Showing posts with label Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
In My Home State No Less
Alex Jones has received a secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20, 2009. A footer on the document indicates it is “unclassified” but “law enforcement sensitive,” in other words not for public consumption. A copy of the report was sent to Jones by an anonymous Missouri police officer.
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
“Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner,” explains the MIAC website. “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region.”
MIAC is part of the federal “fusion” effort now underway around the country. “As of February 2009, there were 58 fusion centers around the country. The Department has deployed 31 officers as of December 2008 and plans to have 70 professionals deployed by the end of 2009. The Department has provided more than $254 million from FY 2004-2007 to state and local governments to support the centers,” explains the Department of Homeland Security on its website. Missouri is mentioned as a participant in this federal “intelligence” effort.
Last month, the ACLU issued a news release highlighting the activity of a fusion center in Texas as the “latest example of inappropriate police intelligence operations targeting political, religious and social activists for investigation,” in particular “Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.”
The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order. The MIAC document is a classic guilt by association effort designed to demonize legitimate political activity that stands in opposition to the New World Order and its newly enshrined front man, Barack Obama.
In September of 2008, Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors organized truth squads to intimidate people opposed to Obama and threatened to arrest and prosecute anybody who ran “misleading television ads.” Missouri governor Matt Blunt eventually denounced the use of “police state tactics” on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign.
MIAC claims members of a “rightwing” militia movement organized in the 1990s — generally in response to the Oklahoma City bombing and the events at Waco — “continuously exploit world events in order to increase participation in their movements. Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created” and supposedly exploited by “constitutionalists” and “white supremacists,” the latter an oft-employed canard used to demonize activists as dangerous and potentially violent lunatics.
MIAC notes many of the political issues cited by the so-called patriot movement — the Ammunition Accountability Act, the impending economic collapse of the government, the possibility of a constitutional convention, the North American Union, Obama’s “Universal Service Program,” and the implementation of RFID, issues that are not limited to the patriot movement but are shared by a wide array of political activists.
The MIAC document includes a map of the North American Union not dissimilar from one released by NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition (see the NASCO map here).
The MIAC report is similar to one created by the Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Joint Terrorism Task Force during the Clinton administration (see page one and page two of the document). The FBI document explicitly designates “defenders” of the Constitution as “right-wing extremists.” The MIAC report expands significantly on the earlier document.
Original story here.
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
“Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner,” explains the MIAC website. “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region.”
MIAC is part of the federal “fusion” effort now underway around the country. “As of February 2009, there were 58 fusion centers around the country. The Department has deployed 31 officers as of December 2008 and plans to have 70 professionals deployed by the end of 2009. The Department has provided more than $254 million from FY 2004-2007 to state and local governments to support the centers,” explains the Department of Homeland Security on its website. Missouri is mentioned as a participant in this federal “intelligence” effort.
Last month, the ACLU issued a news release highlighting the activity of a fusion center in Texas as the “latest example of inappropriate police intelligence operations targeting political, religious and social activists for investigation,” in particular “Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.”
The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order. The MIAC document is a classic guilt by association effort designed to demonize legitimate political activity that stands in opposition to the New World Order and its newly enshrined front man, Barack Obama.
In September of 2008, Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors organized truth squads to intimidate people opposed to Obama and threatened to arrest and prosecute anybody who ran “misleading television ads.” Missouri governor Matt Blunt eventually denounced the use of “police state tactics” on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign.
MIAC claims members of a “rightwing” militia movement organized in the 1990s — generally in response to the Oklahoma City bombing and the events at Waco — “continuously exploit world events in order to increase participation in their movements. Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created” and supposedly exploited by “constitutionalists” and “white supremacists,” the latter an oft-employed canard used to demonize activists as dangerous and potentially violent lunatics.
MIAC notes many of the political issues cited by the so-called patriot movement — the Ammunition Accountability Act, the impending economic collapse of the government, the possibility of a constitutional convention, the North American Union, Obama’s “Universal Service Program,” and the implementation of RFID, issues that are not limited to the patriot movement but are shared by a wide array of political activists.
The MIAC document includes a map of the North American Union not dissimilar from one released by NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition (see the NASCO map here).
The MIAC report is similar to one created by the Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Joint Terrorism Task Force during the Clinton administration (see page one and page two of the document). The FBI document explicitly designates “defenders” of the Constitution as “right-wing extremists.” The MIAC report expands significantly on the earlier document.
