Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.
The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study.
The report did not name any companies. The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.
With the U.S. budget deficit this year running close to the record $413 billion that was set in 2004 and projected to hit a record $486 billion next year, lawmakers are looking to plug holes in the U.S. tax code and generate more revenues.
Dorgan in a statement called the report "a shocking indictment of the current tax system." Levin said it made clear that "too many corporations are using tax trickery to send their profits overseas and avoid paying their fair share in the United States."
The study showed about 28 percent of large foreign corporations, those with more than $250 million in assets, doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $372 billion in gross receipts, the senators said. About 25 percent of the largest U.S. companies paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $1.1 trillion in gross sales that year, they said.
(Reporting by Donna Smith, Editing by David Wiessler)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Murdoch Reportedly Pays $77M To Settle "Alleged Tax Avoidance Scheme"
February 15, 2011 10:28 am ET by Sarah Pavlus
According to a report in The Sydney Morning Herald, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation -- the parent company of Fox News -- "has been forced to pay the [Australian Capital Territory] government $77 million in taxes and penalties after an alleged tax avoidance scheme unravelled."
The payment was reportedly "noted in the [Australian Capital Territory]
midyear budget update as duties on 'shares and marketable securities.'"
From the article:
The Rupert Murdoch media empire paid the money late last year in a secret settlement, two years after being taken to court by ACT tax authorities who demanded $84 million in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest.
[...]
A News Corporation spokesman said yesterday the case had been settled confidentially and declined to comment further.
The ACT government also made no comment, citing the territory's secretive tax laws.
But documents reveal how the commissioner for ACT revenue, Graeme Dowell, and his officials untangled a web of transactions between Murdoch-controlled companies in Victoria, Queensland and as far away as the North Atlantic tax haven of Bermuda.
The trail reaches back to 2004, when the territory claimed it was owed duty on the transfer of nearly $9 billion worth of shares in a former territory-registered Murdoch company, Karlholt, as part of the restructure of the media mogul's empire.
You can read more about it here and here.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102150010
The Freedom to Conduct Research, Write, and Share Ideas Without Fear of Violence is Fundamental to American Democracy
February 15, 2011
For many years, the academic community in the United States has stood firm in its support of scholars across the world who have been threatened or endangered by their scholarship, research, and writing. We must do the same for scholars in the United States.
We, the leadership of major scholarly associations, express our collective outrage at the recent, repeated attacks on Professor Frances Fox Piven. These attacks have been based on rhetoric, rather than substance, and have incited threats of violence, rather than encouraging open debate. Radio and television personality Glenn Beck has accused Professor Piven of creating a plan to “intentionally collapse our economic system,” as reported by The New York Times; and he has included her in a list of the nine “most dangerous people” in the world. While Mr. Beck has not directly called for violence against Professor Piven, his attacks have created a space for threats of violence to emerge. Over the past several months, Professor Piven has received a flood of hate mail and menacing internet postings, including death threats. The Center for Constitutional Rights has identified many violent posts by visitors to Mr. Beck’s website, including the following: “I am all for violence and change Frances: Where do your loved ones live?” The rhetoric has become sufficiently overheated that the potential for physical violence is real.
Dr. Piven, a Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the City University of New York Graduate Center who holds a PhD from the University of Chicago, is one of the nation’s most thoughtful commentators on the country’s social welfare system. She has been elected President of the American Sociological Association, Vice President of the American Political Science Association, and President of the Society for the Study of Social Problems.
We call on public officials, political commentators, and others in the media to help discourage the rhetoric of hate and violence that has escalated in recent months. We vigorously support serious, honest, and passionate public debate. We support serious engagement on the research of Professor Piven and of others who study controversial issues such as unemployment, the economic crisis, the rights of welfare recipients, and the place of government intervention. We also support the right of political commentators to participate in such debates. At the same time, we insist that all parties recognize the rights of academic researchers not only to gather and analyze evidence related to controversial questions, but also to arrive at their own conclusions and to expect those conclusions to be reported accurately in public debates.
