CHRIS SAILS - FAMOUS BLACK YOUTUBER ARRESTED FOR IMPERSONATING POLICE (STUPID PRANKS)

CHRIS SAILS - FAMOUS BLACK YOUTUBER ARRESTED FOR IMPERSONATING POLICE (STUPID PRANKS):

YOUTUBE VIEWS AT ANY COST.

CHRIS HAS BEEN RELEASED BUT FACES UP TO FIVE YRS IN PRISON IF CONVICTED.


Post Sources: CW39 Houston, The Shade Room, BET, City of Houston Jail Records, Youtube


***** Celebrity Youtuber Chris Sails arrested, accused of impersonating HPD officer in prank to promote concert


A group of Youtube pranksters are facing criminal charges after posting a video of them impersonating Houston police officers.

Christopher Sails, 22, Nyyear Price, 21, Justin Denson, 20 and Devontay Sullivan were arrested Tuesday

after HPD learned of the video that was posted to Sails' and Nyyear's Youtube channels.

According to court documents, the video was filmed on Jun. 13 throughout the course of an afternoon.

The pranksters can be can be heard laughing and following drivers through neighborhoods and residential streets with fake police lights on top of their car.

At one point the group can be seen pulling over a security guard.

"I pulled you over cause you were speeding. I'm just playing, I'm just playing, it's a prank," one of the pranksters can be heard saying.

The men then proceeded to get back in the vehicle and followed another car, pulling it over. The video shows the pranksters exiting the vehicle and approaching a woman, before trying to convince her that they were undercover officers.

"We're undercover police officers. Here's my badge right here. I'm a have to write you a ticket ma'am," the prankster said.

After pulling over a number of drivers, one man warned the pranksters that a police station was nearby and that they should leave the neighborhood.

"Y'all know there's a whole police station down the street; like right there. This is not the right area guys," the man could be heard saying.

Since being posted, the video has close to 200,000 views and over 8,000 likes -- possibly due to the huge following that Sails and Nyyear have on social media.

Sails alone has 1.5 million Instagram followers; Nyyear has 380,000 and Sullivan has 35,000.

Prior to the arrest, Sails was scheduled to host a concert on Jul. 7, at the Underground.

Sails posted a picture of his flyer on Jun. 30, with a caption that read, "Come out to my show July 7th if you in Houston! ❤ click the link in my bio to get your tickets!" Sullivan posted the same photo to his page on Jun. 26.

So, was the arrest a publicity stunt to promote the comedy show and concert?

Many believe so seeing that this wasn't the first time that Sails was thrust into the spotlight due to social media.

Sails became popular by posting Youtube videos with his former girlfriend, Queen Naaija, whom he had a public breakup with over allegedly cheating with McKenna. Sails and Naaija were criticized, accused of sharing the details of their breakup on Youtube to gain followers.

MARISSA ALEXANDER PLEADS GUILTY TO 3 FELONY CHARGES TO REMAIN FREE IN FLORIDA; SHE HARMED NO ONE (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE)

#MarissaAlexander

BLACK, FEMALE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM MARISSA ALEXANDER PLEADS GUILTY TO 3 FELONY CHARGES IN ORDER TO REMAIN FREE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

SHE FIRED 3 WARNING SHOTS BUT HARMED NO ONE.

DEAR LORD IT'S TIME FOR ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS AND PEACEFUL PROTESTS ALL OVER THE USA.

WE SHALL OVERCOME.........SOMEDAY.



Article Sources: CNN; MSNBC; Salon.com; Youtube

ARTICLE: "Marissa Alexander Accepts Plea Deal"

Marissa Alexander, the Florida woman sentenced to 20 years behind bars for discharging a firearm in the presence of her estranged husband and his two sons has agreed to a plea deal.

Her case had sparked widespread attention amid allegations that the state’s “Stand Your Ground” was being unfairly applied.

According to the Florida Times-Union, Alexander, who is African American, was ordered on Monday to serve three years in jail after pleading guilty to three felony charges.

The 1,030 days she has already been behind bars will count as time served, meaning she will be released on Jan. 27.

In the lead up to the 2010 shooting, Alexander, 32, said she and her husband, Rico Gray, had gotten into an argument over a series of text messages.

Alexander, who had given birth to a daughter nine days earlier, had locked herself into the bathroom, at which point Gray broke through the door and grabbed her neck. Alexander testified that she then ran into the garage, couldn’t get the door open and returned with a gun from her car.

When Gray threatened, “Bitch, I’ll kill you”, Alexander said she fired the gun as a warning shot. No one was injured, but a jury convicted her in 12 minutes.

The case gained national notice after Alexander’s attorneys claimed self-defense and cited Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which also came under fierce criticism after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in 2012.

Under the law, in some circumstances, individuals can use force to defend themselves without first attempting to retreat. George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Martin, was acquitted in 2013 and his attorneys also cited Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute.

A circuit judge had previously denied Alexander request for a new hearing for immunity under the Stand Your Ground law and she was sentenced in 2012 under Florida’s 10-20 Life laws, which involves mandatory minimum sentences for gun-related crimes.

The prosecutor in the case was Angela Corey, who also prosecuted Zimmerman. Alexander was granted a new trial last year after the First District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that a judge didn’t properly instruct the jury on self defense.

After Alexander is released from prison early next year, she will have to spend two years under house arrest with a monitor.

Darrell Issa's Unnecessary Contempt Vote Against Holder May Help Sink Romney's Ship In November!

Fist Bump For Eric Holder! Two Thumbs Down For Darrell Issa!

The same Darrell Issa who once Arrested for Felony Car Theft & who Plead Guilty to a Concealed Weapons Charge is now the SAME member of Congress who wants to hold A.G. Eric Holder in Contempt for some E-mails.

A Judge later Dismissed the Felony Car Theft Charges.

Now Fast forward to the 21st Century.

Congressman Issa where is Your Mercy for Eric Holder?

The same type of Mercy previously extended to you via a Judge when you were charged with Felony Car Theft?

Pres. Obama & Eric Holder are being blamed for a Gun Running Operation started under George Bush's Administration as "Wide Receiver" and later re-named "Fast & Furious" under Obama's Administration.

"Wide Receiver" placed thousands of Guns into the hands of Young, BLACK Men living in America, yet NO One in Congress said a Word!

"Wide Receiver" contributed to Thousands of Young, BLACK, Male Americans losing their lives via BLACK on BLACK Crime, yet NO One in Congress EVER opened their mouths to question George W. Bush on the program.

