US Government Security Classification Costs for 2013 - $11 Billion

Cryptome [PDF] 

U.S. Rep. Moore seeks Justice review of Milwaukee police procedures

Wis Gazzette

U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, a Democrat representing Milwaukee, wrote recently to the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division and asked the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to investigate Milwaukee police procedures.

The following is Moore's letter to James Santelle:

Re: U.S. Justice Department Review of Milwaukee Police Procedures

Dear Mr. Santelle,

I write to thank you for your decision to conduct an investigation of the officer-involved shooting death of Dontre Hamilton to determine if violations of federal civil rights law occurred. I would also urge the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division to simultaneously conduct a “pattern and practice” investigation of the Milwaukee Police Department. 

A thorough investigation of the Milwaukee Police Department would serve justice by ensuring that public faith is restored. I continue to speak to my constituents who are fearful and distrustful of the police and the criminal justice system following local, high profile cases, like the death of Derek Williams and the use of body cavity searches by Milwaukee police officers. Unfortunately, Milwaukee continues to see these incidents, which, along with national trends and incidents, are feeding the collective distrust between officers and citizens in Milwaukee. The implementation of policing best practices in Milwaukee would better protect both police and citizens. 

Police have a difficult responsibility, and I think that they deserve the best, most modern training.  It is my hope that a review would help the process of community healing, so that citizens and police can build a constructive relationship going forward to address crime collectively. Thank you again for your assistance in this matter, and I look forward to working with you going forward.

Sincerely,

Gwen S. Moore (WI-4)

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Where my ho's at? "Question: This year, what do all the world's Muslims and Jews call December 25th? ANSWER: Thursday"

RawStory

Renowned astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson spent his Christmas morning composing a series of holiday-themed tweets that annoyed and outraged some Christians.

He began by pointing out the obvious: QUESTION: ThIs year, what do all the world's Muslims and Jews call December 25th? ANSWER: Thursday

Before moving into what many Christians considered “offensive” terrority: "On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642"

Nor were capitalists safe from his withering wit:

Merry Christmas to all. A Pagan holiday (BC) becomes a Religious holiday (AD). Which then becomes a Shopping holiday (USA)."

[MORE]

White People Bought a lot of guns for Christmas

WashPost

US pharmaceutical giant Merck buys rights to experimental Ebola vaccine

ABC

The United States' second biggest pharmaceuticals company has announced it will buy worldwide commercial rights to an experimental vaccine against the Ebola virus.

NewLink Genetics Corp, whose subsidiary licensed commercial rights to the rVSV-EBOV vaccine in 2010, said it would receive $50 million plus royalties from Merck & Co Inc.

Large late-stage trials of the product could begin early next year, said Merck, one of the world's biggest makers of vaccines.

Merck, which would be able to speed up and significantly boost production, would take over development of the vaccine and any follow-on products.

The Public Health Agency of Canada, which originally developed the vaccine, would retain non-commercial rights to it.

School banned from basketball tournament in case players wear 'I Can't Breathe' T-shirts

CLG

A high school basketball tournament on the Northern California coast has become the latest flashpoint in the ongoing protests over police killings of unarmed black men after a school was disinvited because of concerns its players would wear T-shirts printed with the words 'I Can't Breathe' during warmups. The athletic director for Mendocino High School was informed by his counterpart at Fort Bragg High School this week that neither the boys nor girls teams would be allowed to participate in the three-day tournament hosted by Fort Bragg High starting Monday, Mendocino Unified School District Superintendent Jason Morse said.

All about Protecting & Serving Cops: White Woman Charged with Disorderly after bringing a Dunkin Donuts box filled with raw bacon and sausage to the Framingham Police Department to “feed the pigs"

BlackListed News

Framingham, MA– Lindsay McNamara of Ashland, Massachusetts, is being charged with disorderly conduct and malicious destruction of property after bringing a Dunkin Donuts box filled with raw bacon and sausage to the Framingham Police Department to “feed the pigs” on Friday morning. “She walked into the lobby and was carrying a Dunkin’ Donuts box, walked up to the window, when the officer greeted her asked if he could help here she said ‘I’m here to feed the pigs,'” Framingham police Lt. Harry Wareham told WCVB.

