Sanford Prediction Came True

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've undoubtedly heard about Trayvon Martin, a teen gunned down in the streets of Sanford, Florida, by George Zimmerman, the son of a retired judge.  Everyone has been criticizing the Sanford Police Department about their failure to arrest the gunman.  After all, there are no questions about whether or not Zimmerman shot Martin; he absolutely did it.

But Zimmerman claims that it was self-defense; he maintains that the slender high school student, armed only with a Big Gulp and Skittles, decided to attack the stocky neighborhood watch captain.

This isn't the first time that the Sanford Police Department has failed to arrest an aggressor who clearly committed the crime; in 2010, they failed to arrest Justin Collison for beating up Sherman Ware, despite numerous eyewitnesses and video tape of the entire incident.  Ware was a homeless man, and Collison the son of a Sanford police lieutenant.

The arresting officer, Samuel McNeil, claimed that he couldn't arrest Collison because Ware, who had been beaten unconscious, wasn't able to make a sworn statement at the time.

My comments on that have become sadly prescient:

People must get away with murder in Sanford; after all, dead men tell no tales, and the cops ignore physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.  They might was well not have a police department.

Here we are barely 18 months later, and here's George Zimmerman getting away with murder.  Who'd a thunk?

Zimmerman was recorded calling 911 prior to the incident; he was talking to the dispatcher while he followed Trayvon Martin.  Martin was walking back to his father's girlfriend's house, having picked up a late snack at a nearby convenience store.  The dispatcher advised Zimmerman to stop following the boy.

Meanwhile, Martin was talking to his girlfriend back in Miami.  She said he was being followed by someone, and felt threatened. 

Zimmerman's attorney claims that it was Zimmerman that felt threatened, and that the murder of Martin is justified by Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, which allows the use of deadly force in self defense.  The City claims that the testimony they had at the time of the shooting supported Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, so they had no grounds to arrest him.

Of course, the only actual witness had been silenced.  All they had was the word of the perpetrator, which they accepted at face value. 

Sound familiar?

The reason this case stinks to high hell is that it relies on the judgement of the Sanford Police Department; but the SPD has demonstrated that its judgment can't be trusted.  After all, they used the same puny excuse eighteen months ago, and it turned out that there was ample evidence to support an arrest and conviction.  Then it became abundantly clear that police let a criminal walk free because he was the son of a white man with connections, and the victim was just some black guy.

How many more people will have to die before Sanford cleans up its corrupt police department?

Jeanine Notter Would Mandate Lying

The Huffington Post reports that New Hampshire  State House Representative has Jeanine Notter authored a bill that would force doctors to lie to their patients.

The Republican politician and Tea Party enthusiast introduced House Bill 1659, "AN ACT relative to the women’s right to know act regarding abortion information."  It's another one of those laws loved by conservatives and religious fundamentalists; its intent is to coerce a woman out of getting an abortion. Or, as the religious right likes to describe it, "establishing a woman's right to know."

Usually, this is done by shaming the women who have done all their soul-searching long before they decide that abortion is their best option, but Rep. Notter has a new approach: lying.

Section 132-B:5, part II (e) mandates that doctors must provide women seeking an abortion with:

"Materials that inform the pregnant woman that there is evidence of a direct link between abortion and breast cancer."

In fact, breast cancer studies find no correlation between abortions and breast cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society:

Several studies show that induced abortions do not increase the risk of breast cancer. Also, there is no evidence to show a direct link between miscarriages and breast cancer.

Apparently, so many people have been asking them about this, that they published a special fact sheet dealing with this issue specifically; Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?

Abortion and breast cancer are both topics that can bring out strong feelings in people. The issue of abortion is often linked to personal and political viewpoints – even without a possible disease connection. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. It can be a deadly disease, and one that many women fear.

Linking these 2 topics creates a great deal of emotion and debate. But scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.

I don't know about you, but I think The American Cancer Society is pretty credible when it comes to cancer facts.  It's what they do; they educate us so we have the information we need to prevent getting cancer, or to effectively fight cancer if we have it.

The Mayo Clinic doesn't address the issue, but it does not include "abortion" on its list of risk factors for breast cancer.  Again, if, as Notter's noxious bill claimed, "such medical data exists,"  wouldn't one of the premiere medical clinics on the planet include that data if it did?


Ms. Notter is simply lying, and is attempting to create a law to force doctors and medical centers to spread the lie.  And worse, she would penalize medical professionals who refuse to support the lie.  Doing so would be classified as a Class B Misdemeanor, and the penalties include suspending and even revoking medical licenses.

When you have to lie to make your case, your case isn't worth making.  But when you not only force others to lie, and then punish them if they refuse to lie, you pervert our entire system of government.

The bottom line is that Representative Jeanine Notter is abusing her position as an elected official to pursue a personal agenda by forcing medical professionals to lie to their patients about possible outcomes of a medical procedure.  Not only should the state of New Hampshire not pass this law, they should censure her for her despicable and callous disregard for the rights of the people she is sworn to serve.

Florida Legislature Takes a Dump.

The Miami Herald reports that the Florida Legislature has decided to violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution:

Florida lawmakers passed sweeping but little-noticed legislation this session prohibiting local governments from hiring companies that do business with Cuba.

The law appears to target one of the county’s largest contractors: Odebrecht USA, the Coral Gables-based subsidiary of the giant Brazilian conglomerate. The parent company’s Cuban affiliate is participating in a major expansion at the Port of Mariel.

Miami-Dade legislators, with near-unanimous support of the Florida House of Representatives and Senate, pushed the bill as a way to keep taxpayer dollars out of the hands of repressive regimes.

This also keeps taxpayer money out of the hands of repressive regimes.
And it's cheaper, because there's no lawsuit.

Of course, since it will cost millions to defend this stupid law from the inevitable lawsuit, it will also serve to keep taxpayer dollars out of the hands of our schools, law enforcement agencies, courts, and other crucial agencies.  It's simply a huge waste of time and resources.

You see, the law is unconstitutional.  Don't believe me?

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Some of the drooling idiots who perpetrated this Constitutional breach seem blithely unaware of it:

“It puts the decision on the companies that are affected,” said Rep. Michael Bileca, a Miami Republican and one of the bill’s sponsors. “Do they want to do business in Florida, or do they want to do business in these countries?”

Except, of course, that it won't. States do not have the right to regulate trade.  Only Congress has that power.

This isn't the first time a state tried to pull a bone-headed maneuver like this.

