THE 2016 HORROR MOVIE

!!!!

	11:02 PM (17 hours ago)
to pfmorse1957

MINIMUM CLOTHES IN A MINIMUM WAGE ESTABLISHMENT

!!!!

Male cross-dressing young man in McDonalds in Shanghai being served by minimum wage worker

Stigler on Obama

 

By JASON L. RILEY

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

 

Tuesday, 30 July 13

 

 

 

President Obama told a crowd in Chattanooga, Tenn., Tuesday that "because no one who works full-time in America should have to live in poverty, I will keep making the case that we need to raise a minimum wage that in real terms is lower than it was when Ronald Reagan took office."

There are many things wrong with that statement, starting with the implication that the typical minimum-wage earner is supporting a family of four. In fact, most minimum-wage earners are young, part-time workers who aren't poor. According to federal data, their average family income is more than $53,000 a year.

But what's also striking about the president's argument is how long proponents of the minimum wage have been making it, and how long noted economists have been telling those proponents that it's a bad idea. Back in 1946, George Stigler, whom Milton Friedman called "one of the great economists of the twentieth—or any other—century," addressed Mr. Obama's statement 67 years before the president would utter it.

"The minimum wage provisions of the FLSA of 1938"—a reference to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established a national minimum wage—"have been repealed by inflation," wrote Stigler. "Many voices are now taking up the cry for a higher minimum." Stigler, who would win the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1982, continued: "The popular objective of minimum wage legislation—the elimination of extreme poverty is not seriously debatable. The important questions are rather (1) Does such legislation diminish poverty? and (2) Are there efficient alternatives? The answers are, if I am not mistaken, unusually definite for questions of economic policy. If this is so, these answers should be given. Some readers will probably know my answers already ("no" and "yes," respectively); it is distressing how often one can guess the answer given to an economic question merely by knowing who asks it. But my personal answers are unimportant; the arguments on which they rest are."

There continue to be better alternatives to minimum-wage increases, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, if the goal is to help the poor. But then, his rhetoric notwithstanding, Mr. Obama isn't pushing for a higher minimum wage to help alleviate poverty. He's advocating it, first and foremost, in deference to Big Labor. Unions like minimum-wages because they price people out of the labor force, and fewer workers means higher wages for their members. As Thomas Sowell, a student of Stigler's at the University of Chicago, writes in "Basic Economics," "Just as businesses seek to have government impose tariffs on imported goods that compete with their products, so labor unions use minimum wage laws as tariffs to force up the price of non-union labor that competes with their members for jobs."

Mr. Obama wants a higher minimum wage because that's what a key Democratic special interest wants. The impact on the poor is at best a secondary concern.

IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO KILL BAD BILLS THAN TO PASS GOOD ONES

!!!!

Speaker John Boehner



There oughta be a law? Don't be so sure

by Jeff Jacoby


The Boston Globe
July 28, 2013


http://www.jeffjacoby.com/13570/there-oughta-be-a-law-dont-be-so-sure




AMONG THE chattering classes these days, it is a popular lament that the 112th Congress has passed fewer bills than any in the last 60 years. But not everyone is joining in the breast-beating. When CBS newsman Bob Schieffer asked House Speaker John Boehner last week how he feels about presiding "over what is perhaps the least productive and certainly one of the least popular congresses in history," Boehner rejected the planted axiom that making laws makes lawmakers productive.
"We should not be judged on how many new laws we create," he said. "We ought to be judged on how many laws that we repeal."



To those of us who regard "Don't just do something, stand there!" as an excellent rule of thumb, above all for politicians, Boehner's response was refreshing. Complaints about "gridlock" and "dysfunction" are neverending, but getting things done in Washington was never supposed to be easy.


Nor is it what voters want: That's why they returned a Republican majority to the House of Representatives last November, while keeping the Senate and the White House in Democratic hands.
"We've got more laws than the administration could ever enforce," Boehner said on CBS. "We deal with what the American people want us to deal with. Unpopular? Yes. Why? We're in a divided government. We're fighting for what we believe in."



