Category: Uncategorized

When the police have to settle domestic quarrels that too frequently turn violent and or deadly, whether an entry into an any American home is legal or illegal is best figured out later. In this situation the primary job is to keep everyone safe. Then go to court if necessary regarding illegal entry.
———————————————————————————————
‘Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

Randall Keyser charged with trying to land a six-figure job in Ohio by posing as an Army general has been indicted.

Investigators say Keyser defrauded an Akron development company and one of its subsidiaries, trying to get hired as director of construction by saying he was commanding officer of the Department of Defense’s Joint Construction Command. They say he posed as other high-ranking military officers to give himself recommendations via telephone.
Court records show Keyser served one or two years in the Army and was discharged as a private.
—————————————————–
An ultimate self promoter

What if employees of COSCO through collective bargaining took 100% of all profits? That would kill the goose (a local business) that lays many golden jobs.

So what happens when S.C. County employees use collective bargaining to get as much as they can? There are no government profits to split up, just “costs” which politicians pass on to taxpayers. The SEIU representatives dangle campaign contributions in front of our politicians’ noses.

Results? Public sector union local 520 SEIU employees (2007-2010) got 100% of their retirement and 95% of health paid by the County.

Each S.C. County SEIU public union employee who retires at 55 with a $30,000 pension over the next 20 years will receive at least $600,000. That’s one golden egg! And not a dime paid by the public sector employee.

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

It’s time that San Francisco rethinks a life time annuity for 5 years of service with ZERO paid in towards that annuity. Who gets it? Elected officials, SEIU public sector union employees and MUNI employees.

Imagine how it transpires: There is a table. On one side sit the elected officials who dish out the money to the other side. On the other side sits the SEIU public sector representatives. And the MUNI representatives. So, SEIU and MUNI say this is what we can give to you elected officials to help your campaign … And how about giving us a life time annuity for which we pay nothing? A DEAL says the elected officials.

Who loses? The taxpayers.

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com .

San Francisco’s pension fund last year paid $3.3 million to former employees who worked as little as five years in city government but nonetheless qualified for a generous pay package upon their 50th birthday.

The program, which city officials say is unmatched anywhere in the country, gives annuities that include city money to people who didn’t work long enough to qualify for an actual pension.

The annuity is calculated by adding the 7.5 percent of the worker’s paychecks they had contributed to the pension fund over the course of their city employment, plus interest, along with a match of that amount from the city. The former employees can begin drawing on it any time after they turn 50.

Making the provision even more unusual, a wide swath of city employees don’t pay anything toward their own pensions, with the city making that 7.5 percent annual employee’s contribution.

That means a number of workers who don’t qualify for a regular pension stand to collect an annuity of 15 percent of their salaries – the 7.5 percent pension contribution made by the city, plus the city’s match of the same amount – even though they never paid a cent toward their pension.

Those groups who now pay nothing toward their pensions include elected officials, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) workers and Muni drivers The first two are set to begin making their own contributions starting July 1. Muni drivers’ contracts are currently being negotiated, and requiring them to pay into their pensions is a major point of contention.

Mayor Ed Lee wants the city-match provision eliminated as part of his pension system overhaul, but unions are fighting to preserve it in some fashion.

To qualify for a pension, a city employee must have worked 20 years and be 50 years old or have worked 10 years and be 60. But to qualify for the annuity, they just have to work for the city for five years.

“There is no other public agency that we know of that does this match,” said Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who himself will qualify for the annuity but thinks it should be eliminated for new employees. “It’s excessive and needs to be removed.”

Provision ‘out of whack’
He said that while San Francisco’s pension system is in line with comparable city and county governments overall, the city-match provision is “out of whack.”

Take, for example, former Mayor Gavin Newsom. He left city employment in January at age 43 after having worked in the city for 14 years (seven years as a supervisor and seven years as mayor).

As lieutenant governor, his service credit is linked to the time he will accrue under the state’s retirement system, CalPERS. But even if he had left politics for good, in seven years he would qualify for a San Francisco annuity worth 15 percent of his total earnings in city government, which he didn’t pay a dime toward.

Francisco Castillo, a spokesman for Newsom, said, “The lieutenant governor supports Mayor Lee’s commitment to continue the city’s efforts to reform its pension system and agrees that this particular provision should be eliminated.”

Former District Attorney Kamala Harris and Supervisors Chris Daly and Michela Alioto-Pier also left office in January and will qualify for the same free 15 percent of their total salaries. Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Sophie Maxwell, who were termed out of office along with Daly and Alioto-Pier, worked in the city long enough and were old enough to qualify for actual pensions.

The San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System said account balances for individuals are not subject to public disclosure and would not say how much Newsom, Harris, Daly or Alioto-Pier stand to collect when they turn 50.

But given that supervisors make $96,549, the district attorney makes $213,365 and the mayor makes $247,473, the dollar figures will be substantial.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/08/MNMD1J7U8O.DTL#ixzz1M6oAzz9F