John Sez: I profiled this story a little ways back. A Maricopa sheriff rifled through a defense attorney’s paperwork (while her back was turned and she was addressing the Judge); he then removed a document, hands it off to another sheriff (who quickly scuttles away, apparently to make a photocopy) while the defense attorney is trying to let the Judge know what the officer had done. Then the second sheriff replaces the document (again, while the attorney’s back is turned). One might think the story fantastic, but it was all caught on the courts camera (see previous post on this story for the video).

The officer has now been given the following sentence: apologize or go to jail. This is an incredible light sentence; if this fellow was anything other than a cop he would have been immediately jailed for contempt (among other things).

To make matters worse, the sheriff’s boss (the infamous Joe Arpiao) has stated that his officer will not comply with the court order.

Given the reaction of the Judge who’s watch this happened on, the Judge who handed down the sentence, Joe Arpiao, and the officers who were involved, it’s a safe bet that the rule of law, proper protocol, attorney confidentiality privileges, and the Constitution have no place in the legal system of Maricopa County.

Story from Law Scholar Jonathan Turley’s blog:

Court Rules Against Arizona Deputy on Swiping Lawyer’s Note — Arpaio To Defy Court

There has been a ruling in the Arizona case where an officer, Officer Adam Stoddard with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is clearly shown on this videotape reading and then swiping the confidential papers of defense attorney Joanne Cuccia in court. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe found against Stoddard and ordered him to either apologize or report to jail — a remarkably light sentence. However, his boss is Sheriff Joe Arpaio who has said that his officer will defy the order.
Stoddard swiped the papers while defense attorney Joanne Cuccia was addressing the court on behalf of her client, Antonio Lozano. The response of Judge Lisa Flores was remarkably understated and restrained given the horrific breach of confidentiality.

Before Donahoe, Stoddard’s explanation only magnified his misconduct. He claimed that he saw the words “going to,” “steal,” and “money” on a handwritten sheet of paper sticking out of Cuccia’s file, which led him to believe that Lozano posed a security threat. This confirms that he read the document as opposed to a cursory review of material for contraband or weapons. It is also ridiculous that such words would cause an officer to remove confidential notes — written by an attorney — in a criminal case. Most of the attorneys in that courthouse are representing people with records and have notes including such nouns and verbs

READ MORE

 
 
John Sez: Although the title above sounds silly, it briefly sums up a situation which has been brewing in Danvers High School in Massachusetts.

Apparently, the story goes something like this:

School principal, Thomas Murray, came across some information on Facebook which led him to believe that his students had planned a conspiracy to ‘mass-meep’ in one part of the school building. Murray seemed to think that such an action could be a huge detriment to his school (wars have been started for less, right?), so he took immediate and decisive action and notified the parents (via automated phone message)of all students who attend his school that the punishment for uttering the dreaded syllable would be grounds for an immediate suspension.

In an interview with the Salem News, Murray said the matter should be a ‘wake-up call’ to parents about what their kids are up to on social networking sites; to that end he is planning a school forum for parents on the pitfalls of face book.

But wait, there’s more.

New York based attorney, Theodora Michaels, got wind of the story and sent the following letter to administrators at the school:

An open letter to Principal Murray of Danvers High School (MA):

Meep.

Sincerely,
Theodora Michaels

The response from the school was fast and furious. According to Ms. Michaels, she received a reply from Assistant principal Mark Strout which informed her that her ‘meep-mail’ had been forwarded to the Danvers Police Department. In an excerpt from an article about the meeping situation posted on her site, she mused:

“LOLwut? That simultaneously annoyed and amused me enough to write this article. (Plus, my train was late.)

First, apparently this school doesn't know how email works. If they don't like getting emails that say "meep" -- and I'm assuming they got others before they got mine -- it should be a simple matter for the school's IT person to set their email program to filter all external emails that say meep and send them straight into the trash. Then there'd be no need to even look at them, let alone reply to or forward them.

