Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Published October 09, 2014

KINGSTON, Jamaica A Cayman Islands jury on Thursday found a former premier not guilty of nearly a dozen criminal charges about two years after he was ousted from office on suspicion of corruption.

Prosecutors alleged McKeeva Bush had illegally tapped his government credit card to withdraw nearly $50,000 in casinos in the Bahamas and the United States, using some of the cash to gamble on slot machines.

The jury of four men and three women deliberating about seven hours, and unanimously cleared Bush of six counts of misconduct and five counts of breach of trust in the tiny British Caribbean territory that is one of the world’s biggest financial centers.

In a statement after the verdict was delivered, Bush said the charges “were nothing more than the result of a conspiracy to remove me from power.” He has repeatedly asserted that he did not break any laws and that he was the victim of a smear campaign by political opponents.

Bush and a few dozen supporters hugged and cheered outside the courtroom after Justice Michael Mettyear had departed.

Bush, the British Caribbean territory’s longest serving politician, lost a no-confidence vote in December 2012 and was ousted as the islands’ No. 1 politician after police arrested him at his home on suspicion of misusing a government credit card and other charges.

The charges rocked the Cayman Islands, where Bush had been the premier since his United Democratic Party won 2009 general elections. He wielded great power within the territory because he was in charge of finance, tourism and development as well as being head of government.

A few months after his arrest, Bush’s fractured party was defeated in parliamentary elections. He retained his seat as a lawmaker in his powerbase in a populous district of Grand Cayman. He also remained head of his political faction.

Read the rest here:
Cayman Islands jury clears ex-premier of all criminal charges nearly 2 years after his ouster

A Cayman Islands jury on Thursday unanimously found a former premier not guilty of nearly a dozen criminal charges about two years after he was ousted from power on suspicion of corruption.

Prosecutors alleged McKeeva Bush had illegally tapped his government credit card to withdraw nearly $50,000 in casinos in the Bahamas and the United States, using some of the cash to gamble on slot machines. Bush’s lawyers did not dispute that he used the cards for personal reasons, but argued that no laws were ever broken and all cash advances were paid back.

When instructing the jurors, Justice Michael Mettyear said that some of them might be surprised that a premier traveling abroad on business would “spend hours and hours on slot machines,” but their personal feelings toward gambling could not justify a conviction. He told them to deliver a ruling based solely on the evidence.

The seven-member jury deliberated about five hours, and cleared Bush of six counts of misconduct and five counts of breach of trust in the tiny British Caribbean territory that is one of the world’s biggest financial centers.

In a statement after the verdict was delivered, Bush said the charges “were nothing more than the result of a conspiracy to remove me from power.” He has repeatedly asserted that he did not break any laws and that he was the victim of a smear campaign by political opponents.

Bush and a few dozen supporters hugged and cheered outside the courtroom after the judge had departed.

Bush, the British Caribbean territory’s longest serving politician, lost a no-confidence vote in December 2012 and was ousted as the islands’ No. 1 politician after police arrested him at his home on suspicion of corruption.

The charges rocked the Cayman Islands, where Bush had been the premier since his United Democratic Party won 2009 general elections. He wielded great power within the territory because he was in charge of finance, tourism and development as well as being head of government.

A few months after his arrest, Bush’s fractured party was defeated in parliamentary elections. He retained his seat as a lawmaker in his powerbase in a populous district of Grand Cayman. He also remained head of his political faction.

Originally posted here:
Cayman Jury Clears Ex-Premier of Criminal Charges



Twitter VS Government – BREAKING NEWS
http://www.twitter.com/chefmarco305 MY ERIC GARNER VIDEO – http://youtu.be/VYa0vlw2mqY?list=UUWKBBPLvMxpkXNFXX3VoomA Twitter Sues the Government for Violating Its First Amendment Rights …

By: chefmarco305

Read the original post:
Twitter VS Government – BREAKING NEWS – Video

With only a month until the scheduled trial of Ross Ulbricht, the alleged creator of the Silk Road drug site, Ulbrichts defense lawyers have zeroed in on the argument that the U.S. government illegally hacked the billion-dollar black market site to expose the location of its hidden server. The prosecutions latest rebuttal to that argument takes an unexpected tack: they claim that even if the FBI did hack the Silk Road without a warrantand prosecutors are careful not to admit they didthat intrusion would be a perfectly law-abiding act of criminal investigation.

