Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Can you guess? It's because such a tattoo might unduly influence a jury if you are, at some point, charged with murder. At least that was the argument made recently in Barton County, Kansas (Great Bend Tribune), by the defense lawyer for Jeffrey Chapman, who looks like this:
Jeffrey looks like that, not his defense lawyer. I should have been more clear.
Story-sender Thomas B. asks whether this tattoo would be admissible at trial, and I think the answer is no. The fact that you like the word "murder" does not tend to prove you actually commit murders. In fact, you have a First Amendment right to go around saying (or displaying) "murder" all you want, except probably if someone has just asked you "should we murder or not murder this person?" So it is not relevant, but for what are probably obvious reasons it is pretty likely to prejudice a jury. So it would be out underFederal Rule 403, at least.
What seems to be the Kansas equivalent, though, says that a judge can exclude evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk that its admission will unfairly and harmfully surprise a party who has not had reasonable opportunity to anticipate that such evidence would be offered." I don't think it has any probative value, but it's also hard to see how Jeffrey should not reasonably have anticipated his neck tattoo might be an issue. I'd be willing to bet that Kansas interprets this rule in a way similar to the federal rule, though.
In a year or three. The House and Senate this week unanimously approved a bill — theDigital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act) — that will providedetailed information to the public on federal programs and checkbook-level payments for both internal agency spending and outside grants and contracts. That’s a big deal for researchers and watchdogs — when the changes show up onUSASpending.gov.
Although the standards for maintaining spending data need to be published within a year of the bill’s becoming law, the federal government has up to three years to begin publishing the actual data. The Department of Defense also gets the possibility of up to three six-month extensions of the deadline.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Spot on review:
Market-oriented economies that learn to live with inequality will reap the rewards: More domestic capital for workers to use on their jobs, more foreign capital flowing in to a country perceived as a safe investment, and a political and cultural system that can spend its time on topics other than the 1 percent. Market-oriented economies that instead follow Piketty’s preferred path—taxing capital heavily, preferably through international consortiums so the taxes are harder to evade—will end up with less domestic and foreign capital, fewer lenders willing to fund new housing projects, fewer new office buildings, and a cultural system focused on who has more and who has less.
…The Boston University economist Christophe Chamley and the Stanford economist Kenneth Judd came up independently with what we might call the Chamley-Judd Redistribution Impossibility Theorem: Any tax on capital is a bad idea in the long run, and that the overwhelming effect of a capital tax is to lower wages. A capital tax is such a bad idea that even if workers and capitalists really were two entirely separate groups of people—if workers could only eat their wages and capitalists just lived off of their interest like a bunch of trust-funders—it would still be impossible to permanently tax capitalists, hand the tax revenues to workers, and make the workers better off.
…One lesson of this story is that it’s good to be patient. So let’s start training ourselves and our children to delay gratification, to forego that great sound system on the new car, to eat at home a little more often.The full review is here.- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/#sthash.xTI3rgcC.dpuf
Gina, have you heard of a FOIA request? One is coming at you quick wacko. Any US citizen has a right to question you and has a right to Government information provided it doesn't jeopardize national security. Give it up and do NOT threaten those who employ you. Who do these communists think they are?
Some of these people want us wiped from the face of the earth and our so-called President just gives in to them? Hussein are you a Muslim apologist?
POSTED AT 9:21 AM ON APRIL 28, 2014 BY ED MORRISSEY
The last we heard from Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY), he threatened to throw a reporter off of a balcony. He has bigger problems than anger-management issues today, though. Grimm turned himself in to the FBI today to answer charges of fraud related to a health-food restaurant he owned prior to his election to Congress:
New York Congressman Michael Grimm surrendered to federal authorities today after being indicted on campaign finance violations.Grimm, a Republican from New York City’s borough of Staten Island, had gained notoriety when he was caught on tape after the State of the Union speech earlier this year threatening to throw a reporter off the Capitol’s balcony and said he would “break you in half, like a boy.”Grimm, a former FBI agent, was indicted on charges of fraud, obstruction and perjury.