Pres. Obama used "Fast & Furious" to locate & help Destroy Mexican Drug Cartels, but yet the GOP Members of Congress want to FIRE U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

It was NOT Pres. Obama or Eric Holder who Murdered U.S. ATF Agent Brian Terry.

It was a Drug Cartel Leader.

Thus ATF Agent Brian Terry was Killed while in the line of Duty.

YES it was very Unfortunate, however he was Killed while in the line of Duty.

So how can Pres. Obama or Eric Holder be Personally blamed for Terry's Death?

What about the Thousands of BLACK Youth Murdered under George W. Bush's "Wide Receiver" Gun Running Program?

The Mothers of those Young, BLACK Males Murdered with Guns from the "Wide Receiver" Gun Running Operation Cried and Mourned just as ATF Brian Terry's Mother Cried and Mourned his Death at the hands of Mexican Drug Cartel Leaders who possessed Guns from Obama's "Fast & Furious" Gun Running Operation.

Its quite obvious this entire GOP-Sponsored Theater, led by Congressman Darrell Issa is Politically Motivated to Help Mitt Romney.

Instead its turning away Voters, even some GOP Voters.
i.e., its Backfiring!

Pres. Obama is sure to Benefit from this Contempt Vote against Eric Holder and Darrell Issa's Political Career will be Destroyed soon after.

All for the sake of Bitter Partisan Politics.

Thanks Congressman Issa!

Its so Sad!

You could have chosen to use your Congressional Oversight Authority to help Eliminate Medicaid, Medicare Abuse & Fraud, Increase Child Abuse Protection laws, help Eliminate Disability Payment Fraud, Affordable Housing Funding Fraud,

Investigate Widespread Employment Discrimination against Minorities and Women over the age of 40, Food Stamp Fraud, For-Profit School Student Loan Fraud carried out by School Administrators, etc.,

Instead Congressman Issa you chose to Harass America's First BLACK U.S. Attorney General over some E-mails.

E-mails which by the way were already Submitted to Congress Months ago.

This type of foolishness and waste of Taxpayer Money is why Congress currently has a 9% Approval Rating!

Keep Standing Eric Holder!

We have your Back!

GET OUT THE VOTE AND RE-ELECT PRES. OBAMA FOR U.S. PRESIDENT IN 2012!








Why contempt case against Holder may be doomed


For veteran Congress watchers, President Barack Obama's formal claim of executive privilege regarding certain Justice Department documents related to Operation Fast and Furious will generate a sense of déjà vu.

Disputes over legislative access to executive documents occur in almost every presidential administration. Their resolution inevitably entails a set of legal and political considerations that change from episode to episode.

Unfortunately for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, its legal position is uncertain at best, and almost all political considerations would seem to favor the White House.

Whether or not the full House votes Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the likeliest resolution will be an informal settlement in which the Justice Department expands slightly on its current offer of disclosure, the committee narrows the range of documents it is demanding, or both compromise in a mutual, face-saving gesture.

At least, that would be likely in politically "normal" times.

The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions.

Deliberative privilege is not a legal absolute.

The executive branch concedes that when another branch of government demands privileged documents within the executive's control, they sometimes have to be turned over.

They have to be turned over when the demanding branch can articulate a compelling need for the information to fulfill one of its own constitutional functions -- a need that outweighs the executive branch's interest in confidentiality.

A key problem now for the House Oversight Committee is thus far it has yet to state in a very concrete way why it needs the particular documents it is demanding.

In contrast, the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: Forced disclosure to Congress of internal deliberations concerning how best to interact with Congress would undermine the executive's capacity to function as a co-equal branch.

It would undermine the prospects for future candid deliberations about interactions with the other institutions of government.

Resolving such a dispute sounds like a matter for the courts, but the judiciary is unlikely to be of much practical help now to the House.

If the House brings a civil action to enforce its subpoena, the matter is unlikely to resolved by the courts before the election or, indeed, before the expiration of the current Congress.

The House could ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute Holder for contempt, but the Justice Department long ago took the position -- in a very careful opinion written by then Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson -- that the department is not required by law to prosecute executive officials for contempt when the ground for subpoena noncompliance is a claim of executive privilege.

So that would leave the House with the one remaining legal option of launching an impeachment investigation, which brings us to the political side of things.

The reality Congress faces in separation of powers disputes, no matter how genuine or how principled, is that the public will almost certainly not rally around Congress if it perceives the dispute as more political food fight than anything else.

With no Democrats supporting the committee vote -- and I am guessing few, if any Democrats supporting a contempt citation by the entire House -- that's just what this will look like.

Moreover, as with Whitewater, it will be hard for House Republicans to explain exactly what the problem is. Fast and Furious appears to have been a disaster, but the Justice Department has shared documents freely on Fast and Furious.

The Justice Department sent a letter to Congress in February 2011 that mistakenly denied reports about what the Bureau of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives actually did in Fast and Furious.

But the department has been forthcoming in sharing information about the events leading up to that letter, which Holder subsequently withdrew.

The fight, then, is not about a botched ATF operation or about a botched letter to Congress.

It is about how the attorney general reached his eventual conclusion that Fast and Furious was "fundamentally flawed" and decided how to respond to congressional and other requests for information about a program he now concedes should not have happened.

Politically, this now begins to sound like Whitewater -- a story hardly anyone can follow, which really does not seem to implicate fundamental issues of public policy or official integrity.

(One caveat: The dynamics of this dispute could change if it turns out that Republican Committee Chairman Darrell Issa actually has information that the process of responding to Congress after the February 2011 letter entailed specific instances of corruption.

Were he to bring such specific information to the attention of the White House, it would be consistent with past White House practice to release all documents related to that misconduct.)

A prolonged fight over Fast and Furious led by Republicans will do two things their presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, surely does not want.

It will fill up air space that could otherwise have been spent discussing the economy, and it will intensify the appearance of congressional Republicans as the obstructionists blocking the changes Obama so famously promised.

It also must be said that Issa's past attacks on the administration amply feed a narrative that his subpoena is about politics, not principle.

Having months ago called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times" -- in the face of such modern historical escapades as Watergate, Iran-Contra or the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- the chairman is not well-situated to play a Sam Ervin-like role, policing the presidency more in sadness than in angry partisanship.

In short, unless the House has specific information not yet disclosed suggesting the information it seeks is closely linked to the exposure of government malfeasance we have not yet heard about, this fight will end in a standoff or the parties will finally compromise.

To put the matter in yet fuller context, here are some questions and answers about the dispute and the history of executive privilege:

What is executive privilege?

