US Border Patrol Agent Shot Across Border And Killed Teen Who Threw Rocks – Child Was Hit By 7 Bullets And Died On Sidewalk Just Across Arizona/Mexico Border

October 13, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – A teenage boy apparently killed this week by a U.S. Border Patrol agent was hit seven times by gunfire and died on a sidewalk just across the Arizona-Mexico border, a mayor in Mexico said Friday.

“It was a burst of gunfire,” Nogales Mayor Ramon Guzman Munoz told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “It was a hail of bullets.”

Guzman called the episode “deplorable” and urged a thorough investigation by both U.S. and Mexican authorities.

Meanwhile, the Border Patrol had not yet confirmed anyone was struck by the agent’s bullets, only that “it appeared someone had been hit,” agency spokesman Victor Brabble said Friday.

The Border Patrol said several agents responded Wednesday night to reports of suspected drug smugglers in Nogales, Ariz. The agents watched two people abandon a load of narcotics, then run back to Mexico, according to the Border Patrol. They were then pelted by rocks thrown from across the border. The agency said the people ignored orders to stop, and an agent open fire.

The Sonora state attorney general’s office in Mexico said in a statement Thursday that Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, from Nogales, Sonora, was found dead at the border from gunshot wounds about midnight Wednesday.

However, the office didn’t definitively confirm the boy had been shot by the Border Patrol, only noting that police received reports of gunshots, then found his body on a sidewalk near the border barrier.

A Mexican official with direct knowledge of the investigation confirmed the boy was shot by the agent, and said authorities were meeting Friday in Mexico City to discuss the case. The person also said the teenager had been shot multiple times in the back. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not yet authorized to discuss details of the case.

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department issued a statement Thursday saying it “forcefully condemned” the shooting and calling such deaths “a serious bilateral problem.”

Border agents are generally allowed to use lethal force against rock throwers, and there are several ongoing investigations into similar shootings in Arizona and Texas.

Appeared Here


US Border Patrol Agent Shot Across Border To Kill Teen Boy In Mexico Who Threw A Rock Into US

October 12, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – A U.S. Border Patrol agent opened fire on a group of people throwing rocks from across the Mexican border, killing a teenage boy and eliciting outrage from the Mexican government over the use of lethal force, authorities said Thursday.

The agents in Nogales, Ariz., had responded to reports of two suspected drugs smugglers near the border at about 11:30 p.m. Wednesday. The agents watched the two abandon a load of narcotics, then run back to Mexico, according to the Border Patrol.

As the agents approached to investigate, people on the Mexican side of the border began throwing rocks at them and ignored orders to stop, the agency said.

One agent opened fire. A Mexican official with direct knowledge of the investigation said Thursday a 16-year-old boy was killed in the shooting. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not yet authorized to discuss details of the case.

The Sonora state attorney general’s office in Mexico said in a statement Thursday that Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, from Nogales, Sonora, was found dead at the border from gunshot wounds about midnight Wednesday.

However, the office didn’t definitively confirm the boy had been shot by the agent, only noting that police received reports of gunshots, then found his body on a sidewalk near the border barrier.

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department issued a statement later saying it “forcefully condemned” the shooting and calling such deaths “a serious bilateral problem.”

“The disproportionate use of lethal force during immigration control actions is unacceptable under any circumstances. The repeated nature of this type of cases has drawn a reaction of rejection from Mexican society and all of the country’s political forces.”

The department said it had asked U.S. authorities for a “exhaustive, transparent and timely investigation” of the shooting.

The Border Patrol declined to comment further and would only say in a statement that one person “appeared to have been” shot by the agent. The FBI was investigating.

Ricardo Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, said in a statement that Mexican authorities will also investigate.

Border agents are generally allowed to use lethal force against rock throwers.

In 2010, a 15-year-old boy was shot and killed by a Border Patrol agent firing his weapon from El Paso, Texas, into Juarez, Mexico. Some witnesses said people on the Mexican side of the river, including the teen, were throwing rocks at the agent as he tried to arrest an illegal immigrant crossing the Rio Grande.

A federal judge in El Paso last year dismissed a lawsuit by the family of the boy because the teen was on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande when he was shot. U.S. law gives the government immunity when such claims arise in a foreign country, the judge noted.

A U.S. Department of Justice investigation, which included interviews with more than 25 civilian and law-enforcement witnesses, determined no federal civil rights charges could be pursued because “accident, mistake, misperception, negligence and bad judgment were not sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation.”

In 2011, a Border Patrol agent shot and killed a man climbing a fence along the Arizona-Mexico. Cochise County sheriff’s investigators said at the time there was no indication the 19-year-old assaulted or tried to assault the agent when he was shot three times in the back while climbing a ladder trying to cross the border back into Mexico.

Investigators later found 48 pounds of marijuana in the back of the man’s truck. An investigation into the shooting is ongoing.

Another investigation also remains active into a shooting last month by an agent patrolling the Rio Grande.

The Border Patrol said agents were aboard a boat near Laredo, Texas, when a group of people began throwing rocks at them. One of the agents fired shots across the border toward Nuevo Laredo. The agency said it wasn’t clear whether anyone had been hit by bullets, but Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department issued a statement saying a Mexican citizen had been fatally shot.

Appeared Here


Fatal Shooting Of Arizona US Border Patrol Agent And Wounding Of Another Said To Be “Friendly Fire”

October 5, 2012

ARIZONA – This week’s fatal shooting of a U.S. Border Patrol agent and the wounding of another in Arizona was likely the result of friendly fire, the FBI said late Friday.

“While it is important to emphasize that the FBI’s investigation is actively continuing, there are strong preliminary indications that the death of United States Border Patrol Agent Nicholas J. Ivie, 30, and the injury to a second agent was the result of an accidental shooting incident involving only the agents,” James Turgal, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Phoenix division, said in a statement.

“At the appropriate time further information will be provided, but while the investigation continues it would be inappropriate to comment any further at this time,” he said.

Earlier, a law enforcement official said investigators at the scene had not found shell casings except those believed to have been fired by the Border Patrol agents.

Investigators are awaiting results of ballistics tests, said the official, who was not authorized to speak for attribution about the investigation.

“We have much to learn and conclude from this incident, and I ask for the public’s patience and understanding during this difficult time,” Jeff Self, commander of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Arizona field joint command, told reporters late Friday.

He remembered Ivie for his character, kindness and loyalty.

“Agent Ivie gave the ultimate sacrifice and died serving his country. … He died in the line of duty and will be honored as such for his final act of service,” said Self.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano traveled to Arizona on Friday to express her condolences to the fallen agent’s family and to meet with local officials.

“This tragedy reminds us of the risks our men and women confront, the dangers they willingly undertake, while protecting our nation’s borders,” she said. “Together, we stand in solidarity with their families and friends, and pray for the continued safety of all who serve our country.”

Napolitano was in Arizona one day after Mexican authorities questioned two men in connection with the shooting near the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Mexican army handed the two over to local authorities in Sonora and they were being detained near the American border, the Mexican attorney general’s office said Thursday. The two were in possession of drugs and guns when they were detained, said a source in the same office.

Ivie, a Provo, Utah, native who joined the Border Patrol in January 2008, is survived by his wife and two young children.

He was killed near a border station recently named for Brian Terry, whose 2010 death led to the public disclosure of the botched Fast and Furious gun-smuggling sting.

Ivie was the 14th agent killed in the line of duty since 2008, including three this year.

The agent who was wounded has not been identified. After the shooting, he was airlifted to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, and later released.

Appeared Here


US Begins To FLY Wetbacks Home To Mexico – Illegal Immigrants Previously Bussed To Mexican Border Towns, Now Thousands – Many Of Them Criminals, Will Be Flown In Luxury To Mexico City At US Taxpayer Expense

October 4, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. government began flying Mexican deportees home on Tuesday in a two-month experiment aimed at relieving Mexican border cities overwhelmed by large numbers of people ordered to leave the United States, some who fall prey to criminal gangs.

The flights will run twice a week from El Paso, Texas, to Mexico City until Nov. 29, at which time both governments will evaluate the results and decide whether to continue. The first flight left Tuesday with 131 Mexicans aboard.

The flights are not voluntary, unlike a previous effort from 2004 to 2011 to deport Mexicans arrested by the Border Patrol during Arizona’s deadly summer heat. The U.S. government will pay for the flights, and the Mexican government will pay to return people from Mexico City to their hometowns.

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Secretary said late Tuesday that more than 2,400 passengers will be flown to Mexico City during the next two months. Mexicans from the country’s northern border states are not eligible.

The experiment comes as Mexican cities along the U.S. border are grappling with large numbers of deportees who have no roots, few job prospects and sometimes limited Spanish. Many are deported to cities that are among the hardest hit by organized crime in Mexico, particularly across the border from Texas in the state of Tamaulipas.

“The newly repatriated, often with no means to return home, are susceptible to becoming part of criminal organizations as a means of survival,” Gustavo Mohar, Mexico’s interior undersecretary for population, migration and religious affairs, said in a statement released by ICE.

ICE Director John Morton said the flights “will better ensure that individuals repatriated to Mexico are removed in circumstances that are safe and controlled.”

ICE, which is managing the flights, said passengers will include Mexicans with criminal convictions in the United States and those who don’t have any. They will be taken from throughout the United States to a processing center in Chaparral, N.M., before being put on flights at El Paso International Airport.

President Barack Obama’s administration has made migrants with criminal convictions a top priority among the roughly 400,000 people of all nationalities who are deported each year. The Department of Homeland Security said nearly half of the 293,966 Mexicans deported in its last fiscal year had criminal convictions in the United States.

The policy has fueled concern in Mexican cities along the U.S. border that deportees are being victimized, turn to petty crime or are recruited by criminal gangs. In February, Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Mexican Interior Secretary Alejandro Poire announced plans for a pilot program, which was to begin April 1, but negotiations delayed the start until Tuesday. Homeland Security officials said the time was needed considering the complexities and logistics of the effort.

The Border Patrol will not participate in the flights, which is called the Interior Repatriation Initiative, said ICE spokeswoman Nicole Navas.

Under a previous effort, some Mexicans who were arrested by the Border Patrol in Arizona’s stifling summer heat were offered a free flight to Mexico City, but they could refuse. The Mexican Interior Repatriation Program flights carried 125,164 passengers at a cost of $90.6 million from 2004 to 2011, or an average of $724 for each passenger, according to ICE.

The flights became a key piece of Border Patrol enforcement in Arizona as the agency moved to end its decades-old, revolving-door policy of taking migrants to the nearest border crossing to try again hours later.

Doris Meissner, who headed the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in the 1990s, said the pilot program was an encouraging sign that that two governments are working together to address the large number of deportees in Mexico’s northern border cities.

“It makes it less likely these people will try to renter the U.S. … and it creates some chance that they are in an environment where they actually have some ties,” she said.

Appeared Here


Hundreds Of Thousands American Veterans Still Waiting For Health Benefits

September 30, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Mike Rioux can’t go to the grocery store without making a list, even for a single item.

He can’t drive without gripping the steering wheel so hard his knuckles turn white. And he can’t stand any longer than 30 minutes because of severe back pain.

This is Rioux’s life after Afghanistan, where firefights and a roadside bomb blast left him with a traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.

His ears still ring from the explosions. He suffers from vertigo, headaches, insomnia and nightmares. He has terrible anxiety, evident in an interview with CNN — Rioux could hardly sit still, and his memory loss and inability to concentrate meant questions had to be repeated at times.
Read the rest of this entry »


Phoenix Arizona National Memorial Cemetery Workers Tell Visitors To Buy Dollar Store Flowers That Thieves Won’t Want To Steal – No Fences, Limited Surveillance, And No Permanent Security At Site

September 23, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Twice a month, Margo Dorrough places silk flowers beneath her husband’s marker at the Phoenix National Memorial Cemetery.

She fusses over the arrangements, choosing flowers that her husband would have liked, carefully securing them to containers that are planted into the ground.

Unlike real flowers, the silk ones don’t quickly lose their luster; the bright, cheerful colors offer a vibrant challenge to the austere desertscape of the cemetery where 57,000 service members are laid to rest.

But Dorrough said the flowers have attracted the attention of thieves along with visitors. After two of her arrangements disappeared in the past few months, she said cemetery staff warned her that flowers were being stolen from grave sites.

Dorrough, 63, said staff members advised her to buy cheaper flowers in order to dissuade thieves from taking them, possibly to resell them online.

“When I called to complain, (a staff member) said I should buy flowers at the Dollar Store, to buy something that somebody won’t want to steal,” Dorrough said. “I was aghast.”
Read the rest of this entry »


Glendale Arizona Desert Sage Elementary School Features 5×6′ Padded Prison Cell For Students

September 20, 2012

GLENDALE, ARIZONA — The Deer Valley Unified School District calls it a cool-down room. But Leslie Noyes calls it a prison cell.

“It’s like five by six, padded walls, no windows. It is definitely like a cell,” Noyes told 3TV when we sat down in her Glendale home.

“He was put in a cool down room,” Noyes said of her son. “And he asked to leave to use the restroom. They said no and he held it as long as he could and ended up wetting himself.”

Leslie and Eric Noyes have filed a lawsuit for an unspecified amount against the district because they say their son – then seven years old – suffered emotional and physical injuries after being restrained and secluded in this room at Desert Sage Elementary School.

“The seclusion room is something we didn’t know about. We feel they kept it from us until we discovered it by accident,” Noyes said.

She tells 3TV that she received a call that her son was acting up but she claims no one told her he was placed in seclusion. Noyes said she went to the school to see what was going on and that’s when she found out about this room.

Their son was having ongoing behavior issues at Desert Sage – the family says brought on by intense food allergies.

“He will become fidgety, he can’t stand still,” said Noyes.

Using seclusion rooms is perfectly legal in Arizona. Each school district determines its own policies.

3TV obtained a copy of Deer Valley’s policy and it says, in part:

If seclusion is necessary, parents and administrators must be notified within the same school day and a written notice that includes the circumstances that preceded the behavior, the behavior, the length of time the student was secluded, the location of the seclusion and the person who observed the student during the seclusion must follow. When a student has been in seclusion for longer than one hour, parent contact must be initiated immediately.

The Noyes’ attorney, Hope Kirsch, said that policy was not followed.

“Even though Deer Valley has a restraint and seclusion policy, they were not complying with it and the only thing districts understand is a lawsuit,” Kirsch said.

Because of this legal action, the school district said it cannot comment on the allegations.