The 24 year old woman then began to throw the raw pork products at an officer and smear the grease on the window, stating that god told her to do it. She represented herself at her arraignment. [MORE] 

NYPD Was Sued Average Of 10 Times A Day In 2013, Inspiring ‘ClaimStat’ Online App To Track Claims

TheAntiMedia

Data released by NYC’s Comptroller office is showing some disturbing trends in claims and payouts against the NYPD. According to the City of NY Office of the Comptroller Claims Report for FY 2012, the city paid $186.3 million in tort claims involving the NYPD in 2011, $152 million in 2012, $137 million in 2013 with an average of 10 lawsuits per day according to RT, with $674 million allotted for 2015 to cover costs of more suits, which averages out to about $80 per NYC resident.

Even though Cop Killer is Dead NYPD Vows to "Act Accordingly" [Revenge/Target Blacks]

Anti-media

The shooting of two New York cops as they sat in their car has unleashed a media storm of pundits looking to blame somebody or something. Every group is latching on to the incident to push their agenda. Muslims, the mayor of New York City, hi-capacity magazines, Al Sharpton, guns in general, uppity protesters, and just about everything else were apparently the reason this happened. In America, we’ve become fixated on blame. If you’re looking for someone to blame, start with me and those like me.

For the majority of my life, I would defend law enforcement no matter what they did.

They shot an unarmed kid? Well, they have to make quick decisions. Accidents happen.

They planted drugs on someone? They probably knew the guy was dirty and did what they had to do to win.

They raided the wrong house and killed someone? They can’t be right all the time.

They shot a criminal’s girlfriend who was in the car? She shouldn’t have been hanging out with the bad guys.

They beat up somebody? He shouldn’t have resisted.

Cop convicted of doing something horrible? Just a bad apple.

They’re enforcing an unjust law? Just doing their jobs.

Supporting America’s boys in blue is as much a part of the American Dream as apple pie. I have woken up from the dream to discover the American Dream, like all dreams, just isn’t real no matter how much we’d like it to be. Myself, and those who still hold these views, have the blood of the Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos on our hands. We might as well have pulled the trigger ourselves.

After all, it was decades of unwavering support for law enforcement that led to officers believing they were above the law. It was condemnation of anyone who spoke out against cops through peaceful means that led people to believe that violence was the only option. This blind support only led to more abuses, more corruption, and more brutality from law enforcement. Our collective unwillingness to hold those that perpetrate criminal acts accountable simply because they belong to the thin blue line created a situation in which the disenfranchised citizens of America feel their only option to obtain justice is a revenge killing.

NYPD’s response was to go on a “wartime” footing. Who exactly are they are going to war with? The shooter is dead. NYPD has openly stated that they will “act accordingly.” Against whom? Anybody that questions them. Welcome to America’s first announced reprisal killing by a police department. Within the week, NYPD will kill some other unarmed person and the cycle will start all over again. We are on the precipice of a cycle of violence that will play out similarly to the tit for tat killings that occur in Belfast. The truth is that NYPD has been on a wartime footing for years. More than a quarter of the people they kill are unarmed. It’s a uniquely American position to believe the war started when you take your first casualties, rather than when you began killing.

Those that still blindly support the police state, no matter their actions, need to open their eyes immediately. It is that support that is literally killing officers. With no faith in the justice system or the impartiality of the police department, more officers will end up in flag draped coffins. Don’t let these officers’ deaths be in vain. Before violence spreads, demand a complete overhaul of the law enforcement community in the United States.

Bon Jovi Shows Support for Racist NYPD -- Wears ‘Property of NYPD’ Shirt at Show

AntiMedia

On Monday, Bon Jovi he took the side of NYPD and wore a shirt to support the two dead NYPD officers at his show in Red Bank, New Jersey, apparently finding those 2 lives to be a higher priority than the over 1000 Americans killed by police this year.