Executive privilege is really an umbrella concept that encompasses a variety of privileges. History's most famous claim of executive privilege -- President Richard Nixon's unsuccessful attempt to withhold the "Watergate tapes" -- was an example of "presidential privacy" privilege.

That privilege covers executive communications when the president is involved.

The executive branch, however, historically claims a much broader privilege, the so-called "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions. The current dispute involves "deliberative privilege."

Where does executive privilege come from?

The Supreme Court has held that the authority of the executive branch to withhold certain documents from mandatory disclosure is rooted in the separation of powers.

The court stated, in United States v. Nixon (1974), that the importance of confidentiality to protect "communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties ... is too plain to require further discussion."

It concluded that "the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties."

In that sense, executive privilege is a form of power that the Constitution never mentions, but which the Supreme Court has found implicit in our constitutional structure. In that respect, it is just like Congress' investigative power, which is also not mentioned in the Constitution.

Why is the president involved in claiming privilege over Justice Department documents?

Withholding documents from Congress is always a sensitive matter, legally and politically. For this reason, presidents have long reserved to themselves the final decision of when and whether to invoke any kind of executive privilege against Congress.

President Ronald Reagan formalized this process in a November 1982, memorandum.

It states: "Historically, good faith negotiations between Congress and the executive branch have minimized the need for invoking executive privilege, and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the branches.

To ensure that every reasonable accommodation is made to the needs of Congress, executive privilege shall not be invoked without specific presidential authorization."

Why is the White House claiming executive privilege regarding Operation Fast and Furious?

Operation Fast and Furious appears to have been a gravely misbegotten attempt by the ATF to nab drug traffickers in Mexico by allowing lower-level gun traffickers to buy weapons in the United States for the Mexican cartels and then tracing the guns' movement, rather than stopping their export.

One of the guns may have been involved in the December 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

On February 4, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which mischaracterized the operation.

He incorrectly denied that ATF "knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico."

As a result, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Issa, has been investigating not only the original operation but also the circumstances that led to the erroneous February 4, 2011, letter.

For his part, Holder directed the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate Fast and Furious and publicly denounced the operation in October 2011 as "fundamentally flawed." The Justice Department has released to Congress more than 7,600 pages of documents revealing how Fast and Furious was initiated and carried out.

What the Issa committee is now demanding, and what the White House and Justice Department are withholding, are documents generated after February 4, 2011, relating to how the Justice Department handled its responses to Congress regarding Congress' oversight of Fast and Furious, following the erroneous Weich letter.

In his June 19 letter to the president seeking the invocation of executive privilege, Holder argued that to disclose these documents would " 'significantly impair' the Executive Branch's ability to respond independently and effectively to matters under congressional review."

More specifically, "Congressional oversight of the process by which the executive branch responds to congressional oversight inquiries would create a detrimental dynamic" that would, in turn, "chill the candor ... of executive branch discussions and 'introduce a significantly unfair imbalance to the oversight process.' "

Is the executive privilege claim valid?

United States v. Nixon held that, with the possible exception of documents pertaining to military and state secrets, executive privilege is not absolute but "qualified."
Under a "qualified privilege," documents that are potentially exempt from mandatory disclosure might still have to be released to another branch of government.

This would happen when the institutional needs of the demanding branch to acquire the information in support of its own constitutional functions are weightier than the harms that would follow should the executive branch be forced to disclose it.

Congress typically takes the position that this balancing process always favors Congress, a proposition with which the executive disagrees and for which there is no judicial precedent.

As matters stand, the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: They would shed no light on any policy issue before Congress and would directly intrude on the executive branch's capacity to figure out how to respond to legislative inquiries, consistent with the executive's own independent constitutional role.

To Congress, the Justice Department is saying, in effect: You can ask us questions, you can judge our answers, but you cannot eavesdrop on the process by which we formulate our answers.

For its part, Issa's committee has not made clear in any concrete terms why it needs the documents it is demanding.

It has not, for example, made a prima facie case of criminal wrongdoing in the Justice Department's post-February 11, 2011, actions, on which the documents now demanded would shed some light.

As long as the dispute remains in this posture, the Justice Department's claim falls well within the executive branch's longstanding interpretation of its prerogatives under the separation of powers.




House Investigator Issa Has Faced Allegations As Well

The man driving the investigation into the General Services Administration, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, took the top seat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after the GOP won a majority in 2010.

Issa has led several splashy investigations since. But he's also been dogged by allegations of his own.

Issa has made news in recent months by threatening to subpoena Attorney General Eric Holder, and by calling a panel of only men to talk about women's contraception.

The Car Alarm Voice

Issa made his fortune building and selling Viper car alarms. He is the wealthiest member of Congress, worth as much as $450 million. In fact, it's Issa's voice on the popular alarm's signature warning to would-be thieves: "Protected by Viper. Stand back."

What's less well known is how Issa got into car alarms in the first place.

"For years I used to tell everyone that I went into it because my brother was a car thief. Then they found out when I ran for office my brother did spend time in prison as a car thief, and it ruined the whole joke I'd had for 20 years in business," Issa said during an interview with WhoRunsGov.

Issa himself was accused several times of auto theft. In the early 1970s, he and his brother were arrested after police suspected them of stealing a Maserati sports car from a dealership in Cleveland. Issa says the police mistook his identity, and the charges were later dismissed.

Another time, Issa was arrested and eventually pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon. Police found a handgun and a tear-gas gun — plus ammunition for both — in Issa's glove compartment.

Questions In The Past

These stories first arose when Issa ran for the Senate in 1998. An investigative reporter named Lance Williams was looking into the then-candidate's biography.

"He had been a soldier, and he claimed that he was part of an elite bomb detecting unit that guarded President Nixon at the 1971 World Series," said Williams.

Williams called up the Nixon Presidential Library, and was told that Nixon hadn't gone to any World Series games that year. Then Williams looked into Issa's purportedly stellar career in the Army.

"The biography that he was providing the press in the context of his campaign was all wrong. He had a bad conduct rating. He was demoted, and a fellow soldier accused him of stealing his car," said Williams.

Issa eventually took over the company that built car alarms.

Ryan Lizza, a reporter for The New Yorker magazine, detailed Issa's early business moves in a 2011 story.

The Fire

Issa had a warehouse full of electronics that, one night in 1982, caught fire. Investigators later found "suspicious burn patterns," Lizza reported, and found that Issa had done some odd things.

