Saturday, May 27, 2006
Friday, May 26, 2006
DATELINE'S PEDOPHILE STINGS THROWN OUT OF COURT . . . i guess technically you've got to have a victim or a cop . . . got to try a different way
PHOENIX — Reporters pretending to be teens on the Internet to lure adults may be great television. But the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday it isn't enough to get their targets arrested.
In a unanimous decision, the justices concluded people lured to meet with what they think are teen girls can't be charged if it turns out the person doing the luring is not a minor, but in fact a TV reporter — or any other adult, for that matter. The court concluded charging someone with seeking out a minor for sexual purposes, by definition, requires an actual minor.
The only exception, they said, is if the person doing the luring is a police officer.
Wednesday's decision does not bar TV stations from what has become a popular tactic, especially during rating periods. In fact, news directors from two TV stations that have been involved in such reporting said they don't intend to abandon such efforts.
"It's not going to stunt, in any way, how we aggressively pursue stories we believe are important to our viewers," said Joe Hengemuehler. His station, KNXV-TV 15 in Phoenix, did the story that led to someone being arrested, and produced the case heard by the court.
Brad Stone, at KVOA-TV 4 in Tucson, said a story done by his station in conjunction with Perverted Justice, a volunteer organization dedicated to outing online predators, got one of the biggest reactions ever from parents who did not realize the kind of people their children could meet on the Internet.
"Parents were afraid of leaving their kids alone," he said.
Stone said his station's efforts involved a bit more than luring, with people also sending naked pictures of themselves to what they thought were teens.
But David Bodney, a media attorney, said the logic of Wednesday's ruling on luring statutes indicates the need for an actual minor as a victim probably would also apply to cases where people thought they were sending photos to teens. Without an actual teen as a victim, there is no crime, he said.
Barnett Lotstein, a special assistant Maricopa County attorney, said those TV "sting" operations may still have some use for prosecutors: Lotstein said his office will now charge the man whose indictment was tossed out by Wednesday's ruling with the crime of attempted luring — a crime the court decision suggests could be prosecuted without a real teenage victim.
The case against Jeremy Mejak stems from actions three years ago by a Phoenix television reporter who, pretending to be a 13-year-old girl, engaged in conversations in "chat rooms" as part of an investigation to show how the Internet can be used to seek out minors for sex.
According to court records, Mejak chatted online with the reporter, believing her to be a teen, and set up a meeting to have sex with her. When he showed up, though, he was greeted with video cameras.
Police were given copies of the tapes and transcripts of the online chat, resulting in the Maricopa County Attorney's Office taking the case to a grand jury and securing an indictment.
When a trial judge refused to throw out the case, Mejak appealed.
Justice Michael Ryan, writing for the high court, pointed out that the law says it is illegal for someone to lure someone that the person knows or has reason to know is a minor.
"The use of the phrase 'is a minor' suggests that the crime cannot be committed without the luring of an actual minor," Ryan wrote.
He pointed out that lawmakers created only one exception. Someone can still be charged if the person being lured is "a peace officer posing as a minor."
The justices rejected arguments by prosecutors that Mejak's conduct fell under the provision which said he had "reason to know" the person with whom he was chatting was a minor, as based on his own belief.
"Although a person may subjectively believe something that is not true, as Mejak did, Ryan said it is entirely different to have knowledge or a reason to know a fact."
But Ryan also said given the facts of this situation, a person could legally be charged with attempted luring or attempted sexual conduct with a minor.
Michael Terribile, Mejak's lawyer, said he concurs with that legal conclusion but said he will still attempt to get any new charges against his client dismissed on other grounds.
---text from RAW STORY
In a unanimous decision, the justices concluded people lured to meet with what they think are teen girls can't be charged if it turns out the person doing the luring is not a minor, but in fact a TV reporter — or any other adult, for that matter. The court concluded charging someone with seeking out a minor for sexual purposes, by definition, requires an actual minor.
The only exception, they said, is if the person doing the luring is a police officer.
