(PRESS TV) Scandal after scandal in the US: the seizure of AP reporters’ phone records by the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups. The third scandal: the Benghazi leak is what mainstream media have reported. In this edition of the show we will be covering different US government actions that go against the US constitution as the third in a series of scandals, and ask our guests whether these scandals are so threatening that it has political dangers, a point acknowledged even by the White House.
(RT) Amid the Justice Department scandal, perhaps more than ever before, journalists and citizens are raising questions over the freedom of the Press. While details of the investigation remain murky, there are very clear guidelines when it comes to the Justice Department issuing subpoenas. These are standards the DOJ set for itself.
(RT) The American Civil Liberties Union is warning the US public against being bogged down in too much debt. The group has revealed figures showing a rising number of people who fail to pay their debts and fines end up behind bars without a court verdict. The practice is being criticized as unconstitutional, but it’s alive and kicking in the State of Ohio, as RT’s Marina Portnaya explains.
(SAM BASS) My wife, Yvonne, has been given two death sentences. No, she is not a criminal nor a terrorist. Let me tell you her story.
Six years ago she was diagnosed with melanoma cancer. After three surgeries the doctors felt that they had removed all the cancer. Almost one year later the cancer returned with fast growing tumors on her back. Again, the Doctor wanted to do surgery and treat her using interferon. His prognosis was that she had six months before she would die (DEATH SENTENCE # 1) and that the interferon “might” give her a 10% chance of survival. But, if she did the interferon, she would feel like she had the flu for a year and it would further weaken her immune system. Yvonne asked the Doctor directly if he were in her shoes would he take the course of action he was recommending. After much silence he said, “No.”
With much prayer and research, we choose an alternative route. She changed her diet radically. My children and I started massaging her back almost daily with essential oils. Through guidance from a Natural Phatic Doctor we begin supplementing her diet.
(RT) Risking arrest isn’t the only obstacle for Northern California protesters — under a new rule about to go into effect, political demonstrators could lose their right to ride public transportation.
Starting next week, law enforcement officers policing the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland and other cities can issue bus and subway bans for unruly passengers — and according to one local news report, that power could be used to prevent political protesters from getting to demonstrations or essentially going anywhere.
Under the recently passed State Assembly Bill 716, BART can issue “prohibition” orders to any passenger cited or arrested for certain offenses, essentially blacklisting some people from boarding public transit vehicles if they’ve been charged with certain crimes.
BART Board President Tom Radulovich told Bay City News the law is “an important safety initiative to keep our employees and riders safe,” adding, “We’re very concerned that for the past few years folks have been assaulting our station agents.”
“We are really wanting to send the message that if you are going to come onto our system and be unruly or violent, there are going to be consequences,” BART spokesperson Alicia Trost told local ABC affiliate KGNO News.
But while the new bill will provide BART police the authority to immediately revoke riding privileges for persons arrested or convicted of acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior or possession or sale of drugs on area transit, those charged with minor infractions could be targeted too. “AB 716 won’t only target violent behavior,” KGNO reported. “It can be applied to protestors who have been arrested during free-speech movements.”
The law will allow for prohibition orders to be issued on-the-spot if a person is just once arrested or convicted for a misdemeanor or felony involving lewd, violent or drug-related acts in a BART zone, but passengers cited three or more times for minor infractions in just as many months are subject to the ban as well.
Under the bill, a transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person charged with violating a number of local statutes, including Section 640 of state Penal Code — the law that goes after riders accused of “Willfully disturbing others on or in a system facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior” and those “Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a system facility or vehicle.”
Although the official statute includes a note from the state declaring that Section 640 “shall not be interpreted to affect any lawful activities permitted or First Amendment rights protected under the laws of this state or applicable federal law,” allowing BART officers to ban users even accused by law enforcement of a misdemeanor could disenfranchise a huge percentage of their rider base and has critics already warning of potential authoritarian overreach.
“Certain instances have happened over the years that have caused some tragic things to happen, but you got to be careful who your profile,” BART passenger Kadmiel McCrory told KGNO.
Indeed, one doesn’t have to look too deep to divulge instances of arguable overreach in not just the Bay Area but on the BART system as well. On the morning of January 1, 2009, BART Officer Johannes Mehserle fatally shot an unarmed, 22-year-old passenger, Oscar Grant, on an Oakland train platform. The killing of Grant remains a highly contested issue among Bay Area residents, and has spawned a number of large protests impacting the BART system, including a November 2010 demonstration that led to 152 arrests. Then in July 2011, BART police shot and killed another passenger — a mentally ill homeless man name Charles Blair Hill — who is alleged to have thrown a knife at an officer. The response that occurred as a result can easily be considered a precursor to enacting AB 716.
Following the 2011 shooting death of Hill, BART passengers orchestrated a massive protest that made national headlines thanks in part to the involvement of Internet hacktivist group Anonymous. A rally for Hill days after his death began peacefully but ended in violence and at least three dozen arrests. When a second protest was planned the following month, BART officials responded by having cell phone service shut down in four separate train stations to prevent demonstrators from coordinating their actions.