Both scholars and commentators, regardless of political orientation, strive to serve the public good. We can only benefit from their work when all parties respect the rights of others to disagree without fear of violent reprisal. We call on all parties to condemn the recent escalation of violent rhetoric, which does nothing to serve democracy.
Signatories:
American Anthropological Association
American Association of Geographers
American Council of Learned Societies
American Educational Research Association
American Sociological Association
Association for Humanist Sociology
Board, American Society of Criminology
Board, Research Committee 19 (Poverty, Social Welfare, and Social Policy) of the International Sociological Association
Board, Society for the Study of Social Problems
Consortium of Social Science Associations
Eastern Sociological Society
Linguistic Society of America
Mid-South Sociological Association
Midwest Sociological Society
National Women’s Studies Association
Pacific Sociological Association
Planners of Color Interest Group, Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning
Rural Sociological Society
Social Science History Association
Social Science Research Council
Sociologists for Women in Society
Sociologists Without Borders
Southern Sociological Society
http://www.asanet.org/press/Freedom_to_Conduct_Research_Without_Fear_of_Violence.cfm
Boehlert On Hardball: Glenn Beck "Is Just An Absolute True Conspiracist" -- "He's Selling Paranoia," "Fear"
From the February 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
Dick Wadhams drops out of state GOP chairman’s race
UPDATE: Ryan Call, the state’s legal counsel said he is “strongly considering” running for chairman.
Dick Wadhams
Dick Wadhams today unexpectedly dropped his bid for a third term as chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, and said he has no idea what he will do next.
Wadhams said he had the votes but in the last few days got to thinking, “What happens after I win?”
“I have loved being chairman, but I’m tired of the nuts who have no grasp of what the state party’s role is,” he said.
Wadhams last year was alternately accused of meddling in the governor’s race and not interceding in order to make sure the right Republican won. Democrat John Hickenlooper ultimately won the race despite 2010 being a Republican year.
His departure from the race leaves state Sen. Ted Harvey as the strongest contender in the race, although a number of Republicans expect more candidates to run now that Wadhams is out. Among those mentioned: Ryan Call, legal counsel for the GOP.
“I am strongly considering it,” Call said. “Our party needs good leadership and someone who can build consensus.”
Here is the memo Wadham sent this afternoon to members of the Colorado Republican State Central Committee:
It has been an honor and privilege to serve as Colorado Republican Chairman but after much reflection I have decided to not seek reelection.
I am very grateful to a clear majority of the members of the Colorado Republican State Central Committee who offered their support and encouragement over the past several weeks.
I entered this race a few weeks ago looking forward to discussing what we accomplished in 2010 and to the opportunities we have in 2012 to elect a new Republican president; to increase our state House majority and win a state Senate majority; and to reelect our two new members of Congress.
However, I have tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the state party is while saying “uniting conservatives” is all that is needed to win competitive races across the state.
I have no delusions this will recede after the state central committee meeting in March. Meanwhile, the ability of Colorado Republicans to win and retain the votes of hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated swing voters in 2012 will be severely undermined.
For the past four years, I have devoted all of my professional time and energy to serving as state chairman and am very proud of what we accomplished in the face of unique and unprecedented challenges in both the 2008 and 2010 election cycles.
I will always remain humbled and grateful for the opportunity to travel this magnificent state where I was born and raised and to work with Republican leaders and elected officials in all 64 counties as state chairman.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/02/07/dick-wadhams-drops-out-of-state-gop-chairmans-race/22599/
“Freedom Flyer” arrested at TSA checkpoint
“NOT GUILTY” VERDICT BY JURY ON ALL CHARGES, FRIDAY, JAN. 21, 2011!
- Video of the verdict and excerpts from Phil Mocek’s reaction
- Audio of Mr. Mocek’s comments outside the courtroom immediately after the verdict (complete and unedited)
- Our analysis of the significance of the verdict
- Video of the incident from Mr. Mocek’s camera (as shown to the jury except for the addition of the subtitled transcript)
- Complete audio archive and photos of the trial (except jury selection)
- Help pay off Mr. Mocek’s legal bills
Criminal Case 2573709, Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, Albuquerque, NM.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is this case about?