“Restraint and seclusion is an overwhelming problem,” Kirsch said. “We are looking to make this district and all districts in Arizona aware that you cannot lock children in rooms. There has to be something to address their behaviors.”

3TV reached out to numerous sources including several teachers and the Department of Education. They tell us it is not unusual for schools to have cool-down or time out rooms.

Arizona is one of six states with no law about seclusion or restraint.

Congress is now looking at this issue to determine if more oversight is needed.

Appeared Here


Veteran Glendale Arizona Police Officer Lt. Rachael Bousman Arrested, Suspended, And Charged With Drunk Driving

September 18, 2012

GLENDALE, ARIZONA – Friday, a Glendale Police lieutenant has been cited for DUI.

Rachael Bousman, age 39, was cited and released.

Phoenix Police responded to a call about an impaired driver about 1:15 a.m. Friday, in the area of 7th Ave and Bethany Home Road.

A witness reported a single vehicle accident with a car stuck on a parking block, according to Phoenix Police.

Police had probable cause to determine the driver was impaired. Bousman’s blood was drawn and she was processed for DUI. BAC results are pending.

“The message here is very clear, we are going to enforce DUI equally here in the city of Phoenix, it doesn’t matter who it is,” said Phoenix Police Sgt. Trent Crump.

“It is difficult to cite and arrest your own, but it is what’s expected from us as an organization and it is what the residents of Phoenix expect from us.”

Glendale Police Sgt. Brent Coombs says Bousman is currently on paid administrative leave. She has been with the Glendale Police Department for 14 years.

If convicted, she faces anywhere between 10 and 90 days in jail plus fines.

Appeared Here


Pedophile Arizona Department Of Public Safety Police Officer James Howard Does The Right Thing – Shoots And Kills Himself

September 18, 2012

YUMA, ARIZONA – Sheriff’s officials in Yuma County say a veteran Arizona Department of Public Safety officer has apparently committed suicide shortly after he was questioned as a suspect in a child molestation case.

Sheriff’s Capt. Eben Bratcher says the body of DPS officer James Howard was found Wednesday afternoon just hours after he was questioned at his home in the eastern Yuma County community of Roll. Howard’s body was found at an area shooting range dead of a gunshot wound to the head.

Bratcher said Friday an adult woman contacted deputies early last month and reported she was molested by Howard when she was a child more than 20 years ago.

Deputies served a search warrant at Howard’s home Wednesday morning and questioned but did not arrest him in the case.

Appeared Here


Nutcase Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Department Falsified Evidence, Killed Diabetic Woman By Denying Her Insulin And Medical Care – Deputies Told Victim “This Is Jail. Get Over It.”

September 15, 2012

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA – Readers, please add Maricopa County, Arizona to your mental list of places not to get arrested in. Yes, white people, even you.

Deborah Braillard, age 46, was arrested and booked on a minor drug possession charge in January of 2005. Despite being a diabetic, Braillard was not given insulin or any other medication or medical care for four full days, until she was eventually brought to the hospital in a diabetic coma. She died 18 days later of complications from diabetes, and her family’s civil suit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is now proceeding at trial.

According to the pretrial deposition testimony of the guards and inmates who witnessed the incident, Braillard was constantly moaning and crying out in pain, asking for help, repeatedly vomiting, defecating on herself and having seizures.

“She would shake. Her body would stiffen up,” said Tamela Harper, an inmate in the jail with Braillard. “They never did anything to help her.”

Inmates testified that they begged officers to do something, but apparently prison guards in Maricopa County consider seizures, repeated vomiting, and pooping oneself simply part of the whole prison experience. Harper testified the prisoners alerted the guards to Braillard’s worsening condition, but the guards responded:

“’There’s nothing we can do about it. You just have to deal with it. This is jail. Get over it.”’

Harper added that officers said Braillard was “kicking drugs” and that she was “getting what she deserved.“

On Thursday, plaintiffs’ counsel called Dr. Todd Wilcox, a nationally renowned expert on correctional medical care and services, to testify against his former employer, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. (He eventually quit his job after he became so frustrated with the Sheriff’s Office’s unwillingness to improve training, conditions and access to medical care for inmates and detainees.) Wilcox told the jury that the Sheriff’s Office fostered a culture of deliberate indifference and secrecy.

In this instance, Wilcox testified the medical screening document that should have been created when Braillard was booked into the jail was missing. At trial, the Sheriff’s Office produced a document indicating that Braillard had — for some unknown reason — told jail staff during intake that she was not diabetic. However, the document is dated three days after the intake took place and hours after Braillard had already been rushed to the hospital in an irreversible diabetic coma. The family’s lawyers say the document is a fake. Wilcox explained this sort of thing is not unusual on Sheriff Joe’s watch:

“Many mysterious things happen on the Sheriff’s computer network… I remember going to lunch one day and coming back with my sandwich to find somebody controlling my mouse remotely and locating folders and documents.”

On a related note, Sheriff Joe is up for reelection this year, and he has already raised over $4 million for his campaign — a pretty obscene amount for a local sheriff’s war chest. The vast majority of donations are coming from out-of-state.
/
Speaking of which… oh, hey, look what we found!! The campaign sites of Sheriff Arpaio’s opponents in the upcoming election, Paul Penzone (D) and Michael Stauffer (I). Go make a donation. (For the record, The Daily Dolt has no association with Arpaio, Penzone, or Stauffer. We’re just providing the links because we think Sheriff Joe is a dick.)

Appeared Here


Mesa Arizona Officals Pissing Away Taxpayer Funds Fighting To Keep Tattoo Parlors From Opening In City – State Supreme Court Says Tattooing Is A Form Of Free Speech Under US And State Constitutions

September 8, 2012

MESA, ARIZONA – The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday that tattooing is a form of free speech with full protection under the U.S. and state constitutions — the first such decision by any state high court in the country.

The unanimous ruling, however, stopped short of saying Mesa was out of bounds when its City Council denied permission for a tattoo parlor to open in March 2009.

That must now be decided in Maricopa County Superior Court, where a judge initially rejected a lawsuit filed by tattoo artists Ryan and Laetitia Coleman.

The trial would pit tattoo artists’ First Amendment rights against a city’s authority to regulate even businesses that engage in constitutionally protected speech.

“This is a big win for the little guys,” said Clint Bolick, a Goldwater Institute lawyer representing the Colemans. “This is an important ruling in favor of entrepreneurs who wanted to establish a business in Mesa and found the ground constantly shifting beneath their feet.”

Bolick said the ruling sets a national precedent for an issue on which courts at various levels have offered widely diverging opinions.

“This is the first state supreme court in the country to rule that tattooing is a form of protected speech,” Bolick said. “That’s very significant. … We now know that in Arizona tattooing is a protected form of free speech, and that’s a victory for freedom.”

Mesa City Attorney Debbie Spinner said the city was disappointed by the ruling.

But she added that the ruling at least clarified the grounds on which the lower court can rule.

The Colemans, who live in Nice, France, had sought permission to open Angel Tattoo in a strip mall in southwest Mesa’s Dobson Ranch, one of the first large master-planned communities in the Valley. They already had rented space and agreed to several restrictions under a so-called “good-neighbor policy.”

But at the council’s March 30, 2009, meeting, people favoring the tattoo parlor were countered by several neighborhood residents who feared the shop would attract unsavory elements.

The council voted 6-1 to deny a license, asserting it had discretion to do so under the city’s use-permit process. Mesa code requires certain kinds of businesses, including tattoo parlors, to receive special council permission even if they meet all other zoning regulations.

Only Mayor Scott Smith voted in favor, saying opponents had not proved their case and that the marketplace would decide whether the business belonged there.

The Colemans filed a civil-rights suit against Mesa, seeking to recover their costs and other unspecified amounts. Mesa, the Colemans said, had violated their rights under the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Larry Grant tossed the lawsuit and said the council vote was “a reasonable and rational regulation of land use.”

The Colemans won the next round, however. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in November that “obtaining a tattoo, applying a tattoo and engaging in the business of tattooing are exercises of free speech entitled to protection as a fundamental right under the Arizona Constitution and the United States Constitution.”

Since the Colemans had met Mesa’s legal requirements, the Appeals Court said the city was not justified in saying no.

Mesa then filed an appeal of its own. Lawyer Scott Holcomb, representing the city during oral arguments in March, said the Appeals Court had overreached.

“Not all regulation of speech gives rise to First Amendment issues,” Holcomb told the Arizona Supreme Court. “All that Mesa is doing is determining, as part of its zoning and land-use regulations, the location of a business.”

Friday’s decision “vacated” the Appeals Court ruling, which means it can’t be used as legal precedent. Some of the grounds for doing so were technical. But the gist of the appeals ruling stands: “Tattooing is protected speech,” the high court ruled.

That means Mesa must prove the council had good reason for denying the parlor permit.

“This is as close to an absolute victory as the Colemans could have gotten from the Arizona Supreme Court,” Bolick said.

Legal rules, he said, prevented an absolute Supreme Court ruling in the Colemans’ favor. “All they could do was to reinstate the case. In the process, the court established what the legal rules are going forward, and under those legal rules, it’s hard to see the city of Mesa prevailing.”

Spinner, however, was optimistic on that point because the council rested its case on strong neighborhood opposition.

“We hope the court is going to agree that the council’s decision was reasonable under the circumstances,” Spinner said.

The council will have to decide whether to further defend the case or whether to seek a settlement.

Bolick hopes Mesa chooses the second option.

“I hope that no further taxpayer money is spent defending the indefensible,” he said.

Appeared Here


Flagstaff Arizona Police Officer Robb Gary Evans Gets A Tiny Slap On The Wrist After Sexually Assaulting Woman At Bar – Sex Offender Won’t Have To Register As Sex Offender – Nutcase Judge Jacqueline Hatch Tells Victim That It She Hadn’t Been In The Bar It Wouldn’t Have Happened To Her

September 7, 2012

Last summer, a drunk Arizona police officer named Robb Gary Evans drove himself to a bar, flashed his badge to avoid paying cover at the door, and then walked up behind a woman, put his hand up her skirt, and ran his fingers over her genitals. A jury convicted him of sexual abuse, a felony with a maximum sentence of 2 and a half years in prison, and Evans was fired from the police force after an internal investigation.

Nevertheless, Arizona trial Judge Jacqueline Hatch, who was appointed to the bench by Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), decided that Evans’ actions did not warrant jail time — sentencing him probation and 100 hours of community service. Evans also will not have to register as a sex offender. Yet, while Judge Hatch apparently did not view the disgraced former cop’s actions as particularly serious, she had some very harsh words for the woman he assaulted:

Bad things can happen in bars, Hatch told the victim, adding that other people might be more intoxicated than she was.

“If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you,” Hatch said.

Hatch told the victim and the defendant that no one would be happy with the sentence she gave, but that finding an appropriate sentence was her duty.

“I hope you look at what you’ve been through and try to take something positive out of it,” Hatch said to the victim in court. “You learned a lesson about friendship and you learned a lesson about vulnerability.”

Hatch said that the victim was not to blame in the case, but that all women must be vigilant against becoming victims.

“When you blame others, you give up your power to change,” Hatch said that her mother used to say.

The victim, who has not been identified by the press, called for Judge Hatch to apologize for her offensive comments, adding that if she had not been at the bar to be assaulted by Evans, “it probably would have happened to someone else.”

Appeared Here


Supreme Court Lays Legal Minefield For Arizona To Inforce Their Immigration Laws – As Federal Government Continues To Refuse To Enforce Current Federal Immigration Laws

September 6, 2012

ARIZONA – More than two years after it was signed into law, the most contentious part of Arizona’s landmark immigration legislation is expected to finally go into effect following a federal court ruling issue late Wednesday.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has laid a legal minefield that Arizona now must navigate when the critical provision takes effect. The clause, one of the few significant ones that the high court left standing in a June ruling, requires all Arizona police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop while enforcing other laws and suspect are in the country illegally.

While preserving that requirement, however, the Supreme Court explicitly left the door open to arguments that the law leads to civil rights violations. Attorneys would need actual victims to make that case.

Civil rights activists are preparing to scour the state for such victims. Lydia Guzman, who runs Respect/Respeto, a Phoenix group that tracks racial profiling, said volunteers at the organization’s call center have already been told to listen for new complaints when the requirement goes into effect.

“We’re watching and we’re looking for cases,” she said.

Barring a successful, emergency challenge of Wednesday’s ruling to an appeals court — an outcome that legal observers believe is unlikely — the requirement is expected to go into effect in the next several days. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton rejected arguments by civil rights attorneys that she should prevent the requirement from kicking in, noting that the Supreme Court had specifically found that the provision should be allowed to become law.

Arizona police were formally trained on how to implement the law shortly after Gov. Jan Brewer signed it in 2010. The heads of some of the state’s biggest law enforcement agencies — the Phoenix and Tucson police departments and the Pima County sheriff’s office — were critical of it but ultimately said they would obey whatever parts the courts found to be constitutional.

“We enforce laws passed by our legislators,” Sgt. Tommy Thompson, a Phoenix Police spokesman, said Wednesday night, noting the requirement still has not gone into effect.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been the most publicly aggressive in pursuing illegal immigrants, said in an interview Wednesday that his deputies already check the immigration status of people they encounter. Arpaio, a supporter of the law, said he expects no differences other than an increased number of lawsuits.

The law’s author, former state Sen. Russell Pearce, said he does not expect sweeping changes in the way local police will conduct themselves once the requirement kicks in.

“I’m not asking for roundups, I’m not asking for anything but paying attention and doing your job,” he said. “It’s not that we want people in jail. We want compliance.”

Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who has followed the two-year legal battle, said Arizona remains in a difficult legal spot.

“If the state’s savvy at all, it’s going to be very cautious” about how it implements the requirement, he said. “To the extent that it’s not, it’s going to be very vulnerable on this.

“Further litigation,” Spiro said, “is imminent.”

Since it overwhelmingly passed Arizona’s Republican-controlled Legislature in 2010, the immigration law has been fiercely challenged in court.

Among its opponents was the Obama administration, which challenged the law based on the argument that federal immigration law trumped Arizona law. The challenge didn’t confront racial profiling, and the administration failed to persuade the nation’s highest court to strike down the questioning requirement.

To the supporters of Arizona’s law, the questioning requirement was the most important part of the statute, whose stated purpose was to reduce the problems associated with illegal immigration through enforcement by the state.

Immigrant rights groups believe the requirement presents the most opportunities for civil rights abuses.

Shortly before the law was to take effect in July 2010, Bolton prevented police from enforcing the questioning requirement and other parts of the statute, ruling the Obama administration would likely succeed in showing federal law trumps the state law.

