Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Monday, December 22, 2014
Friday, December 19, 2014
Liberal England: Why did Lib Dem MPs back Chris Grayling on judicia...
Ian Dunt writes about last night's Commons vote on judicial review:
Judicial review sounds boring but it is one of the most democratic legal mechanisms available to the British citizen. It allows us to challenge illegal government decisions, to fight government irrationality and to challenge the decisions made by authorities. In the words of one peer, it is "the British defence of freedom" and the means by which we avoid "elected dictatorship".
Chris Grayling has lost several judicial review cases this year, for the simple reason that he keeps acting illegally and irrationally. So he has decided to try and eradicate it. That's not what it's called, of course. It’s called 'reform'. But his reform will make it impossible for anyone but the very rich to use it.Grayling's proposals were mauled in the Lords, with Liberal Democrat peers playing a major role.
Yet last night Lib Dem MPs, with one exception, voted to reverse the Lords' amendments and restore Grayling's original proposals.
Dunt is damning about this:
Apart from Sarah Teather, who has shown herself to be the beating heart of the Liberal Democrat soul this parliament and is consequently leaving it at the earliest opportunity, no other Lib Dem MP rebelled.
Liberal England: Why did Lib Dem MPs back Chris Grayling on judicia...:
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Monday, December 15, 2014
Sydney. Racism And Terror Ramping Up.
Fled from Iran for political/religous persecution in 1996.
Well known to the aussie authorities and secret service.
And maybe even working for them..!
#Whistleblowing
Or just #FalseFlag ?
The scenario was a terrorist taking hostages.
Co-incidence ?
No such thing.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150216165650/http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-defence-force-counter-terrorism-operation-halts-sydney-cbd/story-e6frfkp9-1226633535675
#SomethingSmellsBad
Sunday, December 14, 2014
HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE:FULL PUBLIC ENQUIRY YEP LETS GO WITH THAT!: NEW BLOW FOR MAY
JUSTICE DENIED: Police chief Andy BRENNAN made head of Child Protection...
Disgraced West Yorkshire ( arguably the most corrupt force in the UK) Police chief Detective Superintendant Andy BRENNAN has been put in charge of CEOPS Child Exploitation and Online Protection Center. Where he can identify and protect VIP pedophiles and colleagues engaged in the very profitable child sex trade. This is a dangerous power to give to a corrupt Police chief. But scum always seems to rise to the top in the Police and the Crown Persecution Service. Brennan who protected pedophiles when head of West Yorks Police professional Standards and will do a good job of protecting pedophiles now Nationally using CEOPS
More -
JUSTICE DENIED: Police chief Andy BRENNAN made head of Child Prote...:
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Dr Nostromo: The not so innocent anthropologist: Tales from a council house boy: The “Battle” of Orgreave: the Peterloo of our time...
As I said the day started as any other June day. My girlfriend at the time was working in Worksop which was in the Nottinghamshire coalfield area. The news had gone round, god knows how in those pre internet, mobile phone and social media days, that there was to be a mass picket at the Orgreave plant on the outskirts of Sheffield on that day. I knew that a number of my colleagues from work were intending to attend the demonstration and that there were coach loads of miners coming from all over the country were coming as well...
More -
Friday, December 12, 2014
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Ripped-off Britons: Liebrary: The only way to save our children from p...
The former chancellor, George Osborne, has finally admitted
that the Bank of England's quantitative easing (effectively printing money) made
the rich richer. He was silent about that fact when he was chancellor.
On top
of that, interest rate cuts hurt savers. So, speaking from Washington in an
interview with Bloomberg TV, Mr Osborne said: “We need to offset the very
necessary loose monetary policy and the distributional consequences that it is
having. Essentially it makes the rich richer and makes life difficult for
ordinary savers.” He added: “There’s a role for government policy not in
stopping that monetary policy which keeps the economy strong but in mitigating
its impact. I think all of us who believe in free markets need to work harder
to find an answer to the anger that people clearly feel out there.” What he
couldn’t bear to say was that the only way to do that is to increase welfare
and benefits, which he cut.
The
Bank of England’s Quantitative Easing (QE) programme (which means
printing money to buy UK government bonds) props up the nation’s asset
prices. For it to help the real economy, it needs to – you’ve guessed it
– trickle down. That’s because most financial assets are owned by the
top 10%. Half of us have no financial assets at all.
How
much QE has there been? The UK created £375bn ($550bn) of new money in
its earlier QE programme between 2009 and 2012. August 2016 brought a
fresh injection of £60bn of QE.
More -
Ripped-off Britons: Liebrary: The only way to save our children from p...:
Monday, December 08, 2014
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Thursday, December 04, 2014
Australia police under fire over punching disabled man in Brisbane
Queensland's police union has defended the actions of two officers accused of repeatedly punching a legless man during his arrest at a Brisbane shopping centre.
Footage of the weekend arrest, uploaded to social media, has gone viral, with the original post to Facebook having been shared more than 17,000 times by Tuesday afternoon.
It shows police pinning the agitated disabled man, to the ground and one officer punching him at least four times around the head.
It also shows a woman screaming at police that she is the man's carer, and putting her body between police and the man.
The pair are shown screaming at the three officers involved to get off them.
Despite mass accusations of police brutality online, Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers says the video looked bad because people didn't understand the context.
The two people being arrested allegedly stole from the shopping centre and were violently resisting arrest, he said.
"Had they have complied with police, there wouldn't have been an issue," he told Fairfax Radio.
"You can hear by the yelling and the screaming that they were resisting police.
"We don't want to use force, but if we have to do it ... those police have my 100 per cent support."
Civil libertarian Terry O'Gorman has called on a thorough investigation into the incident, saying the footage appeared worrying on face value.
"It appears to show significant, unjustified force by the police involved," he told ABC radio.
"It's said to be related to an alleged shop-lifting incident. Let the complaint authorities examine it."
