Speeding ticket results in 2 years prison

Ever hear of the Second Amendment and DC vs Heller?

Ja Rule sentenced to prison in NYC gun case

NEW YORK (AP) - Ja Rule is headed to a New York prison for up to two years in a gun case.

The platinum-selling rapper and actor was sentenced Wednesday. He pleaded guilty in December to attempted criminal weapon possession.

Authorities said he had a loaded gun in his luxury sports car when it was stopped as he left a Manhattan concert in July 2007.

Ja Rule was nominated for a 2002 best rap album Grammy Award for "Pain Is Love." His movie credits include 2001's "The Fast and the Furious" and 2003's "Scary Movie 3."

He has been wrapping up a forthcoming album, "Pain Is Love 2."

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

Multiplatinum-selling rapper Ja Rule is set to go to prison, but he's leaving fans with an album on the way.

The rapper-actor—whose gravelly voice, thuggish tough talk and duets with R&B; divas made him one of rap's stars in the early 2000s—is set to be sentenced Wednesday afternoon to two years in a New York prison.

"My last day out," he tweeted Tuesday afternoon, adding that he was spending it at the movies with his family.

Ja Rule, 35, pleaded guilty in December to attempted criminal possession of a weapon, resolving a nearly 4-year-old case.

Police said they found a loaded .40-caliber semiautomatic gun in a rear door of his $250,000-plus Maybach sports car, which they'd said they'd stopped for speeding as he left a star-laden concert at Manhattan's Beacon Theatre on July 22, 2007. Rap superstar Lil Wayne was arrested separately after headlining the same show. He later pleaded guilty to the same charge, spending about eight months in a city jail last year.

"Laws are laws," Ja Rule said Monday on "Good Day New York," which airs on New York's Fox 5 TV station. "There's nothing I could really do but own up to the situation."

"You know, I try not to regret anything I do in life, because you go through life and you do things, and you man up to them. You own them," he added.

Born Jeffrey Atkins, Ja Rule emerged as a hardcore rapper in the late 1990s but then became known for his collaborations with female pop singers, including Jennifer Lopez and Ashanti. He scored a best rap album Grammy Award nomination in 2002 with "Pain Is Love." He also has appeared in movies, including the 2001 film "The Fast and the Furious" and 2003's "Scary Movie 3."

He's recently been wrapping up a new album, "Pain Is Love 2," but he told "Good Day New York" he's also been trying to prepare himself mentally for prison. He lives in Upper Saddle River, N.J., with his wife and three children.

Meanwhile, he also pleaded guilty in a New Jersey federal court in March to failing to pay taxes on more than $3 million in income. He faces up to three years in prison in that case, though his lawyers are expected to try to arrange for his sentences to be served at the same time.

Ja Rule had some previous brushes with the law, including pleading guilty to assault for punching someone at a Toronto nightclub in 2004. He was fined $1,200.

He recently told TMZ.com he plans to keep busy behind bars by writing a book, getting his GED and possibly taking up the guitar.

"I'm gonna try to make good of my time while I'm inside," he said.

His expected sentence will make him the latest in a long line of rappers to do time. Hip-hop stars including Tupac Shakur, Lil' Kim, Foxy Brown, Shyne, Mystikal, Gucci Mane and T.I. have been in jail or prison for periods ranging from months to years.

Under state prison policies, Ja Rule might be able to shave up to six months off his sentence by meeting requirements for good behavior and other standards.

Flip The Police

Flipping the finger flipped out flippin cop

Man Who Gave Trooper The Finger Won’t Face Charges

American Civil Liberties Union, Colorado State Patrol, Shane Boor DENVER (AP) – A harassment charge has been dropped in the case of a Colorado man who gave a state trooper the finger in April.

Saying it’s free speech to give officers the finger, the Colorado State Patrol said in a statement late Friday that it asked the case to be dropped. The State Patrol described the incident as “protected free speech.”

Shane Boor, 35, was charged with misdemeanor harassment after acknowledging “flipping the bird” to an officer making a traffic stop near Denver April 19. The American Civil Liberties Union offered Boor free legal defense in the case that made headlines.

Boor said he told the officer he gave him the finger “because you’re thieves and you harass people.”

Private pilots get tracked by public

I can't wait for this to be available for all drivers and bikers!

