05-27-2011 • marketoracle.co.uk
Friday, May 27, 2011
Transformation of the Entire World Into A Big Brother Prison Grid
05-27-2011 • marketoracle.co.uk
Gerald Celente: By Winter The Revolution Will Be Global
Government Cannot Be Trusted To Police Itself
BY Chuck Baldwin
So many of the words and warnings delivered by America’s Founding Fathers are appropriate for today. Consider this sage counsel from America’s first and greatest President, George Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” I was reminded of these words when I read the following report out of the State of Indiana.
“Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court [ISC] ruled Thursday [May 12, 2011] that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
“In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.”
Justice Robert Rucker and Justice Brent Dickson dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision violates the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.
“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally-that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said.
The NW Indiana Times also reported, “This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.
“On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.”
See the report at:
http://tinyurl.com/3kae4zy
Shortly after the ISC decision, Newton County Sheriff Donald Hartman, Sr. said he believes the ruling makes house-to-house searches possible. According to a report at Infowars.com, Sheriff Hartman “made it clear that he would use random house to house searches if he believed it was necessary.”
The Infowars.com report also correctly notes that it was years of illegal searches and seizures and seizures of the American colonists (along with the attempt to seize the colonists’ firearms) that led our forebears to resist the British government with force on April 19, 1775, at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge which ignited America’s War for Independence.
See the report at:
http://tinyurl.com/3dhnx59
It may be helpful at this point to rehearse the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
With this ruling, the ISC effectively told the citizens of the State of Indiana that the Fourth Amendment is null and void in their State. And Sheriff Donald Hartman has effectively said that he will treat the citizens of Newton County in much the same way that King George treated America’s colonists–or the way Stalin’s or Mao’s police treated the enslaved subjects of the former Soviet Union and Communist China.
And what is also disturbing is the way government, at every level, seems unwilling to police itself.
The reason the US Constitution limited the jurisdiction and authority of the federal government and left states with their own jurisdiction and (broader) authority was to serve as a check and balance against the tyrannical tendencies of the central government. Today, however, acts of tyranny seem to be taking place as frequently on the State and local levels as it is at the federal level. This story out of the Hoosier State is only the latest example.
Does anyone find it more than interesting (and even paradoxical) that while the US military is being used more and more as international policemen, local and State law enforcement personnel are often being used more and more like military troops (and taking on the appearance, procedures, and tactics of military troops)?
Traditionally, it was never the role of local and State law enforcement personnel to act like soldiers. Police officers have no “enemy” to seek out and destroy. Their job is to protect, not punish. The citizens of their State, county, or city are not the enemy.
I recently had a well-meaning police lieutenant tell me that his primary concern was that his officers were protected. That is all well and good, and I certainly understand his concern for his officers. However, when a man or woman puts on the uniform of a police officer (or sheriff’s deputy), he or she is saying that they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to make sure that the citizens of their community stay protected. The “us versus them” attitude of many police officers today is very harmful to the principles of freedom and liberty.
In the above-mentioned story, it was the judiciary branch of the Indiana State government that was unwilling to hold the executive branch of the Indiana State government accountable to the principles of liberty and constitutional government. Once again, we see that government cannot be trusted to police itself.
If the State of Indiana had constitutionalist sheriffs (and surely there must be a few of them), they would have immediately renounced the ISC decision, and made it clear that they would never allow their deputies to operate in the tyrannical manner approved by the court’s dastardly decision. The same should have been true for Indiana’s police chiefs. Was there such a response? If there was, the media ignored it.
Furthermore, Indiana’s governor should have immediately renounced the ISC’s decision and issued an executive order forbidding State and local law enforcement personnel from complying with this unconstitutional decision. Again, if he did this, we didn’t hear about it, did we?
The propensity of government is not only to build and strengthen itself, but also to protect itself. This is true at every level of government. It is up to “We the People” to hold our civil magistrates accountable to constitutional government. And this is most efficiently done at the State level.