Queensland police say they are aware of the incident and are looking into the circumstances, but could not say if an ethical standards investigation had been launched.
Police also said the man and woman are facing a range of charges, including entering a premise with intent, stealing, seriously assaulting police and obstructing police.
They'll appear in court next month...
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/union-defends-cops-filmed-repeatedly-punching-legless-disabled-man-in-the-head/4kei0bt0w
Wednesday, December 03, 2014
Tuesday, December 02, 2014
ROORDA v. THE CITY OF ARNOLD - FindLaw
For eleven years, appellant, Jeffrey Roorda, was a full-time commissioned police officer employed by respondent, City of Arnold (“City”), a city of the third classification located in Jefferson County, Missouri which has adopted a merit system of employment for its police officers pursuant to § 85.541.1 After an informal pre-termination hearing was held on the morning of June 20, 2001, Roorda was terminated by the City effective later that afternoon. Roorda timely appealed his dismissal to the Arnold Police Personnel Board (“Board”), which upheld his termination on December 12, 2001, after conducting a contested, on-the-record hearing in September and October 2001.2 Roorda timely filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the Board's decision in the Circuit Court of Cole County.3 On August 27, 2002, the circuit court denied Roorda's motion to supplement the record with certain evidence excluded by the Board and on February 4, 2003, the court entered a judgment sustaining the decision of the Board upholding Roorda's dismissal. Thereafter, Roorda timely filed this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Standard of Review and Facts
The general standards governing our review of this contested case were set forth in Orion Security, Inc. v. Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, 90 S.W.3d 157 (Mo.App. W.D.2002):
This court reviews the decision of the Board, not that of the circuit court. On appeal from an agency decision in a contested case, we consider only whether the agency's findings are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record as a whole. We may not substitute our judgment on the evidence for that of the agency, and we must defer to the agency's determinations on the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. If the decision of the agency is supported by substantial and competent evidence on the whole record, it must be affirmed. On the other hand, we must reverse the agency's findings if it is determined the decision is not supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record, or if the decision constitutes an abuse of discretion, or is unauthorized by law, or is arbitrary and capricious. The evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the administrative agency's findings. The fact-finding function rests with the agency, and even if the evidence would support either of two findings, the court is bound by the agency's factual determination. While this Court cannot substitute its own judgment on factual matters, it can independently determine questions of law.
Id. at 163 (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted); see also § 536.140.2.
So viewed, the record reveals that in July 1997, Roorda attempted to try to “cover” for another police officer by filing a report that contained false statements as to what happened during a suspect's apprehension and arrest. As a result of this false report, all charges against the defendant involved were dropped, and Roorda received a written reprimand from B.J. Nelson (the City's Chief of Police at the time) for violating the City Police Department's General Order 74.4 (“False Reporting”).4 The written reprimand issued to Roorda stated, in relevant part: “If it is ever determined again that you have lied in a police report, you will receive a more severe punishment, up to and including termination.”
On March 15, 2001, Roorda wrote a memorandum to Dale Fredeking (“Chief Fredeking”), who was then the City's Chief of Police,5 informing Chief Fredeking of Roorda's intention to utilize twelve weeks of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to attend to the upcoming birth of his child and asking permission to take such leave from May 22 through August 14, 2001. Roorda further asked to have this time classified as paid sick leave. On March 19, 2001, Chief Fredeking responded to Roorda by memorandum, informing him that, while he could take FMLA leave for the birth of his child, the leave would be unpaid and the City could require him to use all of his paid vacation time before receiving unpaid FMLA leave. Chief Fredeking further advised Roorda that the pertinent Departmental General Order did not allow the use of paid sick leave to attend to the birth of a child.
On May 1, 2001, Roorda met with Chief Fredeking in Fredeking's office to discuss his refusal to grant Roorda's request to receive full sick pay while on FMLA leave. Roorda closed the door to Chief Fredeking's office a couple of minutes after the meeting commenced. On May 21, 2001, Roorda filed an Allegation of Employee Misconduct Report (“Misconduct Report”), in which he stated that Chief Fredeking had verbally abused and attempted to intimidate him during the May 1, 2001 meeting, which began in the Chief's office around 11:15 a.m. that morning. In particular, Roorda alleged that “Chief Fredeking yelled and cursed at me and slammed his fist on his desk in what appeared to be an attempt to intimidate me away from my legitimate request to use sick time. The Chief's door was open at the time and the administrative staff was on hand.” The next day, Roorda filed an Internal Affairs Statement of Complaint (“IA Complaint”) setting forth exactly the same complaints and allegations contained in the Misconduct Report he had filed the day before. Within the body of the IA Complaint, Roorda affirmed that the facts and information contained therein were true as follows: “I, Sgt. Jeff Roorda, do hereby affirm that the foregoing statement was given freely and without duress, and that all facts and information contained therein are true to the best of my knowledge.”
On May 22, 2001, the Commander of the Department's Division of Internal Affairs, Detective Sergeant Richard Shular, was assigned to investigate the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint filed by Roorda. During the course of his investigation, Sgt. Shular interviewed Roorda, who, upon being asked if he had any other evidence that might support his allegations, “whether it be of a paper nature or any tape recordings or anything,” replied that he needed to confer with his attorney. After doing so, Roorda acknowledged having tape-recorded his May 1, 2001 conversation with Chief Fredeking and later provided the cassette audio tape, which had been in the possession of his attorney, to Sgt. Shular. Roorda subsequently admitted that, on the same day (May 1, 2001), he had also tape-recorded conversations between himself and other Department personnel, including a secretary (Carol Shaw) and Chief Fredeking's administrative assistant (Lieutenant Terry Schweitzer), without informing them that he was doing so. After interviewing all other persons involved in the incident complained of by Roorda in the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint and reviewing all of the evidence available to him relating to the incident, Sgt. Shular, in a report dated June 4, 2001, stated that there was no evidence of any kind to support the allegations made by Roorda against Chief Fredeking in either the Misconduct Report or the IA Complaint. In particular, Sgt. Shular concluded that the tape recording of the May 1, 2001 meeting demonstrated that Chief Fredeking did not slam his fist on his desk, did not yell at Roorda, and in no way attempted to intimidate Roorda. The audio tape also revealed that while Chief Fredeking did at one point use some coarse language (“bullshit” and “crap”) to describe his overall impression of Roorda's unauthorized request to receive full sick pay while on FMLA leave,6 he did not yell and curse at Roorda as alleged by Roorda in the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint. Most of this was further corroborated by Ms. Shaw, who was working at her desk located immediately outside Chief Fredeking's office before, during, and after the May 1 meeting. Due to his past disciplinary record, the seriousness of the false reports filed by Roorda, and the other Departmental General Order violations he had committed, Sgt. Shular recommended that Roorda be terminated.
