|
Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Friday, 23 January 2009
Come and Get me - Man tracks himself for the Feds
Mood:
chatty
Now Playing: he has a Muslim name... Well ... he must be a terorist
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
Z3 Readers I found this story here:http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11103605?source=most_viewed Its hard to imagine that the USA treats people in such a disrespectful way, read how this man is fed up with the Feds.. he now tracks himself ... his worry is that "his name" ...triggers Homeland Security concerns. To me this sound racist and unconstitutional, so read on about how this professor is "working with them(sic)" ~joe-anybody I'm not a terrorist, says San Jose State professor who puts his life onlineBy Bruce Newman Mercury News Posted: 11/29/2008 06:59:09 PM PST Click photo to enlarge Hasan Elahi of Oakland takes a photo from his cellphone while on the move... ( David M. Barreda ) Hasan Elahi has spent most of the past six years trying to prove that he isn't a terrorist. This is odd in a way, because during that time no one has ever said publicly that the San Jose State University assistant professor is a terrorist. Except Hasan Elahi. While re-entering the country following a trip to Africa in 2002, Elahi says he was accused of stockpiling explosives for al-Qaida in a Florida storage locker. And though he was released following nine hours of intense questioning, he has been attempting ever since to disprove that he is the most malign threat to civilization of the post-Sept. 11 world. Elahi says he is still fearful that he could be dragged off an airplane and taken to the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay. So Elahi reasoned that if he was fated to live under a perpetual cloud of suspicion anyway, he would turn his Kafkaesque existence — every waking, quaking moment of it — into "surveillance art." If government agencies wanted to track his movements, Elahi would do it for them, letting his life play out in surreal time for the whole world to see on the Internet. If Big Brother was watching, Elahi would bore him to death. Part paranoia, part performance art, his project — titled "Tracking Transience: The Orwell Project" — went broadband nearly five years ago at http://tracking transience.net. Since the 36-year-old Elahi began, he has documented the vast seams of incident and insignificance characteristic of the non-jihadist lifestyle. He has taken more than 22,000 pictures of virtually every meal he has eaten, of the rooms — including most of the public toilets — he has visited, and of the roads he has traveled down. He has turned his life into a data stream, and recently redirected that stream through Silicon Valley, where he has been teaching at San Jose State University's School of Art and Design since August, hoping to create something brand new: database art. "We don't know what the next generation of art is going to look like," he says. "We're kind of making it up as we go along. Not unlike the tech industry." An offline version of the project was shown at the Sundance Film Festival in January, where it played on 139 video screens in a single room — part of what the festival's organizers referred to as "expanded cinema." The installation attempted something akin to building a human genome by collating the pictures of every Chinese takeout meal Elahi has ever eaten. His move to San Jose in August seemed like the logical next step, a chance to see other artists working in the technology medium whom he had met at "nerdfests" in New York and Berlin. For the aspiring database artist, Silicon Valley evidently offers much of the same promise as Florence during the Renaissance. "The Medicis created this culture of curiosity, a culture of visionary thinking," Elahi says. "It creates an environment that lets a certain type of thought flourish. It's all about trying to find where that bright line is, then pushing and pushing it." It's unlikely any of this would have occurred to him if he hadn't been briefly taken captive at an Immigration and Naturalization Service facility, given a series of polygraph tests, then released without being charged. "They told me in order to formally clear me, they would have to formally charge me," Elahi explains. "And they couldn't do that." His name was placed on a terrorist watch list used by airport screeners throughout the United States, Elahi says. "There really is a serious danger underlying all this," he adds. "When that plane comes back into the U.S. now, I don't know what the interaction with Homeland Security is going to be. To this day, I get very nervous coming back into my own country." Born in Bangladesh and raised in Brooklyn, Elahi is convinced that having a Muslim name remains the source of his problems going through airport security. His predicament is so unusual, it even got an airing on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" in May. "Having this identity imposed upon me that completely misrepresented who I am," Elahi says, "I was given no choice but to take my identity into my own hands. I'm convinced that if we don't define ourselves, other people will do it for us, and inaccurately. In my case, not only was it wrong, it had potentially disastrous consequences for my life." The FBI will neither confirm nor deny Elahi's claim that he was detained because there is no official record that it ever happened. A field agent in the bureau's San Francisco office responded to a description of Elahi's story as "not likely," but no one at the FBI with direct knowledge of the case returned calls. Assuming there ever was a case. There's no proof that Elahi is making up his story, but then again, there's no proof that he isn't. It turns out that even the most tech-driven "database art" requires the underpinning of a compelling story. Without it, Elahi would be just another guy posting cell phone pictures online, like the compulsives on SnapMyLife.com. "He's grown up in a generation for whom everything is media-ized, and therefore is subject to question," says Joel Slayton, executive director of the digital art festival 01SJ and the man Elahi replaced on the San Jose State faculty. "Everything is suspect, and the only way you can survive is by being slightly schizophrenic — both in it and out of it at the same time." Elahi's Web site includes bank records and credit card receipts, proving that he has actually lived every scintillating second of the life he is posting. He has a software filter that scrubs out his name, address and credit card numbers, so he won't become easy prey for identity thieves. But, as he says, "Would you really want my identity the next time you're getting on an airplane?" He doesn't know exactly when the project will end, but Elahi has come up with a denouement to it that even Kafka would admire. He has been commissioned by the city's public art program to design an installation for Mineta San Jose International Airport's new terminal, scheduled to open in 2010. "He's a very interesting artist," says Barbara Goldstein, the program's director. And she's never even seen him go through a metal detector.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:22 PM PST
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Can Police search Your Phone or Blackberry when you are arrested?
