Grandmother of Three was Convicted of Violating Strange ‘Order of Protection’ for Colonel of the Drone Base

On July 10, grandmother of three, Mary Anne Grady Flores was sentenced to one year in prison after being found guilty of violating an Order of Protection. A packed courtroom of over 100 supporters was stunned as she was led away, and vowed to continue the resistance.

These Orders of Protection, typically used in domestic violence situations or to protect a victim or witness to a crime, have been issued to people participating in nonviolent resistance actions at Hancock Air Base since late 2012. The base, near Syracuse NY, pilots unmanned Reaper drones over Afghanistan, and trains drone pilots, sensor operators and maintenance technicians. The orders had been issued to “protect” Colonel Earl Evans, Hancock’s mission support commander, who wanted to keep protesters “out of his driveway.”

I don't care about the case, but look at this:

"Among the details police have released is that Harris and his wife, Leanna, told them they conducted Internet searches on how hot a car needed to be to kill a child. Stoddard testified Thursday that Ross Harris had visited a Reddit page called "child-free" and read four articles. He also did an Internet search on how to survive in prison, Stoddard said.

"Also, five days before Cooper died, Ross Harris twice viewed a sort of homemade public service announcement in which a veterinarian demonstrates on video the dangers of leaving someone or something inside a hot car."

Stoddard is a police detective. It seems that they know about his web browsing because they seized and searched his computer:

...investigators confiscated Harris' work computer at Home Depot following his arrest and discovered an Internet search about how long it would take for an animal to die in a hot car.

Stoddard also testified that Harris was "sexting" -- is this a word we use in court now? -- with several women on the day of his son's death, and sent explicit pictures to one of them. I assume he knows that by looking at Harris's message history.

A bunch of this would not be admissible in trial, but this was a probable-cause hearing, and the rules are different for those. CNN writes: "a prosecutor insisted that the testimony helped portray the defendant's state of mind and spoke to the negligence angle and helped establish motive."

This case aside, is there anyone reading this whose e-mails, text messages, and web searches couldn't be cherry-picked to portray any state of mind a prosecutor might want to portray?

As marijuana legalization laws go into effect, the general population is beginning to realize that the more things change the more they stay the same. The average small time marijuana user might not get thrown in a cage for minor possession anymore in states like Washington or Colorado, but prohibition is alive and well in many ways, just as it is for alcohol and other “controlled substances”.
Heavy taxes and regulations have been placed onto licensed sellers of marijuana, and unlicensed sellers are still forced to operate under risk of incarceration, just as unlicensed moonshiners do nearly a century after the supposed end of alcohol prohibition.

As with alcohol, the government still wants to continue to use marijuana as an excuse to violate people’s rights and fleece them of their hard earned money. In Washington and Colorado, now that marijuana is legal the police have been creating a new database system that will allow them to get warrants to collect blood from DUI suspects in just 30 minutes, a radical change from the current four hours that it usually takes to obtain a warrant.

SHORTOFF MOUNTAIN — An experienced rock climber said he was the first person to reach the man who fell 20-40 feet off a cliff in Linville Gorge.

Officials also cited him because emergency crews said he got in the way of their operation.

The civilian rock climber said he spent hours with the victim, but Tuesday, he's being fined with interfering with the rescue.

It's the latest twist in a dramatic rescue you watched unfold live on Channel 9.

The 23-year-old who fell is in good condition at an Asheville hospital.

Jackson Depew severely injured his pelvis in the fall when he landed on a ledge just a few feet wide when his climbing anchors gave way.

Here's how it's supposed to work: Upon evidence that a crime has been committed — Professor Plum, found dead in the conservatory with a lead pipe on the floor next to him, say — the police commence an investigation. When they have probable cause to believe that someone is guilty, the case is taken to a prosecutor, who (in the federal system, and many states) puts it before a grand jury. If the grand jury agrees that there's probable cause, it indicts. The case goes to trial, where a jury of 12 ordinary citizens hears the evidence. If they judge the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they convict. If they think the accused not guilty — or even simply believe that a conviction would be unjust — they acquit.

Here's how things all-too-often work today: Law enforcement decides that a person is suspicious (or, possibly, just a political enemy). Upon investigation into every aspect of his/her life, they find possible violations of the law, often involving obscure, technical statutes that no one really knows. They then file a "kitchen-sink" indictment involving dozens, or even hundreds of charges, which the grand jury rubber stamps. The accused then must choose between a plea bargain, or the risk of a trial in which a jury might convict on one or two felony counts simply on a "where there's smoke there must be fire" theory even if the evidence seems less than compelling.

This is why, in our current system, the vast majority of cases never go to trial, but end in plea bargains. And if being charged with a crime ultimately leads to a plea bargain, then it follows that the real action in the criminal justice system doesn't happen at trial, as it does in most legal TV shows, but way before, at the time when prosecutors decide to bring charges. Because usually, once charges are brought, the defendant will wind up doing time for something.

The problem is that, although there's lots of due process at trial — right to cross-examine, right to counsel, rules of evidence, and, of course, the jury itself, which the Framers of our Constitution thought the most important protection in criminal cases — there's basically no due process at the stage when prosecutors decide to bring charges. Prosecutors who are out to "get" people have a free hand; prosecutors who want to give favored groups or individuals a pass have a free hand, too.

The Kansas House Standing Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice has introduced a bill that will require private citizens who file complaints against police officers to sign an affidavit, acknowledging that if their allegations are proven false, they can be charged with perjury, which is a felony charge.

Furthermore, this bill prohibits a Kansas law enforcement agency from opening an investigation into a complaint if another law enforcement agency has already investigated the complaint and found in favor of the officer.

In other words, this bill would allow police departments to arrest the people who file complaints against police officers. In Wichita, Kansas, complaints are almost always dismissed, by the Wichita Police Department, so, according to this bill and its vague wording, the WPD, could now go arrest the people who file complaints against their officers.

People in Wichita are already afraid to file complaints against the WPD, because the department has a well-known reputation for retaliating against those who do, and this bill would render such retaliation legal. Furthermore, the bill clearly prevents an outside agency, such as the Kansas Bureau of Investigations, from opening an investigation into an allegation that the WPD has already ruled upon.

According to the Racial Profiling Advisory Board, the WPD denied 100 out of 100 claims of racial profiling, ruling that each was a “false report”. If this bill had been law when those reports were made, everyone of those 100 people could have potentially faced a felony charge, and no other law enforcement agency would be permitted to investigate the allegations.