The City terminated Roorda on June 20, 2001, and he then appealed to the Board. The Board found that in willfully and secretly tape-recording his May 1, 2001 conversations with Chief Fredeking, Ms. Shaw, and Lt. Schweitzer without proper prior authorization to do so, Roorda violated the Department's General Order 14.3.12 (“Unbecoming Conduct”), for which dismissal is an authorized penalty.7 The Board also found that in knowingly making false statements and allegations in both the Misconduct Report and the IA Complaint, Roorda violated General Order 14.2.4 (“Truthfulness”), an offense that is also punishable by termination of employment.8 The Board further specifically found that Roorda's testimony during its hearing was “not credible and was not worthy of belief,” while finding the exact opposite regarding the City's two primary witnesses against him, Sgt. Shular and Ms. Shaw. The Board ultimately concluded that Roorda “was disciplined and terminated based upon sufficient and credible evidence, and the entire record supports termination for just cause as set forth in the Arnold Police Department's Policy and Procedure Manual.” The Board thus sustained the City's action in terminating Roorda. Other facts will be discussed later as necessary to decide this appeal.
I.
Roorda brings four allegations of error on the part of the Board. In his first point, Roorda argues the Board's decision must be reversed because he was denied procedural due process, in that he was not provided sufficient notice of the charges brought against him. In particular, Roorda argues that the “Notice of Pre-Termination Hearing” he received on June 18, 2001 (“June 18 Notice”) did not provide him with proper pre-termination notice pursuant to General Order 32.9 (“Pre-Termination Hearing”). We disagree.
General Order 32.9 states, in pertinent part:
The Chief of Police shall provide written notice to the member, which shall state the time, date and place of the pre-termination hearing, and shall further state the charges against the member reasonably sufficient to apprise the member of the actions taken which were sufficient to constitute the imposition of termination.
The June 18 Notice provided to Roorda by Chief Fredeking clearly met each and every one of these requirements. The record shows that it stated the time, date, and place the pre-termination hearing was to be held and also informed Roorda that although the hearing would be informal, he would, pursuant to General Order 32.2.5 (“Dismissal Procedure”), “be afforded an opportunity to present facts relevant to the preliminary decision to terminate [his] employment.” Furthermore, as demonstrated by the following excerpt, the June 18 Notice also stated the charges against Roorda in a manner reasonably sufficient to apprise him of the actions he was found to have taken which were deemed sufficient to justify his termination:
As you know, Detective Sergeant Richard Shular was assigned to investigate the complaint of employee misconduct that you lodged against me on May 21, 2001. Detective Sergeant Shular has completed his investigation and it was forwarded to Mayor Mark Powell for his review. After reviewing the facts of the investigation, Mayor Powell has determined that your allegation of employee misconduct against me is unfounded. As a result of the above investigation, it has been determined that you violated the following policies and directives of the City of Arnold Police Department Policy and Procedures Manual:
* * *
General Order No. 14, Section 14.2.4, which covers Truthfulness, states that: ‘An officer of the department is guilty of violating policy if he: knowingly signs any false, misleading, or inaccurate police report, record, return, regulation, order or other documents.’ ‘Knowingly makes any other false, misleading or inaccurate official statement concerning any citizen or fellow member of the department.’
* * *
General Order No. 14, Section 14.3.12, which covers Unbecoming Conduct, states that: ‘Any conduct unbecoming to a member which is contrary to the good order and discipline of the department. For example, [this] shall include but not be limited to: ․ Electronically recording the conversation of another department member or a member of the public without that person's prior knowledge unless otherwise approved by General Order 24.9.2 or unless done in conjunction with a sanctioned investigation in which the said surreptitious recording is specifically authorized and approved in advance of the recording by the Shift Commander, the Chief of Police or Commander of Uniform Services.’
* * *
In considering the appropriate action to take in this matter, the facts of the investigation have been taken into account, as well as your total and complete work record. As a result, a preliminary decision has been made that your employment with the City of Arnold Police Department be terminated.
Roorda further claims the Department also failed to provide, after the June 20, 2001 pre-termination hearing and before his appeal to the Board, a statement, in plain and concise language, of specific facts upon which the charges were based, giving his name and rank, the time and place of the alleged offenses, and the circumstances relating thereto, as required by General Order 32.10 (“Board Hearings”). These complaints are utterly without merit as well. By letter addressed to “Sergeant Jeffrey Roorda” and dated June 20, 2001, after the pre-termination hearing was conducted Roorda was notified of his termination and the reasons for it as follows:
As a result of the investigation into the complaint of employee misconduct that you lodged against Chief Dale R. Fredeking, a review of your total work record, and the pre-termination hearing that was held on June 20, 2001, I am informing you that your employment with the City of Arnold, Missouri, is being terminated as of June 20, 2001, at 3:00 PM.
In accordance with ․ General Order No. 32, Section 32.8,9 you have ten (10) days to appeal your termination to the Police Personnel Board. If you decide to appeal the termination, you will be afforded a hearing on the charges that are listed in the notice of pre-termination hearing correspondence that you were sent on June 18, 2001.
