Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Obama and Allies Seek to Nationalize Local Police

September 15, 2015

From The New American by Alex Newman and William F. Jasper , September 15, 2015

On December 18, 2014, President Obama signed an executive order creating the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. In May 2015, the task force came out with its Final Report, which is commonly given the title “21st Century Policing.”

One of the report’s recommendations, which the Obama-friendly media fixated on, concerns greater restrictions on transfers of military equipment to local police agencies. However, as we reported in a related article (“What’s Happening to Our Police?“), the new “accountability” rules will not explicitly reduce the flow of war materials to law enforcement, but simply place more federal controls over local police. Moreover, the new Obama rules regarding military gear were just one component of a broader set of recommendations issued by Obama’s plan for “21st Century Policing” — the overarching theme of which was promoting increased federal control over law enforcement.

While speaking to a group of police at a carefully stage-managed event in Camden, New Jersey, the president also touted some of his other efforts to exert more control over police — officers who, in accordance with the Constitution, are supposed to serve and be accountable to local communities and the wishes of local citizens, not the mandates of the White House. Among other schemes, Obama boasted of his administration’s alleged efforts to “fight crime,” improve relations between police departments and the communities they serve, and promote “transparency.” He also touted a White House “data initiative” aimed at prodding police departments into following federal “guidelines” on data and body cameras.

Finally, Obama also celebrated federal “grants” created by the administration to promote and fund the implementation of dubious policies associated with “community policing strategies.” Those federal grants, of course, along with others, are at the heart of Obama’s efforts to nationalize everything from healthcare and education standards to law enforcement. Among the schemes to be promoted with the new grants are national standards for police departments receiving federal funds. Some critics have started describing the plot as “Common Core for police,” a reference to the Obama administration’s Department of Education efforts to bribe states into imposing the deeply controversial national K-12 school standards and the associated federal testing regime. The effort also comes just a few months after United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, citing Ferguson, demanded that American police submit to “international standards.”

According to a report by Obama’s task force released in March, two tentacles of the Department of Justice, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and the Office of Justice Programs, “should provide technical assistance and incentive funding to jurisdictions” that adhere to the White House plan, “in return for receiving federal funds.” The report also called for uniform federal standards for data collected by local police departments, and much more.

Even before citing militarization of police as an excuse to usurp more control over local police, Obama was celebrating the recommendations of his task force, and demanding rapid implementation. “I’m going to be asking Eric Holder and the Justice Department and his successor to go through all of these recommendations so that we can start implementing them,” he explained. “I know one area that’s going to be of great interest is whether we can expand the COPS program that in the past has been very effective, continues to be effective, but is largely underfunded.”

The recommendations offered a “great opportunity” to “really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations,” Obama said. “We need to seize that opportunity,” he continued, echoing the “never let a crisis go to waste” rhetoric of other statists. “This is something that I’m going to stay very focused on in the months to come.” He certainly was not kidding.

Just weeks after the report was released, the administration unveiled a list of six U.S. cities targeted to serve as “pilot sites” to develop and deploy federal guidance for local police — all of it supposedly to create “better procedures, reduce racial bias, and regain citizens’ trust.” The plan, officially dubbed the “National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice,” will use U.S. taxpayer dollars to deploy “experts” and “researchers” charged with training officers to act in a manner that the DOJ deems just — in essence doing the bidding of the Obama administration. Officially, the Justice Department will be helping local officials “fight crime” under the scheme, according to news reports.

Initially, the program, which will cost American taxpayers almost $5 million, will aim to “assess” the relationship between local police and the communities they serve. Then, the DOJ squads will work to develop plans supposedly aimed at enhancing “procedural justice,” reducing bias, and supporting “reconciliation in communities where trust has been eroded,” the Justice Department said in a statement announcing the plan. With more than two-thirds of Americans saying in a survey that the federal government is “out of control” and a “threat” to their liberties, it was not immediately clear how “trust” would be “restored” by deepening federal involvement.

The first six cities to be targeted as pilot sites will be Birmingham, Alabama; Fort Worth, Texas; Gary, Indiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Stockton, California. Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price described the program as “a tool to strengthen our partnership with the justice system.” But other police departments are also in the cross hairs. According to the official announcement, an unspecified number of “police departments and communities that are not pilot sites” will also be targeted for more DOJ “training” and “technical assistance.”

It bears mentioning that the DOJ,  which supposedly will guide local law enforcement in proper procedures, has in recent years been exposed training state and local police to view citizens’ speech as potential indicators of terrorism — including among damning public expression mundane matters such as bumper stickers promoting the Bill of Rights or a U.S. withdrawal from the UN. Ironically, at the time of the announcements on pilot cities, the DOJ was being led by disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, who was held in criminal contempt of Congress for trying to stonewall an investigation into the administration’s “Fast and Furious” scheme to arm Mexican drug cartels.

The efforts to further nationalize and federalize law enforcement are also in line with Obama’s campaign rhetoric about building a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military. And critics say the agenda should be ringing alarm bells nationwide.

“Americans everywhere should be very concerned about oversight of local police agencies,” explained former detective Jim Fitzgerald, the national field director for The John Birch Society, the parent organization of this magazine. The constitutionalist group, which has chapters in all 50 states, has been running a campaign for decades called “Support Your Local Police and Keep Them Independent.” The effort is meant to, among other goals, protect local communities from having their police departments turned into tentacles of an all-powerful federal government.

“These steps to exercise and take control over police departments should raise a red flag among police officials and give deep concern to anyone who understands the history of national police forces,” continued Fitzgerald. “Have we so soon forgotten the Gestapo and the KGB, both national police agencies, that terrorized the citizens of Germany and Russia and led to the imprisonment and deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men and women? Has there ever been a national police force that benefited the citizens who live under it? Never!”