Second, apparently they don't know how the law works. I haven't researched Massachusetts law, but I'm assuming there's no law that would prevent me from sending a single, non-commercial email, containing a single nonsense "word" (but impliedly relating to their work as school officials) to adults at their publicly-posted work emails. And if there were such a law, it would not survive a constitutional challenge. So I don't understand the point of Mr. Strout's email, unless he's hoping to scare me into -- what, not emailing "meep" ever again? Or more generally not criticizing his performance as a school official?

Gee, I'm scared -- maybe the Danvers police will come to NYC to arrest me! I guess they'll also try to extradite people who (I'm guessing) sent emails from other countries. We can be charged with . . . what, first degree meeping? Yeah, good luck with that.

Third, and most important, Messrs. Murray and Strout don't understand human nature. People -- especially teenagers -- don't like following pointless rules. To the point where they'll go out of their way to rebel against them (and I took five seconds out of my busy day), even if said rebellion itself is rather pointless. I get nothing out of saying meep. But I will vigorously defend my -- and others' -- right to say it.”

To say that the whole thing seems absolutely and childishly ludicrous on its face would be an extreme understatement.

I fully understand that school administrators face a great many challenges on a daily basis, ranging from finances, human resource issues, academic issues, and so on. It’s not an easy ship to run, so to speak, and any successful school owes a great debt of gratitude not only to the teachers but to the administrators who oversee the process of education as well. I am also fully aware that sometimes a principal is required to make some decision which may proove unpopular with the student body; the principal is well within his bailiwick to do what is necessary to both protect his students (and teachers) as well as make sure that there is no disruption in the educational process.

With that being said, I am hard pressed to find any grounds to agree with the administrators of Danvers High School. With all the problems that a school can have – drugs, violence, academic underachieving, and so on – this apparently harmless high school prank has been blown way out of proportion. What this principal (who appears to be more than a tad over his head in his position or has a severe case of little-man syndrome, in my opinion) is doing is showing the students that the law of the land is made up of nothing more than arbitrary decisions by men in suits and ties with no questioning or recourse for any decisions made. That’s simply not the way it is or should be, both in or out of school.

And if the principal thinks that this conspiracy to meep is worthy of a lesson to parents on the pitfalls of their children’s use of social networking sites, then my reply is that the principals understanding of the possible dangers of the internet in general are woefully shallow and inadequate for him to make such a broad assumption. While I applaud the fact that he has taken it upon himself to utilize the same technology as his students in order to keep abreast of what is going on with the student body, I have to say that his conclusions are clearly indicative of someone who has only a slim grasp of real and serious concerns over teenagers and the web. And if he is using this argument simply to cover his ass, then he is intentionally marginalizing a subject which should be take very seriously by educators, school administrators, parents as well as students.

Additionally, concerning the threat of ‘law enforcement action’ against Ms. Michaels, this is a clear indication that the administrators are themselves hard pressed to defend their actions  and have to rely on an legally empty threats in order to cajole or frighten someone who decided to let them know that their heavy handed approach is more than a little uncalled for. Additionally, by sending this e-mail on to the local PD, time that could have been spent going after people who have actually broken a law is instead spent on, well, foolishness.

In the future the principal (and his staff) need to take a closer look at the potential aftereffects of their actions. While I don’t expect that a school administrator make all of their decisions with one eye behind them watching their own backs, this napoleon-like posturing (which seems to be little more than an exercise in “Look at me, look at me – I am in charge, look at me!”) has done nothing more than disrupt the student body, made the administrators involved look more like major power-mongering fools concerned with enforcing the respect of their station and less like serious minded educators who have the best interest of the school as their first priority, and have clearly set the stage for an adversarial ‘us vs. them’ attitude between the staff and the students – something that can only become a detriment to the education process for all concerned.

(Thanks to Constitutional Law Scholar, Jonathan Turley, for bringing attention to this story)
 
 
John Sez: I’m so incensed about this story, I ‘m not even sure where to begin. These deputies stepped WAY over the line holding down a child who was scared of getting a shot. It was not their place to do so and it was way beyond their job description.

 Some might say that the kid was over reacting to getting a shot…maybe so. But let me ask: how would YOU feel if 2 armed and uniformed thugs held down YOUR frightened child for a vaccination?

