There was one major problem with the Santa Clara County crime lab report that implicated a San Jose man of sexual assault:
It wasn’t true.
The document was a fake, created by a San Jose police detective. The crime lab analyst who purportedly prepared the document doesn’t exist. The number used to identify it was false.
Even so, detective Matthew Christian testified as though the phony report were authentic.
The case unraveled when the defense attorney sought the résumé of the lab analyst, only to learn there was no such person. Christian then remembered that he had concocted the report in an attempt to trick the defendant, Michael Kerkeles, 54, into admitting that he had forced a developmentally disabled neighbor into sexual acts. It was an acceptable tactic. But Christian said that by the time he was called to testify, more than a year later, he had forgotten the ruse.
The case, which attracted no public attention when it was dismissed last December, has raised concerns both about how the charges were handled and about how police and prosecutors responded when the fabrication and false testimony was discovered.
San Jose police Capt. Andy Galea said last week that after this incident, the department had banned detectives from using ruse crime lab reports when questioning suspects. He declined to say what discipline, if any, Christian received.
Prosecutors said they had referred the case to an internal committee that reviews cases involving allegations of potential criminal conduct by police officers. That committee, headed by Assistant District Attorney David Tomkins, concluded that the matter amounted to an honest mistake by the officer, Chief Assistant District Attorney Marc Buller said last week.
“We all make mistakes,” Buller said.
Are you fucking kidding me? Framing someone has become an honest mistake for a police detective? Did we skip Fascism and go straight to banana fucking republic or what?
Go ahead and watch the first part, until the reporter and cameraman cross the street, then skip to about 7:40 and you’ll see what happens when they go back across.
This is what happens in America? The police make up the law as they go?
Cops like these need to be dealt such swift justice as to set an example for other law enforcement that we, the American People will not accept their tyranny. If our courts will not provide such justice then we must take it into our own hands as people and deliver that justice ourselves.
For those who don’t know, this file is used to limit what parts of a website get indexed by search engines. Looks like our protectors in the White House don’t want us Googling them.
The Bush Administration has once again declared itself above the law. Of course this is a conclusion you have to come to by yourself, as you won’t hear that from the mainstream media. Instead they say the President has claimed “executive privilege” as if this actually means something.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
The idea that the media plays along with this nonsense is proof itself that they are working in collusion with the Bush Administration to give the idea of executive privilege legitimacy. By doing so they are guilty of treason against the US Constitution, by colluding to turn our Republic into a Dictatorship.
You can’t argue that Bush isn’t acting like a dictator. Here are the definition:
dic·ta·tor (dĭk’tā’tər, dĭk-tā’-) pronunciation
n.
1.
1. An absolute ruler.
2. A tyrant; a despot.
2. An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.
3. One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter.
ty·rant (tī’rənt) pronunciation
n.
1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
des·pot (dĕs’pət) pronunciation
n.
1. A ruler with absolute power.
2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.
3.
1. A Byzantine emperor or prince.
2. An Eastern Orthodox bishop or patriarch.
You can’t really sum it up any better than that.
Is this American? Is this what we want our children to grow up with? The longer we as a people, as Americans, put off dealing with this situation, the bigger losses we’ll suffer when we do finally address it.
I saw this in the comments on another site, and I’m reposting it here, as this deserves a post all on its own.
Victoria’s Secret underwear will generally say it is made in one of two places: the U.S.A. or Israel. If they’re made in the USA, they are made by prisoners, and that’s that. If they say “Made in Israel”, they weren’t. The US has a very unique trade agreement with Israel. See, GENERALLY a label must say what country the garment was actually ASSEMBLED in. So, if (and this happens a lot) the material is cut in Country1 and shipped to Country2 to be stitched together, then the label must say “Made in Country2.”
HOWEVER this is not so under our agreement with Israel. You look at that label, you think “Made in Israel. Well, they have pretty good labor conditions and a fairly well-off population, so labor conditions can’t be that bad there.” Well, sure, they probably aren’t that bad. But that underwear was not made in Israel. Under this agreement, material can be cut in Israel and shipped elsewhere (to any of the impoverished 3rd world nations near Israel) to be assembled, and it can still say “Made in Israel.” So regardless of where your Vickie’s underwear says it was made, you know people were exploited.
4. For the purposes of this Agreement; “country of origin” requires that an article or material, not wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of a Party, be substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce, having a new name, character, of use, distinct from the article or material from which it was so transformed.
Now as much as there’s some ‘lawyerese’ in there this sounds pretty loose to me.
For the purposes of this Agreement, an originating good means:
(a) a good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties;
(b) a good produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties where
(i) each of the non-originating materials used in the production of the good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification specified in Annex 4-A (Textile and Apparel Specific Rules of Origin) or Annex 5-A (Product-Specific Rules of Origin); or
(ii) the good otherwise satisfies any applicable regional value content; or
(iii) the good meets any other requirements specified in Annex 4-A or Annex 5-A; and
the good satisfies all other applicable requirements of this Chapter or Chapter 4;
(c) a good produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties exclusively from originating materials; or
(d) a good that otherwise qualifies as an originating good under this Chapter or Chapter 4.
Wow, that sounds much more strict.
The bottom line? I believe the message from the comments on the other site was an accurate representation of what we allow Israel to get away with. Of course we all know these sweet deals are bought and paid for by AIPAC, the lobbying group for Israel that bribes, oops, I mean “lobbies” our elected officials to do favors for Israel.
Am I the only one who has a huge problem with that?
The Government has been accused of being on a mission to destroy subjects over its new style geography lessons to be announced today.
A major shake-up of the secondary curriculum will include a stronger emphasis on climate change and world poverty, says Lord Adonis, the schools minister.
Children will grow into “global citizens” as sustainable development becomes a compulsory part of the geography curriculum, he says.
But the plan was denounced by Professor Alex Standish who claims pupils will learn less geography as they spend time “obsessing over what they buy and where they put their rubbish”.
Prof Standish, the author of a critique of geography teaching in a report published by Civitas, the independent think tank, last month said it was time the Government stopped playing politics with the curriculum.
“They seem to be on a mission to destroy subjects. If we want young people to develop into citizens capable of positively shaping society, then they need to be taught about how the world works through subjects providing an intellectual insight,” he said yesterday.
The thing is they’ve been at this since the 40s, if not earlier:
“As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism . . . . We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world-mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.”
William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, told a UNESCO meeting in 1946