Of course, the nationalization of police did not begin with Obama, and it probably will not end with him. So-called fusion centers, pairing local and state officials with federal bureaucrats under the sprawling “Homeland Security” banner, have been in place since the George W. Bush administration. And a broad range of DOJ offices and programs has been quietly expanding federal control over police for decades. But the trends are accelerating, and the endgame is becoming more clear.

police under fire coverDecentralized government is one of the cornerstones of America’s freedom and its constitutional system of federalism. Even if Obama’s radical plans to nationalize police departments were not unconstitutional, though, history provides numerous examples showing why national policing is not just unwise, but extremely dangerous to liberty. Congress must rein in Obama, and in the meantime, state and local governments should refuse to surrender self-government to an out-of-control White House in exchange for unconstitutional federal bribes. The American people, if they hope to preserve liberty and self-government, should work to support their local police, and keep them independent;

Feds Crafting Race-obsessed Guidelines for NYPD

April 24, 2015

From The New American by Selwyn Duke, April 21, 2015

The feds may soon be coming to a police force near you. And if you live in New York City, they’re already present, trying to foist politically correct standards on Big Apple law enforcement.

The proposed central-government guidelines — which a court-appointed federal “monitor” overseeing their implementation claims were made with the cooperation of the NYPD and City Hall — are the consequence of a 2013 ruling that the department’s stop-and-frisk practices are “unconstitutional.” Of course, what’s certainly unconstitutional is federal control of local police, irrespective of whether or not, as the Barack Obama administration purports, the goal is to eliminate discrimination.

The New York Daily News reports on the story, writing:

The monitor, Peter Zimroth, asked Manhattan Federal Judge Analisa Torres on Monday to approve the stack of new training materials that will be presented to the class of cadets graduating in June.

He included in filings more than 75 PowerPoint slides that delve into the nitty-gritty of police work, detail constitutional stop-and-frisk practices — and give remedial directions that, it is hoped, the officers already know.

And what do these guidelines, formulated (at least partially) by the federal government, overseen by a federally appointed monitor, and to be approved by a federal judge, prescribe for the local police? Some rules are innocuous and reasonable, such as “Remember[,] most people are good, law-abiding citizens” and “don’t hassle people for no reason,” as the News puts it. Then there are the generic statements, one of which the News reports as being “Don’t be racist.” This is reminiscent of a line from a purposely ridiculous They Might be Giants song that instructs “Nice is better than mean.” Except that “mean” has clearer meaning and “nice” is less nebulous than “racist.” Does racism here merely refer to bigotry, the embrace of negative opinions about a group that have no basis in reality? Or, as many insist on doing, will unfashionable truths — such as blacks and Hispanics being responsible for 96 percent of all crime and 98 percent of gun crime in NYC — be labeled “racist”?

Speaking of which, another guideline states, “Don’t target certain races because they appear more often in local crime stats.” Is this “target” in the sense of harassment or simply viewing certain races as more likely to engage in certain behaviors? Some critics would reject the legitimacy of even the latter, but perspective is lent by altering the injunction: “Don’t target one sex or the other because it appears more often in local crime stats.” Should men’s greater tendency to engage in violent crime or the fact that most prostitutes are women be ignored by criminal science? If not, why should different standards apply to the races?

In the same vein, another guideline states, “Avoid expressing stereotypical assumptions” such as “He’s Irish but I’ve never seen him drunk” (or, presumably, “He’s a leftist politician but I’ve never seen him pick anyone’s pocket”). But is “stereotyping” being conflated with “observing characteristic group tendencies”? After all, if there weren’t differences among groups, we couldn’t even identify them as “groups.” And would this prohibition include not assuming that every white cop who shoots a black suspect is a “racist”?

Not surprisingly and continuing the obsession with race, another guideline reads, “Do not engage in racial profiling.” Again, though, definitions matter. What does “racial profiling” really mean other than that activists succeeded in mainstreaming an emotionally charged term? As I wrote in 2010:

There’s no such thing as “racial profiling.”  Rather, there are only two types of profiling:

Good profiling and bad profiling.

… Profiling is simply a method by which law enforcement can determine the probability that an individual has committed a crime or has criminal intent. And when making this determination, good profiling considers many different factors, such as dress, behavior, the car being driven, tattoos, sex, age, race, and ethnicity. Whatever the details, however, good profiling is practiced in accordance with sound criminological science. 

And because that science has been applied, I continued,

group-specific profiling is nothing unusual; for instance, law enforcement looks more suspiciously upon men and young people because those groups commit an inordinate amount of crime. Yet do we hear complaints of “sex profiling” or “age profiling”? Of course not, as we know that such practices are just common sense. But if this standard can be applied to men and youth, it’s only fair and just to apply the exact same standard to all other groups that commit an inordinate amount of a given crime. And when we refuse to do so — when we say that certain groups must receive a special dispensation from life’s realities because they enjoy privileged status — that is where the real discrimination lies.

Yet many today dismiss the above argument. When I gave a speech on profiling in Toronto, Canada, years ago and made the sex-profiling/double standard point, an opposing speaker dismissed it simply by saying, “What we’re talking about here is racial profiling, not sex profiling.” It was akin to justifying discrimination against one family and preferences for another by stating, “We’re talking here about Smiths, not Joneses,” as if the double standard’s legitimacy is self-explanatory. But why is it moral to profile one group but not another? If the determination isn’t being made based on the objective measure of crime statistics, what yardstick is being used?

Attorney, former law professor, and admitted ex-Marxist Jack Golbert provided the answer last Thursday: We’re no longer a nation of laws.