Statutes limiting local governments’ contracting decisions based on the vendor’s international work oversteps a state’s power, said Dan O’Flaherty, vice president of the Washington D.C.-based National Foreign Trade Council, which advocates trade with Cuba.

“It’s unconstitutional,” he said, citing a 2000 Trade Council case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law restricting state businesses from dealing with companies with ties to Myanmar, formerly known as Burma.

“States are barred by the Supreme Court decision from enacting procurement sanctions targeting companies doing business in foreign country ‘X,’ ” added O’Flaherty, whose organization sent letters to Gov. Rick Scott and House and Senate leaders in opposition.

Yes, it's true: this legislature has wasted our time and tax dollars to enact legislation that has already been judged and thrown out by the Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision, the court struck down a Massachusetts law that forbade the state government to purchase products from companies doing business with Myanmar, or Burma. It said the law usurped the foreign policy-making powers of the federal government.

"The state act is at odds with the president's intended authority to speak for the United States among the world's nations in developing a comprehensive, multilateral strategy to bring democracy to and improve human rights practices and the quality of life in Burma," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

We can only hope that Governor Scott will veto this steaming turd of a law.  But it's a slim hope; the governor supported drug testing, which the Supreme Court has also ruled against.

Loveland High School: Unwarranted Intrusion

If you want to find an example of unwarranted government intrusion, you need look no farther than Loveland, Ohio's high school.

Dozens of teens, including many honor students, were reprimanded this week for wearing yoga pants to Loveland High School.
- WLWT news

The school's dress code, in regards to girl's clothing, simply states that "revealing clothing" is prohibited, and students are not permitted to wear clothing that is "deemed to be distracting."

The school district's dress code is worthless.  It's vague beyond any standard of reason, and only a pinhead would use this poorly constructed mess to punish students.  There's nothing defining "revealing" or "distracting."  By some standards, showing a women's face is "revealing," and wearing anything with color could be "distracting."

Just so you understand the issue in its entirety,
here's an example of yoga pants:

Yoga is about range of motion, and these pants are stretchy, to allow freedom of movement.  But they're not really all that tight and clingy.  They're just really comfortable.

What they are not is particularly revealing;they are loose, and are always fairly flared.

Compare them to current trends in blue jeans, which are permitted:


And certainly they show a lot less than the average skirt:




Personally, I am not opposed to school uniforms; it ends all the ambiguity.  Everyone knows what's acceptable, and it ensures that no one can arbitrarily decide that a fashion they don't approve of is verboten on a moment's whim.

But there is no uniform code.  In that case, a reasonable set of guidelines should be provided. It wasn't.

It's ludicrous that students were suspended for violating a set of rules that don't actually determine anything measurable. These suspensions should be reversed, and whoever approved them should be reviewed for competence, because this action sure doesn't indicate its presence.

Whatever idiot decided that yoga pants are an issue is disrupting the process of education far more than a pair of pants ever could.

Chief Adderly: Movie Crews Are Not Above The Law

This is in reference to this Pixiq story, and the images found there.

I know these Hollywood types are very impressive, but just because they insist that you do certain things, it does not mean that you can or should do them.  It's just a goddamn movie.  Filming a movie does not grant them any special rights or privileges.  They have to abide by the law; the law does not abide by the film crew.

I know that they are pressuring you to stop people from taking pictures of the film in progress.  I've worked in the entertainment business for 25 years, and I know that I frequently request that people stop taking photographs.  I've even kicked people out of my theater for taking photographs.

The thing is, my theater is private property.  I sell admittance to it at my discretion, and I have the right to revoke their right to be there.  Tickets are sold with conditions.

Note that even if I catch them taking photographs,  I can't take their cameras or their film, or their memory cards; it is illegal to seize private property without a court order (in the form of a subpoena or warrant).  I can only kick them out.

But you do not have that legal recourse on public property.  The public pays for it, they have the right to be there.  Furthermore, they have the right to take pictures or movies of anything they see from that public property, even the filming of a movie.   Court rulings are very clear on this; it is not and can not be against the law to take pictures or movies of anything you can see from a public right-of-way.  They have ruled that photography is a form of communication, and thus is protected speech under Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

No state or municipal law may override the Constitution, and no law may infringe the rights guaranteed therein.  Even if it pisses of some piss-ant film crew. 

Now, I don't know which shit-for-brains ass-kisser motivated officer did it, but all those signs being put up stating that "photography of this area is prohibited" are not only insulting, they are also without any legal support whatsoever.  I understand that a lot of these officers are off-duty.  But they are exposing the city to legal action, and that should not be tolerated. Anyone you cite for taking photos, or worse yet, actually arrest, has the basis for a lawsuit that they will win.  Every time this kind of thing has come up before the courts, the court has ruled that photography is protected speech.  Every. Single. Time.

Now you're going to tell me that even though the streets are closed for the filming, you're trying to maintain access to businesses there.  And that's laudable.  But you cannot have it both ways; if you're letting the public on the sidewalk, then all their rights come with them.  So if you want to keep the cameras out, keep the public out.  The film company is responsible to recompense the businesses for their loss - it's actually included in the language of the permit.  And the film company needs to make its choice; either shut everything down completely and foot that bill, or let the public in and live with the cameras.  It's their choice; pay up, or put up with it.  But violating the civil rights of citizens isn't on their list of options.  And it's not on yours, either.

So to sum this up for you: if it's a public space, and the public is allowed to be there, so are cameras, and the public can use those cameras to take pictures of anything they see and there is nothing the Fort Lauderdale PD can do about it without violating the law.

Dictionary Fun with Miami Police Chief Miguel Exposito

Miguel Exposito and the City of Miami Police Department has been making the papers by seizing and destroying video games that he claims are used for gambling.

The Miami Herald quotes Major Alfredo Alvarez:

"People get addicted to them, especially the senior citizens who live on social security,'' he said. It's immoral to have these machines out there the way they're hurting the lower to middle class.''

Note that he didn't say "criminal."   I find that fascinating.  "Immoral."  My grandma tells stories about bathing suit inspectors, who would measure the gap between the hem of her bathing suit and her bathing hose, because it was immoral to show more than 3 inches of your knee at the beach.  When someone is enforcing morality, I see them leering at young women, clammy hands gripping a measuring stick, looking for an excuse to prosecute someone who isn't doing  damned bit of harm.

I'm from Atlantic City.  I had a neighbor who was addicted to gambling; she cost her family everything.  Literally.  When they moved in next door to us the year before the casinos opened, her husband had parlayed hard work into apartment buildings in Philadelphia and Atlantic City, homes in both cities, cars for all the adults  (he drove a Cadillac that year, and so did she), and a boat.  25 years later, he died a pauper, with the clothes on his back and a  beater truck to his name.  She lives with her granddaughter, now.

