Putin Has a Massive Corruption-Fighting Record. But you wouldn't know it from the Western press.

 
 Russia Insider 

People Over Profits

Putin Has a Massive Corruption-Fighting Record You've Never Heard Of

Mr. Putin is tackling corruption, whereas his predecessor embodied it. But you wouldn't know it from the Western press

 Jacob Dreizin

I love Russia, but let’s not sugarcoat things.


After the widespread sociopathy of the 1990s—when people had to break all rules just to feed their families, and it was not unknown even for priests to steal from their flocks—a too-high proportion of the Russian population remains in a state of going through each day with little thought other than how to cheat and defraud its fellow man. Yet it is also a fact that you cannot lock up everyone (Всех не посадишь, as the Russians say) or you would have no country left.

The Kremlin’s solution has been to make conspicuous examples of some, while creating parallel structures to work around corrupt or incompetent state bodies and officials.

Probably the most prominent example of such a structure is the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, commonly known by its Russian initials, SK or SK RF, or less commonly by the acronym, Sledkom.

The SK traces its history to 2007—when authority to make criminal charges was taken away from Russia’s Prosecutor General—and has existed in its current form since early 2011.

Today, the Office of the Prosecutor General is responsible for prosecutions only.  It is the SK that investigates crimes and decides whom to bring to trial and on what charges.

Since it was brought out from under the Prosecutor General and made into an independent body reporting only to the President, the SK has been at the very center of the Kremlin’s anticorruption drive.

Read More Here

Judge Richard Leon of the US District Court, the NSA’s program “likely violates the Constitution” , “This court simply cannot, and will not, allow the government to trump the Constitution..."

Federal judge orders NSA to halt phone surveillance program

Published time: 9 Nov, 2015 23:17Edited time: 10 Nov, 2015 02:07

 

Larry Klayman © Larry Downing / Reuters

 

A federal judge has ruled against the NSA’s controversial collection of Americans’ phone records. The program was set to expire by the end of the month, but the ruling is considered a victory for civil liberties because it sets a legal precedent.

 

In his ruling on Monday, Judge Richard Leon of the US District Court reiterated his assertion that the NSA’s program “likely violates the Constitution” and said that “the loss of constitutional freedoms for even one day is a significant harm.”

In doing so, he sided with conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, whose clients had sued the NSA over its data collection following the revelations of whistleblower of Edward Snowden in 2013.
“This court simply cannot, and will not, allow the government to trump the Constitution merely because it suits the exigencies of the moment,’’ Leon wrote in his 43-page decision.

Klayman said that winning the case is a “tremendous victory for the American people.” He added that Leon is one of the few judges in the country who “has the guts to stand in the breach for the American people during a period of time where their government is running roughshod over them."
Klayman also said that he will continue the fight and seek monetary damages from the government. 

Read More Here

See How Your Senators Voted on Sanctuary Cities

  The Daily Signal

Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness / October 20, 2015

Jim Steinle (L), father of murder victim Kathryn Steinle (in photo, R), allegedly at the hands of an undocumented immigrant, testifies about his daughter's murder during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on U.S. immigration enforcement policies, on Capitol Hill in Washington July 21, 2015. (Photo: Newscom/Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)

Senate Democrats blocked legislation that would punish “sanctuary cities” in a 54-45 vote Tuesday afternoon.

The bill, called the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, needed to overcome a 60-vote threshold. It would withhold certain federal funding from states or cities that refuse to comply with requests from federal immigration officials to turn over immigrants who are in the country illegally.


Sen. David Vitter, R-La., introduced the legislation, which includes a provision known as Kate’s Law, named after 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who was fatally shot in San Francisco on July 1. The bill would impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence of five years for illegal immigrants who are convicted of re-entering the United States after being convicted of an aggravated felony or have three strikes for trying to enter the country illegally.