We’re a nation of status groups.

Addressing the recent cases wherein the government has punished Christian businessmen for not servicing homosexual affairs, he writes at American Thinker, “Not even the facts matter anymore. All that matters is status.” He then provides some examples:

White cop vs. black teenager: Who wins? You don’t even have to know what happened.

Privileged white males vs. black female: Who wins?

Hispanic vs. black teenager would be problematic because of the relatively equal statuses. So the media invented the status “White Hispanic” to decide the case against George Zimmerman for the death of [Trayvon] Martin. No need to know what happened, is there?

So now we have white Christian florist vs. gay couple getting married. The content of the law is irrelevant. What does your gut tell you about a case of Asian Muslim florist vs. gay couple getting married? It doesn’t feel the same as a white Christian florist, does it?

“Feel” is the right word. Research shows that a vast and growing majority of Americans now make decisions based on emotion, and what feels right today — especially to the elites — is political correctness. Of course, having safe streets feels right, too. But this just brings us to another reason why allowing Washington bureaucrats to control local police from afar is folly: It’s easy to advocate policy that yields unsafe streets when you don’t actually have to walk those streets.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects “De Minimis” Extension of a Traffic Stop to Deploy a Drug Dog

April 22, 2015

From by Jeff Welty, April 22, 2015

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Rodriguez v. United States, an important traffic stop case that changes North Carolina law as it pertains to certain drug dog sniffs, and perhaps other investigative techniques as well.

Facts. Just after midnight, a Nebraska law enforcement officer saw a vehicle veer onto the shoulder of a state highway, then pull back onto the road. Nebraska law prohibits driving on the shoulder, so the officer stopped the vehicle. The driver provided the officer with his license, registration, and proof of insurance. The passenger provided his license as well. License and warrant checks on both men apparently came back clean, and the officer issued a warning ticket to the driver. The officer suspected that the driver might be involved in drug activity, so he asked the driver for permission to run the officer’s drug dog around the vehicle. The driver said no. The officer then called for backup and detained the driver for a few minutes until another officer arrived. At that point, the officer walked his dog around the vehicle twice and the dog alerted. The alert led to a search and the discovery of methamphetamine. The total delay to allow the drug dog to sniff the car was seven or eight minutes.

Procedural history. The defendant was charged in federal court with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He moved to suppress. The district court denied the motion, ruling that the delay to allow the dog sniff was “de minimis” and did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. The defendant pled guilty and appealed the suppression issue. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case, because courts across the country have divided regarding the permissibility of brief extensions of traffic stops to conduct investigation unrelated to the original basis for the stop.

The majority. Justice Ginsburg wrote for herself and five other Justices. She concluded that a stop may not be extended beyond the time necessary to complete the “mission” of the stop, which is “to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop . . . and attend to related safety concerns.” That is, “[a]uthority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are – or reasonably should have been – completed.” A dog sniff is not such a task “tied to the traffic infraction,” as it is “aimed at detecting ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Therefore, if such a sniff prologs a stop at all, it violates the Fourth Amendment. There is no exception for “de minimis” delays.

The majority remanded the case to the court of appeals to determine whether, based on facts not summarized in this post, the officer’s decision to detain the driver might have been supported by reasonable suspicion.

The dissents. Justice Thomas wrote the principal dissent, arguing (1) that the 29-minute total duration of the stop was reasonable “for a traffic stop by a single officer of a vehicle containing multiple occupants”; (2) that the majority’s rule makes the permissible duration of a stop dependent on the identity of the officer, with an efficient officer who can address the traffic infraction quickly limited to a short stop, while a slower officer is permitted additional time; (3) that the majority draws a doubtful distinction between dog sniffs (not allowed, because they target ordinary criminal activity) and warrant checks (allowed by the majority as discussed further below, though arguably also addressing criminal activity rather than roadway safety); and (4) that the majority fails to differentiate between traffic stops based on reasonable suspicion, which might be more constrained, and those based on probable cause, which constitutionally could culminate with an arrest and so may be more expansive. Justice Thomas also believed that reasonable suspicion of drug activity supported the continued detention of the driver in this case. Justices Kennedy and Alito joined Justice Thomas, with Justice Alito writing a separate dissent that makes many of the same points made by Justice Thomas.

Effect on North Carolina law. At a minimum, Rodriguez effectively overrules State v. Brimmer, 187 N.C. App. 451 (2007) (“Courts . . . have held . . . that if the detention is prolonged for only a very short period of time, the intrusion is considered de minimis. As a result, even if the traffic stop has been effectively completed, the sniff is not considered to have prolonged the detention beyond the time reasonably necessary for the stop.”), and State v. Sellars, 222 N.C. App. 245 (2012) (similar).

But the impact of Rodriguez extends beyond dog sniffs. If an officer can’t extend a stop to deploy a dog, he or she can’t extend the stop to ask drug-related questions or seek consent to search, either. Professor Orin Kerr argues here that the case “is more important for its impact on police asking questions than [for its impact on the] use of drug-sniffing dogs,” because dog sniffs are uncommon but questions about matters unrelated to the basis for the stop are asked “all the time.” As noted in my paper on traffic stops, which is linked here, though now I need to revise it again, North Carolina law tended not to support delays for additional questioning even before Rodriguez, but the case certainly draws a line in the sand. It remains to be seen how much general chit-chat about travel plans and the like courts will permit incident to traffic stops.

So what’s an officer to do? Although Rodriguez is mostly about what officers can’t do, it also makes clear that officers certain activities are related to the “mission” of an ordinary traffic stop, so a reasonable amount of time may be spent on these activities:

  • Checking the driver’s license, registration, and insurance
  • Checking for outstanding warrants against the driver
  • Taking actions necessary to address safety concerns, such as ordering the driver out of the vehicle

Furthermore, officers may undertake investigative activities that do not relate to the original basis of the stop so long as the activities themselves do not implicate the Fourth Amendment, and so long as they do not extend – at all – the duration of the stop.

