’s Marks; (2) enjoin use or display of the Club’s Marks by defendants in the criminal case and “those persons in active concert or participation with them”; and (3) authorize seizure of “all . . . materials bearing the [Club’s] trademark.”
The government originally wanted much more. And a press release issued on the day Cavazos was arrested stated:
“’In addition to pursuing the criminal charges set forth in the indictment, for the first time ever, we are seeking to forfeit the intellectual property of a gang,’ said United States Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien. ‘The name Mongols, which is part of the gang’s patch that members wear on their motorcycle jackets, was trademarked by the gang. The indictment alleges that this trademark is subject to forfeiture. We have filed papers seeking a court order that will prevent gang members from using or displaying the name Mongols. If the court grants our request for this order, then if any law enforcement officer sees a Mongol wearing his patch, he will be authorized to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back.’”
Cooper Intervenes
For the next eight months, various federal, state and local police agencies treated the press release as if it had the power of law and seized not simply patches but other insignia, mementos and even personal photographs that referenced the Mongols from numerous innocent persons – including people who were not affiliated with the club in any way.
But under American law, Cavazos never owned the marks because they were not trademarks. They were instead “collective membership marks.” The name Mongols and the center patch indicated membership in the motorcycle club and belonged to the collective membership of the club. And collective membership marks are Constitutionally protected forms of expression – they are “free speech.”
Ramon Rivera, an unindicted Mongols patch holder from San Diego filed a civil rights suit over the issue The judge handling the case at the time, the late Honorable Florence Marie Cooper, ruled on both the Rivera suit and Cavazos forfeiture of the marks that summer. She said the marks were owned by the club and not Cavazos. Cooper also pointed out that she had been lied to by the government.
Judge Cooper ruled on July 31, 2009 that the government had no right to Rivera’s patch and on August 6 she ruled on the issue of Cavazos’ ownership. On that matter she wrote:
“Even if the Court were to accept the Government’s evidence that Ruben Cavazos controlled the use of the mark during his tenure as National President,” Cooper wrote, “there is no support for the notion that a defendant’s control of property belonging to a RICO enterprise is sufficient to establish a forfeitable ownership interest in the property. In addition, there is no evidence that Ruben Cavazos owned a majority interest or any interest in the Mongol Nation that would equate to an ownership interest in the mark. There is no evidence that Shotgun Productions, LLC ever used the mark as a collective membership mark – to indicate membership in an organization substantially similar to that of the Mongol Nation. The purported assignment to Shotgun Productions, LLC is therefore without legal effect. Moreover, the Government’s evidence demonstrates that the Mongol Nation began using the collective mark in approximately 1969, and either Mongol Nation or Mongols Nation, Inc. continues to use the mark to identify their members. The Mongol Nation and Mongols Nation, Inc, by virtue of having used the collective membership mark since 1969, having registered the mark in 2005, and having continued use of the mark to identify members of the club, have acquired and maintained exclusive ownership in the collective membership mark at issue.”
“At the June 22 hearing,” she wrote, “the Government revealed for the first time that the mark it sought to forfeit was a collective membership mark. Previously, in its Ex Parte Application for Post-Indictment Restraining Order, the Government (in this case ATF Case Agent John Ciccone) referred to the mark simply as a trademark, which was ‘purportedly for use in commerce in connection with promoting the interests of persons interested in the recreation of riding motorcycles.’ In contrast to commercial trademarks, which are used in commerce and generally not entitled to full First Amendment protections, collective membership marks are used by members of an organization to ‘indicate membership in a union, an association, or other organization.’ The use and display of collective membership marks therefore directly implicate the First Amendment’s right to freedom of association. The Supreme Court has recognized that ‘implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment’ is ‘a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.’ This right is crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas.’ Furthermore, clothing identifying one’s association with an organization is generally considered expressive conduct entitled to First Amendment protection…. If speech is noncommercial in nature, it is entitled to full First Amendment protection, which prohibits the prior restraint and seizure of speech-related materials without a judicial determination that the speech is harmful, unprotected, or otherwise illegal.
