HARD TO BELIEVE? NO! IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE!

As the government has been invading the parental authority and restricting the tools at the disposal of parents to raise their children, it appears that the delinquency of teenagers has proportionally increased. I vividly remember the 4 or 5 beatings I received from my father, and I did not call D.C.F. In hindsight, I did not turn too bad after all.

Now that the government has successfully laid down what parents couldn’t do, I found out that with all the extra monies available in our budget, the government was now planning to send “well-trained staff” to visit your house and tell you what to do.

“It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Even better, the 19^th Circuit State Attorney’s office has drafted some policy which could result in the jailing of delinquents’ parents who do not “cooperate” enough with the system to try correcting the problems created in the first place by this same system…

Treasure Coast Parents Could Face Jail for Failing to Help Their Children in Court-related Activities _ TCPalm

Big Government must stay out of the way, and stop interfering with parents when it comes to the upbringing of their children. It has destroyed the want and damaged the ability of parents to raise their children properly in tying parents' hands and limiting their tools. The result of its involvement has resulted in an explosion of delinquency, and the development of disrespectful and law-ignoring teenagers. Its social psychologists have poisoned simple peoples’ mind with their “new techniques of training children,” which techniques have miserably failed.

It is time to return to parents the authority to raise their kids without any interference of Big Brother.

Here is exactly how bad laws come about.

The new law has nothing to do with folks who want to strap their gun on their hip… (that’s for law enforcement)

The new law is about protecting the innocent abiding citizens licensed to carry a concealed weapon who bend down and accidentally afford the public to get a glimpse of the weapon they lawfully carry.

Here come in stupid law enforcement and prosecutors. The person gets arrested by some mall cop with an Alaska temperature IQ. Some intake attorney, who forgot to use her common sense instead of systematically and unreasonably  applying the law, files the garbage case. The poor fellow has then no other choice but to either get his case tried or to plea to some serious charge…(no comment from me on jury trials).

Now comes the legislature, telling law enforcement the following: Since you are too stupid to use common sense in failing to realize that a firearm accidentally exposed by someone licensed to carry it, is not brandished (as brandishing has a “willful” component), we have no choice but to protect the public against your nonsensical imbecility.

And guess who are the morons who are objecting to the law?

BILL COTTERELL
FLORIDA TODAY CAPITAL BUREAU

TALLAHASSEE -- A bill allowing gun owners with concealed-weapons permits to carry their firearms openly cleared its second legislative hurdle in less than 24 hours this morning.

The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee voted 10-3 for the proposal by Rep. Chris Dorworth, R-Lake Mary, over the objections of law-enforcement lobbyists and representatives of retail merchants. Dorworth said his bill is only intended to protect licensed concealed-weapons carriers who inadvertently show their weapons.

Marion Hammer, the veteran lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said there have been several prosecutions of law-abiding gun owners for "brandishing" their weapons by accidentally letting them show in public. She and Dorworth said 43 states allow open carry of guns by concealed-weapons license holders, but very few people choose to do so.

"It's not about strapping guns on your hips and walking around," said Hammer. "I don't know anybody who wants to do that."

Randy Miller of the Florida Retail Federation and Maj. T.J. Feeney of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Department urged the committee to leave the existing concealed-weapons law alone. Feeney said that if people are wearing firearms openly, a police officer will naturally focus on them at any crime scene whether or not they are the cause of an emergency. Miller said shop keepers don't want to ask law-abiding customers to leave their guns outside, or tell "squeamish" customers not to worry about another patron who is packing a gun.

Miller said merchants know some of their customers are carrying concealed weapons, and nobody worries about it because they don't know if the guns are out of sight.

"It's don't ask, don't tell," said Miller. "We don't want to do anything to offend our customers."

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee approved a companion bill (SB 234) on Monday afternoon. Dorworth said he conformed his bill (HB 517) to the Senate version, which does not permit weapons -- concealed or not -- on college campuses.

Dorworth's bill now goes to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee before reaching the House floor.

Here is exactly how bad laws come about.

The new law has nothing to do with folks who want to strap their gun on their hip… (that’s for law enforcement)

The new law is about protecting the innocent abiding citizens licensed to carry a concealed weapon who bend down and accidentally afford the public to get a glimpse of the weapon they lawfully carry.