He officially stood with the American police, the police state, and the establishment with a monopoly on violence, and encouraged the entire audience to do so as well.

He said “I’m showing a little solidarity for my brothers in the NYPD and all of those who protect and serve us every day,”

Why did he do this? Well, given the fact that he is who he is, mainstream musician Bon Jovi, he probably did it to get support from people, maybe even financial support from some individuals or entity(s) that we would have no way of knowing about. He is indeed known for publicity stunts and ways of garnering the support of average people.

He apparently wishes to appeal to people who support the status-quo, government, and police in America. These people of course lack perspective on what is going on in America with the police killing unarmed people with impunity (or don’t care) This mainstream musician chooses to appeal to people who have been persuaded to prioritize certain human lives over others and support a system consistently proven to be ineffective to actually protect people.

Of course, Bon Jovi never spoke out about these unarmed Americans being killed by police for months and years before these two killings of police officers. He didn’t seem to care about the thousands of people killed by police for no good reason. So how can one life be worth more than another?

I am certainly not saying the taken lives of the 2 NYPD officers are worth less than the people killed by police, or that the police’s lives are worth any more or less than any life. However, based on the behavior of Bon Jovi, it would seem that he finds there to be more value in an officer’s life, than 1000 other lives taken by officers, a good portion of them being completely unarmed, innocent people.

‘Why the Innocent Plead Guilty’: An Exchange

NYBOOKS

To the Editors:

Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s article “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty” [NYR, November 20, 2014] is spot on, but doesn’t go far enough. True, we have a federal plea system, not a trial system. True, to call the process “plea bargaining” is a cruel misnomer. There is nothing here remotely like fair bargaining between equal parties with equal resources or equal information. The prosecutors’ power—as Judge Rakoff describes—is extraordinary, far surpassing that of prosecutors of years past, and in most cases, far surpassing the judge’s. Judge John Gleeson, a federal judge of the Eastern District of New York, made this clear during a case involving a charge for which there is a mandatory minimum sentence.1 As a result of the prosecutor’s decision to charge the defendant with an offense for which there is a mandatory minimum sentence, no judging was going on about the sentence. The prosecutor sentenced the defendant, not the judge, with far less transparency and no appeal.

Indeed, there were times during my seventeen-year tenure on the federal bench in Massachusetts that inquiring of a defendant as to the voluntariness of his guilty plea felt like a Kabuki ritual. “Has anyone coerced you to plead guilty,” I would ask, and I felt like adding, “like thumbscrews or waterboarding? Anything less than that—a threatened tripling of your sentence should you go to trial, for example—doesn’t count.”

It is true too, in view of such threats of long terms in prison, that there is a strong possibility that the innocent may plead guilty. It may well be a rational calculation, given the penalty of going to trial, for there is clearly such a penalty. The prosecutor typically induces a plea by offering a “carrot,” the lesser charge, and at the same time a gigantic “stick.” It is not simply that he may well tack on additional charges enabling mandatory or even consecutive punishments, should the defendant go to trial. He also can threaten that he will introduce evidence of uncharged conduct at the sentencing, or even evidence of counts for which the defendant was acquitted, so long as the defendant is convicted of something. No other common law country in the world enables the prosecutor to seek a sentence based on criminal conduct never charged, never subject to adversary process, never vetted by a grand jury or a jury, or worse, charges for which the defendant was acquitted.

Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines introduced in 1984, such alleged conduct by the defendant can “count” toward a higher sentence, as evidence of additional “loss” in a white-collar case or quantity in a drug case. It can substantially increase the sentence, an effect unheard of in other, nonfederal jurisdictions, and indeed, unheard of before the passage of the guidelines. (Prior to the guidelines a judge could have considered uncharged or even acquitted conduct generally, but it did not have the same serious consequences in the post–mandatory minimum, post-guideline era in which a specific quantity of drugs or a specific amount of criminally obtained money, or both, almost exclusively drive the sentence.)