Wednesday's decision does not bar TV stations from what has become a popular tactic, especially during rating periods. In fact, news directors from two TV stations that have been involved in such reporting said they don't intend to abandon such efforts.
"It's not going to stunt, in any way, how we aggressively pursue stories we believe are important to our viewers," said Joe Hengemuehler. His station, KNXV-TV 15 in Phoenix, did the story that led to someone being arrested, and produced the case heard by the court.
Brad Stone, at KVOA-TV 4 in Tucson, said a story done by his station in conjunction with Perverted Justice, a volunteer organization dedicated to outing online predators, got one of the biggest reactions ever from parents who did not realize the kind of people their children could meet on the Internet.
"Parents were afraid of leaving their kids alone," he said.
Stone said his station's efforts involved a bit more than luring, with people also sending naked pictures of themselves to what they thought were teens.
But David Bodney, a media attorney, said the logic of Wednesday's ruling on luring statutes indicates the need for an actual minor as a victim probably would also apply to cases where people thought they were sending photos to teens. Without an actual teen as a victim, there is no crime, he said.
Barnett Lotstein, a special assistant Maricopa County attorney, said those TV "sting" operations may still have some use for prosecutors: Lotstein said his office will now charge the man whose indictment was tossed out by Wednesday's ruling with the crime of attempted luring — a crime the court decision suggests could be prosecuted without a real teenage victim.
The case against Jeremy Mejak stems from actions three years ago by a Phoenix television reporter who, pretending to be a 13-year-old girl, engaged in conversations in "chat rooms" as part of an investigation to show how the Internet can be used to seek out minors for sex.
According to court records, Mejak chatted online with the reporter, believing her to be a teen, and set up a meeting to have sex with her. When he showed up, though, he was greeted with video cameras.
Police were given copies of the tapes and transcripts of the online chat, resulting in the Maricopa County Attorney's Office taking the case to a grand jury and securing an indictment.
When a trial judge refused to throw out the case, Mejak appealed.
Justice Michael Ryan, writing for the high court, pointed out that the law says it is illegal for someone to lure someone that the person knows or has reason to know is a minor.
"The use of the phrase 'is a minor' suggests that the crime cannot be committed without the luring of an actual minor," Ryan wrote.
He pointed out that lawmakers created only one exception. Someone can still be charged if the person being lured is "a peace officer posing as a minor."
The justices rejected arguments by prosecutors that Mejak's conduct fell under the provision which said he had "reason to know" the person with whom he was chatting was a minor, as based on his own belief.
"Although a person may subjectively believe something that is not true, as Mejak did, Ryan said it is entirely different to have knowledge or a reason to know a fact."
But Ryan also said given the facts of this situation, a person could legally be charged with attempted luring or attempted sexual conduct with a minor.
Michael Terribile, Mejak's lawyer, said he concurs with that legal conclusion but said he will still attempt to get any new charges against his client dismissed on other grounds.
---text from RAW STORY
Thursday, May 25, 2006
LAY AND SKILLING ARE TOAST
The four-year Enron scandal has come to a close, with former Enron chiefs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling having been found guilty on dozens of charges of conspiracy and fraud.
The two were accused of hiding the energy company's financial troubles and accounting scandals from investors. In December 2001, the company fell into bankruptcy.
Lay, aged 64, was found guilty on all charges brought against him.
Skilling, 52, was found guilty of the first 35 counts brought against him. He was acquitted, however, of all but one count of insider trading. Skilling sold stock in the company shortly before its downfall.
Sources vary from maximum sentence estimates from 45-165 years. Federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory.
The four-month trial ended after six days of jury deliberation.
Outside the courthouse, Skilling once again denied committing any crimes. He also thanked, among other people, his children for their support, and suggested plans to appeal based on the trial's venue.
Yesterday, a $6.6 billion civil settlement was approved by courts relating to the case. Added to earlier settlements, investors are now due to receive $7.2 billion. Plaintiffs have claimed losses of $40 billion in the case.
Sentencing is due to take place September 11.