Mood:
quizzical
Now Playing: The Long Arm Of The Law ... wants your text messages and mobile files
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
Hey all you most friendly and kind Z3 Readers check out this hot topic. And just a FYI ..... when flying and then going through customs, the (sic)homeland security can take your laptop and pour over it for days to see what ever they can about you, or what 'you" have on your computer..... read on and stand tall http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10140373-38.html Police Blotter is a regular CNET News report on the intersection of technology and the law. What: Police claim they can legally copy data from the handheld devices of anyone who's arrested. When: Two judges wrestle with concepts including privacy, the Fourth Amendment, and searches, and reach two different conclusions. What happened, according to court records and other documents: Handheld gadgets and laptops seem to know us better than our spouses do. They know whom we talk to, which Web sites we visit, whose e-mail we ignore, and with a little extra smarts, they could probably offer an educated guess about what we want for dinner. To snatch these useful little devices from our homes, police need warrants. But if we happen to be arrested with gadgets in our pocket or purse, police say they have the right to peruse what could be gigabytes of data for potentially incriminating files or photographs. The frightening scale of electronic searches has made this an important--and unresolved--privacy question. Two recent federal cases illustrate how judges remain deeply divided about whether to support police powers or defend Americans' privacy rights. In May 2008, Chester Balmer, an officer with Georgia's Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department, responded to a complaint of sexual activity in a silver pickup truck parked near an apartment complex. Balmer found a Dodge pickup truck with two people inside, obtained the driver's permission to look inside the truck, and allegedly spotted crack cocaine in the ashtray. Balmer arrested the driver, Bernard McCray, and scrolled through the photos on McCray's mobile phone. He found images of what he believed to be a 14-year-old teenage girl in lewd poses, which led to McCray being charged with possession of child pornography. His lawyer objected to using the images as evidence, saying the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield disagreed. Because papers, diaries, and traditional photographs can be examined during an arrest, Edenfield reasoned, a mobile phone can too. The second case yielded a different result. It began with a Florida drug bust involving a man named Aaron Wall. A Drug Enforcement Administration informant offered to sell several kilograms of cocaine to Wall, who was arrested when he allegedly showed up at an exchange point with a bag full of cash. Wall had two cell phones, which DEA agent Dave Mitchell examined during the booking process (but not during or immediately after the arrest). Mitchell found and took photographs of several text messages on the defendant's phones. Mitchell would later offer justifications for his warrantless search: 1) he regularly performs mobile-phone searches because it's common to find evidence of crimes in text messages; 2) it's a standard DEA practice authorized by the DEA Legal Department, as long as the search is performed during the booking process; 3) he was concerned that the text messages might expire after a certain amount of time; and 4) the cell phone battery may die. When the defense attorney objected to the search, U.S. District Judge William Zloch agreed. He said, essentially, that the DEA agent lied: "The court finds Agent Mitchell's statement that he searched the phone because of his concern that text messages might immanently expire is not credible...the true, and only, purpose of the search by Agent Mitchell was to find incriminating evidence." Zloch ordered that the incriminating text messages be suppressed, which means that prosecutors can't use them in court proceedings. These two cases capture the different ways to look at digital devices: are they like physical containers, which can be opened at will during arrests, or does their uniquely personal nature mean that a search warrant should be required? Few of us would have traveled with decades' worth of intimate personal diaries, but that's what modern gadgetry lets us do. One of the better-known cases is the 5th Circuit's opinion (PDF) in January 2007, which sided with police. Police Blotter has covered other cases that took the pro-police view and the pro-privacy view. It's worth pointing out that the second proceedings may have turned out differently, if the cops had searched Wall's mobile phone at the time of the arrest, rather than waiting until booking. Then again, this is no tremendous obstacle: if judges insist on that distinction, police can respond by doing a complete copy at the time of arrest. (Note that the state of Florida says "agents should continue to obtain search warrants for securing information from cell phones seized from arrested subject." That shows that a search warrant is no insurmountable hurdle.) Excerpt from opinion of U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield on January 5, 2009, allowing the mobile-device search: It is well settled that a search incident to a lawful arrest is a traditional exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Such searches are reasonable not only because of the need to disarm the arrestee of any weapons that might be used to resist arrest or effect his escape, but also because of the need "to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction." (Unquestionably, when a person is lawfully