8th Grader Strip Searched by School Officials Vindicated

Back in March of 2008 we reported on this outrageous case involving a teen that was strip searched after being accused of being in possession of a controlled substance....gasp, ibuproffen!

Our Original Post of March 2008

It seems that the Supreme Court today vindicated this poor girl...

By an 8-1 vote, the justices upheld a ruling that the school and its officials violated the U.S. constitutional right that protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

Read the article about today's Supreme Court Ruling

Marijuana Ballot Item Goes Up In Smoke

For the second year in a row the Burlington City Council debated whether to ask voters if they are interested in decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana by way of a ballot question. For the second year in a row the City Council shot down the idea of letting voters weigh in.

Councilors voted 8 to 6, Monday night, against putting an advisory referendum on the March 3 Town Meeting Day ballot. Ed Adrian proposed the initiative, which would have asked voters if they want the city to urge lawmakers to examine the issue of decriminalizing marijuana.

"I think it's clear that after 70 or 80 years of active law enforcement against marijuana and the fact that we have not been able to solve the problem over that time period speaks volumes and I think it speaks volumes in that it's at least time to start looking at something else," said Adrian.

He garnered community support from several people who spoke at Monday's meeting.

"In this time of economic downturn I think that we might be able to spend our time and our resources and our money fighting real crime against persons and property," said Nancy Lynch, of the Vermont Alliance for Intelligent Drug Laws.

Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling testified against the measure. He said even small amounts of marijuana pose a problem because they are just the tip of a much larger network of drug dealing. He was also concerned about confusing children.

"The dangerous educational message it sends to youth that it starts to blur the line about where safety really needs to be considered," said Schirling.

Councilors debated for over an hour before making their final decision.

Bianca Slota - WCAX News

WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-Marijuana Ballot Item Goes Up In Smoke

“I hate these stupid fucking arguments. Doesn't the Police Chief mean "further blur the line"? We already send conflicting messages by our stance on alcohol and tobacco. What are the Council members afraid of here? Are they saying their constituents are too stupid to decide this issue for themselves?”

We spend an incredible amount of money enforcing marijuana laws. Considering the amount of people who smoke it would make sense to generate revenue from its use. The state could also greatly benefit from the many indusrial uses for hemp products. While there is a process to become a hemp farmer, I have yet to hear whether anyone has applied for a permit. It would seem that while decreasing the stigma of hemp production would help, it would also help to streamline the process fo apply for a permit.

I think it's time once again for Vermont to take the lead on a national issue. The Legislature should decriminalize marijuana in small, personal use quantities. At the same time they should provide tax breaks for hemp related products that add new jobs to the economy. If we get ahead of the curve a bit, we could add "Vermont Made Hemp" to our growing list of fine agricultural products that receive the Vermot Quality seal.

WTF?: Toy Manufacturer To Sell Caylee Anthony Doll

"Now you too can be a part of the Caylee Anthony saga unfolding on cable news networks! What's that? This is a grotesque commercialization of what should be a private tragedy? Don't be such a downer! 'We want it to be a tribute,' Showbiz Promotions prez Jaime Salcedo told the Orlando Sentinel. Heck, he's even thinking of donating $3 per purchase to some good cause or another.

The doll plays 'You Are My Sunshine' when you push her belly, so luckily you don't have to be sad when you look at your new Caylee doll. You do have to be one sick, creepy fool, however." Read More Here

This has to rank right up there with one of the more vile things I have ever heard. Some people have no sense of shame or consideration for others. The only thing they care about is the almighty dollar. The thing that makes this an even more despicable act is the attitude of this this guy. He tries to justify it by saying he had to invest the money to have the dolls made (or at least the doll t-shirts). The tastelessness of this is beyond reproach and I feel genuinely bad for the families involved. People should leave them alone unless they're offering to help.

RIAA Announces Plan to End Lawsuits

After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.

The decision represents an abrupt shift of strategy for the industry, which has opened legal proceedings against about 35,000 people since 2003. Critics say the legal offensive ultimately did little to stem the tide of illegally downloaded music. And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl.