I remember well the day that her husband discovered that she had taken out second and third mortgages on their last property - their house - to settle her debts.  She hadn't told him.  (There's a long and complicated story on how that happened, but that's for another time).  He thought he'd cut her off by not letting her have money.  He never dreamed that she'd simply sell everything out from under them to get a stake.

So, when Major Alvarez talks about the harmful effects of gambling, I know full well what the effects of gambling addiction really are.

So what exactly, are the stakes on the machines?  After all, the thrill of gambling comes from the rush of wagering a small amount against the possibility of winning a much larger amount.  The longer the odds, the bigger the rush.  So what can you win for your coin?

According to The Miami Herald:

Players insert money, receive credits and win when they land certain icons like a cherry or star.

Uh, say what?  They get... credits?

Well, maybe I misunderstand the word "Gamble."  So let's look it up, shall we?

gam·ble: intransitive verb -  1. to play a game for money or property 
- Merriam Webster

OK, so you put in your coin, and you get... well, a number.  A score.  How is that considered gambling?

Do you know what else you put a coin into, and at the end all you have is a numerical score?  A pinball machine. So why aren't the cops seizing pinball machines?

Because, apparently, pinball machines require skill, and it doesn't take skill to win anything at a video slot machine; you just pull the lever and pray.  Games that require skill are legal.  Games of chance require no skill, and so they are illegal.

That's it.  That's the big crime the cops are protecting us from.  Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

I've never understood this reasoning.  If it requires no skill to win, if it's all random chance, doesn't that level the playing field?  "What does it take to win this game? DUMB LUCK!"  Why is are games that require a skill, games where a skilled player can clean out an unskilled one - why are they "better" than a game of chance that relies on, well, chance?

And frankly, the money being tossed around these things - CHUMP CHANGE.  Gran-dad lost his cigarette money - oh, no, now he's not going to kick off from lung cancer!!

But when you have a City police force full of thugs who shoot people at the least provocation, I guess arresting people who aren't actually doing any harm is more important than, I don't know, ticketing all those insane motorists who pose a real danger to life and limb by running red lights in this city a hundred times a minute.  Or pulling over aggressive drivers before they shoot someone.  Or shooting people who spit their gum out on the sidewalk.  You know, actual criminals.  They could be seizing guns, or drug paraphenalia, things that KILL people.  Instead, they are protecting, for lack of a better word, our virtue.

I hate to say it, but Mayor Regalado is actually right on this one; license the machines and tax the owners.  If people want to throw away their hard-earned money, who the fuck is Miguel Exposito to stop them?  He should quit wasting taxpayer money on something so mind-bogglingly stupid, and go stop some real crime.  It's not like we've run out down here in Miami.

And then you get pinheads like Bob Sertell.  He's a "gaming expert."  Which I'm pretty sure means that prosecutors pay him to tell juries that gambling is bad.  Nice work if you can get it. 

Here's an example of his so-called expert advice, again quoted from the Miami Herald:

"The `application of skill' is bull,'' Sertell said. "In actual practice, none of the machines do that.''

See, because someone decided that random chance, the guiding force of the entire fucking Universe, is wrong, they've decided to define gambling not by its proper actual definition, but a made-up one, where it's OK if it takes skill, but it's not OK if it doesn't.

Do you follow that?  Me either, but that's because we're not puritanical assholes. 

Let's look at it another way:

• GOOD: working hard to save up $100,000,000,000
• BAD: winning $100,000,000,000 in the lottery.

Why is playing the lottery bad?  Because for every person that wins $100,000,000,000, there are about 200,000,000,000 who simply lost a buck.

Oh, wait, the Lottery isn't illegal!  Which is odd, because 1. it takes no skill to play the lottery, and 2. it is actually gambling because you are risking a small amount of cash to win a large amount of cash.  (remember, the video games being seized do not pay out anything - you earn a high score).

If gambling by laying a game that takes no skill to win is a crime, and the police must seize gambling machines at any cost, why hasn't Exposito seized a single Lotto machine?   Lotto exactly fits both the actual definition of gambling - putting out a little money in hopes of winning lots - and fake priggish gambling - there is no skill whatsoever involved, it's all dumb luck.  Why isn't Alvarez storming every Publix and 7-Eleven in town? Is there any way that this isn't a hopeless double-standard? 

No.  That's exactly, precisely, all it is.

What this tells us, ultimately, is that Chief Exposito and Major Alvarez aren't interested in catching criminals so much as enforcing arbitrary moral standards codified by a bunch of prudes onto the citizens of Miami, who largely don't give a rat's ass.

Which is why gang members are free to drive by people's homes and fire guns into them, assholes are free to run red lights, and none of us are safe in our own homes.

Exposito is supposed to be protecting us.  He isn't.  Instead, he's doing something else on the taxpayer dime:

GAMBOL: intransitive verb - to skip about in play : frisk, frolic

Hmm, sounds like just the crime he likes to prosecute....

Adler Tells an Old Tale

As I've been following the Rothstein ponzi scheme story, something about the the defense by the partners at Rothstein-Rosenfeldt-Adler Law Firm  seemed familiar.  And then when I read the article in The BizJournal about Russel Adler, I realized that I did know the story.

Charles, Lord Lichtman, is solicitor general for His Royal Majesty, The Emperor.

He is no fan of Russell, Lord BlackAdler, and his fiendish companion, the blackhearted Baldrickstein.  Lord Lichtman has been biding his time, knowing that Lord Russell's swagger will lead him to the scene of the crime.

But BlackAdler is as slippery as his venomous namesake, and in the timeworn tradition of thugs and thieves, has arranged matters so that his henchman, Baldricstein, will take the fall for the foul crime.

Lord Lichtman:  Lord BlackAdler, the Emperor has ordered that be you held for trial and face charges for defrauding the Crown by selling His Majesty imaginary clothes, while insisting they were in fact real clothes.

Black Adler: Oh, yes, Scott Baldricstein had me completely fooled.

Lord Lichtman: Excuse me?

Black Adler:  Oh yes, I had no idea that the clothes weren't real.

Lord Lichtman:  Do you expect us to believe that you didn't know that the clothes didn't exist?

Black Adler: Well, the governor and the sheriff didn't know.  Why should I have been expected to know?

Lord Lichtman: Really?  This is your defense?

BlackAdler: My dear Lord Lichtman, I assure you that I am as innocent as a suckling child.