A co-worker claimed that before the fire, Issa had put important electronic prototypes in a fireproof box, and that he'd removed the business's computer and financial files from the building. Investigators also found that less than three weeks before the blaze, Issa had increased the company's fire insurance from $100,000 to more than $400,000.

"So you add the more than quadrupling of the insurance along with the taking the computer and putting the other stuff in a fireproof box, and you can see why both the arson investigators and the insurance investigators pointed a finger, you know, at Issa after this fire," said Lizza.

Issa said he had nothing to do with the fire, but the insurance company refused to pay the claim. The two later settled out of court.

It was in part because of these allegations that Issa lost his Senate bid in 1998. He went on to win his House seat, he worked to recall the governor of California, and now he chairs the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Issa would not talk to NPR about this, but he has told several news outlets over the years that he's surprised the allegations from his past continue to dog him.


Sources: CBS News, CNN, NPR, The Blaze, Youtube

Marijuana Should Be Decriminalized By Toure' & Pat Robertson

Back in 2004 Pres. Obama supported the idea of Marijuana Decriminalization.
However after his Election he made Marijuana Possession a Felony & said he was No longer in Favor of Decriminalizing Marijuana even though he knows Millions of BLACK Men are Arrested and Jailed for Pot each year.
What's Up with that Obama?

For the record NO I do NOT Smoke Weed or Cigarettes, nor do I drink Alcohol. So why am I in favor of Decriminalizing Weed?
I am in favor of any Legal Reform that will help keep Millions of BLACK & Latino Young Men out of America's Prisons.
Heads Up Congress: Fix Our Country's Broken, Racist Criminal Justice System!









Marijuana Should Be Decriminalized

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to change New York’s laws to decriminalize marijuana. New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have rushed to agree. Cuomo’s proposed change is a repudiation of Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk program, which has arrested more than 400,000 people for marijuana crimes— more than were arrested by the three prior Mayors combined — while still not denting marijuana use or availability in New York. It seems that Bloomberg’s previous tactic was doing little besides creating unwilling clients for the prison-industrial complex.

Everyone who has been a teenager knows how prevalent marijuana is throughout America and how easy it is to acquire. If the police did stop-and-frisks of every white boy in almost any city or college, they would yield plenty of arrests for marijuana possession. But black men are targeted and stopped and frisked for the crime of being black in poor black neighborhoods, and those found with small bags of marijuana are sucked into the justice system and forever branded a criminal. This means they will struggle to find work, may not qualify for student-aid and likely stay in public housing. These men are virtually removed from society for a nonviolent offense that many Americans commit. They are failed by America.

Cuomo recognizes that arresting those caught with small amounts of marijuana is not pragmatic in terms of the time and energy of police, prosecutors and courts — in New York more people are arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana than any other crime. Cuomo also knows that it doesn’t make sense to ruin the job prospects of so many New Yorkers for this crime. Twelve states have already decriminalized marijuana, including California, but because of New York’s size and place in America, decriminalizing marijuana in the state represents a significant turning point.

Recognizing that, I called Ohio State University Associate Professor of Law Michelle Alexander, the author of the The New Jim Crow, a definitive study of the impact of the War on Drugs. Professor Alexander told me that the loss of human potential for possessing small amounts of marijuana is staggering. “If Barack Obama had been caught for making that mistake [smoking weed in high school], he would have been branded a criminal and the odds that he would’ve made it to college are slim,” Alexander said. “He might not even be eligible to vote.” Decriminalization is a positive step toward stopping the damage, Alexander said, but she also thinks we should do even more.

“I find it encouraging that Cuomo acknowledged the racial dimensions of these marijuana arrests and the lifelong consequences of acquiring a criminal record. Once you are branded a criminal, even for marijuana possession, that record follows you for life,” Alexander said. “It’s encouraging that Cuomo acknowledges how people of color have been subject to discriminatory enforcement, and a criminal record can relegate you to permanent second-class status. What I’d like to see is Cuomo go even further and call for the expungement of records for those who’ve been criminally charged with marijuana possession to ensure those who were ensnared before this likely policy change aren’t branded for life.”

But what do we say to those who think if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime? Or those who think it’s the perpetrators’ fault for having weed in their pockets and thus their problem? Alexander has an answer. “There are those who believe the government shouldn’t be in the business of locking people up and putting them in literal cages because they ingest marijuana. Drug consumption should be treated as a public health problem and not as a crime.

I share that view,” she said. “Why criminalize marijuana at all? If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ve gotta admit the harm associated with being branded a criminal for life is vastly more devastating to individuals and families than any potential harm associated with smoking marijuana. So if we’re gonna point fingers and say, ‘If you don’t wanna do the time, don’t do the crime,’ then we have to ask ourselves why is this conduct criminalized? Why is it treated as a crime rather than a public-health problem, and why are the odds of being punished so much greater if you’re a person of color than if you’re white? Why should young people in ghettoized communities pay for their mistakes for the rest of their lives, while middle-class white kids get to make those mistakes and then go off to college?”

The War on Drugs has a movement rising against it, a movement that’s toppled the Rockefeller drug laws and is now battling stop-and-frisk and the criminalization of small amounts of marijuana. When major politicians who have an eye on the White House, such as Cuomo, are willing to listen and make changes, signaling that they know legislation is not going to hurt them in a run for national office, then in terms of reforming the War on Drugs, it just could be early morning in America.





Pat Robertson: Marijuana should be legal

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says marijuana should be legalized and treated like alcohol because the government's war on drugs has failed.

The outspoken evangelical Christian and host of "The 700 Club" on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network he founded said the war on drugs is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. He said people should not be sent to prison for marijuana possession.

The 81-year-old first became a self-proclaimed "hero of the hippie culture" in 2010 when called for ending mandatory prison sentences for marijuana possession convictions.

"I just think it's shocking how many of these young people wind up in prison and they get turned into hardcore criminals because they had a possession of a very small amount of a controlled substance," Robertson said on his show March 1. "The whole thing is crazy. We've said, `Well, we're conservatives, we're tough on crime.' That's baloney."

Robertson's support for legalizing pot appeared in a New York Times story published Thursday. His spokesman confirmed to AP that Robertson supports legalization with regulation. Robertson was not made available for an interview.

"I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol," Robertson told the newspaper. "If people can go into a liquor store and buy a bottle of alcohol and drink it at home legally, then why do we say that the use of this other substance is somehow criminal?"

Robertson said he "absolutely" supports ballot measures in Colorado and Washington state that would allow people older than 21 to possess a small amount of marijuana and allow for commercial pot sales. Both measures, if passed by voters, would place the states at odds with federal law, which bans marijuana use of all kinds.