Original story here.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Bill creates detention camps in U.S. for 'emergencies'
The proposed bill, which has received little mainstream media attention, appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.
Full Story here
Full Story here
Rule by fear or rule by law?
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Rest of the story here
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Rest of the story here
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Do Not Take Pictures of the Federal Reserve Twofer
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Quote of the Day
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take away everything you love........the course of history shows that as a government grows liberty decreases.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Incredible Story About When A Police Raid Goes Wrong
Police raid a house basically without any reason, terrorize a family, kill their two labs, never apologize. Think it can't happen to you. Read the article to find out more here. BTW he was the mayor.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Bill of Rights Going BYE BYE
From the Chicago Tribune
One reality of 21st Century religion is that many people treat the 10 Commandments as the 10 Suggestions, to be modified or ignored without penalty. That same spirit has infected the Supreme Court, which last week contemplated an abuse of the Bill of Rights, rolled its eyes and said: Oh, what's the big deal?
Bennie Dean Herring had gone to a sheriff's impoundment lot in Coffee County, Ala., to get some things out of his truck. A suspicious investigator checked with officials of a neighboring county to see if the ex-convict had any outstanding arrest warrants and was told he did. The investigator arrested Herring and found him in illegal possession of drugs and a gun.But it turned out there was a problem with the arrest warrant. It had been canceled months before but was never deleted from the database. So when Herring was indicted on drug and weapon charges, his lawyer asked for the evidence to be thrown out because it came from an arrest that the sheriff had no right to make.
When presented with these facts, the Supreme Court reached two conclusions. The first was that everyone agreed the cops had violated Herring's rights. The second was that it was his tough luck. Never mind the 4th Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures -- he's guilty and he's going to jail.
This decision creates a new exception to the exclusionary rule, which bars evidence police obtain through an illegal search. The prohibition was meant to foster respect for constitutional requirements by giving law enforcement agents a disincentive to violate them. But Chief Justice John Roberts and four of his colleagues are happy to excuse some violations.
The exclusionary rule, said the court, "serves to deter deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. The error in this case does not rise to that level." On the contrary, wrote Roberts, it was but a trifle, "the result of isolated negligence."
Of course the error did rise to a fairly significant level -- since it deprived Herring of a freedom considered vital enough to be enshrined by the nation's founders. The Constitution doesn't say the government may not violate these rights except through isolated negligence. It says the government may not violate them, period.
Rights need constitutional protection because governments have a tendency to ignore them. But it takes more than a parchment dictate to force the authorities to do what they are supposed to do. It takes penalties that make violations painful to the violator.
That's where the exclusionary rule comes in. Police face constant temptations to break the rules to nab villains and put them in jail. But this rule goes far to discourage them. Violate a criminal's rights, and he may go unpunished.
That wasn't always the case. In the old days, cops paid little attention to the 4th Amendment because they had nothing to gain by respecting it. Only when they had to pay a price for overstepping did they develop a sudden interest in staying on the right side of the constitutional line -- to the benefit of the innocent as well as the guilty. Wonder of wonders, police departments actually began training officers in how to comply with the 4th Amendment.
After the Supreme Court imposed the rule on states and cities in 1961, New York's deputy police commissioner acknowledged as much. "Before this, nobody bothered to take out search warrants," he said. "[T]he feeling was, why bother?"
Anyone in charge of maintaining databases of arrest warrants may now be asking the same question. In fact, the court's decision creates an incentive for poor record-keeping. If Herring's warrant had been purged promptly, after all, he could not have been searched, and he would have gotten away with his offenses.
That may seem too high a price to pay. But the real objection is not to the exclusionary rule -- it's to the 4th Amendment, since if his rights had not been violated, he would have gone free. The tradeoff between catching criminals and protecting privacy is not a daffy invention of activist liberal judges. It was the framers' whole point.
But the Supreme Court says it's fine for the government to profit when it deprives citizens of their constitutional rights through incompetence or sloth. That's like telling teenagers it's OK to get pregnant, as long as it's not on purpose.
Original here
One reality of 21st Century religion is that many people treat the 10 Commandments as the 10 Suggestions, to be modified or ignored without penalty. That same spirit has infected the Supreme Court, which last week contemplated an abuse of the Bill of Rights, rolled its eyes and said: Oh, what's the big deal?