Here come in stupid law enforcement and prosecutors. The person gets arrested by some mall cop with an Alaska temperature IQ. Some intake attorney, who forgot to use her common sense instead of systematically and unreasonably  applying the law, files the garbage case. The poor fellow has then no other choice but to either get his case tried or to plea to some serious charge…(no comment from me on jury trials).

Now comes the legislature, telling law enforcement the following: Since you are too stupid to use common sense in failing to realize that a firearm accidentally exposed by someone license to carry it, is not brandished (as brandishing has a “willful” component), we have no choice but to protect the public against your nonsensical imbecility.

And guess who are the morons who are objecting to the law?

BILL COTTERELL
FLORIDA TODAY CAPITAL BUREAU

TALLAHASSEE -- A bill allowing gun owners with concealed-weapons permits to carry their firearms openly cleared its second legislative hurdle in less than 24 hours this morning.

The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee voted 10-3 for the proposal by Rep. Chris Dorworth, R-Lake Mary, over the objections of law-enforcement lobbyists and representatives of retail merchants. Dorworth said his bill is only intended to protect licensed concealed-weapons carriers who inadvertently show their weapons.

Marion Hammer, the veteran lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said there have been several prosecutions of law-abiding gun owners for "brandishing" their weapons by accidentally letting them show in public. She and Dorworth said 43 states allow open carry of guns by concealed-weapons license holders, but very few people choose to do so.

"It's not about strapping guns on your hips and walking around," said Hammer. "I don't know anybody who wants to do that."

Randy Miller of the Florida Retail Federation and Maj. T.J. Feeney of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Department urged the committee to leave the existing concealed-weapons law alone. Feeney said that if people are wearing firearms openly, a police officer will naturally focus on them at any crime scene whether or not they are the cause of an emergency. Miller said shop keepers don't want to ask law-abiding customers to leave their guns outside, or tell "squeamish" customers not to worry about another patron who is packing a gun.

Miller said merchants know some of their customers are carrying concealed weapons, and nobody worries about it because they don't know if the guns are out of sight.

"It's don't ask, don't tell," said Miller. "We don't want to do anything to offend our customers."

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee approved a companion bill (SB 234) on Monday afternoon. Dorworth said he conformed his bill (HB 517) to the Senate version, which does not permit weapons -- concealed or not -- on college campuses.

Dorworth's bill now goes to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee before reaching the House floor.

The judicial system is running low in financial resource. Here is why…

Can you believe that prosecutors in Duval County charge, prosecute, and try cases where the accused was arrested for trafficking in hydrocodone, a first degree felony (up to 30 years in prison) based on her actual possession of a pill bottle, labeled as belonging to her husband who had a valid prescription for the Lorcet tablets the bottle contained?

The accused, who should never have been arrested, charged, and much less persecuted, had to proceed on the sole defense theory that she was holding the pills for her husband. She was prosecuted for what? I discussed this case with Cheetah, my 2 year old chimpanzee. Even she, looked at me with a perplexed face and asked me if these morons were at all in touch with reality. I did not know what to tell her.

How can any educated fellow agree that it is a crime for a wife to carry her husband’s lawfully prescribed and obtained medication? It appears that in Duval County, Florida, this simplistic logic escapes a bunch of legal scholars and others. It first escaped the copper who started this fine piece of criminal masterpiece investigation and arrested the accused. It then escaped the intake prosecutor who you’d think should have wondered if he or she should move forward with such evidence. It finally escaped the trial prosecutor who was ready, willing, and able to expose the accused to 30 years in prison, waste days of jurors, judges, witnesses, clerks and deputies’ time to prosecute such garbage.

One hundred thousand dollars is likely a very conservative estimate of the cost of this futile and worthless exercise, if we consider the trial judge, the appellate judges, the law enforcement officers and the FDLE experts involved in the investigation and the trial testimony, the prosecutors, the deputy bailiffs, the clerks, without forgetting the time wasted by the jurors.