Phil Mocek (click photo for hi-res)
Phil Mocek (pronounced “MOE-seck” or “MOE-s?ck”) was arrested by Albuquerque police at a TSA checkpoint at the Albuquerque International Sunport on November 15, 2009. He had a valid ticket on Southwest Airlines (”You are now free to move about the country”), and was attempting to get to his flight. Like the “Freedom Riders” of the 1960s on interstate buses, Mr. Mocek sought to exercise his Federally and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to travel, but was arrested by local police for alleged violations of state and local laws and ordinances.
Why was Mr. Mocek arrested?
Even after Mr. Mocek’s trial and acquittal, we still don’t know. The first statement by the police (on their own live audio recording) was that he was being arrested, “for being stupid”. The real motivations of the police for arresting Mr. Mocek remain a potential issue at trial. Based on the available evidence, we are concerned that Mr. Mocek was arrested because he declined to show ID credentials, declined to answer questions about his identity, and/or because he attempted to photograph and record his interactions with the TSA and police – all of which were activities protected by the First Amendment and other laws.
What were the charges against Mr. Mocek?
He was charged with criminal trespass (Albuquerque Code of Ordinances § 12-2-3), resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey a lawful order of an officer (§ 12-2-19), concealing his identity with intent to obstruct, intimidate, hinder or interrupt (§ 12-2-16), and disorderly conduct (NMSA § 30-2-1). [Note: It appears that direct links to sections of the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances will work only after you first click on the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances link and then on either "frames" or "no frames", to set the required cookies in your Web browser.] The maximum penalties, if he had been convicted, could have been up to 6 months in jail for disorderly conduct (a “petty misdemeanor” under New Mexico state law), and 90 days in jail for each of the ordinance violations, for a total maximum sentence of 15 months in jail.
Was Mr. Mocek guilty of any of these crimes?
No. The jury acquitted Mr. Mocek without his having to testify or present any evidence in his defense. The prosecution failed to meet their burden of proving that Mr. Mocek had committed any crime.
There is no evidence of any of these crimes in the audio and video recordings released by the police. Mr. Mocek was calm, polite, and nonviolent. There is no evidence that he was disorderly, made any attempt to “conceal” his identity, or had any obstructive intent. As a ticketed passenger, his right of transit through the airport and the TSA checkpoint and by the airline as a common carrier was guaranteed by Federal law, the First Amendment, and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He was not trespassing, and any police order to leave the airport would have been unlawful.
(If something like this should happen to you, be aware that police and custodians of public records aren’t always aware of what recordings they may have, of the technical features of their recording and archiving systems, or of the possibility that audio and video archiving systems may generate logs of what recordings are accessed or deleted, when, and by whom. As this incident (chronology) in Seattle showed, digital recordings aren’t necessarily “deleted” automatically, and may not be overwritten until long after police assume that they have been deleted. If you are requesting records of a police encounter, be sure to include a request for any system logs of access, viewing, and/or deletion of the recordings, and be extremely skeptical of any claims that digital recordings are actually “erased” on a fixed schedule, rather than merely flagged as potentially available to be overwritten.)
Why is this case important?
So far as we know, this was the first time someone in the USA was arrested or charged with a crime for attempting to exercise their right to travel by air without showing ID or answering questions about themselves or their trip, or for photography or audio or video recording at a TSA checkpoint.
Is there any law that requires you to show ID credentials to fly, or to the police?
No. In Gilmore v. Gonzales (decided at 435 F.3d 1125), a case involving the same airline, lawyers for the TSA swore to the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals that no Federal law or regulation requires airline passengers to show any evidence of their ID in order to fly.
Is there any law that requires you to answer questions from the TSA or police?
No. You have the right to remain silent. Mr. Mocek explicitly invoked this right.