Whatever we call them, the prosecutor’s tactics impose very serious penalties for going to trial, for choosing to have a jury decide your fate, or even for challenging unconstitutional conduct. In fact, the guidelines encourage rushing to the prosecutor to plea bargain as soon as possible, before your codefendants do.

I retired from the bench in September 2011, after seventeen years. Prior to that, I had been a criminal defense lawyer. I am back in practice (among other activities like teaching and writing). I can see how the defense of federal criminal cases has changed. Do you risk challenging this unconstitutional system when it may mean that the more compliant—perhaps more culpable—defendants get a better deal? Do you risk litigating the case in the face of the trial penalty that could well double or triple a defendant’s sentence?

Remember Aaron Swartz, the twenty-six-year-old Internet prodigy accused of wire fraud and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act who committed suicide after being offered a choice between a plea of guilty with a six-month sentence or a trial in which he risked a seven-year sentence under the guidelines if found guilty. Then there is the case of Kevin Ring, a lobbyist for Jack Abramoff, who was convicted at trial. Abramoff, the conceded ringleader, pled guilty and got four years. Offered a deal with no prison time if he cooperated, Ring refused, taking the case to trial. After a trial finding him guilty, the prosecutor urged a seventeen-to-twenty-two-year sentence, which the sentencing judge acknowledged could well have a “chilling effect” on the exercise of the right to a jury trial. Indeed, it is not just the innocent who may well plead guilty. It is also possible that claims of prosecutorial or police misconduct will not be litigated because of a rush to plead guilty.

The remedy Judge Rakoff proposes would help, namely, a review process before a magistrate judge. But the magistrate judge is not appointed for life; his tenure is limited to a term and dependent upon the decision of the federal district court he serves. How free will he be to probe the plea deal? How much information would he have? Often he is a former prosecutor—although as Judge Rakoff’s judicial record suggests, that background does not predict a tilt toward the prosecutor.

Still, I am skeptical that anything will change unless there are changes in the structure of punishment, including the previously mentioned mandatory minimums and guidelines, as well as the ability of prosecutors to refer to uncharged or acquitted conduct at sentencing. I am skeptical that anything will meaningfully change until we reduce the weapons that the prosecutor brings to the bargaining table. I am skeptical unless the courts frankly characterize enhanced trial sentences for what they are, an improper penalty for going to trial, a substantial burden on the rights the Constitution provides. Without these changes, I fear that even review by the magistrate judge will become a Kabuki ritual.

Judge Nancy Gertner
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, Massachusetts [MORE]

NACDL Tells Court Congress Violated the Equal Protection Clause and Ignored Racial Disparity When it Reaffirmed the Federal Sentencing Disparity for Powder to Crack Cocaine

NACDL

In an amicus curiae brief filed on December 18, 2014 in Davis v. United States Sentencing Commission, an appeal of a dismissal of a petition for writ of mandamus now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) forcefully and methodically demonstrates that Congress’s 1995 reaffirmation of the 100:1 federal sentencing ratio for powder to crack cocaine violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

As meticulously recited in the brief, in the years following the enactment of the 100:1 ratio in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, “research consistently showed that the 100:1 ratio had a disproportionate impact on African Americans[.]” In 1994, Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to research the ratio’s impact and to make recommendations regarding the ratio. As set forth in NACDL’s brief (at 6):

In a February 1995 report, the Sentencing Commission “firmly conclude[d] that it cannot recommend a ratio differential as great as the current 100-to-1 quantity ratio,” and in fact “strongly recommend[ed] against a 100-to-1 quantity ratio.” United States Sent’g Comm’n, Special Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy, 196-98 (Feb. 1995) (hereinafter “Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy”). In particular, the Sentencing Commission noted that federal sentencing data led to the “inescapable conclusion” that African Americans were disproportionately affected by the 100:1 ratio, and expressed “great concern” over the disparity. Id. at xii….Consistent with its report, on May 1, 1995, the Sentencing Commission submitted proposed amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that would replace the 100:1 ratio with a 1:1 ratio.