Story from the Intellengencer:


Deputies Hold Boy Who Fled Flu ShotStudent refused; was held down for vaccination

By SHELLEY HANSON Staff Writer

WHEELING - It took the strength of two sheriff's deputies to keep a middle schooler still enough to receive a shot of the swine flu, or H1N1, vaccine at a recent clinic.

During a regular Wheeling-Ohio County Health Board meeting Tuesday, health department Administrator Howard Gamble told board members about the student's attempt to flee Wheeling Middle School during a vaccination clinic held there last Friday.

He noted the boy's mother could not bear to watch the scene and left the gymnasium. Out of apparent fear of receiving the injection, the student ran out of the building. The school's resource officer, Ohio County Sheriff's Deputy John Haglock, coaxed the boy back inside. Once at the shot station, however, Haglock apparently needed some help keeping the boy still, and another deputy assisted.

"He tried to run. I looked over and saw two sheriff's deputies holding a kid down," Gamble said. "Mom took off, she couldn't take it. You had one nurse with the needle, two deputies holding him, one nurse is grabbing hands - because that's what they want to do, to go after the needle. And that's the last thing you want."

READ MORE

 
 
John Sez: As I mentioned recently, the whole health care reform debacle is a sham; nothing more than the government forcing all Americans to buy health insurance out of their own pocket (much in the same way as auto and homeowner’s insurance) from the same insurance companies who have been screwing us all along, then taxing us on top of that for the privilege of being forced to purchase health insurance out of our own pocket.

One of the more nefarious parts of the recently passed bill is that those who do not buy this government mandated insurance will face fines, tax penalties, and potential jail time.

But Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner himself, he would never allow jail time for those who can’t or won’t by this health insurance, right? Let’s see what the President said about that very subject in a recent interview with Jake Tapper of ABC News:

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Hmmmmm…so can we expect to see our prisons filling up with ‘insurance resistors” in the near future?

It seems to me that many people seem to still think that this is all a good idea, but my guess is that the majority of those people really have no idea what is actually in the bill. It seems that there is this assumption (both from the left and right) that this is some sort of pre-cursor to socialized medicine. In truth, when the corporations dictate a mandate to purchase their products and the government is in the business of enforcing such a mandate, it is nothing more that outright corporatist-fascism.
 
 
John Sez: It’s bad enough that our mainstream media are (very obviously, in my opinion) bought and sold by the powers that be. But now the executive branch is is using movie-mafia tactics to put the muscle on independent journalism…then telling them that they can’t tell anyone that it was done.

This is yet another bad sign that the government is actively working to stamp out dissent and to stop the migration of people from the ‘approved’ news mouthpieces to the largely uncontrolled net-based news sources.

As an aside, kudos to CBS. Although they are part of the big media machine, someone at the company is allowing for some hard hitting news reports to get out on the air lately. Pats on the back to the responsible party or parties.

Story from CBS:

Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists
Posted by Declan McCullagh

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

READ MORE
 
 
John Sez: A couple of months ago I posted about a French law that was up for vote which contained a similar measure. Now, it seems, that France isn’t the only place that is trying to institute such draconian measures…it’s now the world – or at least some cockamamie group of unelected officials who are trying to impose their ‘order’ on the rest of us.

According to the leaked report, it works like this: if you are accused (note: not convicted, not brought before the courts, not arrested, simply ACCUSED) of illegally downloading material from the internet three times, you will lose your access to the internet. Even on its face, such a law or treaty obligation is complete and utter rubbish, and rife with the possibility of massive abuse by whatever ‘council’ is in charge of filing and enforcing on these accusations.

What if a teenager is DL’ing in his home and hits the three strikes and you’re out rule? Will the rest of his family be forced to suffer the penalty of the loss of the internet?

What about erroneous accusations? I have personally heard of many stories of people being accused of illegal uploads of THEIR OWN music, which they owned all rights and copyrights on. Will people loose thier access due to a faulty charge?