While he supports the measures, Robertson said he would not campaign for them and was "not encouraging people to use narcotics in any way, shape or form."

"I'm not a crusader," he said. "I've never used marijuana and I don't intend to, but it's just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn't succeeded."

In a statement Thursday, Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said Robertson's "clearly stated and well-reasoned comments throw a curve ball into the growing debate over legalizing marijuana."

"Defenders of marijuana prohibition... must be wondering if it's only a matter of time before theirs proves to be a lost cause," he said.

Christian advocacy group Focus on the Family opposes legalization for medical or recreational use, Carrie Gordon Earll, the organization's senior director of government and public policy, said in a statement. The group would not comment specifically on Robertson's statements.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana. Several states also have decriminalized marijuana, which removes or lowers penalties for possession. Legalization, however, would eliminate penalties and pave the way for regulated sales similar to alcohol.


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC, CBN, CBS News, The Young Turks, TIME Magazine, Youtube, Google Maps

John Edwards Walks Free! Elizabeth Is Dead! So Sad! Double Jeopardy! R.I.P. Elizabeth (Videos)

Edwards cleared of one charge; mistrial declared on other charges

Former presidential candidate John Edwards was found not guilty Thursday on one charge that he accepted illegal campaign contributions, and a federal judge declared a mistrial on five other charges when a jury deadlocked after nine days of deliberations.

A look of relief spread over Edwards' face as he learned that his year-long fight against government prosecutors appeared to be over, and he hugged his lawyers, his daughter Cate and his parents, who sat behind him in the courtroom for most of the trial.

"Thank goodness we live in a country that has the kind of system we have," Edwards said outside the courthouse before heading home.

Federal prosecutors will have to decide whether to retry Edwards on the five charges, but legal experts said it would be unlikely.

"They got almost every evidentiary ruling in this case in their favor (and) the jury instructions (were) in their favor. They couldn't try a better case, and having said all that, this jury was just very divided," said Kieran Shanahan, a Raleigh lawyer and former federal prosecutor who attended most of Edwards' trial. "It just makes very little sense, in my opinion, to try it a second time."

Shanahan noted that some key witnesses will never testify because they're either dead or too frail to appear, and other witnesses aren't credible enough to get a conviction. Also, he said, the evidence is too shaky when dealing with complex campaign finance laws, he said.

"It seems like the government's prosecution was pressing the outer edge of campaign finance law," he said.

Jurors declined to comment as they left the courthouse.

The eight-man, four-woman jury deliberated for about 50 hours since May 18, and they told U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles that they had "exhausted every aspect" by late Thursday and couldn't come to an agreement.

Earlier in the afternoon, they sent a note indicating that they had "reached a decision" on all six charges.

When jurors were brought into the courtroom, however, the jury foreman stammered when Eagles asked if they had a unanimous verdict. He said they had one verdict, and the judge stopped him from commenting further.

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell immediately asked that Eagles declare a mistrial on the five other charges since jurors were obviously deadlocked. Prosecutors opposed the motion, saying the jury needed to spend more time considering the case before giving up.

Eagles said she didn't want the jurors to feel like prisoners, but she asked them to continue deliberating on the remaining charges.

"It is your duty to agree on a unanimous verdict if you can do so without surrendering (your) conviction," she said. "It is possible you have already done what I am asking you to do."

Jury agrees on one charge

The charge that the jury was able to agree on alleged that Edwards accepted illegal campaign contributions from Virginia heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon in 2008. The charge involved two checks that Mellon routed through a friend to one-time Edwards aide Andrew Young that weren't cashed until after Edwards had dropped out of the 2008 presidential campaign.

The remaining charges involve alleged illegal contributions from Mellon in 2007 and from Texas trial lawyer Fred Baron in 2007 and 2008, filing false campaign finance reports and engaging in a criminal conspiracy.

The government alleged that Edwards, a former U.S. senator, masterminded a scheme to use nearly $1 million in secret payments from Mellon and Baron, his late campaign finance chairman, to hide his pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter, as he sought the White House.

Defense attorneys argued Edwards had little direct knowledge of the cover-up, which they say was directed by Baron and Young.

Young was the star prosecution witness, and he spent nearly five days on the witness stand – about one-third of the three weeks the government spent to present its case – outlining a sordid tale of politics, sex and money.

But Lowell painted Young as an experienced liar, noting inconsistencies between his testimony and what he had written in his tell-all book about Edwards' affair and failed campaign and said in previous interviews. He also pointed out that Young and his wife spent most of the money on an upscale home they were building near Chapel Hill and other personal expenses.

Young's wife and Mellon's friend, Charlotte interior decorator Bryan Huffman, described the scheme in which checks were funneled from Mellon through Huffman to the Youngs to pay for Hunter's expenses.

A string of former campaign staffers related to jurors stories about Edwards' relationships with Hunter and his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, and his efforts to cultivate Mellon as a donor. Defense attorneys suggested that some staffers were only interested in bringing Edwards down so they could write books about the case.

The defense maintained that any cover-up was aimed at keeping Elizabeth Edwards from knowing that the affair had continued long after John Edwards had told his wife it had ended and after Hunter had stopped working for his campaign. They argued that Mellon and Baron were merely trying to help a friend and would have provided him with money even if he weren't running for president.

Lowell and defense attorneys Allison van Laningham and Alan Duncan focused their three-day defense on the intricacies of federal campaign finance law, offering Edwards' former campaign financial officer and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, who said money from outsiders used to hide a candidate's affair aren't considered campaign contributions.

Edwards didn't testify in his defense, and neither prosecutors nor the defense called Hunter as a witness.

Edwards speaks publicly

After the mistrial was declared, Edwards made his first public statement since a grand jury indictment was announced last June 3.

"While I do not think I did anything illegal or ever thought I was doing anything illegal, I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong," he said. "There is no one else responsible for my sins – none of the people who came to court to testify are responsible, nobody working for the government is responsible. I am responsible."

Edwards also thanked the jurors for their service and thanked his parents, Wallace and Bobbie Edwards, for driving to Greensboro from their home in Robbins every day to support him. He also thanked his eldest daughter, Cate Edwards Upham, for her daily support as well and said he looked forward to spending time with his two other children with his late wife, Emma Claire and Jack.

He choked up when he mentioned the daughter he has with Hunter, proclaiming that he loves "my precious Quinn" more than anyone could imagine and that he was grateful for her.

