Saturday, December 20, 2014

Now we are getting somewhere.

December 20, 2014
By David E. Sanger, Nicole Perlroth and Eric Schmitt

Washington — The Obama administration has sought China’s help in recent days in blocking North Korea’s ability to launch cyberattacks, the first steps toward the “proportional response” President Obama vowed to make the North pay for the assault on Sony Pictures — and as part of a campaign to issue a broader warning against future hacking, according to senior administration officials.

“What we are looking for is a blocking action, something that would cripple their efforts to carry out attacks,” one official said.

So far, the Chinese have not responded. Their cooperation would be critical, since virtually all of North Korea’s telecommunications run through Chinese-operated networks....

Deciding Second Amerndment rights for the incompetent isn't the authority of the Sheriff's Department or courts.

December 19, 2014
By Lyle Dennison

Breaking ranks with other federal appeals courts, (click here) and probably setting up a major test case for the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that laws imposing controls on the personal right to have a gun must satisfy the most rigorous constitutional test.  And, in another split with other courts, it was the first to strike down a federal gun law under the Constitution’s Second Amendment as expanded by the Supreme Court six years ago....

...If the government appeals the decision, either to the en banc Sixth Circuit or to the Supreme Court, and if the ruling were to be upheld, it could have an impact on gun control laws well beyond the specific limit at issue in this case.  It appeared to cast into constitutional doubt at least some of a host of laws, federal and state, that impose categorical bans on groups of individuals — that is, bans that preclude anyone in an excluded group from being able to prove individually that they should have access to guns....

This individual was found to be incompetent at some point for whatever reason there was. It is the burden of the individual to have a psychiatrist find him competent to reverse his inability to possess firearms. There is no reason why the same system of protections for both gun owners and society can't be accessed to renew Second Amendment rights. This is ridiculous.

The decision states: (click here) Bottom paragraph page 46,

...The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights....

The challenge to the law is CHOOSING to state the government is not the people with a vested interest in who is allowed to possess a gun legally and who is not. The fact of the matter is the "government" in the law legislated has a very direct interest in the safety of society with innumerable examples especially in recent years. The law has a right to exist in the face of an obvious danger to society.

This is typical of right wing impressions that the US Constitution stands alone outside the dynamics of the society that lives under it. It's ridiculous. It is like saying in 1776 there were five people living in Michigan and therefore there was no reason for law. That might have also been the case with Kentucky and Daniel Boon's ancestors. But, as time passes and populations increase, the political demographics and geography of the country changes the 'definition' of safety changes. The subsequent laws of the USA since the adoption of the USA Constitution matters.

This is where any argument by strict constructionists fails. They won't admit that it fails, but, it does. Strict constructionists of the practice of USA Constitutional law don't provide for the social dynamics that impact citizens and the very real need to pass laws upholding a standard of safety. This lawsuit is extreme and never should have existed in the first place. Someone decided to make a mess of the law again.

The burden lies with the individual to present evidence to mental competency and not the government. The government can offer a vehicle for the individual to return a finding of competency such as a form from a qualified psychiatrist, but, it is not the government's place to allow those found incompetent to have guns no matter how many years have passed since the initial finding.

What happens to states' rights and Ginsberg?

December 19, 2014
By Space Coast Daily

Rejecting a request by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (click here) to maintain a judge’s stay that would have kept same-sex couples from marrying in the state, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriages to begin in Florida next month.
The stay was a result of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle, who said in August that Florida’s 2008 ban is unconstitutional....

Another decision by the court regarding Class Actions. My initial reaction is to realize not all class actions are federal (invoking interstate laws) and the States should have some authority in such cases. This decision removes states from asserting their laws that come to bear.

Plausible allegation us grounds to transfer to a federal court? Why bother with state laws and state courts? Whatever.

December 19, 2014
By Kimberly Robertson

Dec. 15 — It just got easier (click here) for class action defendants to have their cases heard in federal court, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA after a U.S. Supreme Court decision Dec. 15 that raised issues under the Class Action Fairness Act.

A defendant need include only a “plausible allegation” of the jurisdictional requirements in a notice of removal to federal court—not evidentiary proof, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court.

The case involved a relatively straight-forward question of what must be included in a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b), but hit what Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion called “a little snag: This case does not present that question.”

A procedural obstacle first brought to the fore after briefing by a “friend of the court” divided the justices, in the court's first 5-4 decision of the 2014 term.

Pro-Business Decision
“The Supreme Court's decision today is welcome news for businesses that face class actions in state court and seek to transfer them to federal court under the federal Class Action Fairness Act,” Archis A. Parasharami of Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, said in a statement e-mailed to Bloomberg BNA....