My guess is that many officers will respond to Rodriguez by multitasking: deploying a drug dog while waiting for a response on a license check, or asking investigative questions of the driver while filling out a citation. Defendants may argue that such multitasking inherently slows an officer down, and I can imagine difficult-to-resolve factual disputes about that.

I should also note that nothing in Rodriguez changes the rule that once a stop is complete and the driver’s paperwork has been returned, the officer may seek consent to pursue further investigation.

A word about warrant checks. Finally, I wanted to touch on a point of dispute between the majority and the dissent. The majority stated that an officer may check for outstanding arrest warrants for the driver during a traffic stop. That is apparently a common law enforcement practice. But, as noted by the dissent, it does not align very well with the majority’s reasoning that a stop should stay focused on its “mission” rather than general crime detection. The majority’s justification for permitting warrant checks is that they add to roadway safety by allowing an officer to determine whether a driver is wanted for other traffic offenses. That strikes me as a pretty weak argument – how many outstanding warrants are there for speeding? Furthermore, the principal authority the majority cites for that idea is Professor LaFave’s treatise, but Professor LaFave himself doubts whether warrant checks should be permitted. Wayne R. LaFave, The “Routine Traffic Stop” from Start to Finish: Too Much “Routine,” Not Enough Fourth Amendment, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1843 (2004) (stating that “a rather compelling argument” can be made for abolishing warrant checks as insufficiently directed at the purpose of the stop, though noting that “there are at least some rational arguments” to the contrary).

A better argument might be that a warrant check is appropriate as an officer safety measure, i.e., that officers need to know whether they’re dealing with a fugitive who may have an incentive to assault, resist, or run from law enforcement. In any event, a majority of the Court has ruled that such checks are permissible, and perhaps the holding is more important than the reasoning.

On 20th Anniversary of OKC Bombing: Unanswered Questions Haunt Family of Murdered Oklahoma City Police Sgt. Terrance Yeakey

April 19, 2015

From, April 23, 2012, By Wendy S. Painting

On May 11, 1996, the New York Times ran a story with the headline ‘A Policeman Who Rescued 4 in Bombing Kills Himself’  that said: Sergeant Terrance Yeakey, Oklahoma City Police Department, (OCPD) was 30 years old and was about to receive the police department’s Medal of Valor for his heroic rescue efforts the day of the Oklahoma City bombing, which occurred on April 19, 1995.  Instead, his mother, Loudella, was given the Medal of Valor at Sgt. Yeakey’s graveside burial ceremony just hours before the official awards ceremony would take place in Northeast Oklahoma City at the National Cowboy Hall of Fame Complex.

Yeakey was the first to arrive on the scene that terrible day and saved the lives of 8 (eight) people from the rubble of the building and the horrific effects of the explosion.  The article says Yeakey committed suicide because he was living emotional pain because he could not do more to help the people injured in the bombing, and that he was suffering from intense survivor guilt which he was unable to manage.

But others in Oklahoma City, including the family of Terrance Yeakey, claim that his death was not a suicide at all, but a brutal murder, and indicate that local law enforcement were complicit in covering up this murder.

On September 26, 2009 the Yeakey family spoke out for the first time on video for an interview with activists from We Are Change Oklahoma (see: and an American Studies PhD student from the University of Buffalo who is writing her dissertation on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

What these researchers found was that the facts surrounding Yeakey’s death are quite disturbing, and that the treatment of the Yeakey family in the aftermath of the death was beyond appalling.

It is important to note how, exactly,Yeakey is supposed to have killed himself.  He was said to have slit his wrists and neck, causing him to nearly bleed to death in his car, and then miraculously climb over a barbed wire fence. He then was purported to have walked over 1-1/4 miles distance, through a nearby field, eventually shooting himself in the side of the head at an unusual angle.

Startlingly, no weapon was found at the scene of the body, no investigation was conducted, no fingerprints were taken, and no interviews with family members or friends were conducted to try to determine why Yeakey would have been suicidal, or if he had, in fact, been suicidal at all.  Instead, the conclusion that Yeakey’s death was a suicide was reached immediately, without an autopsy.

Yeakey had witnessed things during his response to the bombing which did not agree with the ‘official version’ of events touted by the national media and law enforcement at that time.  Yeakey was in the process of collecting evidence which supported and documented the inconsistencies he witnessed the morning of the bombing at the scene itself.

Far from being suicidal, Yeakey was in the process of achieving some major life goals. He was scheduled to be interviewed a final time with the FBI in Irving, TX.  He was planning on working for the FBI in Dallas and moving there with his sister and brother in law.  Yeakey, a Gulf War – I veteran who had served as an M.P. for two years in Saudi Arabia, was also a seven year veteran of the OCPD and had just been promoted to Sergeant (November of 1995).

Several weeks before his death he had been awarded the Key to the City of El Reno, OK for his heroism during the aftermath of the OKC bombing. Additionally, Yeakey had reconciled with his ex-wife and plans were set to remarry her shortly after his move to Dallas, TX.

Despite all of this, Yeakey was living under constant scrutiny for his refusal to go along with official versions of events during and after the OKC bombing; and because of his refusal to change his story about what he saw that fateful day, he was the target of horrific persecution from his brothers in law enforcement, up to and including Oklahoma City Police Chief Sam Gonzales, his Commanding Officer, Lt. Joann Randall, his alleged ‘good friend’ Jim Ramsey as well as several others on the force at that time.