Roorda filed his appeal to the Board by letter dated June 27, 2001. The pertinent portion of General Order 32.10 states: “At least ten days prior to [the] time set for the hearing, a copy of the Charges and Specifications, together with [a designation of] the time and place for the hearing shall be served on the accused.” 10 On August 7, 2001, the Board's Secretary notified Roorda's attorney of the time, date, and place the appeal was to be conducted. In a September 7, 2001 letter, the Board's Secretary also notified Roorda and his attorney that “[p]ursuant to General Order 32.10 ․ enclosed herewith are the Charges and Specifications relative to Mr. Roorda's appeal[.]” The enclosure was a copy of the June 18 Notice. Roorda's hearing commenced on September 18, 2001.
It is clear to this court that the post-termination notice Roorda received satisfied both the specific requirements of General Order 32.10 and general constitutional requirements of due process. Our Supreme Court has held that when a police officer is charged with a violation of departmental rules,
the basis of the charges need not be stated with such technical precision as in an indictment or information. This, in effect, distinguishes (and rightly so) the construction of disciplinary rules of this nature and charges thereunder, from the strict construction placed upon criminal statutes. It is sufficient if one is “fairly apprised” of what acts will constitute a violation of the Rules, and of what offense he has committed.
Milani v. Miller, 515 S.W.2d 412, 416 (Mo.1974) (citing Schrewe v. Sanders, 498 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Mo.1973)). Furthermore, as the very purpose of a notice of dismissal “is to inform an employee of the nature of the charges so that he can adequately prepare his defense,” Giessow v. Litz, 558 S.W.2d 742, 749 (Mo.App. E.D.1977), resultant prejudice is an indispensable condition of reversible error predicated on a claimed lack of adequate notice of the reasons for a disciplinary action. Accord In re Storie, 574 S.W.2d 369, 372 (Mo. banc 1978).
The June 20 termination letter adequately set forth the “charges” being leveled against Roorda since it expressly referred to the “notice of pre-termination hearing correspondence that you were sent on June 18, 2001,” and the June 18 Notice separately listed the distinct offenses found to have been committed by him (e.g., false reporting and making unauthorized secret tape-recordings of other Department personnel). Considered together, those two documents were also sufficient to constitute a plain and concise statement of the “specifications” against Roorda, because they made it abundantly clear that the charged offenses were directly related to the circumstances surrounding the Misconduct Report Roorda lodged against Chief Fredeking on May 21, thereby establishing May 1 as the date the offenses were alleged to have been committed and implicitly establishing the time and place. Furthermore, Roorda knew or should have known full well the date, time, and place of the charged offenses, since he was personally responsible for completing and filing the Misconduct Report at issue, personally recorded and furnished to Sgt. Shular the illicit cassette audio tape, and was also present and represented by counsel during the June 20 pre-termination hearing conducted by Chief Fredeking, during which the charges and specifications contained in the Notice were read to him and he was able to present his position as to why he felt termination would be unwarranted. “A party who has received actual notice is not prejudiced by and cannot complain of the failure to receive statutory notice.” Bosworth v. Sewell, 918 S.W.2d 773, 778 (Mo. banc 1996). In short, we think the record as a whole, including the transcript of the proceedings before the Board, clearly establishes that the charges and specifications received by Roorda were more than sufficient to fairly apprise him of the reasons for his termination and to allow him to prepare and present his defense. See Gaffigan v. Whaley, 600 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Mo.App. E.D.1980); McClellon v. Gage, 770 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Mo.App. S.D.1989).11
Moreover, as the City points out, Roorda has failed even to allege, much less demonstrate, any prejudice resulting from the claimed lack of sufficient advance pre- or post-termination notice of the reasons for his dismissal.12 This is no doubt because Roorda's “defense” (both before the Board and in this appeal) was not that he didn't engage in the misconduct outlined in the June 18 Notice and June 20 termination letter, but that Chief Fredeking “had it out for him” for unrelated reasons and that other officers had previously made unauthorized secret tape-recordings of Department employees without being disciplined or dismissed. Be that as it may, Roorda does not describe how he was prejudiced by any deficiency in the notice he received-for example, how his defense strategy would have been any different, what other evidence he could have obtained, or how a more favorable result would have ensued. This constitutes an independent reason to deny Roorda's first point relied on. Point denied.
II.
Roorda second point asserts the Board's decision must be reversed because he was denied procedural due process and his rights to a fair hearing and to be heard on and defend against the charges brought against him, in that the Board did not allow him to call or elicit certain testimony from several witnesses on his behalf or review certain documents in the City's possession and control. He claims the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously and thereby violated his due process rights by preventing him from presenting evidence to show that the real reason he was terminated was not for making false statements in the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint and secretly recording conversations between himself and other Department personnel, but because Chief Fredeking had it out for him and Roorda had subsequently lodged a more serious set of written complaints against Chief Fredeking while the investigations into the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint filed by Roorda on May 21 and 22, 2001, respectively, were still being conducted. We disagree, as we find that the Board properly refused to admit all such evidence, as well as other supposedly exculpatory evidence Roorda sought to introduce.