“Prohibiting speech of this nature constitutes an attack on a particular viewpoint. In Sammartano (v. First Judicial District Court, in and for the County of Carson City) the Carson City courthouse enacted a rule to prohibit admission of those with ‘clothing, attire or colors which have symbols, markings or words indicating an affiliation with street gangs, biker or similar organizations,’ because ‘such clothing or attire can be extremely disruptive and intimidating, especially when members of different groups are in the building at the same time.’ The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the rule singles out bikers and similar organizations for the message their clothing is presumed to convey, and held that the rule impermissibly discriminates against a particular point of view – the view of biker clubs as opposed to garden clubs and gun clubs. In this case, the Government targets an even narrower group of individuals, a single motorcycle club. In addition, the Government has been seizing property, which imposes a greater restriction on individual rights than the denial of access to a public facility. Accordingly, the seizure of property bearing a Mongols membership mark should be considered viewpoint-discriminatory. The Government’s ability to seize property bearing the trademark acts as a prior restraint and cannot stand without a judicial determination that the speech is harmful, unprotected, or otherwise illegal. No such determination was ever sought by the Government, and no such determination was ever made by the Court.”
Judges Wright And Carter
After Judge Cooper died in the middle of the Cavazos case, the forfeiture matter was transferred to Judge Otis Wright. Wright eventually ruled: “no amount of discovery could affect the dispositive legal issue: whether Cavazos, or any other individual defendant, had a forfeitable ownership interest in the Marks . . . There is no evidence that Cavazos or any other individual member of the organization holds or ever held an ownership interest in the Marks.”
But the government still refused to give up and eventually the issue was decided by Judge David Carter on February 28, 2012. Carter ordered the government to pay Loy and Mansfield for their work under a federal law called the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government argued that the two attorneys were asking for too much. Carter replied:
“The purpose of Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) ‘is to eliminate financial disincentives for those who would defend against unjustified governmental action and thereby to deter the unreasonable exercise of Government authority.’”
“In sum, the novelty of the government’s position did not make it substantially justified. Rather, it took unlawful ‘action based on an ungrounded and unsubstantiated legal theory, and without sufficient factual support.’”
“Furthermore, Counsel’s hours were reasonable given the government’s obstinacy in continuing to litigate legal theories that have now been rejected by all three judges to hear this case. The government could have, at any time, spared itself the expense of Counsel’s EAJA fees by simply conceding that it was wrong on the law. Instead, the government took advantage of the changes in judges in this case by advancing unsupportable legal theories before each judge. In advancing these theories, the government submitted voluminous documents through which Counsel and the Court were forced to wade.”
The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Last week they finally gave up. Today it is over. The government cannot seize the patch of any motorcycle club without first proving that every member of the club and the club as an entity constitute a criminal enterprise.
↧
Drug Dog's Sniff Is An Unconstitutional Search, Rules U.S. Supreme Court
OFF THE WIRE
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect's property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search, a decision which may limit how investigators use dogs' sensitive noses to search out drugs, explosives and other items hidden from human sight, sound and smell.
The high court split 5-4 on the decision to uphold the Florida Supreme Court's ruling throwing out evidence seized in the search of Joelis Jardines' Miami-area house. That search was based on an alert by Franky the drug dog from outside the closed front door.
Justice Antonin Scalia said a person has the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the government's gaze inside their home and in the area surrounding it, which is called the curtilage.
"The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority. "And the officers here had all four of their feet and all four of their companion's, planted firmly on that curtilage – the front porch is the classic example of an area intimately associated with the life of the home."
He was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The four justices who dissented were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito.
It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said. "According to the court, however, the police officer in this case, Detective Bartelt, committed a trespass because he was accompanied during his otherwise lawful visit to the front door of the respondent's house by his dog, Franky. Where is the authority evidencing such a rule?"
Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far. "A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."
It was not the dog that was the problem, Scalia said, "but the behavior that here involved use of the dog."
"We think a typical person would find it `a cause for great alarm' to find a stranger snooping about his front porch with or without a dog," Scalia said. "The dissent would let the police do whatever they want by way of gathering evidence so long as they stay on the base path, to use a baseball analogy – so long as they `stick to the path that is typically used to approach a front door, such as a paved walkway.' From that vantage point they can presumably peer into the house with binoculars with impunity. That is not the law, as even the state concedes."
Thousands of dogs are used by governmental organizations around the United States to track criminals, sniff out illegal items like explosives at airports and search wreckage sites like bombed buildings and hurricane or earthquake-destroyed homes for injured people.
On the morning of Dec. 5, 2006, Miami-Dade police detectives and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents set up surveillance outside a house south of the city after getting an anonymous tip that it might contain a marijuana growing operation. Detective Douglas Bartelt arrived with Franky and the two went up to the house, where Franky quickly detected the odor of pot at the base of the front door and sat down as he was trained to do.
That sniff was used to get a search warrant from a judge. The house was searched and its lone occupant, Jardines, was arrested trying to escape out the back door. Officers pulled 179 live marijuana plants from the house, with an estimated street value of more than $700,000.