Needless to say, the notion that Congress ought to be doing less — and undoing more — immediately drew flak.



"Did Speaker Boehner really say that the Congress should be judged on the number of laws they repeal not the number they pass?" tweeted White House aide Dan Pfeiffer. The speaker's remarks were "just embarrassing," the pro-Obama activist group Organizing for Action said scornfully; members of Congress weren't elected "to sit there and wind back the clock." The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee quickly moved to exploit Boehner's comments in online ads aimed at 19 Republican incumbents Democrats hope to unseat.



Joe Gandelman, editor of The Moderate Voice, a political website, could barely contain his contempt: "Welcome to the new age of spin where you take a rotted, fetid, smelly, almost poisonous lemon and try to sell it not just as lemonade, but the best lemonade ever made."



Actually, Congress gets even lower marks when judged by Boehner's preferred metric. So far this year Congress has passed 15 laws; it hasn't actually repealed any. While the House has voted more than 30 times to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act, there is no chance that the Senate will go along. "Stop taking meaningless repeal votes," President Obama needled Republicans in a speech on Wednesday. "Repealing ObamaCare and cutting spending is not an economic plan."



ObamaCare remains highly unpopular, more Americans than ever want it repealed, and only 13 percent think the law will personally help them, while three times as many expect it to hurt them. A key Senate Democrat warned months ago that the law's rollout would cause "a huge train wreck," and the White House this month put off for another year the enforcement of a key ObamaCare provision. As you contemplate this legislative dog's dinner, is it really so absurd to suggest that repealing laws may be a better test of congressional effectiveness than passing them in the first place?



"There oughta be a law!" is more likely to be an emotional reaction than a considered judgment, but we live in an age that has turned worship of government into an unofficial state religion, so resisting demands for more laws is treated as heresy. The belief that whenever there is a problem more government must be the cure flies in the face of experience – especially the experience of all the problems governmental cures made worse. It was "There oughta be a law!" that gave us the Fugitive Slave Law and Prohibition, uncommonly silly bans on contraception and out-of-control drug laws, tuition subsidies that make tuition more expensive and immigration "reforms" that caused an illegal immigration crisis.



On becoming president of the Massachusetts Senate in 1914, Calvin Coolidge offered his colleagues some timeless advice: "Don't hurry to legislate. Give administration a chance to catch up with legislation." Making laws, Coolidge knew, is no proof that lawmakers are productive. As he wrote to his father, a Vermont legislator: "It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones."
He was right. And so, on this score, is Boehner. Action isn't the same as accomplishment — least of all in Congress, which often does its best work when it does nothing at all.




(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
-- ## --

I HAVE A DREAM

!!!!

MABEL HAS FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT!

!!!!

.

 

Give a man a fishhook and teach a man to fish and he will eat fish for the rest of his life! 2013 Version: Give a man a welfare check, a free cell phone, gas for his clunker, food stamps, free contraceptives, free Medicaid, ninety-nine weeks of unemployment benefits, free prescriptions and he will vote Democrat for the rest of his life, even after he is dead!

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN HAS CHANGED HIS NAME

!!!!

LYNCHING, 2013 STYLE

!!!!

The lynching of John (Jack) Holmes. November 26, 1933, San Jose, California.