Is there any law or regulation that prohibits or restricts photography or audio or video recording at TSA checkpoints or of police?
No. Prior to his flight out of ABQ, Mr. Mocek received written confirmation from Albuquerque TSA staff that, “There aren’t any state or city laws/ordinances that prohibit photography in the public areas of the airport.”
Do you have a right to travel by air?
Yes. The “public right of freedom of transit” by air is guaranteed by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and the TSA is required by Federal law (49 USC § 40101) to consider this right when it issues regulations. Airlines are common carriers. Mr. Mocek’s attempted trip was an exercise of “the right … peaceably to assemble,” which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of movement is also guaranteed by Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a human rights treaty signed and ratified by the US.
Can local police lawfully interfere with your right to travel, by air or otherwise?
No. The TSA checkpoint is a Federal facility, the airport and airline are Federally certified, and the right of travel by air is guaranteed by Federal law. Any interference with the passage of ticketed passengers, under color of state or local authority, would violate 42 USC § 1983. Interference by local police with air travel is forbidden by the same laws that forbade Southern sheriffs from interfering with interstate bus travel by Freedom Riders. In this sense, we see Mr. Mocek as a modern-day “Freedom Flyer.”
What happened in the trial?
Phil Mocek was found “NOT GUILTY” on all counts by a jury on Friday, January 21, 2011, at the conclusion of a two-day trial in Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court in Albuquerque, NM.
Jury trial in State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek (Criminal Case 2573709) began on Thursday, January 20, 2011, before Judge Kevin L. Fitzwater. A jury was selected and heard opening arguments and the first prosecution witness on Thursday. Testimony and arguments were completed and the jury returned its verdict of “NOT GUILTY” on all counts on Friday, January 21, 2011, after about an hour of deliberations. [Complete audio archive and photos of the trial (except jury selection)]
Did Mr. Mocek testify or present any evidence in his defense?
No. The jury found that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, based solely on the evidence introduced by the prosecution (including the video from Mr. Mocek’s camera).
Mr. Mocek did not testify, and the defense rested without calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence. The jury found that even without rebuttal, the TSA and Albuquerque police had failed to satisfy their burden of proving any of the four charges: concealing his identity, refusing to obey a lawful order (it was never entirely clear whether this was supposed to have been an order to turn off his camera, an order to leave the airport despite having a valid ticket, or an order to show ID, none of which would have been lawful orders), trespassing, and disorderly conduct.
The best evidence in the case was the video from Mr. Mocek’s digital camera that both the TSA and the police had tried to stop Mr. Mocek from filming, and which ended when they seized his camera out of his hands and shut it off. In her closing argument, defense counsel Molly Schmidt-Nowara argued that the police and TSA witnesses were not credible, that their testimony was contradicted by the video and by common sense, that what they really objected to was having Mr. Mocek legally take pictures, and that any disorderly conduct was on the part of the police and TSA.
The verdict of “NOT GUILY” on all counts shows that the jurors saw through the police and TSA lies.
What did the TSA and police witnesses testify about the authority of TSA “officers,” flying without ID, and using cameras in airports?
Uncontested TSA and police testimony at the trial established, among other things, three important points:
- Despite calling themselves “officers”, TSA checkpoint staff are not law enforcement officers and have no police powers — and both TSA and police are fully aware of this. When the TSA calls for the police, they are just like any other civilians who call the police, and the police have no obligation to do what they ask. Police should not act, and have no right to act, in such a case, unless the police have a reasonable basis for believing that a crime has actually been committed or is being committed.
- You have the right, recognized by the TSA, to fly without showing ID. “It happens all the time. We have a procedure for that,” according to the lead TSA “Travel Document Checker” at the Albuquerque airport. Signs and announcements in airports saying that all passengers must present ID are false.
