Monday, July 7, 2014

LAKE ELSINORE: 3 killed in plane crash in mountains (UPDATE)

from pe.com


JULY 6, 2014 BY 


Three people were killed when a small plane crashed off the Ortega Highway above Lake Elsinore on Sunday morning, July 6, 2014.  --STEPHEN WALL, CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER
Three people were killed when a small plane crashed off the Ortega Highway above Lake Elsinore on Sunday morning, July 6, 2014. –STEPHEN WALL, CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER



Three people were killed Sunday morning when their plane crashed in the mountains above Lake Elsinore.
The single-engine 1967 Piper PA28 went down shortly after
9 a.m. in a rugged area above a ranch property in the 31900 block of Ortega Highway.
Witnesses described seeing the small plane make a sharp turn, clip some trees and crash, causing an explosion and “a tunnel of flame” upon impact. One wing broke off and fell onto a road above the ravine where the rest of the wreckage ended up.
Riverside County coroner’s officials had not identified the victims by late Sunday, but Shelly McElroy said in a phone interview that one of the people in the plane was her nephew, Jacob Griffiths, a 32-year-old Irvine resident. She said Griffiths’ father-in-law and uncle were also on the plane, but she didn’t know their names.
“We kind of lost the whole family,” said McElroy, who lives in Riverside.
Fire and rescue personnel work at the site of a fatal plane crash in rugged terrain off the Ortega Highway above Lake Elsinore on Sunday morning, July 6, 2014. --STEPHEN WALL, CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER
Fire and rescue personnel work at the site of a fatal plane crash in rugged terrain off the Ortega Highway above Lake Elsinore on Sunday morning, July 6, 2014. –STEPHEN WALL, CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER
McElroy said Griffiths was CEO of Great Scott Tree Service, a tree maintenance company based in Stanton that was started by Griffiths’ father, Scott.
She said Jacob Griffiths recently received his pilot’s license. She wasn't sure if Griffiths or his father-in-law was flying the plane, and didn't know anything about their flight plans Sunday.
Griffiths had a wife, Amanda. The couple had been married about five years, she said.
Griffiths loved doing missionary work and was an active member of Mariners Church in Irvine. He enjoyed helping the underprivileged, she said.
“He was a beautiful man with a big heart,” McElroy said. “He was a very giving, generous person. They took him way too early.”
A pastor who answered the phone at the church Sunday night said he didn’t know the Griffiths family well, but said church leaders were notified of Jacob’s death and were told that Scott Griffiths was on his way to southwest Riverside County to be with family.
Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Ian Gregor said Sunday afternoon that he could not confirm the plane’s tail number, which would identify the owner, until he knew the victims’ next of kin had been notified. He also could not say where the plane was headed or where it took off.
Ed Nejad, 64, said he was standing on a dirt road on his 16-acre ranch about
9 a.m. when he saw a plane flying at a low altitude above his property and making a rough noise. About 15 seconds later, he saw the plane make a sharp U-turn, clip some trees and crash into a ravine.
“I heard a loud explosion and saw flames a couple hundred feet in the air,” he said. “It was a tunnel of flame.”
Christobal Lemus, 26, who takes care of the property, said he was inside eating breakfast when he heard a boom. He ran outside and used two fire extinguishers and a garden hose to try to put out the blaze that resulted from the crash. He said he heard a second explosion when he was outside.
Lemus said he went down into the ravine and got a few feet from the wreckage to see if anybody was alive, but couldn’t find any survivors, only charred human remains.
“It was an awful tragedy,” he said in Spanish.
Riverside County sheriff’s search and rescue personnel conducted three searches of the terrain within 100 yards of the crash site, finding no survivors or additional victims.
The FAA and National Transportation Safety Board will be investigating.

Staff writer Aaron Claverie contributed to this report.





Sunday, July 6, 2014

The rule of Law !



It occurred to me, this 4th of July weekend, that I cannot lose. 