Bennie Dean Herring had gone to a sheriff's impoundment lot in Coffee County, Ala., to get some things out of his truck. A suspicious investigator checked with officials of a neighboring county to see if the ex-convict had any outstanding arrest warrants and was told he did. The investigator arrested Herring and found him in illegal possession of drugs and a gun.But it turned out there was a problem with the arrest warrant. It had been canceled months before but was never deleted from the database. So when Herring was indicted on drug and weapon charges, his lawyer asked for the evidence to be thrown out because it came from an arrest that the sheriff had no right to make.
When presented with these facts, the Supreme Court reached two conclusions. The first was that everyone agreed the cops had violated Herring's rights. The second was that it was his tough luck. Never mind the 4th Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures -- he's guilty and he's going to jail.
This decision creates a new exception to the exclusionary rule, which bars evidence police obtain through an illegal search. The prohibition was meant to foster respect for constitutional requirements by giving law enforcement agents a disincentive to violate them. But Chief Justice John Roberts and four of his colleagues are happy to excuse some violations.
The exclusionary rule, said the court, "serves to deter deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. The error in this case does not rise to that level." On the contrary, wrote Roberts, it was but a trifle, "the result of isolated negligence."
Of course the error did rise to a fairly significant level -- since it deprived Herring of a freedom considered vital enough to be enshrined by the nation's founders. The Constitution doesn't say the government may not violate these rights except through isolated negligence. It says the government may not violate them, period.
Rights need constitutional protection because governments have a tendency to ignore them. But it takes more than a parchment dictate to force the authorities to do what they are supposed to do. It takes penalties that make violations painful to the violator.
That's where the exclusionary rule comes in. Police face constant temptations to break the rules to nab villains and put them in jail. But this rule goes far to discourage them. Violate a criminal's rights, and he may go unpunished.
That wasn't always the case. In the old days, cops paid little attention to the 4th Amendment because they had nothing to gain by respecting it. Only when they had to pay a price for overstepping did they develop a sudden interest in staying on the right side of the constitutional line -- to the benefit of the innocent as well as the guilty. Wonder of wonders, police departments actually began training officers in how to comply with the 4th Amendment.
After the Supreme Court imposed the rule on states and cities in 1961, New York's deputy police commissioner acknowledged as much. "Before this, nobody bothered to take out search warrants," he said. "[T]he feeling was, why bother?"
Anyone in charge of maintaining databases of arrest warrants may now be asking the same question. In fact, the court's decision creates an incentive for poor record-keeping. If Herring's warrant had been purged promptly, after all, he could not have been searched, and he would have gotten away with his offenses.
That may seem too high a price to pay. But the real objection is not to the exclusionary rule -- it's to the 4th Amendment, since if his rights had not been violated, he would have gone free. The tradeoff between catching criminals and protecting privacy is not a daffy invention of activist liberal judges. It was the framers' whole point.
But the Supreme Court says it's fine for the government to profit when it deprives citizens of their constitutional rights through incompetence or sloth. That's like telling teenagers it's OK to get pregnant, as long as it's not on purpose.
Original here
Homeland Security 101
Original Story here
In a move reminiscent of the Hitler-Jugend, planning is underway for the Delaware Academy for Public Safety and Security, a charter high school in Wilmington that will take as many as six hundred inner-city youths and train them to become part of the Homeland Security forces and take part in the war-on-whatever.
Students will be called cadets, will wear uniforms, and will follow courses of study in special weapons and tactics, prison guarding, and professional demolition, among others. The languages taught in the school will include Arabic, Chinese, and Russian. Physical training will be a big part, with daily after-school exercise programs already planned.
Spearheading the project is attorney, former Marine hand to hand combat expert, and Olympic Judo coach Thomas Little. Little also spent more than a decade on the African continent training urban youth. Maybe this will turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm not convinced. It just seems a little too familiar.
In a move reminiscent of the Hitler-Jugend, planning is underway for the Delaware Academy for Public Safety and Security, a charter high school in Wilmington that will take as many as six hundred inner-city youths and train them to become part of the Homeland Security forces and take part in the war-on-whatever.
Students will be called cadets, will wear uniforms, and will follow courses of study in special weapons and tactics, prison guarding, and professional demolition, among others. The languages taught in the school will include Arabic, Chinese, and Russian. Physical training will be a big part, with daily after-school exercise programs already planned.
Spearheading the project is attorney, former Marine hand to hand combat expert, and Olympic Judo coach Thomas Little. Little also spent more than a decade on the African continent training urban youth. Maybe this will turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm not convinced. It just seems a little too familiar.