Brewer appealed the ruling, lost at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and took her case to the Supreme Court.

Less controversial sections of the law have been in effect since late July 2010 but have rarely been used.

Arizona’s law was passed amid voter frustration with the state’s role as the busiest illegal entry point into the country. Five states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — have adopted variations of Arizona’s law.

Brewer’s office said the law is expected to go into effect shortly.

“The courts have now consistently found that the plaintiffs have not met the high bar in arguing this law needs to be enjoined before it’s allowed to take effect,” gubernatorial spokesman Matthew Benson said. “Certainly, Gov. Brewer is pleased with this decision. She believes it’s time SB1070 is implemented and so that we can see how effective this law is in practice.”

Karen Tumlin, an attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, said her office was “considering our legal options” after Bolton’s ruling.

“We were surprised and disappointed,” said Dan Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

Bolton did, however, grant a preliminary injunction against a statute making it illegal to harbor individuals suspected of being in the country illegally.

Guzman, the Arizona civil rights activist, said she expects police to tread cautiously as they implement the requirement.

“They know they’re under the watchful eyes of activists like me, attorneys and even their own departments,” she said.

Appeared Here


Phoenix Arizona Hospital Charges Woman $83,000 For 2 Doses Of Scorpion Anti-Venom That Costs $100 At Mexican Pharmacies

September 5, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – An Arizona woman is wondering what hurt more: getting stung by a scorpion or seeing her hospital bill after treatment.

Marcie Edmonds says the bill from Chandler Regional Medical Center was more than $83,000. That includes two doses of anti-venom at nearly $40,000 per dose.

The Arizona Republic says Edmonds’ insurer has paid more than $57,000 and the suburban Phoenix hospital is asking Edmonds for the balance of about $25,000.

“Everyone I talk to says, ‘You’ve got to be kidding,’” Edmonds told the Republic.

The 52-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident was stung in June while opening a box of air conditioner filters in her garage.

Edmonds says an emergency room doctor told her about the Mexican anti-venom Anascorp that could quickly relieve her symptoms, but she was never told about the cost. The paper reports that the medication is sold for $100 per dose in Mexican pharmacies.

Chandler Regional says Edmonds’ bill represents the out-of-network costs for her treatment.

“We believe no one should delay seeking needed medical care because they lack insurance or have high medical costs,” the hospital told the Republic in a statement.

Appeared Here


Feds Give Up After Pissing Away Tax Dollars Investigating Nutcase Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio

September 1, 2012

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA – The federal government has closed a criminal probe of alleged financial misconduct by Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio, who styles himself as “America’s toughest sheriff,” and no charges will be filed, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said on Friday.

Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio is shown attending Republican National Convention on Wednesday in Tampa, Fla.

A separate federal investigation relating to allegations of civil rights abuses by Arpaio’s office is continuing.

The announcement on Friday marked the end of an investigation that began in November 2010 at the behest of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to examine alleged financial improprieties by the county sheriff and his deputies.

A federal criminal inquiry into several of those matters was concluded last summer with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona declining to initiate criminal charges.

Maricopa County authorities were informed on Friday that federal prosecutors had likewise declined to bring charges in connection with allegations that the sheriff’s office had misused county credit cards or misspent money from jail facilities excise taxes.

In addition, the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute two former officials of the county attorney’s office who were accused of wrongfully prosecuting a local judge.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel said in a statement that her office “is closing its investigation into allegations of criminal conduct by current and former members of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.”

Arpaio, who returned from the Republican National Convention on Friday night, said he was “very happy” with decision.

“I send my appreciation to the federal government for their hard work in clearing my office,” he said in a news briefing.

Arpaio, 80, who is seeking re-election to a sixth term as sheriff in November, has been under a separate federal inquiry since 2008 over allegations that he and his deputies engaged in an extensive pattern of civil rights abuses.

Arpaio denied any wrongdoing, and said he would cooperate with investigators.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel, acting on behalf of the United States due to the recusal of U.S. Attorney John S. Leonardo, commended the joint investigative efforts of the prosecutors and the FBI special agents who conducted the investigation.

Scheel said her office advised Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery of the decision.

Arpaio, first voted into office in 1992, has been elected five times and is seeking a sixth term.

The federal government today sued Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the state’s most populous county, accusing them of racial profiling directed at Latinos. Pete Williams reports.

In July, Arpaio said that volunteer investigators working for him concluded that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is not legitimate.

“At the very least,” he said at a news conference, “I can tell you this, based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic.”

Also in July, Arpaio denied in testimony in a class-action lawsuit that his deputies targeted people because of the color of their skin.

He was testifying whether police can target illegal immigrants without racially profiling Hispanic citizens and legal residents.

“I am against anyone racial profiling … today as in my 50 years in law enforcement,” Arpaio told the court during cross-examination.

Arpaio is also known for outfitting county jail inmates in pink underwear, claiming the pink shorts are less likely to be smuggled out of jail and sold on the black market, and for housing inmates in a Tent City jail in Phoenix, even when Sonoran Desert summer temperatures soar to 115 degrees.

Appeared Here


Arizona Federal Correctional Institution Kitchen Supervisor Carl David Evans Arrested After Three-Way Sex With Two Male Inmates – Paid His Victims With Cigarettes And Food For Oral And Anal Sex

August 31, 2012

ARIZONA – A kitchen supervisor at a federal prison in Arizona was arrested this week after an FBI surveillance camera recorded him engaging in a storage room ménage a trois with two male inmates who told investigators that they received cigarettes in return for participating in such sexual activity, according to court records.

Busted Tuesday, Carl David Evans was charged in a three-count felony complaint filed in U.S. District Court. He is scheduled for a detention hearing later this afternoon.

Evans’s alleged illegal conduct at the medium security Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Phoenix is detailed in a graphic FBI affidavit sworn by Agent Tyler Woods, who reported that prison staffers learned in June that Evans was “engaged in a sexual relationship” with an inmate.

The inmate, identified in the affidavit as “E.D.,” reportedly received tobacco from Evans in return for the sex acts, which occurred in a locked “food storage area of the kitchen.”

In an effort to monitor Evans’s activities, FBI investigators hid a video camera in the kitchen’s storage area and recorded “the entirety of Evans’s eight-hour work shifts” from August 19-23.

When Agent Woods subsequently reviewed the five days worth of video, he discovered footage showing Evans, “E.D.,” and a third inmate, “J.I.,” entering the storage area together last Wednesday afternoon. Both “E.D.” and “J.I.” worked in the kitchen and were supervised by Evans, Woods noted.

After “E.D.” asked the other two men if they were “ready to suck some dick,” Evans locked the door and the trio began engaging in mutual fellatio atop “food sacks.” During the encounter, “Evans can be seen wearing his FCI-Phoenix staff uniform.” Read the rest of this entry »


Pedophile Phoenix Arizona Veteran Police Officer Christopher J. Wilson Arrested And Charged With Sexual Misconduct With Minors – Quit After Arrest For Sex With Young Boys

August 31, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Phoenix police say one of their officers was arrested Tuesday night for sexual misconduct with minors.

Chief Daniel Garcia of Phoenix police identified the officer at a news conference Wednesday morning as 43-year-old Christopher J. Wilson.

A 14-year-old boy told his parents about the allegations of sexual misconduct, Garcia said.

The investigation began when another victim, a 17-year-old boy, contacted police, he said.

The relationship with the 17-year-old lasted three to four months, and the relationship with the 14-year-old was about three weeks long, Garcia said.

Wilson was a community relations officer that worked as a liaison to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.

He was arrested just after 8 p.m. Tuesday at his home without incident.

Wilson admitted to the relationships and resigned, police said.

He was a 13-year veteran.

Chief Garcia said he is “very disturbed” about this incident.

As a liaison for the LGBT community, Wilson worked with several groups in the Valley.

He would be a point of contact for those organizations to share their concerns with.

Brad Wishon, Chair of the the One Voice LGBT Community Center, now worries Wilson’s arrest could cause a backlash against the gay community.

“I think that people find a reason to justify what they’re already feeling and use that to justify acting inappropriately or to attack a community for what one individual does,” Wishon said.

Wishon added he hopes the arrest is not a reflection on the gay community.

“Even though Chris is a gay man that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is an adult who should have known better, did not do better, and as a result two young people are harmed and that’s the real tragedy here,” Wishon said.

Appeared Here


Crazed Phoenix Arizona City Worker Told Group They Couldn’t Hand Out Free Bottled Water Downtown – Threatened With Bogus Citation

August 21, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – The City of Phoenix could face a lawsuit if the city doesn’t apologize to a Valley woman for telling her she could not hand out free bottled water to people in the summer heat.

Dana Crow-Smith said a City of Phoenix worker came up to her during the First Friday festival in downtown Phoenix last month and told her she was violating city code by handing out free water because she did not have a permit.

Crow-Smith and a group of others were there exercising their Christian beliefs by engaging people to talk about religion if they wanted.

The group brought several cases of bottled water to give away in the 112-degree heat, but said a Neighborhood Preservation Inspector told the group they had to stop handing out the water or would be cited.

“It was really hot and yeah we wanted to show God’s love and a small act of kindness is a great way to do that without shoving it down someone’s throat,” said Crow-Smith.

The Rutherford Institute , a non-profit civil liberties organization, stepped in to represent Crow-Smith and calls this is “a violation of Crow-Smith’s First Amendment right to freely exercise her religion, her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act.”

“It is a sad day when local government officials prohibit Americans from such charitable acts as giving water to the thirsty in their city,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

In a letter to the city , Whitehead demanded the City issue a formal, written apology to Crow-Smith, assure her no City officials will interfere in future with her distribution of water, and require City workers go through training on the proper enforcement of the City’s code.

If not, a lawsuit could follow.

A city spokesperson was working on a statement but did not have one ready by the end of the business day Monday.

But Crow-Smith said she hopes to avoid a lawsuit and just wants to be able to hand out water.

“But I don’t think it’s even about religious beliefs. I think anybody should be able to giveaway water on the sidewalk to anybody. It’s hot and it’s a nice thing to do,” said Crow-Smith.

Appeared Here


Arizona Governor Bars Illegal Immigrants From Receiving Public Benefits, Including Driver’s Licenses – Wetbacks Kicked To The Curb, Even Those Applying Under Obama’s Amnesty Reward Program

August 16, 2012

ARIZONA – As young undocumented immigrants on Wednesday celebrated the start of a new federal program allowing them to apply to stay and work temporarily in the United States, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order telling state agencies not to grant driver’s licenses to program participants.

Brewer’s order, issued late in the day, reiterates that state agencies are required to deny licenses and other public benefits to all undocumented immigrants, even those who gain approval under President Barack Obama’s new “deferred action” program.

Wednesday was the first day that as many as 1.76 million undocumented immigrants under the age of 31 nationwide who were brought to this country as minors could begin applying to stay and work in the U.S. for two years. As many as 80,000 in Arizona could be eligible to apply.

Earlier in the day, Maricopa County Community Colleges announced that students who get work authorization through deferred action would be eligible to apply for in-state tuition, but hours later, district officials said they would reconsider the decision because of Brewer’s order.

State law currently requires undocumented immigrants to pay out-of-state tuition, which costs significantly more.

“It’s really, really disappointing,” Dulce Vazquez, 21, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who lives in Phoenix, said about the prospect of still being denied a driver’s license.

About 150 to 200 people, many of them undocumented immigrants, marched to the state Capitol on Wednesday night to protest Brewer’s order.

“She shattered my dreams today,” said Lorenzo Santillan, 24, of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, one of the protesters.

Members of the coalition said Brewer’s order shows the deferred-action program is only a stopgap measure. They said that a more permanent solution is needed, such as the Dream Act, a law that has languished in Congress that would allow undocumented immigrants to eventually gain citizenship if they attended college or joined the military.

“It’s a reality check for everyone who thinks deferred action is the best thing out there,” said Yadira Garcia, 23, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who lives in Phoenix.

Brewer has been sharply critical of Obama’s immigration policies, saying he hasn’t done enough to control illegal immigration or secure the border. She has called the deferred-action program “backdoor amnesty.”

The program has created confusion in many states unsure how to treat undocumented immigrants who receive deferred action.

White House and Department of Homeland Security officials have repeatedly stated that receiving deferred action does not amount to legal residency or a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, only a chance to stay and work in the U.S. temporarily without fear of being deported.

In her executive order, Brewer essentially said that undocumented immigrants granted deferred action will not be recategorized as lawful residents. The order is intended to cut through some confusion created by the president’s program, Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson said.

“As the (DHS) has said repeatedly … these individuals do not have lawful status,” Benson told The Republic. “They are able to remain in the country and not be deported and not be prosecuted, but they do not have lawful status.”

Regina Jefferies, a Phoenix immigration lawyer who chairs the Arizona chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said Brewer’s order contradicts state law.

She said that deferred action existed before the program started on Wednesday and that there are “many, many” instances in Arizona of immigrants granted deferred action for other reasons who have received licenses.

She said Brewer will likely face a lawsuit.

Brewer’s order bars undocumented immigrants who receive deferred action from public benefits that include state-subsidized child care; KidsCare, a children’s health-insurance program; unemployment benefits; business and professional licenses and government contracts, Benson said.

Brewer’s order does not address tuition to community colleges or the state’s universities.

On Wednesday, the Maricopa Community Colleges announced that undocumented immigrants who received work authorization through deferred action would be able to apply for in-state tuition because federal work authorization cards are among the documents that qualify to establish “legal presence” in the state.

But after Brewer’s order, colleges spokesman Tom Gariepy said officials were reconsidering the decision.

Carmen Cornejo of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition said thousands of undocumented immigrants dropped out of college when they were forced to pay out-of-state tuition, which at Maricopa Community Colleges is $317 per credit compared with $76 per credit for in-state students.

Attorneys for the Arizona Board of Regents, the governing body that oversees the three state universities, are still analyzing what effect the deferred action could have on tuition, said Katie Paquet, a regents spokeswoman.

Benson, however, referred to a state law stating that those who are not “a citizen or legal resident of the United States or who is without lawful immigration status is not entitled to classification as an in-state student.”

“It’s illegal,” Benson said. “Any public institution that is seeking to grant in-state tuition to these individuals, should beware: It’s against the law.”

Appeared Here


Innocent American Woman Jailed For 4 1/2 Months Without Bond In Arizona, Suspected Of Being And Illegal Immigrant – Charged With 3 Counts Of Forgery For Using Her Real Name – Officials Never Checked Official Birth Records From The State – Crazed Detective Chris Oberly Lied To Grand Jury Saying Birth Certificate Was Forged And Canceled By The State, Without His Ever Seeing It

August 10, 2012

ARIZONA – Many a dumb redneck has called my voicemail to leave some anonymous anti-Mexican rant and wonder about my use of the word “nativism” to describe the plague of hate that has engulfed this state for several years.

