a series of law enforcement officials to be fired for their views on drug policy

Arizona Probation Officer Fired For Supporting Marijuana Legalization

So here it is folks, In America you can no longer  have a 'personal belief'.   Your employer is permitted to mandate what you believe -and- what you say.   What I find truly bind-boggling is that every GOP candidate that won Office ran on the platform of 'Freedom and Small Government' all the while they are expanding Government's power with monitoring and preventing what you ingest, ruling over women's uteruses, criminalizing Peaceful Assembly (AETA) and now what you say and your personal beliefs.     Congratulation to The GOP, they figured out how to Un-ring The Bell of Freedom !

WASHINGTON -- Less than two months after signing a letter calling for the legalization, taxation, and regulation of marijuana, Joe Miller was terminated from his job as a deputy probation officer in Arizona. Miller is just one of a series of law enforcement officials to be fired for their views on drug policy, HuffPost reports.
During California's gubernatorial debates in October, GOP candidate Meg Whitman, when asked about her views on a measure calling for the legalization of recreational marijuana cultivation, said "every single law enforcement official in this entire state is against Proposition 19."
Her remarks were dismissed by former San Jose Chief of Police Joseph McNamara as "absolutely wrong."
What seemed clearer was that active-duty police officers feel unable to speak up in favor of legalizing marijuana for fear of losing their jobs.
Scores of former officials signed a letter this fall saying that marijuana prohibition fuels more dangerous crime by enriching Mexican drug cartels who put guns on U.S. streets:

As police officers, judges, prosecutors, corrections officials and others who have labored to enforce the laws that seek to prohibit cannabis (marijuana) use, and who have witnessed the abysmal failure of this current criminalization approach, we stand together in calling for new laws that will effectively control and tax cannabis.
As criminal justice professionals, we have seen with our own eyes that keeping cannabis illegal damages public safety -- for cannabis consumers and non-consumers alike. We've also seen that prohibition sometimes has tragic consequences for the law enforcers charged with putting their lives on the line to enforce it. The only groups that benefit from continuing to keep marijuana illegal are the violent gangs and cartels that control its distribution and reap immense profits from it through the black market.

The vast majority of signatories waited until after they had retired from law enforcement to express that opinion.

On Nov. 19, 2010, Miller -- who had served as a probation officer for four years, and worked as a police officer for eight years in Needles, Calif., before that -- received notice from his department chief that he was under investigation:

1. On December 16th, 2009 you met with me, Assistant Chief Alan Palomino and your supervisor, Diann Lee. In that meeting I directed you not to use your position or affiliation with the Mohave County Probation Department when publically [sic] expressing your personal opinion unless you included a disclaimer that it was only your personal opinion and not the opinion of the Mohave County Probation Department. You stated you understood and would comply.
2. On or about September 13, 2010 you failed to obey the above-stated directive in that you did not include a disclaimer when you allegedly signed a letter in support of a political issue in California while identifying yourself as a Deputy Probation Officer with Mohave County Probation. The letter was viewed on-line at: "http://copssaylegalize.blogspot.com/2010/09/california-law-enforcers-endorse-prop.html" and a copy is attached. In that letter, you did not indicate you were voicing your own personal opinion and you did not indicate that your opinion was not the opinion of the Mohave County Probation Department.
If the allegations of misconduct are substantiated, they may result in demotion, suspension or dismissal.

Actually, the letter Miller signed on Sept. 13, 2010, did specify that "all agency affiliations are listed for identification purposes only." Nevertheless, on Dec. 10, he was terminated from his job with the Mohave County Probation Department. "He decided that the disclaimer was inadequate," Miller told HuffPost, referring to his boss.
Neill Franklin, national director of the legalization-advocacy group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, wrote a letter to Miller's department chief, Friend Walker, arguing that the firing constituted a violation of Miller's First Amendment rights.
"It is quite clear to me that Mr. Miller's termination is in direct violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech," wrote Franklin. "Being aware of the potential challenges faced by those in law enforcement who choose to exercise their rights to free speech, the sign-on letter was drafted with the agency affiliation disclaimer at the bottom of page six. The disclaimer is used so readers clearly understand that those who endorse the letter are not representing the law enforcement agencies listed and that the agencies are listed for identification purposes only. This well established practice has been used with a wide array of petitions, has withstood legal scrutiny, and has protected the First Amendment rights of Americans across the political spectrum."
Miller says the action is about more than a disclaimer. "It's not like I was doing something that wasn't being done personally at other levels by other police officers," he said of his termination. "So it was obviously politically motivated by those who were contrary to our beliefs."
He's not the only officer to be fired for voicing his views.
In September 2009, border patrol agent Bryan Gonzalez was fired for expressing his opinions on drug legalization to a fellow agent. And in January 2009, Jonathan Wender, one of LEAP's pro-legalization advocates, successfully sued the Mountlake Terrace, Wash., police department after being fired under similar circumstances.
Gonzalez is taking his case to court, joining with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico in filing a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
Miller said he hopes to file a suit with the Arizona chapter of the ACLU.