The rule of law guarantees it.


Everyone gets their day in court.  To me, now , its the 9th circuit court of appeals that is on trial here. If they deny my request for a trial or hearing, again, for the third time, the score board will reveal their dissing of the laws of the land !


The Scoreboard so far: 


Bankruptcy Court 4-0

United States District Court 3-0
United States 9th circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel BAP  1-1  
United States Court of Appeals 3-0
United States Supreme Court 3-0



============================================================================= from american bar association



What makes up the rule of law?

No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any 
way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the 
lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

—Article 39, Magna Carta (1215)


In 1215, King John of England signed the Magna Carta (or Great Charter). 
A group of barons, powerful noblemen who supported the king in exchange 
for estates of land, demanded that the king sign the charter to recognize their
rights. 

Article 39 of the Magna Carta was written to ensure that the life, liberty, 
or property of free subjects of the king could not be arbitrarily taken away. 
Instead, the lawful judgment of the subject’s peers or the law of the land had 
to be followed. 

So what does this ancient document have to do with the rule of law? 

Quite a lot. It recognizes that a person’s fate should not be in the hands of 
a single individual—here, the king. It demands that a judgment against a 
person be made in accordance with the law. Magna Carta planted the seeds 
for the concept of due process as it developed first in England, and then in 
the United States. Due process means that everyone is entitled to a fair and 
impartial hearing to determine their legal rights.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a 
government which is to be administered by men over men, the great 
difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the 
governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 51 (1788)

James Madison’s quote from the Federalist Papers gets at the heart of the 
problem that even a government of law is ultimately “administered by men 
over men.” The framers of the U.S. Constitution addressed this problem by 
dividing power among the different branches of government (legislative, 
executive, and judicial). This framework for government, known as the 
separation of powers, ensures that no one person is able to gain absolute 
power and stand above the law. Each branch of our government has some 
level of control or oversight over the actions of the other branches. 

The rule of law does not depend upon a U.S.-style separation of powers. 
In a parliamentary system, for example, the powers of the executive and 
legislative branches are combined; procedures such as “no confidence” votes 
and regularly scheduled elections serve as a check on the party that controls 
the parliament. The key point is that every form of government has to have 
some system to ensure that no one in the government has so much power that 
they can act above the law. 

To make laws that man can not and will not obey, serves to bring all law into 
contempt. It is very important in a republic, that the people should respect the 
laws, for if we throw them to the winds, what becomes of civil government?


—Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1860)



It is very difficult for a nation to maintain the rule of law if its citizens do 
not respect the law. Assume that people in your community decided that 
they didn’t want to be bothered by traffic laws and began to ignore stop signs 
and traffic signals. The ability of police officers to enforce the laws would 
be overwhelmed and the streets of your community would quickly become 
a chaotic and dangerous place. The rule of law functions because most of us 
agree that it is important to observe the law, even if a police officer is not 
present to enforce it. Our agreement as citizens to obey the law to maintain 
our social order is sometimes described as an essential part of the social 
contract. This means that, in return for the benefits of social order, we agree 
to live according to certain laws and rules. 

Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s quote also highlights another important aspect 
of the rule of law. People must be asked to obey laws that they can and will 
obey. If laws become impossible—or even difficult—to follow, the respect of 
citizens for the law will begin to erode. 

There can be no free society without law administered through an 
independent judiciary. If one man can be allowed to determine for himself 
what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny. 