On Monday evening the prosecutors submitted the latest in a series of combative court filings from the two sides of the Silk Road case that have clashed over Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The governments new argument responds to an affidavit from an expert witness, tech lawyer Joshua Horowitz, brought in by Ulbrichts defense to poke holes in the FBIs story of how it located the Silk Road server. In a letter filed last week, Horowitz called out inconsistencies in the FBIs account of stumbling across the Silk Roads IP address while innocently entering miscellaneous data into its login page. He testified that the FBIs actions instead sounded more like common hacker intrusion techniques. Ulbrichts defense has called for an evidentiary hearing to cross examine the FBI about the operation.

In the governments rebuttal, however, Ulbrichts prosecutors dont directly contest Horowitz description of the FBIs investigation, though they do criticize his testimony in passing as factually and analytically flawed in a number of respects. Instead, they obliquely argue that the foreign location of the sites server and its reputation as a criminal haven mean that Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches dont apply, even if the FBI did use hacking techniques to penetrate the Silk Road, and did so without a warrant.

Even if the FBI had somehow hacked into the [Silk Road] Server in order to identify its IP address, such an investigative measure would not have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the prosecutors new memo reads. Given that the SR Server was hosting a blatantly criminal website, it would have been reasonable for the FBI to hack into it in order to search it, as any such hack would simply have constituted a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which a warrant was not necessary.

The Silk Road server in question, after all, was located not in the United States but in a data center near Reykjavik, Iceland. And though Ulbricht is an American citizen, the prosecutors argue that the servers location abroad made it fair game for remote intrusion. Because the SR Server was located outside the United States, the Fourth Amendment would not have required a warrant to search the server, whether for its IP address or otherwise, the prosecutions filing reads.

In a footnote, the memo adds another strike against Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment protections: The Silk Road was not only hosted in a foreign data center, but also rented from a third-party web hosting service. And because Ulbricht allegedly violated the companys terms of service by using its computers to deal in narcotics and other contraband, that company was exempted from any obligation to protect his privacy.

Finally, prosecutors argue that for the 30-year-old Texan to claim privacy protections for Silk Roads server, he would have to declare that it belonged to hima tricky Catch-22. Ulbricht hasnt claimed personal possession of that computers data, as doing so would almost certainly incriminate him. But because he hasnt he cant claim that his privacy was violated when it was searched, according to the prosecutors reasoning. Because Ulbricht has not submitted any affidavit alleging that he had any possessory interest in the SR Serverlet alone one that would give him a reasonable expectation of privacyhis motion should be denied, reads the prosecutors filing.

Early Tuesday, Judge Katherine Forrest ordered Ulbrichts defense to decide within the day whether it will argue that Ulbricht did have an expectation of privacy for the Silk Road server, as well as all his other seized computers and online accounts. Shes given him until the end of the day Wednesday to make that argument Ulbrichts defense didnt immediately respond to a request for comment.

The pre-trial motion over which Ulbrichts defense lawyers and the prosecution have been sparring for the last two months doesnt directly seek to have the central narcotics conspiracy and money laundering charges against Ulbricht dismissed. Instead, his lawyers have sought to prove that the evidence gathered by law enforcement is tainted. If the initial pinpointing of Silk Roads server was illegal, they argue, practically all the evidence from the resulting investigation could be rendered inadmissible.

Early last month, the government responded to that motion with an affidavit from former FBI agent Christopher Tarbell describing how the Silk Road server was first found. As he described it, a misconfiguration of the anonymity software Tor allowed the sites login page to leak its IP address.

