Category Archives: alerta

BLR contends that free speech is the subject of contention

Captain Fred/ January 9, 2018/ alerta/ 0 comments

BLR contends that free speech is the subject of contention. Access to media is inseparable from civil rights While it seems inevitable that access will be monetized, it cannot be curtailed We would submit that our government making no law to abridge implies access is in existence To cut the funding for public access media indeed abridges our civil rights Once the government stops providing the access, how does the usurpation skip all the way to putting up prohibitions to access to the media surmountable only with corporate interest? our government prohibits the abridgment of the right to free speech What is speech if no one may hear? The FCC is playing with words here Civil rights cannot be purchased as a license ———=============— A number of inquiries received at the Commission are from persons or groups who believe that there is a First Amendment, constitutionally protected right to broadcast. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled on this subject and concluded that no right to broadcast exists. In National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 (1943), the Supreme Court stated, in pertinent part, as follows (footnotes omitted): We come, finally, to an appeal to the First Amendment. The Regulations, even if valid in all other respects, must fall because they abridge, say the appellants, their right of free speech. If that be so, it would follow that every person whose application for a license to operate a station is denied by the Commission is thereby denied his constitutional right of free speech. Freedom of utterance is abridged to many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio. Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is not available to all. That is its unique characteristic, and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it is subject to government regulation. Because it cannot be used by all, some who wish to use it must be denied. . . . The right of free speech does not include, however, the right to use the facilities of radio without license. The licensing system established by Congress in the Communications Act was a proper exercise of its power over commerce.*nbsp; The standard it provided for licensing of stations was the ‘public interest, convenience, and necessity.’ Denial of a station license on that ground, if valid under the Act, is not a denial of free speech. In addition, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC/United States, 395 U.S. 367, 89 S.CT. 1794 (1969), the Supreme Court of the United States stated, in pertinent part, as follows (footnotes omitted): When two people converse face to face, both should not speak at once if either is to be clearly understood. But the range of the human voice is so limited that there could be meaningful communications if half the people in the United States were talking and the other half listening. Just as clearly, half the people might publish and the other half read. But the reach of…

FCC Fines L.A. Pirate—And Warns 34 Others – Nov 27, 2017

natashaxe/ November 27, 2017/ alerta/ 0 comments

from The ongoing crackdown on pirate radio has resulted in another fine against an alleged unlicensed operator. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $15,000 fine against a Van Nuys, CA man who it says ignored repeated warnings and kept his pirate station on the air. According to the Enforcement Bureau, Juan Carlos Uribe was behind a station operating at 101.5 FM in the Los Angeles suburb as far back as Oct. 2016 when it received the first complaint about the station. Field agents tracked the signal back to a strip mall on Van Nuys Boulevard. They eventually caught up with Uribe and hand-delivered a written warning. But the pirate station remained on the air, even moving to 95.1 FM which field agents again tracked to the same strip mall. Uribe eventually turned off the station during a Dec. 2016 visit by agents. In issuing the proposed fine, the Bureau regional director Lark Hadley said Uribe “willfully violated” FCC rules since he continued his operation of an unlicensed radio station even though he was “fully aware” that doing so violated federal law. “As the Commission has stated many times before, enforcement action in this area is critical because unlicensed radio stations undermine the Commission’s efforts to manage radio spectrum and can cause interference to licensed communications, including authorized broadcasts and public safety transmissions,” Hadley writes in the notice. “Moreover, unlicensed radio stations do not broadcast Emergency Alert Service (EAS) messages, and thus create a public safety hazard for their listeners.” Uribe will now have 30 days to pay or dispute the fine—or make a case to the FCC for why it should be reduced. It’s the second pirate radio fine issued in the past two months. The FCC ordered an Alabama man to pay a $15,000 fine for operating a pirate radio station in Guntersville, AL. The FCC also agreed last month to cut the size of a fine an Irvington, NJ pirate faced to $3,800, down from its original $15,000, after he was able to show he didn’t have the ability to pay the full amount. More Pirate Warnings Issued While the latest fine has come on the West Coast, the FCC’s pirate hunt has mainly centered on the East Coast and that’s where nearly three dozen new warnings have gone out in recent weeks. In some cases it’s to individuals the Enforcement Bureau suspects of being behind the stations. In other situations, warnings have gone out to property owners and businesses that may be turning a blind eye to the illegal station’s operation. In Florida, the FCC has issued warnings to Rose Monique Almonor for an unlicensed station at 98.5 FM in Pompano Beach. In Miami, warnings have gone to Vilnord Simon for a station at 103.1 and to Alejandrino Ramos for one at 93.3 FM. Similar warnings have been handed to Sylvio Pierre for a pirate station at 104.7 in Delray Beach and to Jocelyn Joseph for one at 90.5 in Vero Beach. In Homestead, Adner…

Internment of Canadian Ukrainians in forced labor

natashaxe/ January 3, 2011/ alerta/ 2 comments

Amazing that this racial memory I have, of being considered a serf, is actually historically based. For my people, escaping the prejudice that we were no better than pack animals, meant leaving the Russian empire. Stalin created a workers state, like any state, his needed to profit from the exploitation of the only large scale food production in the region. Even as most of the rest of the world was freed from the particular slavery of feudalism, the Ukrainians would remain in bondage if they stayed in the homeland. There was a mass exodus starting in the last decades of the 19th century and continuing until Stalin’s policies forced the closing of the borders. Canada invited my family to immigrate. Brokers received bonuses for every able bodied man they could convince to come to Canada, where there was open land. Once World War I began, Ukrainians found themselves in the familiar circumstance of forced labor. Read more During the First World War, a growing sentiment against “enemy aliens” had manifested itself amongst Canadians. These enemy-born citizens were treated as social pariahs, and many lost their employment. Under the 1914 War Measures Act, “aliens of enemy nationality” were compelled to register with authorities. About 70,000 Ukrainians from Austro-Hungary fell under this description. 8,579 males were interned by the Canadian Government, including 5,954 Austro-Hungarians, most of whom were probably ethnic Ukrainians. Most of the interned were poor or unemployed single men, although 81 women and 156 children (mainly Germans in Vernon and Ukrainians at Spirit Lake) had no choice but to accompany their menfolk to two of the camps, in Spirit Lake, near Amos, Quebec, and Vernon, British Columbia. Some of the internees were Canadian-born and others were naturalized British subjects, although most were recent immigrants. Citizens of the Russian Empire were not interned and so could enlist in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.