- You have the right, recognized by the TSA, to photograph or film anywhere in publicly accessible areas of airports including TSA checkpoints, as long as you don’t violate any local laws, photograph the images on the screening monitors, interfere with the screening process, or slow down the line. (Whether those limitations to your First Amendment rights claimed by the TSA are legal or Constitutional was not decided in this case, since Mr. Mocek wasn’t violating any local law, filming the images on the screening monitors, interfering with the screening process, or slowing down the line.) Signs or statements that photography is prohibited at Federal checkpoints are, in general, false.
Annoying the TSA is not a crime. Photography is not a crime. You have the right to fly without ID, and to photograph, film, and record what happens. Your best defense is your own camera and microphone. Ordinary jurors know, and were prepared to recognize with their verdict in this case, that the TSA and police lie about what they are doing and why.
What does the Identity Project hope will happen as a result of this “NOT GUILTY” verdict?
We hope that Mr. Mocek’s acquittal will encourage and empower others to question the unlawful demands of the TSA — including their demands that we waive our right to remain silent, provide them with evidence as to our identity, and submit to virtual strip-search machines or groping — and to photograph and record our interactions with the TSA’s cop-wannabes and rent-a-cops and the local law enforcement officers who provide their muscle.
(See also our FAQ: What you need to know about your rights at the airport, and the information about dealing with police encounters from FlexYourRights.org.)
We also hope that this verdict will teach police not to blindly back up the TSA when the TSA calls upon law enforcement officers to “deal with” travelers to whose actions the TSA has, for whatever reason, taken a dislike. This verdict shows that jurors can see through their lies when they make up stories and false accusations against travelers.
What can I do to help now that Mr. Mocek has been acquitted?
Contribute to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund. Mr. Mocek has incurred many thousands of dollars of expenses to hire private lawyers and to return repeatedly to court hearings in Albuquerque from his home in Seattle. Contributions can be made online via Paypal. Note that the Paypal donation receipt will read, “Canabis Defense Coalition”, as this is the group that volunteered to collect donations for Phil’s defense. But all funds donated will go to Phil’s defense.
Contributions by cash, check, or money order can be sent directly to Mr. Mocek’s lawyers. Checks must be payable to “Freedman Boyd et al.” You can indicate “Phil Mocek defense fund” in the memo field. Send to:
Phil Mocek legal defense
Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Ives & Duncan PA
20 FIRST PLAZA CTR NW STE 700
ALBUQUERQUE NM 87102-5802
If you would like your contribution to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund to be tax deductible (or if your employer will match your contributions to tax-exempt charities), you can send it to CDC, a Washington-state 501(c)(3) IRS-recognized public charity, earmarked for Mr. Mocek’s defense fund:
Phil Mocek legal defense
Cannabis Defense Coalition (CDC)
PO BOX 45622
SEATTLE, WA 98145
Spread the word about this case and what it means. Organize a gathering to discuss the issue. Stand up for your own rights, and “just say no” to demands for ID. See our website or contact us for more on how to get involved.
What is the Identity Project?
The Identity Project (PapersPlease.org) provides advice, assistance, publicity, and legal support to those who find their rights infringed, or their legitimate activities curtailed, by demands for ID, and builds public awareness about the effects of ID requirements on fundamental rights. We are part of the First Amendment Project, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Oakland, CA.
What is the role of the Identity Project in this case?
We went to Albuquerque to observe and report on Mr. Mocek’s trial (since the trail was not recorded or transcribed by the court, our recordings are the only complete record of the trial), to help explain the issues it raises, and to support Mr. Mocek’s rights (1) to travel without showing ID credentials or answering questions from the TSA or police and (2) to photograph and record his interactions with TSA and police officers. Contact us for more information or if you’d like to arrange for an interview or speaker from the Identity Project. Nothing we say should be taken as legal advice or as representing Mr. Mocek or his attorneys (Nancy Hollander and Molly Schmidt-Nowara).
How can I get more information about this case?