The two were accused of hiding the energy company's financial troubles and accounting scandals from investors. In December 2001, the company fell into bankruptcy.
Lay, aged 64, was found guilty on all charges brought against him.
Skilling, 52, was found guilty of the first 35 counts brought against him. He was acquitted, however, of all but one count of insider trading. Skilling sold stock in the company shortly before its downfall.
Sources vary from maximum sentence estimates from 45-165 years. Federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory.
The four-month trial ended after six days of jury deliberation.
Outside the courthouse, Skilling once again denied committing any crimes. He also thanked, among other people, his children for their support, and suggested plans to appeal based on the trial's venue.
Yesterday, a $6.6 billion civil settlement was approved by courts relating to the case. Added to earlier settlements, investors are now due to receive $7.2 billion. Plaintiffs have claimed losses of $40 billion in the case.
Sentencing is due to take place September 11.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Friday, May 19, 2006
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Sunday, May 14, 2006
SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION
Commentator Steve Chapman probably said it best, "The Bush administration has managed to cross George Orwell with Sting. Every step you take, every move you make, Big Brother will be watching you."
The Bush administration wants to amass a record of every call ever made. As one insider told USA Today, "It's the largest database ever assembled in the world." Consider that that makes every U.S. citizen a suspect. Many peoples' reaction is 'I'm not doing anything wrong, so I'm OK with it.' You can't tell me there are not calls you make that you don't want other people to hear.
Consider this: you decide to sell your car or some other item through an ad. You're going to get quite a number of calls from people you don't know. Let's say a member of a terrorist cell needs a car and decides to buy yours. You've just been put in the loop of suspects without knowing it or even intending to participate.
You may also say that the worst thing you do is attend protest rallies and they are legal. Once we start giving up these freedoms we have we end up on a slippery slope. Today's legal protest rallies would become tomorrow's attack against government authorities. Some people would say it's unpatriotic to protest and would accept it as unlawful. This slow chipping away of our freedoms takes us unknowingly from today's democracy to tomorrows dictatorship and police state. You wake up one morning saying, "How did we get to this?" By allowing your fear to give up your freedom for perceived security.
Which takes me to Ben Franklin's saying, "Anyone who would give up any freedom for a bit of security deserves neither."
Doesn't it seem strange to anyone that we are supposedly fighting in Iraq to bring freedom to those people while it's being taken away from us here in the U.S. We're putting this tool in the hands of an administration that's responsible for leaking an active agent's name, Valerie Plame. The President himself lied about this. He claimed to oust anyone responsible for the leak only to find out it was the President himself.
Think about how secretive this administration has been and still is. And much of the secrecy is over possible wrong doing that they don't want investigated due to 'national security'. If the American people don't start taking these things seriously and start speaking out we make wake up one morning and find ourselves in a place that looks more like 'nazi Germany' or 'Communist Russia' than the United States of America.
The Bush administration wants to amass a record of every call ever made. As one insider told USA Today, "It's the largest database ever assembled in the world." Consider that that makes every U.S. citizen a suspect. Many peoples' reaction is 'I'm not doing anything wrong, so I'm OK with it.' You can't tell me there are not calls you make that you don't want other people to hear.
Consider this: you decide to sell your car or some other item through an ad. You're going to get quite a number of calls from people you don't know. Let's say a member of a terrorist cell needs a car and decides to buy yours. You've just been put in the loop of suspects without knowing it or even intending to participate.
You may also say that the worst thing you do is attend protest rallies and they are legal. Once we start giving up these freedoms we have we end up on a slippery slope. Today's legal protest rallies would become tomorrow's attack against government authorities. Some people would say it's unpatriotic to protest and would accept it as unlawful. This slow chipping away of our freedoms takes us unknowingly from today's democracy to tomorrows dictatorship and police state. You wake up one morning saying, "How did we get to this?" By allowing your fear to give up your freedom for perceived security.
Which takes me to Ben Franklin's saying, "Anyone who would give up any freedom for a bit of security deserves neither."