arrested, the police have the right, without a search warrant, to make a contemporaneous search of the person of the accused for weapons or for the fruits of or implements used to commit the crime.) As the Fifth Circuit held in Finley, "the permissible scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest extends to containers found on an arrestee's person." A cell phone, like a beeper, is an electronic "container," in that it stores information that may have great evidentiary value (and that might easily be destroyed or corrupted). While such electronic storage devices are of more recent vintage than papers, diaries, or traditional photographs, the basic principle still applies: incident to a person's arrest, a mobile phone or beeper may be briefly inspected to see if it contains evidence relevant to the charge for which the defendant has been arrested. Excerpt from opinion of U.S. District Judge William Zloch on December 22, not allowing the mobile-device search: The search of the cell phone cannot be justified as a search incident to lawful arrest. First, Agent Mitchell accessed the text messages when Wall was being booked at the station house. Thus, it was not contemporaneous with the arrest. Also, the justification for this exception to the warrant requirement is the need for officer safety and to preserve evidence...The content of a text message on a cell phone presents no danger of physical harm to the arresting officers or others. Further, searching through information stored on a cell phone is analogous to a search of a sealed letter, which requires a warrant. The Court further finds that the search of text messages does not constitute an inventory search. The purpose of an inventory search is to document all property in an arrested person's possession to protect property from theft and the police from lawsuits based on lost or stolen property. This, of course, includes cell phones. However, there is no need to document the phone numbers, photos, text messages, or other data stored in the memory of a cell phone to properly inventory the person's possessions because the threat of theft concerns the cell phone itself, not the electronic information stored on it. Surely the government cannot claim that a search of text messages on Wall's cell phones was necessary to inventory the property in his possession. Therefore, the search exceeded the scope of an inventory search and entered the territory of general rummaging.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:55 PM PST
Updated: Friday, 16 January 2009 3:26 PM PST
Friday, 7 November 2008
Terror Label Unconstitutional (for Oregon Charity)
Mood:
incredulous
Now Playing: A fucked up system - God Help America (please!)
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
Over at The Mercury there is an excellent article by Matt Davis titled: Judge: Terror Label Unconstitutional For Oregon Charity *** Posted by Matt Davis on Fri, Nov 7 at 2:22 PM Back in April I covered efforts by lawyers for the Ashland-based Al Haramain Islamic Foundation to get the Treasury Department to unfreeze its assets. The story was later covered by the New Yorker. In terms of how the government has acted since 911, the story is a massive, Orwellian deal. Yet I think there is something off-putting to most average readers in the complexity of the case...Nevertheless, the decision to pursue this policy by the treasury came about as the result of a Bush executive order. Let's hope this is the last time such a case has to come before the court. Simply put, the government seized the property of an Islamic charity without justifying why. Yesterday, a federal judge said that's against the fourth amendment of the constitution, unless the government can provide more information to justify the designation. ..... (keep reading) More to this story here in link below http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2008/11/07/judge_terror_label_unconstitu
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 2:39 PM PST
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Eavesdropping & Surveillance programs - Spying on Americans
Mood:
energetic
Now Playing: Email from the ACLU
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
Dear ACLU Supporter,
Reports all over the media yesterday and today confirm what we’ve known all along. Surveillance programs touted as critical to protect national security have in fact been used to monitor the private communications of innocent Americans abroad, including humanitarian workers and U.S. service-membersTwo former military intercept operators -- the people at the National Security Agency (NSA) who actually listen in to people’s calls -- revealed the news in an ABC report released yesterday Contrary to direct assurances from Bush administration officials that NSA monitoring was directed at suspected terrorists, the intercept operators report that "hundreds of U.S. citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they call friends and family back home." The NSA even intentionally directed its surveillance powers at well-established humanitarian organizations like Doctors Without Borders and the International Red Cross. It is outrageous that service men and women and international aid workers have had their private conversations needlessly and wantonly invaded by our government. That is why the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Congress’s expansion of the NSA’s surveillance authority under the FISA Amendments Act is so critical. Our case, Amnesty International v. McConnell -- brought on behalf of an impressive array of journalists, human rights organizations and lawyers -- shines a spotlight on the devastating effect of unchecked spying power on Americans doing indispensable work around the globe.
