After a homeowner was sent to the hospital with severe burns when a natural gas explosion damaged his home, the city threatened him with fines for not mowing his lawn.
The post City Slaps Burn Victim with Violation for Not Mowing Lawn While He Was in the Hospital appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
by Shari Dovale 12/6/2017
On November 8, 2017, Ryan Payne filed a motion for dismissal with prejudice in the Bunkerville Standoff case because the government was caught recording attorney-client phone calls. In general, the specific calls cited were for co-defendant Blaine Cooper.
These calls are considered privileged and protected by the 6th Amendment, which reads:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
On December 4, 2017 the prosecutors responded to the motion and requested that the Court deny the motion, including calling it “meritless”.
Within their response, they refer to Payne’s motion (emphasis added):
Defendant asserts that the Superseding Indictment should be dismissed
because the government represented in response to its previous motion in October 2016 that it had no jail calls between defendants and their counsel from CCAPahrump, but now privileged calls have been produced relating to another defendant, the prosecutors did not know attorney calls were included, and therefore collectively, the government has acted with flagrant misconduct.
The government goes on to state, “Even if such a violation has been shown, that violation in and of itself does not rise to a constitutional violation.“
The prosecutors then go on to cite several cases to back up their claims. The bottom line, within all the legalese they have cited, is this:
Recording privileged phone calls is okay so long as they cannot be shown to substantially use it against the defendants.
They cite the examples of sending in undercover agents, or informants, to defense strategy meetings. If they cannot be shown to use it against the defendants, then it is still okay.
The prosecution then goes on to cite a case in which the recordings were deliberate, yet the court held that “…the Sixth Amendment is violated only when the government’s action ‘substantially prejudices the defendant.’”
The prosecution maintains that, in this case:
“the prosecution team has gone to great efforts to ensure respect for attorney-client privilege in this case.
To date, no one on the prosecution team has listened to Mr. Cooper’s privileged attorney-client calls or was aware of such calls.”
They expect everyone just to trust them? … because, like the cameras overlooking the Bundy Ranch home, of course no one watched them, took notes, or recorded the live feed.
‘Just because the prosecution says so’ does not rise to any respectable level in this case. They have been shown to be untrustworthy, deceitful and manipulative throughout months of proceedings. Their word cannot be trusted.
The prosecution has lost the public’s confidence. As they should have been held to a higher standard to begin with, yet were not, now they should be held accountable and be dealt the consequences of their actions. They do not even deserve the “benefit of the doubt”.
Trust must be earned, and AUSA Myhre and Company have not earned anything.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.
You can donate HERE.
The post Recording Privileged Phone Calls Not a 6th Amendment Violation appeared first on Oath Keepers.
Avondale, AZ — A Phoenix woman is suing the town and two Avondale police officers for forcing her to perform a field sobriety test while being naked from the waist down.
The woman, who suffers from incontinence, had soiled herself earlier and removed her pants and underwear on her way home from the Phoenix International Raceway. The woman, whose identity is being protected, repeatedly asked officers Ronal Bergeron and Justin Iwen to at least be able to put back on her soiled clothes, but was denied at every request. According to ABC15:
The woman and her boyfriend were pulled over on March 5, 2016, as they headed home after at the Phoenix International Speedway, the lawsuit said. She was the designated driver.
When Officers Ronal Bergeron and Justin Iwen approached the car, she explained that she wasn’t wearing pants because of her incontinence problem and asked if she could put them back on before got out of the car, the lawsuit said..
The woman said that Iwen did not acknowledge her concerns and instead demanded that she get out of the car, the lawsuit said.
She repeated her request, but Iwen declined and told her to get out of the car. Once outside the car, Iwen again refused another request to let her cover up, according to the lawsuit.
Instead of being allowed to clothe herself, she was forced to take the field sobriety test, alongside a busy road, while onlookers were passing by. She said she kept trying to pull down her shirt to cover herself, in a futile attempt to be covered. Patricia Ronan, the woman’s lawyer, told ABC15, her client is a victim of sexual assault and as such, her identity is being protected. Ronan also said the police conducted an internal investigation, and not surprisingly, cleared the officers of any wrongdoing.
READ MORE: Cops Admit to Entering Innocent Family"s Property, Shooting and Leaving Their Dogs for Dead
“But Ronan said the inquiry was flawed because her client was never formally interviewed by the person who conducted the investigation. The police report about the stop makes no mention of the woman being naked from the waist down, Ronan said,” writes ABC15.
The woman is seeking damages of up to $250,000 for the humiliating, and some might say, traumatizing event. Her boyfriend, who was also in the vehicle with her, will likely confirm her story and testify on her behalf. To date, there’s been no mention of any bodycam footage of the incident.
Because the officers conveniently made no mention of the woman’s nakedness in their report, it’s become a he said she said case. Fortunately, for the plaintiff, however, she was given a warning ticket for an improper left turn, which proved the traffic stop took place. Phoenix area police officers wear body cameras, and if body camera footage confirms and corroborates the woman’s story, once again, the American taxpayer will likely be footing the bill for yet another judgment against a police department.
Incidents like the one above serve to illustrate just how vulnerable young women are when they encounter police officers in something as routine as a traffic stop. Precautions must be taken by women to ensure their safety. If a woman doesn’t feel comfortable pulling over on the side of the road, she can call 911 and inform the police dispatcher she intends to stop at the first gas station, for example. But even a preventative measure such as the one just mentioned would not have prevented the insensitive actions, heartless, and quite possibly perverted actions on the part of two officers of the peace who allegedly should have known better.
READ MORE: Cops Literally Raping and Brutalizing Town with Impunity Prior to Murdering 6-yo Boy
If you don’t think things like this can happen, watch the video below of a college teen being given a field sobriety test wearing only her shirt and underwear.