See the original post:
Feds Hacked Silk Road Without a Warrant? Perfectly Legal, Prosecutors Argue

DENVER (CBS4) -Sen. Mark Udall and Rep. Cory Gardner skirmished over their visions for Colorados economy during a prickly debate on Tuesday that featured aggressive attacks from both candidates.

The wide-ranging one-hour debate touched on womens issues, the Islamic State and the Second Amendment. But bickering about the economy and intertwining issues like the Affordable Care Act, the Keystone XL pipeline, jobs reports and U.S. debt dominated.

Gardner, who is challenging Udall for his U.S. Senate seat,broadly hammered the incumbentfor backing a government-intensive approach to the economy. Udall, meanwhile, accused Gardner of hands-off policies that would ensure the middle class suffers while companies increase profits.

Udall said the government should raise the minimum wage, pass the Paycheck Fairness Act that would largely ensure gender-pay equality, make college more affordable and create incentives for companies to keep jobs in the country.

Why do I bring this up? Its because Congressman Gardner has a different point of view on all of those issues, Udall said. If we dont respond, we run the risk of the middle class not being the strong part of our society that its always been.

Gardner countered that a more laissez-faire economic approach would benefit Colorado.

It is beyond time we got government out of the way and let America work, he said. We must unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of this county.

Gardner attacked Udalls economic record with a bevy of statistics: that Coloradans are earning $4,000 less in median household income than they were several years ago, that the labor force participation rate is at its lowest percentage in 36 years and that Udall isnt firmly backing the construction of the Keystone pipeline, which Gardner said would bring thousands of $20 and $30 jobs.

Thats whats happening under the failed leadership of Mark Udall, Gardner said. We need more Colorado in Washington and less Washington in Colorado. Unfortunately our economy is stuck in reverse.

Udall countered that Gardner was sour on the state.

Originally posted here:
Udall, Gardner Spar Over Economy In Fiery Debate

Twitter has filed a lawsuit againt the US Department of Justice yesterday, alleging that the restrictions on what the company can report publicly about the governments national security requests for user data violate the firms First Amendment rights.

In the suit filed in the US District Court Twitter argued that the current rules prevent it from even stating that it has not received any national security requests for user information.

Twitter said the restrictions violate the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

Tech companies have sought to clarify their relationships with law enforcement and spying agencies in the wake of revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that outlined the depth of US spying activities.

Twitter’s lawsuit follows an agreement between companies like Google and Microsoft with the government about court orders they receive related to surveillance.

The agreement freed the companies to disclose the number of orders they received, but only in broad ranges. A company that offers email services, for example, would be able to say it received between zero and 999 orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court during a six-month period for email content belonging to someone outside the United States.

“The US government has taken the position that service providers like Twitter are even prohibited from saying that they have received zero national security requests, or zero of a particular type of national security request,” Twitter said in its complaint.

The Justice Department responded to the lawsuit with a statement on how it has worked with other companies.

Earlier this year, the government addressed similar concerns raised in a lawsuit brought by several major tech companies,” Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said. “There, the parties worked collaboratively to allow tech companies to provide broad information on government requests while also protecting national security.”

The American Civil Liberties Union praised Twitter’s action, saying in a statement that the company was doing the right thing by “challenging this tangled web of secrecy rules and gag orders.”

Read more here:
Twitter sues US Justice for right to disclose surveillance requests

By Alexei Oreskovic SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Twitter Inc sued the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday, intensifying its battle with federal agencies as the Internet industry's self-described champion of free speech seeks the right to reveal the extent of U.S. government surveillance. The lawsuit, which Twitter said follows months of fruitless negotiations with the government, marks an …

View original post here:
Twitter sues U.S. Justice Department for right to reveal surveillance requests

Twitter Inc (TWTR) sued the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday, intensifying its battle with federal agencies as the Internet industry’s self-described champion of free speech seeks the right to reveal the extent of U.S. government surveillance.

The lawsuit, which Twitter said follows months of fruitless negotiations with the government, marks an escalation in the Internet industry’s battle over government gag orders on the nature and number of requests for private user information.