That ABC News report may be slightly inaccurate, at least on the nature of the charges. Grimm had been under investigation for campaign-finance violations, but these charges are not entirely related to that issue, according to the Washington Post:
Learn the inside scoop on Watergate, the Ford Pardon, and the 18 ½ minute Gap.
Roger Stone, the New York Times bestselling author of The Man Who Killed Kennedy, gives us the inside scoop on how Nixon avoided prosecution after the Watergate scandal. Using Gen Al Haig as his agent, Nixon let Vice President Ford know that he would expose the CIA's involvement in the JFK assassination and Ford's role in altering autopsy records for the Warren Commission if he went to trial in the Watergate scandal. “Tell them if Dick Nixon's going down I'm taking everyone down with me, that prick [CIA Director Richard] Helms, Lyndon, and Jerry Ford are going down with me” was the way Haig phrased it.
Thus Nixon would use this information to avoid prosecution and jail to blackmail Gerald Ford for a full, free and unconditional pardon. Nixon's secret would not only destroy his presidency—it would save him from prison.
Stone examines the bungled Watergate break-in to determine what exactly Nixon's agents were looking for and how the CIA infiltrated the burglar team and sabotaged the break-in to gain leverage over Nixon who was demanding the CIA turn over the records of the Bay of Pigs and Kennedy Assassination. He also explains the 18 1/2 minute gap in the White House Tapes, although the point is moot as the government has still redacted all references to the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy Assassination, and the CIA from the publicly released Nixon tapes and the Obama Administration's fighting in Federal Court to keep the CIA's Bay of Pigs records sealed.
About the Author
Sunday, April 27, 2014
By John Solomon And Kathleen Hennessey, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.
In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.
The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing — except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.
Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
Next Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court will hold back-to-back, one-hour hearings on cases testing the authority of police to search the contents of cellphones they take from people they have arrested. The cases are not consolidated. At 10 a.m., the Court will hear a state case, Riley v. California. Arguing for David Leon Riley will be Stanford law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher, with thirty minutes of time.. California’s solicitor general, Edward C. DuMont of San Francisco, will represent the state, with twenty minutes. Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben will present the federal government’s views as anamicus; he will have ten minutes. At 11 a.m., the Court will hear a federal case, United States v. Wurie. Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben will again represent the federal government. Arguing for Brima Wurie will be an assistant federal public defender, Judith H. Mizner, of Boston. Each will have thirty minutes.
By Susanne Posel – October 19, 2013
October 19, 2013
October 19, 2013
President Obama has named Jeh Charles Johnson as the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Obama told the audience at the Rose Garden that Johnson has “been there in the Situation Room, at the table in moments of decision.”
The president said: “Jeh also knows that meeting these threats demands cooperation and coordination across our government. He’s been there in the Situation Room at the table in moments of decision, working with leaders from a host of agencies to make sure everyone is rowing in the same direction. And he’s respected across our government as a team player, somebody who knows how to get folks who don’t always agree to work towards a common goal.”
Because the “task” of counterterrorism is so great, Obama chose Johnson to continue Janet Napolitano’s “important work”.
With Johnson designing the legal framework for the Obama administrations various policies that justify criminal actions, Obama promised more transparency within his “national security team”.
As a graduate from Columbia Law School (CLS), Johnson has focused his legal career at American civil and criminal trials.- See more at: http://www.occupycorporatism.com/new-dhs-sec-johnson-signifies-push-civilian-army/#sthash.SIZY5mMy.dpuf
Political operative and lobbyist Barbara Comstock made a career of digging up dirt. In her bid for Congress, she's getting a taste of her own medicine.
—By Tim Murphy
| Fri Apr. 25, 2014 3:00 AM PDT
It was early April, debate night for the half-dozen Republican candidates vying to replace retiring Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), and the frontrunner, Del. Barbara Comstock, was getting a taste of her own medicine. That is, she was on the receiving end of some premium opposition research.
Comstock earned her stripes as the consummate Washington political operative by digging up dirt on the Clinton White House. She would later go on to hang out a shingle as a hired PR gun and lobbyist for some of DC's most controversial figures, including ex-Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby and Blackwater's Erik Prince. She'd built a career out of driving the narrative.