How about people who leech bandwidth, or net cafes and libraries with WIFI access? Will they lose their internet service due to criminal activities beyond their control?

I would also think that it would be all too easy for governments to target political opponents or dissidents in their country and force a loss of internet access, thus promoting censorship and a loss if individual rights and liberties.

Also noted in the report is that ISP’s need to proactively police copyright violations. Considering the cost to carry out such a mandate in man hours and legal costs this will, in effect, mean the end of Youtube, playlist.com, online file storage companies, and millions of personal web sites.

The way that a great many governments have been clamping down on freedom of expression of their citizens (notable are  the US, France, China, Iran, and England) I wonder if this is not so much a play to protect copyright owners (of which I am one and I HEARTILY DISSAGREE with this proposal) and more of an outright attempt to wrest control of the internet from the hands of the people and have it regulated, seized and sterilized by the governments involved in the treaty.

Story from Raw Story:

Global treaty could throw file-sharers off Internet after ‘three strikes’

File-sharers could be jailed under proposed ACTA provisions

Leaked details of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated in secret by most of the world's largest economies suggest Internet file-sharers could be blocked from accessing the Internet if they are repeatedly accused of sharing copyrighted material, say media and digital-rights watchdogs.

And the worst-case scenario could see popular Web sites like YouTube and Flickr shut down because of a provision in the treaty that would force them to monitor everything uploaded to the site for copyright violations.

Internet law professor Michael Geist published details of "leaked" portions of the discussions on ACTA on his blog Tuesday, as a new round of ACTA negotiations began in Seoul, South Korea. The US, along with all the countries of the European Union as well as Japan, Canada, Australia and a handful of other countries, are involved in the negotiations.

"The provisions would pave the way for a globalized three-strikes and you're out system," Geist blogged Wednesday, referring to a proposal from copyright holders to have Internet service providers cut off service to anyone accused at least three times of illegally sharing copyrighted material.

READ MORE

 
 
John Sez: Cheers for the voters of Breckenridge, Colorado. Now all we need is for an entire State to fall on this issue, and the rest will follow one by one. Then we can finally be free of the ludicrous, draconian, and overtly corrupted money-making machine known as the ‘war on drugs’.

Story from Raw Story:

Breckenridge, Colorado voters legalize marijuana, paraphernalia

Voters in the ski resort town of Breckenridge, Colorado legalized marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia by a nearly three-to-one margin on Tuesday. It is the first municipality in the United States to allow paraphernalia, such as pipes, bongs and bubblers.

"[The measure] passed 73 percent to 27 percent," ABC 7 News in Denver reported.

READ MORE

 
 
John Sez: Why the two law enforcement officers are still on the job or not in jail is beyond me. And the judge’s attitude is altogether way too mild to my mind as well.

Constitutional law scholar, Jonathan Turley, Had this to say about the matter:

This is one of the most incredible videos that I have seen. In the video, Officer Adam Stoddard with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is clearly shown reading confidential papers of defense attorney Joanne Cuccia while she is addressing the court on behalf of jail inmate Antonio Lozano (accused of fighting with another inmate). He then pulls a sheet from the file on the defense table and gives it to another deputy to be copied.

What is equally amazing is the relatively weak response from Judge Lisa Flores, who could presumably see Stoddard’s actions from the bench. It is possible that she was blocked in her view by counsel. In the video, Lozano appears to be the only person who clearly notices the removal.

When told, however, Flores reacts a bit defensively to objections from Cuccia and tells her repeatedly to calm down, even though Cuccia seems determined but professional in her statements to the court. Flores also immediately offers a justification that Stoddard is there to protect the court — apparently by copying confidential material. Eventually, she suspends the sentencing hearing.

A hearing was later held before Judge Gary Donahoe and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office defended Stoddard, insisting that he must screen all defense documents that are passed to an inmate. He insisted that, when he walked near the defense attorney’s table, he recognized some documents that weren’t previously screened.