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers. The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits 

I'm not sure if this is good news or not. While I'm glad to hear that they aren't planning on suing anyone besides heavy file sharers, I think it's bad for internet users in general. Having the RIAA team up with ISP's in an effort to stem copyright infringement opens the door for the RIAA to become even more heavy handed by circumventing the courts all together. Look how long it took for someone to actually take the RIAA to full trial. Only then did their tactics unravel and the holes in their plans become obvious. 

I think, as many others do, that letting the ISP's become content police is horrible. Should the US Postal Service be allowed to open the mail of people who have a high volume of mail? Should the postal service be inspecting every package to make sure people aren't sending anything illegal. Just because a package weighs 2.2 pounds, doesn't mean it's likely a kilo of cocaine or heroin. It certainly wouldn't be sufficient grounds for a search. 

Another question that comes to mind is why would the ISP's want this role? What's in it for them? Perhaps they envision enough of a drop in traffic (from throttling bit torrent etc) where they could further put off investing money into infrastructure that can handle the huge increase in traffic created by video, voip and file-sharing. 

The more likely scenario is that it's easier to play ball with the RIAA than it is to defend a huge lawsuit that challenges the "safe harbour" laws that protect them. One would think that the ISP's would want to remain neutral and not have the added expense of filtering and throttling. It seems like the RIAA is trying to put the ISP's directly in the crosshairs of consumer ire. Any way you look at it, this can't be a good deal for the ISP's bottom line.

Marijuana Legalization Tops List of Questions for Obama in Online Poll

(SALEM, Ore.) - I am not surprised that the number one thing Americans are asking President-elect Barack Obama is whether or not he is going to legalize marijuana. Generations are changing and evolving and the taboos around cannabis are slowly falling away.

American industries can harness the power of this multi-billion dollar, still mostly black market business. The attitude of people in this country is in a mode of great anticipation and change. Barack Obama is already on the record saying he does not want to use the Justice Department to bust state operated medical marijuana dispensaries

Marijuana Legalization Tops List of Questions for Obama in Online Poll - Salem-News.Com

It will be interesting to see what response, if any, we get from the Obama team. I wouldn't be suprised if someone dug into the web site stats to see if the system has been "gamed" to put this topic to number one. It may be a legitimate "snapshot" of where the public stands on issues, but one certainly has to wonder about our priorities if it is. Then again, it would certainly give our economy a new sector with a very large cashflow.

Stoners in the Mist

This hillarious anti-marijuana website was actually put together by the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. I hope this isn't a taxpayer funded organization. This appears to be a modern day version of "Reefer Madness". While the over the top exagerrations of "stoner" behavior are highly amusing to adults, it migh just send the wrong message to kids.

I came accross this while reading about the useless prohibition of marijuana in the United States. There is a marijuana arrest every 38 seconds in the US. Most of them are for possesion, not trafficking. We spent over 10 billion dollars last year on these arrests. Did it make a dent in the marijuana use? Nope, in fact it stayed about the same. We could spend another month or two in Iraq for that kind of money!

Imagine what we could do if we didn't spend 10 billion dollars a year in marijuana law enforcement. We could do a lot. Then imagine the amount of tax revenue that could be generated. We would certainly want to spend some of that money on education and rehabilitation. You could also add in the revenue and taxes generated by hemp products and hemp agriculture.

We're missing a huge opportunity because of archic laws that were created by people who were threatened by hemp. Primarily the cotton industry. After 72 years of inneffective prohibition, it's about time we pulled our collective heads out of our asses and end the prohibition. It's just stupid....

Stoners in the Mist

Vermont OKs the Creation of Virtual Corporations

On June 6th, Gov. Jim Douglas signed an inauspicious-sounding bill entitled “H.0888, Miscellaneous Tax Documents” that could revolutionize the way startup companies are formed and run. As New York Law School professor David Johnson explained to me, up until now, U.S. law required LLCs to have physical headquarters, in-person board meetings and other regulations that have little relevance in the digital age.

No longer. Under the new law, for example, a board meeting may be conducted “in person or through the use of [an] electronic or telecommunications medium.” A “‘virtual company’ will be, as a legal matter, a Vermont limited liability company,” said Johnson. And other states are required to recognize the corporation as a legitimate LLC. So while in the past many companies registered in Delaware to take advantage of that state’s business-friendly policies, with this law, Internet-driven startups may find Vermont even more ideal.