Read More Here

Parents Threatened with Arrest for Treating Daughter’s Epilepsy with Legal Cannabis Oil at School

 

 

Activist Post

Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Program

September 25, 2015

By Jay Syrmopoulos

 In a precedent-setting case, a state judge ruled this month that the mother of a New Jersey teenager with epilepsy, who is also her legal medical caregiver, cannot go to her school to administer her daughter’s cannabis oil.

The oil treatments, which are legal in the state, control the young girl’s seizures and allow her to function normally in school, according to her parents.

In its opinion, the court reasoned that state and federal laws prohibiting drug possession on school grounds takes precedence over the students’ right to use medical cannabis derivatives. This ruling is in spite of the fact that New Jersey has already legalized cannabis for medical use.

This court setback is the third such defeat for the Barbour family, who have vowed to continue appealing. According to legal experts, this case is believed to be the first of its kind in the United States.

Administrative Law Judge, John S. Kennedy ruled in January and again on appeal in August that the Larc School and the Maple Shade school district are stuck in a legal quandary. If allowed to administer the drug, the school nurse would be violating state laws, which ban the use of drugs in school zones and federal law that deems pot possession a crime.

According to a report by NJ.com:

Roger and Lora Barbour have sued to require the nurse at their 16-year-old daughter’s special education school in Bellmawr administer cannabis oil, just like the nurse dispenses prescribed medication to other students. Since April, Genny has attended only half-days of school so she can be home for her lunchtime dose of homemade oil, diluted in a small glass of cola.

In his 11-page ruling, the judge wrote that the family failed to show that their daughter would suffer “irreparable harm” if she were denied her medicine during the school day.

Read More Here

SC Justice Scalia: If Taxes Get Too High Americans ‘Should Revolt’

The Kalb Report - Ruth Bader Ginsberg & Antonin Scalia

The National Press Club

Streamed live on Apr 17, 2014

On this edition of The Kalb Report, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg join journalist/scholar Marvin Kalb to offer their views of the U.S. Constitution in a rare glimpse behind the gavel and inside one of our nation's vital branches of government.

......

SC Justice Scalia: If Taxes Get Too High Americans ‘Should Revolt’

• By Susanne Posel – April 19, 2014

 

Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | The US Independent

April 19, 2014

When speaking to students at the University of Tennessee College of Law (UTCL) annual Rose Lecture, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that Americans “should revolt” if income taxes become too high.
Scalia pointed out that while the federal government has the right to tax the citizens, “if it reaches a certain point perhaps you should revolt.”
The Supreme Court Justice explained to the students: “You’re entitled to criticize the government, and you can use words, you can use symbols, you can use telegraph, you can use Morse code, you can burn a flag.”
Scalia asserted that he adheres to originalism and he believes that “the Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake. It’s a law. It means what it meant when it was adopted.”
Scalia recently told the National Press Club (NPC) at a joint appearance with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, that “the Framers would have been appalled” by the 1964 ruling of the New York Times v. Sullivan because it “was revising the Constitution.”

Read More Here


.....

Related articles

• FAN 11.2 (First Amendment News) - C-SPAN: A Conversation with Justices Scalia & Ginsburg on the First Amendment
• Scalia to Student: If Taxes Get Too High 'Perhaps You Should Revolt'
• At press club event, Scalia and Ginsburg offer differing views on government surveillance
• 2 long-time friends discuss the First Amendment
• Scalia to Student: If Taxes Get Too High 'Perhaps You Should Revolt'
• Two justices say high court will likely rule on NSA programs

The Well Worn Out Race Card Dealt Yet Again on Capitol Hill as Pelosi warns deportations a 'gift' to Republicans. Is rewarding the crime of "Illegal Entry" not being addressed ?

The Hill

April 10, 2014, 02:27 pm

Pelosi warns focus on deportations a 'gift' to Republicans

By Mike Lillis

Getty Images

Immigration reformers shifting their focus from Congress to the White House over deportations risk undermining efforts to pass a comprehensive reform bill this year, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Thursday.