NBAA, AOPA, EAA plan legal challenge to DOT’s move to dismantle BARR

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), AOPA, and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) announced June 6 that they will mount a legal challenge to the decision by the Department of Transportation to dismantle the Block Aircraft Registration Request (BARR) program. The three associations will seek an injunction to prevent the decision from taking effect and will ask the courts to invalidate the new policy altogether.

NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen said, “The DOT’s inexplicable decision last week to abandon a widely supported, Congressionally enabled policy permitting private citizens to opt out of publicly available flight tracking applications leaves us no choice but to challenge the move in court. The agency appears to have simply ignored the thousands of individuals and companies that voiced their strong and principled opposition to this change.

“This is an alarming development, with implications that extend well beyond private aviation,” Bolen continued. “The government necessarily collects a lot of information about private activities in order to conduct legitimate governmental functions. This is the first time an agency has claimed the public’s interest in ‘open government’ requires public dissemination to anyone with an internet connection of wholly personal and private information simply because it happens to be in the government’s possession.”

AOPA President and CEO Craig Fuller agreed, adding, “Common sense dictates that an American citizen using a private aircraft should not have to worry about government disclosure to the general public—in direct contravention of the citizen's expressed wishes—of real-time data regarding the location of the aircraft in flight and its itinerary. Anyone with an internet connection will be able to find out that the person is away from home, or that the individual is conducting business in a particular location. To limit privacy protection only to those who can show a threat of life endangerment simply strains credulity.

“Our associations are committed to doing everything we can to ensure that our members retain the ability to prevent their airplane movements from being tracked by cyber-stalkers, terrorists, criminals, paparazzi, business competitors, or others whose motives are unknown. Air-traffic and law-enforcement authorities have always enjoyed ready access to general aviation flight information, even with the BARR in place, and we don’t want that to change. The reason we’re taking legal action is because we believe getting on an airplane shouldn’t amount to a surrender of a citizen’s basic privacy protections.”

Bolen added, “Congress, which enabled the FAA’s aircraft identification blocking program over a decade ago, is actively considering safeguards to ensure the program’s preservation. We could not be more pleased with the support for the BARR program shown by Democrats and Republicans from both chambers of Congress. Unfortunately, the Administration’s sudden, unilateral decision to curtail the program forces us to look to the courts for help in preserving the privacy, competitiveness and security of Americans and American companies while Congress reviews the program.”

EAA President and CEO Rod Hightower said, “EAA believes strongly that the privacy rights of aviators must be equal to those of any American. This is an important issue that must be handled appropriately and with due process. The disregard of our members’ position by the DOT is an alarming development and seems to be a significant step in removing our privacy rights as aviators and as American citizens. The large majority of our members surveyed expressed the desire to keep BARR in effect as Congress has intended. It seems to me the people have spoken, not only as aviators, but through due legislative process with our Congress more than 10 years ago. EAA will join AOPA and NBAA to preserve the unique aviation freedoms we all enjoy, and depend upon, in this great country.”

The DOT announced its intention to dismantle the BARR program on May 27, in spite of overwhelming opposition from individuals and organizations in and outside the aviation community. The agency formalized its plans in a rule published in the Federal Register on June 2.

Killer cops smash snuff video, shoot 4 bystanders

"You want to be fucking paparazzi?!"

Why covert video is best around cops. God bless SD cards. No gun found in car...until days after being gunned down by cops.

Miami Beach Police Ordered Videographer At Gunpoint To Hand Over Phone

But video survived even after police tried to destroy phone.

Miami Beach police did their best to destroy a citizen video that shows them shooting a man to death in a hail of bullets Memorial Day.

First, police pointed their guns at the man who shot the video, according to a Miami Herald interview with the videographer.

Then they ordered the man and his girlfriend out the car and threw them down to the ground, yelling “you want to be fucking paparazzi?”

Then they snatched the cell phone from his hand and slammed it to the ground before stomping on it. Then they placed the smashed phone in the videographer's back pocket as he was laying down on the ground.

And finally, they took him to a mobile command center where they snapped his photo and demanded the phone again, then took him to police headquarters where they conducted a recorded interview with him before releasing him.

But what they didn’t know was that Narces Benoit had removed the SIM card and hid it in his mouth, which means the video survived.

Benoit showed the video to Miami Herald reporters on Thursday, who described it in their article.