Lord Lichtman:  Didn't you work on the clothes?

BlackAdler: Well, not as much as Baldricstein.  He sewed them together.  He's quite skilled.  I've little talent for manual labour, as you may know.

Lord Lichtman:  So what was your part in the affair?

BlackAdler: Management and administration, mostly.  Tried to modernize the old place, cut the red tape, go green, all of that - I made the firm paperless.

Lord Lichtman: In fact, did you not accomplish your "paperless office" simply by burning all of the firm's records?

BlackAdler: It was cold; I recycled them into heat.  Waste not, want not, that's what I always say.

Lord Lichtman: But getting back to the Emperors non-existent -

BlackAdler: - situationally invisible -

Lord Lichtman:  - NON EXISTENT - wardrobe, did you not have an active part in that?

BlackAdler:  Well, I did cut them to the pattern of course.

Lord Lichtman:  You... cut them to pattern.

BlackAdler: The pattern Baldricstein created. Yes.

Lord Lichtman:  You took scissors to the cloth....

BlackAdler: Yes.

Lord Lichtman:  ...and then you cut the cloth....

BlackAdder: Yes.

Lord Lichtman:  ...even though there was no cloth to cut.

BlackAdler: Well, I had no reason to know that.  I know, in hindsight, I suppose it does look rather foolish.  But you must understand, Baldricstein was so caught up with the styles and colours, and sales were so good...

Lord Lichtman: Sales?  You mean the sales of clothing that didn't exist?

BlackAdler:  The customers were always so pleased with their purchases.

Lord Lichtman: But you weren't selling them anything!

BlackAdler:  How was I to know that?  Everyone seemed to think they were buying stylish clothes, everyone has their own tastes, who am I to say different?  "To Each His Own."

Lord Lichtman:  In fact,  your firm never purchased cloth of any sort. Or thread.

BlackAdler: We had a sewing machine, and I used the scissors myself.

Lord Lichtman: On non-existent cloth.

BlackAdler:  So you say.  Baldricstein said it was "situationally invisible."

Lord Lichtman:  "Situationally Invisible."

BlackAdler:  Exactly.

Lord Lichtman:  And what does that mean?

BlackAdler:  In certain situations, you can't see it.

Lord Lichtman:  "Certain Situations."

Black Adler: Exactly.

Lord Lichtman:  Such as?

BlackAdler:  Well, this is according to Baldricstein, you understand,  if you were stupid, incompetent, or unfit for your position, you wouldn't be able to see the cloth.  That's what he maintained, anyway, and he was running the show.

Lord Lichtman:  And you went along with this?

BlackAdler: Well, I didn't want to appear stupid.  After all, the Governor liked them well enough.  He spoke highly of their fine textures and draping.  I'd like to believe that I'm at least as smart as the Governor.

Lord Lichtman: Wasn't the Governor an old friend of Baldricsteins?

Baldricstein:  You know, I do believe you're right.

(With apologies to Hans Christian Anderson and Rowan Atkinson)

Sanford Police Turns Its Back on the Law

At least, that seems to be the case in Sanford, Florida.  The Orlando Sentinel reports that on December 4, Justin Collison attacked a homeless man, rendering him unconscious, then sucker punched a bar patron.  His friends tried to stop him, calling out to him, dragging him off his victims.  The entire incident was caught on video:

Acting Sanford police chief Captain Jerry Hargett was interviewed:

Acting Sanford police chief Capt. Jerry Hargrett said late Wednesday afternoon that his officers made "blatant" policy violations that night, including not handcuffing Collison or patting him down.

But Hargrett did not fault officers for opting not to arrest Collison. He said he was not sure why the officers made no arrest but said there is no evidence that Collison was given preferential treatment.

Of course, Hargrett is a stinking liar.  There is clear evidence that Collison has been given preferential treatment; he hasn't been arrested. Despite incontrovertible evidence that he is a clear threat to society who has clearly committed felony battery, this vicious thug was allowed to walk way.

Collison's father, you see, is a police lieutenant on the Sanford Police Department.  It's glaringly obvious that the department is corrupt, protecting a vicious felon because his father is a cop. 

His victim, Sherman Ware, who was knocked out in the attack, was taken from the scene unconcious.  Officer Samuel McNeil, who should be charged for dereliction of duty, reported that he did not arrest Collison because Ware didn't give a sworn written statement.

You read that right; McNeil didn't arrest someone who had been recorded beating Ware up, in front of numerous witnesses, because Collison had rendered his victim   unconscious.

People must get away with murder in Sanford; after all, dead men tell no tales, and the cops ignore physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.  They might was well not have a police department.

The town of Sanford needs to clean house; this abrogation of justice is intolerable.  McNeil and Hargrett should be ousted from law enforcement, and we should take along, hard look at the rest of the department.  There can be no justice when police do not uphold the law.

TSA: Totally Stupid Agency

Am I being harsh, calling the agency tasked with keeping American travelers safe "stupid?"  I don't believe I am, once you examine the situation.

The TSA was created to keep terrorists off of our airplanes.  And that's fine; it's not the mission that's the problem, it's the idiotic manner they are going about doing it. 

How do you find a needle in a haystack?  By looking for objects that are not hay.

But the TSA is trying to find terrorists by searching.... everyone who flies.  They are trying to find a needle in a haystack by examining the hay.  But the hay isn't what they are supposed to be looking for - if you're looking at hay, you won't see the needle.

The idiots are even making pilots go through scans.  What's wrong with that, you ask?  If a pilot wants to crash a plane, they don't need weapons or bombs to do it.  The pilot is flying the plane.  If they want to wreck it, they have their hands on the controls - literally.  It makes utterly no sense to expose the pilots to xrays several times a day looking for weapons they don't need.

The fact is that millions of people fly on airplanes.  Virtually all of them are NOT terrorists.  Searching everyone is a waste of time, because you spend most of your time looking at people who are not a threat.  That's time spent not looking for terrorists, and therefore it directly violates the TSA's entire raison 'être.

Now, I know that there are some of you that will start howling and spewing inanities like "how can we find the terrorists if we don't look for them?"  And if you'd read what I wrote more carefully, you'd see that I actually am all for looking for terrorists. But you have to do that by looking for terrorists, not wasting time on efforts that won't find terrorists.

Searching everyone is a complete waste of time and money.  Setting up impenetrable check points won't catch terrorists, because no terrorist is going to walk into such an obvious trap.