ID Please.....
WOW! This is scary stuff. Think about it a bit.
San Francisco began issuing ID cards last week. These are valid identification that can be used to obtain bank accounts, check books out of the library and, most importantly, help us to avoid arrest for lack of ID. For immigrants, it has another effect: reducing their fear of calling police when they are victims of crime.
San Francisco is home to the only Credit Union which will issue bank accounts to people without a social security number, Northeast Community Federal Credit Union. NECFCU is utilized by many people who otherwise might not have access to any financial institution. Identification is the only requirement for an account.
San Francisco Library is a wonderful resource for training materials, books, CDs, music and movies. The only requirement for access is identification.
San Francisco is the one city in the country where you may be arrested simply for not having ID. You might be walking on the street minding your own business and the police can walk up and ask you to identify yourself. If you do not have a way of proving you are who you say you are, they have the option to take you downtown. All that is required to avoid this is identification.
For these reasons, and many more, the City has decided to issue identification cards to everyone who can show a birth certificate (or passport) and a utility bill or other proof that they reside in the city. We think this is a very good policy, independent of the immigration issues.
Immigration is a hot topic, and is likely to be so for a long time. Our understanding of the law is that the term 'illegal immigrant' is a misnomer. Granted that it is not legal to cross the border into the United States without permission. But once here, the illegals become 'undocumented aliens' and are not breaking any laws by their mere presence. It is when they attempt to work, forge social security numbers or commit crimes that they become subject to law enforcement. There are many undocumented aliens who do none of those things.
This begs the question of how to best manage social policy. Do we really want to discourage able-bodied people from working? That they are here is a given. This writer would argue that we should consider establishing a way for them to be productive.
Original article here
San Francisco began issuing ID cards last week. These are valid identification that can be used to obtain bank accounts, check books out of the library and, most importantly, help us to avoid arrest for lack of ID. For immigrants, it has another effect: reducing their fear of calling police when they are victims of crime.
San Francisco is home to the only Credit Union which will issue bank accounts to people without a social security number, Northeast Community Federal Credit Union. NECFCU is utilized by many people who otherwise might not have access to any financial institution. Identification is the only requirement for an account.
San Francisco Library is a wonderful resource for training materials, books, CDs, music and movies. The only requirement for access is identification.
San Francisco is the one city in the country where you may be arrested simply for not having ID. You might be walking on the street minding your own business and the police can walk up and ask you to identify yourself. If you do not have a way of proving you are who you say you are, they have the option to take you downtown. All that is required to avoid this is identification.
For these reasons, and many more, the City has decided to issue identification cards to everyone who can show a birth certificate (or passport) and a utility bill or other proof that they reside in the city. We think this is a very good policy, independent of the immigration issues.
Immigration is a hot topic, and is likely to be so for a long time. Our understanding of the law is that the term 'illegal immigrant' is a misnomer. Granted that it is not legal to cross the border into the United States without permission. But once here, the illegals become 'undocumented aliens' and are not breaking any laws by their mere presence. It is when they attempt to work, forge social security numbers or commit crimes that they become subject to law enforcement. There are many undocumented aliens who do none of those things.
This begs the question of how to best manage social policy. Do we really want to discourage able-bodied people from working? That they are here is a given. This writer would argue that we should consider establishing a way for them to be productive.
Original article here
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Amtrak police arrest photographer participating in Amtrak photo contest
All I can say is WOW. We really are living in a police state.
Armed with his Canon 5D and his new Lensbaby lens, photographer Duane Kerzic was out to win Amtrak’s annual photo contest this week, hoping to win $1,000 in travel vouchers and have his photo published in Amtrak’s annual calendar.
He ended up getting arrested by Amtrak police; handcuffed to wall in a holding cell inside New York City’s Penn Station, accused of criminal trespass.
Kerciz says he was hardly trespassing because he was taking photos from the train platform; the same one used by thousands of commuters everyday to step on and off the train.
“The only reason they arrested me was because I refused to delete my images,” Kerzic said in a phone interview with Photography is Not a Crime on Friday.
“They never asked me to leave, they never mentioned anything about trespassing until after I was handcuffed in the holding cell.”
In fact, he said, the only thing they told him before handcuffing him was that “it was illegal to take photos of the trains.”
Obviously, there is a lack of communication between Amtrak’s marketing department, which promotes the annual contest, called Picture Our Trains, and its police department, which has a history of harassing photographers for photographing these same trains.