Edwards concluded by saying he hopes to once again work on the anti-poverty efforts that were the cornerstone of his two campaigns for president.

"I don't think God's through with me. I really believe He thinks there's still some good things I can do," he said. "I want to dedicate my life to being the best dad I can be and to helping those kids who I think deserve help and whom I hope I can help."


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, Extra TV, GQ Magazine, WRAL, Google Maps

Illegal Silicone Butt Injections New Trend For BLACK Strippers! Kim Smedley Pleads Guilty

Due to this lingering Recession, more BLACK Women are Working as Strippers, thus more BLACK Women are paying for Illegal, Risky Silicone Butt Injections.

The Subject of this Status Update has become a Dangerous Trend among Women in the American BLACK Community.

In this Recession a Girl has to make a Living right?

Well apparently looking like Nicki Minaj & Kim Khardashian is the New Trend among Strippers & Escorts.

Why am I reporting on something so seemingly unrelated to Politics?

Because it bothers me when I see Girls & Women using their Bodies as Sex Objects to make Money, even if it cost them their Lives.
i.e. Exploitation!

Is it Safe to assume that Women working as Escorts, Prostitutes & Strippers are more than likely in many cases being Forced by Drug Dealers, Madams & Pimps to get those Body Distorting, Illegal Silicone Butt Injections?

YES!

Because Women with BIG Butts attract Rappers & Men from Corporate America with a Fetish for Big Butts, regardless of what those Women may have done to get such Unnaturally looking Big BUTTS.
i.e., being Injected with Store Bought Silicone, Cement, Super Glue, Fix-a-Flat, etc.,

Strippers & Escorts are paying $1,000 CASH per Procedure, and risking their Lives by allowing other Women with NO Medical Training, nor Medical License to Illegally Inject Silicone into their Buttocks & Hips.

I am NOT referring to FDA-Approved Silicone used by Licensed Physicians & Plastic Surgeons.

NO!

Instead I'm referring to Silicone, Cement & Fix-a-Flat Products sold in Lowe's & Home Depot Stores!

YES!

These Chemicals are being Injected into the Bodies of Strippers & Escorts to give them appearance of Nicki Minaj's & Kim Khardashian's BIG Behinds!

Can You Say "CRAZY"??

I Can!

That is CRAZZZZZZZYYYYYY!!!!!!!

Is this trend about Body Image issues?

NO!

This is about using Your Female Body as a Sex Object to make More MONEY even if it cost Your LIFE!

i.e. Exploitation!

Once that Silicone & other Mess is Injected into the Human Body it can NOT be Removed!

NOT even by a REAL Physician!

Some Women have DIED from Complications after receiving these Illegal Silicone Butt Injections!

Such Corrupt, Dangerous, Illegal Medical Procedures Must STOP!

If Necessary Get the Feds Involved!

BLACK Women Please STOP!

Padge Windslowe (the "Black Madam") 42, of Philadelphia, has been ordered to stand Trial for Illegally Administering Silicone Butt Injections to Strippers during "Pumping Parties".
Padge Charged $1,000. Per Procedure.

Kimberly Smedley, 45, Of Atlanta, Pleaded Guilty to Federal Felony Charges for administering Silicone Butt Injections to Strippers without a Medical License.
Kimberly Charged $1,000. Per Procedure.

Oneal Ron Morris, 30, a Florida Transgender "Woman", was Arrested last Fall for giving Illegal Silicone Butt Injections to Strippers.
Oneal Charged $1,000. Per Procedure.



Bum Rap: Woman Who Injected Silicone Into Buttocks Of Strippers Nationwide Pleads To Federal Felony Charge


A Georgia woman who traveled the country administering silicone buttocks injections to female clients--including many strippers--pleaded guilty today to a federal felony charge stemming from her illegal business.

During an appearance in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Kimberly Smedley copped to a conspiracy charge. A criminal information filed this month alleged that Smedley, 45, “traveled frequently” to Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, and New York City to inject silicone “into the buttocks of customers for larger and fuller buttocks in exchange for money.”

Smedley faces a maximum five-year prison term when sentenced in mid-July. A plea agreement indicates that federal prosecutors will seek a $250,000 fine, in addition to about $8000 in restitution (that Smedley has agreed to pay).

Pictured above, Smedley is not a licensed medical practitioner. She also falsely represented to customers that the silicone she injected (which was stored in a plastic water jug) was medical grade. Instead, prosecutors disclosed, she used a substance intended for “metal or plastic lubrication, as an additive for paint and coatings, and furniture or automotive polishes.”

Food and Drug Administration agents determined that Smedley ordered “over 4920 pounds” of the substance “from one manufacturer alone” since 2003.

Smedley was arrested last year at a Washington hotel, where she was apparently preparing to see clients.

Federal agents began investigating her months earlier after an exotic dancer from Baltimore became seriously ill and was hospitalized following silicone treatments by Smedley.

As part of her plea deal, Smedley acknowledged illegally administering silicone injections over an eight-year period ending late last year. She operated out of hotel rooms, where she used “super glue with cotton balls to cover the point of injection in an effort to prevent the silicone from leaking out,” according to a court filing. Smedley admitted charging between “$500 and $1600, always in cash, for each session where she typically injected silicone in 9 places on each side of the buttocks.”

Smedley was the subject of a March 2008 New York Post story that quoted her saying her injections were “illegal here but legal in Mexico.” She also acknowledged, “I’m not a doctor and I’m not a nurse.”


'Black Madam' gave illegal butt injections, used Krazy Glue, say Pa. cops

A judge has ordered a Philadelphia woman dubbed the 'Black Madam' to stand trial for allegedly performing illegal cosmetic surgeries, including buttocks enhancement procedures using silicone from Thailand and Krazy Glue.

Padge Windslowe, 42, is charged with aggravated assault, practicing medicine without a license and theft by deception.

At a preliminary hearing Wednesday, an exotic dancer named Shurkia King testified that she suffered severe respiratory problems and spent two weeks in the hospital after a "pumping party" for which Windslowe charged $1,000 per session and performed injections on a dining table.

A doctor testified that he found silicone particles on King's lungs that could have killed her.

Police also believe Windslowe injected 20-year-old Claudia Aderotimi, who died after a pumping party at a Philadelphia airport hotel last year. Aderotimi complained of chest pain and difficulty breathing following the procedure. No charges have been filed in that case as detectives await extensive autopsy test results.

King, 23, said she learned about the Black Madam through fellow dancers and thought Windslowe was a certified nurse. After the first pumping party went well on New Year's Eve, King said she went back for more in February.