Stand up to warrantless and unnecessary government spying. Donate now to support the ACLU’s lawsuit, and help us put an end to out-of-control government eavesdropping.It’s more important than ever that you support the ACLU’s lawsuit and other actions challenging out-of-control government spying.
Just as we warned -- and as our FISA lawsuit contends -- the NSA’s new unchecked surveillance powers invade the privacy of innocent Americans and fundamentally undermine human rights workers, journalists and attorneys doing important work around the globe. This dragnet spying is ineffective, intrusive, unnecessary and most certainly unconstitutional.
Donate now to support the ACLU’s lawsuit and put an end to out-of-control government eavesdropping.The FISA Amendments Act -- rushed through a timid pre-election Congress -- gives the government nearly unfettered access to Americans’ international communications without any meaningful judicial oversight.As this week’s news demonstrates, with unchecked and unaccountable spying powers, NSA officials will quickly run amok. That’s why the ACLU is acting decisively to bring our government’s behavior back in line with the Constitution.We will not yield until we bring this reckless spying to an end. Please stand with us today.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero Executive Director ACLU
P.S. To learn more about our lawsuit challenging unconstitutional spying, visit our website.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 1:45 PM PDT
Updated: Saturday, 11 October 2008 1:53 PM PDT
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
Voting on Ballot Measures in Oregon 2008
Mood:
energetic
Now Playing: The important ballot measures to remember in Oregon 2008
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
Oregon
Vote NO on Measure 61 Measure 61 would greatly expand the number of criminal defendants subject to mandatory minimums, this time for non-violent property and drug crimes. Under this measure, a sentence would have to be served in its entirety, and there would be no eligibility for reduction at any time during the sentence (good time credit). ACLU opposes mandatory minimum prison sentences because they eliminate a judge’s ability to evaluate the facts of each case and consider the character and history of the defendant in determining the most appropriate sentence.
ACLU Opposes Measure 57, but…*
This measure requires judges to impose a minimum prison sentence, the length of which would depend only on the person’s criminal history. It would prohibit judges from ordering a lesser sentence which current law allows in exceptional situations based upon an individual’s particular circumstances. As a result, the new sentences are mandatory minimum sentences. They differ slightly from Oregon’s current mandatory minimum scheme in that Measure 57 would allow an inmate to receive credit for good behavior during incarceration. Measure 57 also would increase access to drug treatment programs for those who are incarcerated or on post-prison supervision or probation. It would provide local counties with additional funding for drug courts, intensive supervision and jail beds to use as sanctions for those who fail to comply with conditions imposed by their treatment programs. If Measure 57 receives more “yes” votes than Measure 61, it would supersede (and replace) Measure 61. (Likewise, if both measures receive a majority of votes cast, but this measure receives fewer “yes” votes than Measure 61, Measure 57 would not go into effect.) * While in an ideal world we would hope that voters would reject both Measures 61 and 57, we are also well aware of current political realities in Oregon. Deciding how to vote on Measure 57 will be one of the most difficult decisions civil libertarians will face this year. Recommendation: The ACLU of Oregon Opposes Ballot Measure 57, but we urge ACLU members and supporters to be aware of its link to Ballot Measure 61 and make up your own minds.
Vote NO on Measure 58
Measure 58 would impose arbitrary limits on english language Instruction in public schools. The measure also runs the risk of being in conflict with federal equal education opportunity requirements and jeopardizing federal funding. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on “race, color or national origin.” This is part of an ongoing nationwide “English-only” effort. Measure 58 would eliminate local control by school boards, educators and families and replace it with a one-size-fits-all approach that would hurt students who are not able to become completely fluent in English within a relatively short period of time.