So here’s a definition for the knuckle-draggers, borrowed from American historian John Higham: “[I]ntense opposition to an internal minority on the ground of its foreign (i.e., ‘un-American’) connections.”

It’s a recurring form of bigotry common to the U.S. of A., directed at the ethnicity or nationality of the latest immigrant influx. In 21st-century Arizona, this prejudice is aimed at anyone of Hispanic descent, anyone who might resemble an arrival from Mexico.

Sand Land’s nativism is democratic, with a little “d.” The state’s dominant political party, the GOP, endorses it as tenet of faith. Politicians use it to achieve power. And ugly, xenophobic proposals are codified by popular vote.

One of these grotesque laws enacted by referendum was Proposition 100, an amendment to the state constitution denying bail to those presumed to be in the country illegally, who have committed a “serious felony offense,” defined by the Legislature as a Class 4 felony or above.

In 2006, Prop 100 received a 3-to-1 endorsement by the electorate. Never mind that bail for all but the most serious crimes is a cherished privilege protected by parts of the Arizona and U.S. constitutions.

Nearly 78 percent of Arizona voters decided to junk this legacy and deny bail based on suspicion of undocumented status. That means someone accused of forgery is treated the same way, bail-wise, as Colorado mass murder suspect James Holmes.

Recently, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office alleged Briseira Torres, a shy, 31-year-old single mom from Glendale, was here illegally and that Briseira Torres was not her real name.

She was accused of three counts of forgery, in part because her driver’s license had her real name on it, which the MCAO thought was bogus. Following her arrest, she was held without bond in Estrella Jail for 4 1/2 months.

Torres lost her home and car because she couldn’t make the payments as she endured Estrella’s harsh conditions, lousy food, and detention officers.

Worst of all, she was separated from her 14-year-old daughter, who stayed with Torres’ friend Amy Diaz while her mom was behind bars.

Torres’ eyes well up as she recalls the days her daughter came to visit and had to see Torres in county stripes.

“It was really hard, especially the first time,” Torres tells me in the offices of her attorney, Delia Salvatierra. “She was very sad.”

Torres was released on August 3, after the MCAO was forced to dismiss the case.

Salvatierra, a well-known immigration attorney, along with the aid of criminal attorney Antonio Bustamante and Johnny Sinodis, a counsel in Salvatierra’s office, went to battle on Torres’ behalf.

In the pile of paperwork they provided to the court, to the prosecutor, and to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was a silver bullet: a sworn statement from Arizona’s Office of Vital Records attesting to the legitimacy of documents on file for Torres.

Among these docs is Torres’ birth certificate, showing she was born August 14, 1981, in Avondale.

Salvatierra asked the court to remand the case back to the grand jury.

Judge Carolyn Passamonte did just this, noting in her minute entry that Torres’ long-form birth certificate was “clearly exculpatory evidence that should have been presented to the grand jury.”

The judge remarked that the documents on file with Vital Records had been “available to the state,” and in oral arguments, the prosecutor had to admit that he’d never bothered to pull the file and inspect it.

More troubling still was Passamonte’s observation that the MCAO’s lone witness, Detective Chris Oberly of the Arizona Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General, told the grand jury this:

In 1999, Vital Records discovered that Torres’ birth certificate, in his words, had been “falsely created” by Torres’ mother and so the department “canceled it.”

This was not true, according to Vital Records. Torres’ birth certificate never was canceled and remains as valid as the day it was issued.

Facing a hearing regarding Torres’ bond status that he was bound to lose, Deputy County Attorney Daniel Strange moved to dismiss the case “without prejudice,” meaning he could, hypothetically, bring back the charges at a later date.

By this time, ICE had lifted its immigration hold on Torres, a move that helped force Strange’s hand.

How Oberly, a former ICE agent notorious among certain local immigration attorneys, came to be involved in Torres’ case is a twisted plot that would give Franz Kafka a migraine.

Torres had applied for a passport for her daughter last March. As part of the application, she submitted a valid copy of her birth certificate, reissued by Vital Records.

On March 9, Torres was asked to go to a “satellite passport office,” located, curiously, at the federal courthouse downtown.

She was separated from her pal Diaz, who had accompanied her, and was questioned by six men, including Oberly and Matthew Kelley, a special agent with the State Department.

“I didn’t feel I could leave,” Torres says. “I didn’t feel I could do anything.”

Oberly and the others told Torres her name was Brenda Gomez and that she had been born in Mexico.

“They said, ‘Your mom forged your birth certificate,'” Torres states. “I kept telling them no, that as far as I know, I’m a U.S. citizen.”

See, Torres was sent to live in Mexico when she was 13, where her father referred to her by the name Brenda and apparently registered her under the name Brenda Gomez.

At 15, she had a daughter, who was born in Mexico, and later became a U.S. citizen.

When Torres returned to the United States in 1999, she was stopped at the border and questioned by U.S. immigration officials. She gave them a confused account of her nationality.

Ultimately, Torres’ mom came to the border with her birth certificate, and customs admitted her.

Fast-forward to March: With Oberly bearing down on her, it was like 1999 all over again. Oberly even got her to sign a statement that she’d been Mirandized, in the name “Brenda Gomez.”

He did this after he already had questioned her.

MCAO spokesman Jerry Cobb told me Torres’ charges and detention were “based on her own statements,” regarding her nationality. He blamed defense counsel for not filing their motions fast enough.

What about Oberly’s statements to the grand jury?

“[T]he true explanation behind the canceled birth certificate/affidavit did not come forth until after [Oberly] testified,” Cobb wrote via e-mail, “when the defense offered the correct explanation at [a] later hearing.”

It’s unclear what prevented Oberly from inspecting the entire Vital Records file before arresting an innocent woman. Could he have seen it and chosen to ignore it?

I called Oberly, but he declined to answer questions. ADOT e-mailed a response stating that the matter was the subject of “an active investigation.”

There are a lot of bad players in this travesty, but the bottom line is that they all had access, or could have had access, to Torres’ birth certificate, and they could have easily verified that it was legit.

Being confused about your past is not a crime, even if a cop can persuade you to sign something under a different name. Doing so does not invalidate your citizenship.

It’s a given that if Torres were an Anglo, she would not have been treated in this manner. She and her lawyers tell me they’re considering suing the agencies involved.

As far as blame goes, the wave of nativism that made Prop 100 law bathes all those who voted for and supported this mockery of due process in a sea of shame. History will not treat these Arizonans well.

Appeared Here


Pedophile Veteran Phoenix Arizona Police Officer Christopher J. Wilson Quits After Arrest For Sex With 2 Young Boys

August 9, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Phoenix police say one of their officers was arrested Tuesday night for sexual misconduct with minors.

Chief Daniel Garcia of Phoenix police identified the officer at a news conference Wednesday morning as 43-year-old Christopher J. Wilson.

A 14-year-old boy told his parents about the allegations of sexual misconduct, Garcia said.

The investigation began when another victim, a 17-year-old boy, contacted police, he said.

The relationship with the 17-year-old lasted three to four months, and the relationship with the 14-year-old was about three weeks long, Garcia said.

Wilson was a community relations officer that worked as a liaison to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.

He was arrested just after 8 p.m. Tuesday at his home without incident.

Wilson admitted to the relationships and resigned, police said.

He was a 13-year veteran.

Chief Garcia said he is “very disturbed” about this incident.

As a liaison for the LGBT community, Wilson worked with several groups in the Valley.

He would be a point of contact for those organizations to share their concerns with.

Brad Wishon, Chair of the the One Voice LGBT Community Center, now worries Wilson’s arrest could cause a backlash against the gay community.

“I think that people find a reason to justify what they’re already feeling and use that to justify acting inappropriately or to attack a community for what one individual does,” Wishon said.

Wishon added he hopes the arrest is not a reflection on the gay community.

“Even though Chris is a gay man that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is an adult who should have known better, did not do better, and as a result two young people are harmed and that’s the real tragedy here,” Wishon said.

Appeared Here


Tempe Arizona Police Officer Aaron Smith Quits After Arrest For Stealing Police Equipment And Cash

August 4, 2012

TEMPE, ARIZONA – Tempe Police have arrested one of their own officers.

Officer Aaron Smith was arrested by Tempe Police Detectives Saturday morning on multiple charges including theft, burglary and tampering with physical evidence.

In July, Tempe Police employees began reporting various items of police property were missing. The items included two Tempe Police bicycles, a GPS and money from two separate locations. On Friday, July 20, authorities discovered that forced entry was made into a small lock box that contained petty case totaling over $750.

During the course of the investigation, authorities noticed that Smith has access to all of the secured areas where items were going missing. Each of Smith’s shifts coincided with the times of the thefts and burglaries making him a prime suspect. Although Smith had access to the general areas, in most cases, forced entry was made to remove the items.

On July 26, an undercover officer turned in a purse containing $142 to Smith and told him that it was found property. At the end of Smith’s workweek, he had not taken any steps to process the money or purse as found property.

Smith was taken into custody without incident near Dobson and Southern. Tempe Detectives served search warrants at Smith’s residence where the stolen bikes were recovered along with the missing purse. In a post-arrest interview, Smith admitted to crimes and claimed it was due to his poor financial state.

Smith had been with the Tempe Police Department for over seven years an resigned his position as a Tempe Police Officer.

Appeared Here


Maricopa Arizona Police Officer Victor Valenzuela Fired After On Duty Sex With Another Man’s Wife

July 25, 2012

MARICOPA, ARIZONA – A city of Maricopa police officer is out of a job for something he did on the job in December.

“I don’t think any officer should be able to stay on the force if they’ve been caught having an affair with somebody else’s wife while they’re on duty,” Perry Edwards said.

Back in March, Edwards showed 3TV sex texts between his wife and a city of Maricopa police officer.

Edwards suspected his wife was having sex with an officer while the cop was on duty.

Edwards’ sister, Roberta Schneider, was so disgusted she asked the police department to investigate.

“He is supposed to be serving our community, not making booty calls in the back of his car,” Schneider said.

3TV got a hold of the department’s investigative report.

Edwards got his wish.

Officer Victor Valenzuela was fired from the department in March.

“He showed remorse, he was embarrassed and he wishes to go on with life and hopes that this goes away,” said police Chief Steve Stahl.

Stahl said Valenzuela admitted to having sex with a married woman while he was working.

“It’s sad. There’s no doubt about it,” Stahl said. “I want to ensure the residents as soon as we found out about the conduct it was investigated very quickly and it was handled very quickly.”

According to the report, Valenzuela also admitted to wearing his uniform and driving his patrol car to the Edwards’ home.

Valenzuela also told the investigator the sexual encounter happened just once, for a half-hour, and afterward he signed up for a 12-step sex addiction program.

The officer didn’t have to repay the department for the half-hour spent at the Edwards’ home.

“He risked his career in this behavior and the behavior in and of itself and the penalty in and of itself of losing your career as a law enforcement officer is a pretty heavy penalty to pay,” Stahl said.

According to the state, Valenzuela’s certification is suspended until September.

As for the Edwards, they’re in the middle of divorce proceedings.

3TV tried getting in contact with Valenzuela but was unable to locate the former police officer.

Appeared Here


Former Veteran Phoenix Arizona Police Officer Justin Griffith Arrested By US Marshals And Charged With Prescription Forgery – Quit Before Department Could Fire Him

July 24, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – U.S. Marshals have taken a former Phoenix police officer into custody after an arrest warrant was issued on prescription forgery charges.

Authorities said Justin Griffith did not respond to a court summons Friday. He was suspected of prescription forgery in January. The warrant listed one count of conspiracy to possess a narcotic drug and six counts of using wire communication in drug-related transactions.

CBS 5 News learned in January that Griffith was placed on administrative and suspected of forging prescriptions.

He allegedly had a blank prescription pad and gave the blank scripts to a partner who allegedly filled them out for OxyContin. Once the dealer sold them on the street, Griffith reportedly received a cut.

Sgt. Trent Crump told CBS 5 News that Officer Griffith resigned during the investigation before he could be terminated.

Griffith was with the force for nine years and had been assigned to code enforcement.

Appeared Here


Problems Found With Every Document Concerning Obama’s Birth – Indications That His Birth Certificate Is A Forgery – Hawaii Officials Not Wanting To Help Law Enforcement Officers Investigating, And Called Police On Them

July 17, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – At the conclusion of a press conference led by Cold Case Posse chief investigator Michael Zullo that detailed the reasons the long-form birth certificate of President Barack Obama is a forgery, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said it’s time for a higher authority to investigate the issue.

Mr. Arpaio said he would like Congress … “someone” … to look at the material his investigative team had gathered. As he had told WND earlier: “Although I am having a difficult time deciding who to forward this information to given the fact that the obvious choices report directly to the president, I cannot stand by and hold on to information that threatens to weaken national security.”

The press conference held Tuesday clarified some of the issues discussed in an earlier press conference held in Phoenix on March 1, at which the Cold Case Posse presented its initial findings of a six-month-long investigation into the authenticity of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. “I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,” Mr. Arpaio said at the time.

Tuesday’s press conference added weight to the Cold Case Posse’s earlier findings. In addition to the electronic evidence that the president’s long-form birth certificate had been altered, the investigators introduced supporting evidence related to a box titled “Race of Father.” In it was written the word “African.” Not only was “African” not used as a race identifier until 1989, 28 years after Obama’s birth, but the box is also coded with a number nine. Nine signifies that no information was provided, meaning the box should have been empty. The fact that there is information in the box suggests someone had tampered with the birth certificate, investigators say.

The press conference also discussed the recent trip to Hawaii by lead investigator Michael Zullo and others to further investigate the anomalies associated with the president’s birth certificate. Mr. Zullo and his team received a cold reception and most doors were closed to them. Hawaiian officials also tended to over-react to their presence. In at least one case, local police were called.

In Hawaii, investigators succeeded in meeting with Verna K.L. Lee, the clerk who signed Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate. The investigators learned that if Mr. Obama had been born at the Kapioloni Medical Center, a birth number assigned to him should have been lower than those of a pair of twins who were born after him at Kapiolani that same day. Yet, his birth number is higher. “This proves that Obama could not have been born at the Kapiolani Medical Center as reported. The numbering on his certificate is more consistent with a birth certificate that had been turned in from one of the outlying areas,” investigators said.