Not much different than the JetBlue incident from earlier this year where JetBlue flight attendants had a woman arrested for refusing to delete a video she filmed in flight while the JetBlue marketing department hosted a contest encouraging passengers to take photos in flight.
While the Amtrak contest page does state that trespassers are subject to arrest and fines, it also states that contestants must also stay in the “public access areas”, which describes the train platform because how else are passengers going to board the train?
Full story here
Armed with his Canon 5D and his new Lensbaby lens, photographer Duane Kerzic was out to win Amtrak’s annual photo contest this week, hoping to win $1,000 in travel vouchers and have his photo published in Amtrak’s annual calendar.
He ended up getting arrested by Amtrak police; handcuffed to wall in a holding cell inside New York City’s Penn Station, accused of criminal trespass.
Kerciz says he was hardly trespassing because he was taking photos from the train platform; the same one used by thousands of commuters everyday to step on and off the train.
“The only reason they arrested me was because I refused to delete my images,” Kerzic said in a phone interview with Photography is Not a Crime on Friday.
“They never asked me to leave, they never mentioned anything about trespassing until after I was handcuffed in the holding cell.”
In fact, he said, the only thing they told him before handcuffing him was that “it was illegal to take photos of the trains.”
Obviously, there is a lack of communication between Amtrak’s marketing department, which promotes the annual contest, called Picture Our Trains, and its police department, which has a history of harassing photographers for photographing these same trains.
Not much different than the JetBlue incident from earlier this year where JetBlue flight attendants had a woman arrested for refusing to delete a video she filmed in flight while the JetBlue marketing department hosted a contest encouraging passengers to take photos in flight.
While the Amtrak contest page does state that trespassers are subject to arrest and fines, it also states that contestants must also stay in the “public access areas”, which describes the train platform because how else are passengers going to board the train?
Full story here
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Well I Guess I Can't Travel to Detroit
Just another case of our country spiraling out of control and more of our freedoms vanishing before our eyes.
Being Annoying Now Illegal In Brighton
BRIGHTON, Mich. -- Since when did being annoying become a crime? Since Brighton City Council approved a public conduct code Monday night, which includes fining someone up to $500 for being annoying.
One section of the bill reads, "It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose."
The bill also states it's unlawful for anyone to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy any person in public.
The ordinance was modeled after one in Royal Oak, where the Brighton police chief previously worked.
The Livingston Daily Press & Argus reported that two council members expressed concerns for the language of the ordinance, but voted for it anyway.
Brighton officials said the ordinance would be subjective and the call will be made by police officers.
The amended ordinance takes effect Jan. 17, 2009.
Original story here
Being Annoying Now Illegal In Brighton
BRIGHTON, Mich. -- Since when did being annoying become a crime? Since Brighton City Council approved a public conduct code Monday night, which includes fining someone up to $500 for being annoying.
One section of the bill reads, "It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose."
The bill also states it's unlawful for anyone to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy any person in public.
The ordinance was modeled after one in Royal Oak, where the Brighton police chief previously worked.
The Livingston Daily Press & Argus reported that two council members expressed concerns for the language of the ordinance, but voted for it anyway.
Brighton officials said the ordinance would be subjective and the call will be made by police officers.
The amended ordinance takes effect Jan. 17, 2009.
Original story here
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
St. Louis aldermen avoid red-light camera fines
ST. LOUIS — When the push to install red-light cameras came to City Hall in 2005, the Board of Aldermen enthusiastically backed the plan as a boon to public safety.
But now, three years later, aldermen have themselves been caught on tape — and some have avoided the $100 fine.
In total, at least eight St. Louis aldermen have been sent camera citations, about a quarter of the board. The lead sponsor of the camera legislation went months without paying $500 in fines until questioned about it recently. Two other aldermen got their citations dismissed under ambiguous circumstances.
Full Story here by St Louis Post Dispatch
But now, three years later, aldermen have themselves been caught on tape — and some have avoided the $100 fine.
In total, at least eight St. Louis aldermen have been sent camera citations, about a quarter of the board. The lead sponsor of the camera legislation went months without paying $500 in fines until questioned about it recently. Two other aldermen got their citations dismissed under ambiguous circumstances.
Full Story here by St Louis Post Dispatch
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Protest in RI turns violent
Obviously, I don't know the whole story, but my guess is soon we will lose the right to assemble in public.
Full story with more pics here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