VOTE NO on Measure 64
Measure 64 would mandate that no “public resources” be used to collect or to help collect money used for “political purposes.” This would basically restrict political speech and association rights of public employees and non-profit organizations. The definition of “public resources” is very broad and would include the use of “public buildings.” Measure 64 would bar candidates and ballot measure-related events in those buildings while still allowing every other type of group to meet. That raises significant concerns under the Oregon and U.S. constitutions. In addition, Measure 64 would eliminate the ability of public employees to make decisions about their own payroll deductions including union dues and deductions made to non-profits who may speak out on ballot measures and legislative proposals.
Vote YES on Measure 56
Ballot Measure 56 would partially remove “double majority” requirement for property tax election. Currently, a property tax measure can be approved only if it has both a majority of “yes” votes and more than 50 percent of registered voters participate in the election (“double majority”). The ACLU of Oregon has always opposed the “double-majority” requirement because it runs counter to the principle of one-person/one-vote. Under the current requirement, a tax measure would fail even if it receives a large majority of “yes” votes if fewer than 50 percent of registered voters participate in the election. That means that the “votes” of people who refuse to vote would have greater weight than the votes of people who return their ballots. While Measure 56 would not repeal the “double-majority” requirement altogether, it is an improvement.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 4:16 PM PDT
Friday, 3 October 2008
China using surveillance on Skype software users
Mood:
not sure
Now Playing: China spys big time on text messaging and Skype Phone users
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
Surveillance of Skype messages found in China Published: October 2, 2008 SanFranscio: A group of Canadian human-rights activists and computer security researchers has discovered a huge surveillance system in China that monitors and archives certain Internet text conversations that include politically charged words. The system tracks text messages sent by customers of Tom-Skype, a joint venture between a Chinese wireless operator and eBay, the Web auctioneer that owns Skype, an online phone and text messaging service. The discovery draws more attention to the Chinese government's Internet monitoring and filtering efforts, which created controversy this summer during the Beijing Olympics. Researchers in China have estimated that 30,000 or more "Internet police" monitor online traffic, Web sites and blogs for political and other offending content in what is called the Golden Shield Project or the Great Firewall of China. The activists, who are based at Citizen Lab, a research group that focuses on politics and the Internet at the University of Toronto, discovered the surveillance operation last month. They said a cluster of eight message-logging computers in China contained more than a million censored messages. They examined the text messages and reconstructed a list of restricted words. Read This Full Article HERE http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/02/technology/02skype.php
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 4:08 PM PDT
Thursday, 2 October 2008
Lawmaker Revives Former KKK Leader's Sterilization Proposal
Mood:
don't ask
Now Playing: KKK idea is suggested by Rep John LaBruzo (New Orleans)
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
NEW ORLEANS -- A suburban New Orleans legislator has proposed revisiting an idea from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke: paying poor women to undergo sterilization as a way to shrink welfare rolls and government costs. Rep. John LaBruzzo's suggestion prompted outrage Wednesday from several of his fellow lawmakers and advocacy groups. The Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union called the idea mean-spirited and said it would discriminate against black Louisianians. LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said the idea would involve the state giving $1,000 to women who rely on government support like welfare and food stamps if they agree to have their fallopian tubes tied. He said it was too early to say whether he would introduce such a bill during the 2009 legislative session, but he said he was researching it. Full Article that I read on Sept 18 2008 is located here: http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9069201
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:20 AM PDT
Updated: Thursday, 2 October 2008 4:43 PM PDT
Friday, 26 September 2008
Clifton - Arrested - Assaulted - Tasered - re Arrested - Mockery of Justice -
Mood:
loud
Now Playing: Tazered Victim and his treatment by the Portland legal system
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
author: Joe Anybody (me) e-mail: iam@joe-anybody.com
Z3 Readers this was posted on Portland Indy Media website by me,
The link is here: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/09/380056.shtml A man who was assaulted on Belmont street as he was getting on a bus to go to work back in June 08 He calls for the police and waits ....only to get tasered and arrested. Months latter while looking for his police report at the Central Precinct .... he is arrested again. Is this justice or a Mockery of Justice?
Mockery Of Justice - Stop Violence Now Follow up two video set for man that was tasered by the police when he was the victim of an assault. After being tasered, arrested and then appearing in court for the charges, Clifton found out the case was not being pursued at the time.