Unthinkable, yet the unable felony prosecutor wrongly spewed the following:  “They want you to say, so what, they're her husband's pills, of course she can have them, but you know what you won't hear, when the Judge reads you the law, you won't hear that she had a right to have them because, after all, Hydrocodone is a controlled substance. You will not hear from the judge that it is a defense for this defendant to have the pills because her husband has a prescription. You will not hear that. If you do not hear that, then there is no defense in the law for this defendant to have the pills.” … and the final straw; the jury found her guilty of trafficking in hydrocodone.

Luckily, the appellate court overturned the case and told this fine bunch to try again…

McCoy v. State

The importance of an independent judiciary; An example of a bad judge.

The constitutional rights afforded to all American citizens sometimes work in favor of the criminal element of our society. If we let law enforcement trample these rights, they’ll trample them when it comes to this criminal element; they’ll also trample them when these rights should protect you.

For years, I have observed with aversion certain judges systematically rubberstamp the testimony of law enforcement officers. Pragmatism tells me that cops are more likely to vote than criminal defendants… and every few years, judges are up for reelection. Now, some appellate courts are finding that the problem has become so epidemic, that it is now a serious cause for concern.

An appellate court cannot reverse a factual finding made by the trial judge… yet it can let the trial judge know in so many words that he is either naïve, unfairly bias, and/or an imbecile, as the District Court of Appeal did in this case. Here are the two testimonies made part of the record:

POLICE TESTIMONY:

The detectives drove their unmarked car into the parking lot of the complex. They got out of their car and “nonchalantly” or “casually” approached Ruiz. One detective “calmly” asked Ruiz his name and he “calmly” replied that it was “Freddie” and that “he had his identification in his apartment, if [the officer] would like to see it.” One detective said that he wanted to see it and Ruiz led the two law enforcement agents up to his apartment. Ruiz went inside and “motioned” or “nodded” at the detectives to enter, so they went inside. Ruiz walked through the living room into the bedroom; one detective followed and waited at the entrance to the bedroom. From this vantage point, the detective saw a scale and silver spoon with cocaine residue in the scoop part of the spoon. The detective asked Ruiz if the substance was cocaine, and Ruiz admitted it was. The detectives then “detained” Ruiz and read him his Miranda rights.

Ruiz was most cooperative-he told them that additional cocaine was located in a Barbasol shaving cream can and “weed” was inside his dresser drawer.

DEFENDANT TESTIMONY:

Ruiz also testified at the suppression hearing.

His version of events differed substantially from that of the detectives. Ruiz was on his way back from the store when three officers stopped their vehicle in front of him, jumped out with their guns drawn, and told him not to move. Ruiz did not think he was free to leave. One officer frisked him and asked for his identification. Ruiz said he did not have any identification and the police said they would arrest him if he could not produce some identification. Ruiz said that his identification was in his apartment. The officers escorted him to his apartment. After he opened the door, the officers went inside and searched through everything. Ruiz did not give the officers permission to enter his residence.

Following these two statements, “The trial judge found the officers “very credible” and Ruiz's “testimony” “not credible.” Based on the “totality of the circumstances,” the court found that “this was a citizen's encounter” where Ruiz allowed” the police to “come in” to his apartment.”

Here is what the 4^th DCA is telling the good Judge Andrew L. Spiegel:  “The profusion of consent cases requires trial judges, the gatekeepers of the Fourth Amendment, to critically evaluate the testimony given at hearings. Cases like this one call into question the fairness of some trial court proceedings. On the pages of the record, the story told by the police is unbelievable-an anonymous informant gives incriminating information; police surveillance uncovers no criminal conduct; the defendant is “nonchalantly” and “casually” approached by the police on the street; the defendant cooperatively leads the police back to his apartment to obtain his identification and invites the police inside, where a detective sees contraband in plain view, a fact certainly known to the defendant when he issued the invitation; after his arrest, the defendant tells the police about all the hidden drugs in the apartment.

Yet, as an appellate court, we must defer to the express finding of credibility made by the trial court. We were not there. We did not see the witnesses testify. If believed, the detectives' testimony supports the court's ruling. This case demonstrates the importance of an independent judiciary. This case involves the search of a person's home, but were the factors bearing on the voluntariness of the consent scrutinized “with special care?” Without an unbiased and objective evaluation of testimony, judges devolve into rubber stamps for law enforcement. The judge may have punctiliously performed the duties of his office in this case, but, when considering the large number of “consent” cases that have come before us, the finding of “consent” in so many curious circumstances is a cause for concern.”