- Complete audio archive (and photos) of the trial (except jury selection)
- Documents obtained by Mr. Mocek in response to his requests under New Mexico’s public records laws, including police reports and audio and video recordings
- Video of the incident from Mr. Mocek’s digital camera (as played to the jury except for the subtitled transcript)
- Mr. Mocek’s responses to questions from the press in the hallway outside the courtroom, immediately after the verdict
- Our report on the verdict and analysis of what it means
- Articles in the Identity Project blog about the case
- Discussion of the case in the travel “security” forum at Flyertalk.com (more here)
- Contribute to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund. Contributions can be made online via Paypal. Note that the Paypal donation receipt will read, “Canabis Defense Coalition”, as this is the group that volunteered to collect donations for Phil’s defense. But all funds donated will go to Phil’s defense. Contributions by cash, check, or money order can be sent directly to Mr. Mocek’s lawyers: Phil Mocek legal defense, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Ives & Duncan PA, 20 FIRST PLAZA CTR NW STE 700, ALBUQUERQUE NM 87102-5802.
- FAQ: What you need to know about your rights at the airport
- Information about dealing with police encounters from FlexYourRights.org
- For case records, go to the county court website, complete the “captcha”, and enter “CR” in the “prefix field and “2573709″ in the “criminal case number” field. Note that the case has been listed on the docket and in some of the other police and court documents with Mr. Mocek’s name misspelled as “Moesack”.
How can I contact Mr. Mocek or find his own statements about this case?
- Phil Mocek’s blog (Mocek.org)
- “I fought the law and the law lost, but I’m out $20,000″
- Mr. Mocek’s responses to questions from the press in the hallway outside the courtroom, immediately after the verdict (complete and unedited)
- Video of the verdict and excepts from Phil Mocek’s reaction
- Follow Phil Mocek (@pmocek) on Twitter
- Phil Mocek’s profile (pmocek) and links to postings in the FlyerTalk forums
What have Albuquerque and other news media and blogs said about this case?
- “New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek: A Quick Reminder on ID and Photography at TSA Checkpoints,” Jan. 28, 2011 (after the trial, but not mentioning that Mr. Mocek was acquitted until a later update)
- “TSA case goes to trial tomorrow in Albuquerque,” Dec. 6, 2010
- “TSA trial postponed indefinitely,” Dec. 9, 2010
- “Phil Mocek: You don’t have to show ID to fly,” Jan. 26, 2011
- “Papers!?! Puh-lease!,” with guest Edward Hasbrouck of the Identity Project, Dec. 7, 2010 (2 hours, 8 installments on Youtube) (single 2-hour stream on Ustream.TV)
- Follow-up, Dec. 8, 2010
- “The Patience of Phil Mocek,” with guest Edward Hasbrouck, Jan. 20, 2011
- “Phil Mocek: NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS!,” with guest Phil Mocek, Jan. 21, 2011
- “Man faces charges for defying TSA agents”, Dec. 9, 2010 (also on Youtube)
- “Woman suing TSA over what she calls invasive search”, Dec. 11, 2010 (includes complaint against TSA and update on Mocek case)
- “Trial begins for WA man who refused to show ID at Sunport”, Jan. 20, 2011, 12:30 p.m.