But now, on stage at a middle school in Sterling, Virginia, all she could do was shake her head as Rob Wasinger, one of her opponents, went on the offensive. Wasinger, a onetime chief of staff to ex-Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, invoked Comstock's lobbying work on behalf Carnival Cruise Corporation. The company, he explained, earned $236 million in taxpayer funding from the Hurricane Katrina relief bill in 2005, ostensibly to provide housing for evacuees. But the boats it sent to the Gulf Coast were never more than half full and the cruise company charged more than twice what it would have for an actual cruise.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
The first of two parts
Last month, as the Senate was busy negotiating the final details of its Ukraine aid package, Majority Leader Harry Reid became temporarily distracted with a campaign finance issue. Since winning re-election in 2010, Reid’s campaign had purchased gifts for supporters and donors from vendors like Bed Bath & Beyond, Amazon, Nordstrom, and the Senate gift shop, among others. But one round of spending was directed to a less recognizable firm: Ryan Elisabeth, a jewelry line.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/24/harry_reids_long_steady_accretion_of_power__wealth.html#ixzz2zqlJAEym
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
Agenda 21: The BLM Land Grabbing Endgame
By Michael Snyder, on April 22nd, 2014
Why is the federal government so obsessed with grabbing more land? After all, the federal government already owns more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states. Why are federal bureaucrats so determined to grab even more? Well, the truth is that this all becomes much clearer once you understand that there is a very twisted philosophy behind what they are doing. It is commonly known as “Agenda 21″, although many names and labels are used for this particular philosophy. Basically, those that hold to this form of radical environmentalism believe that humanity is utterly destroying the planet, and therefore the goal should be to create a world where literally everything that we do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development”. In their vision of the future, the human population will be greatly reduced and human activity will be limited to strictly regulated urban areas and travel corridors. The rest of the planet will be left to nature. To achieve this goal, a massive transfer of land from private landowners to the federal government will be necessary.
So the conflict between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM is really just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that the BLM has their eyes on much bigger prizes.
For example, Breitbart is reporting that the BLM is looking at grabbing 90,000 privately-held acres along the Texas/Oklahoma border…
After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”
Needless to say, officials down in Texas are not pleased about this. In fact, just check out what the attorney general of Texas is saying…
Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country …And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”
Does the federal government actually need more land?
As I mentioned above, the feds already own more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states…
Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent
The federal government does not need more land. But there is an obsession to grab more so that the dictates of Agenda 21 can be implemented.
The map that I have posted below is a simulation of what the endgame of Agenda 21 might look like. If these radical environmentalists get their way, the only areas that will be allocated for normal human use will be the areas in green…
If you do not go along with the “sustainable development” agenda, you risk being labeled a “threat” to be dealt with.
For example, Senator Harry Reid has used the label “domestic terrorists” to describe those that showed up to support Cliven Bundy at his ranch.
Reid could have used lots of other labels. But he specifically chose to call them terrorists. And considering what the law allows the feds to do to “terrorists”, that is quite chilling.
And don’t think that if you just stay quiet that you won’t get labeled as a “terrorist”. In fact, there is a very good chance that you already fit several government criteria for being a terrorist. Just check out the list below. It comes from my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“…
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation areseparate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
Do any of those criteria apply to you?
If so, then you are a “potential terrorist” according to the U.S. government.
We live at a time when the federal government is becoming increasingly oppressive. Just consider the following excerpt from a recent article by John W. Whitehead…
It’s not just the Cliven Bundys of the world who are being dealt with in this manner. Don Miller, a 91-year-old antiques collector, recently had his Indiana home raided by the FBI, ostensibly because it might be in the nation’s best interest if the rare and valuable antiques and artifacts Miller had collected over the course of 80 years were cared for by the government. Such tactics carried out by anyone other than the government would be considered grand larceny, and yet the government gets a free pass.In the same way, the government insists it can carry out all manner of surveillance on us—listen in on our phone calls, read our emails and text messages, track our movements, photograph our license plates, even enter our biometric information into DNA databases—but those who dare to return the favor, even a little, by filming potential police misconduct, get roughed up by the police, arrested, charged with violating various and sundry crimes.
This was not what our founders intended.
Our liberties and freedoms are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day, and most Americans don’t even seem to care.
In the end, we will pay a great price for our apathy.