To address this point, we must summarize and place in context the evidence Roorda claims was improperly excluded by the Board. On the evening of May 22, 2001 (the day Roorda filed the IA Complaint against Chief Fredeking regarding their May 1 meeting), Roorda received a telephone call from Darla Fredeking, who was then Chief Fredeking's wife. The purpose of her call was to let Roorda know that she felt his job was in jeopardy because her husband had a “personal vendetta” against him. As a result of this call, the following day (May 23, 2001), Roorda prepared and submitted a memorandum to Mayor Powell. This memorandum purported to recite various statements and allegations made by Mrs. Fredeking during her telephone call to Roorda, including: (1) that her husband was “extremely agitated” with Roorda over the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint Roorda had filed against him on May 21 and May 22, respectively; (2) that her husband was also very upset with Roorda over Roorda's participation in the drafting and forwarding of a certain letter to the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP Letter”); and (3) that the City Manager and ranking officers of the Department and neighboring jurisdictions had participated in a cover-up of a domestic disturbance involving her and her husband at their home. Roorda's May 23 memorandum to Mayor Powell further alleged that Chief Fredeking was guilty of numerous violations of the Department's General Orders.13
On May 24, 2001, two days after Sgt. Shular began conducting his investigation of the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint, a separate internal investigation was initiated concerning the FOP Letter. The investigation into this letter (which had been circulating in the Department and elsewhere, was highly critical of Chief Fredeking and his administration of the Department, and requested legal assistance from the FOP) was conducted by Lt. Schweitzer. Although he was not singled out as the subject or target of this investigation, Roorda was interviewed by Lt. Schweitzer, as were forty or so other police officers in the Department. After concluding his investigation, which took somewhere between two and three weeks to complete, Lt. Schweitzer issued an undated report to Chief Fredeking in which he summarized his findings and recommended that discipline be imposed against fourteen City police officers, including Roorda. Due to his apparent leadership role in authorizing, co-authoring, and distributing the FOP Letter, in this report Lt. Schweitzer recommended that Roorda be dismissed.14
The Board's hearing officer ruled that all of the evidence about which Roorda complains in his brief was inadmissible in that it was irrelevant and had no probative value as to any of the material issues to be decided by the Board. These rulings were entirely correct. Section 536.070(8) provides that in any contested case, “[i]rrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded.” “Evidence is relevant when it tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or corroborates other relevant evidence which bears on the principal issue.” Kendrick v. Bd. of Police Comm'rs of Kansas City, 945 S.W.2d 649, 654 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this standard, the evidence we have just summarized was clearly irrelevant and was properly excluded, as it tends neither to prove nor disprove any fact in issue and does not corroborate any other relevant evidence bearing on the principal issues before the Board, which were whether Roorda was properly subject to termination for (1) violating General Order 14.3.12 (“Unbecoming Conduct”) by willfully and secretly tape-recording conversations he had no authority to record; and (2) violating General Order 14.2.4 (“Truthfulness”) by knowingly making false statements in two police reports (the Misconduct Report and the IA Complaint).
In particular, the Board's hearing officer correctly ruled that the evidence offered by Roorda as to Chief Fredeking's subjective motives in ordering Roorda's termination, including his alleged personal animosity towards Roorda, was not relevant and had no bearing on any of the issues before the Board for its determination. In Heinen v. Police Personnel Board of Jefferson City, 976 S.W.2d 534 (Mo.App. W.D.1998), the hearing officer refused to allow the police officer who had been discharged (Heinen) to elicit, on cross-examination, certain testimony from the police chief who fired him (Brewer) in order “to prove that Brewer had a continuing problem with inability to control his temper in his relationships with subordinates, and that the real reason he had terminated Heinen was out of personal animosity.” Id. at 542. This court proceeded to reject Heinen's procedural due process claim as follows:
Brewer's subjective motive in ordering Heinen's termination was irrelevant to the issue before the Board. The sole issue was whether or not Heinen had failed to conduct himself in a manner consistent with good behavior and efficient service. Chief Brewer's motives were irrelevant to the question before the Board.
Id. So it is here. It simply does not matter that Chief Fredeking may have been intensely displeased with Roorda for other reasons, or that Roorda may also have committed other acts of misconduct sufficient to independently justify his termination, as none of that evidence would have refuted the charges against him in any way and all of it was irrelevant. It was enough that the Board properly found, on the basis of competent and substantial evidence presented to it, that Roorda did what he was alleged to have done by the City in the June 18 Notice and June 20 termination letter, and that dismissal was an authorized punishment for those offenses.15
Roorda also unsuccessfully sought to elicit testimony from several witnesses that no City police officer except Roorda had ever been dismissed or disciplined for surreptitiously tape-recording conversations in violation of General Order 14.3.12, even though similar past violations had been committed by a different officer or officers and were known to have been committed by the Department's Division of Internal Affairs and the Department's command staff.16 Although not specifically denominated as such by Roorda during the hearing, the City correctly points out that he was attempting to lay the foundation for a claim of “selective enforcement.” However, even if Roorda's proffered evidence of selective enforcement were to have been admitted, found credible, and deemed outcome-determinative by the Board (a very unlikely scenario, in our view), it is extremely doubtful whether selective enforcement is a viable defense in civil cases like this one. As the Missouri Supreme Court observed in State ex inf. Attorney General v. Shull, 887 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. banc 1994):
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886), recognizes the selective enforcement defense rooted in the equal protection clause in criminal cases. This, however, is a civil case. Neither [the appellant] nor our independent research identifies a single appellate decision in which a court has accepted the defense of selective enforcement in a civil action.
Id. at 401 (internal citations omitted).17 Furthermore, in the criminal context, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation.” Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456, 82 S.Ct. 501, 506, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962). A criminal defendant's proof of a policy of selective enforcement must show “that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” Id.; see also State v. Watts, 601 S.W.2d 617, 621 (Mo.1980). Inasmuch as Roorda's claim is based on events which were alleged to have occurred before Chief Fredeking became the City's Chief of Police, at best he has alleged “no more than a failure to prosecute others because of a lack of knowledge of their prior offenses. This does not deny equal protection due petitioners under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Oyler, 368 U.S. at 456, 82 S.Ct. at 506. For all these reasons, the Board also properly excluded the evidence of selective prosecution offered by Roorda. Point denied.
III.
In his third point, Roorda argues that the Board's decision must be reversed because he was denied procedural due process and his right to a fair hearing, in that he was not given an opportunity to make certain offers of proof during the hearing, as required by § 536.070(7), which states that, in any contested case:
Evidence to which an objection is sustained shall, at the request of the party seeking to introduce the same, or at the instance of the agency, nevertheless be heard and preserved in the record, together with any cross-examination with respect thereto and any rebuttal thereof, unless it is wholly irrelevant, repetitious, privileged, or unduly long.