It is true that some courts allow deputies to thumb through papers to be certain that they do not contain contraband or weapons, but this is a cursory inspection. It is a somewhat controversial practice but it is so limited that most attorneys are not concerned because the officers do not read the papers. Most courts do not have this practice. While your papers can be inspected at jails in face-to-face meetings, courtrooms are generally not subject to such inspections. After all, most courts have metal detectors at the entrances. Weapon transfers, therefore, are not a serious threat in counsel-to-client interactions in court. That leaves contraband, which is not a justification (in my view) for such intrusion. We have seen lawyers arrested on such charges (here and here), but it is incredibly rare. It is more common to see deputies arrested for contraband rackets than attorneys.

I have never heard of an officer copying a document at a prison or a court in such an inspection. This document was found by Donahoe to be subject to attorney-client privilege. Stoddard is clearly reading the document and proceeds to take it without notifying Cuccia and making a copy. It is a simply amazing violation of constitutional and confidentiality rules. I am surprised not to have seen a strong statement and intervention from the Arizona state bar in the case, but I hope that will be coming this week.

For the full story, click here.

 
 
John Sez: Never mind that the guy is 81 years old, which brings into question what was on the mind of the 4 men in uniform who pulled him over and tased him. But WHY is the military patrolling the highways of Alaska when that is strictly prohibited and ILLEGAL according to the Posse Comitatus Act?

Story from Fairbanks NewsMiner:

81-year-old Tasered by Eielson Air Force Base police

by Chris Freiberg 

FAIRBANKS — An 81-year-old man was Tasered during a traffic stop last week.

It is the second time since 1998 that police have had to make a show of force during a traffic stop to arrest Glen M. Wilcox, a Fairbanks-based Episcopalian priest and real estate agent.

Court documents allege that officers with Eielson Air Force Base’s 354th Security Forces Squadron pulled Wilcox over just after 1 p.m. Wednesday for going 11 miles over the speed limit on the Richardson Highway.

An officer, identified as a senior airman in court documents, took Wilcox’s license, registration and proof of insurance and wrote him a traffic citation. When he returned to Wilcox’s car, Wilcox refused to accept the documents and sped down the highway, according to a criminal complaint filed in court.

Wilcox disputes that version of events.
 
READ MORE
 
 
John Sez: According to a recent dispatch from the FBI, tattoo artists are being asked to report ‘suspicious’ behavior displayed by their patrons. Some of what can be considered ‘suspicious’, and possibly ‘terrorist behavior’, are:

The patron wanting identity privacy

The use of cash over debit or charge cards

Having missing fingers or hands

Making racists comments

Making religious comments

Making anti US remarks (I assume that would be any comments against the government)

Groups of customers who want the same or similar tattoo

Placing a tattoo on one’s body which could make it concealed

Although this is wrapped up in a package which would seem to indicate that the FBI is simply trying to work towards your protection, this is nothing more than some sort of ‘fishing’ expedition proposed, it would seem, to have tattoo artists spy on their customers and to instill in them some sort of fear that every day, ordinary behavior is a possible cover-up for terrorist activity.

Think about how this applies to an ordinary (non-terrorist) person: if you are concerned about your personal privacy, use cash, happen to be missing a finger or limb (my father lost a foot to diabetes, does that make him a terrorist?), talk about religion, mention disagreements you have with the government, or make a racist comment (which is something I think is ignorant, but protected by the 1st amendment), you may be a terrorist. My tattoos, like so many others, are placed so that they can be concealed by work approved clothing – does that make me a terrorist?

Or does that make a US citizen the terrorized?

Story from Prison Planet:

Using Cash Sign Of Terrorist, According To FBI
Feds demand tattoo shops rat on customers

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com

Are you in the market for a patriotic tattoo, maybe the Gadsden flag? Forget about it. Unless you want the local tattoo artist to inform on you.

The FBI, in league with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (part of the Department of Justice), has launched a program that harks back to East Germany’s Stasi.

In Philadelphia, the FBI has instructed tattoo shops to rat out their customers if they demand privacy, insist on paying with cash, engage in “suspicious behavior,” make “anti-US” comments, or request tattoos that are “extremist symbols.”

READ MORE (the article also contains the FBI document)