...the court “held that, when a defendant files a notice that a case is being removed to federal court from state court, it is enough to allege in the notice that the case involves over $5 million in controversy, which is one of the key requirements for removal under CAFA.”

“The defendant does not have to submit evidence in support of the removal unless the plaintiff later seeks to return the case to state court,” Parasharami said....

The question is whether or not the defendant can bring evidence within 30 days. Change it to 60 if that is the case. I can't imagine a state or appellate court denying any extension with reasonable request to that effect.

It sounds like this creates a circus of motions by the plaintiffs.
The USA is facing two years of Republican majority at the federal level. It is important for any minority interest to have lobbyists in DC as well as the state capitals. I realize that is expensive, but, I am confident a way to bring minority grievances forward will find a way.

The factors of inequality have to be removed from the USA.

The arguments in the media that define the police as absolute authority and should not be questioned is wrong. The demonstrators engaging the right to assemble are correct.

There has been something very wrong in the deaths of young black men at the hand of police. To state the police are absolutely correct and their own authority is a racist statement. In stating the police are correct lies the reality police treat the circumstances of black and white citizens differently. There is no proof of differences of the racists in treatment under the law. That is what the Civil War was suppose to eliminate.

The unions have not done their homework either. Their officers and office staff should be alert to the problems of police officers in the practice of engaging the law to intervene. The unions are sloppy and don't seek to solve the problems of the members of the union. To simply send in the A-Team of lawyers is not an answer. The union is suppose to uphold the ethics of their members as well as their right to good pay and benefits.

Union members are important to the practice of collective bargaining. Unions should enter any negotiations fully aware of the practice and problems of their members. Simpy defending every police shooting through Grand Jury proceedings is a negligence toward those that receive the service of their members. The 'end product' of any union be it service worker (which the police provide a service) or product such as a car is what should be the goal of any union and it's union officers. Without a quality product a union won't exist.

The Best Practices of unionization includes holding quality control meetings. From time to time members need to be aware of changes in the practice they are employed. Seminars to maintain members in good standing should be part of the benefits provided by unions. In places that are bilingual or otherwise, the unions should be offering English as a Second Language classes and holding meetings in the languages of their members. That means if a auto plant has both Spanish speaking and English speaking members, the member is the focus and communication should be addressed as such. There is no excuse for any deterioration of product quality.

In the case of police officer, the record of deaths of any officer is part of the bargaining table. A review of that death while in the line of duty has to be addressed, but, in the same instance the deaths of citizens need to be addressed at that meeting as well. If there is a trend in the deaths of citizens proving a disparity of practice that has to be addressed both by the employer and the union. A gun is not the signature to the agreement, a human being is.

Also, the disparity in convictions of African American men need to be addressed both by law enforcement and justice. There are considerable differences in the number of African American men in USA prisons. The reasons for that have to be determined and addressed. By all rights, considering the percentages of minorities in the USA there should be majority white men and/or women in prison.

Crime is frequently a factor in poverty. If that is the case it is the poverty that has to be addressed as well as the crime. There is no excuse for such a disparity in a worthwhile society.

The African American community has to believe in it's innocence when addressing these problems in marches and their meetings. They are to carry the banner of innocence forward to demand recognition of the differences in majority and minority life. It has to be part of their activism. They need to believe they are aggrieved and in that finding a way to have it addressed in candidates that are as concerned about their outcomes. If lobbyists in DC can cause oppression, African American lobbyists in DC and in state capitals need to end it.

Equality has not been honored as it was designed more than a century ago, to that end there needs to be resolve to bring about fairness and quality of life for the people within poverty that simply have given up in living out their lives without the American promise guaranteed to all Americans.

This is not a unique circumstance of American blacks, there are other countries that have that display of inequality and lack of quality of life. Nelson Mandela moved his nation to equality within the power structure of government, but, it never touched their lives in quality of life. The quality of life in any country is dictated by many factors. 

There had to be something systemic causing this problem with police.

Where is the infraction in the civil rights laws, the representation by lawyers of unions or actual contract wording. Unions are a bargaining unit that provides important representation against unfair labor practices, but, they aren't the law. There is a profound understanding throughout the USA that extreme force is allowed. With such an understanding why wouldn't the police confront the public with a methodology of self-defense over and above the tempered understanding of the law.

This isn't an attack on unions per se, so much as the actions of their members beyond the practice of law enforcement. The police are killing first and asking questions later. Who wouldn't want to be a police officer with guaranteed outcomes to any confrontation. The death of Tamir Rice is an example of the bureaucratic police officer. All the police officer had to do was state the call, "Drop the gun" three times and then fire upon Tamir. That is autocratic in every definition and is not good police practice. The unions have taken the sovereign authority from the city or town or state or country and provided it's own rules for engagement of citizens.