The citizens of Indiana can put a stop to this nonsense if they are of a mind to do so. They should rise as one in opposition to the court’s opinion; they should rise as one in demanding the resignations of the three justices who affirmed this draconian decision; they should rise as one in demanding the resignation of Newton County Sheriff Donald Hartman (and any other sheriff who expressed similar views); they should rise as one in demanding that the Indiana governor publicly repudiate this opinion and that he sign an EO countering it; and they should rise as one in making sure that every elected official in Indiana knows that the people of the Hoosier State will not sit back and allow their liberties to be trampled on in such an egregious fashion.
As I have said in past columns, liberty will be won or lost at the State level. All this talk about “saving America” is just that: talk. If we are serious about protecting and preserving our liberties, we will work to ensure that our individual State is the vanguard of freedom–not the instrument of its demise. If we cannot convince our State and local governments to protect our liberties, we are dreaming if we think we are going to convince Washington, D.C., to do the same.
The decision of the Indiana Supreme Court and the public statements of Sheriff Donald Hartman prove that George Washington was spot-on: government is a “fearful master.”
Freedom-loving Hoosiers need to stand up NOW!
P.S. This is the last opportunity for people to obtain three of my most popular video messages at a special package price: “What Every Christian Should Know About The New World Order,” “There Is A Conspiracy,” and “The Biblical Standard Of Government.” These three video messages may be purchased for the price of two. That’s like buying two and getting one free. This offer expires at the end of May. To take advantage of this special offer, go to:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3468
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
13 Senators Oppose Maneuver To Block Patriot Act Amendments
by jclifford
When I saw that the U.S. Senate had voted to table S. 1038, the
legislation to extend the most extreme spying powers of the Patriot Act
for four more years, I was confused. I thought that a majority of
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate had coalesced in support of the
legislation. Wouldn’t a motion to table the legislation prevent the
Senate from taking a final vote on the bill?
Actually, as The Hill explains, the motion to table the legislation yesterday was actually part of a complicated maneuver to pass the bill in rapid fashion, without full consideration of amendments. Senate leader Harry Reid cast aside the form of S. 1038 that had several proposed amendments attached to it, and then took the body of S. 1038 and linked it to a message from the House of Representatives, to which the amendments were unconnected.
The Hill’s analysis focuses on one of those amendments, introduced by Senator Rand Paul, which would prevent the Patriot Act from being used to seize records of gun purchases in particular. That amendment to the bill is just one of many, however, which were blocked from consideration as a result of Reid’s twist of Senate rules.
These
amendments sought to use the extension to reform the Patriot Act. One,
by Senator Paul, would have required the government, when seeking a
National Security Letter to perform searches and seizures, to go to a
court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and a
judge’s certification that probable cause sufficient to gain a warrant
has been established. Another of Senator Paul’s amendments would have
required a district court to issue the equivalent of a search warrant
before the seizure of financial records could take place.
Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden of Colorado submitted amendments as well. One amendment would have required that “lone wolf” spying powers, to authorize electronic surveillance without the constitutionally required identification of a particular person or place to be searched, could only target agents of foreign powers. Another of their amendments would have required the government to specify, for roving wiretaps and electronic surveillance, the identity of the target or the location of the target of the surveillance.
Senator Bernard Sanders offered an amendment to S. 1038 protecting libraries and bookstores from having their records seized without a search warrant. Senator Patrick Leahy offered an amendment that would have required the government to establish procedures to destroy or return all evidence gathered through the Patriot Act that is determined not to be relevant to the investigation, rather than keeping the evidence and using the information for other purposes.
All these amendments, and the reforms that they proposed, were blocked by yesterday evening’s vote to table S. 1038. Those who voted “Yea” to this motion were voting to prevent efforts to improve the Patriot Act by reducing its unconstitutional search and seizure powers.
Those who voted “Nay” weren’t necessarily trying to block the Patriot Act extension from renewal. They were voting to at least give reforms for the Patriot Act a fair hearing.