One of the injections seemed to go in wrong and left her leg shaking, but Windslowe told her to just breathe and that everything is OK, King said.

King's oxygen level was "dangerously low" when she arrived at a hospital two days later, a doctor testified. She spent about a week in intensive care and used an oxygen tank to breathe until she returned to work, the doctor and King both testified.

Dr. Arka Banerjee of Lankenau Medical Center testified that the silicone particles attached to King's lungs were diffused and too small to remove surgically. On cross-examination, the doctor acknowledged that medical records show King to be a daily smoker and marijuana user.

Philadelphia police believe Windslowe performed at least 14 cosmetic surgeries, moving locations to avoid detection. She remains in jail on $750,000 bail.



Accused Florida Butt Injector Appears To Have Tried Her Own Product

The Transgender Florida Woman arrested yesterday for giving illegal buttocks injections--using a mixture of cement, super glue, mineral oil, and “Fix-a-Flat” sealant--appears to have tasted her own product.

Charged with practicing medicine without a license, Oneal Ron Morris, 30, posed for the above full-body booking photos (click each to enlarge), which seem to show her rear has been artificially enhanced (is there a better way to advertise your services?).

Morris was nabbed in connection with her treatment earlier this year of a client who was subsequently hospitalized due to the enhancement procedure (the injection site was sealed with super glue).

Morris is jailed in lieu of $7500 bond.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Fox News, MTV, SocialiteLife, The Smoking Gun, Youtube, Google Maps

Casey Anthony's Release Date Changed Amid Death Threats; "Caylee's Law" Proposal

Casey Anthony's Release Date Has Been Pushed Back To July 17.

Why?

Its Not Due To Recalculated Time Served.

Instead Its More Likely Due To The High Number Of Death Threats Being Made Against Her.

I Don't Agree With Anyone Making Death Threats Against Another Human Being.

But What Did She Expect? Hugs & Kisses?

After All She Killed Her Own Innocent 2-Year-Old Daughter!

Casey Anthony May Have Been Acquitted By A Mostly White, Stupid Jury,

However God's Word Does Say That People "Reap What They Sow"!

Shame On The Jury That Allowed Her To Walk Free For Having Committed Such A Heinous Crime!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Casey Anthony 's release pushed back to July 17

The release date for Casey Anthony has been rescheduled for July 17, not July 13 as originally planned, Florida's Orange County Corrections said in a statement late Thursday.

The new date is a result of "a detailed recalculation of the projected release date," according the statement from Allen Moore, the department's public information officer. The statement gave no details on how the extra days were calculated.

Earlier Thursday, Judge Belvin Perry sentenced Anthony to four years in jail -- one year for each of her four convictions of lying to police -- but with credit for the approximately three years already served and good behavior, leaving her with six days left to serve. The corrections department's recalculation put that remainder at 10 days.

Denying a defense motion to reduce the four counts to a single conviction, Perry gave Anthony the maximum jail time he could by ruling that the four years be served consecutively.

He also fined her $1,000 for each count. Court papers show she is also ordered to pay court costs and fees totalling just over $600.

"I don't know how free she's going to be (but) she's going to be out a cage," defense attorney Cheney Mason told InSession soon after sentencing. "I doubt there's any place in this country that she could walk the streets freely."

Mason said that he fears for Anthony's safety, and that measures are being taken to protect her. She will undoubtedly get counseling going forward, he said, adding that offers to help have poured in from across the country.



"I think she wants to get away from all this and try to find some way to start a life," said Mason.

A jury acquitted Anthony Tuesday on the most serious charges against her, including murder, in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, but convicted her on the four misdemeanor counts of lying to police.

When Anthony arrived in the courtroom Thursday, she smiled often as she chatted with her attorneys.

CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin said Perry's decision came as a surprise. "Most people convicted of misdemeanors do not get prison time," he said.

The four lies at issue include Anthony lying about whether her daughter was missing; about 2-year-old Caylee being in the custody of a nanny; about having a job at Universal Studios and about having received a phone call from Caylee.

The defense argued Thursday that the multiple charges violate the so-called double jeopardy protections in the Constitution because they all came on the same day, and should be reduced to one conviction. The prosecution argued that Anthony lied at different times on the same date, and that there is no double jeopardy violation.

Perry agreed with the state, and noted that each of Anthony's lies triggered actions by investigators. The jury spoke "loud and clear" in its decision, he said.



In the courtroom Thursday, Cindy Anthony, Casey's mother, watched her daughter walk in and commented to her husband, "Oh my gosh, there she is, she looks so beautiful." Cindy Anthony noted to her husband George that their daughter had let down her hair, after having kept it pulled back throughout the trial. Two HLN producers seated in the courtroom in front of the Anthony parents heard the remarks.

Cindy Anthony also commented that Lee Anthony, Casey's brother, had been strong throughout the experience.

A woman who was in the courtroom later said Cindy Anthony seemed happy and was smiling and looking at Casey, but noted that Casey did not look back at her parents.

Cindy Anthony could face perjury charges for testimony she gave, one of the prosecutors in the murder trial said Wednesday. Cindy Anthony testified that she was responsible for searches about chloroform on the family's home computer, but evidence indicated she was at work at the time.

Prosecutors alleged Casey Anthony used chloroform to render her daughter unconscious and then duct-taped her mouth and nose to suffocate her. They said that she put the child's body in the trunk of her car for a few days before disposing of it. Caylee's skeletal remains were discovered December 11, 2008, by former Orange County meter reader Roy Kronk.

Defense attorneys maintained the child drowned in the Anthony's above-ground pool on June 16, 2008, and that Casey Anthony and her father panicked upon finding her there and covered up the death. George Anthony denied those allegations in his testimony.

Outside the courtroom Thursday, a crowd of protesters holding signs lambasted the jury's decision and the fact that Casey Anthony will be freed.

But some people were there to support Anthony -- including one man wearing a sign asking her to marry him.

Florida officials, meanwhile, are asking that Anthony repay the state for the enormous cost of investigating the case.

In a motion filed Wednesday, the state called for a hearing so it can tally up costs and slap Anthony with the bill.

"The efforts and costs of the investigation were extensive and not immediately available and accordingly, the State of Florida respectfully requests this Court to set a hearing within 60 days to determine total costs," the motion says.

The motion cites a Florida law that allows the state to fine defendants in criminal cases to recoup money spent.

Texas Equusearch, a firm that helped search for Anthony's daughter, also wants its money back.