Pelosi said she supports the Congressional Hispanic Caucus's calls for the administration to reduce deportations. But simultaneously taking pressure off of House Republicans, she added, is a "gift" to GOP leaders, allowing them to dodge a sensitive issue that could hurt them in the 2014 election.

"That's a gift to the Republicans," she said. "Because the fact is, the Republicans are never going to move unless they think there's a price to play politically for not bringing the bill to the floor."

Pelosi stressed that legislation remains the Democrats' ultimate goal, and urged reformers to stay focused on Congress getting a bill.

"I see the pain and suffering of the deportations," she said. "But the answer, the medicine for every ill in the deportations is to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

Pelosi did not say that congressional Democrats or the White House should no longer consider reduced deportations. But her warning that the actions of pro-immigration groups could deliver Republicans a political benefit could raise questions about the strategy overall.

Many Democrats are calling on President Obama for reduced deportations, and Obama has asked Department of Homeland Security leaders for an across-the-board review of his deportations policies.

The move has made many critics hopeful he'll expand the administration's deferred action program, which allows some immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as kids to remain in the United States temporarily, to a broader population.

Read More Here

.....

The Hill

Pelosi: Race playing role in GOP's reluctance to move immigration bill

Greg Nash

By Mike Lillis - 04/10/14 01:00 PM EDT

Issues of race have made GOP leaders reluctant to back immigration reform, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) charged Thursday.

The Democratic leader suggested that the Republicans would have moved a reform bill long ago if whites were the only beneficiaries."I think race has something to do with the fact that they're not bringing up an immigration bill," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I've heard them say to the Irish, 'If it were just you, this would be easy.' "
The remarks came in response to a question about the often-testy relationship between congressional Republicans and the administration of President Obama, the nation's first black president.
There's long been grumbling among Democrats that Obama's race has exacerbated the partisan divide between the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans, highlighted recently by a flare-up between Attorney General Eric Holder, who is black, and Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee.
Pelosi was reluctant to say that race issues have fueled those tensions, arguing more broadly that Republicans have been "very disrespectful" of White House officials regardless of their ethnicity.

Read More Here

.....

Related articles

• Pelosi's immigration reform road show
• Pelosi pushes W.H. on deportations
• Must-Read News on Immigration Reform, April 10, 2014
• ICE agents catch and release most illegal immigrants, new report shows
• This is what it looks like when immigration reform dies
• NDLON's #Not1More Day of Action Sees Protests Against Deportations in 62+ Cities

Hmmmm Factor : The death of the presumption of innocence

A dirty secret of the American judicial system is that juries are hardly fair and impartial

By Andrew Cohen | 10:30am ET

Jury selection these days is done with a wink and a nod. (REUTERS/Art Lien) 

Imagine you are a defendant awaiting trial on criminal charges that could send you to prison for the rest of your life. You are sitting at the counsel table during voir dire, the process by which a jury is selected before a trial.
The prosecutor asks a potential juror: "You haven’t heard any evidence. How would you vote?" The potential juror responds: "I would have to vote guilty."
Your trial judge pipes up. He's supposed to ensure that you receive a fair trial and that the jurors who will sit in judgment upon you are neutral, objective, and willing to see and hear the evidence with an open mind. The judge asks the prospective juror: "Could you return a verdict of not guilty if the government doesn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?" The would-be juror responds: "I don't think I would be able to."
The prosecutor — who wants this juror on the panel because he wants to convict you — presses on. He asks the juror: "Let's say the victim takes the stand [and] you flat-out don't believe her. In fact, you think she's lying. You look at her [and conclude], 'I don't believe a word coming out of her mouth.' Are you going to convict this man anyway?"
The potential juror responds: "That depends. I still feel he was at fault."
How would you feel if this juror were allowed to join the panel that determined your fate? Would you feel as though you had received a fair trial by an impartial panel, as the Sixth Amendment commands? Or would you feel that the trial judge had failed to protect your presumption of innocence?
My guess is you would feel cheated. I know I would. But yet this precise scenario unfolded in California in 2009. This juror was allowed to serve on this trial. And to date, no judge has declared it a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.
Now, in this particular case, the defendant, Jose Felipe Velasco, was accused of an extremely heinous crime. He was an alleged serial child rapist who had gotten a 14-year-old girl pregnant after having some form of sex with her 21 times. But that should not change our minds about whether this man should be presumed innocent and be entitled to a fair trial. Indeed, this is precisely why we have constitutional rights in criminal cases — so that fairness and due process come even to the despised.
R. Scott Moxley, a veteran reporter and columnist for OC Weekly, brought this story to national prominence this week — and it's a remarkably ugly picture in every way. Not only were the charges awful, not only is this defendant as unsympathetic a figure as the criminal justice system churns out, but the way the case was handled was ignoble, too. Thousands of years' worth of the presumption of innocence shouldn't go out the window just because a defendant is accused of heinous crimes.