Only 13 senators voted “Nay”. They were:
Senator Mark Begich, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Dean Heller, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Bernard Sanders, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Mark Udall, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Ron Wyden
One of these senators, Jeff Merkley, rose to speak against Harry Reid’s move to squelch amendments to reform the Patriot Act. Merkley said,
Actually, as The Hill explains, the motion to table the legislation yesterday was actually part of a complicated maneuver to pass the bill in rapid fashion, without full consideration of amendments. Senate leader Harry Reid cast aside the form of S. 1038 that had several proposed amendments attached to it, and then took the body of S. 1038 and linked it to a message from the House of Representatives, to which the amendments were unconnected.
The Hill’s analysis focuses on one of those amendments, introduced by Senator Rand Paul, which would prevent the Patriot Act from being used to seize records of gun purchases in particular. That amendment to the bill is just one of many, however, which were blocked from consideration as a result of Reid’s twist of Senate rules.
These
amendments sought to use the extension to reform the Patriot Act. One,
by Senator Paul, would have required the government, when seeking a
National Security Letter to perform searches and seizures, to go to a
court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and a
judge’s certification that probable cause sufficient to gain a warrant
has been established. Another of Senator Paul’s amendments would have
required a district court to issue the equivalent of a search warrant
before the seizure of financial records could take place.Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden of Colorado submitted amendments as well. One amendment would have required that “lone wolf” spying powers, to authorize electronic surveillance without the constitutionally required identification of a particular person or place to be searched, could only target agents of foreign powers. Another of their amendments would have required the government to specify, for roving wiretaps and electronic surveillance, the identity of the target or the location of the target of the surveillance.
Senator Bernard Sanders offered an amendment to S. 1038 protecting libraries and bookstores from having their records seized without a search warrant. Senator Patrick Leahy offered an amendment that would have required the government to establish procedures to destroy or return all evidence gathered through the Patriot Act that is determined not to be relevant to the investigation, rather than keeping the evidence and using the information for other purposes.
All these amendments, and the reforms that they proposed, were blocked by yesterday evening’s vote to table S. 1038. Those who voted “Yea” to this motion were voting to prevent efforts to improve the Patriot Act by reducing its unconstitutional search and seizure powers.
Those who voted “Nay” weren’t necessarily trying to block the Patriot Act extension from renewal. They were voting to at least give reforms for the Patriot Act a fair hearing.
Only 13 senators voted “Nay”. They were:
Senator Mark Begich, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Dean Heller, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Bernard Sanders, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Mark Udall, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Ron Wyden
One of these senators, Jeff Merkley, rose to speak against Harry Reid’s move to squelch amendments to reform the Patriot Act. Merkley said,
“There is no question that every Member of this Chamber has an enormous sense of responsibility in the security of our Nation. In that sense, there is significant feeling on every person’s part that we need to enable our intelligence services, our military, to do the necessary work to protect our Nation.
But that does not mean we should avoid having a debate about whether the PATRIOT Act, as written today, without an amendment, rolls over the top of the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
We can have both personal privacy and a high standard, as set out in the fourth amendment, for the seizure of papers and security. Those two things are not at war with each other. We have had two centuries in this Nation of embracing the twins of personal privacy and security. We have made that work. We can continue to make it work.
I rise in protest about the process unfolding in the Senate in which amendments will not be presented and will not be debated. I rise to say the fourth amendment matters; that it sets a significant standard against unreasonable seizures and searches, and that the PATRIOT Act, as written, does not provide a clear implementation of the fourth amendment, a clear protection of the fourth amendment.”
VIDEO added: Will Texas Governor Rick Perry Jump Into 2012 And Shake Up The GOP Field
Video added below the post of Perry's press conference."Texas added more jobs in the past 10 years than the total jobs of the 19 states, including the District of Columbia, that were positive for job growth."--- The Business Journals
There has been buzz, rumors and speculation as to whether Texas Governor Rick Perry would toss his hat into the ring as a presidential candidate for 2012, despite his prior rejection of the idea.
Reports today show that the thought is there and the possibility is not as unlikely as many once thought it was.
Via Statesman:
Gov. Rick Perry today gave his strongest indication yet that he may run for president.
“I’m going to think about it” after the legislative session ends Monday, Perry said. He added, “But I think about a lot of things.”
More:
Perry was asked about the presidency during a press conference to hail a voter-identification law that he has signed into law.