Vermont OKs the Creation of Virtual Corporations

This appears to be along the fuzzy business lines like the "captive insurance" industry. A lot of revenue flows through these corporations, and a tiny percentage stays in the state. I think Vermont needs to create whatever business advatages it can, to bring new revenues to the state. We should also be focusing on attracting green technology businesses, but our digital infrastructure is ancient or non-existient. So far the private sector has been unable or unwilling to bring us out of the information stone age. Perhaps it is time for the state to find the funds and a partner to provide statewide broadband and cellular coverage. The only way we can retain our way of life is by being connected to the rest of the world in order to compete in the global marketplace.

Judge Says RIAA's "Making Available" Argument is Bullshit!

The act of making music available online may not be a copyright violation after all. And if that's the case, Jammie Thomas of Minnesota may not have to pay the $222,000 judgment won by record companies last year, an amount Thomas' attorneys argue is unconstitutionally excessive.

In his blog on Thursday, Google senior copyright counsel William Patry wrote, "Today, district judge Michael Davis issued an order indicating he may order a new trial based on an entirely different ground: concern that Jury Instruction N. 15, which permitted the jury to find infringement based on the RIAA's making available theory, may be contrary to the Eighth Circuit's binding precedent in National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Computer Associates Inc., requiring the distribution of actual copies."

RIAA Setback: Making Music Available May Not Be Copyright Infringement

I've never been able to get my little pea-brain around the "making available" argument. It simply goes against everything our system stands for. I mean, come on, we live in a country where "if the glove doesn't fit..then you must aquitt." pretty well sums up our judicial philosophy. If you can't prove that someone actually broke a law by a preponderence of the evidence you simply have no case. So, I could never understand how the "making available" theory passed the smell test.

As I've stated in previous posts, I think the RIAA's shady tactics are starting to unravel. You can be sure this won't be the last ruling that doesn't go the RIAA's way. My limited courtroom experience tells me that the Judiciary doesn't like to have the wool pulled over its eyes and like an elephant, it never forgets. The days of the RIAA lawyers sliding shoddy legal practices by Judges are numbered. It will be amusing to watch as they go down in flames right before our eyes. I'm pretty sure I won't be shedding any tears...unless they are accompanied by some serious belly laughs. As a wise man once said, "Fuck the RIAA!"

MPAA Using "Creative Math" To Calculate Losses

The MPAA has come up with a doozy of a way to calculate their losses in recent piracy investigations conducted in Hong Kong and Australia. The association said the Hong Kong haul was worth a "potential" $20 million. The Australian catch was worth "an estimated street value" of about $16.6 million. The manner in which these numbers were calculated is highly suspect. The MPAA estimate was based on the output capacity of the "burning labs" they uncovered. WHAT? They want to claim losses based on possible future events? I can't remember how long it's been since I've seen such a bone-headed legal claim...oh, wait it was earlier today when I read that the RIAA lawyers had filed a motion stating that the judge in the case had ruled erroneously in a case he sat on just months ago.

I think the MPAA/RIAA lawsuit machine is starting to unravel a bit. The bench is finally catching up to the shenanigans the lawyers have been pulling. Common sense is starting to close in on them quickly and I'd bet you'll see more rulings against them and more legal blunders as the pressure mounts. The next few months should be interesting to watch as more of these legal battles that have been festering all come to a head.

MPAA Talks Turkey; Pirating Costs Based on Futuristic Fantasy Threat Level from Wired.com

Amended Complaint Filed In RIAA/Media Sentry Lawsuit

Tanya Andersen has filed her amended complaint in her class action, Andersen v. Atlantic.The 109-page document provides a detailed description of some of the RIAA abuses, and contains 18 claims for relief, including Federal and State RICO claims, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and fraud.The suit targets the record companies, MediaSentry, Settlement Support Center LLC, and the RIAA.The complaint begins:

1.1 For nearly three years of her life, Tanya Andersen and her young daughter were subjected to an outrageous series of baseless accusations and unrelenting threats of financial ruin. The world’s four major recording studios had devised an illegal enterprise intent on maintaining their virtually complete monopoly over the distribution of recorded music. The enterprise is conducted with total disregard for innocent individuals. Dead people have been sued. Children have been sued. People without computers have been sued. As a senior RIAA spokeswoman explained: “When you fish with a net, you are going to catch a few dolphins”. By their own early admission, they were knowingly engaged in a “driftnet fishing” operation and “innocent dolphins” were the collateral damage in their “nets”.