Congress also held several hearings after the submission of the Sentencing Commission’s report, and of 16 witness, all but one urged Congress to eliminate the 100:1 ratio. Nevertheless, Congress reaffirmed the 100:1 ratio. And Mr. Davis languishes in prison to this day, serving a 360-month sentence that would be dramatically shorter if the form of the substance for which he was convicted – cocaine -- had been powder and not crack.

Miller & Chevalier Member Timothy P. O’Toole authored NACDL’s amicus curiae brief in Davis. Mr. O’Toole serves as Vice Chair of NACDL’s White Collar Committee and formerly served on the Association’s Board of Directors. “When Congress acted to save the 100:1 ratio in 1995, it had before it overwhelming evidence that this ratio discriminated against African Americans and that there existed no rational justification for preserving it. It is hard to imagine a more textbook Equal Protection violation,” O’Toole said.

NACDL President Theodore Simon said: “If we really want to deal with racial disparity in America’s criminal justice system, then we must address sentencing laws that significantly contribute to it. And while the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the discriminatory 100:1 ratio to a discriminatory 18:1 ratio, the arguments set forth in our brief seek to judicially correct a fundamentally unfair, discriminatory and unjust disparity that dramatically and unnecessarily increases the punishment imposed upon African Americans.”  

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is the preeminent organization advancing the mission of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or wrongdoing. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL's approximately 10,000 direct members in 28 countries – and 90 state, provincial and local affiliate organizations totaling up to 40,000 attorneys – include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness and promoting a rational and humane criminal justice system.

DOJ Persuades Federal District Court to Keep Its Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book From Being Disclosed to the Public

NACDL

On December 18, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision in National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys et al. The Court upheld the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) denial of NACDL’s Freedom of Information Act request that DOJ release to the public its Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book, finding that the Blue Book is attorney work product that was prepared to protect DOJ from litigation and therefore it is protected from disclosure. NACDL plans to appeal this decision granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and denying Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

In response to public furor over the "egregious misconduct" by DOJ prosecutors in the case of the late Senator Ted Stevens, whose conviction was vacated after post-trial investigations revealed that prosecutors had withheld significant exculpatory evidence from the defense, DOJ’s Office of Legal Education published, but has not made available to the public, a text referred to as the Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book. Despite obvious public interest in ensuring that DOJ had taken adequate measures to prevent further abuses, DOJ steadfastly refused to make the Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book public. As set forth in NACDL’s latest report, Material Indifference: How Courts Are Impeding Fair Disclosure in Criminal Cases, a major study produced jointly with the VERITAS Initiative at Santa Clara Law School, the problem of non-disclosure and late disclosure in criminal cases is significant; in addition to legislation codifying prosecutors’ Brady obligations, the report calls for courts to do more to address this issue.

As set forth in NACDL’s Complaint filed February 21, 2014, during a series of congressional hearings concerning prosecutorial misconduct in Sen. Stevens’ case:

…DOJ asserted that federal legislation was unnecessary to prevent future discovery abuses because it had instituted various internal reforms.  During the hearings, DOJ asserted it had implemented "rigorous enhanced training" to ensure that “prosecutors and agents [have] a full appreciation of their responsibilities” under federal law.  Statement for the Record from the Department of Justice: Hearing on the Special Counsel’s Report Before on the Prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 3 (2012) ("Statement for the Record").  As part of this effort, DOJ stated that it had created a "Federal Criminal Discovery Bluebook" that "comprehensively covers the law, policy, and practice of prosecutors' disclosure obligations" under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and their progeny.  Id. at 4.  According to DOJ, the Blue Book was "distributed to prosecutors nationwide in 2011" and "is now electronically available on the desktop of every federal prosecutor and paralegal."  Id.  

Contrary to what DOJ told Congress, the ruling and DOJ pleadings suggest that the Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book contains strategies for avoiding discovery. Indeed, the Court, which, unlike Congress, reviewed the text, suggested that “it was prepared to ‘protect [ ] agency clients from the possibility of future litigation[.]’”