Read More Here

.....

• The Washington Post

The myth of the impartial juror

• By Radley Balko

Crazy story from the OC Weekly about a sex crimes case in California.

After an Orange County prosecutor gave an opening statement, Juror 112 notified [Judge David] Hoffer that based on her own experiences she believes criminals should forgo trials in such sexual assault cases and go straight to prison to spare victims additional turmoil.
The prosecutor then asked the juror: “You haven’t heard any evidence. How would you vote?”
Juror 112 responded, “I would have to vote guilty.”
Statements by lawyers are not evidence, and Hoffer followed up with the juror, according to court transcripts reviewed by the Weekly.
The judge asked if she could return a verdict of not guilty if the government couldn’t prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“I don’t think I would be able to,” the juror replied.

Read More Here

.....

Related articles

• Potential juror thinks defendant is guilty before trial; gets to sit on jury and find him guilty
• The myth of the impartial juror
• Judging a Jury of My Peers
• California Clamps Down on Jurors Using Social Media
• Judge Seated Juror Who Declared Defendant Guilty Before Trial

A bill to punish law enforcement officers who obey a hypothetical federal mandate to seize the firearms of Idaho citizens found no opposition on the Senate floor.

Gun Play, Arkansas
Author Rod Waddington from Kergunyah, Australia
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

.....

 

Bid to punish gun-seizing cops gets Senate support

The Associated PressFebruary 19, 2014 

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/02/19/3038134/bid-to-punish-gun-seizing-cops.html#storylink=cpy

BOISE, Idaho — A bill to punish law enforcement officers who obey a hypothetical federal mandate to seize the firearms of Idaho citizens found no opposition on the Senate floor.
Lawmakers voted 34-0 in favor of the bill Wednesday, clearing its path to the House.
Sen. Steve Vick, a Dalton Gardens Republican who co-sponsors the bill with Meridian Republican Marv Hagedorn, touts it as a way to ensure Idahoans' Second Amendment rights are protected.
The proposal is a response to fears that President Barack Obama will ban some guns.

Read More Here

.....

Boise Weekly

Update: Idaho Senate Un-Holsters Weapons Bills 

Rep. Marv Hagedorn's firearms-related proposal is far from the only gun bill to surface this session.

