Catch us live on BlogTalkRadio every



Tuesday & Thursday at 6pm P.S.T.




Tuesday, October 30, 2012

CA - Rapist Detective Takes The Easy Way Out

OFF THE WIRE
By Andrew Khouri

Los Angeles Times
A 26-year-old rape victim stood before a subdued San Bernardino County courtroom Friday, and read a carefully drafted statement addressed to the former Westminster police detective who kidnapped and raped her two years earlier.
“I forgive you,” she said, choking up.
But Anthony Orban, 33, was not there. Hours before, at 2:49 a.m., Orban was found unresponsive in his cell at the Central Detention Center in San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department said. He was declared dead at the scene.
His attorney, James Blatt, said he was informed that Orban hanged himself. The Sheriff’s Department declined to reveal details of Orban’s death, which was under investigation.
The rape victim told the court she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder for two years and lost four months of her life to shock. She criticized Orban for failing to take responsibility for his actions, alluding to his claims that he suffered a blackout allegedly induced by the antidepressant Zoloft.

FOR THE RECORD:
Zoloft rape case: An article in the Oct. 27 LATExtra section about the death of a former Westminster police detective convicted of kidnapping and rape said that California law considers an alcohol-induced blackout voluntary intoxication, “which does meet the criteria for legal insanity.” The sentence should have said that voluntary intoxication does not meet the criteria.

“While I was trying to get past my rage and shame and feelings of worthlessness, you maintained that you weren’t responsible for your actions,” she read.
Orban had testified that he had no recollection of abducting the waitress from the Ontario Mills Mall, then raping her near a Fontana self-storage lot in April 2010.
Zoloft, the Iraq War veteran said, triggered hallucinations and suicidal and homicidal fantasies in the days leading up to the attack.
Experts for both sides agreed during the trial that Orban suffered some form of blackout during the attack. But clinical psychologist Craig Rath, a witness called by the prosecution, testified that it had more to due with alcohol. On the day of the attack, Orban and a friend ordered eight margaritas and two pitchers of beer while barhopping, according to evidence presented at trial.
“He was not insane,” Rath testified during the sanity phase of the trial. “He understood the nature and quality of his acts and could distinguish between right and wrong.”
California law considers alcohol-induced blackout voluntary intoxication, which does meet the criteria for legal insanity.
Jurors convicted Orban of kidnapping, rape and multiple counts of sexual assault. He could have faced a sentence of more than 200 years, but his sentencing was on hold while a judge looked into allegations of juror misconduct.
Superior Court Judge Shahla S. Sabet told the court Friday that she had been prepared declare no jury misconduct took place, reject a motion for a new trial and sentence Orban to 82 years to life in prison, then tack on an additional 95 years.
After court, Blatt said he and his client had no prior knowledge that Sabet was prepared to deny a motion for a new trial. Orban, Blatt said, nonetheless had a feeling it was coming and that he would spend the rest of his life in prison as a convicted sex offender and a former police officer. Blatt said he last spoke to Orban about a month ago.
“All of us knew” suicide “was a possibility,” Blatt told reporters outside court. “But when it happens it is a shock.”
Retired Salvation Army Maj. Bill Nottle said he saw Orban on Thursday afternoon. He said his demeanor was what he had come to understand as normal: “very tired” due to what his actions and trial imposed upon his family.
After the victim spoke, Blatt told her and the court that the Orban family is “truly sorry” for their relative’s actions and that they have been praying for her. Blatt added that Orban had expressed to him his “great remorse and shame for his actions.”
Outside court, Deputy Dist. Atty. Debbie Ploghaus said that Orban took the “easy way out,” and made the day in court about him, when it should have belonged to the victim, who was scheduled to read her statement.
Standing in front of a group of reporters on the second floor of the Rancho Cucamonga courthouse, the rape victim said she felt sorry for Orban’s family after hearing the news, but also that “it felt good” to express her feelings and forgive Orban.
Still, she yearned for more.
“I really wanted to tell him myself,” she said calmly. “That would have been the ultimate closure.”