I summarily Googled the good judge’s name and the search returned little information. Just a few tidbits which I found worthy of reporting:

1:            It appears according to JAABLOG that Siegel’s wife is a Broward Sheriff’s Office deputy.

2:            In his courtroom, a mouthy defendant in handcuffs and shackles was Tasered, and

3:            On 4/27, four days into the trial of a Broward Sheriff's Office deputy charged with falsifying reports and official misconduct, he dismissed the more serious offenses, concluding that prosecutors couldn't substantiate the charges. (Reported by Wanda J. Demarzo and Nikki Waller)

For whatever reason, Judge Siegel was unable to determine which testimony was to be believed. Making intelligent and fair factual findings is the one most important quality expected from a trial judge, as the application of the laws comes after the factual findings are made. If Siegel does not have the ability to make an intelligent and fair factual finding in such a clear cut case, does he qualify to continue to adjudicate people’s lives? I think not! He is not fit to be a judge!

And to the judges above politics, whose purpose is to remain the gate keepers of our Fourth Amendment and to enforce our Constitution (and they know who they are), I thank you and I respect you.

Westlaw_Document_03_23_08

Read the article below and have a good laugh… or start crying.

When two police officers break into cars in a parking garage, these are criminal mischiefs. If you or I break into cars in a parking garage, these are burglaries of a conveyance…

When two police officers break into cars in a parking garage, the State Attorney does not prosecute, because they paid their way out and got alcohol treatment…

Now the funniest of all: “The West Palm Beach Police Internal Affairs Department is still investigating whether they broke department policies.” They are still trying to find in the WPB police department policy book “Law enforcement officers are strongly discouraged to commit felonies…”

So what do we have in WPB besides hanging chads? Selective prosecution courtesy of State Attorney McAuliffe, hanging dingle berry felon cops on patrol, and a brilliant Internal Affair Department wondering if being arrested for committing burglaries breaks the department policies.

I know of one defendant in Brevard County who was sent to prison for 2 or 3 years for breaking into a coke machine… and stealing $23.00. His mistake: he did not work for law enforcement.

Officers In Auto Vandalism Back On Force

2 West Palm Beach Officers Charged With Criminal Mischief

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Two West Palm Beach police officers who were caught breaking into cars in Jupiter were back on the job Thursday night.

Christopher Clark and Timothy Pike went back to work after passing all tests needed find out if they were fit for duty.

The two are now working without restrictions.

A bar manager in Abacoa said he caught the officers breaking into his truck in a parking garage last September.

The officers were charged with felony criminal mischief, but the state attorney won't prosecute those charges if the men pay for the damage they caused and enter alcohol treatment.

The West Palm Beach Police Department's Internal Affairs Department is still investigating whether they broke department policies.

Let's imprison first and investigate later!

Carolyn Miller was arrested because the baby she was babysitting died.  Not overly educated, and likely not overly bright, it appears that she failed to handle the matter properly. Instead of calling 911 and reporting the death, she panicked, and placed the little body in a cooler. At this stage of the investigation, as the autopsy failed to indicate the cause of death, NOTHING shows that the child did not die naturally from ISDS (Instant sudden death syndrome.) The police have no indication of any foul play, and are waiting for the blood results to see if there is any other reason why the baby could have died. This could take weeks. So at this stage, what do we have? A baby who died for an unknown reason and a baby sitter with a low I.Q. who did not react in a way society would expect one to react in the same situation. She is charged at this point with child neglect, and improper disposal of a human body, and the bond was set at $5,000.00, per the schedule. The child neglect is not supported by any evidence, and is therefore pure speculation.

Now, a Brevard county judge raised the bond from $5,000.00 to $150,000.00 which will preclude Carolyn to get out of jail until someone determines if she committed any serious crime at all, as at this stage of the game, the only mistake she made was to dispose improperly of the body of a baby, a 2^nd degree misdemeanor for which people would usually be released on their own recognizance.