Although he was looking forward to his new job with the FBI, Yeakey was described by his family as a man who was also living in great fear at this time, and who was preoccupied with the harassment he was being subjected to on a daily basis.

When Yeakey showed up to his oldest sister’s home the evening before his alleged suicide, he was physically ill.  When she attempted to take him to the emergency room, Yeakey would not allow it because, he told her, “they can find me there”.   Yeakey never told her who “they” were in an attempt to protect her.

Sgt. Yeakey left his sister’s house that evening, and was found dead the next day in a remote field in El Reno, Oklahoma less than two miles from the front gate of the El Reno Federal Penitentiary; thirty-two miles due west of the OKC bombing site in downtown Oklahoma City.

Immediately after his family was notified of Terrance Yeakey’s death they insisted that they did not believe Yeakey had killed himself.  Their conclusion was based on the manner of death, Yeakey’s personality, his recent statements about the future, and the lack of investigation and autopsy.

At first they tried to get answers to their questions: Why wasn’t there a proper investigation? Where was the weapon he supposedly shot himself with?   Why wasn’t an autopsy conducted?

As they continued to ask questions in the following days, they would sometimes be approached by others in the police department, who told them in no uncertain terms, but off the record, that Yeakey had been murdered.

As a result of their inquiries they were harassed and followed by Oklahoma City Police and others.  Unmarked cars sat in front of their homes for hours and this stalking was caught on video by the family.

Shortly after his death, Yeakey’s ex-wife had her home broken into and a balloon was left in her house.  Written on the balloon in black marker were the words, “we know where you are.”  This harassment and surveillance had a chilling effect on the surviving Yeakey family and on their inquiries into Terrance’s death, which were in effect shut down… until now, fourteen years after the fact.

Yeakey’s 91 year old grandmother, Mary Kuykendahl, says that it is important that she knows who killed her grandson and implores anyone who can help her:  “From my heart I want something to happen to show he had no right to be killed. His life was taken away for nothing.”

His oldest sister, Vikki Yeakey, speaking out again after all of these years, states that she knew as soon as she was told by the OCPD that Yeakey had committed suicide that it was untrue, “I screamed out ‘He didn’t take his life. Someone murdered him.”

Yet detectives told her that she was crazy and that she watched too much television. “I had just seen him the night before. He was mentally fine…I wanted answers that night.” But, she says, they rushed her through the paperwork all the while telling her she was “crazy.” She asks, “Who was he running from? Who was he trying to protect?…I am doing this interview to reach out to the world, to anyone that can help.”

Another sister, Lashawn Hargrove, says, “He was an awesome older brother. He was always all about his work. He was serious about being a cop.” When she received news of his death she says she dropped the phone and “began to sob.” She felt nauseous. She needed to get to her family.

Later, OCPD Officials would approach her and say “sorry for your loss,” but soon after, she says, the family was told that they needed to “keep our mouths shut,” and were continuously told that the death was a suicide. She feels that her brother’s death deserves answers and an investigation that were never provided, “I want justice for his life. He needs to have his story told. I wish I had him back.”

When Yeakey’s mother, received a call notifying her of the death she was told by the OCPD not to drive anywhere and that a car would come to pick her up. This was around 10 PM, but by 1 AM the promised transportation had not arrived.  In fact, they never showed up for Yeakey’s grieving mother,  “No one ever came.”

Yeakey’s mother says that for the last fourteen years she has been “going over and over something I don’t believe to be true. I believe it to be murder. I don’t know who did it. [That’s] why we need answers…you need to put your child to rest and without knowing what happened [we can’t]…I vowed I will never give up. I need answers.  If there’s ANYONE who could help I would appreciate it.”

The family says that the death of Yeakey is a taboo subject in Oklahoma City.  There is a saying: “if you don’t want the Terry Yeakey done to you…keep your mouth shut.”

Yeakey is not the only suspicious death which has occurred due to the attempt to find answers about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and it is not the only one to be called a suicide: the strange and grisly torture/murder of Kenneth Trentadue being another.  The suspicious death of  Kenneth Trentadue  at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center in August 1995 would be ruled a suicide despite the opinion of the Dr. Frederick Jordan, the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner (see:  After examining the body of this brother, it became clear to Attorney Jesse Trentadue that his brother had been tortured and murdered. Jesse had received chilling information from Timothy McVeigh (convicted and executed for his role in the 1995 bombing) that his brother’s murder was related to the bombing and its subsequent mis-investigation.  Subsequently, Jesse began a quest to determine why exactly his brother had died, leading him to file many Freedom of Information Act Requests about the bombing and related matters.  Then, after filing a wrongful death lawsuit, the Trentadue  family was awarded $1.1 million dollars for emotional distress caused by the authorities mishandling of the death.  On September 28, 2009, attorney Jesse Trentadue made national news when  portions of surveillance tapes  of the bombing were begrudgingly released by the FBI under the orders a Federal Judge.

Like Jesse Trentadue, and those who lost family members in the Oklahoma City bombing, the surviving family of Terrance Yeakey is seeking answers which they feel will help them achieve closure, justice and peace of mind.

The Shocking Thing a Cruise Operator Told a Father Whose Cop Son Was Killed in Training Accident

April 15, 2015

From by Liz Klimas, April 15, 2015

Timothy Haley was supposed to be looking forward to a cruise vacation to celebrate his 60th birthday next week. Instead, he found himself in mourning this week as he buried his son, a Florida cop killed in a training accident.

Now, his family feel they cannot emotionally take that cruise vacation, but Haley is having to fight the company for a refund.