We disagree.
The City argues that the Board did not err in refusing to accept Roorda's offers of proof because under the express terms of § 536.070(7), they are not required to be received as to evidence which is “wholly irrelevant, repetitious, privileged, or unduly long.” The evidence about which Roorda complains, claims the City, falls within one or more of those exclusions since (1) it was wholly irrelevant; (2) it would require the Board to examine the private, closed personnel records of Department employees other than Roorda; and (3) it would have taken an unduly long amount of time to receive the evidence concerning other allegedly similar incidents of prohibited but unpunished secretly-recorded conversations, and to establish the proper foundation as to whether they were sufficiently similar to be even remotely material and probative.
Roorda's brief makes it clear that the evidence about which he complains in this point is the same as that referred to in his second point. As illustrated by our discussion of that point, the nature and extent of this excluded evidence was sufficiently explained and preserved for appellate review during the hearing, either in the testimony that was presented or in the numerous narrative and documentary offers of proof and other statements Roorda's attorney was permitted to make during the hearing before the Board. We have already held that this evidence was properly excluded by the Board as “irrelevant” under § 536.070(8). Since it was “wholly irrelevant” under § 536.070(7) as well, the Board did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in refusing Roorda's requests to make further offers of proof. Point denied.
IV.
In his fourth and final point, Roorda argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his “Motion to Include Evidence Improperly Excluded” by the Board during the hearing because procedural irregularities and acts of unfairness by an administrative agency require that additional evidence be presented before the court reviewing the agency decision, in that the Board's actions denied him the opportunity to present evidence and make offers of proof in violation of due process standards and these procedural irregularities warranted the submission of additional evidence before the court. We disagree.
More -
Monday, December 01, 2014
Top Level Telecommunications: INCENSER, or how NSA and GCHQ are tapping internet...
Recently disclosed documents show that the NSA's fourth-largest cable
tapping program, codenamed INCENSER, pulls its data from just one single
source: a submarine fiber optic cable linking Asia with Europe.
Until now, it was only known that INCENSER was a sub-program of WINDSTOP
and that it collected some 14 billion pieces of internet data a month.
The latest revelations now say that these data were collected with the
help of the British company Cable & Wireless (codenamed GERONTIC,
now part of Vodafone) at a location in Cornwall in the UK, codenamed
NIGELLA.
For the first time, this gives us a view on the whole interception
chain, from the parent program all the way down to the physical
interception facility. Here we will piece together what is known about
these different stages and programs from recent and earlier
publications.
The cables tapped at NIGELLA by GERONTIC under the INCENSER and WINDSTOP programs
(Map: ARD.de - Text: Electrospaces.net - Click to enlarge)
NIGELLA
Last week's joint reporting by the British broadcaster Channel 4, the German regional broadcasters WDR and NDR and the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, identified NIGELLA as an interception facility at the intersection of Cable & Wireless and Reliance cables at Skewjack Farm.
There, just north-west of Polgigga Cottage in Cornwall, is a large building that was constructed in 2001 for FLAG Telecom UK Ltd for 5.3 million pounds. It serves as a terminus for the two ends of a submarine optical cable: one from across the Atlantic which lands at the beach of nearby Sennen, and one that crosses the Channel to Brittany in France:
Connecting the east coast of North America to the United Kingdom and France (6.000 kilometers)
The FLAG Atlantic 1 cable to America consists of 6 fibre pairs, each capable of carrying 40 (eventually up to 52) separate light wavelengths, and each wavelength can carry 10 Gigabit/s of traffic. This gives a potential capacity of 2.4 terabit/s per cable. However, in 2009, only 640 gigabit/s were actually used, which went apparently up to 921 gigabit/s in 2011.
The FLAG terminus station in Skewjack Farm, Cornwall
(still from 'The Secrets of Cornwall' - click to enlarge)
The cable was initially owned by FLAG Telecom, where FLAG stands for Fiber-optic Link Around the Globe. This company was renamed into Reliance Globalcom when it became a fully owned subsidiary of the Indian company Reliance Communications (RCOM). In March 2014, Reliance Globalcom was again renamed, now into Global Cloud Xchange (GCX).
More important is another, much longer submarine cable, which was also owned by this company, and which has its landing point on the shore of Porthcurno, a few miles south-west of Skewjack Farm:
Connecting the United Kingdom to Japan through the Mediterranean, with landing points in Egypt, the Saudi Peninsula, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan (28.000 kilometers)
This cable has 2 fibre pairs, each capable of carrying up to 40 separate light wavelengths, and each wavelength can again carry 10 gigabit/s of traffic. This gives a potential capacity of 800 gigabit/s, but in 2009 only 70 gigabit/s were used, which went up to 130 gigabit/s in 2011 - still an unimaginable 130.000.000.000 bits per second.
The backhaul connection between the FLAG Atlantic 1 (FA1) and the FLAG Europe-Asia (FEA) is provided by a local area network of Cable & Wireless, which also connects both submarine cables to its terrestrial internet backbone network.
According to the newly disclosed GHCQ Cable Master List from 2009, the interception of the FA1 and the FEA cables takes place at the intersection with this backhaul connection:
This list also shows that the interception of these two cables is accompanied by a Computer Network Exploitation (CNE) or hacking operation codenamed PFENNING ALPHA.
Because the owner of the cables (Reliance Globalcom, now Global Cloud Xchange) is not a cooperating partner of GCHQ, they hacked into their network for getting additional "router monitoring webpages" and "performance statistics for GTE [Global Telecoms Exploitation]".
Interception equipment
How the actual interception takes place, can be learned from an article in The Guardian from June 2013, which provides some details about the highly sophisticated computer equipment at cable tapping points.