Nationwide Conspiracy of Crime 1.2 -In 2003 and before, the Big 4 recording companies conspired with the enforcement/lobbying arm of the music cartel -- the RIAA -- and MediaSentry to devise an investigation scheme that was both illegal and seriously flawed. The scheme was based on secret private investigations by unlicensed, unregistered and uncertified private investigators. These private investigators claim to have illegally entered the hard drives of tens of thousands of private American citizens to look for music recordings stored there. This personal invasion is a crime in virtually every state in the country. If music was “discovered” through this illegal process, the private investigators would then sell the identity of the computers’ internet protocol address to the RIAA and the Big 4 record companies.

You can follow this story and more at the Recording Industry vs The People website. If you are into reading all the gory legal details of the RIAA lawsuit witch-hunt, this is the best place to do it. While it can be a bit dry at times, it will give you excellent insight into the legal arguments presented by both sides of the debate. If you pay close attention, you can gain some insight into how to stay out of the sights of the RIAA/Media Sentry folks.

For instance, one of the common themes I've seen is the majority of these cases involve Kazaa users. Does anyone even use this crappy client anymore? If you do, I suggest you find a better alternative and/or educate yourself on how other dumbass people are getting caught!

RIAA Secrets About To Be Revealed in Lawsuit

I can't wait until they get to the discovery phase of this trial. I'm sure the assholes at the RIAA are squirming and are quite uncomfortable as their game begins to unravel. The judge in this case has ruled that he won't take any more motions to dismiss this case. So, it seems that it will be moving forward. The only way that the RIAA can avoid this trial is to settle out of court. I sincerely hope that the lawyers for Ms. Andersen will pause for a moment, as if they were considering it, and laugh loudly and sarcasticly in their face.

This trial should bring many of the facts the RIAA has been holding close to the vest for many years to light. In past suits, when brought by the RIAA, where the defendants have decided to fight them, the RIAA lawyers have decided to drop the suits or make a "settlement offer" the defendant couldn't realisticly refuse. The reason they would do this is to avoid the discovery process that would reveal the shady way in which they operate. In this instance, the RIAA is the defendant. They aren't in control of how the trial proceeds. It is solely up to the plaintiffs attorneys and the judge. It sounds like the judge is a no nonsense type who feels like this trial should move forward and isn't likely to put up with any legal shenanigans from anybody.

I can't wait for all the juicy tidbits of this trial to become public. With the strong interest in this case from the internet community, I doubt the strongest of gag orders will keep this from happening. I'm sure that this case will be one of the more compelling "net stories" of the year and one that this blogger will certainly be blogging about for a while!

Andersen attorney on RIAA suit: "They can't run now"

RIAA Bastards Suing to Impose ISP Filters

The international wing of the RIAA mafia is suing an Irish ISP to force them to place filters on their network...Will this be the next step in the US?

IFPI Takes ISP to Court to Impose Music Piracy Filter

This is yet another angle in the file sharing debate. Do we really want ISP's to be the gatekeeper of all information that travels over the internet? Doesn't this go against all the principles the web was founded on?

I think this case is interesting in that the IFPI (international RIAA organization) is using the "making available" argument just as was used to bring down Napster. In a weird sense, I hope that they get some traction on this case as it brings a lot of attention to this aspect of the debate. I think this "made available" could be a dangerously slippery slope for the RIAA folks to perch upon.

Consider this scenario. An artist, who feels that the RIAA has not done enough to protect them from losses due to internet file sharing, decides to sue their (RIAA member) record label for "making available" a digital format of their work. One might consider the CDA format from the retail cd or a digital version from iTunes "making it available" for illegal filesharing. After all, the record labels are the ones responsible for the original distribution into the public realm. As I've said repeatedly before, "No one was filesharing vinyl!"