Jardines was charged with marijuana trafficking and grand theft for stealing electricity needed to run the highly sophisticated operation. He pleaded not guilty and his attorney challenged the search, claiming Franky's sniff outside the front door was an unconstitutional law enforcement intrusion into the home.
The trial judge agreed and threw out the evidence seized in the search, but that was reversed by an intermediate appeals court. In April a divided Florida Supreme Court sided with the original judge.
That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court's decision, the latest in a long line of disputes about whether the use of dogs to find drugs, explosives and other illegal or dangerous substances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. The court has OK'd drug dog sniffs in several other major cases. Two of those involved dogs that detected drugs during routine traffic stops. In another, a dog hit on drugs in airport luggage. A fourth involved a drug-laden package in transit.
The difference in this case, the court said, is that Franky was used at a home.
"A drug detection dog is a specialized device for discovering objects not in plain view (or plain smell)," Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion. "That device here was aimed at a home – the most private and inviolate (or so we expect) of all the places and things the Fourth Amendment protects. Was this activity a trespass? Yes, as the court holds today. Was it also an invasion of privacy? Yes, that as well."
This is the second decision this year on the use of drug-sniffing dogs by police. The court unanimously ruled earlier in another Florida case that police don't have to extensively document the work of drug-sniffing dogs in the field to be able to use the results of their work in court.
___
The case was Florida v. Jardines, 11-564.
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect's property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search, a decision which may limit how investigators use dogs' sensitive noses to search out drugs, explosives and other items hidden from human sight, sound and smell.
The high court split 5-4 on the decision to uphold the Florida Supreme Court's ruling throwing out evidence seized in the search of Joelis Jardines' Miami-area house. That search was based on an alert by Franky the drug dog from outside the closed front door.
Justice Antonin Scalia said a person has the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the government's gaze inside their home and in the area surrounding it, which is called the curtilage.
"The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority. "And the officers here had all four of their feet and all four of their companion's, planted firmly on that curtilage – the front porch is the classic example of an area intimately associated with the life of the home."
He was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The four justices who dissented were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito.
It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said. "According to the court, however, the police officer in this case, Detective Bartelt, committed a trespass because he was accompanied during his otherwise lawful visit to the front door of the respondent's house by his dog, Franky. Where is the authority evidencing such a rule?"
Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far. "A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."
It was not the dog that was the problem, Scalia said, "but the behavior that here involved use of the dog."
"We think a typical person would find it `a cause for great alarm' to find a stranger snooping about his front porch with or without a dog," Scalia said. "The dissent would let the police do whatever they want by way of gathering evidence so long as they stay on the base path, to use a baseball analogy – so long as they `stick to the path that is typically used to approach a front door, such as a paved walkway.' From that vantage point they can presumably peer into the house with binoculars with impunity. That is not the law, as even the state concedes."
Thousands of dogs are used by governmental organizations around the United States to track criminals, sniff out illegal items like explosives at airports and search wreckage sites like bombed buildings and hurricane or earthquake-destroyed homes for injured people.
On the morning of Dec. 5, 2006, Miami-Dade police detectives and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents set up surveillance outside a house south of the city after getting an anonymous tip that it might contain a marijuana growing operation. Detective Douglas Bartelt arrived with Franky and the two went up to the house, where Franky quickly detected the odor of pot at the base of the front door and sat down as he was trained to do.
That sniff was used to get a search warrant from a judge. The house was searched and its lone occupant, Jardines, was arrested trying to escape out the back door. Officers pulled 179 live marijuana plants from the house, with an estimated street value of more than $700,000.
Jardines was charged with marijuana trafficking and grand theft for stealing electricity needed to run the highly sophisticated operation. He pleaded not guilty and his attorney challenged the search, claiming Franky's sniff outside the front door was an unconstitutional law enforcement intrusion into the home.
The trial judge agreed and threw out the evidence seized in the search, but that was reversed by an intermediate appeals court. In April a divided Florida Supreme Court sided with the original judge.
That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court's decision, the latest in a long line of disputes about whether the use of dogs to find drugs, explosives and other illegal or dangerous substances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. The court has OK'd drug dog sniffs in several other major cases. Two of those involved dogs that detected drugs during routine traffic stops. In another, a dog hit on drugs in airport luggage. A fourth involved a drug-laden package in transit.
The difference in this case, the court said, is that Franky was used at a home.