Besides, terrorist do not need to get onto airplanes to commit acts of terrorism.  They just need someplace with a mass of innocent victims - like the line of people waiting to go through a scanner or get groped by a poorly trained underpaid security guard.  And guess what? Our current system will let them get that far.

Do you know who has a serious problem with terrorist attacks? Israel.  And does Israel use any of ridiculously intrusive measures employed by the TSA?  They do not.

So how does Israel keep terrorists off of their planes?

Simple: they look for terrorists.

Now another group of you will probably start wailing about profiling.  And some kinds of profiling is not useful, like racial profiling. Do the Israelis search everyone who looks like an Arab?  They do not.

Everyone in Israel looks more or less like an Arab, so that's a waste of time.  And even those who are noticeably Muslim are unlikely to be terrorists.

So what does Israel profile, if not race?  They profile behavior.

Here's the thing; if you have a bomb on your person, you're going to act differently than someone who doesn't.  You're going to be dealing with it at some level; you want to make sure no one can see it.  You want to make sure no one is looking at you too closely.  You don't want it to go off early.  You don't want to accidentally disarm it.

So that's what Israeli security looks for; people acting suspiciously.  And they start waaay outside the terminal.  They're watching from the time you enter the airport.  Terrorists are stopped long before they get into the heart of the terminal.

Michael J. Totten said it best in the NY Post:

Israelis don't use security theater to make passengers feel like they're safe. They use real security measures to ensure that travelers actually are safe. Even when suicide bombers exploded themselves almost daily in Israeli cities, not a single one managed to get through that airport.

But here's the chilling question for you?  Why hasn't the TSA caught even a single terrorist to date, given that this is their job?

Didn't know that, did you?

Slate.com came to the following conclusion:

In May, the Government Accountability Office released a report noting that SPOT's annual cost is more than $200 million and that as of March 2010 some 3,000 behavior detection officers were deployed at 161 airports but had not apprehended a single terrorist. (Hundreds of illegal aliens and drug smugglers, however, were arrested due to the program between 2004 and 2008.) What's more, the GAO noted that at least 16 individuals later accused of involvement in terrorist plots flew 23 different times through U.S. airports since 2004, but TSA behavior-detection officers didn't sniff out any of them.

What these numbers don't get at is whether the TSA airport screeners prevent terrorist attacks through their very existence—deterring plots by hanging around. This is quite probably the case, but it's not obvious that they prevent any more attacks than the private contractors who handled checkpoints before the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 went into effect.

But the TSA has been an unqualified success in one regard: they have made millions of US citizens and innocent fliers absolutely miserable.  And as noted above, they have made our airports themselves a richer target because of the throngs of innocent people held up by pointless "security measures."

Meet Mark S. Roth: Hillcrest's Biggest Asshole

WPLG Channel 10 brings us a chilling story.  Imagine you park your car in your assigned spot at your condominium.  It's your car, it's paid for, done deal.  It's your spot, paid for.

You go out of town.  And while you're away, the condo association decides to re-pave the lot.  And when you come back,  you no longer have a car.

That's what happened to Diana Lilue.  She left, knowing her car was safe and secure at home.  Only, it wasn't. 

Now, the association could have had the car towed to another parking lot in the complex.  It could have had it towed off-site, and returned.  It could have charged the owner to do this, in either case, and been fully justified to do so.

Instead, Mark S. Roth, president of the condo association and the worst neighbor in human history, told the towing company to "tow it away."  Which they did.  And then they sold the $15,000 car for $1,448.88 to cover the cost of towing it and storing it.

Technically, it wasn't stolen, so she can't collect insurance on it. 

Technically, the towing company was legally engaged to remove it.

Technically, the yawning cesspool jokingly referred to as "condo law" permits the association to remove vehicles that were in the way.

But, as noted above, it could have been moved to another location, or returned later.  The towing company even states that that is what most condo associations do.  After all, at the end of the day, your fellow condo owner is your neighbor.  Just because a thing is legal, it does not follow that it is right.  Roth's action, while legal, was humanly irresponsible.

But Mark S. Roth apparently doesn't give a shit about his neighbors, or doing a turn for someone who is ultimately a partner in a cooperative venture.  He's the kind of sleazeball who gives condo associations a bad name.  He's the guy who's made the term "condo association" derogatory.

And of course, he knows he's an asshole.  Given a chance to tell Channel 10 that it was simply "an association matter" or that "it was nothing personal,"  Roth intead completely ignores reporter Jeff Weinsier, marching up to the condo's concierge desk and demanding that the police be called to remove the reporter and his crew.

"But we're guests of Diana (Lilue)!" Wiensier protested.  "You're not guests of the association!" Roth barks.

How does an asshole like Roth live with himself?  Easy - he's an asshole.  Asshole's just don't give a sh*t about other people.

So watch out if you're near Hollywood's Hillcrest Condominium - it's being run by an asshole.

Midwest Realty Management: A Stain on our Republic

Dawn Price wanted to honor her husband's service for his country, and show support for all the other men and women serving our country.  So she did what patriotic men and women have been doing in this country for over 200 years; she hung a US flag in her window.  It's not a behemoth, like the Star Spangled Banner, it's just a simple flag, hung inside the glass.

But according to WLUK-TV, the Oshkosh NorthWestern, and numerous other sources, her landlord took issue with this.

Midwest Realty Management, a company with its head so far up its ass that it would make Rand Paul proud, decided that First Amendment rights don't apply, and have served an eviction notice to this patriotic family. 

WTMJ spoke with a company representative:

"We just don't allow people to stick things in their window," Midwest Realty Management president Rodney Oschleger explained. "Instead of drapes or blinds, for example, we don't allow them to put sheets. We don't allow them to put flags or banners or religious or political things."

Oschleger insisted that the company’s objections are aesthetic and have
nothing to do with the message a particular flag or banner might depict.

Oh, I see, speech is free only if it is aesthetically pleasing.  So much for all those rulings from the Supreme Court.

WLUK-TV spoke with property manager Randy Rich:

"This policy was developed to insure that we are fair to everyone as we have many residents from diverse backgrounds."

Great.  MRM isn't singling out Mrs. Price's civil rights, they're trampling on the rights of every victim tenant they have. 

Midwest Realty Management needs to be informed that someone has already found a way to "fair to everyone:"  it's called the First Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution of the United States of America.  It states that everyone has the right to make statements.  Statements like hanging a flag or political or religious material in the windows of our homes for all to see.  Our founding fathers thought that this right was so important that they made it the very first right they defined.