As more artists perform their own marketing and distribution duties, they will become more and more annoyed by how much the labels have been gouging them all these years. The recent internet release from Trent Reznor and NiN should really make a lot of major artists stand up and take notice. Perhaps some more major artists, like Prince, who are fed up with the industry's inability to protect their profits, may just decide to bring such a suit. It's only a matter of time....

Perfect Explanation of the Net Neutrality Debate

This video makes it very easy to understand the debate about net neutrality. It explains why everyone who uses the internet should be outraged at the government for not standing up to corporate greed. It also gives us great insight into the reason why the ISP's have been so slow to provide reasonable levels of service to rural customers. I would strongly recommend that everyone who has a voice should use it to contact their Congressional Representatives and demand that they stand up to corporate greed and keep the internet a beacon of free speech that is easily accessible to everyone. I would also encourage everyone to share this video with all of the people in their contact lists. If people sceam loud enough, with one voice, perhaps we can drown out the powerful Washington lobbyists who would like to gain control of the internet and impede on our freedom to communicate. It wouldn't be the first time they've tried....

Digg This Story!

Principal Orders Eigth Grader Strip Searched for Ibuprofen

This month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is scheduled to rehear a case involving a Tucson, AZ eighth-grader who was strip-searched by school administrators enforcing a "zero tolerance" drug policy.
"The drugs in question were ibuoprofen pills -- prescription-strength, 400-milligram pills (equivalent to a couple over-the-counter Advil caplets), but nothing anyone would or could use to get high."

Principal Orders Eigth Grader Strip Searched for Ibuprofen

How can an untrained (and obviously over-zealous) school official be allowed to search anyone? If there was any implication of illeagal drugs (prescriptions used by anyone other than the person they are prescribed), the police should have been called. Some may get hung up on the fact it was just ibuprofen. (Why do you need a prescription for these anyway? You can easily take 4 of the over the counter variety to equal the 800mg prescription stuff.)But, what if it were a narcotic painkiller? Would the principal still have ordered a strip search or would he have involved the police? Of course the proper thing to do would be to involve the cops. So, why should this case be any different.
Besides the question of constitutionality, wouldn't anything found in a search by someone who is not a law enforcement officer be easily tossed out as inadmissable if you had a decent lawyer? This whole story sickens me.
While I can empathize with school officials trying to run a school free of drugs of any type, one cannot condone such outrageous, improper behavior. Laws that protect our basic freedoms, like the protection from illeagal search and seizure, should always trump any perceived or real government policy. This behavior is made even more unacceptable on any level when the act involves a minor. School officials are responsible for protecting our children, not violating them, while in their care and custody.
Based on the reports I have read on this case, even a police officer would have a hard time justifying a strip search. The "suspect" denied the original accusation, didn't resist a search of her personal belongings and in fact nothing that occured in the course of investigating that gave them "reasonable cause" to suspect she was lying and continue with a strip search.
The school district and those involved should be sued into the stone age to ensure that this type of incident never occurs in any school district again.
Where's Bill O'reilly when you need him? I'd love to see him pick up on this case and make it his "outrageous story" segment for the next six months! Our rights and liberties are being constantly eroded by the government and the proper balance needs to be restored!

read more ...digg this story

Federal Judge Questions Validity of RIAA Arguments

Atlantic Records, et al., brought suit against Christopher Brennan just over a year ago. Brennan failed to respond to the complaint, never appearing in court to answer the copyright infringement charges. After an entry of default was entered on August 6, 2007, the RIAA moved the court for a default judgment, which Judge Janet Bond Arterton denied in a ruling earlier this month.

In order to obtain a default judgment, three factors have to be satisfied. First, the default needs to be willful. In so many words, the default has to arise out of the inexcusable neglect of the defendant. Second, there cannot be a "meritorious defense" available to the defendant—a defense that is sufficient, "even if not 'ultimately persuasive.'" Last, the plaintiffs need to be prejudiced if the default is not granted.

The judge had harsh words for the RIAA's argument that making files available on KaZaA equates to copyright infringement. "At least one aspect of Plaintiffs’' distribution claim is problematic, however, namely the allegation of infringement based on 'making the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others."