Oscala Police Department Officer Jared Forsyth was killed in a freak accident April 7. According to Bay News, a fellow officer was unloading his Glock when a bullet ricocheted on a bench and hit Forsyth. He was wearing a bulletproof vest at the time, but the bullet missed the protective barrier. Forsyth died while in surgery at an area hospital.

Jared Forsyth was killed in an accident during training earlier this month. (Image source: WKMG-TV)

Jared Forsyth was killed in an accident during training earlier this month. (Image source: WKMG-TV)

WKMG-TV reported that Haley, a platinum member of Carnival Cruise Lines, said he tried to have his upcoming trip refunded, but the request was initially refused.

“I needed help, and with something as tragic as this, and all I got back from Carnival was how much of my money could they keep,” Haley told WKMG, which noted that it was supposed to be Forsyth’s first cruise.

“There’s no way to schedule the accidental shooting of this police officer. There’s no way you should make a dime off of this,” Haley said.

Haley said he told an operator to turn on the news as proof he wasn’t lying about his son’s death or service.

“And when I said that, she said, ‘Well, if you want to play the dead son angle…,’ and I just lost it,” Haley recalled to WKMG. “I called her a bad name and hung up.”

Shortly after the news station contacted the cruise line for comment, it was told that a full refund was granted to Haley’s family.

“Our most heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to Mr. Haley and his family during this tragic situation,” Carnival told WKMG in a statement.

However, Haley said he will still be charged the insurance fee, which will be more than $1,000. It’s something he told WKMG he will continue to fight.

Pittsburgh, PA Region Relies Heavily on Part-Time Police Officers

January 5, 2015

From The Pittsburgh Tribune Review by Kari Andren, January 4, 2015

Brice Joll said his body got used to running on as little as four hours of sleep as he pieced together grueling double and triple shifts as a part-time officer with three police departments.

Joll, 26, graduated from the municipal police academy at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and worked for two years as a part-time officer in North Belle Vernon and Smithton in Westmoreland County and Liberty in Allegheny County.

He made $10 to $11.50 an hour, received no benefits or paid time off and had to spend more than $1,200 of his own money for equipment, including a handgun and ammunition, a gun belt, a bulletproof vest and other items. Orchestrating his schedule was tricky, but he rarely turned down a shift.

“I would pick up shifts left and right because I loved my job,” Joll said.

Because so many departments in the region depend so heavily on part-time officers, there were few opportunities for Joll to land a full-time job. So he moved to Jacksonville, N.C., where he’s attending the local police academy in hopes of finding a permanent post.

Western Pennsylvania municipalities rely on part-time police officers more than their counterparts across the state and the nation, statistics show. About 29 percent of officers in the nine-county region around Pittsburgh work part time, compared with about 20 percent statewide, according to the state Department of Community and Economic Development.

The region’s rate is more than five times the national rate, where about 5.4 percent of officers worked part time in 2008, the most recent year figures were available from the Department of Justice.

The use of part-time officers is among the more controversial issues in the profession, said Bill Kelly, president of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association and chief of the Abington Police Department in Montgomery County.

Tiny municipalities and those with tight budgets favor the less expensive way of plugging holes in department staffing, while police unions, including the Fraternal Order of Police, typically have opposed using part-timers in favor of more full-time positions.

“Most people would tell you, in a perfect world, there would be all full-time officers who are fully engaged in doing the work in their community. That’s the ideal,” Kelly said. “For economic reasons, especially in the smaller municipalities, they find they can save a lot of money by filling in with part-timers rather than having to hire another officer with benefits” and other costs, Kelly said.

Pennsylvania has more local police departments than any other state, according to the Department of Justice. In 2013, there were 1,295 municipal police departments, while 1,266 municipalities relied solely on the state police for coverage.

Municipalities statewide spent more than $2 billion on their police departments in 2012, state data showed.

State Sen. Jim Brewster, a Democrat and former mayor of McKeesport, said he was stunned at part-time wages — usually $9 to $11 an hour — paid by many departments in the region for a job as stressful and dangerous as being a police officer.

Just last month, part-time Perryopolis police officer Richard Champion, 35, of Ligonier was killed in a two-vehicle crash on Route 51 in Perry.

In December 2011, part-time East Washington officer John David Dryer, 46, of Claysville was fatally shot during a traffic stop on Interstate 70.

In April 2011, part-time Clairton officer James Kuzak Jr., 42, was shot five times while responding to a home invasion, paralyzing him from the waist down.

James Kuzak Jr., 42, was shot five times in April 2011 while working as a part-time officer for Clairton.

Patching together part-time jobs in multiple departments is usually a necessity for officers to earn a living. The low hourly pay can be a sticking point for officers and law enforcement advocates.

Brewster said he understands that relying on part-time officers is often a community’s only way of keeping a police force. Costs for wages, pensions and equipment continue to rise while older communities often face a shrinking tax base.

So Brewster wrote legislation to add a $10 fee to tickets for moving violations that would establish a pool of money municipalities could tap to help bring part-time officers’ pay up to $15 an hour. The proposal stalled in the Senate last session, but Brewster said he’s planning to reintroduce it this year.

“People work for a living and maybe instead of having to work in three communities, they can work in one or two … get known in the community, hopefully live there,” Brewster said. “There’s a lot of stability that would come out of the bill.”

Managing a police department dependent on part-time officers isn’t easy, said Delmont Chief T.J. Klobucar. Part-time officers in Delmont routinely leave, not because they’re unhappy, but because they found full-time employment elsewhere, he said.

“It’s a big problem for me,” said Klobucar.

Four part-time officers left the department recently for full-time jobs elsewhere. There are now two full-time officers, including the chief, and eight part-timers, he said.

“I’m happy to see them go, move on with their careers and go full time,” Klobucar said. “It’s tough on the community, and it’s tough on the department.”