The presidential talk began when a reporter asked Perry for his reaction to the fact that the Hispanic Republican Conference of Texas, a group of state legislators, endorsed him for president on Thursday.
“I don’t make a lot of anything dealing with that until we get past the Monday deadline for this legislative session,” Perry said. “That’s our focus. I appreciate everybody’s interest. All of us know that the work at hand is the most important thing we have to do in getting this balanced budget finalized and passing pieces of legislation like this.”
Unemployment is a huge issue and promises to be one the top issues going into the 2012 campaign season, with unemployment at 9 percent now and estimates from experts believing unemployment will not be under 8 percent by Nov. 2012. Job growth has also been the focus of the latest plan put together by the GOP, unveiled yesterday with "America's Job Creators".
Recent reports with data obtained by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that Texas over the last decade has seen private-sector job growth of 732,800, the highest of all 50 states and DC.
No other state even topped 100,000.
Perry is into his third term as Governor, making him the longest serving governor in Texas history and would benefit greatly from Texas' job growth over the last 10 years as well as his reputation as a social and fiscal conservative.
Others have noted that recently Perry has been weighing in on national issues as well which could been indicative of a 2012 presidential run.
More on Perry's stances and votes on individual issues can be found here.
This is definitely a story to watch if for no other reason than if Perry enters the race, the campaign season would get much more interesting.
Congrats to Miami Heat Advances to NBA Final
The Power 3 have done it, say what you want about the Miami Heat but in the end they got it done! The Miami Heat advances to the NBA Final for the first time in 5 years against a team, the Dallas Mavericks they played when they were in the NBA Finals last and won. At that time they had D.Wade and Shaq Oneal, now heading into the NBA Final they have D. Wade still but have added Lebron James and Chris Bosh both of whom as you know were added in the off-season. It was June 20, 2006 when the NBA season was declared over and Miami defeated Dallas to win their first NBA Championship and looks like they will defeat, I am putting it out their now they will win their second NBA title thanks to the Dallas Mavericks. The series was won in 6 games 5 years ago and i believe again the series will be another 6 game series again in the favor of the Miami Heat. The NBA Finals kick off in Miami on Tuesday May 31. Again Miami will be faced with capturing the title in Dallas like they did 5 years ago. So again Congrats to Pat Riley, Dwanye Wade, Lebron James, Chris Bosh and the entire Miami Heat Organization on Advancing to the NBA Finals and Capturing you guys 2nd NBA Title come June 9, 2011.
Congress Passes Extensions of Key Provisions of Patriot Act; 2 Senators Question Justice Dept. Interpretation of Act
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
The New York Times
WASHINGTON
The Senate passed the bill 72 to 23 late in the afternoon, and within hours the House approved it 250 to 153. In an unusual move, a White House spokesman said that President Obama, who was in Europe, would “direct the use” of an autopen machine to sign the bill into law without delay.
To Read more click here. — Two senators claimed on Thursday that the Justice Department had secretly interpreted the so-called Patriot Act in a twisted way, enabling domestic surveillance activities that many members of Congress do not understand.
WASHINGTON
At the same time, Congress and the White House were rushing to enact legislation to prevent a lapse in several of the federal government’s investigative powers under the Patriot Act that were set to expire at midnight.
To Read more click here. — Two senators claimed on Thursday that the Justice Department had secretly interpreted the so-called Patriot Act in a twisted way, enabling domestic surveillance activities that many members of Congress do not understand.
Afghanistan War News Updates
NATO Soldiers Die In Afghanistan -- New York Times
KABUL, Afghanistan — Nine NATO soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Thursday, eight of them in an attack in the southern part of the country that was the deadliest involving hidden explosive devices so far this year, officials said.
The eight soldiers were part of a foot patrol and were killed in two individual improvised explosive device explosions that struck the patrol as part of the same attack, according to Maj. Tim James, a spokesman for NATO. An unrelated helicopter crash in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday killed an additional soldier, Major James said.
Read more ....
Egypt: Gearing Up for a Second Revolutionary Round
This post is part of our special coverage Egypt Revolution 2011.