Seattle Police Now Have Drones Flying

OFF THE WIRE

It is ridiculous to see the out of control Seattle Police Department now wants to play with flying drones and spend, spend, spend your tax dollars.
There seems to be no limit for police to spend and splurge on creating their own little army and airforce just so they can feel good and important
commanding their fleet.
Nothing is too expensive to acquire. It is about time that citizens demand accountability and transparency in
having a right to inspect and control the ever growing skyhigh police budget.
It is a good thing that some people in Seattle are not putting up with this and demanding answers and some common sense from officials.
Here is the RT article:
Seattle Police Plan to Deploy Spy Drones
26 October, 2012
The rainy skies of Seattle are likely to soon be a whole lot drearier. The FAA has approved the local police department to start using surveillance drones for law enforcement, but protesters are making it clear that they’re willing to put up a fight.
The Seattle Police Department displayed a small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) on Thursday that they intend on using soon to monitor criminal activity across the city, but opponents of drone use came out in droves to protest the proposed plans.
The SPD is one of the only law enforcement agencies given the go-ahead by the Federal Administration Agency to show officers the ins-and-outs of UAVs, and the department hopes that soon they will be able to save lives and make the city more secure by actually deploying drones across town.
So far the department has already outlined an operations manual that they hope they’ll have a chance to adhere to soon, describing in detail how they hope to install an unmanned aerial system across the city to help photograph crime scenes, conduct search and rescue missions, monitor traffic accidents and even aid with natural disaster responses. Putting an extra set of police eyes — remote-controlled ones, at that — has put a fair share of Seattle residents ill at ease, though.
“We are not going to tolerate this in our city. This is unacceptable,” anti-drone advocate Emma Kaplan told Assistant Chief Paul McDonagh at Thursday’s unveiling.
The Seattle Times says another protester in attendance, identified as General Malaise, said, “We don’t trust you with the weapons you do have,” let alone new ones that are still being developed.
According to the paper, Thursday’s community meeting held to identify the public opinion of the program “was taken over by protesters,” leaving McDonagh with only a small chunk of time to talk about his plans.
The city says they have no intent on using UAVs for any unlawful surveillance purposes, but the bad rap drones have received as of late — made only worse with military versions of the drones overseas executing as many as hundreds of civilians in recent years — has left Seattle residents saying they have good reason to oppose domestic use.
Even if unarmed, drones are a cause of big concern for some. The Seattle Police Department says they have every intent “to make reasonable effort to not invade a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” and that never will any police drones “supersede the issuance of a warrant when needed.”
“UAS operators and observers will ensure and will be held accountable for ensuring that operations of the UAS intrude to a minimal extent upon the citizens of Seattle,” the drafted operations manual reads.
As the technology is still being tested, though, opponents say it’s not clear what the department could be able to get away with.
“The ways that they say they can use the drones is too broad,” ACLU of Washington Deputy Director Jennifer Shaw tells the Seattle Times. “They have a list of different emergencies and then a catchall phrase saying the drones can also be used in other situations if they get permission.”
Even what isn’t outline, she says, could eventually be added.
“So long as it is a policy, it can be changed. An ordinance cannot be changed at will and is the only way we can be sure there is meaningful input,” she said.
Earlier this month, the Sherriff of Alameda County, California asked the US Department of Homeland Security for as much as $100,000 in funding so he could add a drone to his own department’s arsenal. Sherriff Greg Ahern told NBC News that UAVs are “Very valuable to any tactical officer,” because they could aid in identifying everything from how a suspect is dressed to what avenues of escape are possible.
Submitted by Accountability
What are your thoughts on the Seattle Police Department having drones? What about the police department in your town?


When Boston Police Spy on Free Speech, Democracy Suffers

OFF THE WIRE
This post was submitted to CopBlock.org by utilizing the submission tab. It’s an eye opening piece by Nancy Murray about police monitoring. Isn’t it scary to know that if you preach peace or care about veteren’s rights the police will monitor you, even after they are the only ones doing something illegal? Don’t believe me, continue reading .
By Nancy Murray, Education Director, ACLU of Massachusetts at 9:51am
Originally posted by boston.com.
Psst! Check out this super-secret Boston Police “intelligence report”:
Local activists have been trying to get ‘celebrity guest speakers’ (Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon) for the March 24th demonstration, but at this time it appears that they have been unable to book any of these speakers for their event.
But some well-known speakers will be there. According to this intelligence report,” compiled by the Boston police under the heading “Criminal Act–Groups-Extremists,” among them will be Cindy Sheehan and a “BU professor emeritus/activist” whose name is redacted–it was the late Howard Zinn.
These excerpts come from one of several documents and videotapes obtained through a lawsuit brought against the Boston Police Department by the ACLU of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. We are making these criminal “intelligence” reports public today, along with a report analyzing its significance–and avideo of some of the peace activists who have been targeted.
We now have proof of what peace groups and activists have long suspected: Boston Police officers have worked within the local fusion spying center, the Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC), to monitor the lawful political activity of local peace groups and track their movements and beliefs. This information has been retained in searchable electronic “intelligence” reports bearing labels such as “Groups – Civil Disturbance,” “Groups–Extremists,” “HomeSec-Domestic” under the heading “Criminal Act.”
Under what interpretation of the US and Massachusetts Constitutions can the non-violent First Amendment activity of groups like Veterans for Peace and United for Justice with Peace be routinely classified as a criminal act?
If you have glanced at the US Senate subcommittee report on fusion centers that came out earlier this month, you may not be surprised to hear that Boston’s fusion center has been collecting dubious “intelligence” and violating civil liberties in the process.
Fusion centers were set up in the aftermath of 9/11 to facilitate the sharing of “terrorism-related” information among local, state, and federal law enforcement and private entities. But the Senate subcommittee report finds that the nation’s 70 or so fusion centers (the exact number is in dispute–DHS, which contributed the seed funding for the centers, doesn’t know how many exist today) have not uncovered a single terrorist plot.
Indeed, the spying centers have produced “nothing of value,” and instead needlessly duplicate the “more efficient information-sharing process already in place between local police and the FBI-led Terrorist Screening Center.”
Their output is often, in the words of one government official, “a bunch of crap.”

