San Francisco...dirty cops accused of illegal searches! I witnessed Rights Violations!



Officials are alleging that San Francisco Police Officers engaged in illegal search and seizures - and falsified reports to back up their cavalier law enforcement procedures - which were in direct violation of individuals rights.

In support of their accusations, investigators have offered up videos to back up the damning claims.

For example, footage captured by hallway surveillance cameras show that during the searches, Officers had a master key - and in one case quickly used it to open up the door - so four officers could rush in and grab a suspect who was quickly dragged into the hall and handcuffed.

In their defense, the Officers in question have asserted that they were led to the suspect apartments by virtue of  legitimate tips (by snitches?).

Although they did not secure search warrants, the rogue cops have sworn up-and-down, that they followed constitutional requirements by getting consent before entering said premises in order to search the rooms.

I personally witnessed this kind of  illegal conduct by the San Francisco Police Department in the recent past.

A few months ago, I was staying at a small Hotel in the North Beach area, when I overheard a commotion in the hallway.

I put my ear to the door, and overheard a couple of males (who identified themselves as San Francisco Police Officers) bang on doors with their fists, and demand that tenants open up.

Through an open window, I also overheard a curious conversation between two guests in the quaint little Hotel.

"Did they ask to see your identification," one shaken tourist grumbled to his friend.

If there was no answer at a door, San Francisco's finest moved on down the hall at random, to the next.

I immediately turned down the volume on my TV and sat quietly on my bed for a second or two.

Sure enough, they pounded on my door, too.

So, I made like the room was empty, and ignored their request to open the door.

Wouldn't you?

After all, I was keenly aware that the San Francisco cops were flagrantly violating the letter of the law under color of authority.

At this juncture, a full investigation has been requested by City Officials, fortunately.

"Perjury is a crime...a felony...and so is filing a false police report," public defender Jeff Adachi, noted for the record.

"The integrity of the criminal justice system is in question.  If you can't trust what a police office testifies to, it calls into question what they're doing out there.

Amen!

Adachi said it would be appropriate for an independent agency to get involved because the District Attorney - George Garcon - whose office would decide if criminal charges should be filed against the officers was Police Chief when the searches took place.

"That creates an obvious conflict of interest," Adachi concluded.

Although Gascon has opened up an investigation to determine whether there was any criminal wrongdoing on the part of the officers, he has scoffed at the notion that the matter be handed over to an outside agency.

And so, the corruption continues, in my estimation!

http://www.thetattler.biz



Fairy Tale notions about San Francisco!

Proposition 8...court flip-flops! 9th Circuit to hear appeal on gay marriage ban!

 

"Stays" and being misunderstood at the altar!

There they go again!

In response to a petition to "stay" gay marriages (in California) pending a review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Justices in the higher court with appropriate jurisdiction have put an indefinite "hold" on the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker who "lifted the ban" last week.

Confused yet?

In a nutshell, no gay man or woman will be able to trot down the aisle with City Hall's blessing, until all the appeals have been exhausted, or one of the parties has tossed the towel into the ring disgusted.

The decision - issued by a three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (on occasion nine- member panels may be petitioned to preside over appellate court proceedings) - effectively sets aside Walker's prior ruling which would have allowed same-sex marriages to continue at the stroke of midnight on August 18th (2010).

In a  precise two-page order granting the stay, the Justices noted their intention to expedite the proceedings, which will focus on Proposition 8 and Judge Walker's findings.

In what amounts to a break in normal scheduling, the Justices have announced through a court-house spokesperson, that the controversial case will be heard the week of Dec. 6th (2010).

To avoid any possible hint of impropriety - or scandal - a second panel (consisting of three Justices) will be installed to preside over the legal proceedings.

"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," beamed Ted Boutrous, who is a member of the plaintiffs' legal team.

To catch up on all the proceedings to date, follow the links below.

Post: 08/13/10

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/08/proposition-8us-judge-stays-ban-on-gay.html

Post: 08/05/10

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/08/proposition-8judge-overurns-ban-on-gay.html

Currently, same-sex couples can legally tie-the-knot in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

Stay posted!

9th Circuit Justice got caught with Porno on laptop!

(Alex Kozinski)

http://www.julianayrs.com/

Mojave Cross...War Memorial site desecrated! Historical landmark stolen!