"A drug detection dog is a specialized device for discovering objects not in plain view (or plain smell)," Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion. "That device here was aimed at a home – the most private and inviolate (or so we expect) of all the places and things the Fourth Amendment protects. Was this activity a trespass? Yes, as the court holds today. Was it also an invasion of privacy? Yes, that as well."
This is the second decision this year on the use of drug-sniffing dogs by police. The court unanimously ruled earlier in another Florida case that police don't have to extensively document the work of drug-sniffing dogs in the field to be able to use the results of their work in court.
___
The case was Florida v. Jardines, 11-564.
↧
PIC OF THE DAY
↧
BABES OF THE DAY
↧
↧
PIC OF THE DAY
↧
sounds like fun
↧
How to get a warning, not a ticket
OFF THE WIRE
If you get stopped by a policeman or trooper, a ticket that jacks up your car insurance bill is the last thing you want. Here's how to avoid one.
When you see flashing lights in your rearview mirror, take a deep breath. The next few minutes could make all the difference when your next insurance bill arrives.
State troopers and police officers have 100% discretion. They can write you a ticket, or they can give you a warning. They can write down exactly what their radar gun shows, or they can write down a number that will lower your fine and reduce the number of points on your license.
If you have been pulled over, your immediate fate is in the officer's hands -- and so are your future insurance premiums.
A speeding ticket that qualifies as reckless driving in your state is the single worst traffic violation you can inflict on your insurance bill, according to data gathered by Insurance.com, with premiums rising an average of 22%. But knocked down to 14 mph or less over the limit, that hit falls to 11%.
Of course, the best way to keep your insurance from going up at all is to keep the ticket off your record in the first place.
To increase your chances of a receiving a warning rather than a ticket:
Anything above 80 mph is de facto reckless driving in Hawaii, North Carolina and Virginia. That threshold is 100 mph in California and Minnesota. A few mph one way or the other means the difference between a fine and losing your license to suspension.
If you were polite and honest and you kept your hands on the wheel, but you still got a ticket, remember that the law and statistics are on the officer's side. According to the National Transportation Highway Safety Administration, 32,880 people died in traffic accidents in 2010. Speeding caused 32% of those deaths.
The National Motorists Association estimates that less than 5% of drivers go to court. Spokesman John Bowman says not fighting a ticket is a mistake. "Drivers will almost always come out ahead," he says, "either with a full dismissal or at least a lower penalty."
You can also go for deferred adjudication, a deal that prevents the conviction from appearing on your motor vehicle record.
But once the conviction is on your record, there is little you can do to lower your insurance rates except shop for a different insurance company, says Penny Gusner, a consumer analyst with CarInsurance.com.
"Insurance companies rate tickets differently," Gusner says, "and while your current one may raise your rates 10%, another one may not raise your rates on just one minor offense or surcharge you only 5% for it."
A minor ticket might not warrant an increase in your premium. But you could lose your good driver discount, and in some states that could bring a 20% increase in your insurance bill.
If you get stopped by a policeman or trooper, a ticket that jacks up your car insurance bill is the last thing you want. Here's how to avoid one.
When you see flashing lights in your rearview mirror, take a deep breath. The next few minutes could make all the difference when your next insurance bill arrives.
State troopers and police officers have 100% discretion. They can write you a ticket, or they can give you a warning. They can write down exactly what their radar gun shows, or they can write down a number that will lower your fine and reduce the number of points on your license.
If you have been pulled over, your immediate fate is in the officer's hands -- and so are your future insurance premiums.
A speeding ticket that qualifies as reckless driving in your state is the single worst traffic violation you can inflict on your insurance bill, according to data gathered by Insurance.com, with premiums rising an average of 22%. But knocked down to 14 mph or less over the limit, that hit falls to 11%.
Of course, the best way to keep your insurance from going up at all is to keep the ticket off your record in the first place.
To increase your chances of a receiving a warning rather than a ticket:
- Make it an easy stop. Pull over quickly, turn your interior lights on and keep your hands in sight on the wheel. When an officer approaches a vehicle, says Iowa State Patrol Sgt. Scott Bright, he or she will be looking at how many people are in the car and where their hands are.
- Be respectful. If you were looking for a way to ensure a ticket, being argumentative, angry or rude is a great way to do it. "There is no guarantee that a driver will receive a warning based upon behavior," says Colorado State Patrol Capt. Jeff Goodwin, "but it certainly helps to be respectful and less confrontational."
- Save the excuses. Law enforcement officers have heard them all, so save your sob story. Answers to any questions should be brief and noncommittal. (For example, if the officer asks if you know why you've been pulled over, say no, legal experts advise.) Don't argue. This isn't a court.