- “Trial underway for man who refused to show ID to TSA agents”, Jan. 20, 2011, 5 p.m. (includes video of excerpts from prosecution and defense opening arguments)
- “Update:Trial begins for WA man who refused to show ID at Sunport”, Jan. 20, 2011, 6 p.m. (also on Youtube)
- “Man acquitted of charges from refusing to show TSA agent ID,” Jan. 21, 2011 (also on Youtube)
- “‘Freedom Flier’ Or Royal Pain?,” Jan. 19, 2011
(Note that in Gilmore v. Gonzalez, the TSA swore to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that no TSA rule requires passengers to show ID, despite the statements to the contrary on the TSA website. The TSA has kept the policies and procedures for travel without ID secret, even though they were shown in camera to the judges of the 9th Circuit, who ruled that no ID was required. We are currently appealing the TSA’s refusal to release these policies and procedures in response to our Freedom of Information Act request. Mr. Mocek has not been charged with any violation of Federal law or TSA regulations.) - “‘Security Checkpoint Case Opens,” Jan. 21, 2011
- “Man Who Refused To Show ID at Sunport Acquitted.” Jan. 22, 2011
- “Phil Mocek: On Trial For Being TSA Checkpoint Worker’s Worst Nightmare,” Jan. 19, 2011
- “Jury Finds Phil Mocek Not Guilty of All Charges From TSA Arrest,” Jan. 22, 2011 (updated Jan. 24, 2011, with some of the most extensive quotes from Mr. Mocek after the verdict)
- “Seattle man on trial for refusing to show ID to TSA agents,” Jan. 20, 2011
- “Freedom Fighter or TSA’s worst nightmare?,” Jan. 20, 2011
- “Seattle man acquitted in TSA airport case,” Jan. 21-22, 2011
- “TSA vs. Seattle man: ‘He’s taking pictures of all of us’ (VIDEO),” Jan. 24, 2011
- “Man arrested after refusing to show TSA his identification,” Nov. 17, 2009
- “Man Cleared of All Charges Stemming From TSA Arrest over Video,” Jan. 21, 2011
- “Phil Mocek’s Video Still Infuriating Despite his Legal Victory Against TSA,” Jan. 26, 2011
- “No ID Requirement at Airports, TSA Admits,” Feb. 2011, p.1
- “Defiant Traveler Prevails in Court,” Feb. 2011, p. 1
- “Passenger cleared after TSA checkpoint stare-down,” Jan. 29, 2011
- “TSA Blog finally points out that Philip Mocek was found not guilty,” Jan. 30, 2011
- “US Constitution Upheld — TSA Slapped Down,” Jan. 23, 2011
- “TSA Spin Machine Runs Wild,” Jan. 29, 2011
- “A disingenuous update,” Jan. 31, 2011
http://www.papersplease.org/wp/mocek/
Common Cause Asks Court About Thomas Speech
Published: February 14, 2011
WASHINGTON — Discrepancies in reports about an appearance by Justice Clarence Thomas at a political retreat for wealthy conservatives three years ago have prompted new questions to the Supreme Court from a group that advocates changing campaign finance laws.
When questions were first raised about the retreat last month, a court spokeswoman said Justice Thomas had made a “brief drop-by” at the event in Palm Springs, Calif., in January 2008 and had given a talk.
In his financial disclosure report for that year, however, Justice Thomas reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him an undisclosed amount for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of the retreat. The event is organized by Charles and David Koch, brothers who have used millions of dollars from the energy conglomerate they run in Wichita, Kan., to finance conservative causes.
Arn Pearson, a vice president at the advocacy group Common Cause, said the two statements appeared at odds. His group sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday asking for “further clarification” as to whether the justice spent four days at the retreat for the entire event or was there only briefly.
“I don’t think the explanation they’ve given is credible,” Mr. Pearson said in an interview. He said that if Justice Thomas’s visit was a “four-day, all-expenses paid trip in sunny Palm Springs,” it should have been reported as a gift under federal law.
The Supreme Court had no comment on the issue Monday. Nor did officials at the Federalist Society or at Koch Industries.
Common Cause maintains that Justice Thomas should have disqualified himself from last year’s landmark campaign finance ruling in the Citizens United case, partly because of his ties to the Koch brothers.
In a petition filed with the Justice Department last month, the advocacy group said past appearances at the Koch brothers’ retreat by Justice Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, along with the conservative political work of Justice Thomas’s wife, had created a possible perception of bias in hearing the case.
The Citizens United decision, with Justice Thomas’s support, freed corporations to engage in direct political spending with little public disclosure. The Koch brothers have been among the main beneficiaries, political analysts say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html?_r=3&hpw=&pagewanted=print
Border activist convicted in deadly home invasion
TUCSON, Ariz. – The leader of an anti-illegal-immigrant group was convicted Monday in a home invasion robbery that left a 9-year-old girl and her father dead in what prosecutors said was an attempt to steal drug money to fund the group's operations.
