online slots real money usa best us casino bonuses codes top online casinos for usa players top 10 casinos slot machines games best paying casino games 2014 bonus guide best online slots site casino forum best online casino slots us player blackjack casino real money play casino slot machine online


Get Our Newsletter


Twitter Widgets



Links

Columnists





Site Search


Entire (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

Archive Calendar

November 2012
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Guides

How to Become a Bounty Hunter



Archive for November 13th, 2012

Massive Explosion that Killed 2 in Indianapolis May Have Been Caused by Furnace

Steve Neavling
ticklethewire.com 

A massive explosion in Indianapolis that killed two people and forced the evacuation of 200 others may have been caused by a faulty furnace, said the ex-husband of the woman whose house was at the center of the blast, the Indianapolis Star reports.

Local police said the cause of the fire won’t be known immediately because of the size of the blast.

Local, state and federal authorities continue to treat the explosion like a crime scene, the Star reported. The Star wrote that John Shirley, ex-husband of Monserrate Shirley, received a text from his daughter a little more than a week ago about a broken furnace at the house. “I bet you anything that’s why it happened,” he told the Star. Authorities believe natural gas played a role in the explosion.

David Petraeus Investigation Expands to Top US Commander in Afganistan

Steve Neavling
ticklethewire.com

The ever-evolving investigation into CIA Director David Petraeus’ extramarital affair has expanded to the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, who is accused of inappropriate communication with the woman at the center of the scandal, Reuters reports.

The FBI uncovered up to 30,000 pages of communication, mostly e-mails, between Allen and Jill Kelley, who is a family friend of Petraeus and the impetus of the investigation.

The nature of the communication is unclear.

Asked whether it included classified information, a senior U.S. Defense official would only say, “”We are concerned about inappropriate communications. We are not going to speculate as to what is contained in these documents.”

The Defense Department’s Inspector General is investigating.

Anti-Terrorism Expert Advises Against Technology Upgrade to Detect Biological Attacks

Steve Neavling
ticklethewie.com

 A top anti-terrorism for Homeland Security advised the agency to ditch a $3.1 billion upgrade of the nation’s system for detecting biological attacks because it would be unreliable, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Dr. Tara O’Toole, the agency’s undersecretary for science and technology, privately told Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that the new version of BioWatch – called Generation 3 – can’t be trusted to detect anthrax, smallpox, plague or other germs in a biological attack, the Times reported, citing scientists familiar with the issue.

O’Toole also said the money would be better spent on accelerating the distribution of medicine after an attack by establishing computer technology between hospitals, large HMOs and public health agencies.

“Her position is, ‘Kill it,’” said a federal scientist familiar with O’Toole’s discussions about Generation 3.

Napolitano has taken no public position on the issue.

U.S. Customs Officers Help Deliver Baby at Texas-Mexico Border

Steve Neavling
ticklethewire.om

Two U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers helped deliver a baby girl at a South Texas border, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports.

The mother, a 19-year-old U.S. citizen, was a passenger in a car Saturday at a bridge between Brownsville, Tex.  and Matamoros, Mexico when the driver alerted the U.S. Customs and Border Protection that a baby was on its way.

With no time to wait for medical help, officers Jaime Padron and Marvin Prazelini helped deliver the baby, the Star-Telegram reported.

The agency said the mother and newborn are healthy.

STORIES OF OTHER INTEREST

Patraeus Email Scandal Grows Richer: FBI Agent Sent Shirtless Photo to Woman Who Complained

By Allan Lengel
ticklethewire.com

Now this is starting to sound like a full-blown, made for the big-screen Washington scandal.

Reporters Devlin Barrett, Evan Perez and Siobhan Gorman of the Wall Street Journal report that the FBI agent who started the probe into Patraeus scandal, was a friend of Jill Kelley, the Tampa woman who received harassing, anonymous emails, and sent her a shirtless photo of himself before the whole probe began.

The Journal reported:

 However, supervisors soon became concerned that the initial agent might have grown obsessed with the matter, and prohibited him from any role in the investigation, according to the officials.

One official said the agent in question sent shirtless photos to Ms. Kelley well before the email investigation began, and FBI officials only became aware of them some time later. Eventually, supervisors told the agent he was to have nothing to do with the case, though he never had a formal role in the investigation, the official said.

To read the full story click here.