Doesn't it seem strange to anyone that we are supposedly fighting in Iraq to bring freedom to those people while it's being taken away from us here in the U.S. We're putting this tool in the hands of an administration that's responsible for leaking an active agent's name, Valerie Plame. The President himself lied about this. He claimed to oust anyone responsible for the leak only to find out it was the President himself.
Think about how secretive this administration has been and still is. And much of the secrecy is over possible wrong doing that they don't want investigated due to 'national security'. If the American people don't start taking these things seriously and start speaking out we make wake up one morning and find ourselves in a place that looks more like 'nazi Germany' or 'Communist Russia' than the United States of America.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
I AM THE DECIDER . . . ER DICTATOR
This President is acting more and more like a dictator, and we should be very, very concerned about it. He is like a head of household who talks about doing things in the best interest of those he is supposed to take care of and constantly screws them to his own benefit.August 6, 2001 he gets a presidential daily briefing titled Osama bin Laden intent on attacking within the U.S. Prior to that we now know that at a G-8 meeting there was a threat of planes flying into buildings prompting the meeting to be relocated.
9/11/2001 the World Trade Centers are attacked and he sits like a dear in the headlights in an elementary school classroom. At this point he's screwed up way more than we realize. After the attacks we are embraced by the world.
We then found out that it was Osama responsible for the attacks, He makes the right move and goes after him in Afghanistan. As he is about to catch him at Tora Bora. He decides to take our troops and attack Iraq. This administration stated that they needed another 'Pearl Harbor' to carry out their agenda and they got it. The 'Downing Street Memos' were thesmoking gun that showed they were intent on attacking Iraq long before 9/11.
In their new world order our kids die for their blunders not their's. We lose good paying jobs and get Walmart jobs in their place. Economy looks good because the stock market is up and corporate profits are up as well. But the wage of the middle class keeps going down. When unemplayment statistic are given they are so misleading. Example -- you work for a manufacturing company making a reasonably good wage with benefits. The company cuts back and you lose your job. You go on unemployment and look for another job with similar benefits. You can't find one. You're unemployment benefits run out and you are no longer included as the unemployed. With no other option you take that Walmart job with low pay and no benefits. That counts as a job creation. Hence unemployment goes down and corporate profits go up giving the appearance of a growing economy.
Now they spy on us, take away our civil liberties all in the name of protecting us. Yet Katrina was a disaster, the Dubai Ports deal backfired, tax cuts in the time of war go to the wealthy with no trickle down effect. Bush says that if he breaks the law, because he's the President it is not breaking the law. This is the way countries slowly fall into a dictatorship.
Ben Franklin said something to the affect -- anyone who is willing to give up any amount of freedom for safety doesn't deserve either freedom or safety. We are only getting a thin illusion of safety and are expected to give up our freedoms for it.
When is it going to be time to hit the streets and fight to get our freedoms back and stop these guys from taking any more. We are heading down a bad road and we better get off of it before we reach the quicksand!!!
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Monday, May 08, 2006
THIRTY-ONE PERCENT APPROVAL AND NO OUTRAGE FROM THE 69% THAT SHOULD BE SCARED SHITLESS
With approval ratings at 31% for the President, and even lower polls for Congress and the Vice-President; the President is not willing to change course despite the obvious. Basically you've got a David Koresh with a lot more power. With 31% -- you know that's his base . . . evangelical christians, who have the same messianic outlook that this President has. And this is who is going to lead the other 70% of us. We're just a bunch of assholes if we let this go on.
click on link - read more
click on link - read more
Friday, May 05, 2006
Monday, May 01, 2006
A DAY WITHOUT A MEXICAN -- movie trailer
this movie came out a couple of years ago, so you can rent it on dvd and now would be the appropriate time to rent it 
---- click link, then click on trailers in upper left hand corner of site http://www.adaywithoutamexican.com/index1.htm
---- click link, then click on trailers in upper left hand corner of site http://www.adaywithoutamexican.com/index1.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)