Egypt will not sleep tonight in preparation for its Second Day of Anger. Following Mubarak's ousting, many protests took place. However, it has been obvious that the demands raised since the start of the January 25 revolution have mostly not been fulfilled. The turtle steps that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and Cabinet are taking were not up to the level of the promises to protect the revolution and its legitimate demands, hence the calls for the second day of anger at Tahrir Square this Friday.
Although the demands represent the heart and core of the Egyptian revolution, tomorrow's call for a million person march was not widely accepted by many citizens who have been calling for stability, and some political parties like the Muslim Brotherhood which had announced that it would not participate in tomorrow's rally.
However the MB leaders' decision didn't effect the Ikhwan youth, who have decided to participate in the “Second Revolution” as they have done on January 25th.
On Twitter Ąhmed El Mąssry writes:
Mai Khalil reports:
Also, the day of preparations did not run smoothly, as activists were arrested.
Ganzeer, Aida ElKashef , and NadimX were arrested early this morning for posting a poster that offended the military police. They were released later on the day.
While activists in Cairo were arrested and released, seven activists from Suez were reportedly arrested while preparing for the rally and there is no news about their release yet.
And in a very unexpected move, SCAF issued their 58th Communique which states that although they support the right of peaceful protests, the armed forces will not be in protest locations during the 2nd Day of Anger, and that the revolutionary youth will have to protect the square and protesters.
The night is still relatively young in Cairo the city that never sleeps. Protesters already starting calling for volunteers to protect the entrances and enforce protective measures. Not only that but activists and protesters are apprehensive of their greatest enemy - the hot Egyptian summer, and offer the following advice:
Nada Amin cautions:
Written by Nermeen Edrees
Egypt will not sleep tonight in preparation for its Second Day of Anger. Following Mubarak's ousting, many protests took place. However, it has been obvious that the demands raised since the start of the January 25 revolution have mostly not been fulfilled. The turtle steps that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and Cabinet are taking were not up to the level of the promises to protect the revolution and its legitimate demands, hence the calls for the second day of anger at Tahrir Square this Friday.
Although the demands represent the heart and core of the Egyptian revolution, tomorrow's call for a million person march was not widely accepted by many citizens who have been calling for stability, and some political parties like the Muslim Brotherhood which had announced that it would not participate in tomorrow's rally.
However the MB leaders' decision didn't effect the Ikhwan youth, who have decided to participate in the “Second Revolution” as they have done on January 25th.
On Twitter Ąhmed El Mąssry writes:
Brotherhood divided over Friday's protests almasryalyoum.com/en/node/452783 #MB #may27 and #25jan story repeats it selfMeanwhile, many promised to be there. Mostafa El Attar notes [ar]:
إحساسي أن غدا سيكون مولد جديد للثورة..و سيتعلم كل من رفض المشاركة درسا جديدا في التاريخ. #may27 #egypt #tahrir #jan25 #noscaf #MB #salafi
I have a feeling that tomorrow will be the revolution's rebirth. And all those who have refused to participate will learn a new lesson in history
As usual prior to the Egyptian Days of Anger, rumors bubbled to the surface.Mai Khalil reports:
#akher2esha3a ppl in #Maadi advising each other to go to ATMs and withdraw all the cash they can.yo2sodo eah ya3ny #May27
Latest Rumour: people in Maadi advising each other to go to ATMs and withdraw all the cash they can. What do they mean by that?
Ganzeer, Aida ElKashef , and NadimX were arrested early this morning for posting a poster that offended the military police. They were released later on the day.
While activists in Cairo were arrested and released, seven activists from Suez were reportedly arrested while preparing for the rally and there is no news about their release yet.
And in a very unexpected move, SCAF issued their 58th Communique which states that although they support the right of peaceful protests, the armed forces will not be in protest locations during the 2nd Day of Anger, and that the revolutionary youth will have to protect the square and protesters.
The night is still relatively young in Cairo the city that never sleeps. Protesters already starting calling for volunteers to protect the entrances and enforce protective measures. Not only that but activists and protesters are apprehensive of their greatest enemy - the hot Egyptian summer, and offer the following advice:
Nada Amin cautions:
@Gsquare86 wear white, caps, sun glasses, drink loads of water and juice, eat before u go. Always have a bottle of water with u!This post is part of our special coverage Egypt Revolution 2011.