Someone obviously wasn’t pleased with the legal outcome.

Or, maybe it was just a random act of vandalism.

To most, it was a disrespectful slap at millions of Veterans it stood in honor of.

Of course, I am referring to the Mojave Cross which stood in the desert for decades braving the elements out of harm’s way - until persons unknown under the cover of night - desecrated the War memorial and made off with the coveted cross.

The Memorial became the subject of controversy and legal wrangling in the courts when activists filed a suit for a court order to remove the religious symbol on Constitutional grounds.

The briefs hinged on the issue of separation of Church and State.

The controversial litigation - which I avidly followed for the past couple of years in the local and national media (being a Christian and all) - raised the ire of the multitudes far-and-wide this way ‘n that.

The U.S. Supreme Court finally rendered a ruling recently that - ultimately - was a squeaker.

By a 5-4 vote, the Justices reversed the lower court ruling in California, that ordered the U.S. Park service remove the cross.

On  behalf of the court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy underscored that the 1st Amendment calls for a middle ground policy accommodation toward religious displays on public ground (and  not a total ban on a symbol of faith).

In a nutshell, the court found that the 1st Amendment does not require the eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm.

End of story?

Liberty Institute, an organization representing the Veterans,  has offered a $25,000 dollar reward for information leading to an arrest or conviction of the culprit(s).

The group has vowed to build a bigger and better Memorial Cross at the site.

“We’ll show them,” vowed caretaker Henry Sandoz.

God willing!

 

 

http://www.thetattler.biz

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act...signed into law by Barack Obama!

Just moments ago, President Barack Obama signed his first bill into law.

With a brief flourish of his pen (he's left-handed, by the way) Mr. Obama affixed his signature to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill, then passed off the keepsake to Ledbetter as a posse of Government Officials nodded approval on the sidelines.

The President noted that it was a historic moment.

"I sign the Fair Pay Bill in honor of Lilly Ledbetter and those who came before her."

With that, he added that new life had been breathed into a Constitution signed over two hundred years ago, which now guarantees an end to discrimination in the workplace.

Ledbetter - a seventy-year-old grandmother - worked for the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in Gadsden (Alabama) from 1979 to 1998.

As she was nearing retirement, she received an anonymous tip that she was being paid less than male colleagues performing the same tasks in the workplace.

On the heels of the revelation, Ledbetter filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which makes it illegal to discriminate in paying wages based on race, gender, national origin and religion.

A jury initially awarded the Goodyear employee more than $3 million in back pay and punitive damages which was later reduced to $300,000.00 by a Judge presiding over the controversial case.

Finding fault with the lower court's ruling, Ms. Ledbetter and her lawyers appealed all the way to the the Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 ruling in May 2007, the Justices threw out Ledbetter's complaint, saying she was required to bring suit within 180 days of the initial act of discrimination even though she was not aware at the time that she was receiving less than her male colleagues.

In their landmark ruling, the court underscored though, that the 180-day statute of limitations is extended every time an employer violates the law by issuing a paycheck or engages in other practices that discriminate.

For example, if an employee alleges that she received a salary a couple of decades ago that was less than that of male co-workers because of discrimination, each new paycheck since that occurrence would be a new unlawful employment practice that resets the statute of limitations.

The bill, now in effect as a matter of law, is intended to ensure equal pay for women in the workplace henceforth.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill retains current limits on employer liability by restricting back-pay awards to two years, however.

http://www.julianayrs.com

Ron Paul...snubbed by Fox TV, why? Dangerous views!

Well, jovial Ron Paul - with all the bedside manner of a country doctor - has been poppin' up on the boob tube, here and there, over the past couple of days expounding his - um - views.

On the Tonight Show the other night, Jay noted that the reason he invited Paul on as a guest, was due to an incident which occurred in recent days.

"Seems to me, you should be kicking some a**," Leno joked.

Of course, as Joe Public is undoubtedly aware, Fox TV snubbed Mr. Paul when they refused to allow him to participate in the Republican debates this past weekend.

An irate caller, on a popular talk show angrily lamented, "...it's the fault of the mainstream media. They always ignore Mr. Paul."

I'll admit, few outlets reported the news of the rejection at Fox, in spite of the fact it was newsworthy.

So, protesters gathered outside Fox, to stand by their man.