2013:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls&feature=youtu.be

	Lean
	To create Lean, a popular drink originated from Houston Texas, you require the following for the original formula: -Promethazine w/Codeine VC <- active="" br="" ingredient="" nbsp="" or="" robutussin="" sizzurp="">-Original Sprite Soda <- although="" are="" arizona="" as="" br="" different="" flavors="" fruit="" ingredient="" juice="" mixing="" now="" of="" or="" remix="" sprite="" such="" used="" watermelon="">-Jolly rancher candy <- additive="" br="" flavor="" or="" skittles=""> Put it all in a styrofoam cup and enjoy. The codeine is mainly responsible for the euphoric feeling after drinking lean. Promethazine causes motor skill impairment, lethargy, extreme drowsiness, as well as a disassociative feeling from all other parts of the body, specifically the stomach and digestive system. If it doesn't have promethazine w/ Codeine, it isn't real sizzurp. The mixed drink combination known as "lean", is normally the color purple, due the added ingredient sizzurp, which is originally a dark purple syrup. There are other colors of sizzurp which can be added to create lean, but the purple is the true sizurp Lean does not contain ANY form of alcohol, crushed pills, or other liquids in general. Dat lean got my thoed. Dat lean got my swervin. "Mayne... hol' up... I got too much lean in my cup..." -Quoted from a popular song found in the south.  ARIZONA WATERMELON FRUIT JUICE  -

WE HAVE BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS TO THANK FOR THE ETHANOL INSANITY

!!!!

• REVIEW & OUTLOOK
• July 19, 2013, 6:36 p.m. ET

The Ethanol Tax

It's costing you 10 cents a gallon this summer.

The summer is high driving season, so $4 gasoline in many parts of the country will add to the cost of family vacations. The gas price is mostly dictated by supply and demand, but Washington is helping to keep prices high. We warned in "The Ethanol Gas-Pump Surcharge" on March 13 that the 2007 ethanol mandate was starting to raise prices at the pump. Congress and the White House did nothing and now the problem is getting worse.

In 2007 the Bush Administration and Congress mandated how much ethanol the oil and gas industry must purchase each year to be blended into gasoline. This year it is 13.8 billion gallons. The quotas were established when Washington thought gas consumption would rise year after year, but instead it has fallen.

Lower consumption means refiners are now nearing a "blend wall" of 10% ethanol per gallon. Most American motorists won't buy gas with more than 10% ethanol, partly to protect engines from damage and partly because of higher prices. The volume mandates are so high they would require more than 10% ethanol.



So under federal law refiners must comply with a complicated system of buying renewable energy credits to make up for the ethanol they don't use. These credits are called Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs. Demand for RINs has surged and so their price has exploded. In January the RIN price was less than 10 cents a gallon, then it hit $1 in March and is now $1.40. This translates into a roughly $14 billion a year gas tax, or 10 cents a gallon more for consumers.



The quickest way for Washington to lower prices would be to repeal the ethanol quotas. But White House energy adviser Heather Zichal said this week that repeal would be "shortsighted" because the mandate combats climate change. But even environmentalists (including Al Gore) now concede that ethanol probably increases carbon emissions.



The ethanol quota is scheduled to rise again in 2014 and many energy market experts believe this could add another 10 to 25 cents per gallon of gas. Only Washington could come up with such a scheme.

A version of this article appeared July 19, 2013, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Ethanol Tax.

IT IS NORTH CAROLINA'S TURN TO EXPERIENCE MOBOCRACY LIKE AUSTIN, TEXAS AND MADISON, WISCONSIN

!!!!

• CROSS COUNTRY
• Updated July 19, 2013, 6:54 p.m. ET

Why Are North Carolina Liberals So @&%*! Angry?

If it's Monday, it must be another protest against tax-cutting Republicans.

By
• STEPHEN MOORE
• THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Raleigh, N.C. 


 
The burning heart of liberal activism and indignation this summer can be found, of all places, in the charming capital city of the Tar Heel State. On Monday, for the 11th week in a row, thousands of protesters descended on the copper-domed Capitol denouncing the policies of a Republican Party that for the first time since Reconstruction controls North Carolina's governorship and legislature. Some 800 agitators have been arrested for disrupting the legislature. By all accounts, these "Moral Monday" rallies, though peaceful, are growing in size and volume.