In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California, Twitter said that current rules prevent it from even stating that it has not received any national security requests for user information.

The messaging service said such restrictions violate the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

“This is an important issue for anyone who believes in a strong First Amendment, and we hope to be able to share our complete transparency report,” Twitter said in a blogpost.

Tech companies have sought to clarify their relationships with U.S. law enforcement and spying agencies in the wake of revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that outlined the depth of U.S. spying capabilities.

Twitter’s lawsuit follows an agreement between Internet companies like Google Inc (GOOGL) and Microsoft Corp (MSFT) with the government about court orders they receive related to surveillance.

The agreement freed the companies to disclose the number of orders they received, but only in broad ranges. A company that offers email services, for example, would be able to say it received between zero and 999 orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court during a six-month period for email content belonging to someone outside the United States.

In a separate case, a federal appeals court in San Francisco on Wednesday will hear arguments on whether the FBI can gag recipients of national security letters. A lower court judge had ruled those secrecy guidelines unconstitutional.

CAN’T EVEN DISCLOSE ZERO REQUESTS

Read more here:
FOX BUSINESS: Twitter sues DOJ for right to reveal surveillance requests

Revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden of large-scale surveillance by the NSA showed that we were living in a golden age of surveillance,Bruce Schneier said. Photograph: Glenn Greenwald/Laura Poitras/Courtesy of The Guardian/Handout via Reuters

The US National Security Agency (NSA) has turned the internet into a giant surveillance platform, a leading security specialist has said.

Bruce Schneier, who has written extensively on digital security and privacy, told an audience in Dublin tonight that the revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden of large-scale surveillance by the NSA showed that we were living in a golden age of surveillance.

In a lecture for the human rights group Front Line Defenders, Mr Schneier said the NSAs role changed completely after the 9/11 attacks, when US intelligence agencies were given an impossible mission: never again. The only way to ensure something doesnt happen is to know everything that is happening, he said.

This desire to collect everything coincided with changes in technology, notably the spread of smartphones, the rise of cloud storage and the fact that it became cheaper for individuals to store data and thereby leave deeper digital footprints for the state to pursue. The NSA has turned the internet into a giant surveillance platform, he said.

It did this largely by piggybacking on corporate capabilities, and in an environment where the public largely acquiesced. If the government said you have to carry a tracking device with you 24/7, we would never agree to that. Every morning we put a cellphone in our pocket, which tracks us 24/7. If you were told, every time you make a new friend, you have to inform the police, you would laugh. But you do that on Facebook.

Mr Schneier warned that by making the internet less secure, states were making it easier for criminals and hackers to compromise systems using similar methods. And while the US was in a privileged position, as a hub for internet communications and home to a large number of technology firms, similar things were being done in countries such as China and Russia. We have to make a choice here. We have built an insecure internet. We have enabled everyone to spy… We have broken the fabric of trust on the net.

Human rights organisations feared that nothing could be done to counteract state surveillance, but this wasnt true, Mr Schneier said. There is a lot that can be done, technically, to make ourselves safer from all attackers, all eavesdroppers. But this is a political problem, because we are building an infrastructure where surveillance is possible. We need everyone to realise that a secure internet is in everyones interest.

See more here:
Internet turned into giant surveillance platform by NSA

The Second Amendment, known as the right to bear arms, has been in the news thanks to a handful of shooting spree massacres. The Inquisitr has covered stories that tackle both sides of the argument. On the side that wants to change the amendment, there was an argument which states tanks and rocket launchers are not included, followed by a debate if the government should subsidize guns for everyone. In retaliation, the side supporting the amendment rallied for their rights or to go topless. Even some restaurants are showing their support, including one that welcomed guns and another which gave a discount for patrons bringing their guns in.

One of the benefits of the Second Amendment was shown in a report about a man who was able to fend off a robbery involving four armed suspects with his own firearm. Two of the suspects escaped, while two others were killed.