Cops Don't Like To Be Video Taped While IN The Act of Abusing The Power

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/battle-between-cops-cameras_n_795295.html
Battle Heats Up Between Police Officers And Civilians Who Record Them

Should ordinary people be arrested for filming on-duty police abusing their power? If a string of recent cases is any indication, judicial systems throughout the country think so.

LA Weekly reported Thursday on the troubling case of Jeremy Marks, a teenager who's been in jail since May for using his cell phone camera to videotape an L.A. Unified School District officer slamming a student into the window of a school bus. His working-class parents can't afford to pay the $155,000 bail to bring their son home for Christmas, so Marks may be forced to plead guilty to "attempted lynching" in order to reduce his sentence from seven years to 32 months.

Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, who recently lost a hotly-contested race for California Attorney General, continues to pursue charges against Marks, despite taped evidence that he stayed largely on the sidelines of the skirmish, quietly capturing the ordeal on video.

Meanwhile, Reason.com published a story this week detailing a similar account in Illinois. After what he describes as repeated harassment by local police claiming he violated the town's "eyesore law" by working on used cars in his own yard, backyard mechanic Michael Allison began tape-recording such encounters. When he finally received a formal citation, the judge denied his request for a reporter during his hearing, prompting him to bring his own tape recorder to court.

The judge then charged him with five counts of violating Illinois' wiretapping law by recording his previous interactions without the officers' consent. He faces up to 75 years in prison.

This past summer, Gizmodo ran a piece discussing laws on the books in at least three states that are being newly-interpreted to prevent civilians from recording the actions of on-duty officers in response to a flurry of viral videos capturing police abuse. The problem is, most of the charges have developed around wiretapping statutes written long before technological innovations like smartphones and social networks emerged, facilitating a heightened level of transparency.

In fact, many lawyers have deemed it "absurd" or "utter nonsense" to use antiquated wiretapping laws to bring charges against bystanders who record cops in action. And First Amendment enthusiasts are fighting back -- Carlos Miller's Photography Is Not A Crime tracks these types of cases on a daily basis.

Muslim group warns 'South Park' creators of death (VIDEOS)

Muslim group warns 'South Park' creators of death - Yahoo! News

AP – FILE - In this Sept. 21, 2008 file photo, Matt Stone, left, and Trey Parker attend the Comedy Central …

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer David Bauder, Ap Television Writer – Thu Apr 22, 4:15 am ET

NEW YORK – A radical Muslim group has warned the creators of "South Park" that they could face violent retribution for depicting the prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during last week's episode. The website RevolutionMuslim.com has since been taken down, but a cached version shows the message to "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The article's author, Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee of New York, said the men "outright insulted" the religious leader. The posting showed a gruesome picture of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was shot and stabbed to death in an Amsterdam street in 2004 by a fanatic angered by his film about Muslim women. The film was written by a Muslim woman who rejected the Prophet Muhammad as a guide for today's morality. "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," Al-Amrikee wrote. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them." The posting listed the addresses of Comedy Central's New York office and Parker and Stone's California production office. It also linked to a Huffington Post article that described a Colorado retreat owned by the two men. CNN, which first reported the posting, said the New York-based website is known for postings in support of Osama bin Laden and jihad, or holy war, against the West. Al-Amrikee told The Associated Press in a phone call Wednesday that the posting was made to raise awareness of the issue and to see that it does not happen again. Asked if Parker and Stone should feel threatened by it, he said "they should feel threatened by what they did." He said he was disappointed that publicity about the posting focused more on the potential danger to the producers but admitted, "I could shoulder some blame" for it. He said he "can't answer that legally" when asked if his group favored jihad. But he praised bin Laden. "We look up to him and admire him for the sacrifices he has given for the religion," he said. Last week's episode, the 200th for the cheeky and often vulgar cartoon, was intended to feature many of the personalities and groups that Parker and Stone insulted during the series' run. In 2006, Comedy Central banned the men from showing an image of Muhammad on their show. They had intended to comment on the controversy created by a Danish newspaper's publishing of caricatures of the Islamic leader. Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous. Instead, "South Park" showed an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President George W. Bush and the American flag. Comedy Central and the show's producers would not comment.

Arizona's SB1070 Gestapo Law Reveals Right Wing Version of "Liberty."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miguel-guadalupe/arizonas-sb1070-gestapo-l_b_545959.html

Miguel Guadalupe

A writer working in the belly of the beast and yes, Latino, progressive, and American

Posted: April 21, 2010 06:25 PM          

"Show me your papers, are your papers in order?" This phrase was made famous, or rather infamous, by the Gestapo, and will soon be heard throughout the state of Arizona, should their Governor sign into law SB1070, a vague and broad law giving law enforcement the unprecedented power to stop and check the documentation of any individual where "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.."