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 

United States v. United Mine Workers (1947)



 God Bless America















Saturday, July 5, 2014

The Murrieta Mess -- How the U.S. can solve its immigration crisis: Legalize drugs

from theweek.com



By  | 6:07am ET


The drug war is the real culprit here


Sending hopeful immigrants back toward the trains from which they came is not the answer.
Sending hopeful immigrants back toward the trains from which they came is not the answer. (John Moore/Getty Images)

A refugee crisis has blown up along the American border in the last couple months. Something like 50,000 refugee children have arrived in the United States in 2014, an increase of more than 90 percent from last year.
As Greg Sargent points out, this is a genuinely tricky issue as a matter of immigration law and policy. But if we step back, there is one big step we might take to address the root of the problems in Latin America that are behind the flood of refugees. Namely, we can end the drug war.
Where are refugees coming from? Not Mexico as much as one might have thought; rather Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are the main sources of the increase. The refugees are fleeing apocalyptic gang violence. Honduras in particular is now the murder capital of the world. (Just to be clear, Mexico is no success story, either. It isn't showing the same skyrocketing increase in refugees as Honduras, but that means it is still past 12,000 so far this year.) Additionally, some people have reportedly have gotten the idea that the U.S. government is now treating immigrant children more leniently.
What is driving the violence is a complex question. The best thing I've ever seen on the problem is this Washington Monthly piece by Elizabeth Dickinson. She details how Colombia successfully beat back a leftist insurgency with aggressive use of military force, and then in the mid-2000s exported — with the U.S.'s help — that same strategy throughout Latin America as a way to deal with organized gang violence. But that strategy hasn't worked elsewhere. On the contrary, it sparkedmore chaos and violence, as upstart drug gangs shoot it out over who will take control over turf and control vacated by toppled kingpins.
What Latin America should do about crime is for them to decide. It seems clear to me that their militarized approach has been a disaster, but, frankly, America should stay out of it; we've already done enough damage.
However, it is unquestionably the case that a major source of conflict is the struggle over the United States drug market. The U.S. drug market is on the order of $100 billion in size, making probably the most important source of revenue for most gangs. Though some have diversified into things like iron ore, as Dickinson's piece and other studies make clear, control of U.S. drug trafficking routes is a key strategic asset for criminal gangs, one for which they will fight like mad.
Therefore, by taking a more sensible approach to our own drug problem, we can cut out a major source of money and power for the gangs, and reduce the incentive to fight over trafficking routes. In other words, this isn't a matter of trying to micromanage other nations' political systems. Instead, it's about moderating our existing actions to reduce their negative effects — actions which are causing serious problems here at home.
Ending the drug war could involve many different policies, but the most important part when it comes to clamping down on gang violence is removing drug supply from the control of criminal gangs. Decades of utterly failed coercive policy shows that it is simply impossible to stop drug trafficking by force. Anything that moved from the drug war model to a more treatment-based, harm reduction model would be a positive step. For a more aggressive policy, we might institute a strict government monopoly on all currently illegal drugs, and say that any addict certified by a doctor can get a supply at cost from the government, with the deliberate intention that enough will leak out to supply current demand. Drugs are easy to make; it would be trivially easy to beat the cartels on price.
Another alternative would be to fully legalize all drugs. Personally, I favor mostly full legalization for less harmful drugs like MDMA, psychedelics and marijuana, with stricter controls on harder stuff like heroin (and alcohol, which could stand much higher taxation). But the idea is to undercut the most important profit center for the drug gangs. It wouldn't solve all crime problems at once, but it's a good idea on the merits, and it would vastly strengthen the relative position of the forces of law and order in Latin America.

Friday, July 4, 2014

Thoughts on the 4th of July 2014

from garyo

Happy 4th of July to all Americans.

 I'ts the Fourth of July 2014.

All through school,  I learned, bit by bit,, what American law was , with 3 separate bodies to govern. This assured that no one side of the triangle of American law, became superior over the other two bodies. Checks and balances is how I understood it.

The fifth amendment (Bill of Rights) and the Fourteenth Amendment, after the civil war guarantee that the government, or private industries, cannot take your freedom, (prison) or property without a hearing to determine the legality of such a move.  That is our America way. Each citizen is guaranteed their day in court.  

We have all grown up believing this was true. Everyone get's  their day in court.  

In practice , however, this has not proven to be true in my case.



Since 2002, I have fought for my day in court. !