General Assembly Police Lt. Martin Brock, right, directs Rev. William Barber, President of the N.C. chapter of the NAACP to step down during "Moral Monday" demonstrations at the General Assembly in Raleigh, N.C., Monday, July 8, 2013.

The rallies have caught the eye of the national media, with some referring to Raleigh as the "Madison of the South." Madison, of course, is the famously liberal capital of Wisconsin that turned into a political frying pan in February 2011 when the state's Republican lawmakers reformed union collective-bargaining rules.



Thom Goolsby, an outspoken GOP state senator, has jokingly dismissed the protests in Raleigh as "Moron Mondays" and predicted that they would fade in the weeks ahead. Perhaps, but the stated goal of the organizers is that these rallies evolve into the same kind of political tour de force on the left that the tea party has become on the right. Moral Mondays may be coming soon to a state capital near you.



So what are liberals of all stripes so angry about in North Carolina? I put that question to the organizer of the Moral Monday movement, Rev. William Barber II, a loquacious, likable and politically shrewd preacher and leader of the North Carolina NAACP. (Think Jesse Jackson, but with charm and genuine conviction.) He preaches "civil disobedience" and trains peaceful demonstrators on how to get arrested. He is also a master at political theater.



After a near-five minute sermon about how Republicans have made the state a "crucible of extremism and injustice," it became clear the answer to my question is he and his followers are mad as hell about, well . . . everything. The list of grievances is long but includes unemployment-insurance cuts that took some 70,000 recipients in the state off the rolls, state lawmakers' refusal to sign up for ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion, a proposed voter-ID law, and of course "tax cuts for the rich."
This past Monday marchers were waving signs that read "Justice for Trayvon Martin," "Stop Fracking in North Carolina," and "Vouchers Destroy Public Schools." In recent weeks, demonstrators were out in force demanding abortion rights. On July 2, the state Senate passed a bill requiring health regulations and certified doctors at abortion clinics, a requirement that has been denounced by pro-choice activists as an assault on women. Gov. Pat McCrory has said he would veto that bill, and the state's House of Representatives has since passed a revised bill that will now head back to the Senate.



Mostly, however, these protests are about money. The Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank in North Carolina, recently published an analysis of the financial statements of the left-wing groups sponsoring these rallies, such as the Community Development Initiative and the Institute of Minority Economic Development. It found they have collected about $100 million in state grants, loans and contracts. No wonder they're enraged over GOP lawmakers' attempts to rein in spending.



One common complaint is that the state is passing up free money by rejecting Medicaid expansion. But many financially pinched states—including Georgia, Alabama, Utah and Texas—are doing so, not because they're coldhearted but because while the feds pick up the full tab in the first several years, eventually the states will have to pay even more money into a broken system that is already sapping state budgets.



Unemployment-insurance extensions have also created perverse incentives. North Carolina owes the feds some $2.5 billion for loans to pay extended benefits. The Republicans sensibly asked for a waiver that would keep the extended benefits but cut the size of the monthly checks. The feds refused, so the state has opted for shorter durations of benefits rather than raising the unemployment-insurance tax on employers.



North Carolina state Senate Majority Leader Phil Berger told me last week that "this tax only adds to the cost of hiring workers and thus makes unemployment worse." To their credit, Mr. Berger and his fellow GOP lawmakers have passed a pro-growth plan that will slash the state personal income tax rate to 5.75% from 7.75% by 2015; cut the corporate tax to 5% from 6.9%; and eliminate the state estate tax.



All of this will spur growth and job creation. Yet unions and others on the left pummel the plan as a giveaway to the rich. Rev. Barber and his allies also portray the GOP as a gang that wants to "turn back the clock" on racial justice and fighting poverty.



To his credit, Gov. McCrory hasn't capitulated. He argues that in a state with an 8.8% unemployment rate and falling incomes "my main goal is to make the state more economically competitive. Unlike the protesters, I'm not wedded to the status quo," he told me last month.