Pennsylvania Police by the numbers*

Pennsylvania Statewide: 22,649 Officers

• 18,174 full time

• 4,475 part time

Allegheny County: 2,598 officers

• 2,095 full time

• 503 part time

Westmoreland County: 395 officers

• 253 full time

• 142 part time

Beaver County: 389 officers

• 188 full time

• 201 part time

Washington County: 289 officers

• 173 full time

• 116 part time

Butler County: 176 officers

• 115 full time

• 61 part time

Lawrence County: 131 officers

• 71 full time

• 60 part time

Armstrong County: 90 officers

• 21 full time

• 69 part time

Fayette County: 87 officers

• 56 full time

• 31 part time

Indiana County: 47 officers

• 28 full time

• 19 part time

* as of Jan. 31, 2014

Source: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development


Pittsburgh, PA Police Chief Aids Anti-Police Protesters and Is Not Worthy of Support from Officers Serving Under HIm

January 5, 2015
Facebook photo shows new Pittsburgh police Chief McLay aiding protest

From The Pittsburgh Tribune Review by Michael Hasch, January 3, 2015

Pittsburgh police Chief Cameron McLay was simply doing his job, the mayor’s chief of staff said Friday, when he was photographed at Wednesday’s First Night celebration Downtown holding a protest group’s sign saying he supports challenging racism in the workplace.

Pittsburgh police Chief Cameron McClay holding the sign at First Night Pittsburgh.

“The mayor unequivocally supports Chief McLay’s efforts to be out there in the community and discuss very difficult subjects and bulk up morale in the police department,” Kevin Acklin said.

The photo, which was posted on the Facebook page of the Fight Back Pittsburgh protest group, shows McLay holding the sign, which reads: “I resolve to challenge racism@work #end white silence.”

The chief was not making a “statement about any individual in the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police,” Acklin said.

Acklin said the photo, which has upset some city police officers, was taken while McLay was on duty and in uniform monitoring the First Night protest.

“I did not seek out these young activists,” McLay wrote in an email released by Public Safety Department spokeswoman Sonya Toler.

“I was stopping for coffee at First Night. I was, however, very happy to visit with them to talk about … how we all perceive one another. Their message is not ‘anti-‘ anybody. It is simply a call for awareness. I hear from my own officers concerns about race problems, so (I) know there is work yet to be done. … The photo was a great, spontaneous moment in time. Please join the dialogue for community healing,” the chief said.

Obamas’ Dine Like Royalty at Restaurant with $500K Membership

January 5, 2015
Eatery has $1 billion worth of art on walls, wine stored in ancient Greek jars

From by Chelsea Shilling, January 2, 2015

A record 47 million Americans are now on food stamps, but that didn’t stop President Obama and Michelle Obama, who are known to have extravagant taste, from dining at an exclusive restaurant Thursday where memberships cost as much as $500,000.

Vintage Cave, a swanky Honolulu restaurant with 32 seats, is said to have $1 billion worth of art on its walls and stores its wine in an ancient Greek jar known as an amphorae.

The restaurant’s website invites guests to dine in a “cave-like environment” and to “relax, ‘hit reset’ and escape the ordinary.” Guests must purchase a membership: $50,000 to be a “special member” and $500,000 to be a “charter member.”

According to Honolulu Magazine, the total bill for two, with wine, typically approaches $1,000. The Obamas enjoyed a three-hour, multi-course meal.

A 2013 tasting menu included dishes such as vanilla bean macaroon caviar, porridge with king crab and black truffle, and foie gras with banana and macadamia nut.

As WND has reported, this type of indulgence isn’t unusual for the Obamas, who spent nearly $2.2 million in taxpayer funds on lodging security and “entertainment” during their 2013 trip to Africa.

“The Obamas clearly either do not understand the value of a dollar – or understand it all too well when someone else is picking up the tab,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“Keep in mind that this outrageously lavish excursion came at the very same time that the president was shutting down White House tours and blaming it on the sequester. As one congressional critic noted at the time, the White House could have 1,350 weeks of tours for the cost of the Obama family’s trip to Africa.”

Documents previously obtained by Judicial Watch showed the flight expenses for the family’s African outing totaled more than $8.1 million.

Judicial Watch said Secret Service hotel bills totaled $953,788.18, and even though the Obama family “Tanzania safari” ended up being canceled, Secret Service preparations for the excursion still totaled $11,525.75.

Judicial Watch noted: “According to numerous press accounts, the total cost of the Obama family trip was estimated to have cost between $60 million and $100 million.”

In May 2014, the Washington Examiner reported two golf outings for Obama – to Key Largo, Florida, and to Palm Springs, California – cost a total of $2.9 million.

There also was a report that the White House incurred taxpayer expenses of $7.9 million to fly the Obamas to Northern Ireland for a summit that included an extra $251,000 for Michelle Obama and their two daughters to go sightseeing in Dublin.

The entourage required the use of the “spacious Princess Grace Suite at the five-star Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin.” Among the miscellaneous costs was $114,000 for a “fleet” of vehicles for the sightseeing as well as $3,370 for a using a copier.

WND has reported many such expenses over the years.

There were reports the Obamas spent more than $7 million for just three trips in late 2012 and early 2013, including more than $4 million for a Hawaii vacation at Christmas, more than $2.1 million for a trip to California for Obama to dine with high-dollar fundraiser Jeffrey Katzenberg and appear on the “Tonight” show with Jay Leno and nearly another $1.2 million for an Obama family August vacation to Martha’s Vineyard.

When Michelle Obama and her girls went to China in 2014, along with Michelle Obama’s mother, they stayed in a suite costing $8,350 per night, where a “well-placed hotel staffer” told the London Daily Mail that the staff was “fed up.”