Wall Street interests, and judicial decisions have prevented me from stating my claims, and gaining a hearing or trial, to prove my accusations. For over 12 years, our judiciary system in the 9th circuit Court of appeals have denied me this right. I just want a hearing or preferably a trial where i can state my claim, show my evidence, and allow the court to apply the law. 

Think of it,, you lose your home of 26 years and the home based business Residential Fire Sprinklers, you started after quitting quitting a career at Microsoft.

 It was difficult enough from moving from computer, and software concepts to the quite different reality of the construction industry. 

Once I figured out what had happened to me ,, I alerted the Judge, the honorable Meredith Jury,  in my self represented pro-se motion, informing the court on November 21, 2002 of the unlawful actions of the banks  (Chase Manhattan) and their service agents (Ocwen),  


link to pleading to the Judge  11-21-2002

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4Vvwd_ba31GODQ2NTY4NDMtZGY4OC00MTg0LTkyZWMtZDg4MTgwZWEwNmI5/edit


Now, I await for the court to consider my plea, for the Third time  

Local friends from So Cal and Tampa Fl,, have kept me energized to fight this terrible injustice.


I celebrate our country's birthday, I hope the judicial follows the law, a decision is expected shortly.  

Gary O 

7-4-2014












Thursday, July 3, 2014

Robert Reich: 'Freedom' Is Just Another Word For Letting the Rich Get Richer

from alternet.org

July 3, 2014




 
 
 
On Monday the Supreme Court  struck down a key part of the Affordable Care Act, ruling that privately-owned corporations don’t have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the corporate owners’ religious beliefs.
The owners of Hobby Lobby, the plaintiffs in the case, were always free to practice their religion. The Court bestowed religious freedom on their corporation as well—a leap of logic as absurd as giving corporations freedom of speech. Corporations aren’t people.
The deeper problem is the Court’s obliviousness to the growing imbalance of economic power between corporations and real people. By giving companies the right not to offer employees contraceptive services otherwise mandated by law, the Court ignored the rights of employees to receive those services.
(Justice Alito’s suggestion that those services could be provided directly by the federal government is as politically likely as is a single-payer federal health-insurance plan—which presumably would be necessary to supply such contraceptives or any other Obamacare service corporations refuse to offer on religious grounds.)
The same imbalance of power rendered the Court’s decision in  “Citizens United,” granting corporations freedom of speech, so perverse. In reality, corporate free speech drowns out the free speech of ordinary people who can’t flood the halls of Congress with campaign contributions.
Freedom is the one value conservatives place above all others, yet time and again their ideal of freedom ignores the growing imbalance of power in our society that’s eroding the freedoms of most people.
This isn’t new. In the early 1930s, the Court trumped New Deal legislation with “freedom of contract”—the presumed right of people to make whatever deals they want unencumbered by federal regulations. Eventually (perhaps influenced by FDR’s threat to expand the Court and pack it with his own appointees) the Court relented. 
But the conservative mind has never incorporated economic power into its understanding of freedom. Conservatives still champion “free enterprise” and equate the so-called “free market” with liberty. To them, government “intrusions” on the market threaten freedom.
Yet the “free market” doesn’t exist in nature. There, only the fittest and strongest survive. The “free market” is the product of laws and rules continuously emanating from legislatures, executive departments, and courts. Government doesn’t “intrude” on the free market. It defines and organizes (and often reorganizes) it.
Here’s where the reality of power comes in. It’s one thing if these laws and rules are shaped democratically, reflecting the values and preferences of most people.
But anyone with half a brain can see the growing concentration of income and wealth at the top of America has concentrated political power there as well—generating laws and rules that tilt the playing field ever further in the direction of corporations and the wealthy.
Antitrust laws designed to constrain monopolies have been eviscerated. Competition among Internet service providers, for example, is rapidly disappearing—resulting in higher prices than in any other rich country. Companies are being allowed to prolong patents and trademarks, keeping drug prices higher here than in Canada or Europe.
Tax laws favor capital over labor, giving capital gains a lower rate than ordinary income. The rich get humongous mortgage interest deductions while renters get no deduction at all.
The value of real property (the major asset of the middle class) is taxed annually, but not the value of stocks and bonds (where the rich park most of their wealth).
Bankruptcy laws allow companies to smoothly reorganize, but not college graduates burdened by student loans.
The minimum wage is steadily losing value, while CEO pay is in the stratosphere. Under U.S. law, shareholders have only an “advisory” role in determining what CEOs rake in.  
Public goods paid for with tax revenues (public schools, affordable public universities, parks, roads, bridges) are deteriorating, while private goods paid for individually (private schools and colleges, health clubs, security guards, gated community amenities) are burgeoning. 
I could go on, but you get the point. The so-called “free market” is not expanding options and opportunities for most people. It’s extending them for the few who are wealthy enough to influence how the market is organized.
Most of us remain “free” in the limited sense of not being coerced into purchasing, say, the medications or Internet services that are unnecessarily expensive, or contraceptives they can no longer get under their employer’s insurance plan. We can just go without.
We’re likewise free not to be burdened with years of student debt payments; no one is required to attend college. And we’re free not to rent a place in a neighborhood with lousy schools and pot-holed roads; if we can’t afford better, we’re free to work harder so we can. 
But this is a very parched view of freedom. 
Conservatives who claim to be on the side of freedom while ignoring the growing imbalance of economic and political power in America are not in fact on the side of freedom. They are on the side of those with the power. 
Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President Obama's transition advisory board. His latest book is "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future." His homepage is www.robertreich.org.