Discretion matters
Here is why you should bite your tongue.
"Every year," says Goodwin, "the CSP (Colorado State Patrol) issues many more warnings than citations."
In 2010, the Chicago Sun Times looked at the tickets written by the Lake County Illinois Sheriff's Department and found huge differences among officers. One officer issued only warnings, while another was responsible for 90% of the tickets written.
Perspectives often change as troopers gain experience.
Anything above 80 mph is de facto reckless driving in Hawaii, North Carolina and Virginia. That threshold is 100 mph in California and Minnesota. A few mph one way or the other means the difference between a fine and losing your license to suspension.
If you were polite and honest and you kept your hands on the wheel, but you still got a ticket, remember that the law and statistics are on the officer's side. According to the National Transportation Highway Safety Administration, 32,880 people died in traffic accidents in 2010. Speeding caused 32% of those deaths.
When to fight, when to shop
Once you've been stopped for speeding, several outcomes are possible: a warning, a ticket that cuts you a break or a full-fledged, license-denting traffic violation. You still have options even after the officer has handed you the ticket and told you to have a nice day.The National Motorists Association estimates that less than 5% of drivers go to court. Spokesman John Bowman says not fighting a ticket is a mistake. "Drivers will almost always come out ahead," he says, "either with a full dismissal or at least a lower penalty."
You can also go for deferred adjudication, a deal that prevents the conviction from appearing on your motor vehicle record.
But once the conviction is on your record, there is little you can do to lower your insurance rates except shop for a different insurance company, says Penny Gusner, a consumer analyst with CarInsurance.com.
"Insurance companies rate tickets differently," Gusner says, "and while your current one may raise your rates 10%, another one may not raise your rates on just one minor offense or surcharge you only 5% for it."
A minor ticket might not warrant an increase in your premium. But you could lose your good driver discount, and in some states that could bring a 20% increase in your insurance bill.
↧
ARIZONA - Prescott Cover Up Continues
OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel.com
More than three months after the fact the Arizona Department of Public Safety has still not released its long awaited report on a cop motorcycle club riot in Prescott last December 22. When the DPS began its investigation last year, it promised to issue a report in March.
What happened last December is straightforward. An unknown number, but greater than a score, of members of the Iron Brotherhood Motorcycle Club were drunk, disorderly and belligerent in the historic Whiskey Row section of Prescott. The club members flaunted their police powers and displayed both patches and badges simultaneously. Three of the revelers were high ranking local policemen. They were Prescott Deputy Police Chief Andy Reinhardt, Prescott Valley Police Chief Bill Fessler and Prescott Area Narcotics Taskforce Commander William “Mongo” Suttle.
About 10:40 p.m. in Moctezuma’s Bar an inebriated young man named Justin Stafford asked Chief Fessler about his patch and was immediately attacked by several members of the Iron Brotherhood. One patch holder, a Homeland Security Officer whose name on the road is “Top Gun” broke Stafford’s nose. Top Gun, who works at the Homeland Security office at 410 North Malacate Street in Ajo, Arizona, then fled to his hotel, which has already been established to have been the Hotel St. Michael’s. Since then he has successfully eluded the short reach of the DPS. According to a statement made by Mongo Suttle to Prescott police shortly after the assault Reinhardt was there and Suttle told him to go home before the cops showed up. During its long investigation, the Arizona DPS has issued a statement that, “Chief Reinhardt was not in the bar at the time of the incident.”
All of this is already public information and most of it has been reported by the Prescott Daily Courier.
Resignations
Suttle was placed on paid administrative leave on February 21 and he and a previously unnamed member of the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office, Captain Marc Schmidt, resigned from their jobs on March 17. A Sheriff’s Office spokesman named Dwight D’Evelyn announced the resignations and said he “did not know” why either man resigned. Last Friday, D’Evelyn said Suttle was still being paid. The Associated Press reported that Suttle intended to retire.
Fessler finally quit his job on March 18. The day he resigned he issued a statement that read: “It has been an honor and privilege to have served the citizens of Prescott Valley and been involved in building a police department over the last 23 years. Because of the controversy associated with the events of December 22, I feel compelled for the good of the agency and of the Town to take this time to examine my career and choose to retire from the Town of Prescott Valley. I am proud of my service record as a professional police officer with the Town.”
Reinhardt is still on the job. The Arizona DPS is still investigating.
agingrebel.com
More than three months after the fact the Arizona Department of Public Safety has still not released its long awaited report on a cop motorcycle club riot in Prescott last December 22. When the DPS began its investigation last year, it promised to issue a report in March.