Appeared Here


Arizona Voters May Have Opportunity To Enact State Law That Would Override The Many Federal Laws, Regulations, And Mandates That Violate The US Constitution

July 6, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Voters could get the right to overrule federal laws and mandates under the terms of an initiative filed late Thursday.

The Arizona Constitution already says the federal Constitution “is the supreme law of the land.” This measure, if approved in November, it would add language saying that federal document may not be violated by any government — including the federal government.

More to the point, it would allow Arizonans “to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution.”

That could occur through a vote of the state House and Senate with consent of the governor.

But that also could occur through a popular vote on a ballot measure, effectively allowing voters to decide which federal laws they feel infringe on Arizona’s rights as a sovereign state.

Organizer Jack Biltis said he turned in more than 320,000 signatures. The next step will be for the Secretary of State to determine, after screening the petitions, if there are at least 259,213 valid names on the forms to allow the measure to go on the ballot.

Biltis, who said he has spent more than $1.2 million on the campaign so far, said it is time for Arizona to step up and reclaim its constitutional rights.

The “flagship” example, he said, is the federal Affordable Care Act. He said there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which gives the federal government the power to enact a national health care plan.

Biltis acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with exactly that question, ruled to the contrary.

“I believe the Supreme Court completely got it wrong,” he said. In fact, Biltis argued, the ability of the nation’s high court to interpret — and invalidate — federal laws itself is not part of the U.S. Constitution but was claimed by the court in 1803.

“The only portion of government that has unlimited powers are the state governments and the people themselves,” he said. Biltis said that, under his measure, Arizona could simply refuse to participate, though it would do so at risk of losing federal dollars.

But Biltis’ objections to federal authority are not partisan. He is equally upset with the Patriot Act, passed during the administration of George W. Bush, which gives the federal government broad powers to detain people without trial.

And then there are other issues that might not seem so weighty but that Biltis finds to be constitutionally unacceptable, like the federal law, signed during the Bush administration, which phases out the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs to save energy. The most popular replacement to date has been compact fluorescent bulbs which have their own environmental issues if broken.

“Besides the insanity of it, if you have a federal government that can choose to ban a light bulb that has existed for 100 years, that served us pretty well, what can’t they do?” he asked.

Nor is Biltis troubled by the idea of individual states interpreting federal law — and nullifying those they believe are unconstitutional. He said that is precisely what happened in pre-Civil War days when some Northern states refused to honor the federal Fugitive Slave Act which required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.

Biltis acknowledged his measure would allow Arizona to ignore other federal mandates, such as integration of schools. But he said there are various safeguards for that, ranging from public sentiment and pressure to the ability of 34 other states to amend the U.S. Constitution to give the federal government the explicit power overrule what Arizonans might have done.

There actually will be two sovereignty measures on the ballot.

A separate proposal crafted by Rep. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, would have Arizona declare its “sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within its boundaries.” Exempt would be tribal and military reservations.

Appeared Here


Nutcase Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio To Federal Government: F*CK YOU!

June 25, 2012

Joe Arpaio talks to Cavuto


Federal Goverment To Arizona: F*CK YOU!

June 25, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.

That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the court’s decision frees police up to perform immigration checks. In anticipation of the ruling, she issued an executive order calling for guidance to be issued to every police department on how to fairly carry out the law.

“We will move forward, instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld,” she said.

But the Obama administration is under pressure from immigrant-rights groups to cut down on the number of people it is deporting and has taken a number of steps to try to limit deportations of rank-and-file illegal immigrants and focus instead on those with criminal records or repeated immigration violations.

Last week, Mr. Obama said he would halt deportations for most illegal immigrants under 30 who were brought here as children.

On Monday the administration officials also said they are ending the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona law enforcement officials, which proactively had granted some local police the powers to enforce immigration laws.

The task forces, named for the section of law that allows them, have proved popular among many localities but have been a political headache for the Obama administration, with immigrant-rights groups saying they led to abuses.

On Monday the administration officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren’t working and took the Supreme Court’s ruling as a chance to scrap them.

Appeared Here


Supreme Court Upholds Tiny Portion Of Illegal Immigrant Laws Arizona Enacted In The Face Of Federal Government’s Continued Failure To Enforce Nation’s Laws

June 25, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a central provision of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law, clearing the way for similar legislation to take effect in other states and advancing a political narrative that could give President Barack Obama an added boost from Latino voters in November.

That provision, requiring police to conduct immigration checks on individuals they arrest or merely stop for questioning whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally, does not appear to violate the Constitution by intruding on the federal government’s powers to control immigration, the court said.

All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect. They split on three other disputed provisions of the law, with a majority of the justices ruling that each of those parts of the law intruded improperly into a policy sphere reserved to the federal government.

The justices said further legal challenges to the mandatory immigration check provision can go forward after that part of the law takes effect.

The ruling Monday is far from a definitive verdict on the Arizona law known as S.B. 1070, since the case that the court decided did not address the most contentious charge about the legislation: that it will lead to racial profiling of Latinos.

Indeed, the high court’s decision is expected to trigger additional waves of litigation over profiling and the possibility that the law could lead to U.S. citizens or legal immigrants being detained while police try to determine their status.

“The nature and timing of this case counsel caution in evaluating the validity of” the mandatory-check provision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court’s majority opinion. “The Federal Government has brought suit against a sovereign State to challenge the provisions even before the law has gone into effect. There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts it would be inappropriate to assume [that provision] will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.”

“This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect,” Kennedy wrote.

Chief Justice Roberts with Kennedy and the court’s liberals to strike, 5-3, two other provisions of the Arizona law: a section making it a crime to apply for or hold a job in Arizona without legal work authority and another section allowing a police officer to arrest someone if the officer believes that he has committed a crime that could cause him to be deported, no matter where the crime took place.

Justice Samuel Alito pitched in for a 6-2 vote to block a section making it a violation of Arizona law for immigrants not to carry valid immigration papers.

Kennedy said Arizona’s anger toward the federal government over immigration issues might be justified but did not allow the state to intrude in the traditionally federal area.

“The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Kennedy wrote. “With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems cause by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling comes just over a week after Obama announced a major change in immigration policy, pledging not to deport most young people who came to the U.S. illegally as children. The move — a unilateral, executive-action version of the DREAM Act languishing in Congress — was long sought by immigrants’ rights advocates and could deliver a significant political dividend to Obama from Latino voters in November.

The court’s decision on the Arizona law and the expected outcry from Latino organizations could feed that political dynamic, since The Obama administration opposed the Arizona law and sued to block it while many Republicans endorsed the legislation. The administration later filed similar suits against immigration-related state laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has praised, in general terms, Arizona’s efforts to curtail illegal immigration and urged the Obama administration to drop the federal lawsuits challenging S.B. 1070 and similar measures. Romney has never taken an explicit position on the merits of the Arizona law, though during the primary battle he did welcome the endorsement of one of the key drafters of the legislation, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

A day before the law was scheduled to take effect in July 2010, a federal judge in Phoenix blocked several key provisions, including the mandatory-check measure, from taking effect. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

Latino groups, who issued grave warnings about the law when it was passed, are expected to generate an outcry over its implementation.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April, liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Justice Department’s assertion that the Arizona law was unconstitutional because it might overburden the federal system for responding to immigration-status inquiries from states and local police.

Several justices also expressed concern about language in the Arizona law that appears to authorize detaining arrested individuals indefinitely while police conduct immigration checks. But the jurists noted that the case before the court this term dealt solely with the conflict between state and federal law, not with questions about whether the Arizona law might infringe on the rights of individuals to be free of discrimination by the government and not to be detained unreasonably by authorities.

There has been some dispute among Arizona officials and lawyers involved in litigation about S.B. 1070 about the precise meaning of the mandatory-check language in the law. While a check appears to be required for all people arrested, checks for people who are simply stopped or questioned by police seem to be mandatory only when police have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is in the country illegally. That’s the language immigrants’ rights advocates fear will lead to racial profiling of Latinos.

State officials have said police would not hold people indefinitely while immigration checks were carried out. However, it’s unclear how local police and sheriff’s departments will interpret the law.

It’s also not clear how police plan to deal with the fact that many native-born U.S. citizens who lack passports are not in the federal databases used for immigration checks. Illegal immigrants who’ve never made contact with the U.S. immigration system also usually have no record in that system, federal officials say.

Monday’s ruling came a little more than a year after the Supreme Court upheld another immigration-related Arizona law: one allowing revocation of a firm’s license to do business in the state if the company repeatedly hired illegal immigrants. By 5 to 3, the justices rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the employer-sanctions measure was preempted by federal law. However, that case turned more on interpretation of an exception in existing federal law than on arguments over the states’ powers to enforce immigration-related measures.

Appeared Here


Thousands Gather To Protest Nutcase Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Inhumane Tent City Jail Complex

June 24, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Several thousand critics of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio gathered outside “Tent City” Saturday night for a rally calling for the closure of the sheriff’s complex of canvas jail tents.

Inmates gather next to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as he walks through a jail called “Tent City” in Phoenix on Saturday.

Organizers say conditions at “Tent City” complex are inhumane. The sheriff has said he doesn’t see any problems with housing inmates in tents and often points out that some members of the U.S. military live in tents.

“We are with you,” protesters chanted in both English and Spanish, in hopes that inmates could hear them.

Most protesters held candles and wore yellow T-shirts that read “Standing on the side of love,” a slogan of the Unitarian Universalist Association, which was holding its annual convention in Phoenix this weekend.

The rally was the latest effort by the association to promote social justice, association spokesman John Hurley said. The Unitarians organized the rally along with the immigrant rights group Puente Arizona.

The Rev. Peter Morales, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, attended the rally and was among a group that accompanied Arpaio on a tour of Tent City. In 2010, Morales was arrested at a protest in Phoenix over Arizona’s immigration law.

Arpaio is a national political fixture who built his reputation on jailing inmates in tents during Phoenix’s triple-digit summer heat, dressing inmates in pink underwear, selling himself to voters as unceasingly tough on crime and pushing the bounds of how far local police can go to confront illegal immigration.

The U.S. Justice Department has accused the sheriff’s office of racially profiling Latinos in its immigration patrols.

The sheriff has said the Justice Department’s investigation of his immigration patrols was a politically motivated attack by the Obama administration and denied allegations of systematic discriminatory policing.

The jail complex in west Phoenix was the site of a January 2010 protest that drew 10,000 immigrant rights advocates and was marked by a clash between a small group of protesters and police officers.

The county’s jails were closed to visitors on Saturday because of the rally.

Appeared Here


Hero 14 Year Old Phoenix Arizona Boy, Protecting His Home And 3 Younger Siblings, Shot And Nearly Killed Armed Intruder Who Broke In Front Door And Pointed Gun At Him

June 23, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – A 14-year-old boy shot and nearly killed an intruder who broke into his Phoenix home and pulled a gun on him while he was watching his three younger siblings, police said Saturday.

The teen and his siblings, ages 8, 10 and 12, were at home alone when a woman rang the doorbell Friday afternoon, Phoenix police Officer James Holmes said.

The teen didn’t open the door because he didn’t recognize the woman.

Soon after, the teen heard a loud bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent’s bedroom.

When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man break through the front door and point a gun at him.

The boy shot the 37-year-old man, who was taken to a hospital in extremely critical condition and underwent surgery. The man was upgraded to critical condition and is expected to survive and be booked into jail within the week on counts of aggravated assault and burglary, Holmes said.

He said the suspect did not get a shot off. He declined to release his name until he is booked into jail.

The woman who rang the home’s doorbell got away.

Holmes hailed the teen’s actions and his parents for teaching the kids to never open the door to strangers.

“The police and indeed our community does not ever want to see a situation where a teenager of that age has to take a weapon to protect his family … but this young man did exactly what he should have done,” he said. “I’m not sure he gave full thought about what he had to do. He just acted.”

Holmes said that the gun the teen grabbed was his father’s, but did not know whether the boy had been trained to use it.

He said the family, whose names were not released, is declining to speak to reporters about the ordeal, saying that they “are all pretty traumatized.”

“The dad was pretty much out of his mind with distress, officers couldn’t even talk to him,” Holmes said. “It’s going to take them a while to recover mentally.”

He said police don’t yet know what the suspect’s intentions were and that will be one of the first questions they ask him when he is well enough to talk.

“This was mid-block in a neighborhood, at 4:30 in the afternoon in summertime and children are there,” he said. “They just took a heck of a gamble for this particular house, and we’ve got to try to figure out why.”

Holmes added that the family is lucky that the teen acted so swiftly and effectively.

“As ugly as this is, and as much as this family is going through, we don’t have injured children on our hands,” he said.

Appeared Here


Veteran Lake Havasu City Arizona Police Officer Brad Jacobs After Violent Attack On His Pregnant Girlfriend

June 17, 2012

LAKE HAVASU, ARIZONA – Lake Havasu City senior police officer Brad Jacobs, 34, of Havasu, was charged with two counts of alleged disorderly conduct and assault, all misdemeanor offenses.

The charges stem from police investigations sparked by a third-party report to police about an incident that occurred in February between Jacobs and his live-in pregnant girlfriend during an argument at a residence on Tahitian Drive.

According to police reports, investigations determined Jacobs allegedly kicked his girlfriend, pressed against her stomach, called her obscenities, told her the unborn child wasn’t his, and threw several kitchen knives at her.

Investigators met resistance from both the victim and Jacobs during the investigation.

On Feb. 13, an investigating officer spoke with the victim who said she and Jacobs had been arguing for weeks about his drinking, but said he was sober during the incident in question on Feb. 11. She also hesitated before reporting Jacobs kicked her but she had no injuries or bruising from the act. She also declined to respond to inquiries about the knives, according to police reports.

The victims’ two children were present during the incident, one of which was interviewed by police during the investigation. The child told police she heard the argument, saw Jacobs kick her mother and said Jacobs also called her mother names.

When police questioned Jacobs he said he didn’t do anything wrong and that if he gave his story the victim would go to jail, according to police reports.

Jacobs also claimed he had injuries from the incident and that household items were damaged. Jacobs wouldn’t discuss the incident further, or show his injuries. Other than to say this was the victim’s way of trying to ruin him, the police report stated.

“I’m very clear on with what happened is our business and we don’t feel that any police involvement should take place,” Jacobs told police. “I have a baby to worry about and if she loses her temper, then she lost her temper, and that’s it. I’ll deal with it, it’s my problem.”

During the interview, Jacobs and the victim arrived together and said they were working things out for their family. Jacobs stated the argument that night escalated and that was it. And he didn’t see a need for any police investigation on an argument.