First, the data stream is filtered through what is known as MVR (Massive Volume Reduction), which immediately rejects high-volume, low-value traffic, such as peer-to-peer downloads. This reduces the volume by about 30%.
Selectors
The next step is to pull out packets of information that contain selectors like phone numbers and e-mail, IP and MAC addresses of interest. In 2011, some 40,000 of these were chosen by GCHQ and 31,000 by the NSA, according to The Guardian. This filtering is most likely done by devices from Boeing-subsidiary Narus, which can analyse high-volume internet traffic in real-time.
A single NarusInsight machine can monitor traffic up to 10 Gigabit/second, which means there have to be up to a dozen of them to filter the relevant traffic from the FA1 and FEA submarine cables. Most of the information extracted in this way is internet content, such as the substance of e-mail messages.
Full sessions
Besides the filtering by using specific selectors, the data are also sessionized, which means all types of IP traffic, like VoIP, e-mail, web mail and instant messages are reconstructed. This is something the Narus devices are also capable of.
These "full take" sessions are stored as a rolling buffer on XKEYSCORE servers: content data for only three to five days, and metadata for up to 30 days. But "at some sites, the amount of data we receive per day (20+ terabytes) can only be stored for as little as 24 hours" according to an NSA document from 2008.
The aim is to extract the best 7,5% of the traffic that flows past the access, which is then "backhauled" from the tapping point to GCHQ Bude through two 10 gigabit/s channels (the "egress" capacity). This might be a dedicated cable, or a secure VPN path over the regular Cable & Wireless backbone that connects Bude with the south-west of Cornwall:
The Cable & Wireless internet backbone (yellow) in Cornwall
and the connections to submarine fiber-optic cables (red)
(Map from before 2006 - Click for the full verion)
GERONTIC (Cable & Wireless)
The secret GCHQ documents about these cable tapping operations only refer to the cooperating telecommunications provider with the cover name GERONTIC. The real name is protected by STRAP 2 dissemination restrictions. But nonetheless, German media already revealed that GERONTIC is Cable & Wireless last year.
In july 2012, Cable & Wireless Worldwide was taken over by Vodafone for 1.04 billion pounds, but according to the GCHQ documents, the covername GERONTIC was continued, and was seen active until at least April 2013.
According to the press reports, GCHQ had access to 63 undersea internet cables, 29 of which with the help of GERONTIC. This accounted for about 70% of the total amount of internet data that GCHQ had access to in 2009.
Cable & Wireless was involved in these 29 cables, either because it had Direct Cable Ownership (DCO), an Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) or Leased Capacity (LC). Besides that, the GCHQ Cable Master List from 2009 lists GERONTIC also as a landing partner for the following nine cables:
- FLAG Europe-Asia (FEA)
- Apollo North
- Apollo South
- Solas
- UK-Netherlands 14
- UK-France 3
- Europe India Gateway (EIG)
- GLO-1
Disclosed excerpts from internal GCHQ wiki pages show that Cable & Wireless held regular meetings with GCHQ from 2008 until at least 2010, in order to improve the access possibilites, like selecting which cables and wavelenghts would provide the best opportunities for catching the communications GCHQ wanted.
GCHQ also paid Cable & Wireless tens of millions of pounds for the expenses. For example, in February 2009 6 million pound was paid and a 2010 budget references a 20.3 million pound payment to the company. By comparison, NSA paid all its cooperating telecommunications companies a total of 278 million dollars in 2013.
The intensive cooperation between Cable & Wireless and GCHQ may not come as a surprise for those knowing a bit more of British intelligence history. The company already worked with predecessors of GHCQ during World War I: all international telegrams were handed over so they could be copied before being sent on their way, a practice that continued for over 50 years.*
INCENSER (DS-300)
Among the documents about the GCHQ cable tapping is also a small part of an internal glossary. It contains an entry about INCENSER, which says that this is a special source collection system at Bude. This is further specified as the GERONTIC delivery from the NIGELLA access, which can be viewed in XKEYSCORE (XKS):
This entry was also shown in the German television magazine Monitor, although not fully, but without the redactions, so from this source we know the few extra words that were redacted for some reason.
The entry also says that INCENSER traffic is labeled TICKETWINDOW with the SIGINT Activity Designator (Sigad) DS-300. From another source we know that TICKETWINDOW is a system that makes cable tapping collection available to 2nd Party partners. The exact meaning of Sigads starting with DS is still not clear, but probably also denotes 2nd Party collection.
TEMPORA
In Bude, GCHQ has its Regional Processing Center (RPC), which in 2012 had a so-called "Deep Dive" processing capability for 23 channels of 10 gigabit/second each under the TEMPORA program.
TEMPORA comprises different components, like the actual access points to fiber-optic cables, a Massive Volume Reduction (MVR) capability, a sanitisation program codenamed POKERFACE, and the XKEYSCORE system. As we have seen, most of the hardware components are located at the interception point, in this case the facility in Skewjack (NIGELLA).
Analysing
These collection systems can be remotely instructed ("tasked") from Bude, or maybe even also from NSA headquarters. For one part that involves entering the "strong selectors" like phone numbers and internet addresses. For another part, that is by using the additional capabilities of XKEYSCORE.
Because the latter system buffers full take sessions, analysts can also perform queries using "soft selectors", like keywords, against the body texts of e-mail and chat messages, digital documents and spreadsheets in English, Arabic and Chinese. XKEYSCORE also allows analysts to look for the usage of encryption, the use of a VPN or the TOR network, and a number of other things that could lead to a target.
This is particularly useful to trace target's internet activities that are performed anonymous, and therefore cannot be found by just looking for the known e-mail addresses of a target. When such content has been found, the analyst might be able to find new intelligence or new strong selectors, which can then be used for starting a traditional search.
Hacking operations
According to a 2010 NSA presentation that was published by The Intercept in December 2014, the INCENSER access is also capable of supporting the QUANTUMBOT (IRC botnet hijacking), QUANTUMBISQUIT (for targets who are behind large proxies), and QUANTUMINSERT (HTML web page redirection) hacking techniques.