Sadly, the fact is that the US Constitution doesn't apply to individuals.  That's right, the Bill of Rights doesn't impose any behavior on you or I; it is a set of rules for the government.  This omission leaves the jackbooted thugs at Midwest Realty Management  free to inflict their own petty tyranny on their tenants. "STFU or move the hell out."  Yes, Randy Rich and his cohorts at MRM are completely within their rights.  But that doesn't make it - or them - right. It's an affront to every American who has ever lived.  It's a slap in the face to every single one of us.

WTMJ quotes Oschleger again:

“If you drove by the property you would see four huge American flags flying throughout the complex!  We‘ve got them at the rental office, at the clubhouse, at the Brookside North area, and then another one just down the street!  Four American flags and we‘re unpatriotic?”

The problem, Rodney, is that you're reserving that right for yourself, and denying it to others.  That's not fair.  And that certainly is not patriotic.  That's why Freedom to Display the American Flag Act was passed, specifically banning real estate management organizations from doing precisely what you're doing.  It's too bad Congress didn't think to choose the word "residents" instead of "homeowners."  It's an oversight that needs to be addressed.

Since the law can't deal with the petty tyrants that call themselves Midwest Realty Management, it's up to us.  If you're local, don't do business with them.  If you do business with them, call them and let them know you're done with them.

If, like me, you're a thousand miles away, write or call to let them know what you think of a policy that runs counter to the high ideals we expect of all Americans.
Midwest Realty Management
2990 Universal Street Suite A
Oshkosh, WI 54904
fax (920) 426-2065
email: heidi@midwestrents.com

To Put It Bluntly

Here's my take on the New AriZona Immigration law:

Your actions define you; and this is how Arizona is defining itself.

Fort Lauderdale Cop Scoffs at the Law.

Bob Norman's Pulp blog brings us the story of a Fort Lauderdale cop who is basically a threat to law and order, and an affront to our justice system.  Officer Jeff Overcash arrested a man for having the temerity to ask Overcash for his name and badge number. 

According to Attorney Brad Cohen, who is representing that man, this is what happened up to the moment caught on video:

"We have several witnesses for the incident prior to the arrest.  The facts are essentially the train was going past the intersection, on SW 2nd Avenue, Fort Lauderdale.  My client,  Brennen Hamilton, was waiting with his wife and friends for the train to pass.  My client leaned up against the rear of the police car.

Officer Overcash approached my client and took him by the arm and said "Get your ass off the car.  How would you like it if I leaned my ass on your car?"  My client remained silent and rolled his eyes.  The Officer said "Really tough guy, you have something to say to me?"  My client remained silent.  Officer Overcash then said "Yeah, that's right tough guy, you've got nothing to say."  The train passed and my client and his wife went to his car and called Fort Lauderdale Police, to complain about the treatment he just received.  There wasn't a Lt. or a Sgt. working at that time, so he left his number.  During the call he was asked for the Officer's name and badge number.  He did not know that information.

After getting off the phone he went back to Officer Overcash and asked him if he could please give him his badge number and name.  That is where the video is recorded .  You can see my client approach calmly and request his badge and name.  Without hesitation Officer Overcash immediately puts my client in cuffs, and ultimately charges him with resisting without violence and disorderly intoxication."
- JAA Blog

Here's the video:

Here's the thing; this crooked cop claims that he's arresting law-abiding Brendan Hamilton for "a previous incident."  But if there was such an incident, Overcash would have been compelled by law to arrest Hamilton at the time of the incident.  So either Overcash broke the law by not arresting Hamilton in the first place, or he broke it when he arrested him on camera.  One way or the other, Overcash was clearly derelict in his duty.

But it seems pretty obvious that there was no "previous incident."  Overcash and two other officers are slouching against the patrol care, looking in a completely different direction.  There is no sign that just moments before there was any kind of scuffle that might have warranted arrest.  They're leaning against the police care (just as Hamilton had done) watching the crowd go by.  They almost look bored.

No, Overcash abused his power simply to punish a citizen for lawfully exercising his civic duty. And it should cost him his career.

We can't tolerate officers who abuse their power in this manner.  Every day that thugs like Overstreet - who don't give a shit about the law - remain on the job, we're all in danger.

Let's all remind Chief Adderly that this city belongs to the citizens, not a few
jack-booted thugs.  You can reach him at:
franka@fortlauderdale.gov
954-828-5590

Miami Commission Turns Its Back on Citizens

The Miami City Commission has lost sight of its responsibilities to its citizens - ALL of them.

Commissioner Marc Sarnoff's incredibly bad proposal is this; to combat the problem of feeding the homeless of Miami, make it illegal to feed them. Instead of helping voters and taxpayers help the less fortunate, he's chosen to punish them. And that is not the purpose of government.

The intent of the ordinance is to stop various independent charitable groups from picking random locations around the city to do what the city is failing to do itself; prevent homeless people from starving on our city streets.

From Miami Today News:

The proposed ordinance would require anyone who wants to feed the homeless to get a license, and would also mandate how the food is to be handled, that trash will be removed, and that portable bathrooms will be available.

Next month I expect the county commission to take on those frickin' Boy Scouts who help old ladies cross the street. How dare anyone try to help others! There are paramedics relying on scraping grandma off the street to earn a paycheck.

That's not to say that there isn't a problem being created by the way groups feed the homeless at random spots around the city; there is. But criminalizing good deeds is not a reasonable approach to the problem. As the New Times points out, the commission's actions reduces the status of homeless people to that of pigeons.

Who cares about human decency and hunger if it gets in the way of pretty sidewalks, right?
-- Miami New Times/ Riptide

To be fair, the city has setup some shelters; there are just not enough of them. And with a flagging economy and slashed budgets, that's not going to change anytime soon. The commission should be praising these groups for stepping up to take up the slack, not turning them into criminals.

So instead of trying to arrest people who are doing the right thing the wrong way, the city should build help them partnerships to solve the actual problems.

Obviously, there are groups willing to FEED the homeless, but this is resulting in trash, and according to Marc Sarnoff, public defecation. Let's create sites near where these activities are taking place, and put in the necessary support systems. Get someone to underwrite the costs of port-a-johns, and someone else to underwrite the costs of garbage collections. The commission needs to be PRO-active, not RE-active.

The Miami Commission, and Marc Sarnoff, appears to have forgotten that they are elected to serve the public, not to hinder them.

The sad part is that these kinds of ordinances are overturned with some regularity; the city could choose to provide a small amount of funding instead of spending millions defending against a civil rights suit. But I guess it's not their money, why should they be expected to spend it responsibly just because we elected them to do just that?