According to KHOU, four suspects barged into a bar known as EJs Place, located on the 16500 block of Kuykendahl Road in Harris County, just after closing at 2:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Upon entry, the armed suspects demanded money. However, they did not expect another bar patron to pull out his gun and exchange fire with the suspects. During the firefight, two of the suspects were killed and the other two ran from the scene. Shortly after, the patron left too. The Harris County Police Department is trying to identify the man, as confirmed by Sgt. Robert Spurgeon.

Were still trying to determine who he is, and why he left the scene, He has his right to protect himself and his family and his friends. Its just unfortunate something like that happened.

Harris County Sheriffs deputies are investigating if the four suspects are associated with a robbery at a gas station on Cypresswood earlier that night. As for the patron who fended off the robbery, people believe he was in the right.

The Blaze followed up on the report, and were able to attain more insight from others who heard about what happened at EJs Place. Danielle Russell was one of the first to make her opinions known.

Being a mom, yeah. I would feel safe knowing that he has a gun and hes going to protect me in a robbery.

Another person, who is a customer at EJs Place, reportedly stated that the man who stopped the robbery typically stays until the bar closes, and then walks female bartenders to their vehicles. The person added that the customer wouldnt start violence but would protect his friends.

Now that youve read the news about the man who seems to be a hero in his community by stopping a robbery, what are your opinions? Please let everyone know in the comments below.

[Image via KHOU]

The rest is here:
Thanks To The Right To Bear Arms, Man Was Able To Halt Robbery By Four Suspects



Ap Government Fourth Amendment Project
My fourth amendment project for Mrs. King's Ap gov class I do not own, and do not claim to own, the rights of any of the images in this video.

By: RJ Wynn

The rest is here:
Ap Government Fourth Amendment Project – Video



How Government Will Gut Your Free Speech
Always watch the UK to see where the storm clouds are heading. In his horrifying speech speech to the globalist coven, aka U.N General Assembly, David Camero…

By: LionelY2K

Go here to see the original:
How Government Will Gut Your Free Speech – Video



NSA Spy Program Could Face Supreme Court Scrutin
The legal battle escalates over the government's ability to spy on internet and phone traffic.

By:

Link:
NSA Spy Program Could Face Supreme Court Scrutin – Video

maynard writes: Investigative Journalist James Bamford knows a thing or two more than most about the National Security Agency. Across his more than three-decade long career digging muck out of exactly those places U.S. government intelligence agencies preferred he wouldn’t tread, he’s published five books and over eighty press reports. At times, this made for some tense confrontations with intelligence officials from an organization once so secret even few members of Congress knew of its existence.

For the last several years public focus on the NSA has been on Bush and Obama era reports of illicit domestic spying. From allegations of warrantless wiretapping reported by James Risen in 2005 to secret documents released to journalists at The Guardian by Edward Snowden a year ago. And smack in the middle, Bamford’s 2012 revelation of the existence of a huge, exabyte-capable data storage facility then under construction in Bluffdale, Utah.

Given all this attention on recent events, it might come as a surprise to some that almost forty years ago Senator Frank Church convened a congressional committee to investigate reports of unlawful activities by U.S. intelligence agencies, including illegal domestic wiretapping by the NSA. At the time, Church brought an oversight magnifying glass over what was then half-jokingly referred to as “No Such Agency.” And then, like today, James Bamford was in the thick of it, with a Snowden-like cloak-and-dagger game of spy-vs-journalist. It all began by giving testimony before the Church Committee. Writing yesterday in The Intercept, Bamford tells his firsthand historical account of what led him to testify as a direct witness to NSA’s wiretapping of domestic communications decades ago and then details the events that led to the publication of his first book The Puzzle Palace back in 1982. Read on for more.Bamford writes:

…during the summer of 1975, as reports began leaking out from the Church Committee, I was surprised to learn that the NSA was claiming that it had shut down all of its questionable operations a year and a half earlier. Surprised because I knew the eavesdropping on Americans had continued at least into the prior fall, and may have still been going on. After thinking for a day or so about the potential consequences of blowing the whistle on the NSAI was still in the Naval Reserve, still attending drills one weekend a month, and still sworn to secrecy with an active NSA clearanceI nevertheless decided to call the Church Committee.