Two other components of the QUANTUMTHEORY computer network exploitation framework, QUANTUMSQUEEL (for injection of MySQL databases) and QUANTUMSPIM (for instant messaging), had been tested, but weren't yet operational:
More -
Top Level Telecommunications: INCENSER, or how NSA and GCHQ are tapping internet...:
Prosecutor in Ferguson case deliberately misled jurors to ensure Wilson acquittal -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net
Mike Brown, lynched by the KKK in Blue.
She did so by using a Missouri law that was ruled unconstitutional by the US supreme court in 1985. She further tried to confuse the jurors by not telling them clearly that US supreme court law overruled Missouri state law.
Ask yourself, why would she go to such lengths? Obviously, because the facts of the case show that Wilson shot the unarmed Brown dead as he was running away from Wilson.
Social justice in psychopath-ruled USA
http://www.sott.net/article/289656-Prosecutor-in-Ferguson-case-deliberately-misled-jurors-to-ensure-Wilson-acquittal
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Tory Lies At Last Election - Dont Get Fooled Again.
Thanks to AnotherAngryVoice for the graphic.
#Myprimeministerisaliar
Our Grandmothers Know Best: Traditional Remedy for Asthma, Bronchitis, Cough & Lung Diseases | Healthy Food House
Many people are diagnosed with different lung diseases or disorders, and asthma, bronchitis, and various types of cough are some of the most common conditions.
Infections, allergies and smoking can cause a certain type of lung disease or disorder. In this article we give you the recipe for a popular traditional remedy that will help you treat any problem with your lungs, especially asthma, both bronchial and cardiac.
Ingredients:
- 1.1 lbs / ½ kg red/purple onions
- 2 cups of Pure Maple Syrup or 1.1 lbs / ½ kg brown sugar
(From here you can buy Pure Maple Syrup - 2 medium sized lemons
- 6 cups / 1.5 l water
- 7 tbsp raw honey
Preparation:
Place it the pure maple syrup in a large skillet and preheat the pure maple syrup on a medium heat (If you are using brown sugar – take a large skillet and preheat the brown sugar on a medium heat. Stir it constantly until it gets a nice golden color). Then, add the previously sliced onions, cook for a couple of minutes, and add the water.
Boil the mixture on a medium heat until the water is reduced by a third. Let it cool for a while. For that time squeeze the lemons, and keep the juice aside. Add honey and lemon juice to the mixture, and stir well. Let it overnight, and in the morning squeeze out the liquid and keep it in a glass bottle.
How to consume it:
Take a tablespoon before each meal. After you finish it, make another dosing. Repeat the treatment until your lungs get better. Children should take a teaspoon of the remedy before each meal.
Friday, November 28, 2014
CARE HOME ABUSE VICTIM -Tells of Sex Parties "Exclusive Personal Intervi...
A man who was abused in North Wales care homes has told how he was routinely taken to London and forced to take part in sex parties.
He alleges he was regularly abused as a 12-year-old boy by members of the establishment in a smart London flat. Michael was 10 when he was first taken into care at the former children's home called Bersham Hall near Wrexham, North Wales.
He quickly became drawn into the abusive regime at the home. But he says it was when staff from another home called Bryn Estyn in Wrexham moved to Bersham Hall that the abuse became worse.
Michael, who is now 44, was one of a number of boys who would be taken down on a minibus that belonged to the home to London on a Friday evening. He told Sky News: "I'm going to be blunt, we were taken to sex parties and we'd be traded off and displayed and we would be picked out one by one."
He claims he was so institutionalised by his time in care that he saw the trips to London as a privilege. He said: "To us it was great, we could drink, we could smoke we could be naughty we were in the adult world - fantastic. "Then uncle 'whoever' would pat his knee and call you over and he'd give you another drink and he'd talk to you. "
A lot of them were quite old men, 50s or 60s, very posh. They would take us away to separate bedrooms where we were abused. "It was how compliant you were, how nice you were towards them and looking back it was all about what they could get away with." He has now reported allegations of rape at the parties to his local police force.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Operation Alice Compromised
During Operation Alice, the investigation into #Plebgate, the Commissioner of the Police watchdog (IPCC) was herself under investigation by the Metropolitan police.
The IPCC investigating the MetPolice whilst the MetPolice investigate the IPCC #Mexicanstandoff
This investigation into Deborah Glass was controlled by the head of the Met's professional standards Commander Allan Gibson A clear and obvious compromise of this serious investigation
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
JUSTICE DENIED: ARE THERE POLITCAL PRISONERS IN BRITAINS MENTAL H...
JUSTICE DENIED: SCALLYWAG MAGAZINE HOW THE TORY'S COVERED UP THE ...
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Saturday, November 22, 2014
LocalOrg: Don't Replace Facebook, Disrupt It
Friday, November 21, 2014
Mystery over US journalist death in Turkey: Accident or Murder?
The mystery surrounding the circumstances of the death of an Amercian journalist in Turkey is only deepening, as the investigation enters its first month.
Serena Shim was working for Press TV when she was killed in a car crash.
RT looks at why her final hours raise so many questions...
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Social Investigations: Compilation of Parliamentary Financial Links to Pr...
#HandsOffTheNHS
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Just Chillin: HUMMINGBIRD HITS YOUR BLOG
Monday, November 17, 2014
Failings Of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board.
What are they doing to fill these much needed vacancies ?
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Friday, November 14, 2014
HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE:FULL PUBLIC ENQUIRY YEP LETS GO WITH THAT!: DANDO ASSISINATED
North Wales Police Plant Evidence ?
Thursday, November 13, 2014
UK Child Abuse Inquiry: The child abuse cover-up: the use of false names i...
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
nIPCC To Investigate Three Police Forces.
I was also made aware of a domestic violence report that was not taken seriously, not recorded and no action taken.
It appears not...