RIAA fails again to get default judgment in uncontested case

The RIAA has once again been admonished in Federal court for trying to present vague "evidence" to support their claims of infringement. The judge in this case also left the door open to once again leave questions about the constitutionality of the excessive awards demanded in these cases while offering no proof of actual damages. It's not an unreasonable request to have the plaintiff in any litigation to prove the damages actually incurred. The mere act of "making available" as opposed to actual distribution of copyrighted files has been the lynchpin of the RIAA arguments in many cases. It's refreshing to have yet another judge in the federal court system question the merits of this ridiculous argument. If one thinks about it logically, how can you ask for a judgement well in excess of any real damages when you offer no proof the actual act of sharing ever occurred?

The judge in this case also admonished the RIAA for using a "boilerplate" complaint that was vague in it's details. The RIAA afterward, said they would be filing a brief to further clarify their position as they had done in other cases. This legal maneuver is an attempt by RIAA attorneys to give as little information as possible to the court in the hopes that they will get a judgement without ever presenting their flimsy evidence for further scrutiny. One would think that the courts will tire of this shady practice and continue to dismiss their claims as unsubstantiated. It would also be prudent for the court to deny acceptance of any brief filed after the fact. Watch closely to this case as it appears that it may end in another defeat for the RIAA and bring us one step closer to the end of these ridiculous lawsuits and awards.

Gut The FCC, So We Can Rip Off Consumers More Easily!

Policy analyst Randolph J. May says the Federal Communications Commission should make needed market reforms to communications policy.

I'm not sure giving providers free reign to dictate content and pricing for what travels on their networks is a good idea. Take for instance, the other day, when the 3 major carriers came out (within hours of eachother)and all announced $99 unlimited plans. Where's the competition there? How does this collusion benefit the consumer? This is not the market dictating the cost at all, and probably cries for closer scutiny. If the services offered here in the US (some people are still only offered dial-up internet) are years behind the technology offered in developing nations, why should we be deregulating the industry? If a person in Micronesia is getting broadband at 5 times the speeds offered here, at 3 times a cheaper cost, it doesn't make sense to deregulate the industry until these companies prove they've built the infrastructure to support the users beyond a level of third world countries.These companies have made huge profits and made marginal investments on the backs of consumers for years. They need to pony up before we take off the training wheels!

Read More On This Self-Serving Blather Here

digg this story

Cops Don't Like It When the Camera Turns On Them

Recent video footage of an out of control Baltimore cop wrestling a 14 year-old skateboarder to the ground has added fire to a growing debate about police misconduct. Then to add even more fuel to the fire, another man has come forward with an equally outrageous video of the same cop acting in an unreasonable manner.
Apparently police departments accross the country don't like it when the camera is turned on them....


A bill currently proposed in the Utah Legislature would prevent the public from finding out about police misconduct. The proponents of this bill believe that the cops should be able to handle police misconduct investigations internally, outside the watchful eye of the public. In essence, this bill would leave policing the police to themselves. It's this kind of legislation that further deteriorates our Constitution and takes us one step closer to a big brother-like police state. Ever since the Bush administration began the "war on terror", our civil rights and our Constitution have been systematicly eroded by lawmakers who buy into every wacky idea that purports to strengthen law enforcement. Supporters of this bill claim that police misconduct needs to be kept from the public in order to "preserve the integrity of the police". They also claim that public police misconduct scandals weaken the credibility of police testimony in court. A reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the police need to clean up their own act and get rid of the bad apples, not simply move the problem out of the public arena. They obviously have no interest in cleaning up their act. So, instead they want to hide it to preserve the status quo.

In this day and age, the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words couldn't be more true. I would bet the supporters of this bill feel that the folks with the video cameras were to blame for the Rodney King incident and the riots that ensued. While it's true that video can be taken out of context and used to present only one side of complicated confrontations with the police (as it is alleged by police in the recently publicized case of an Ohio woman), more often than not, a video can be a useful tool in determining whether or not police or citizens act in a responsible, law-abiding manner. The old notion that police always act as we all would expect is simply a fairy tale. Cops are people too. They are prone to poor judgement just as much as the rest of us. When they do they should be held accountable. This being said, there is no reason that we should believe every thing a police officer offers as testimony in court proceedings as the absolute truth.