NACDL President Theodore Simon said: “It is deeply troubling that the Department of Justice endeavored to thwart legislation in Congress to codify prosecutors’ disclosure obligations by representing that the problem had been rectified by a Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book it had prepared, but now asserts is secret. And last week, a federal court has indicated that that very text appears to be a document prepared to protect the government from future litigation. The problem of nondisclosure and late disclosure in criminal cases is one of a Constitutional dimension – it speaks directly to the right to due process under the law. Fairness and transparency demand the release to the American people of the contents of a document the Department of Justice told Congress was intended to protect and preserve the public’s right to due process.”

NACDL Executive Director Norman L. Reimer said: “We have not seen the Blue Book. All the public can do is rely upon what the Department of Justice told Congress, and that is at odds with DOJ’s description of the Blue Book in this case and ultimately the Court’s ruling.”

Permanent War Economy: Congress authorizes $577 billion in defense spending

Aljazeera

Congress approved an annual defense policy bill on Friday that authorizes U.S. training for Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL and sets overall defense spending at $577 billion, including $64 billion for wars abroad.

The measure formally endorses the Pentagon's plan to vet, train and equip a moderate Syrian opposition military force to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), defend the Syrian people and promote conditions for a negotiated end to Syria's civil war. The U.S. military program to train and assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting ISIL fighters also was authorized.

The Senate passed the legislation 89-11 and sent it to President Barack Obama to sign into law. The House of Representatives last week endorsed the measure, which sets defense policy and authorizes spending levels for the 2015 fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, but does not actually appropriate funding.

The bill approves a Pentagon base budget of $496 billion, in line with Obama's request, plus nearly $64 billion for conflicts abroad including the war in Afghanistan. It also authorizes $17.9 billion for Energy Department nuclear weapons work.

The bill takes new steps to control personnel costs, which consume about half the Pentagon budget, essentially approving a year's worth of proposed long-term reforms but delaying further action until hearing in February from a congressionally appointed commission on military compensation.

The measure increases co-pays on most prescription drugs by $3, reduces the military housing allowance by 1 percentage point and remains silent on military pay hikes, thus allowing the Pentagon to implement a proposed 1 percent raise. In the past, Congress often approved pay raises above levels recommended by the Pentagon but did not do so this year.

The bill rejects a number of Pentagon efforts to retire or curtail weapons systems the department insists it can no longer afford to maintain because of budget cuts intended to trim projected defense spending by nearly $1 trillion over a decade.

The measure bars retirement of the A-10 Warthog close air support plane, beloved by ground troops because of its ability to fly low and destroy enemy tanks. The Air Force wants to retire the fleet to cut costs and retrain maintenance personnel to work on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

It also prohibits inactivation of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington, a step being studied for budgetary reasons, and authorizes funding to begin an overhaul and refueling of the ship.

Protesters march on Washington, demand end to 'blue on black crime'

Aljazeera

Thousands of protesters marched down iconic Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington on Saturday, before making their way to Capitol Hill as part of a national "Day of Resistance" aimed at drawing attention to the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of white police officers and calling for legislative action.

The crowd, carrying signs that read "black lives matter," gathered before the march in Freedom Plaza, where protest organizers and family members of victims of police brutality addressed the crowd.

"Let's keep it strong, long and meaningful," Esaw Garner – the widow of Eric Garner, 43, who died after being choked by a New York City police officer in July – told the crowd.

Afterwards, block after block of tightly packed marchers moved through the city. Organizers had predicted 5,000 people would participate in the event, but the crowd appeared to be much larger than that.

As the protesters approached Capitol Hill, where a rally was staged, many chanted slogans including “hands up, don’t shoot” — a reference to the alleged last words of Michael Brown, 18, who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in August. Other chants included “no justice, no peace” and “can’t stop, won’t stop until killer cops are in cell blocks.”

Speaking at the rally, Rev. Al Sharpton, whose National Action Alliance led the protest, declared "this is not a black march or a white march, this is an American march for the rights of the American people." 