The case was transferred to La Paz County Attorney’s Office for their review, for reasons of conflict of interest because Jacobs is employed by the city, said Lake Havasu City Police Department spokesman Sgt. Joe Harrold.

The charges were filed April 25 by La Paz county attorney Dan Terrell. Jacobs had until the end of May to respond to the charges. Jacobs turned himself in to local authorities May 2, according to police reports.

Harrold declined to comment about the incident on behalf of the department.

Harrold said Jacobs currently is assigned administrative duties at the department’s front counter until the court process progresses. Furthermore, an administration investigation into any misconduct on the part of any of the department’s employees doesn’t commence until after the court process is completed. Administrative investigations are conducted by the department’s Professional Standards Bureau.

Jacobs has been a police officer with the department for 10 years, Harrold said.

Appeared Here


Woman Screams For Help From Police As She Is Molested By TSA Agent At Phoenix Arizona International Airport – Son Videotaped Attack, And Was Harassed And Threatened With Arrest By TSA Agents

June 12, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Footage show a woman screaming frantically for help in an airport terminal after claiming she was ‘molested’ by officials during a security pat down.

The unidentified passenger yells hysterically that she has been molested after a female security staff member touched her breast during the screening process at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona.

Video filmed by her son shows the woman bursting into tears after the alleged ‘sexual assault’, while other staff members tell her son to stop filming the distressing episode.

She shouts: ‘I want a police officer, I think she molested me. Her cries becoming louder and louder throughout the footage.

She adds: ‘I want a police officer now! She just molested me! For god’s sake somebody help me!’

Officials begin to surround her, creating a human shield between her and other passengers. Helpless, she holds her head and begins to weep

‘This was illegal. I can’t believe she just did that to me. How can none of them care? I want her arrested.’

The woman becomes more and more agitated before TSA officers demand that her son leave the area.

He continues to film the incident from afar, though several more officers harass him and threaten to arrest him if he does not stop.

Eventually, the weeping woman is escorted by police officers past her son.

The TSA didn’t immediately return the MailOnline’s request for comment on whether or not the woman’s complaint could be verified.

The family had been subjected to similarly ‘invasive’ security scrutiny at the same airport earlier in the year in a similar video.

On that occasion, they had protested against TSA that the security screening had violated their Constitutional Rights.

The incident is not the first time TSA officials have been accused of being heavy-handed.

Thousands of Americans have reacted furiously to the imposition of new airport security measures, including full body scans and hands-on pat downs.

Those who refuse the ‘invase’ pat downs risk arrest and an $11,000 fine.

Appeared Here


US Cities Doing Everything They Can To Starve The Homeless And Make Sure They Have No Place To Sleep

June 10, 2012

US – A growing number of cities across the United States are making it harder to be homeless.

Philadelphia recently banned outdoor feeding of people in city parks. Denver has begun enforcing a ban on eating and sleeping on property without permission. And this month, lawmakers in Ashland, Ore., will consider strengthening the town’s ban on camping and making noise in public.

And the list goes on: Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Oklahoma City and more than 50 other cities have previously adopted some kind of anti-camping or anti-food-sharing laws, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.

The ordinances are pitting city officials against homeless advocates. City leaders say they want to improve the lives of homeless people and ensure public safety, while supporters of the homeless argue that such regulations criminalize homelessness and make it harder to live on the nation’s streets.

“We’re seeing these types of laws being proposed and passed all over the country,” said Heather Johnson, a civil rights attorney at the homeless and poverty law center, which opposes many of the measures. “We think that criminalization measures such as these are counterproductive. Rather than address the root cause of homelessness, they perpetuate homelessness.”
Vagrancy laws

Cities that have adopted laws affecting the homeless:

Anti-Camping
• Atlanta
• Denver
• Los Angeles
• Miami
• New York
• Seattle

Anti-Food-Sharing
• Phoenix
• Orlando
• Cleveland

A number of organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia this month in response to its feeding ban.

Mark McDonald, press secretary for the city’s mayor, Michael Nutter, said the measures are about expanding the services offered to the homeless, adding dignity to their lives and about ensuring good public hygiene and safety.

“This is about an activity on city park land that the mayor thinks is better suited elsewhere,” he said. “We think it’s a much more dignified place to be in an indoor sit-down restaurant. … The overarching policy goal of the mayor is based on a belief that hungry people deserve something more than getting a ham sandwich out on the side of the street.”

If people come inside for feeding programs, they can be connected with other social service programs and possibly speak with officials such as substance abuse counselors and mental health professionals, McDonald said.

Critics argue that bans on feeding and camping often leave people with no where to eat or sleep because many cities lack emergency food services and shelters. Meanwhile, citing people who violate such ordinances costs cities money when officials try to follow up on such cases and hurts people’s ability to get jobs and housing, because many develop criminal records.

In 2007, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty filed a lawsuit against Dallas contesting its ordinance that restricted locations where groups could share food and prohibited many groups from providing food in locations where they had served homeless people for years. A trial is scheduled to begin this month.

“It is a good thing when you see municipal governments paying attention to the homeless population and trying to find a number of solutions to the crisis,” said James Brooks, the National League of Cities’ program director for community development and infrastructure. “Cities have an obligation not only to the people in the parks but to people in the wider community to prevent a public health problem.”

Brooks’ group supports the ordinances and said they are holistic approaches to solving a problem that will not simply end by giving people shelter. The key to helping homeless people is to get them indoors where social service workers can help them, Brooks said.

An opponent of the measures, Neil Donovan, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, sees the ordinances as possible signs of “compassion fatigue.”

“People are getting frustrated and getting angry at the issue,” he said. “The person who is asking for money outside a coffee shop, the person who is camping just outside the ballpark, the chronically homeless are getting the brunt of this anger.”

Appeared Here


Residents In Tombstone Arizona Going Without Water As Federal Government And Courts Refuse To Allow Repair Of Damaged Water Line Supplying Town Since 1881

June 9, 2012

TOMBSTONE, ARIZONA – The six Forest Service rangers suddenly crouched, whispering, on their way up the rocky mountain trail. It was early Friday afternoon, the first day of the Tombstone Shovel Brigade, and the rangers were out in force, hiking to the spot where dozens of volunteers worked with picks and shovels to move and bury Tombstone’s makeshift water line.

Shhh! Look! Do you see it?

The rangers stopped in their tracks. Binoculars emerged from pockets, and fingers pointed to a stand of trees.

And there it was, a Mexican spotted owl, perched high in a pine tree. It was a male, the rangers said, with his back turned to the intruders. He scratched and preened. But mostly, the owl seemed to be watching the nest in a nearby sycamore tree where his mate tended to an owlet.
Tombstone’s ‘water war’

The owl is a threatened species, and until a few days ago its presence in fire-scorched Miller Canyon was a matter of speculation. But now that it has surfaced, the owl could be a game-changer in the water war between the U.S. Forest Service and the Wild West city made famous by the 30-second gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

Tombstone is trying to repair a 26-mile pipeline that has brought mountain spring water into the city since 1881. It was damaged during last summer’s Monument Fire and monsoon rains that brought mud, water and boulders crashing down the denuded slopes.

The Miller Peak Wilderness Area, where owls nest in the trees above Tombstone’s pipeline, was hit particularly hard. Sections of pipeline simply vanished, and Tombstone’s reservoir ran dry by August.

Kevin Rudd, project manager for the Tombstone pipeline, said the repaired pipeline needs to be shored up or it surely will be washed away when the monsoon rains return next month. Planned tasks for the shovel brigade include reinforcing the spring and diverting its flow by using boulders, sand, downed trees and other flood debris.

As for the owl, nobody could say for certain after the fire whether it would return. But it’s the big reason why the Forest Service wouldn’t simply hand Tombstone a permit to use heavy construction equipment to fix the pipeline. Tombstone responded by taking the feds to court. Since then, the conflict has escalated, taking on a life of its own.

Tombstone now asserts that it owns 25 springs in the Huachuca Mountains and shouldn’t have to ask anyone for permission to maintain its own water line. The Forest Service says Tombstone holds permits for just five springs, and it argues the city is trying to exploit a natural disaster to expand its water system.

With the conservative Goldwater Institute taking on Tombstone’s legal work, the court battle has blossomed into a full-blown states rights dispute. Tombstone is getting the attention of activists from Utah, New Mexico and other Western states who say the federal government has gone too far. It has become ground zero in a rekindled Sagebrush Rebellion.

“I’d love to say that this is a partisan issue and that if this administration changes, it’s going to be all sweetness and light,” said Caren Cowan, a Tombstone native who now heads the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association. “But I have 22 years of experience telling me otherwise. It’s not a partisan issue.”

Cowan said she has battled the Forest Service often on behalf of ranchers in her state and has found that “people in Washington just don’t understand the West. They don’t understand the wide open spaces and how we live and how we manage the land.”

The federal government controls millions of acres in the West, and some folks believe the feds have reneged on a promise to turn over large swaths to local control once statehood was achieved. It’s a battle cry once made by oilmen and ranchers, and now state and local governments are taking up the cause.

The leaders of the Jarbidge Shovel Brigade, which in 2000 used volunteer muscle power to move a boulder and reopen a wilderness road near Elko, Nevada, rallied to Tombstone’s side. A nonprofit organization was set up, and Tombstone so far has received $2,000 in donations and about 400 shovels.

The Jarbidge contingent then traveled to Tombstone, hiked up the mountain and labored on the pipeline.

So did Ken Ivory, a state representative from Utah, who won passage of legislation that seeks to turn over federal land to his state. He says the conflict playing out in Tombstone is an example of the Forest Service dictating to, rather than working with, local government officials. He says the feds suddenly cut off Tombstone’s access to springs and roads the city has maintained for 130 years under “an arbitrary and irrational federal policy.”

As a result, Ivory said, Tombstone “is minutes away from going up in smoke” because it is “a wooden town in the middle of the desert in the middle of a drought.”

At the center of the debate is the Mexican spotted owl.

“What is more important, owls or the people of Tombstone?” James Upchurch, a Forest Service supervisor who oversees the wilderness, was asked in court earlier this year.

Upchurch responded that there was no easy answer, which left jaws dropping on Tombstone’s side of the courtroom.

So far, the Forest Service had been winning in court; Tombstone’s request for an emergency injunction went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but was turned down.

The feds seemed to be losing in the court of public opinion, though. Tombstone tells a compelling story, portraying the Forest Service as a rogue agency of obstructionist, tree-hugging bureaucrats. The Forest Service had offered little comment, and when it did say something, it sounded to the people of Tombstone, well, tree-hugging and bureaucratic.

But the rangers came out in force on Friday, presenting their helpful side. A group of Forest Service firefighters hiked up the mountain and used a two-man crosscut saw to take down a tree and clear a path for the pipeline.

While everyone agrees the relationship between Tombstone city officials and Forest Service rangers has improved in recent weeks, their differences simmer just below the surface. The agency is working with the city to come up with a plan to keep water flowing to Tombstone, but it isn’t standing down.

The Forest Service granted permits Thursday for the city to bring the all-volunteer shovel brigade into the canyon to shore up the pipeline. Tombstone has until 8 p.m. Saturday to finish the job.

And so, under and unforgiving desert sun, about 100 people — including Old West cowboy types with monikers such as “Whiskers” and “Cowboy Doug” — gathered at Tombstone’s old high school football field Friday for the first day of an event that was billed as part protest and part work party.

Cowan, who heads the cattle growers group, grew up in Tombstone and remembers playing powder puff football on that field during the 1970s. Her great-grandfather was among Tombstone’s first settlers and made a name for himself in banking and ranching, but she considers herself “an economic refugee from Arizona.” She says she knows all too well how difficult navigating Forest Service regulations can be.

“The idea that the Forest Service is trying to take water away from my hometown is just beyond words,” she said. “I’m very proud to be here today to help and to fight. We’re going to fix this, and the Forest Service is going to listen.”

The three-mile hike up the mountain was grueling in the 100-degree heat. The trail is steep and rocky, and some of the volunteers didn’t make it to the top. Those who did found themselves moving boulders, digging trenches and sliding on gravelly slopes. Soaked with sweat, they staggered down the mountain after a couple of hours of hard labor.

“It’s just a lot of manual labor,” said Ben Headen, president of Tombstone’s American Legion post. It was frustrating, he said, because “we shouldn’t be doing it by manual labor, we should be using equipment.”

His friend Tim Ferrick, a fellow veteran, said he considered it his “patriotic duty” to stand up for Tombstone’s water rights.

Meanwhile, Tombstone’s cause has found a champion in Washington. U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, recently introduced H.R. 5971, the Emergency Water Supply Restoration Act. It proposes to set aside Forest Service restrictions against the use of construction equipment during state-declared water emergencies. Flake and Nancy Sosa, Tombstone’s archivist, were among the witnesses who testified before a subcommittee of the House on Friday.

Flake said: “The unforeseen consequences of federal laws and regulations threaten to do something outlaws, economic busts and the Arizona desert couldn’t: Kill the town too tough to die.”

Appeared Here


Arizona Taxpayers Spend $125 Million Each Year On Students Who Don’t Exist

May 27, 2012

ARIZONA – Taxpayers in Arizona spend $125 million each school year funding more than 13,000 students who don’t exist at public schools.

That’s because the state school system uses an antique budget approach that causes taxpayers to overpay, says a new report, “Ghost Busters: How to Save $125 Million a Year in Arizona’s Education Budget,” by Goldwater Institute education director Jonathan Butcher.

The system pays for some students twice, Butcher says.

Here’s how it happens.

Arizona schools are funded based on the number of students who attend each school in the prior school year, Butcher’s report says. However, when a student transfers out of one school and into another, the school getting the new student can apply for funding for that student in the middle of the year, he says.

But the schools don’t talk to each other, nor share funds, nor computer systems, it seems. So that results in the two schools double filing for — and getting double the taxpayer money for — the same student. This budget snafu costs taxpayers $125 million each school year, according to Butcher’s estimates.

Arizona taxpayers “are literally throwing $125 million school funding dollars into a black hole,” says Butcher in a statement. “More money would be available for all schools if we weren’t paying for ‘ghosts.’”

The phantom students are doubly painful, because “two years ago, Arizona voters passed a temporary sales tax increase to protect schools from budget cuts during the recession,” his report notes.

Taxpayers would not have been hit with higher sales taxes if the state officials would do their jobs and get on the stick.

“Do we really need to raise taxes on families when we are paying for thousands of empty desks?” asks Butcher. “We should re-direct the money that is double-paying and fill whatever gap schools may have.”