There are no guidelines as to what "reasonable suspicion" is, but knowing the reality on the ground, it is obvious to all that "reasonable suspicion" means those looking like, sounding like, or acting like general stereotypes of undocumented immigrants coming from Latin America. In short -- this is a bill that allows police to suspect all Latinos of being undocumented, and gives them the right to question their status at any time, for any reason.

The legality of this will of course be challenged as the rest of the nation and the world reacts in horror at what many who support immigration reform have long warned would be the consequence of allowing far right politicians to control the debate around immigration, and write enforcement-only laws which drip of xenophobia and racism.

This law also uncovers the unbelievable hypocrisy of the right -- those who have threatened to take up arms to "take their country back" from the brink of socialism, to defend freedom against tyranny. Where are you Tea Party, to decry this obvious encroachment on the individual liberties of the citizens of Arizona? Where are you, conservatives, decrying the use of government funds and resources to form a "police state" where the populace can be stopped for no other reason than for moving about freely in public?

While the right have been busy chasing socialist unicorns and barricading themselves against gun controlling Yeti, a real world example of everything they claim to be defending this country against has been grown like a prickly bush in their own lawn-chaired backyards.

But I forget. They support this measure, because it's against "the other." This doesn't effect "real Americans," but only outsiders who look different from them and who shouldn't be here anyway.

What of fellow citizens? What of the millions of US born and naturalized persons, or those who are in the process of becoming so, who might share the physical characteristics of these "outsiders?" Shall we pin our papers to our coats when walking on the street to avoid harassment? Perhaps we should stitch patches to our sleeves so the police can easily tell who we are and what our status is? If you can ask for papers of any one on the street, why not at their homes? Better yet, why not relocate us to a central part of town, so that the authorities can have an easier time monitoring our movements, all in the name of keeping out the undesirables.

We see now where the right plans to take this country. We see that their cries of liberty are not about liberty at all, but the simple wailings of an angry mob longing to be rid of "the other."

And what of "The Maverick" that never was? What of the Senator from Arizona, the one who claimed to have the temperament to lead our country? What of the man who just years ago, supported comprehensive immigration reform? He now supports his wayward statesmen, saying this legislation is necessary because these people "were causing accidents on the freeway." My god man. Are you so desperate to continue your senatorial ride that you'd hitch your cart to any ass in front of you? And by ass, I mean mule, of course.

The farce that we are witnessing before us cannot be ignored or defended as an isolated occurrence. Already we see an unprecedented raise of violence against those suspected of being so-called aliens across the country. From "beaner hopping" in Long Island, NY to the deportation of lawful Immigrants, this wave of anti immigrant and by extension, anti-Latino hate crime is up and has very real, very tragic consequences. Families live in fear for their children, and even multi-generation Americans like myself feel the stress when a society has decided to place Sarah Palin's crosshairs on our backs.

So show us, oh self proclaimed "defenders of liberty," that you are not just a band of angry White men still bitter from the last election, and defend us. What better example of government overreach than one that would force your fellow countrymen to walk under a cloud of suspicion, fearful that if one day we leave our wallets at home, we can be arrested, incarcerated, and shipped off to another country? You should be descending upon the Arizona legislature like you have on Congress, who merely wanted to reform healthcare for its citizens. Where is your anger, Mr. Beck?

But we already know what the answer to all this is -- those rallies about freedom aren't about freedom at all. It's not about liberty of the universal kind. It is hypocritical posturing to intimidate the rest of the country to allow the right back in the driver's seat, so that they can pass legislation like Arizona's SB1070.

I fear for an America where liberty can be so fickle and discriminate.


Follow Miguel Guadalupe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/miguad98

Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions

Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions | The Bilerico Project

Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions

Filed by: Kate Kendell

April 17, 2010 4:00 PM

Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place--wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.
One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold's care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.
Ignoring Clay's significant role in Harold's life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold's "roommate." The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold's bank accounts to pay for his care.
What happened next is even more chilling.

Without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold's possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.
Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county's actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property. The only memento Clay has is a photo album that Harold painstakingly put together for Clay during the last three months of his life.
With the help of a dedicated and persistent court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis of Santa Rosa, Clay was finally released from the nursing home. Ms. Dennis, along with Stephen O'Neill and Margaret Flynn of Tarkington, O'Neill, Barrack & Chong, now represent Clay in a lawsuit against the county, the auction company, and the nursing home, with technical assistance from NCLR. A trial date has been set for July 16, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma.
Read more about NCLR's Elder Law Project.

---

Are you disturbed by the story of how Clay Greene was treated by the County? Please blog about this, pass it on over Facebook or Twitter, just do whatever you can to help raise the visibility of what happened to Clay. Send a letter to the local paper, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat at letters@pressdemocrat.com. Send them this link to NCLR's page.
Want to stay up to date on this case? Follow NCLR and Bilerico Project on Twitter.

The Unconstitutional War On Civil Liberties

Documentary released in 2007 explaining the indirect consequences of unconstitutional measures such as the Patriot Act.




____________________________





____________________________


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4YdYObaVcQ&feature=related