That isn't to say Republicans have been saints. Rev. Barber makes a strong case that some of the ballot-access changes Republicans are promoting appear motivated to suppress minority and Democratic turnout. While the proposed voter-ID law is a sensible and popular anti-fraud measure, not allowing early voting on Sundays and taking away dependent tax exemptions from parents if their sons or daughters in college vote outside their hometown unnecessarily inflame minority and youth rage. With his typical rhetorical flare, Rev. Barber calls these "21st century poll taxes."



Rev. Barber and the other "religious progressives" say their goal is a new "southern fusion" that unites every ethnic, religious and interest group promoting modern liberalism to repel the tide of conservative policies on the march, not just in North Carolina, but all across the South. His warning to national liberals is, "If Republicans get away with this in North Carolina, with our moderate and centrist heritage, they can do it anywhere." He's planning a national Moral Monday rally in Washington, D.C., in August.



North Carolina is still the prototype swing state—Mr. Obama won here in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012—so Democrats could stage a comeback on Tobacco Road.



But as longtime Republican strategist Marc Rotterman told me last week, there is a potentially fatal flaw to the whole "Moral Monday" strategy: "The core problem is the protesters are denouncing policies like tax cuts and welfare reforms that may be unpopular with the New York Times, but are very popular with mainstream North Carolinians." That is the big bet the state's Republicans are making—and come November 2014, we'll see if it pays off.




Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.

A version of this article appeared July 19, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Why Are North Carolina Liberals So @&%*! Angry?.

BLACK PASTOR TELLS IT LIKE IT IS, LIKE IT OR NOT

!!!!

 

Pasor James David Manning

 

 

 

http://conservativevideos.com/2013/07/black-pastor-defends-zimmerman-tells-congregation-to-stop-looking-through-black-eyes/

IF YOU ARE BLACK YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT BLACK YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS

!!!!



LOUISIANA STATE SENATOR ELBERT GUILLORY


http://www.youtube.com/embed/n_YQ8560E1w?autoplay=1

THE IRS SCANDAL GETS WORSE AND WORSE WITH EACH NEW REVELATION POINTING IN THE DIRECTION OF THE WHITE HOUSE

!!!!

• DECLARATIONS
• Updated July 18, 2013, 7:02 p.m. ET

Noonan: A Bombshell in the IRS Scandal

A higher office is implicated.

By
• PEGGY NOONAN
•  
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578614220949743916.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

-

The IRS scandal was connected this week not just to the Washington office—that had been established—but to the office of the chief counsel.



That is a bombshell—such a big one that it managed to emerge in spite of an unfocused, frequently off-point congressional hearing in which some members seemed to have accidentally woken up in the middle of a committee room, some seemed unaware of the implications of what their investigators had uncovered, one pretended that the investigation should end if IRS workers couldn't say the president had personally called and told them to harass his foes, and one seemed to be holding a filibuster on Pakistan.



Still, what landed was a bombshell. And Democrats know it. Which is why they are so desperate to make the investigation go away. They know, as Republicans do, that the chief counsel of the IRS is one of only two Obama political appointees in the entire agency.



To quickly review why the new information, which came most succinctly in a nine-page congressional letter to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, is big news:

IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division revenue agent Elizabeth Hofacre, left, and retired IRS tax law specialist Carter Hull testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

When the scandal broke two months ago, in May, IRS leadership in Washington claimed the harassment of tea-party and other conservative groups requesting tax-exempt status was confined to the Cincinnati office, where a few rogue workers bungled the application process. Lois Lerner, then the head of the exempt organizations unit in Washington, said "line people in Cincinnati" did work that was "not so fine." They asked questions that "weren't really necessary," she claimed, and operated without "the appropriate level of sensitivity." But the targeting was "not intentional." Ousted acting commissioner Steven Miller also put it off on "people in Cincinnati." They provided "horrible customer service."