Much of it is also "potentially illegal," according to the US Senate report, because it falls foul of federal privacy regulations and Department of Homeland Security guidelines that forbid the routine monitoring of groups and individuals unless there is reason to suspect them of criminal activity.
The BRIC's own guidelines say the same thing.
And yet we now know that the BRIC, local and state police and the FBI have worked together to monitor and create "intelligence reports" on groups and individuals where there is no demonstrated link to crime or terrorism. There are indications that these illegal reports have been shared around the country, just how widely we don't know.
Given the secrecy surrounding the "information-sharing" surveillance systems that have been erected since 9/11 and the lack of any accountability mechanisms, we can't determine exactly where reports generated by the BRIC end up. Inaccurate information could have found a permanent home in a myriad government--and even private--databases, with harm to lives that can never be repaired.
The documents we received in response to our lawsuit demonstrate that the BRIC cannot effectively police itself.
According to the BRIC's guidelines, "intelligence reports" that do not reference criminal activity should be destroyed after 90 days. And yet we obtained reports that should never have been written in the first place and were still being retained after five years. Why should it take an ACLU/NLG lawsuit to highlight the BRIC's failure to enforce its own rules?
We know the political surveillance revealed in these documents wastes scarce tax dollars and police resources that would be better focused on building community trust and solving actual crimes.
And we know that political spying is bad for democracy.
You can view this videotape to hear some of the peace activists who have been monitored by the police or questioned about their personal beliefs talk about the "chilling impact" such surveillance can have on such core American values as freedom of expression and assembly.
Today, we are calling on the Boston Police to cease the routine surveillance of peaceful protests and the monitoring of individuals who take part in them.
And we are asking you to join us in demanding that reforms are put in place to ensure that there will be no policing of dissent in Massachusetts.
Let's work together to ensure that our Commonwealth--and all of America--remains a Constitutionally protected free speech zone.
See video


Babe`s of the DAY..... This is 18 and older. Rest assured I will offend you and rest assured I don't give a fuck! If you don't like crude humor and think you will report me don't like my page. For those with the ability to laugh and take a joke welcome.

Photo: Awesome Mikey!Photo: <Dave>Photo: <Dave>Photo: ~i8uPhoto: <Mikey>

JOIN THE FUN @
http://www.facebook.com/MikeysUncensoredPage

Bar Stool Economics ~ our tax system.. explained.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and
the      bill for all ten comes to $100 and If they paid their
bill the way we pay  our taxes, it would go something
like this:
The first four men  (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed
quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such  good
customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily beer by $20." so drinks for the ten now cost
just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way
we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other
six men - the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'.They realized that $20 divided by six is
$3.33.But if they subtracted that from everybody's
share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each
end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner
suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to
work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%      savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $50 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first
four continued to drink for free. But once outside the
restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth
man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $9!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only
saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got nine times
more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man.
"Why should he get $9 back when I got only two? The
wealthy get all the  breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the
first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all.
The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks,
so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But
when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important. They didn't have enough money between all
of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax system works. The  people
who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the
atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. 


Solid Gold Character Reference


Let see if I have this straight...

Former President Bill Clinton... who lied to his own wife... was convicted of perjury... disbarred from practicing law for 5 years in his home state... an admitted philanderer... who "Never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" ... First elected president to be Impeached by the US House of Representatives... is giving testimonials for Barrack Obama's character and intentions!!!???
Is this a great country or what!?