A Tucson jury found Shawna Forde, 42, guilty of murder in the May 2009 killings of Raul Flores, 29, and his daughter Brisenia at their home in Arivaca, a desert community 10 miles north of Mexico.
The jury deliberated for seven hours over two days. Forde was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder for the shooting of Flores' wife and related aggravated assault and robbery counts.
The jury will return to Pima County Superior Court on Tuesday to decide if the death penalty should be considered.
Forde had pleaded not guilty.
Her attorney, Eric Larsen, argued that Forde was never inside the home. Prosecutors disputed that contention, saying Forde was the ringleader if the operation and the law is clear.
"She didn't put a gun to Brisenia's head ... but she was the one in charge," prosecutor Rick Unklesbay told jurors. "Because of that you must hold her accountable."
Larsen said Forde talked a big game, but "she frankly just didn't have the wherewithal to do this."
Calls seeking comment from Larsen on Monday were not immediately returned.
Forde is the leader of the Minutemen American Defense, a small border watch group. Prosecutors argued that she planned the attack to help fund its anti-immigrant operations.
Authorities said Forde and two men dressed as law enforcement officers, forced their way into Flores' home then shot him, his daughter and wife, Gina Gonzalez, who survived her injuries after getting into a gun battle with the attackers.
Flores was believed to be involved with drug trafficking, police said, but officers don't think the assailants found much cash or drugs in the home.
A 911 recording released by the Pima County sheriff's office captured Gonzalez pleading for help after her husband and daughter were shot. She was heard crying out in pain from a gunshot wound then becoming frantic as the attackers returned.
The sound of nine gunshots was heard as Gonzalez engaged the intruders.
"Oh my God, I can't believe they killed my family," Gonzalez said on the recording.
Police said Gonzalez shot and wounded one of her attackers, Jason Eugene Bush, who officers believe was the gunman.
Another man, Albert Robert Gaxiola, is accused of providing information about the area.
Bush and Gaxiola go on trial in the spring.
Before coming to Arizona, Forde lived in Everett, Wash., where she ran for the City Council in 2007, promising to allow police to check the immigration status of suspects, according to news accounts.
Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said his group expelled Forde in 2007 amid allegations of lying and pretending to be a senior leader. Forde began her own group, bragging that it would be going after drug cartels, he said.
"We knew that Shawna Forde was not just an unsavory character but pretty unbalanced, as well," Simcox said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_border_activist_trial
Monday, February 14, 2011
67% of Pakistani journalists say US drones attacks are acts of terrorism: survey
Monday, February 14th, 2011 -- 11:15 am
WASHINGTON – Two out of three Pakistani journalists view United States drone strikes in the region as acts of terrorism, according to a new study conducted by Washington State University and Pakistan's Lahore University of Management Sciences.
Only 27 percent of Pakistani journalists said the US drone attacks did not constitute acts of terrorism. Six percent did not know. The study surveyed 395 Pakistani journalists and was supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
That said, about one in five also didn't view the Mumbai attacks of 2008, or the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, as acts of terrorism.
The figures still underscore the public relations debacle facing President Barack Obama as his administration oversees a continuing drone program in western Pakistan, in an effort to wipe out Islamic extremists spilling over to the eastern side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The unmanned drone strikes in the region began under the Bush administration and have continued unabated under the Obama administration. The volume and frequency of the attacks has intensified in recent years, according to collected reports.
Northwestern Pakistan is believed to be a hotbed for activity among Islamic extremist groups.
Although US officials say the drone attacks have killed high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, Pakistani and international media have reported that innocent civilians are also dying in the process.
Three-quarters of the Pakistani journalists viewed the American people are favorably, but a whopping 77 of them had a negative view of US foreign policy.
"Indeed, as the United States broadens its effort to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, it would do well to look into the heads of the journalists who shape opinions in those societies," wrote Lawrence Pintak of Washington State University and Syed Javed Nazir of Lahore University in the New York Times.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/67-of-pakistani-journalists-say-us-drones-attacks-are-acts-of-terrorism-survey/