by George Prentice @georgepren

Former-Boise GOP Rep. Mark Patterson is no longer at the Idaho Statehouse--resigning in early January after it was learned that he had been arrested in Florida during the 1970s on a charge of rape. But Patterson's fingerprints are all over a 2014 version of a bill that he tried to push through the 2013 Legislature.
The measure--this time being fronted by Sen. Marv Hagedorn--would punish Idaho law enforcement officials if they helped enforce any new federal firearms restrictions. The 2013 version passed in the Idaho House but died in an Idaho Senate Committee.
This year Hagedorn, a Meridian Republican, is trying a different strategy: tackling the Senate side of the Capitol first, before heading to the Idaho House where he would hope to have a better chance of passage.
"The first offense would be a $1,000 fine and a second offense would result in a misdemeanor charge," Hagedorn told the Senate State Affairs Committee Feb. 10, outlining how law enforcers could become criminals if they assisted federal agents in enforcing an executive order that, in Hagedorn's view, was in conflict with the Idaho Constitution.
Hagedorn said "in a nutshell" the issue came down to the possibility of a federal order that might lead to confiscation of guns or ammunition. But Boise Democratic Sen. Elliot Werk questioned where Hagedorn's suspicions were rooted.
"Do you have any indication that any federal order or law is imminent in the next decade?" asked Werk.
"No I do not," answered Hagedorn.
But Hagedorn's request for a full hearing on the bill was granted by the Senate State Affairs Committee.
It's far from the only weapons-related bill that the committee will consider during the 2014 session. Committee Chair Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Boise, is steering his own bill, which would allow people with enhanced concealed-weapon permits to carry guns on Idaho campuses.
(See updates on the guns on campus below). Boise State University President Bob Kustra, in a Feb. 4 letter to his university community, cautioned students and staff that, "weapons on campus may in fact, lead to an acceleration of conflict in stressful situations." Additionally, the Associated Students of Boise State, the official student government association, passed its own resolution in opposition to McKenzie's bill.
Even Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter distanced himself from McKenzie's proposal in remarks to a Feb. 7 gathering in the North-Central Idaho community of Craigmont.
"We give all these assets--these big buildings, these big campuses and everything--to the college president," Otter told the crowd in Craigmont. "And we say you're responsible and now we come back and say ... you can make all the rules and regulations, except..."
Otter didn't finish his sentence but reminded the gathering that any gun regulations should be crafted based on "doing the right thing."
UPDATE: Feb. 12, 2014 10:45 a.m.
At 10:40 a.m. on Feb. 12, the Republican majority of the Idaho Senate State Affairs Committee overwhelmingly approved a measure which would see more students, staff and faculty carrying firearms onto Idaho's public college campuses.
"That concludes the business of the committee," said the bill's sponsor and committee chairman Sen. Curt McKenzie.
But that business didn't include input from dozens of citizens, college officials and law enforcement officers who came to speak before the committee but were cut off at 10:30 a.m..
"The University of Idaho hasn't even had a chance to speak. My (Boise) Chief of Police hasn't had a chance to speak to the bill," said Boise Democratic Sen. Elliot Werk who asked that the bill be held in committee at McKenzie's discretion so that testimony could continue.
But McKenzie said, "If we continued to hear from everyone, it would take us three or four more meetings."
Ketchum Democratic Sen. Michelle Stennett, also pleading for a delay, said the committee was "being awfully hasty to run this vote through today. We haven't had an opportunity to hear from all of the universities. It's unfair not to have them speak."
One of the colleges that was represented in the two-and-a-half hours of testimony Wednesday morning was the College of Western Idaho which argued that the measure, which would allow persons with enhanced concealed weapons permits to carry guns on campus, would require significant security upgrades.
Even Republican Sen. Patti Anne Lodge asked for more time to review the costs that colleges would face if the bill were passed.
But ultimately, any effort to delay the bill failed, and the Republican majority moved the bill to the full State Senate with a "do pass" recommendation.
The vote was 7-2 along party lines. Voting yes were: Sens. Curt McKenzie (chairman), Bart Davis, Russ Fulcher, Brent Hill, Chuck winder, Patti Anne Lodge and Jeff Siddoway.
Voting no were Sens. Michelle Stennett and Elliot Werk.
ORIGINAL POST: Feb. 12, 2014 9:30 a.m.
When the Idaho Senate State Affairs Committee gaveled in an early morning hearing, which was moved to the Statehouse's Lincoln Auditorium due to the large audience, there was only one item on the agenda—Senate Bill 1254, which allow individuals with enhanced concealed weapon permits to carry firearms onto Idaho's public college campuses.

The sponsor of the bill is the committee's chairman, Sen. Curt McKenzie. But McKenzie didn't present his own measure. Instead, he allowed Dakota Moore, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association to introduce the bill.