The three-minute video captured on Narces Benoit’s HTC EVO phone begins as officers crowd around the east side of Herisse’s car with guns drawn. Roughly 15 seconds into the video, officers open fire.

Benoit filmed the incident from the sidewalk on the northeast corner of 13th Street and Collins Avenue, close enough to see some officers’ faces and individual muzzle flashes.

Shortly after the gunfire ends, an officer points at Benoit and police can be heard yelling for him to turn off the camera. The voices are muffled at times. The 35-year-old car stereo technician drops his hand with the camera and hurries back to his Ford Expedition parked further east on 13th Street.

The video shows Benoit get into the car, where his girlfriend, Ericka Davis, sat in the driver’s seat. He raises his camera and an officer is seen appearing on the driver’s side with his gun drawn, pointed at them.

The video ends as more officers are heard yelling expletives, telling the couple to turn the video off and get out of the car.

“They put guns to our heads and threw us on the ground,” Davis said.

Benoit has not posted it on Youtube because he is asking to be compensated. But it sounds as if he won’t have much trouble getting compensated through a settlement with the police department.

However, he first must post the video for the world to see.

Benoit and his girlfriend also said police smashed several phones from other witnesses, so hopefully they were able to recover the videos as well.

The new details emerged a day after police announced they had found a gun in the car they had shot up.

It took police two-and-a-half days to find the gun in the Hyundai but they still haven’t determined if it was discharged that night.

For all we know, it could have been locked away in the trunk of the car.

Four innocent bystanders were shot during that shooting, most likely from police bullets.

Also, an hour after that shooting, another officer shot at a man who she believed was driving towards her. But he turned out to be allegedly drunk, which is why he was driving erratically and eventually into a police cruiser.



No gun found in car...until days after being gunned down by cops:



Miami Beach Cops Also Seized NEWS Camera At The Scene Of Shooting:



See also:

Witnesses said they were forced to hide video after Beach shooting

Albuquerque Cop Confiscates Camera From Reporter - Now under investigation for possibly deleting footage

Cop To Citizen: "If You Take My Picture Again, I'm Going To Fucking Break Your Face"



The Dragonater threatened by Blount County deputy with arrest and seizure of video camera at "crime scene" of Miata crash: Miata versus Dragon at Deals Gap

75 years in prison for recording in court

Tennessee "eavesdropping" law does not require permission before making your own audio recordings of other persons (including police), or recording your own telephone conversations. Lawyers advise to always recording all conversations with police, and to exercise your constitutional right to STFU.

It's usually impossible to win in court without making some type of official audio recording or written verbatum record. It's 100% impossible to win on appeal without a written record or audio recording. So this is one of the first battles that must be won against prosecutors and judges who have much to hide and money to steal.

In Tennessee, a party or attorney is supposed to have the right to make an audio recording for personal use in any case, not for rebroadcast. Under TN Rules of Civil Procedure and TN Rules of Criminal Procedure, a written motion probably must be made, and a written or verbal order of approval probably must be made, before for making an audio recording of a court proceeding by a party to the case. News media must make a media request motion and get a written order of approval before videotaping for broadcast. However, newspaper reporters are not required to ask permission to record audio in court, when not for rebroadcast, per TN Supreme Court Rule 30. Court reporters usually make audio recordings, which are private work product that supposedly cannot be released to a party. After losing in a court hearing, a party is supposed to have an option of purchasing an audio recording of the hearing to use on appeal, if they don't want to pay a court reporter for a printed transcript. It's best to always make your own hidden audio recording in court, without asking permission, as a back up to CYA.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure supposedly ban all audio recordings in federal courts, except by court reporters (which are private work product that supposedly cannot be released to a party). News media are allowed to make audio recordings in a few of the federal districts, after written motion.

Federal judges, prosecutors, police and politicians especially have much to hide, to prevent Revolution, which is why recording is effectively banned in fed courts, and security guards seize all recording devices before entering a fed court house. If We The Sheeple ever discover that real court is the opposite of what's seen on TeeVee, then millions of govt employees are going to have a Very Bad Day. Hence these draconian laws against recording govt employees, while They record everything YOU do.

---

Recording a Cop vs Rape: Which Has Longer Prison Sentence?

by Lawrence Taylor
DUIblog.com
June 4th, 2011

In Illinois, they carry the same sentence: 15 years in prison. That’s right: using your cell phone to record cops beating up a citizen, for example, can land you in prison for 15 years (although it’s perfectly legal for the cop to record you).