"Fox said it was because the table wasn't big enough," one angry supported snarled, then he gave a look into the camera, as if to say, "...and, I was born yesterday."

Surely, if Fox was unable to afford adequate furnishings for the debate, Mr. Paul and his generous supporters would have coughed up some dough for a custom-made conference table, capable of accommodating all the candidates interested in participating.

When Leno asked - "Why the rejection?" - at first, Mr. Paul shrugged.

Heh, the man's a gentleman; it's doubtful he'd sling mud, right?

With a little coaxing and cajoling from Leno, he relented - alleging in the final analysis - that it was because his views opposed "theirs".

"They're supporting another party," he grinned, with a wink to the audience.

Well, at this juncture, I guess it's time for me to step up to the plate!

This past summer, I penned a blog, which was featured on a Fox TV Web site for the filmmakers' TV reality show, "On the Lot".

Daily, I took potshots at all the candidates; after all, each was fair game to me.

In spite of my vitriolic barbs, aimed at their candidates, no "giant hand" ever stretched down from on high at the corporate offices to silence me, nor was there any attempt by management at the TV Station, to throw a monkey-wrench into my blog postings, or censor my material.

Who knows, maybe Rupert Murdoch just likes me?

Some argue that Fox rejected Paul because his views are too controversial, too dangerous. Is that it, then?

Well, he does allege the "Shaw of Iran" was put into power by the CIA.

And, the underdog candidate argues that the reason terrorists are engaging in their violent, despicable acts, is easy to fathom. Huh?

In sum, Paul takes the simplistic position that, "Terrorists don't like the U.S. occupying their country." That's why they engage in terrorist acts, he alleges.

"Would the citizens of the United States like it if their country was occupied?"

Good point.

But, his reasoning may be off the mark.

After all, I recall that Osama bin Laden has criticized the North American ethic, and also expressed his distaste for "consumer" consciousness and its excesses.

And, there is the issue of Allah.

I am inclined to concur from his stance, the very thought of our existence, has rankled bin Laden and his gang of extremists no end.

I am willing to bet that bin Laden perceives Americans as mere pests, a scourge upon the earth, to be exterminated!

In view of this, I am inclined to take the position that the extremists are a real threat, to be reckoned with.

Suicide bombers - for one - underscore the severity of the situation; the practice clearly establishes that the "enemy" has a completely different mindset which is dangerous.

Who do you know in Norh America that would strap a bomb on their body, and die for a cause - in the name of one God, country, Jesus, John Smith, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, or Mickey Mouse?

When asked what was wrong with U.S., Paul reacted without hesitation, "We're broke, and we're printing too much paper money".

Jay joked on the heels of this comment, "What's wrong with that?"

Well, it was evident at this point, that Mr. Leno is oblivious to the basics of economics, the function of the U.S Treasury, how inflation occurs, and why the dollar becomes devalued.

Curiously, when Leno asked the Republican candidate who he'd choose as a running mate, in the event he broke on through, he chortled, "Anyone who agrees with me!

At this point, he chastised his opponents, and their rant for "change".

"There would not be any need for war or change, if they read the Constitution and followed it," he opined, to loud cheers from the audience.

Good luck, on the campaign trail, Mr. Paul.

I wish it was all that easy.

Patriot Act...U.S. to appeal court ruling!

Last month, a Federal Judge in Oregon struck down key portions of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional.

Judge Ann Aiken, of the Oregon Federal District Court, ruled that two provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended by the Patriot Act, are unconstitutional because they violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken noted that the act cannot be used to authorize secret searches and wiretapping to gather criminal evidence - instead of intelligence gathering - without violating the 4th Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

"FISA permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment", she ruled.

The 4th Amendment stipulates as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

She also noted that,

"For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law, with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."

She added that the Supreme Court cautioned, as follows:

"The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society."

The legal issue arose because of a lawsuit filed by Brandon Mayfield, a Portland lawyer, whose home and office were secretly searched and bugged after the FBI misidentified a fingerprint in the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The FBI apologized, and the suit was settled in Mr. Mayfield's favor, for an out-of-court settlement of $2 million.

But the illegality of the FBI's conduct is still at issue.

Lawyers for the Government have announced an appeal will be lodged in respect to Judge Aiken's findings, and subsequent ruling, which puts a major dent in FISA and the Patriot Act.