The company said it used 4,200 searchers and spent $112,000 looking for Caylee in Florida after the girl was reported missing in July 2008, CNN affiliate KTRK reported.

Tim Miller, the head of company, told the affiliate he now believes Caylee was never missing -- and he is contemplating a lawsuit.

"This is the money that really needed to go to families that need us," Miller told the television station.

Additionally, Anthony will also have to deal with a defamation lawsuit from the real Zenaida Gonzalez.

At the time of Caylee's disappearance, Anthony told family members and police that the little girl was with a nanny named Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez. That is one of Anthony's lying convictions.

Later, Anthony claimed Gonzalez had kidnapped the toddler.

Authorities never found a nanny by that name who cared for Caylee. They did, however, find a woman named Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez, who denied ever meeting Anthony. Gonzalez then filed the defamation lawsuit.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Change.org, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, Youtube, Google Maps

"Caylee's Law" Movement Sparked By Casey Anthony's Release! Felony For Lying

Online Petition for 'Caylee's Law' Goes Viral


Many avid followers of the trial of Casey Anthony, the Florida woman accused of murdering her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, were incensed by Tuesday's not-guilty verdict. Unlike most others, though, Michelle Crowder did more than just fume about it.

By dinnertime, Crowder had hopped on the social-action site Change.org and launched a petition, aimed at President Obama and members of Congress, calling for a federal law that would make it a felony for parents to fail to notify police within 24 hours of a child's disappearance or within an hour of a child's death. Casey Anthony waited 30 days before reporting Caylee missing — one of several bizarre behaviors to which many pointed as evidence of Anthony's guilt.

A jury found Anthony not guilty of murder but convicted her of lying to police in the investigation of her daughter's death. Casey initially claimed that Caylee was kidnapped by a nanny, which spurred a nationwide search before the girl's skeletal remains were found in the woods near the Anthony family home six months later.

Within hours on Tuesday, more than 15,000 people had signed on to Crowder's petition, "Create Caylee's Law." The popularity of the petition prompted an e-mail from Change.orgto Crowder, an unemployed mother of two in Durant, Okla. "Every time I refreshed it, I saw more and more people were signing on," says Change.org communications director Brian Purchia. "Late last night, I e-mailed her that this was the fastest-growing petition we've had on the site."

Close to 5,000 people were adding their names each hour, and by early evening Wednesday, the petition had amassed 150,000 names. That puts it well on its way to overtaking the site's previous record of 170,000 supporters who signed on to a campaign to end corrective rape — in which lesbian women are raped to turn them "straight" — in South Africa. That document attracted the attention of the South African government, which has established a task force to address the problem.

Indeed, less than 24 hours after Crowder began her petition, legislators from at least two states, Oklahoma and Florida, expressed their intentions to sponsor bills that would require parents to report missing children swiftly.

On a federal level, however, it's not clear that the proposed statute would be constitutional. The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported:

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law scholar at Harvard, points out that criminal laws usually fall within the realm of state jurisdictions. When Congress does enact them, however, it does so under the Constitution's commerce clause, which applies to cases that significantly impact interstate commerce. Tribe posits that the proposed "Caylee's Law" would fail to meet that test and would not hold up at the federal level.

"This is an understandable reaction to ... a verdict that people feel unsatisfied with, but violating the Constitution would hardly solve the problem," Tribe told the Law Blog. "There is no basis I can see for any congressional power to deal in this broad way with all cases of injury — and perhaps fatal injury — to children."

But Crowder, 30, says she is hopeful her petition will yield fruit. She says she can't know whether Anthony killed Caylee but feels certain that she had something to do with it. Crowder wonders, How could any parent not report her child missing for a month?

After poking around online, Crowder discovered that the failure to report a child missing does not appear to fall under child endangerment, child neglect or obstruction of justice laws. On Facebook, Crowder read a post urging that legislation be put in place. "I saw a bunch of people had agreed, but I thought, Is anyone really going to do anything?" she says.

"I was raised to stand up for what I believe in, and that's what I am doing," says Crowder, whose concern for Caylee and other children like her is made more poignant by the fact that she doesn't have custody of her own two daughters, ages 7 and 10.

Crowders' daughters live with their respective fathers — Crowder was married to one, but not the other — because she says she couldn't afford good divorce attorneys with the wages she earned working in retail and at call centers and fast-food restaurants.

The last she heard, her daughters were somewhere in northern Oklahoma. Crowder lives in the southern part of the state and has no contact with them. "I live my life hoping one day they will find me," says Crowder. Unfortunately, that's more than anyone can say for Caylee Anthony.



Proposed “Caylee’s Law” Generates Virtual Frenzy

More than 98,000 – and counting – people across the country have signed onto a virtual campaign calling for a new federal law that would make it a felony for parents not to alert police of a child’s disappearance.

The online petition, started by an Oklahoman woman less than 24 hours ago on a social change website, comes on the heels of the Casey Anthony trial in which the jury reached a “not guilty” verdict on first-degree murder charges Tuesday. (The jury convicted her on four counts of lying to investigators; she will be sentenced Thursday.)

The petition is the fastest-growing campaign that has ever been hosted on the site and is causing website traffic problems, a spokesman for Change.org told the Law Blog.

It calls for the creation of a new federal statute called “Caylee’s Law” – named after Anthony’s deceased daughter – that would make it a felony for parents not to report the death of a child to law enforcement within an hour of discovering the incident, or within 24 hours in the case of child disappearance.

But some question the constitutionality of such a proposed law. Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law scholar at Harvard, points out that criminal laws usually fall within the realm of state jurisdictions.

When Congress does enact them, however, it does so under the Constitution’s commerce clause, which applies to cases that significantly impact interstate commerce. Tribe posits that the proposed “Caylee’s Law” would fail to meet that test and would not hold up at the federal level.

“This is an understandable reaction to…a verdict that people feel unsatisfied with, but violating the constitution would hardly solve the problem,” Tribe told the Law Blog. “There is no basis I can see for any congressional power to deal in this broad way with all cases of injury – and perhaps fatal injury – to children.”

The proposal stems from details in the Anthony case: Caylee first went missing on June 16, 2008, but her grandmother only notified the police a month later. Trial spectators reacted with anger and disappointment to the jury’s verdict, upset by the prospect that Anthony might soon walk free after spending two and a half years in prison waiting for trial, the AP reports.

In the past hour alone, nearly ten thousand people have signed the virtual petition. Anthony’s lawyer could not be immediately reached for comment.


View Larger Map

Sources: Change.org, CNN, TIME, Wall Street Journal, Youtube, Google Maps