Prosecutors in Petraeus Case Exercised “Sound Discretion”

By Steve Levin
For ticklethewire.com

In 2004, the then-US Attorney for the District of Maryland famously wrote in a leaked email that he wanted three front-page indictments by November of that year. Though open to interpretation, the impression left by the poorly-drafted missive is that prosecutors should seek headlines rather than justice.

Let’s give credit to the prosecutors involved in the Petraeus/ Broadwell affair, er, matter for their exercise of sound discretion.

Assuming the accuracy of the news reports, Paula Broadwell potentially subjected herself to indictment for any number of federal crimes. In his paper entitled Computer and Internet Crime, G. Patrick Black, a federal defender in Texas, analyzes a number of cyberstalking statutes. As Black writes:

Under 18 U.S.C. 875(c), it is a federal crime to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another. Section 875(c) applies to any communication actually transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce – thus it includes threats transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce via the telephone, e-mail, beepers, or the Internet. Title 18 U.S.C. 875 is not an all-purpose anti-cyberstalking statute.

First, it applies only to communications of actual threats. Thus, it would not apply in a situation where a cyberstalker engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to harass or annoy another (absent some threat). Also, it is not clear that it would apply to situations where a person harasses or terrorizes another by posting messages on a bulletin board or in a chat room encouraging others to harass or annoy another person.

 

Next, as Black continues, certain forms of cyberstalking also may be prosecuted under 47 U.S.C. 223. One provision of this statute makes it a federal crime, punishable by up to two years in prison, to use a telephone or telecommunications device to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten any person at the called number.

The statute also requires that the perpetrator not reveal his or her name. See 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(c). Although this statute is broader than 18 U.S.C. 875– in that it covers both threats and harassment –Section 223 applies only to direct communications between the perpetrator and the victim. Thus, it would not reach a cyberstalking situation where a person harasses or terrorizes another person by posting messages on a bulletin board or in a chat room encouraging others to harass or annoy another person. Moreover, Section 223 is only a misdemeanor, punishable by not more than two years in prison.

The most likely statute under which charges may have been brought against Broadwell is 18 U.S.C. 2261A, also known as the Interstate Stalking Act. The ISA makes it a crime for any person to travel across state lines with the intent to injure or harass another person and, in the course thereof, places that person or a member of that person’s family in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury causes substantial emotional distress to that person [or a member of their family.]” This assumes, of course, that Broadwell traveled across state lines with such an intent. Assuming she did and assuming prosecutors could establish such an intent, it is both surprising and refreshing that prosecutors apparently decided not to bring criminal charges.

As I have written before, some public figures, such as government employees, are justifiably subject to a higher standard of conduct. However, it might be difficult for an agent or a prosecutor to resist a viable federal charge against a celebrity that would be an easy declination if the target were an average citizen.

See, for example, United States v. John Edwards, one of many recent cases that suggest that prosecutorial discretion is not working. Given the success of her book, the ironically-named “All In,” and her various television appearances, Paula Broadwell was by some measure a celebrity. Given the recent news coverage, she most certainly has attained that status at this point. Even with the best of intentions, a prosecutor may have been seduced at the notion of a publicity-generating case against such a high-profile target.

By its very nature, prosecutorial discretion depends on decisions made by individual prosecutors. And there are marked differences in individual prosecutors. A busy federal prosecutor in a major city may be less inclined to take a marginal case than a federal prosecutor in a slower jurisdiction. A new federal prosecutor trying to make a name for him/herself might be more inclined to investigate a high-profile target aggressively than a seasoned veteran who has already seen his or her share of big cases.

Admittedly, white collar laws have to be drawn broadly in order to permit federal prosecutors to combat the increasingly creative, technologically complex efforts of enterprising criminals. At least one downside of such broadness is that a large number of people may find themselves under federal investigation for conduct that can better be addressed in a different forum, or no forum at all. Most prosecutors, do, in fact, make rational decisions based upon the best possible expenditure of resources, the assessment of the jury appeal of a particular case, and the desire to maintain a good reputation with the bench and the bar.

However, prosecutors and investigators too often fail to recognize that they may view a case against a high-profile target differently than a case against an average citizen and should consider, in making charging decisions, whether the identity of the target is a valid consideration or not. The decision not to pursue criminal charges against Broadwell is perhaps a signal that discretion might be working after all.