New wave of protests: All major US cities hit with minimum wage rallies

RT

Workers in the fast-food, home-care, and airline industries are involved in demonstrations and engaging in walkouts all over the United States on Thursday in a call for a heightened minimum wage of $15, among other labor demands.

Organizers of the “Fight for 15” campaign, which began in November 2012 and then spread to hundreds of cities and “33 countries on 6 continents,” expect Thursday’s actions to take place in 190 cities at fast-food chain restaurants like McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s, as well as major airports like John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.

Major unions are also participating in the push to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour. The last boost to the minimum wage occurred in 2009 for most jobs; tipped workers, who make $2.13 per hour, have not seen a raise since 1991.

OSHO: The Rule of a Barbarous Society

Black Indian – “It’s Real”

Criminal "Justice" in service of white domination: In Crimeoginic Society Black D.C. drug dealer who sold heroin to White Suburban teen who overdosed gets 25-year sentence

WashPost

A Black D.C. drug dealer who prosecutors say sold the heroin that killed a 16-year-old white McLean High School student was sentenced Friday to 25 years in prison — a stiff term that a federal judge said was necessary because the man had an extensive criminal history and sold drugs to young, vulnerable users.

As she handed down the sentence, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema told the 37-year-old Antowan Thorne that he seemed to have “absolutely no potential of being a law-abiding citizen,” at least not now. Prosecutors had asked for precisely the term Brinkema imposed, saying that although Thorne was not convicted directly in connection with Emy­lee Lonczak’s death in August 2013, there was no doubt that she died after using heroin that he sold.

“Miss Lonczak’s punishment did not fit her crime, your honor,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Ben’Ary told Brinkema. “But we ask that the defendant’s fit his.”

Thorne declined to say anything on his own behalf. His attorney, Gregory E. Stambaugh, said in court that his client “does want to move on with his life, as anybody would.” He had asked in court filings that Thorne, who has a 19-year-old son and worked most recently for a lawn-care company, be sentenced to five years in prison — the mandatory minimum term.

The case garnered national attention, epitomizing what federal authorities termed a frightening uptick in young people using heroin. The circumstances of Lonczak’s death, too, made it especially notable.

Federal authorities said Lonczak — a quiet girl who played soccer and was interested in fashion design — had never injected heroin before the night she died. After buying the drug from Thorne in the District, she used it and passed out in a car. A friend took her to his house, and when he saw she was dead the next morning, he discarded her body in bushes and covered it with a window screen.

The friend, Kyle Alifom, was sentenced to six years and eight months in prison earlier this year.

Prosecutors had alleged that Thorne was the source of the heroin that — combined with a common antihistamine — caused Lonczak’s death.

Thorne, though, was convicted in August only of a drug distribution charge; Brinkema ruled that prosecutors had not produced enough evidence to hold him responsible for the death. At Friday’s sentencing, Brinkema was much more receptive to their arguments, agreeing that Thorne had been involved in criminal activity essentially since he was a teenager and was likely to re-offend.

“You appear to be unable to control yourself,” Brinkema told Thorne.

Prosecutors had asked Brinkema to consider how Lonczak’s death had disrupted her family’s life and how Thorne sold his drugs to youths in Northern Virginia. Ben’Ary said Thorne considered them the perfect customers because they were mobile, had access to money and were “too young to realize the consequences of their actions.”

Seattle officers appeal dismissal of use-of-force restrictions lawsuit

Aljazeera

Dozens of Seattle police officers have appealed the dismissal of a federal lawsuit in which they had tried to throw out new rules restricting use of force on the grounds that it endangered both them and the public.

At the center of the court tussle are reforms enacted in Jan. 2014 as a result of a federal investigation into "excessive" use of force practices at the Seattle Police Department (SPD).

The new policy required officers to think about ways they could de-escalate confrontations before moving contemplating more forceful means. Officers argued that the new rules endangered them in fast-moving and potentially dangerous scenarios.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled that it was reasonable to impose such use of force policies, and threw out the lawsuit. But on Friday the plaintiffs filed an appeal to that decision, according to court documents.