How did all this get started? Where did the unions find the authority within their definition of members' rights to actually redefine correct police work? That came from somewhere. Did the members take it to a new level when a union attorney states, "You have to follow proper protocol before engaging your firearm."

This is systemic. In police killing case after case the police are killing innocent black men with impunity. That had isn't beginning somewhere and at some date, so where is that date and where was it decided?

December 19, 2014
CLEVELAND -- The heads of the Cleveland police department's two unions (click here) remain wary about some conclusions drawn in a U.S. Justice Department report alleging a pattern and practice of excessive use of force by officers. But they also hope an eventual agreement between the city and the department will result in improvements.

Jeff Follmer leads the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association, which represents more than 1,200 officers on the 1,500-member force. He is hopeful the agreement will result in officers being provided equipment that surrounding suburban departments have had for years.... 

This is a little too much passion for my liking. I guess the police union leadership can't handle the fact they represent the primary law enforcement in the sovereign USA. There is some heady stuff in the unions representation. It knows no bounds and successfully carries out exoneration of murder.

December 18, 2014
By Azi Pabarah
An organizer for one of the city’s largest private labor unions (click here) was arrested Thursday in connection with the assault of two NYPD lieutenants on the Brooklyn Bridge during last Saturday's march against police violence.
Robert Murray, 43, an organizer for 32BJ SEIU, who surrendered to police and who police previously identified as "Male No. 3," is alleged to have pulled Lieutenants Philip Chan and Patrick Sullivan “to the ground” as they attempted to arrest CUNY adjunct professor Eric Linsker for allegedly throwing or trying to throw a metal garbage can. ("The acts of Eric Linsker is what started the whole chain of events," said Manhattan chief of detectives William Aubry at a press conference today.
Referring to video of the melee, Aubry said, “He also punches Lt. Chan, twice, so hard that we have a witness that says he heard the fist to the face. He heard that noise.”...

There is some aspect of this that is codified to bring about this exoneration of police.I would think at some point in time the police union members would recognize the danger to citizens on their own and bring it to the awareness of their representatives and members. I guess the power to act autonomously is too tempting.
Laws are tempered in the USA, what are the words? "The punishment fits the crime." Something like that. The police are taking outcomes to any crime committed into their own hands and acting to end life without restraint. Now, this isn't every police officer, as there are examples of good police work, but, this exists in the majority. 
The current practice of police removes due process.
The EMPLOYER in on the hook here. There has to be a place within the job description defining good from bad practice. The unions are not suppose to dictate the law. The only way a union can change the laws of any authority is through the court systems or a hearing through the NLRB and that is about unfair labor practices.
Just because a city or town or state or otherwise doesn't have a job description doesn't mean they are off the hook. There should be no doubt about the practice of any police officer when he takes on that job. A police officer is an extension of the law. Laws are passed by majority legislation, there are no means of changing that.
If the unions are this aggressive there is a need to roll back their authority to the point where towns and cities still carry the most brevity to insure the safety of their citizens. This is ridiculous. This focus on African American men is a human rights issue. That is a fact. This isn't about just a particular set of circumstances, this is encompassing an entire class of citizens.
This is how bad or lousy cops keep their jobs. They hide behind their representatives. Wasn't the police union representative at the physical examination of Darren Wilson? They have a right to be there, but, they should not be strong arming authorities in threats of legal action or otherwise. Unions need to be about the best practices, otherwise, they risk being a part of the problem.
Union marches for the best and most reasonable pay, benefits and working conditions are important, but, not backing bad police practices. The unions are going to far.

A soldier of fortune sent a pick-up truck to Syria.

Evidently, whom ever decided it was okay to bring enhanced opportunity to the Islamic State can now find haven in other countries, because, this has to be illegal in the USA. The area code for Texas City is 409.

Why would this be illegal? Because they are arming opposition to the USA's participation in Syria. The Arab Coalition is in alliance with the USA. This is exceptionally illegal.

We know the Islamic State has money because it sells oil. It doesn't care if the price of oil falls because it never made an investment for the infrastructure. The Islamic State stole the land from Syria and from Syrians. They have money and it is possible they hired and continue to hire soldiers from across the globe, including Great Britain, Australia and otherwise.

The Islamic State is a mercenary organization to begin with. It exchanges loyalty for money, housing, etc. The Islamic State even promises that guarantee there are brides to spawn the children of the caliphate. That is not a definition of a sovereign power. Those that get involved with the Islamic State have anticipations upon their arrival, it is an understood contract.

The Islamic State isn't even a warlord. Warlords have the ability 'to attract' individuals without loyalties to simply be on the winning side and be alive. The Islamic State only allows certain religious affiliations. The Islamic State discriminates it's participants, as a rule warlords don't, it is why young Muslim men were a part of a jihad movement in Afghanistan.