What happened last December is straightforward. An unknown number, but greater than a score, of members of the Iron Brotherhood Motorcycle Club were drunk, disorderly and belligerent in the historic Whiskey Row section of Prescott. The club members flaunted their police powers and displayed both patches and badges simultaneously. Three of the revelers were high ranking local policemen. They were Prescott Deputy Police Chief Andy Reinhardt, Prescott Valley Police Chief Bill Fessler and Prescott Area Narcotics Taskforce Commander William “Mongo” Suttle.
About 10:40 p.m. in Moctezuma’s Bar an inebriated young man named Justin Stafford asked Chief Fessler about his patch and was immediately attacked by several members of the Iron Brotherhood. One patch holder, a Homeland Security Officer whose name on the road is “Top Gun” broke Stafford’s nose. Top Gun, who works at the Homeland Security office at 410 North Malacate Street in Ajo, Arizona, then fled to his hotel, which has already been established to have been the Hotel St. Michael’s. Since then he has successfully eluded the short reach of the DPS. According to a statement made by Mongo Suttle to Prescott police shortly after the assault Reinhardt was there and Suttle told him to go home before the cops showed up. During its long investigation, the Arizona DPS has issued a statement that, “Chief Reinhardt was not in the bar at the time of the incident.”
All of this is already public information and most of it has been reported by the Prescott Daily Courier.
Resignations
Suttle was placed on paid administrative leave on February 21 and he and a previously unnamed member of the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office, Captain Marc Schmidt, resigned from their jobs on March 17. A Sheriff’s Office spokesman named Dwight D’Evelyn announced the resignations and said he “did not know” why either man resigned. Last Friday, D’Evelyn said Suttle was still being paid. The Associated Press reported that Suttle intended to retire.
Fessler finally quit his job on March 18. The day he resigned he issued a statement that read: “It has been an honor and privilege to have served the citizens of Prescott Valley and been involved in building a police department over the last 23 years. Because of the controversy associated with the events of December 22, I feel compelled for the good of the agency and of the Town to take this time to examine my career and choose to retire from the Town of Prescott Valley. I am proud of my service record as a professional police officer with the Town.”
Reinhardt is still on the job. The Arizona DPS is still investigating.
↧
↧
Australia - Jail bosses prepare to segregate rival bikies
OFF THE WIRE
JAIL authorities are preparing to segregate members of rival bikie clubs within maximum-security units in Victoria's Barwon Prison amid a crackdown that will see bikies jailed for up to five years under new anti-association laws.
The Australian has learnt that the prison management has been preparing space in its maximum-security units to house the bikies, including members of the feuding Hells Angels and Bandidos clubs. This follows the proclamation last week of Victoria's new anti-association laws, which will allow police to go to the Supreme Court to seek the banning of deemed criminal organisations.
Members who breach bans will face up to five years' jail and the confiscation of property involved in the breach. Interstate orders will be registered and enforced in Victoria.
The High Court upheld the validity of similar laws in Queensland, and other states are expected to redraft laws that will lead to a national anti-(*club*) framework. The federal government has also announced plans to enact national anti-association laws.
"The ridiculous thing about this new law is that you will be thrown in jail for associating with your mates. In jail you will be associating with your mates again and also other hardcore criminals. It makes no sense," a senior bikie said.
It is expected that the new laws will boost the population of bikies in jail, creating tensions between clubs in conflict on the outside.
According to jail sources, authorities plan to house the rival bikies in separate high-security units at Barwon so their paths will never cross. Members of rival factions during Melbourne's gangland war were housed in Barwon's Acacia unit and were allowed to mix with with two or three other inmates. The method was successful until Carl Williams was killed by cellmate Matthew Johnson in April 2010.
A spokesman for Corrections Victoria did not deny the segregation plans but said there were "no plans to set up a bikies-only facility".
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/jail-bosses-prepare-to-segregate-rival-bikies/story-e6frgczx-1226607158002
JAIL authorities are preparing to segregate members of rival bikie clubs within maximum-security units in Victoria's Barwon Prison amid a crackdown that will see bikies jailed for up to five years under new anti-association laws.
The Australian has learnt that the prison management has been preparing space in its maximum-security units to house the bikies, including members of the feuding Hells Angels and Bandidos clubs. This follows the proclamation last week of Victoria's new anti-association laws, which will allow police to go to the Supreme Court to seek the banning of deemed criminal organisations.