But Arizona taxpayers may get a crack at this issue again in the coming November ballots, since this tax is scheduled to expire in 2013, he notes.

Butcher also says there’s an easy fix to the problem.

Instead of being lazy and funding schools based on the prior year’s enrollment figures, Butcher suggests that “school funding should be based on current enrollment, he says, given that Arizona’s 524 charter schools are already funded this way.

“We already have a model for how this funding structure would work. We do it like this for charter schools,” Butcher says in his statement. “They are funded on current student counts and adjust according to the increases and decreases in their student populations. All we’re asking is that all schools be funded like charter schools.”

This simple fix, Butcher adds, would save taxpayers millions each year.

Appeared Here


Veteran Tucson Arizona Police Officer Lynsey Coutts Was Only Three Time Over State Alcohol Limit While Speeding To Work – Already On Radar For Alcohol Use, Department Intends To Give Her The Boot

May 23, 2012

TUCSON, ARIZONA – A four-year veteran of the Tucson Police Department was arrested this morning after a DUI test revealed she was driving to work with a BAC of 0.235, nearly three times the legal limit.

Coutts was scheduled to begin work at 9 a.m. this morning, but called a supervisor at about 9:20 a.m., saying she was driving fast on Interstate 10 and was in fear of colliding with other vehicles on the roadway, the release states. The supervisor convinced Coutts to exit the freeway and pull over. She did, and police personal responded to the Avra Valley I-10 exit.

According to the TPD release, Department of Public Safety officers also responded and conducted a DUI investigation. Tucson Police officers conducted a Preliminary Breath Test that revealed Coutts had a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.235, nearly three times the legal limit.

DPS personnel placed her under arrest for various charges associated with Driving Under the Influence, the release states.

Since March 2012, Officer Lynsey Coutts has been subject to a Conditions of Continued Employment contract to address concerns about her use of alcohol, according to a news release from the Tucson Police Department.

Because she violated a condition of her March 2012 employment contract, Coutts was served with a Notice of Intent to Terminate this afternoon, the release states. The Civil Service Hearing relating to her termination is scheduled for May 29, 2012.

“The Tucson Police Department treats all allegations of criminal acts or misconduct by employees as serious, especially criminal acts or misconduct occurring while employees are on-duty,” the TPD release states. “Ms. Coutts’ actions are not representative of the nearly 1400 men and women of the Tucson Police Department who serve their community with integrity and put their lives on the line each day.”

Appeared Here


Nutcase Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sends Detectives To Hawaii In Search Of President Obama’s Birth Certificate

May 22, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – In a major development in his probe of Barack Obama’s eligibility for Arizona’s 2012 presidential ballot, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has dispatched his lead Cold Case Posse investigator and a deputy detective to Hawaii.

The mission to Obama’s purported birthplace comes as the Hawaii Department of Health continues to resist efforts by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett to verify that the Honolulu agency has a valid birth certificate on file for Obama.

Former Bergen County, N.J., detective Mike Zullo and his volunteer team were commissioned by Arpaio last September to investigate Obama’s eligibility after citizens raised concerns about the authenticity of the birth record the White House posted on its website. Zullo’s team announced March 1 that it found probable cause that the document is a forgery.

Sign the petition now to show members of Congress how many Americans demand constitutional integrity.

Zullo’s investigation is a volunteer effort, but the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has sent him to Hawaii with an MCSO deputy detective for safety reasons and to act as a liaison between MCSO and local law enforcement.

WND reporter Jerome Corsi is embedded with the investigators in Hawaii with the provision that reporting during the trip be curtailed to protect the investigation.

Arpaio told WND Friday that the Hawaii Department of Health’s refusal to confirm to Bennett that it has a valid Obama birth certificate on file makes it look like Hawaii officials “are hiding something.”

Bennett has said that he might keep Obama’s name off of the state’s presidential ballot if he doesn’t receive the confirmation.

Eight weeks ago, the secretary of state asked Hawaii officials merely for an email confirming the Department of Health has a certified copy of the birth certificate, but Hawaii officials have not complied.

Zullo told WND Friday that Hawaii’s refusal to comply “is just another outright, glaring display of stonewalling that the Sheriff’s Office has encountered since Day One conducting this investigation.”

Zullo said “common sense at this point should be everyone’s guide.”

“If this was a non-issue, it wouldn’t be going on eight weeks waiting for the state of Hawaii to verify anything,” he said.

Over the weekend, KTVK-TV in Phoenix reported the Hawaii attorney general’s office has told Bennett he needs to take certain steps to confirm Obama’s birth records.

The steps include Bennett proving that he “legitimately needs confirmation to update records at his office.”

Zullo told WND that Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office investigators have spoken at length with Bennett regarding the president’s birth record. Zullo said his team spoke with Bennett as recently as last week.

“We are in the beginning stages of enlightening him to critical information that the sheriff has acquired during this investigation,” Zullo said.

‘It looks like they’re hiding something’

Arpaio’s team also is investigating the president’s Selective Service registration form, which his team also found probable cause to be a forgery.

He told WND he’s not getting much cooperation with federal and state governments.

“But that doesn’t matter; we’re still going to continue our investigation and see if those documents are forged,” he said.

Does anyone really know where Obama is from? Find out the startling truth from New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi.

Regarding the Hawaii Department of Health, Arpaio noted he’s said since the beginning of the investigation last fall, “Show me the microfilm.”

“They won’t do that, so it looks like they’re hiding something,” he said.

Arpaio said he will continue his investigation regardless of whether or not Obama gets on the ballot.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

In an interview last Thursday with Phoenix radio host Mike Broomhead of KFYI, Bennett was asked if he would remove Obama’s name from the ballot if Hawaii won’t reply to his request.

“That’s possible. Or the other option would be that I would ask all the candidates, including the president, to submit a certified copy of their birth certificate,” Bennett said.

Bennett explained that under Hawaii law, government officials can request verification that the state has possession of a valid birth certificate.

“They could say yes tomorrow, and the whole thing goes away,” Bennett said. “If they can’t say yes to that simple question, then it makes me wonder if we have to take it to another level.”

Bennett said that regardless of Hawaii’s response, he needs “to have to have some simple verification that people are qualified for the office if they’re going to be on the ballot here in Arizona.”

The Arizona official insisted he’s not a “birther” and denied he’s trying to appease “birthers” because he wants to run for governor.

“I believe the president was born in Hawaii – or at least I hope he was,” Bennett said.

Appeared Here


Disgraced US Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department To Sue Nutcase Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Department

May 9, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Federal authorities say they intend to file a lawsuit against Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department over allegations of civil rights violations.

The U.S. Justice Department sent a letter dated Wednesday to lawyers for the Maricopa County sheriff, giving his office “notice of intent to file civil action.”

Arpaio’s office has been accused of racially profiling Latinos, basing immigration patrols on racially-charged citizen complaints that didn’t allege crimes and punishing Hispanic jail inmates for speaking Spanish.

The DOJ also has accused Arpaio of having a culture of disregard for basic constitutional rights.

Arpaio has denied allegations of systematic discriminatory policing and has insisted the Justice Department provide facts to prove its allegations.

The Justice Department said a 22-page letter that it sent Arpaio’s office in December provides those details.

Appeared Here


Obama’s Attorney Chokes Again As Federal Government Finds Itself On Thin Ice While Attacking Arizona Immigration Laws – Claims Feds Have Limited Resources And Should Have The Right To Limit Calls About Possible Illegal Immigrants

April 25, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.

The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.

The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.

“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.

The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.

“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.

But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.

Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.

“It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.

A decision is expected before the end of the court’s term this summer.

Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.

Appeared Here


Obama Lawyer Worried That Inforcing AZ State Laws, That Parallel Federal Laws, Will Result In “Mass Incarceration” Of Illegal Immigrants And Will Cause “Significant Foreign Relations Problems”

April 25, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – The lawyer arguing for the Obama administration against provisions in Arizona’s controversial immigration law said Wednesday that if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds S.B. 1070 “mass incarceration” of Latinos would cause “significant foreign relations problems.”

During oral arguments before the high court on the law – which allows state police to check the immigration status of individuals stopped, detained or arrested for other reasons – Solicitor General Donald Verrilli responded to Justice Antonin Scalia’s remarks that Arizona seems to be merely enacting laws that are already federal statutes.

“Well, what I think they are going to do in Arizona is something quite extraordinary, that has significant real and practical foreign relations effects,” Verrilli said. “And that’s the problem, and it’s the reason why this power needs to be vested exclusively in the federal government.”

Verrilli said Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” takes that power away from the government and gives it to the state.

“And so – so, you’re going to have a situation of mass incarceration of people who are unlawfully present,” he argued. “That is going to raise – poses a very serious risk of raising significant foreign relations problems.

“And these problems are real,” Verrilli continued. “It is the problem of reciprocal treatment of the United States’ citizens in other countries.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy responded: “So you’re saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws?”

“No,” Verrilli replied. “We have a legitimate interest in enforcing the law, of course, but it needs to be – but these – this court has said over and over again, has recognized that the balance of interest that has to be achieved in enforcing the immigration laws is exceedingly delicate and complex, and it involves consideration of foreign relations, it involves humanitarian concerns, and it also involves public order …”

Of two million Latinos in Arizona, Verrilli told the court, “only 400,000 at most are there illegally.”

Scalia suggested that the government could take action to prevent the incarceration of illegal aliens.

“Well, can’t we avoid that particular foreign relations problem by simply deporting these people?” Scalia asked. “Look, free them from the jails.”

During the one-hour session both conservative and liberal justices seemed skeptical of the government’s case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was nominated by President Obama and is the first Hispanic to serve, told Verrilli at one point that she was “terribly confused” by his remarks.

“It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” commented Chief Justice John Roberts.

Attorney Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of Arizona, said the Ninth Circuit federal court decision that set in motion the case coming before the Supreme Court was “inverting fundamental principles of federalism.”

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law two years ago. Several groups, including the Department of Justice, challenged the law in court.

Only eight justices will decide the case since Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because of her work on immigration during her tenure as Solicitor General.

The court is expected to rule on the case by the end of its current term this summer. Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Utah have proposed or enacted similar legislation.

Appeared Here


Arizona Hopes To Do Away With 1st Ammendment With Law Criminalizing Internet Comments, Webpages, And Blogs

April 4, 2012

ARIZONA – That endless banter by anonymous commenters on your favorite Internet forum has long been trivial — at least to you. In Arizona, it could soon be downright criminal.

Arizona House Bill 2549, which would make it unlawful for anyone to post messages “with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend,” passed both the House and Senate in nearly unanimous votes last week. The bill is reportedly being tinkered with by legislators before being passed to Gov. Jan Brewer.

The legislation, which has its roots in an antiquated anti-stalking law that targeted phone pranksters and telemarketers, has drawn the ire of free speech advocates who say the legislation is an affront to First Amendment rights.

Bill co-author Chad Campbell told the Arizona Republic this week that legislators hear the critics loud and clear and are addressing their concerns — but don’t think the bill is dead.

“The intent of this bill was to go after stalkers, basically, and people who are making one-on-one conversations that are abusive or threatening in some matter,” he said in a video posted on the newspaper’s website. “There was no intention to trample on the First Amendment. We still believe that it wouldn’t do so, that we as a state legislature can’t override the First Amendment. But let me just say if there are some concerns, we have time to fix it and we’re more than willing to fix it.”

Because of the way the law was written, critics say “fixing” it would require trashing the whole bill.

The group Media Coalition sent a letter to Brewer lambasting the bill for dealing an Orwellian blow to free speech, saying the bill “would update the state’s telephone harassment law to apply to the Internet and other electronic communications. It would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’ as well as certain sexual speech. However, because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.”

The hacktivist Twitter account YourAnonNews was sending “ButtHurt Report Forms” — a pseudo-incident report meant to mock people who are easily offended by what they see online — to Brewer and state lawmakers, reported Russia Today.

Arizona has become a hotbed of constitutional infighting after the passage of a sweeping anti-immigration law in 2010 that drew national attention. In January, the governor was photographed giving President Obama the finger-wag. A petition opposing de-funding Planned Parenthood in the state has more than 5,000 signatures on Signon.org.

Do you think the bill is fair or does it go against your First Amendment rights? Let us know!

Appeared Here


Nutcase Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Tells US Justice Department To F*ck Off

April 4, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has rejected a U.S. Justice Department demand for an independent monitor to address allegations of rampant discrimination against Latinos in his office’s police and jail operations.

The controversial Maricopa County sheriff and the DOJ had been preparing to negotiate ways to remedy alleged discrimination found in a three-year federal investigation of the sheriff’s office, The Arizona Republic reports.

A top Justice Department attorney told Arpaio’s lawyers this week that agreement on an independent monitor was critical for continuing negotiations and avoiding a lawsuit.

Arpaio, however, flatly rejected such a monitor Tuesday, calling it a political attempt by President Obama’s administration to take control of daily operations in his office.

“I feel that turning my office over to the federal government would be a dereliction of my duty,” Arpaio said.

Arpaio and his supporters also believe the civil rights investigation is a ploy by the Obama administration to curry favor with Hispanic voters, the newspaper says.

The Justice Department declined to comment Tuesday, but a letter to Arpaio’s lawyers from Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General Roy Austin indicated that he believes the sheriff’s office had previously agreed to a court-ordered monitor and that the latest move calls into question “whether you were ever interested in settling this matter,” The Republic reports.

Austin called the establishment of an independent monitor an “absolute necessity” to meaningful overhaul of the sheriff’s office.

Appeared Here


Feds To Sue Nutcase Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio For Targeting Hispanics

April 3, 2012

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

The sheriff’s high-profile crackdown on illegal immigrants has helped thrust the issue onto the national political stage with some states passing tough new laws aimed at pushing out those in the country illegally.

The administration’s Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.

Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department’s demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement, which has now reached 128 pages in draft form, according to the Obama administration.

“We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith,” Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in a letter to the lawyer for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).

Austin said in the letter that Arpaio’s team demanded that a meeting slated for Wednesday include for the first time negotiations over the monitor and previously had demanded that the Justice Department provide more details about its findings.

“MCSO’s refusal to engage in good faith negotiations requires us to prepare for civil (court) action,” Austin said. He added that the Justice Department has recently discovered more information about the “failure to reasonably investigate sex crimes” by Arpaio’s office.

The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio’s force.

The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.

In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.

“To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!” Arpaio said in the statement.

Arpaio’s force has been under investigation by federal authorities since 2008 during the Bush administration. Obama’s Justice Department spent months fighting for access to documents and to some of his deputies. Arpaio was interviewed twice during the probe.