Moore said he took personal offense at what he called the "stereotype" of a drinking culture and immaturity among college students. He also pushed back at Boise State University Dr. Bob Kustra's recent letter to his students, staff and faculty that said there was "no recorded incident in which a victim—or a spectator—of a violent crime on a campus has prevented a crime by brandishing a weapon."

"Just five days before he sent that email out, USA Today reporting about a shooting on a Florida campus where a man shot one of his attackers," said Moore. "He was cleared of any liability."

The Senate committee settled in for what was expected to take the better part of the morning, with McKenzie cautioning those wishing to testify that they would be limited to three minutes.

First up was interim University of Idaho President Don Burnett, testifying against the proposal, saying it would cut back the authority of the universities to use their best judgement in working with local law enforcement.

But the hearing took a definitive turn when Dr. Kimberly McAdams, a Boise State University psychology professor told the committee that she was in fear of her life.

"My life was recently threatened by a student," McAdams said, her voice shaking.

McAdams said she was in particular fear of a student who has repeatedly threatened her, yet she felt unsafe in her classroom which has one door and one window.

"There would be no way for me to escape with my life," she said. "I respectfully disagree with the presidents of Idaho universities who oppose this bill. They are not the ones directly in the line of fire. Please give me a fighting chance of saving my life and the lives of my students. This student has been fixated on me. Please support this bill. My life depends on it."

Read More Here

.....

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/02/19/3038134/bid-to-punish-gun-seizing-cops.html#storylink=cpy

Related articles

• Huge Win! Idaho Senate Passes Bill to Punish Gun-Seizing Cops!
• Idaho senate votes to nullify any new federal gun control measures
• Idaho Gun Bills Zip Through Senate State Affairs Committee
• Idaho Senate Committee Un-Holsters Weapons Bills
• GOP resurrects firearms anti-confiscation bill

President Obama: I'm the Law

Forbes

Steve Forbes, Forbes Staff

|2/12/2014 @ 6:06AM

This story appears in the March 3, 2014 issue of Forbes.

English: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and senior staff, react in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, as the House passes the health care reform bill. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One question congressional and presidential candidates should be asked is how we should go about restoring the rule of law to our federal government. Not even during the world wars of the last century was the executive branch as brazen in assuming sweeping and unlegislated powers, changing laws without the consent of the legislative branch and ignoring laws it didn’t like.

Lawsuits are certainly one possible avenue to take, but a slow one–which is what the White House is counting on. It will do what it wants, and by the time an unfavorable decision is handed down, it will have done many other things. It will also find ways to circumvent such a decision or just ignore it altogether.
How will the Administration act when, as is likely, the Supreme Court delivers an adverse ruling concerning the President’s appointment of members to the National Labor Relations Board when the Senate wasn’t technically in recess? Obama’s appointees went on to make rulings that were harmful to business. Of course, the
Administration will promise to comply and will then pull who knows what cards it has up its sleeve to make an end-run around the decision.
The IRS got caught singling out conservative groups for harassment–and nothing was done. The President, with a straight face, told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that there wasn’t a “smidgen” of evidence of any corruption, and the Justice Department has made clear it’s deep-sixing any serious probe. But even worse is the fact that the IRS is readying regulation that will make it legal to deny tax exemptions to predominantly conservative groups, while it turns a blind eye to organizations more friendly to the Administration’s Big Government agenda.
To add insult to injury, the new IRS commissioner has decreed that the agency will pay $62 million in bonuses, declaring, “I firmly believe that this investment in our employees will directly benefit taxpayers and the tax system.”
Read More Here

Related articles

• President Obama: I'm the Law
• Relax, Conservatives! Obama Says There's "not even a smidgen of corruption" in the IRS
• WAPO: Ed Rogers: The IRS, The Democrats' Cat's Paw. Encouraged by the lack of a public backlash...
• The IRS Scandal, Day 282
• 'IRS probe a sham, nonexistent'
• Obama: 'Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption' in IRS Targeting of Conservatives
• Gowdy Demands Special Council Take Over IRS Investigation Because Obama 'Not a Smidgen' Comment