“We’re going to take steps to make sure our customers are safe,” BART spokesman Jim Allison said in a statement that August. “The interruption of cell phone service was done Thursday to prevent what could have been a dangerous situation. It’s one of the tactics we have at our disposal. We may use it; we may not. And I’m not sure we would necessarily let anyone know in advance either way.”
Although that protest never materialized as planned, Anonymous responded by leaking the names, passwords and other identifying information for more than 2,000 customers of a BART-affiliated website, announcing in a statement, “we will not tolerate censorship.”
“Anonymous demands that this activity revolving around censorship cease and desist and we know you are already planning to do this again,” the hacktivists wrote. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union opposed the decision to throttle cell service as well.
Now with AB 716 going into effect, protesters may once again find they are unwelcome to ride on the fifth-busiest heavy rail rapid transit system within the United States. Accumulating only three easy-to-obtain infractions in just 90 days can cause a prohibition order to be issues, and when the law goes into effect on Monday, BART officers will actually be provided with the names and photographs of prohibited individuals in order to keep them from riding mass transit, BART police Chief Kenton Rainey told the San Francisco Appeal. According to Rainey, officers’ computers will contain information about active orders, and any persons picked up or cited on the BART system for new crimes can be matched against the database to see their status.
Rainey added that BART officers will go through training to work with special-needs riders, including the homeless and mentally ill. Even if one of those passengers is cited with a prohibition order, though, it might take a lengthy appeal process to have their ban rescinded. Prohibition orders restrict passengers from riding for anywhere from 30 days up to one year.
(THE MENTAL RECESSION) Not sure what Mayor Bloomberg finds upsetting about a gun-shaped lighter. Does it have a bayonet attachment making it an “assault” lighter? Does it ignite 10 times instead of 7?
Via the New York Post:
The owner of a Midtown tourist shop is firing back at Mayor Bloomberg’s crusade against toy guns, filing papers to block a $60,000 fine from the city for selling lighters shaped like small pistols.
“We don’t have the money,” said Fred Shayes, 49, who owns US Camera & Computer Inc. near Penn Station. “I would have to take a loan out from the bank to pay that.”
Shayes filed a petition in Manhattan Supreme Court to vacate the fine. At issue is a bronze-and-silver colored 3-inch butane lighter shaped like a gun with a black handle and a red tip that was selling for $10 until investigators slapped the store with a fine and yanked it off their shelves.
Under city law, toy guns can’t be sold in the city unless they are bright green, blue, red or a neon color.
Toy guns are also supposed to have a legible stamp identifying the manufacturer or trade name.
Although the gun-shaped lighter can fit in the palm of a smoker’s hand, inspectors for the city’s Department of Consumer Affairs said in 2011 that the lighters could reasonably be confused with a real firearm, and hit Shayes with the fine.
(WOFL FOX 35 ORLANDO) A Umatilla High School senior told FOX 35 she was punished for standing up to students on a school bus who were bullying a mentally challenged teen.
“Just because she doesn’t understand doesn’t mean that should be happening to her,” senior Stormy Rich said.
According to the 18-year old, she witnessed the girl getting bullied on the bus for months and complained to school officials for weeks.
“They would be mean to her, tell her she couldn’t sit on certain spots on the bus,” Rich said.
“They were giving her food that they put in their mouth. I actually had to tell her to spit it out because she didn’t understand.”
But, Rich claims, the school did nothing.
“When the school didn’t do anything, I told the girls if the school didn’t do anything, I was going to do something,” she said.
According to Rich, that’s what got her in trouble with Lake County Public and now she is no longer able allowed on that middle-school bus, which she was allowed to ride as a high school senior due to her out of the ordinary school schedule.
A Lake County Schools spokesperson told FOX 35 Friday they removed Rich from the bus because she displayed bullying behavior and two wrongs don’t make a right.
The spokesperson also said mentally challenged girl never complained about bullying.
“What kid that’s being bullied goes and tells somebody?” Rich argued. “They want to have friends.”
Rich said she was following school policy by reporting the bullying and should not face any repercussions even though she took matters into her own hands.
“I never want this to happen to anybody, I mean I know we can’t save the whole world, but, at least we could try to help the people who go to Umatilla,” she said.
(MIAMI NEW TIMES) Kiera Wilmot got good grades and had a perfect behavior record. She wasn’t the kind of kid you’d expect to find hauled away in handcuffs and expelled from school, but that’s exactly what happened after an attempt at a science project went horribly wrong.
On 7 a.m. on Monday, the 16 year-old mixed some common household chemicals in a small 8 oz water bottle on the grounds of Bartow High School in Bartow, Florida. The reaction caused a small explosion that caused the top to pop up and produced some smoke. No one was hurt and no damage was caused.
According to WTSP, Wilmot told police that she was merely conducting a science experiment. Though her teachers knew nothing of the specific project, her principal seems to agree.