Members who breach bans will face up to five years' jail and the confiscation of property involved in the breach. Interstate orders will be registered and enforced in Victoria.
The High Court upheld the validity of similar laws in Queensland, and other states are expected to redraft laws that will lead to a national anti-(*club*) framework. The federal government has also announced plans to enact national anti-association laws.
"The ridiculous thing about this new law is that you will be thrown in jail for associating with your mates. In jail you will be associating with your mates again and also other hardcore criminals. It makes no sense," a senior bikie said.
It is expected that the new laws will boost the population of bikies in jail, creating tensions between clubs in conflict on the outside.
According to jail sources, authorities plan to house the rival bikies in separate high-security units at Barwon so their paths will never cross. Members of rival factions during Melbourne's gangland war were housed in Barwon's Acacia unit and were allowed to mix with with two or three other inmates. The method was successful until Carl Williams was killed by cellmate Matthew Johnson in April 2010.
A spokesman for Corrections Victoria did not deny the segregation plans but said there were "no plans to set up a bikies-only facility".
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/jail-bosses-prepare-to-segregate-rival-bikies/story-e6frgczx-1226607158002
↧
AUSTRALIA - NSW EAGER TO USE NEW ANTI-BIKIE LAWS
OFF THE WIRE
The NSW police force has admitted it is already preparing a test case to have a bikie (*club*) banned, a day after legislation allowing such moves was passed by the state parliament.
The new anti-bikie laws revive and revise laws which were originally struck down by the High Court a few years ago.
The former Labor state government introduced them in 2009 after a bikie associate was killed at Sydney Airport when a brawl broke out between two rival groups.
New South Wales Police Minister Mike Gallacher says the new laws will be used soon, but is giving no further details away.
"I don't intend to run commentary for those bikies when they can expect the hammer to fall," he said.
"The work has continued to be done by police and it'll be a matter for police, who then take that matter forward to the courts now that the legislation has passed the Legislative Council."
NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione says the police force is also raring to go.
"I'd like to see it tomorrow but let's just let these investigators get on with it and do what they have to do," he said.
"We'll be continuing to build up, and as we move towards a declaration we'll be looking to do that as quickly as we can."
The NSW laws are similar to Queensland anti-bikie rules, which earlier in the month survived a High Court challenge by the Finks bikie (*club*).
The NSW Government wanted to wait and see what happened in Queensland before it proceeded.
It is also the third attempt by the state Coalition Government to get the new powers.
Legal challenge
The Government hopes the new laws will be strong enough to stand up to any legal challenge.
And it may not have to wait long.
Barrister Wayne Baffsky, who is the honorary counsel for the United Motorcycle Council of NSW - which represents the majority of outlaw motorcycle clubs - is responsible for the successful challenge against the previous anti-bikie laws in NSW.
"There's every chance that this legislation will be taken to the High Court or to the Supreme Court once the police go after whom ever they go after," he said.
"One of the problems with these laws - and particularly the way they're being spoken about - is the premise that all members of outlaw motorcycle clubs are criminals, and all outlaw motorcycle clubs are criminal organisations.
"Now that is just false.
"It may be true that some of the members might be involved in organised crimes - I really don't know to what extent that is correct - but I would accept as a matter of common sense that maybe some of these members are involved in organised crime.
"I would not accept that all members and all clubs are."
Civil liberty groups are also concerned, saying the laws could be used to target clubs which are not even related to motorcycle groups.
Cameron Murphy, the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, says "everybody in New South Wales ought to be seriously concerned'.
"It puts far too much power in the hands of police and it really doesn't address any of the underlying problems," he said.
"Everyone in the community wants something done about the random, violent, and dangerous shootings we see in western Sydney, but this government is incapable of providing police with the direction to deal with that."
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/article/16450713/nsw-eager-to-use-new-anti-bikie-laws/
The NSW police force has admitted it is already preparing a test case to have a bikie (*club*) banned, a day after legislation allowing such moves was passed by the state parliament.
The new anti-bikie laws revive and revise laws which were originally struck down by the High Court a few years ago.
The former Labor state government introduced them in 2009 after a bikie associate was killed at Sydney Airport when a brawl broke out between two rival groups.
New South Wales Police Minister Mike Gallacher says the new laws will be used soon, but is giving no further details away.
"I don't intend to run commentary for those bikies when they can expect the hammer to fall," he said.
"The work has continued to be done by police and it'll be a matter for police, who then take that matter forward to the courts now that the legislation has passed the Legislative Council."
NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione says the police force is also raring to go.