An eye-opening news video entitled "Valley Man Faces 75 Years in Prison for Recording Law Enforcement" documents the current plight of Illinois citizen Michael Allison. Allison is facing 75 years in prison for five counts of openly audio taping public officials – a sentence usually reserved for murderers.

When he recently sued police for discriminatory law enforcement, the judge at trial refused to provide a court reporter. Understandably wanting a record of the proceedings, including the cops’ testimony, Allison told the judge he would record them himself. He was later arrested and the recording confiscated.

These laws are not limited to Illinois. Designed to protect cops and public officials from public scrutiny, they exist in many states across the country. And one has to question why they exist at all in a supposedly free and open society — much less carrying sentences usually reserved for murderers and rapists. Are cops and officials that afraid of having their conduct exposed to the light?

I wonder if taping a cop in China or North Korea is punished as severely as in Illinois – if at all?

---

VIDEO: Valley Man Faces 75 Years In Prison For Recording Law Enforcement

UPDATE: Case delayed and Allison refuses to take plea offer, find out why in this follow up video report.

Michael Allison faces 75 years in prison for recording law enforcement officials without their consent in Robinson, Illinois.

Illinois is one of the states applying old eavesdropping and wiretapping statutes to new technologies like cell phones or anything else that records audio.

Those laws technically make it illegal to record on-duty law enforcement officials without their consent. The penalty for that crime here in Illinois, is a class 1 felony.

Click on the video to watch our investigation into the state law and this particular case in Crawford County.

Are you fucking?

Google Translate Polish to English: zajebisty jestes


GIFSoup

Court says cops have zero credibility

Louisiana: Cops Beat Up Old Man For Accelerating Slightly

Appeals court upholds $25,000 fine on Louisiana police officers who beat an elderly man during a minor traffic stop.

Police in Louisiana slammed a 67-year-old man into the ground, arresting him over a questionable traffic violation. The state court of appeals ruled May 11 that Calvin D. Miller's injuries were only worth $25,000 in compensation. Miller had been driving his big rig logging truck home to Florien on US Highway 171 at 5:30pm on July 13, 2007. As he passed through the Village of Hornbeck, Officers Kenneth Hatchett, Jr., and Andy Mitchell, 19, pulled him over because he began speeding up "about 100 feet" before the limit changed from 45 to 55 MPH. Having driven the road for the past forty-seven years, Miller was quite familiar with the speed limit. He insisted he was not speeding.

"I can see right now you're going to need an attitude adjustment," Officer Hatchett said to the five foot, six inch tall elderly man.

Miller punched his own fist, then turned his back on the officers and began walking away. They threw him to the ground, deliberately slamming his head into the concrete so he could be handcuffed tightly. After Miller's wife bailed him out, Miller went to Byrd Regional Hospital where physicians documented the gash on Miller's forehead, the swelling and bruises and the injury to his wrist and arms. His missed two weeks of work after the incident.

"You don't turn your back on a cop," Officer Hatchett explained.

Both officers denied knowing how Miller's head came into contact with the concrete road shoulder. Eleventh Judicial District Court Judge Stephen Bruce Beasley did not find their testimony credible.

"Officers Hatchett and Mitchell had the considerable advantage of youth, height, weight and weaponry over Miller," Beasley ruled. "There was no testimony that Miller, at any time during the altercation, brandished or was perceived to possess a weapon. Although Miller was attempting to leave the scene, the stop did not require taking him into custody."

Beasley found the officers entirely at fault for Miller's injuries and awarded him $25,000 in damages. The officers appealed the ruling, insisting they had full immunity from prosecution. A three-judge appellate panel rejected the claim and upheld the judgment in full, declining to adjust the damages up or down.

"The totality of the circumstances support the trial court's finding that the two young armed officers faced little or no risks from Miller for his crime of 'speeding' (assuming it to be true) shortly before he actually reached the fifty-five-mile-per-hour sign," Judge Shannon J. Gremillion wrote for the appeals court. "There is no error in the finding that the force used was excessive and not motivated by officer safety, but to adjust Miller's attitude."

A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Miller v. Village of Hornbeck (Court of Appeals, State of Louisiana, 5/11/2011)

Cop vs Cop

Parking officer 'clamped police cars protecting Queen'

Note the size of the boat owned by the parking lot owner...