Fitzroy Plays the Race Card

It's bad enough that former Miramar commissioner Fitzroy Salesman is trying to argue that he's honest while having a name like Salesman, but it turns out his real problem isn't that he got caught accepting bribes to convince the City of Miramar to award bids to someone other than the lowest bidder.

It's that he's black.

The Sun-Sentinel reports that his defense, rather than argue that he didn't take the money, has chosen to accuse the Federal Bureau of Investigation of racial profiling.

"The government sought out to blemish the record of several of the most prestigious African-American elected officials in Broward County," Salesman's attorney Jamie Benjamin wrote in court documents filed Friday

"It might be coincidental that this approximately four-year investigation involved mostly African-American elected officials but given the small number of African-American elected officials in Broward County and the methods used by the United States government to try and bring the honest elected officials … into corruption, one must wonder and give this Court concern,"

That's a pretty serious accusation. They gloss over the bigger coincidence that they found an actual criminal while committing this alleged racial profiling.

They offer evidence to back up their case: when Salesman offered to introduce the undercover agents to other politicians in a position to help them win a contract, they were interested.

But aren't they supposed to be? If an undercover agent discovers one criminal, and that criminal says "hey, you like that crime? I know another guy who does that crime. Wanna meet him," and offers to hook you up, aren't you supposed to go for it? Two birds, one stone, and all that?

One of them, Lauderdhill City Commissioner Dale Holness, turned down them down flat:

"They tested me but that's not the kind of person I am," Holness said. "I really distanced myself from Salesman after that and I think I talked to him maybe one time since that. I found the approach very distasteful."

Holness wasn't arrested or accused of breaking the law. Offered a chance to take a bribe, he turned it down. If this were the racist witch hunt that Salesman's defense team claims it to be, wouldn't they have simply kept after Holness until they managed to implicate him?

Are we supposed to be offended that a black politician is connected to other black politicians within the same county?

Another black politician who was approached at Salesman's suggestion was State Rep Hazel Rogers.

Rogers was approached in a similar way, and the "government reached out to try to put money in her pocket so that she would be guilty of a crime," Benjamin wrote. He did not respond to a request for further details. Rogers told the Sun Sentinel that she was not aware of any improper approach that was made to her. "Thank God, I do things the way they should be done," Rogers said.

So we're supposed to believe that these two black politicians, whom Salesman led the undercover agents to in the first place, who both turned down bribes and have not been implicated in any crime, are victims of the federal government because Salesman approached them?

Let's face it, if Salesman had the moral high ground, he'd have turned down the bribe in the first place. And if he had just a scrap of moral fiber, when the feds asked if he knew other politicians who would cooperate for a price, he'd have told them to screw off.

Instead, he asked for a cut, and went knocking on doors.

In an earlier move by his defense team to have the charges dismissed because the laws under which he was charged were, in the words of his defense team, "so vague as to be unconstitutional."

U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn dismissed this argument rather succinctly:

"Certainly, accepting a bribe cannot, under any circumstance, be considered an honest service on the part of the elected official,'' Cohn wrote.

Notice that Salesman's defense isn't arguing that he didn't accept a bribe and deliver the goods: he can't deny he didn't do it because he was caught doing it red-handed when he accepted the bribe from the agents, and then went on to arrange the deal for them. That leaves only two approaches; 'fess up and do the time, or squirm and find some way to make accepting a bribe to usurp the rule of law legal.

No, Salesman wasn't investigated and charged because he was black: he was investigated and charged because he's a criminal.

Well, it certainly disincentives your re-election.

This is the Quote of the Day over at Deus Ex Malcontent:

"(Extending unemployment benefits) doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work. I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here."

-- Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona

To which I am compelled to reply:

Mr. Kyl, NOT extending unemployment compensation ALSO does NOT create jobs.

If you've ever actually collected unemployment - which I did 14 years ago when my employer ran out of money and shut down - you'd know that it's absolutely no disincentive to seeking out work. Unemployment compensation is nowhere near what you make working - by design. In fact, you blow through savings and credit very quickly when you are collecting only a portion of what had been a salary just above the federal poverty level.

The reality is that when you don't have unemployment compensation, you blow through your savings and credit even faster, which means, in this economy, that you lose your home and your insurance and mount up insurmountable debt long before you find another job. With nearly half of all homeowners underwater in my region, that hurts mortgage companies and banks, which hurts businesses, which hurts those who still are fortunate to have jobs.

Failure to extend unemployment compensation does not benefit a single American taxpayer; it does not create a single job, it does not enhance a single business, it does not prevent a single American from losing their homes, and it does not stop a single business from folding.

Extending them helps fourteen million American workers. It helps ten million families keep their homes. It prevents millions of bankruptcies, saving hundreds of thousands of small businesses.

So please don't tell us that not doing it is somehow better than doing it. It's just not.

Two Men With Tax Problems: Two Roads

Both men were entangled in long-running disputes with the IRS. Both were in debt up to their ears. Joseph Stack chose to become a domestic terrorist and wasted his life in a cowardly attack on a building full of innocent people, while Terry Hoskins bulldozed his own home flat to punish his bank.

The High Road: Flattening his Home
Terry Hoskin's home was valued at $350,000, and he owed the bank $160,000. He found someone who would purchase the house for $170,000, which would settle his debt. But apparently River Hills Bank, which was owed only $160,000, decided to move ahead with foreclosure so that they could sell the house at full value, or at least for a lot more than they'd make by allowing Hoskins to settle his contracted debt. Rather than settle for what they were actually owed, it seems River Hills Bank decided to abuse the law so they could grab money they were not entitled to have.


Congress needs to enact laws that force banks to work with people who find a way to meet their contracted obligation, even if they are behind in payments at the time, as long as the homeowner comes up with the solution prior to foreclosure. This case illustrates clearly why we need bank reform; banks should not be able to skirt the edges of the law to basically commit theft. In this light, Hoskin's actions are truly heroic: he snatched their ill-gotten prize from their jaws, basically ensuring the bank did not profit from corrupt machinations.

And he did it without resorting to terrorism, and without risking a single life.

A Despicable Act
No kind words for Joseph Andrew Stack, who left a long diatribe against the IRS, the government , big business, and organized religion before flying his plane into an office building full of people. He blamed everyone but the one person responsible for his actions: himself.

He starts off complaining about the rule of law. Then He railed at the injustice of the federal goverment spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep automakers, investment brokerages, and banks afloat while not helping him out of the problems he dug himself into. Of course, the bailout, which everyone agrees is a mess, is intended to help hundreds of thousands if not millions of people by preventing a collapse of our entire economy, while bailing out Joe Stark would only help Joe Stark. He railed at our ridiculously complicated tax code that exempts religious and charitable organizations from paying taxes, ignoring that those organizations have to meet rigid standards to qualify for those exemptions.