“She made a bad choice. Honestly, I don’t think she meant to ever hurt anyone,” principal Ron Pritchard told the station. “She wanted to see what would happen [when the chemicals mixed] and was shocked by what it did. Her mother is shocked, too.”
After the explosion Wilmot was taken into custody by a school resources officer and charged with possession/discharge of a weapon on school grounds and discharging a destructive device. She will be tried as an adult.
She was then taken to a juvenile assessment center. She was also expelled from school and will be forced to complete her diploma through an expulsion program.
Polk County School released the following statement:
“Anytime a student makes a bad choice it is disappointing to us. Unfortunately, the incident that occurred at Bartow High School yesterday was a serious breach of conduct. In order to maintain a safe and orderly learning environment, we simply must uphold our code of conduct rules. We urge our parents to join us in conveying the message that there are consequences to actions. We will not compromise the safety and security of our students and staff.”
So, sorry kids. Don’t try any extracurricular science projects on school grounds, especially if they could result in anything resembling an explosion.
Bartow High School Principal Ronald Pritchard
Address: 1270 S Broadway Ave Bartow, FL 33830
EMAIL: Ronald.Pritchard@polk-fl.net PHONE: (863)- 534-7400 Fax: (863)534-0077
Polk County Superintendent: Dr. John Stewart
Address: 1915 South Floral Avenue, Bartow, FL 33831
PHONE: (863) 534-0521 Fax: (863) 519-8231 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Polk Regional Juvenile Detention Ctr
ADDRESS: 2155 Bob Phillips Road, Bartow, FL 33830
Down The Rabbit Hole w/ Popeye (04-26-2013) Holland Vandennieuwenhof on The Boston Bombing, False Flag Ops, Martial Law Beta Testing & More
(FEDERALJACK) On this edition of DTRH Popeye welcomes back to the broadcast friend, filmmaker, and radio show host Holland Vandennieuwenhof. They cover the Boston Marathon bombing, the martial law beta test in Boston that followed, the failure of the police state to stop it, the mindset of the powers that shouldn’t be and more. Make sure to tune in.
YOU CAN ALSO LISTEN ON YOUTUBE
LINKS TO THE ARCHIVE PAGES, LISTEN LIVE PAGE, FACEBOOK & TWITTER
(The Kansas City Star) Missouri’s push to more easily draw blood from people suspected of driving drunk failed to convince U.S. Supreme Court justices Wednesday.
Law enforcement must continue to seek warrants to take blood from drivers stopped for possibly driving impaired, the court ruled in a case that originated in southeast Missouri.
More than 30 other states and the Obama administration had joined Missouri in asking justices to give officers almost complete discretion in drawing blood samples without a warrant.
The ruling thrilled Doug Bonney, chief counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri office in Kansas City.
“It shows that the court understood that drunk-driving laws can be enforced in a way that is consistent with the Constitution,” said Bonney, referring to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
At least the court left in place current procedures for obtaining such blood tests, said Eric Zahnd, Platte County prosecutor who also is head of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
“The good news is that those tests will still be an arrow in the quiver of law enforcement in appropriate circumstances,” Zahnd said. “I am heartened that the court continues to recognize that alcohol dissipates naturally from the blood and therefore time is of the essence in these cases.”
The Supreme Court held that police usually must try to obtain a search warrant from a judge before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects.
In their 8-1 ruling, justices sided with a Missouri man who had been subjected to a blood test without a warrant and was found to have nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood is generally not sufficient reason to dispense with the requirement that police get a judge’s approval before drawing a blood sample.
The case stemmed from the Oct. 3, 2010, arrest of Tyler McNeely in rural Cape Girardeau County.
A state trooper stopped McNeely after he observed his car speeding and swerving. McNeely, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body. He also failed several field sobriety tests.
The arresting officer, Cpl. Mark Winder of the Missouri Highway Patrol, said McNeely’s speech was slurred.
Winder did not attempt to get a warrant but drove McNeely to a hospital, where a technician drew his blood. McNeely’s blood alcohol content was 0.154 percent, well above the 0.08 percent legal limit.
After a circuit court threw out the test results, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld that action, saying that the blood test violated the Constitution. Police need a warrant to take a suspect’s blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence, the Missouri court added.
About half the states already prohibit warrant-less blood tests in all or most suspected drunken-driving cases.
Bonney, of the local ACLU office, filed a brief with the Missouri Supreme Court on the McNeely case. McNeely’s lawyer then asked the ACLU to argue Missouri v. McNeely before the Supreme Court. Steve Shapiro, the organization’s national legal director, did so in January, and Bonney attended the arguments.
Zahnd, meanwhile, is continuing on other fronts with efforts to expedite evidence-gathering in possible drunken-driving cases.
The Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, he said, is supporting House Bill 461, pending legislation that would add a subsection to the state’s evidence-tampering statute saying that a suspected drunk driver who refuses to provide a breath or blood sample would be charged with that offense.