But he didn’t stop at the witness stand. Afterward, he continued researching the matter for a book. And the further he dug, the more waves he made. Until someone slipped him a then recently declassified copy of a 1976 Justice Department memo [PDF] detailing a criminal investigation into illicit domestic spying by the NSA. But when agency officials discovered he had that document they took extraordinary measures attempting to get it back. They threatened to prosecute under the 1917 Espionage Act and retroactively reclassified the memo to squelch its contents.

Fearing someone might break into his home and steal the manuscript, Bamford arranged to transport and secure a copy outside of U.S. jurisdiction with a colleague at the Sunday Times of London. It was only upon the 1982 publication of Puzzle Palace that the agency dropped their pursuit of Bamford and his document as a lost cause. That’s at least one stark difference between then and today when it comes to whistleblowers back then, they merely threatened espionage charges.

Yogi Berra famously once said, “It’s like Deja Vu all over again.” And though the Yankees’ star wasn’t speaking of illicit domestic wiretaps by the national security state, given a comparison of recent revelations to those detailed by Bamford decades earlier the quote certainly fits. In telling his story of how he published details about the last NSA Merry-Go-Round with warrantless wiretapping, Bamford shows us that our recent troubles of lawless surveillance aren’t so unique. It’s deja-vu all over again. But if deja vu is like a waking dream, this seems more a recurring nightmare for a body-politic lured to snoring slumber by a siren-song of political passivity.

That old Justice Department memo isn’t likely to wake the public from their slumber. But within its pages is a stark warning we all should have heeded. As Bamford notes in that Intercept story, the report’s conclusion that NSA lawlessness stems straight from the birth of the agency suggests a constitutional conflict systemic and intentional.

…the NSA’s top-secret “charter” issued by the Executive Branch, exempts the agency from legal restraints placed on the rest of the government. “Orders, directives, policies, or recommendations of any authority of the Executive branch relating to the collection … of intelligence,” the charter reads, “shall not be applicable to Communications Intelligence activities, unless specifically so stated.” This so-called “birth certificate,” the Justice Department report concluded, meant the NSA did not have to follow any restrictions placed on electronic surveillance “unless it was expressly directed to do so.” In short, the report asked, how can you prosecute an agency that is above the law?

Here’s the “Prosecutive Summary” (PDF).

See the original post here:
James Bamford Releases DOJ Report On NSA Warrantless Wiretapping From 1976

Oct. 3, 2014, 12:15 a.m.

The announcement of a Senate inquiry into corporate tax evasion was barely minutes old yesterday when this sponsored message appeared on Twitter:

The announcement of a Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance was barely minutes old on Thursdaywhen this sponsored message appeared on Twitter:

“Access the latest corporate, indirect and individual tax rates from 137+ countries. Download the KPMG Global Tax App. Promoted by KPMG.”

According to KPMG, the corporate tax rate in Bermuda is zero. Same deal for the Cayman Islands and Guernsey. In Australia, the corporate tax rate is 30 per cent, so if KPMG can assist you to transfer profits to one of these islands you may pay zero instead of 30 per cent. In return you will pay KPMG a handsome fee.

The big blue-chip accounting and law firms collectively rake in billions of dollars in fees annually by advising companies around the world how to shift their profits to tax havens and structure their affairs to reduce “leakage” as tax is dubbed in the trade wherever possible.

In light of the sheer dollars at stake, there will be much antagonism from the business lobby and its proxies in politics and the media in coming days and weeks.

Already, the response to a report by the Tax Justice Network revealed in Fairfax Media on Monday has been venomous. The report found use of tax havens was on the rise and that almost one third of the Top 200 companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange paid less than 10 per cent income tax. It named the likes of Rupert Murdoch’s 21stCentury Fox (1 per cent effective tax rate) and the Westfield Group as being particularly aggressive.