Written by Nermeen Edrees
Computer errors let 450 violent California prisoners go free
A computer system that lacked key information about inmates factored in the release of an estimated 450 prisoners with a "high risk of violence," according to the California inspector general.
Photo: The revelations come two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California's prisons are dangerously overcrowded and upheld an earlier order that state officials must find a way to reduce the 143,335-inmate population by roughly 33,000.
Reporting from Sacramento -- Computer errors prompted California prison officials to mistakenly release an estimated 450 inmates with "a high risk for violence" as unsupervised parolees in a program meant to ease overcrowding, according to the state's inspector general.
More than 1,000 additional prisoners presenting a high risk of committing drug crimes, property crimes and other offenses were also let out, officials said.
No attempt was made to return any of the offenders to state lockups or place them on supervised parole, said inspector general spokeswoman Renee Hansen.
All of the prisoners were placed on "non-revocable parole," whose participants are not required to report to parole officers and can be sent back to prison only if caught committing a crime. The program was started in January 2010 for inmates judged to be at very low risk of reoffending, leaving parole agents free to focus on supervising higher-risk parolees.
The revelations come two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California's prisons are dangerously overcrowded and upheld an earlier order that state officials find a way to reduce the 143,335-inmate population by roughly 33,000. The state has two years to comply.
State Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), a former prosecutor who requested an investigation of the unsupervised-parole program, said the inspector general's report "confirms my worst fears" about it.
Investigators reviewed case files for 200 of the 10,134 former inmates who were on non-revocable parole in July of last year. They found that 31 were not eligible, and nine of those were determined likely to commit violent crimes. The inspector general and corrections officials refused to identify the inmates who were released erroneously. They also would not specify what their original offenses had been.
Using the 15% error rate they found in their sample, investigators estimated that more than 450 violent inmates had been released during the first seven months of the program, the time period they reviewed. Prison officials have disputed the findings, saying they had corrected some of the computer problems discovered by the inspector general. The error rate is now 8%, the inspector general report says.
Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to address overcrowding would shift tens of thousands of low-level offenders from prison to county custody. Counties would also supervise most low-risk parolees, like those in the non-revocable program.
But if the state can't properly identify which inmates qualify for an unsupervised parole program, Lieu said on Wednesday, "how can the public have confidence they can release 33,000 felons safely?"
Under the law that created non-revocable parole, inmates are excluded if they are gang members, have committed sex crimes or violent felonies or have been determined to pose a high risk to reoffend based on an assessment of their records behind bars.
That's where the problems begin, according to the inspector general. The computer program prison officials used to make that assessment does not access an inmate's disciplinary history.
The program also relies on a state Department of Justice system that records arrests but is missing conviction information for nearly half of the state's 16.4 million arrest records, according to the inspector general report.
Lee Seale, a deputy chief of staff for the California prisons, acknowledged that the corrections department's computer system can't access an inmate's disciplinary record. But that information is reviewed manually by a member of his staff before prisoners are released, said spokesman Luis Patino.
Seale agreed that the missing conviction information from the Department of Justice database is a problem. "That presents a serious issue for the entire criminal justice system, every judge, every probation officer, every cop on the street trying to decide whether to arrest someone," Seale said.
In July, a parolee named Javier Joseph Rueda, who had been classified a low-level offender and placed in the non-revocable program, opened fire on two Los Angeles police officers, hitting one in the arm. The police returned fire, killing Rueda.
Prison spokesman Oscar Hidalgo said Rueda had been properly classified. At the time, Hidalgo pointed out that the attack could have taken place even if Rueda had been checking in periodically with a parole agent.
"Supervised parole is not incarceration," Hidalgo said.
Photo: The revelations come two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California's prisons are dangerously overcrowded and upheld an earlier order that state officials must find a way to reduce the 143,335-inmate population by roughly 33,000. Reporting from Sacramento -- Computer errors prompted California prison officials to mistakenly release an estimated 450 inmates with "a high risk for violence" as unsupervised parolees in a program meant to ease overcrowding, according to the state's inspector general.