Appeared Here


Trigger Happy Scottsdale Arizona Police Officer Shoots And Kills Unarmed Man Holding A Baby Outside His Home

February 17, 2012

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — An Arizona man was shot to death by police Tuesday while holding his grandson.

Police say 50-year-old John Loxas was holding his grandchild in his arms as he walked around his Scottsdale neighborhood Tuesday night threatening neighbors and police.

“There were at least three officers in position to engage the suspect. At least one of the officers thought he saw something in the suspect’s hands,” said Sgt. Mark Clark.

Loxas was standing outside of his home with his grandchild still in his arms when Officer James Peters fired one shot to the head, killing the suspect.

Police say the 9-month-old boy was not injured during the shooting.

Officers also escaped unharmed.

Some neighbors are now questioning the officers actions.

Investigators say the officers on the scene thought Loxas was holding a gun.

Detectives did not find a weapon on Loxas following the shooting, but did locate several firearms inside the home.

Officer Peters, who fired the fatal shot, has been involved in seven shootings over the past decade.
Six of those have been fatal, and all have been ruled justified.

Appeared Here


Secret Service Pisses Away Taxpayer Dollors Investigating Shot-Up Obama T-Shirt Photo

January 28, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – A post on the Facebook page of a veteran Peoria police sergeant depicting the photo of seven Centennial High School students in Peoria, four with guns and one holding up a T-shirt with a bullet-riddled image of President Barack Obama, was brought to the U.S. Secret Service’s attention by a citizen and an “appropriate follow-up” is being conducted, a Washington D.C-based spokesman for the federal agency told The Republic Friday.

“Any time information like this is brought to our attention we have to conduct a follow-up,” Max Milien, spokesman for the Secret Service, said.

Milien described the Facebook post in the category of “unusual direction of interest,” which would merit an agency follow-up, he said.

“We understand an individual’s right to free speech but we also have the right to speak to the individual to determine what their intent is,” Milien added.

Pat Shearer, the 25-year Peoria police sergeant, who remains on active duty, also faces an internal investigation on the matter. An administrative investigation was prompted after they got word the Secret Service was looking into the photograph, Peoria police spokesman Jay Davies said.

“We were made aware of that situation today and we have opened an administrative investigation to determine if there are any policy violations that took place,” Davies said Thursday.

In an e-mailed statement Friday, Peoria spokesman Bo Larsen said that the “city values a high standard of professional conduct and ethical behavior. These are expectations we have of all our employees.”

Danielle Airey, a spokeswoman for the Peoria Unified School District, confirmed Friday that all seven young men in the photo are Centennial High students.

“We’re going to continue to cooperate with the ongoing investigation and gather information so our administration is well versed,” Airey said. “While the incident did not occur on our campus, it is an unfortunate event that happens to involve students and adults. It does not represent what we are as a school or district or community.”

The photo has since been removed from Shearer’s page.

It was posted Jan. 20, before the president’s visit to the Valley on Wednesday.

Both Larsen and Davies declined further comment on the matter pending the investigation.

“Until the investigation is complete and any appeals are exhausted, I cannot discuss the details,” Davies said.

Jon Meck, president of the City of Peoria Police Supervisors Association, said Shearer has been advised by the association’s attorney not to make any public statements and he also declined comment on the matter.

“For his privacy and for the integrity of the investigation by the department I won’t make any statement,” Meck said.

Meck added that Shearer has a great reputation as a police officer.

“The people he supervises respect him, his peers respect him,” Meck said.

The New York Times described the picture as showing seven young men, four posing with weapons and one holding the T-shirt, “with small holes and gashes,” bearing a likeness of the president above the word “Hope.”

The Times reported the image was also posted on the Facebook page of one of the young men in the picture posing with a gun.

According to the Peoria Police Department’s social-media policy, which includes social-networking sites, “employees shall not post, transmit, reproduce and/or disseminate information (text, pictures, video, audio, etc.) to the Internet or any other forum (public or private) that would tend to discredit or reflect unfavorably upon the department or any of the department’s employees.”

Appeared Here


Buckeye Arizona Police Claim They Will Investigate Officer Who Brutally Attacked Elderly Man At Walmart

November 26, 2011

BUCKEYE, ARIZONA – An Arizona police department will conduct an investigation into the bloody arrest of a 54-year-old grandfather during a Black Friday sale at a Walmart, an assistant police chief said Saturday.

Jerald Newman, 54, was released Saturday from a Maricopa County jail, his wife, Pamela, told CNN. He has been charged with resisting arrest and shoplifting.

“(He is) as good as expected … but he is emotionally and mentally a wreck,” she said.

Newman was among a throng of shoppers crammed into a Buckeye, Arizona, Walmart soon after it opened late the night of Thanksgiving.

“They were just letting people in; there was nowhere to walk,” said his daughter, Berneta Sanchez, who was also in the store. “Teenagers and adults were fighting for these games, taking them away from little kids and away from my father.”

The suspect’s grandson, Nicholas Nava, told CNN affiliate KNXV that Newman had grabbed one video game and put it under his shirt so that others jostling for the game didn’t take it from him. One person alerted a police officer, who then approached Newman.

David Chadd, a CNN iReporter from Las Vegas, was among the crowd shopping for video games set up in the Walmart’s grocery section. He said Newman “was not resisting” arrest as he was led away from the crowd by a police officer.

That officer, Chadd said, then suddenly hooked the suspect around the leg, grabbed him and “slammed him face first into the ground.”

“It was like a bowling ball hitting the ground, that’s how bad it was,” he said.

Video, recorded by Chadd and later posted on CNN’s iReport, shows an apparently unconscious Newman head-down on the floor in a pool of blood. As he’s turned over, Buckeye police officers appear to try to revive him — at which point his face, covered mostly in blood, is revealed.

Several voices, apparently those of fellow shoppers, are heard saying, “Why would you throw him down so hard? All he did was shoplifting and you threw him down like that?” Another person says, “They threw him down. He wasn’t doing anything wrong.”

Two citizens then appear to come to Newman’s aid by applying paper towels to the man’s nose. Chadd estimated Newman was knocked out for about 10 minutes, all the while gushing blood and handcuffed.

Buckeye Assistant Police Chief Larry Hall said Saturday that Newman’s case is “basically in the court’s hands right now, as far as the resisting arrest and shoplifting goes.”

The department will conduct an investigation to assess if the actions of the police officer involved in the arrest were “within reason,” based on “our policy and also the law.” He said that probe would happen soon, adding it was “days away.”

“We may have an independent agency conduct the inquiry, just to show transparency,” Hall said.

As to the criminal charges, Todd Nolan — the attorney representing Newman — said his office will conduct discovery procedures Monday with police “to gather evidence proving my client is innocent.”

The suspect himself plans to speak to the media later next week, his lawyer said.

Walmart spokeswoman Ashley Hardie said the retail giant was aware of the incident.

“We are concerned whenever there is an incident involving a customer at one of our stores,” Hardie said. “We are in contact with the local police and are sharing any information we have with them.”

Sanchez described her father as “a really nice man,” saying he is a custom furniture-maker who preaches through the California prison system. He has raised his grandson from birth and, even while in the hospital, Sanchez said the boy was her father’s chief concern.

Whatever happens, Sanchez vowed that next year she won’t be shopping in the wee hours of the Friday morning after Thanksgiving.

“I will never leave my house again on Black Friday, because I don’t want to put my daughter through that again,” she said, noting her daughter was there to see police standing over her bloody grandfather. “I’d rather stay home. And if they have Black Friday, they need more security.”

Appeared Here


Illegal Immigrants Blamed For 30 Wildfires In Arizona

November 23, 2011

ARIZONA – People entering the U.S. illegally from Mexico are believed responsible for more than one-third of human-ignited wildfires in Arizona over a five-year period, according to a government report that could stoke congressional debate over illegal immigration.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the Government Accountability Office report supports remarks he made earlier this year after his state was hit hard by wildfires. At the time, McCain was accused of “scapegoating” immigrants.

“I hope this report is a lesson to the activists and public officials that would prefer to engage in partisan character attacks rather than help focus the discussion on the vital need to secure our southern border,” he said in a statement.

Illegal immigrants are believed to have started 30 of 77 fires that were investigated from 2006 through 2010, according to the report by the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.

Federal land management agencies, however, did not investigate all 422 human-caused fires on federal and tribal land, as called for by federal policy.

“Only 18% of fires on federal land during the five-year study period were actually investigated, and thus, the number and size of fires linked to illegal border crossers may actually be higher,” McCain said.

Of the 30 fires, nine burned more than 100 acres each, 16 burned 10 to 100 acres, and five burned fewer than 10 acres, according to the report.

Efforts to signal for help, provide warmth or cook food appear to be the source of the fires, according to the report. One 2006 fire that burned about 170 acres started after an injured border crosser signaled his need for help. The causes of some of the fires are not known, but the report noted that some occurred in areas known for drug smuggling.

“The presence of illegal border crossers has complicated fire suppression activities in the Arizona border region,” the report said, adding that it has “increased concern about firefighter safety, and, in some instances, has required firefighters to change or limit the tactics they use in suppressing fires.”

Only a limited number of fires were studied because of the lack of investigators, according to the GAO report, which could set off a congressional debate over whether federal agencies are receiving enough money from Congress to prevent fires. The report notes that the percentage of fires caused by human activity in Arizona is “consistent with the national average.”

“In a time of constrained resources and competing needs, we recognize that investigating all human-caused wildland fires in the Arizona border region may not be feasible,” the report notes.

The report urges officials in Arizona to look at a program in California aimed at reducing fires from illegal immigration. Cleveland National Forest has a crew that hikes trails known to be used by illegal border crossers and extinguishes abandoned campfires, according to the report. In 2008 alone, the crew extinguished 101 abandoned campfires that the report said could have grown into larger, more damaging fires.

The GAO study began in 2010, so it didn’t take into account the 2011 fire season, the worst in Arizona history, that McCain said included two fires that destroyed more than 60 homes.

Appeared Here


5 Armed Illegal Immigrants Hunted US Border Patrol Agents In Arizona

November 23, 2011

ARIZONA – Five illegal immigrants armed with at least two AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles were hunting for U.S. Border Patrol agents near a desert watering hole known as Mesquite Seep just north of the Arizona-Mexico border when a firefight erupted and one U.S. agent was killed, records show.

A now-sealed federal grand jury indictment in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry says the Mexican nationals were “patrolling” the rugged desert area of Peck Canyon at about 11:15 p.m. on Dec. 14 with the intent to “intentionally and forcibly assault” Border Patrol agents.

At least two of the Mexicans carried their assault rifles “at the ready position,” one of several details about the attack showing that Mexican smugglers are becoming more aggressive on the U.S. side of the border.

According to the indictment, the Mexicans were “patrolling the area in single-file formation” a dozen miles northwest of the border town of Nogales and — in the darkness of the Arizona night — opened fire on four Border Patrol agents after the agents identified themselves in Spanish as police officers.

Two AK-47 assault rifles found at the scene came from the failed Fast and Furious operation.

Using thermal binoculars, one of the agents determined that at least two of the Mexicans were carrying rifles, but according to an affidavit in the case by FBI agent Scott Hunter, when the Mexicans did not drop their weapons as ordered, two agents used their shotguns to fire “less than lethal” beanbags at them.

At least one of the Mexicans opened fire and, according to the affidavit, Terry, a 40-year-old former U.S. Marine, was shot in the back. A Border Patrol shooting-incident report said that Terry called out, “I’m hit,” and then fell to the ground, a bullet having pierced his aorta. “I can’t feel my legs,” Terry told one of the agents who cradled him. “I think I’m paralyzed.”

Bleeding profusely, he died at the scene.

After the initial shots, two agents returned fire, hitting Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, 33, in the abdomen and leg. The others fled. The FBI affidavit said Osorio-Arellanes admitted during an interview that all five of the Mexicans were armed.

Peck Canyon is a notorious drug-smuggling corridor.

Osorio-Arellanes initially was charged with illegal entry, but that case was dismissed when the indictment was handed up. It named Osorio-Arellanes on a charge of second-degree murder, but did not identify him as the likely shooter, saying only that Osorio-Arellanes and others whose names were blacked out “did unlawfully kill with malice aforethought United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry while Agent Terry was engaged in … his official duties.”

The indictment also noted that Osorio-Arellanes had been convicted in Phoenix in 2006 of felony aggravated assault, had been detained twice in 2010 as an illegal immigrant, and had been returned to Mexico repeatedly.

Bill Brooks, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s acting southwest border field branch chief, referred inquiries to the FBI, which is conducting the investigation. The FBI declined to comment.

The case against Osorio-Arellanes and others involved in the shooting has since been sealed, meaning that neither the public nor the media has access to any evidence, filings, rulings or arguments.

The U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego, which is prosecuting the case, would confirm only that it was sealed. Also sealed was the judge’s reason for sealing the case.

Appeared Here


Arizona Cops Go Way Overboard – Streaker Faces Felony For “Criminal Impersonation” – Dressed Like A Referee At Football Game

October 22, 2011

ARIZONA – Jace Lankow, an undergraduate at the University of Arizona could face up to one and half years in jail after being charged with a class six felony for criminal impersonation.

Lankow dressed up as a referee and ran onto the field at Arizona Stadium on Thursday night during a football game featuring the Wildcats and UCLA Bruins.

While he was streaking, a brawl ensued between the two Pac-12 South schools, resulting in 10 players being suspended by the conference.

“The Conference is extremely disappointed in the actions of the student-athletes involved in this incident,” Commissioner Larry Scott said in a statement. “It is unacceptable behavior and violated Conference rules, as well as NCAA fighting rules.

“I have taken these actions today because it is imperative that we hold our student-athletes and coaches to the highest standards of sportsmanship.”

Bruins wide receiver Taylor Embree and Arizona cornerback Shaquille Richardson were penalized by game officials for unsportsmanlike conduct and ejected from the contest for fighting with 4 seconds left in the first half. They both will have to sit out an additional game.

UCLA defensive tackle Cassius Marsh was given a two-game ban while receivers Randall Carroll, Shaq Evans, and Ricky Marvray each received a game. Guard Alberto Cid will have to sit for a half.

Arizona nickleback Jourdan Grandon will miss a game while cornerback Lyle Brown and safety Mark Watley each will sit a half.

The suspensions will occur during each school’s next scheduled game. UCLA plays Saturday, Oct. 29 against California, while Arizona’s next game is at Washington that day.

Appeared Here