This was first reported here on Indy Media in June 2008 found at this link: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/06/376979.shtml
For the next four months he repeatedly was going to the police station to get his police report He was never provided a copy of any report, always denied, and continuously told it was not available nor could it be located, week after week this was how he was acknowledged.
Four months latter which was just recently, when Clifton was back down at the Central Prescient here in Portland, looking for his copy of the police report ... .he was told to go to the main lobby desk. Upon checking in he was then ""ARRESTED" for a warrant stemming from the tasering incident.
Obviously the charges were reinstated and he was taken into custody for a second time. Don't ask how to explain this. For it makes no sense. Its not about Justice, it's a mockery of justice.
I re-interviewed Clifton on 9.25.08 two block from where he was tasered, months ago. In the follow up 2 part video clip Clifton explains what he has been going through.
He now has a trial date on 10.10.08 at the city courthouse. The fact he was a crime victim and then later tackled and tasered by the police, is not what the trial is about. Listen to the update and see how ass backwards Justice is being served here in Portland Oregon
((1)) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbhaR5EmDRA
((2)) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KmXeD6DjlY
Previously recorded video 4 part set - filmed at the time of the tasering in June 08
tape <1> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cDRlvOCq5M
tape <2> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyGQ9Cqaf8o
tape <3> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH2Ee_hZxGc
tape <4> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnBMPk-VAws
Points to consider: >> Clifton was assaulted by two drunk men on a city street while boarding Trimet bus 15 >> A window was broken while the men attacked and fought with Clifton >> Clifton called the police and waited there on the corner for them to show up >> Clifton hit his hand on a nearby building, being stressed out and mad, he didn't realize it but his hand hit a mirror/window and it broke as he waited for the police >> In spite of the broken mirror/window Clifton still waited for the police >> When the police arrived they didn't ask him anything, nor get his statement >> When the police arrived they took him "down to the ground and then tasered him" >> Clifton never resisted nor threatened the police. He didn't even have a chance to speak >> Clifton was thus assaulted by the police, tasered and arrested, and taken to jail >> Clifton lost his job that night and had to walk home from downtown the next morning >> The two men who jumped him have never been found nor their crime investigated >> Charges were not being pressed when Clifton went to court, the DA had "no charges" >> He spent four months trying to get a copy of his police report, and it was never obtained >> Recently when at the police station looking for his arrest information, he was arrested a second time, without warning and lacking any respect >> Clifton was never notified of any change in his prosecution charges >> Clifton was never asked to report in to the courts or the police, nor informed of the new charges >> Clifton was finally given a lawyer and will speak with him/her with only 3 days before his trial comes up >> Clifton is a quit, soft spoken, and has a very "un aggressive" demeanor. >> Clifton is innocent and is being charged with a misdemeanor crimes >> Clifton was an assault victim, harmed by two drunks, as well as the Portland police >> Justice is not being served. This is a mockery and is shamefully disrespectful
My homepage:
http://www.joe-anybody.com
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:19 PM PDT
Updated: Friday, 26 September 2008 5:34 PM PDT
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Cops, Laws and Videotape
Mood:
energetic
Now Playing: JOE ANYBODY - POLICE - CAMERAS & CIVIL RIGHTS
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
Cops, Laws and Videotapehttp://action.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/posts/list/1608609.page [Posted by Catalina Vazquez on September 19, 2008](24MB MP3)Seventeen years ago, a video of the arrest of a Los Angeles resident named Rodney King raised questions about recording police officers. Many of these legal and ethical questions still resonate in Oregon and elsewhere today. A Portlander who recently had his camera confiscated and received a citation for taping cops in action, intends to sue the Portland Police. The Oregon law used by officers to confiscate observers’ equipment is somewhat ambiguous. It’s unclear how the law applies differently to video than it does to audio recordings.For now, police observers continue to use video as a tool, and police officers continue to decide how to address the practice one case at a time. The city of Beaverton, for example, just decided not to pursue charges against a man who was arrested for recording another arrest.What are the benefits and drawbacks of recording audio and video of police officers? Have you ever observed an arrest or other police action? What did you see? If you’ve ever been stopped or arrested by police, how did you feel about being observed by your fellow citizens?GUESTS:COMMENTS ARE POSTED ON THE OPB WEBSITE
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:30 AM PDT
Updated: Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:33 AM PDT
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
Newer | Latest | Older
|
« |
January 2009 |
» |
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|