Somewhere I read that in our country, we were considered innocent until proven guilty… and innocent people should not be locked in jail unless they represent a danger to society or are unlikely to show up in court… I don’t see either applying to this case.

Baby's cause of death unknown

Suspect's sister disputes charges

BY J.D. GALLOP • FLORIDA TODAY • January 26, 2011

Janelle Richardson planned to celebrate last week as she turned 21. But by Friday, family members say the young Titusville mother of two children grew increasingly worried after a longtime family friend and baby sitter who was caring for her 7-month-old could not be reached.

"Janelle was crying before I even took her to the police department," said 31-year-old Latanya Burch, Richardson's cousin.

A day after baby sitter Carolyn Renee Miller led Titusville Police to the body of Ja'Veon Mitchell, an autopsy Tuesday did not provide investigators with any firm determination of what led to the boy's death.

The review of Ja'Veon's death, however, continues to be an "active homicide investigation," Lt. Todd Hutchinson of the Titusville Police Department said in a statement.

Miller was charged Monday with child neglect and improper disposal of human remains hours after telling police that Ja'Veon died in her care. Family members say Ja'Veon was left with Miller on Tuesday so the child's mother could celebrate her 21st birthday.

Police said additional charges could depend on results from toxicology reports, which could be returned within two weeks.

Miller told police during more than six hours of questioning that, instead of calling authorities for help, she wrapped the baby's body in a sheet and put him in a small cooler. Police said she then took the cooler to her boyfriend's home on Deleon Avenue and hid it in the backyard.

"It's really a sad situation all around. But I know my sister and she's being railroaded in every sense of the word," said Lisa Madden, who talked with a tearful Miller the day she was being interrogated by detectives. "Maybe she panicked. She said she woke up and the baby was dead. She was scared. When a thing like that happens, I wouldn't know what to do."

Police said Ja'Veon's mother, identified as the 21-year-old Richardson, would frequently allow Miller to keep the child for days at a time.

Madden said Miller, who has no known address, had kept Ja'Veon on and off since he was born. Madden said Ja'Veon was Richardson's second child and that Miller offered to baby-sit the boy, sometimes at her home.

Court records show Miller has had run-ins with the law. She was arrested twice in 2004 on drug possession charges, once in 2006 for breach of the peace and once in 2008 for petit theft. But Madden said that was only one side of Miller's story.

"Everybody knows my sister would keep all the children in the neighborhood . . . for years," Madden said.

Madden said Richardson also was friends with Miller's 15-year-old daughter. Miller also has a 17-year-old son who lives in Georgia with his father.

"My sister is just a sweet, loving person, and she'd be right here with that baby in my house. Sometimes she'd have to call Janelle and say, 'The baby needs milk.' All I could think was Janelle needs to come get her baby," Madden said.

Richardson was searching for Miller by Friday and confronted Miller's daughter. Richardson's cousin Burch took her to the police department Sunday to file a report.

"I found Miller and I asked her where my cousin's baby was. . . . She said she didn't have the baby and hadn't seen her for two weeks. She just kept lying and lying," Burch said.

"I really don't know what happened. We've known (Renee) for a long time. . . . I just don't want to think that she did this. Something just had to go wrong."

"(Richardson is) OK and as well as can be expected," Burch said, adding that the grieving mother was staying with relatives in Titusville.

"It's sad on all sides," Burch said.

TITUSVILLE, Fla. -- A Brevard County judge increased the bail on Tuesday for a Titusville baby sitter who was jailed in connection with the death of an infant.

Carolyn Miller's bail was raised to $150,000, which is up from just over $5,000, on charges of child neglect and the improper disposal of a human body. A public defender objected to the increase and said the bail is "far in excess" of the typical bail imposed for such charges.

After an autopsy on the body of JaVeon Brushan, 7 months old, police announced the cause of death is still undetermined. Authorities are awaiting the results of toxicology tests that could take several weeks.

JaVeon's body was found Monday in a cooler in the back yard of a home on DeLeon Street in Titusville. Miller had been baby-sitting the child since Thursday.

Police said she told them the child died mysteriously while Miller was napping on Friday. She did not report the death, police said, but instead disappeared until police located her Monday.

Police said in a statement Tuesday they will no longer discuss the case for fear the release of information could jeopardize the investigation.