Pages










    Louis Zamperini, war hero chosen to lead 2015 Rose Parade, dies at 97

    from latimes

    July 3, 2014

    Louis Zamperini
    Louis Zamperini gestures during a news conference on May 9, 2014 in Pasadena, where he was announced as the 2015 Rose Parade grand marshal. (Nick Ut / Associated Press)





    Louis  Zamperini -- the Olympic athlete turned World War II hero who was named grand marshal for the 2015 Rose Parade -- has died. He was 97.o






    Louis Zamperini -- the Olympic athlete turned World War II hero who was named grand marshal for the 2015 Rose Parade -- has died. He was 97.
    Zamperini, whose harrowing life story inspired the bestselling novel "Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience and Redemption," grew up in Torrance and was set to lead the iconic parade down Pasadena's Colorado Boulevard Jan. 1. He died Wednesday.
    In a statement issued by Universal Pictures, which is scheduled to release a film based on Zamperini's life in December, Zamperini was described as "one of a kind" who lived "the most remarkable life."
    "Confronting challenges that would cause most of us to surrender, Louie always persevered and always prevailed, and he spent the better part of his lifetime sharing the message that you could do the same," the studio said.
    Zamperini died in the presence of his "entire family," according to Universal, which did not list a cause of death.
    A standout track-and-field star at USC, Zamperini competed in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, where he was the top U.S. finisher in the 5,000-meter race.
    He retired from running during World War II and joined the U.S. armed forces. While serving as a bombardier on a reconnaissance mission, his aircraft crashed into the Pacific Ocean. He survived 47 days on an inflatable raft in shark-infested waters until being captured by the Japanese.
    Zamperini remained in captivity for two years, during which time he was tortured, and was eventually listed as being killed in action by the U.S. government.
    The book about his experiences was a bestseller and the basis for the long-planned film adaptation, "Unbroken," directed by Angelina Jolie.
    The actress-filmmaker said in a statement that Zamperini's death was a loss that was "impossible to describe."
    "We are all so grateful for how enriched our lives are for having known him," she said. "We will miss him terribly.”
    It was not immediately known how the Tournament of Roses, which puts on the Rose Parade, would address Zamperini's death.
    For news as it happens in California, follow @JasonBretWells