“We can’t wait for this to be over, to tell you the truth,” the member of the concierge staff told the newspaper. “The first lady is gracious, and the girls are lovely.”

But he said Marian Robinson, Michelle Obama’s mother, had been “barking at the staff.”

Exact totals for the Obamas’ travel expenses are impossible to obtain because the government and others decline to release the figures. The White House, for example, notes that security costs for the first family are not going to be released. The Secret Service says its figures are secret.



NYPD Officer: Not Worth It to Make Arrests ‘if I Have a Chance of Getting My Head Blown Off’

January 5, 2015

From by Dan Riehl, January 2, 2015

AP Photo/John Minchillo

With reports that the NYPD is looking into as many as 63 threats against police officers, or the mayor this week alone, news also comes of a lack of motivation among the rank and file, undoubtedly contributing to a significant drop in arrest numbers across the city.

“[There’s] just not motivation,” one police officer told [Vice]. “I’m not writing people summonses if I have a chance of getting my head blown off.” When asked if this was his own choice or a precinct-wide initiative, the officer added, “Seems like the entire department is on the same page.”

As the New York Daily News reported, “citywide summons issued this past week numbered just 2,128, compared to 26,512 a week earlier. In that period, exactly one summons was issued in the 84th Precinct, where Liu and Ramos were stationed—just one.”

According to the Daily Beast, the police presence seems to have changed there significantly. “They just walk around, they ride in their patrol cars, and they just pass by,” according to a resident.

The changes have resulted in even more consternation, including among groups who were actually advocating for a move away from so called “broken windows” policing, first made popular during the Rudy Giuliani era. Evidently the reasoning behind any change is just as important to any potential change for some.

“We speculate, though we have no hard evidence, that some officers are pleased to engage in this ostensibly anti–de Blasio protest because they have never been comfortable with having to enforce ‘broken windows’ law enforcement,” Gangi added. “It engenders anger and distrust in the community and puts their physical well-being at risk.”

However, unlike Gangi, other reform groups were not as welcoming to the work stoppage. Joo-Hyun Kang, director of Communities United for Police Reform, one of the main organizing groups behind the recent protests, sees the move as an attack rather than an alternative universe for New York City. And the culprit? Lynch’s police union.

This Is Not the Purpose of Law Enforcement in a Free Society: NY State Police Confiscate Guns From Vet Diagnosed With Insomnia

January 5, 2015

From by Kit Daniels, January 5, 2015

The New York State Police confiscated a Navy veteran’s guns after he received treatment for insomnia at a hospital, according to a new lawsuit.

The police used a mental health database enacted by N.Y.’s latest gun control law, the SAFE Act, to declare veteran Donald Montgomery, who is also a former detective, “mentally unfit” to own firearms based on Montgomery’s treatment for sleep deprivation, the lawsuit Montgomery v. Cuomo stated, which names state officials and the hospital as defendants.

“The Plaintiff [Montgomery] is a retired law enforcement officer with a distinguished career of more than 30 years, who retired with the rank of Detective Sergeant,” the lawsuit said. “The Plaintiff had a spotless record and was awarded the department’s Bravery Medal; [He] had been a Commanding Officer for 15 years.”

“At the time of his presentation at the Emergency Department of Eastern Long Island Hospital, the Plaintiff suffered from sleep deprivation, occasioned by his move from one location in the state to another, with his wife of many years, to live closer to their adult child and young grandchild.”

Last May, Montgomery checked himself into the hospital twice for insomnia and was given a prescription for 50mg of Trazodone, which is used to treat sleep disorders and depression.

“This is a well-developed, well-kempt male, dressed casually and in no acute distress,” the results of Montgomery’s mental examination said. “He is calm, pleasant, cooperative.”

A nurse’s report reached a similar conclusion, stating that Montgomery did not pose a threat to himself or others.

Yet despite Montgomery passing all psychiatric examinations and the fact he checked himself into the ER, the hospital labeled him an “involuntary admission.”

“On or about May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff received a telephone call from an officer at the Suffolk Co. Sheriff’s Dept. informing him [they were] going to have to come overhand pick up his handguns because they were under repeated pressure from the N.Y. State Police to immediately do so,” the lawsuit stated. “The sheriff’s department arrived at the Plaintiff’s then-residence and took physical possession of the Plaintiff’s four firearms and provided him with an ‘inventory.’”

Additionally, the State Police cancelled his pistol permit without a hearing and the hospital refused to correct its mistake in Montgomery’s record.

Montgomery’s lawsuit alleges “the creation, implementation, marketing and use of a reporting system for medical professionals to transmit personal health information to the State… as part of the ‘N.Y. Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act’ violates the civil liberties… under the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

“Neither the treatment providers, nor the State have provided notice to patients of the sharing of their personal health information,” the lawsuit said. “In the absence of relief from this court, virtually no one whose personal health information has been freely shared by medical providers, state and local actors will learn or be able to find out whether the integrity of their personal health information has been compromised, including that it has been transmitted to law enforcement personnel.”

Just as we predicted numerous times, government officials are now revoking gun rights without due process by declaring gun owners “mentally unfit,” which is easy to do because the official diagnostic system for mental disorders in the U.S., the DSM-5, is so broad that almost every form of human behavior can be “diagnosed” as some type of mental illness.

For example, in 2012 the Department of Veteran Affairs sent out letters to veterans stating that based on “evidence,” their “competency” was under review and if the bureaucrats decided to rate the veterans “incompetent,” they would be prohibited from “purchasing, possessing, receiving or transporting a firearm or ammunition.”

“The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA,” Constitutional attorney Michael Connelly, J.D. wrote on the subject.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.