More than 1,000 additional prisoners presenting a high risk of committing drug crimes, property crimes and other offenses were also let out, officials said.
No attempt was made to return any of the offenders to state lockups or place them on supervised parole, said inspector general spokeswoman Renee Hansen.
All of the prisoners were placed on "non-revocable parole," whose participants are not required to report to parole officers and can be sent back to prison only if caught committing a crime. The program was started in January 2010 for inmates judged to be at very low risk of reoffending, leaving parole agents free to focus on supervising higher-risk parolees.
The revelations come two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California's prisons are dangerously overcrowded and upheld an earlier order that state officials find a way to reduce the 143,335-inmate population by roughly 33,000. The state has two years to comply.
State Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), a former prosecutor who requested an investigation of the unsupervised-parole program, said the inspector general's report "confirms my worst fears" about it.
Investigators reviewed case files for 200 of the 10,134 former inmates who were on non-revocable parole in July of last year. They found that 31 were not eligible, and nine of those were determined likely to commit violent crimes. The inspector general and corrections officials refused to identify the inmates who were released erroneously. They also would not specify what their original offenses had been.
Using the 15% error rate they found in their sample, investigators estimated that more than 450 violent inmates had been released during the first seven months of the program, the time period they reviewed. Prison officials have disputed the findings, saying they had corrected some of the computer problems discovered by the inspector general. The error rate is now 8%, the inspector general report says.
Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to address overcrowding would shift tens of thousands of low-level offenders from prison to county custody. Counties would also supervise most low-risk parolees, like those in the non-revocable program.
But if the state can't properly identify which inmates qualify for an unsupervised parole program, Lieu said on Wednesday, "how can the public have confidence they can release 33,000 felons safely?"
Under the law that created non-revocable parole, inmates are excluded if they are gang members, have committed sex crimes or violent felonies or have been determined to pose a high risk to reoffend based on an assessment of their records behind bars.
That's where the problems begin, according to the inspector general. The computer program prison officials used to make that assessment does not access an inmate's disciplinary history.
The program also relies on a state Department of Justice system that records arrests but is missing conviction information for nearly half of the state's 16.4 million arrest records, according to the inspector general report.
Lee Seale, a deputy chief of staff for the California prisons, acknowledged that the corrections department's computer system can't access an inmate's disciplinary record. But that information is reviewed manually by a member of his staff before prisoners are released, said spokesman Luis Patino.
Seale agreed that the missing conviction information from the Department of Justice database is a problem. "That presents a serious issue for the entire criminal justice system, every judge, every probation officer, every cop on the street trying to decide whether to arrest someone," Seale said.
In July, a parolee named Javier Joseph Rueda, who had been classified a low-level offender and placed in the non-revocable program, opened fire on two Los Angeles police officers, hitting one in the arm. The police returned fire, killing Rueda.
Prison spokesman Oscar Hidalgo said Rueda had been properly classified. At the time, Hidalgo pointed out that the attack could have taken place even if Rueda had been checking in periodically with a parole agent.
"Supervised parole is not incarceration," Hidalgo said.
ATLANTA: Bishop Eddie Long Settles Sexual Coercion Suit With Four Young Men
It appears that Atlanta's Bishop Eddie Long has paid off the four young men who last year accused him of coercing them into totally gay homosexual sex. Long had regularly and viciously railed against LGBT people from his megachurch pulpit.Barbara Marschalk, who represents New Birth Missionary Baptist Church and Long Fellows Youth Academy, said she anticipates " the lawsuits will be dismissed, with prejudice, by close of business tomorrow." B.J. Bernstein, who represents the four men who sued Long, New Birth and LongFellows, also confirmed the lawsuits had been settled. Neither side would comment further and settlement terms were unknown. According to Bernstein's office, neither she nor the plaintiffs -- Maurice Robinson, Jamal Parris, Anthony Flagg and Spencer LeGrande -- would be available for an interview "on this matter, now or in the future. "TD Jakes Addresses The Eddie Long Sex Scandal. by First Day Church Atlanta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)