Judge overrides jury

natashaxe/ January 1, 2011/ alerta/ 0 comments

This drives me crazy. The judge can make decision to over-rule the jury based on his own objective observation of the facts. What is the point of pretending to have a jury trial and making jury instruction? He is showing his bias very clearly. The jury made a decision include the use of the gun in the manslaughter conviction because of the law’s requirement. Ordinary manslaughter does not involve guns because if one uses a gun, the law presupposes the intent is to kill. The law need not be reinterpreted just because the offender is a cop. Any individual who was not a cop would have been convicted of  of murder. So, the jury decided to give the cop a pass but still to differentiate from ordinary manslaughter. What Mesherle did was worse than manslaughter. And this turned out to be very representative of how ordinary people saw the issue as well. Watching the video, I don’t think you can tell what Mesherle is thinking after he shot Grant. His partner testified that Mesherle first tried to claim that Grant was going for a gun. He now says that he doesn’t remember saying that. I do not think Grant was resisting arrest. Grant had not done anything. The cops had no reason to arrest him. He was face down on cement, being held down by two officers. But Judge Robert Perry threw out the gun-use charge in his Nov. 5 sentencing decision an imposed the minimum two-year sentence for manslaughter. Citing Mehserle’s testimony, videos of the shooting and the officer’s astonished reaction, Perry said no reasonable juror could have concluded that Mehserle had intentionally used a gun, a legal requirement for the sentence increase. The judge said the evidence also showed that Grant had resisted arrest, that BART officers were poorly trained in Taser use, and that Mehserle was remorseful. As a result, Mehserle, who has been in custody since his conviction, will be eligible for release in about six months. He would have had to serve at least four years in prison if sentenced on the gun charge. His lawyers are appealing the conviction. Read more:

>Free the Pellet Gun Activist!

natashaxe/ August 30, 2010/ alerta/ 0 comments

Portland Police are searching for a suspect who shot a police vehicle with a pellet gun Saturday night, according to Portland Police Bureau spokeswoman Detective Mary Wheat. Police responded to Northwest Skyline Boulevard north of Northwest Cornell Road about 11 p.m. Saturday after a citizen’s car was struck in the area. A Portland police car was hit by a pellet round later that night, and additional officers, including a K-9 unit, arrived and set up a large perimeter. No suspects were found, but officers found the pellet gun that police believe was used during the shooting. (8/1/2010)

>Lovelle Mixon’s shocked family (news clip)

natashaxe/ August 27, 2010/ alerta/ 0 comments

Lovelle Mixon, 26, of Oakland, was shot and killed by Oakland police department as they returned fire after being fired upon by an assault weapon. Mixon had shot at officers during a traffic stop hours earlier. He was wanted for a “No Bail” warrant for a parole violation (Assault with a Deadly Weapon). Family’s account of Oakland parolee who killed the four police officersMarch 23, 2009 (03-22) 12:47 PDT OAKLAND — The Oakland parolee who took the lives of four Oakland police officers knew he was a wanted man and deliberately skipped out on a meeting as part of a feud he was having with his parole agent, his family said today. Lovelle Mixon’s shocked family, gathering at an East Oakland home where the parolee had been living until recently, apologized to the officers’ families and to the public, and said they don’t understand what might have triggered his burst of violence. “He’s not a monster,” said his sister, 24-year-old Enjoli Mixon, whose apartment on 74th Avenue was where Mixon was slain in a gun battle with police that left two Oakland SWAT officers dead. “I don’t want people to think he’s a monster. He’s just not. He’s just not.” “We’re crushed that this happened,” said his grandmother, Mary Mixon. “Our hearts and prayers go out to the officers’ families….This shouldn’t have happened.” Lovelle Mixon was on parole arising from an offense in San Francisco. Mixon was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon stemming from an armed robbery in robbery in San Francisco, the family members said. He initially served six years, and then served another nine months after violating his parole when he got out. His family said that while he was in Corcoran state prison, Mixon married his childhood girlfriend, Amora Langston, and worked briefly as a janitor for a low-income housing provider in Hayward once he got out two years ago. He was most recently released from prison in November, his family said. Then, about three weeks ago, Mixon skipped a home visit from his parole officer, his family said. Mixon’s grandmother said he had gotten mad at the agent, claiming to her that the parole officer had missed earlier appointments. Mary Mixon said her grandson claimed at one point that he was even willing to go back to prison to get be assigned a new parole officer. But, she said, she did not know where her grandson had been staying since. Mixon allegedly killed three Oakland police sergeants in a pair of related incidents that together rank among the deadliest attacks on law enforcement in California history. The officers were identified as Sgt. Mark Dunakin, 40, and Sgts. Ervin Romans, 43, and Daniel Sakai, 35, both members of the SWAT team. A fourth officer, 41-year-old John Hege, died this morning, authorities said. A fifth officer, a member of the SWAT team that killed Mixon, was treated for minor injuries and released. According to police, the first incident happened about 1:15 p.m. when two traffic officers,…