When it comes to aggressive tax schemes, however, the top companies on the sharemarket pale in comparison with multinationals tech giants such as Apple and Google and Australia’s biggest coal company Glencore.

Political donations are a big issue, too. It was no coincidence that the government opposed the Greens’ motion yesterday to hold the inquiry. Many of the biggest Coalition donors are also the biggest tax avoiders. Labor, too, gets its fair share.

Link:
The government needs to back tax inquiry

If Americans want to understand how their government justifies sweeping intelligence-gathering measures, they need to familiarize themselves with a little-known executive order from the Reagan era: E.O. 12333.

See more here:
Digging Deeper Into NSA Spying Uncovers Unexpected Link to Reagan Administration



second amendment project minecraft
This is for a project in Government class 5th period.

By: zach begley

Follow this link:
second amendment project minecraft – Video

Randy Brubaker(Photo: Register photo)Buy Photo

Randy Brubaker, a longtime editor of The Des Moines Register who died in May, will be remembered tonight as a “Friend of the First Amendment.”

The posthumous honor awarded by the Iowa Freedom of Information Council will be formally announced during the “Celebrating a Free Press and Open Government Banquet” in the Hall of Cities at the Des Moines Marriott Downtown. The event is a fundraiser for the Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism, best known as IowaWatch.

Brubaker was a Register journalist for about three decades. In his last role, he oversaw the Register’s investigative team and led the information council’s initiative to educate the public on open meetings and records law through a series of statewide workshops.

He died of heart failure at the age of 55, two days before he had planned to return to work following recovery from a heart attack.

“He was an invaluable leader, partner and mentor to so many former and current staffers, including myself,” Register President and Publisher Rick Green said in announcing Brubaker’s death to the Register staff in May. “Obviously, for so many reasons, this is a painful, painful loss.”

Brubaker’s death came on the heels of the sudden death of his wife, Jan, on Jan. 8. She had been a longtime guidance counselor at Dowling Catholic High School.

Brubaker is survived by his two sons, Christopher and Patrick, along with his parents and other relatives.

“Randy was a fierce advocate for openness in government and spent many hours working with reporters and appearing before the Iowa Public Information Board to further that cause,” Register Executive Editor Amalie Nash said. “It’s certainly fitting that he is being recognized as a “Friend of the First Amendment,” and it’s a legacy we are continuing at the Register.”

DESMOINESREGISTER

Go here to read the rest:
Register editor posthumously given First Amendment honor

In this excerpt from testimony before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, former NSA general counsel and former Homeland Security assistant secretary Stewart Baker explains why the government's bulk collection of phone records is legal and necessary.

Go here to see the original:
Why ending metadata collection is privacy theater

Oct 012014

The West Australian

The Federal Government is under pressure to target Australian companies that are using a who’s who of international tax havens to avoid paying their share of tax.

Despite the Government focusing on multinational firms and their tax minimisation strategies, a report suggests Australia has its own problems, with some of the nation’s biggest firms paying less than 10 in the dollar in tax.

Last week, the G20, which is chaired by Australia this year, vowed to tackle tax evasion and avoidance by multinationals, revealing a series of plans including a requirement that companies reveal exactly where they make profits and how much tax they pay in individual nations.

Much of the focus was on multinational firms, especially IT giants such as Google and Apple.

But a report by the Tax Justice Network and the United Voice union shows companies on the ASX200 have created thousands of subsidiary firms that are based in known tax havens.

According to the network, 72 of the top 200 listed firms are using 269 subsidiaries in Singapore and 55 are using subsidiaries based in Hong Kong.

Other well known tax havens used by big firms include the British Virgin Islands, Jersey, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Switzerland.

The network estimated at least $80 billion in tax revenue between 2004 and last year had been lost because of the use of the tax havens.

Twenty-First Century Fox, which for the period covered by the report includes News Corporation, has 117 subsidiaries, including 25 in the Virgin Islands and 19 in Mauritius.

See the article here:
Firms accused of tax dodges



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com