The Islamic State is based in a commercial enterprise with wealth assets and promises of a fantasized life. Basically, the Islamic State is promising virgins and abundance of them and the riches of living "islamic" as their incentive. They are bringing heaven into reality. There is no sacrifice needed to be a member of the Islamic State. Participants come and go from the Islamic State as they please. It is club that practices genocide.

December 20, 2014
By Haaertz

A Texas plumber (click here) whose truck was photographed serving as a jihadist anti-aircraft gun platform in Syria says he has no idea how it ended up thousands of kilometers away in the war-torn country, according to a report by CBS News....

...Oberholtzer said he had traded in the truck to second-hand dealership three years previously. He left the decal on the truck in the expectation that the dealership would remove it.

A spokesman for the dealer said that they had passed it on to a car auction house, Oberholtzer has been besieged by phone calls — some threatening — since the picture was posted. “A few of the people are really ugly,” he told The Galveston Daily News.

Later in the week, federal Homeland Security officials arrived at Mark-1 Plumbing to question Oberholtzer and his staff.

The Islamic State is the one sincere reason and example of why the different religious nations in the Middle East need to find peace between them. If the countries are divided among each other it is far easier for the Islamic State to find favor among them and spread their poison.

The moral to the story is don't sell anything with identifying marks. When one stops to realize the extent this could cause problems for individuals in the USA or elsewhere, removing the identification of the business should have occurred with the initial owner.

The pick-up at some point left the USA. Why? Who?

This concept that the USA military wants to say this is a group unlike any others isn't really that new. The only reason it stands out is because of it's ability to kill and take land away from sovereign authorities. There have been young Muslim men from around the world conducting jihad for a long time. They enter Pakistan and move toward any uprising in the area.

I don't like to just refer to Mr. Walker Lindh over and over, but, most folks know this episode in his life. It is how John Walker Lindh found himself in the conflict in Afghanistan. He didn't go there to fight the USA, he went there to fight jihad (the moral war). The Islamic State is based in that same ideology. They simply have been more successful because of the Ba'athists and their military knowledge.

I might add that religious grounds are not recognized as permission to commit treason. The First Amendment allows for practice of religion INSIDE the sovereign borders of the USA, it has no validity otherwise. The exception would be USA miltiary soldiers stationed abroad, but, even that would be limited to the base and/or ship belong to the USA. So, men or women seeking the life of a jihadist is romanticizing their ideology to the extreme of becoming an enemy of the USA. 

Americans can go on non-violent pilgrimages. That isn't even in question, get a passport and go to find new and interesting aspects of one's religion, but, picking up a weapon and entering battle is an entirely different decision by any individual.

I'll tell you want I think is lacking with these circumstances regarding the Muslim faith and jihad, is clear language crafted in a law to deny any American from leaving in practice of his or her faith to be a part of jihad abroad. I would go so far as to state this religious practice is recognition of any individual engaging in such practice or support as enemies of the USA. In that is the reality the USA will add their names to "Most Wanted." To do otherwise, even in Great Britain, is ridiculous.

The USA has allies in the Middle East and Far East, so to allow such activity is to carry sovereign authority to war with allies. How can a sovereign authority give permission in any sense to allow holy men or women to recruit Americans, Australians or the English to fight in a foreign land. A measure this strong has to spell out clearly the consequences of their actions abroad and to that end enforced. The Mosques have to be notified that while their practice of the faith is unencumbered in the USA, the USA ends that freedom with recruitment of a fighting force abroad.

I really do believe any internet access to young minds and hearts in the USA that seek recruitment is as illegal as participating in the war. The access should be denied. The internet access of jihadist extremists compromises the Mosques and their protection of the faithful. It is an open venue to invite the Mosques into participation and condoning the exercise of fitting jihad.

I once ran across a page in a US Government website that stated, "If you go past this page it is considered a felony of the USA." Seriously. I don't know how I did that, but, with such a page I automatically decided I didn't need any information that bad. If I can be successfully censored by the authority of the sovereign USA then so can everyone else.

Is the FBI wrong about the fact this was a cyber attack from the government of North Korea?

This is an interesting development. The government of North Korea is willing to help with the cyber attack. 

December 20, 2014
North Korea (click here) has proposed a joint investigation with the United States into the hack attack against Sony Pictures, according to the state news agency, KCNA.
The offer comes as the FBI formally accused Pyongyang of the attack on Friday and US President Barack Obama promised to “respond proportionally” to the online breach.
North Korea says it can prove it has nothing to do with the cyberattack on Sony, the KCNA news release said....