What happened to start Stark's journey to terrorism is something that has happened to thousands of Americans, and it is a terrible flaw in the enforcement of our tax laws: employment paperwork was filled out that made him responsible to pay taxes that he thought his employer was paying. They may very well have lied to him about it. It's happened to a member of my family. What happens in these cases is that the IRS comes after the one the paperwork says was responsible for paying, even if the employer logically should have been the one paying.

My relative appeared on numerous news programs, lobbied his congressional representatives, and ultimately paid the IRS what they demanded. It took him years to recover. But he did recover, and recently was able to retire to enjoy his family. And he's been lobbying for changes, And he hasn't committed a single act of terrorism.

Joe Stack is no hero. He did nothing worth celebrating. He was a gutless coward who took a coward's way out of the mess he'd made of his life. Even if you buy into his ludicrous premise that the IRS is a criminal enterprise that answers to no one, the building he flew into - an IRS office complex - would never have been filled solely with IRS staff. Having been there himself, he was well aware that there would have been people just like him - taxpayers being audited - all over that building. He wasn't just lashing out at the IRS, he was out to callously murder innocent strangers who had no complicity in his troubles.

Joe Stark was no victim. The real victims are his own family, who is left to clean up a mess that he made unimaginably worse.

Joe Kaplan: Dumber than a Chicken

Well, Joe Kaplan apparently doesn't own a dictionary, or understand that words have specific meanings. He's ordered the eviction of Mr. Clucky, stating that the pet is poultry, even though that is an entirely false statement.

Let's look again at the definition of poultry, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

• Function: noun
• Etymology: Middle English pultrie, from Anglo-French pulletrie, from pulleter poulterer, from pullet chicken — more at pullet
• Date: 14th century

: domesticated birds kept for eggs or meat

No matter how you examine it, the fact remains that Mr. Clucky is a pet. He is not poultry. It's not rocket science, but sadly Kaplan is too stupid to grasp the obvious. One has to wonder what other mind-boggingly obvious mistakes Kaplan's made in his position of power.

Mr. Buckley has not violated 10-15. And that is simply the truth of the matter.

Our laws use precise language, and the language in this case is very clear. Yet Mr. Kaplan has chosen to ignore language. He's instead done exactly what the law forbids: he has arbitrarily applied a standard that the letter of law does NOT support.

Joe Kaplan is a menace. We deserve officials who obey the laws, and not ones who make up arguments to serve some hidden bureacratic agenda.

XKCD makes a good point. Or do they?

The brilliant web comic XKCD points out that the Media's been exaggerating the whole AIG bonus thing a little bit:

In the greater scheme of things, the actual dollar amount of the bonuses is an insignificant fraction of what we're paying out for the entire bailout package.

But it's still a shitload of money.

$165 million would pay for 80 years of full operation at my last theatre, or 25 years of operation and a new wing at my current employer.

I'm not upset over the amount: I, and I think most of the other people who have been bitching about this - are appalled at the principle of it. They basically ran themselves out of business, and we literally saved their asses,and the first thing they do is throw it back in our faces.

To put XKCD's example into better context, you're the lawyer that got sexual assault charges against XKCD thrown out on a technicality. They were accused of rape, you got them off, and on the elevator leaving the courtroom they grab your daughters tits; "Hey, thanks for getting me off the hook!" he lears, "and for getting me off!"

NOW consider the difference between 'a sip of wine and a quick grope' against 'a drunken night of debauchery' with your daughter.

Got it? Good. Now let's gather up the tar and feathers...

Charges dropped against beating victim.

Originally, Fort Lauderdale Police charged Joshua Ortiz attacked and provoked them on an elevator back in December.

The police were responding to a complaint that several men were arguing in the lobby of 201 SW First Avenue. Ortiz wasn't one of those men, but yelled at the officers to leave the men alone from the elevator in the lobby.

Officer Derek Lade wrote a police report describing what he claims happened:

"I turned to Ortiz, and instructed him to get back in the elevator and return to his vehicle.I advised him to leave because he was not part of the incident. Ortiz continued to yell at me and walked right up to me, hitting his nose to my nose. A that point I struck Ortiz in the chest with a double handed palm heal strike, sending him to the rear of the elevator facing away from me. As I approached Ortiz to take him into custody, Ortiz spun around to face me and assumed a fighting stance (both left and right hand clenched into fists and body bladed.),"

Unfortunately for Officer Lade, there was a security camera in the elevator, and it showed something very different;



In the tape, we see one of Ortiz's companions standing in the door of the elevator: he moves aside as Lade walks up, Ortiz moves to the door, both hands tucked in his belt, and Lade indeed "struck Ortiz in the chest with a double handed palm heal strike, sending him to the rear of the elevator," But Ortiz hit the back wall hard with his back, facing Lade the entire time, while Lade was on Ortiz the entire time beating the crap out of him, two other cops right next to him, and third joining in.

Officer Derek Lade lied. And so did the cops who corroborated his story.

Even viewing the tape from the lobby end fails to substantiate Lade's story. We can see Ortiz yelling at the cops, but we can see the cops beating on the two guys who were arguing in the first place. From the tape, it's apparent that the first thing the cops did was to increase the level of violence, tackling the arguing men, hitting them, and throwing them to the floor. Ortiz and other members of his party appear to be trying to get the cops to calm down and use less violence.

After the cops beat the shit out of Ortiz, everyone exits the elevator, and a woman can be seen screaming at the cops. One of the cops throws her to the floor before arresting her.

It's a sickening display. But that's not the worst part of this utterly disgusting tale of police brutality and falsified reports.

This is what should have every citizen demanding an accounting:

Internal affairs investigators with the Fort Lauderdale Police Department reviewed the incident over a month ago and found no violations of agency policy or procedures, said Sgt. Frank Sousa, the department's spokesperson.

"It was not a beating," Sousa said. "The video clearly shows that [Ortiz] made a movement toward the officer."

Fortunately, the prosecuting attorney upheld justice and dismissed the charges. Kudos to Assistant State Attorney Lee Cohen.

Officers Lade, Smith (who can be seen delivering a roundhouse blow into Ortiz's face from behind Lade) and whoever watched that tape and concluded the cops were justified need to be removed from public service.

We can't tolerate cops who step over line, or internal affairs officers who can't tell where the line is.