"I'd like to see it tomorrow but let's just let these investigators get on with it and do what they have to do," he said.
"We'll be continuing to build up, and as we move towards a declaration we'll be looking to do that as quickly as we can."
The NSW laws are similar to Queensland anti-bikie rules, which earlier in the month survived a High Court challenge by the Finks bikie (*club*).
The NSW Government wanted to wait and see what happened in Queensland before it proceeded.
It is also the third attempt by the state Coalition Government to get the new powers.
Legal challenge
The Government hopes the new laws will be strong enough to stand up to any legal challenge.
And it may not have to wait long.
Barrister Wayne Baffsky, who is the honorary counsel for the United Motorcycle Council of NSW - which represents the majority of outlaw motorcycle clubs - is responsible for the successful challenge against the previous anti-bikie laws in NSW.
"There's every chance that this legislation will be taken to the High Court or to the Supreme Court once the police go after whom ever they go after," he said.
"One of the problems with these laws - and particularly the way they're being spoken about - is the premise that all members of outlaw motorcycle clubs are criminals, and all outlaw motorcycle clubs are criminal organisations.
"Now that is just false.
"It may be true that some of the members might be involved in organised crimes - I really don't know to what extent that is correct - but I would accept as a matter of common sense that maybe some of these members are involved in organised crime.
"I would not accept that all members and all clubs are."
Civil liberty groups are also concerned, saying the laws could be used to target clubs which are not even related to motorcycle groups.
Cameron Murphy, the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, says "everybody in New South Wales ought to be seriously concerned'.
"It puts far too much power in the hands of police and it really doesn't address any of the underlying problems," he said.
"Everyone in the community wants something done about the random, violent, and dangerous shootings we see in western Sydney, but this government is incapable of providing police with the direction to deal with that."
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/article/16450713/nsw-eager-to-use-new-anti-bikie-laws/
↧
AUSTRALIA - Bikie laws a matter of urgency
OFF THE WIRE
CHIEF COMMISSIONER KEN LAY HAS CONFIRMED HIS POLICE FORCE HAS BEEN INFILTRATED BY OUTLAW BIKIE (*club*). HERALD SUN
IN an honest and alarming admission, Chief Commissioner Ken Lay has confirmed his police force has been infiltrated by outlaw motorcycle (*club*).
This would be disturbing if only a few police were involved.
But Mr Lay admits to "around 10 investigations" into police members with links to bikie (*club*).
As if this were not enough, Mr Lay says the (*club*) are attempting to "cultivate, compromise and corrupt" Victoria Police, with some (*club*) members "trying to join the force to increase the (*club*)' influence".
They're "very, very good at what they do", says Mr Lay. What the police need to be very good at doing is breaking the hold of the (*club*) and the Victorian Government needs to support them in doing so.
Not only are outlaw motorcycle (*club*) effective in evading the law and enriching themselves through their criminal activities, they also have the means to pay high-profile lawyers.
New legislation in Victoria may curtail their activities, but it has taken too long in the making. The Herald Sun has warned the Government repeatedly about the power of the (*club*) and the need for urgency.
The Government needs to listen to community concerns. Premier Napthine needs to act now.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/bikie-laws-a-matter-of-urgency/story-e6frfhqo-1226607966746
CHIEF COMMISSIONER KEN LAY HAS CONFIRMED HIS POLICE FORCE HAS BEEN INFILTRATED BY OUTLAW BIKIE (*club*). HERALD SUN
IN an honest and alarming admission, Chief Commissioner Ken Lay has confirmed his police force has been infiltrated by outlaw motorcycle (*club*).
This would be disturbing if only a few police were involved.
But Mr Lay admits to "around 10 investigations" into police members with links to bikie (*club*).
As if this were not enough, Mr Lay says the (*club*) are attempting to "cultivate, compromise and corrupt" Victoria Police, with some (*club*) members "trying to join the force to increase the (*club*)' influence".
They're "very, very good at what they do", says Mr Lay. What the police need to be very good at doing is breaking the hold of the (*club*) and the Victorian Government needs to support them in doing so.
Not only are outlaw motorcycle (*club*) effective in evading the law and enriching themselves through their criminal activities, they also have the means to pay high-profile lawyers.
New legislation in Victoria may curtail their activities, but it has taken too long in the making. The Herald Sun has warned the Government repeatedly about the power of the (*club*) and the need for urgency.
The Government needs to listen to community concerns. Premier Napthine needs to act now.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/bikie-laws-a-matter-of-urgency/story-e6frfhqo-1226607966746
↧