There is a counter movement currently under way in Utah. A defense attorney has proposed that a bill be introduced that would require all police interrogations to be video taped. The intent is to protect people from police coercion while being interrogated. Too often we have seen people who claim they confeesed to a crime they didn't commit simply because the police lied to them or used exaustive interrogation techniques designed to break a persons will. The folks that are against this bill say it would be too costly for small rural police departments to comply. They claim that the cost of video equipment installation would take money out of already strained budget. One police official claimed that "If he were forced to spend $20,000 on video taping equipment, he would have to eliminate his D.A.R.E. program". It's this kind of rhetoric that should make everyone suspect of the real reasons that cops don't want cameras in police stations. As far as I can tell, a PC with a webcam and a dvd burner would probably suffice. That's hardly a $20,000 investment. I also don't recall these people arguing that onboard dash cams were prohibitively expensive when it was put to them that it would protect the police and serve as a valuable prosecution tool.

I would recommend that everyone follow this argument closely, as it could have a chilling effect on our civil rights that are more frequently coming under attack. The concept of less government transparency should be a major concern to us all. The notion that broader police powers and less accountability somehow protect our way of life is completely against the democratic fundamentals our constitution is founded upon.

New Bill To Allow Police Misconduct Be Hidden From Public

Marijuana decriminalization bill stirs up debate in Vermont

Montpelier --Supporters of a bill that would decriminalize the sale and possession of as much as four ounces of marijuana told a Vermont Senate committee yesterday evening that the measure would drive down prison costs and do no harm to minors who just want to experiment with the drug.

Read More From the Valley News
digg story


Hey, it's about time people here in VT realized what a waste of time it is chasing people smoking pot. I agree with the harsher penalties for cocaine and heroin. These are far more harmful to society as a whole. You can also can the "gateway" argument. The real gateway drugs are alcohol and nicotine. Both are completely legal, and have been statistically proven to be the starting point for youth drug use. This would appear to be a no brainer....

Comcast’s BitTorrent Throttling Acceptable? Not Quite!

Comcast, and other ISPs advertise with certain upload and download rates, conforming to simple DOCSIS capacity numbers. However, they miscalculated and found that there is more to the Internet than browsing, gopher, and email. Heavy-users broke their excel return-on-investment predictions and marketing campaign promises. Their flat-rate offers simply became too popular for the capacity that was bought and installed.

Comcast’s BitTorrent Throttling Acceptable? Not Quite! TorrentFreak

This really echoes the point I've been making for a couple of years now. Charter also uses bandwidth throttling to cheat us of the bandwidth we pay for. I think a class-action lawsuit is an appropriate response to this practice. There is no other way to describe it, other than simple fraud.

Cheney/Bush Impeachers May Be On To Something...

In a story reminiscent of Watergate, a new report shows that emails are missing from the Vice-President's office. The emails in question relate to the Valerie Plame CIA outing case. In total there are 16 days where email correspondence from Cheney's office are "missing" despite an order from Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to preserve all materials that may relate to the Plame case. The first day of email missing is in fact the day after Cheney learned of the DOJ investigation.

The White House said in a court filing last week that backup tapes, which contained archived copies of the e-mails, were recycled as part of a policy the White House had in place until October 2003. Ironically, Cheney's office is missing emails from the very day President Bush told reporters he'd "take care of" whatever staff member had actually leaked the CIA agent's name.

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush said Sept. 30, 2003. "And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of." As you may recall, Scooter Libby was convicted of obstruction charges and lying to investigators.

All in all, some 473 days of emails are missing from various Administration departments, according to a House Democrat who saw a White House presentation on the files.

Read More : The Raw Story Email missing from Cheney's office

Originally, I was eager to dismiss the folks in Brattleboro, VT who wanted to have Bush and Cheney arrested if they stood foot in their town as "wacko fringies". But, as this story takes on more Watergate-esque proportions, one has to take pause and consider whether or not this cover-up involves the entire senior White House staff including Cheney and Bush. I mean come on, the "oops I erased the tapes by accident" didn't work for Nixon. What makes the White House think were going to believe the same bullshit story some 35 years later? The severity of the Plame case's ramifications are questionable, but the extent of the cover-up seems to be growing more legs everyday.

If Clinton gets brought up on impeachment charges for getting a hummer in the White House, surely this cover-up warrants a much closer look and yes...perhaps impeachment.