House investigators soon talked to workers in the Cincinnati office, who said everything they did came from Washington. Elizabeth Hofacre, in charge of processing tea-party applications in Cincinnati, told investigators that her work was overseen and directed by a lawyer in the IRS Washington office named Carter Hull.



Now comes Mr. Hull's testimony. And like Ms. Hofacre, he pointed his finger upward. Mr. Hull—a 48-year IRS veteran and an expert on tax exemption law—told investigators that tea-party applications under his review were sent upstairs within the Washington office, at the direction of Lois Lerner.



In April 2010, Hull was assigned to scrutinize certain tea-party applications. He requested more information from the groups. After he received responses, he felt he knew enough to determine whether the applications should be approved or denied.
But his recommendations were not carried out.



Michael Seto, head of Mr. Hull's unit, also spoke to investigators. He told them Lois Lerner made an unusual decision: Tea-party applications would undergo additional scrutiny—a multilayered review.
Mr. Hull told House investigators that at some point in the winter of 2010-11, Ms. Lerner's senior adviser, whose name is withheld in the publicly released partial interview transcript, told him the applications would require further review:

Q: "Did [the senior adviser to Ms. Lerner] indicate to you whether she agreed with your recommendations?"
A: "She did not say whether she agreed or not. She said it should go to chief counsel."
Q: "The IRS chief counsel?"
A: "The IRS chief counsel."

 The IRS chief counsel is named William Wilkins. And again, he is one of only two Obama political appointees in the IRS.



What was the chief counsel's office looking for? The letter to Mr. Werfel says Mr. Hull's supervisor, Ronald Shoemaker, provided insight: The counsel's office wanted, in the words of the congressional committees, "information about the applicants' political activities leading up to the 2010 election." Mr. Shoemaker told investigators he didn't find that kind of question unreasonable, but he found the counsel's office to be "not very forthcoming": "We discussed it to some extent and they indicated that they wanted more development of possible political activity or political intervention right before the election period."



It's almost as if—my words—the conservative organizations in question were, during two major election cycles, deliberately held in a holding pattern.



So: What the IRS originally claimed was a rogue operation now reaches up not only to the Washington office, but into the office of the IRS chief counsel himself.



At the generally lacking House Oversight Committee Hearings on Thursday, some big things still got said.



Ms. Hofacre of the Cincinnati office testified that when she was given tea-party applications, she had to kick them upstairs. When she was given non-tea-party applications, they were sent on for normal treatment. Was she told to send liberal or progressive groups for special scrutiny? No, she did not scrutinize the applications of liberal or progressive groups. "I would send those to general inventory." Who got extra scrutiny? "They were all tea-party and patriot cases." She became "very frustrated" by the "micromanagement" from Washington. "It was like working in lost luggage." She applied to be transferred.



For his part, Mr. Hull backed up what he'd told House investigators. He described what was, essentially, a big, lengthy runaround in the Washington office in which no one was clear as to their reasons but everything was delayed. The multitiered scrutiny of the targeted groups was, he said, "unusual."



It was Maryland's Rep. Elijah Cummings, the panel's ranking Democrat, who, absurdly, asked Ms. Hofacre if the White House called the Cincinnati office to tell them what to do and whether she has knowledge of the president of the United States digging through the tax returns of citizens. Ms. Hofacre looked surprised. No, she replied.



It wasn't hard to imagine her thought bubble: Do congressmen think presidents call people like me and say, "Don't forget to harass my enemies"? Are congressmen that stupid?



Mr. Cummings is not, and his seeming desperation is telling. Recent congressional information leads to Washington—and now to very high up at the IRS. Meaning this is the point at which a scandal goes nowhere or, maybe, everywhere.



Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, finally woke the proceedings up with what he called "the evolution of the defense" since the scandal began. First, Ms. Lerner planted a question at a conference. Then she said the Cincinnati office did it—a narrative that was advanced by the president's spokesman, Jay Carney. Then came the suggestion the IRS was too badly managed to pull off a sophisticated conspiracy. Then the charge that liberal groups were targeted too—"we did it against both ends of the political spectrum." When the inspector general of the IRS said no, it was conservative groups that were targeted, he came under attack. Now the defense is that the White House wasn't involved, so case closed.



This is one Republican who is right about evolution.



Those trying to get to the bottom of the scandal have to dig in, pay attention. The administration's defenders, and their friends in the press, have made some progress in confusing the issue through misdirection and misstatement.



This is the moment things go forward or stall. Republicans need to find out how high the scandal went and why, exactly, it went there. To do that they'll have to up their game.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF TRAYVON MARTIN'S BACKPACK WITH STOLEN JEWELRY AND A BURGLARY TOOL

!!!!

M-DSPD Cover Up – The Curious Case Of Trayvon Martin’s Backpack With Stolen Jewelry and Burglary Tool…

Posted on May 1, 2013 by sundance

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/
 

Ironically were it not for Frances Robles writing a Miami Herald article on March 26th 2012 an entire chain of events would not have taken place.
It was that Robles article, and the outlining of the Miami-Dade School Police Department’s report on a Trayvon Martin incident from October 2011, that kicked off an internal investigation by M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley against his own officers to find out who leaked the police report.
[Note: The Miami-Dade Public School System has its own Police force, and Chief, who report to the School Board and Superintendent - Not the Police Dept. The Police Chief is appointed by the School Superintendent, in this example, Alberto Carvalho]

It was that M-DSPD internal affairs investigation which revealed in October 2011 Trayvon Martin was searched by School Resource Officer, Darryl Dunn. The search of Trayvon Martin’s backpack turned up at least 12 pcs of ladies jewelry, and a man’s watch, in addition to a flat head screwdriver described as “a burglary tool”.
When Trayvon was questioned about who owned the jewelry and where it came from, he claimed he was just holding it for a “friend”. A “friend” he would not name.
Later, after the police report was outlined in the Robles article, and despite Trayvon being suspended for the second time in a new school year, Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, said Trayvon’s dad, Tracy Martin, and Trayvon’s mom, Sybrina Fulton, did not know anything about the jewelry case.
It was only as a consequence of the M-DSPD internal affairs investigation that “why” they may not have known came to light.

On October 21st 2011 a burglary took place a few blocks from Krop Senior High School where Trayvon Martin attended. The stolen property outlined in the Miami-Dade Police Report (PD111021-422483) matches the descriptive presented by SRO Dunn in his School Police report 2011-11477.

Trayvon Martin

However, there was ONE big issue. SRO Dunn never filed a criminal report, nor opened a criminal investigation, surrounding the stolen jewelry. Instead, and as a result of pressure from M-DSPD Chief Hurley to avoid criminal reports for black male students, Dunn wrote up the jewelry as “found items”, and transferred them, along with the burglary tool, to the Miami-Dade Police property room where they sat on a shelf unassigned to anyone for investigation.
A separate report of “criminal Mischief” (T-08809) was filed for the additional issue of writing “WTF” on a school locker. [It was the search for the marker used to write the graffiti that led to the backpack search].
The school discipline, “suspension”, was attached to the graffiti and not the stolen jewelry.

The connections between the Police Burglary report and the School Report of “found items” were never made because the regular police detective in charge of the Burglary case had no idea the School Police Dept. had filed a “found items” report.
Two differing police departments, and the School Officer, Dunn, intentionally took the criminal element out of the equation – instead preferring “school discipline” and not “criminal adjudication”.
It was only when the M-DSPD Internal Affairs investigation kicked in, and six officers gave sworn affidavits, the manipulative scheme to improve criminal statistics within the School System were identified openly.
School Superintendent Alberto Carvalho gave his hire, Police Chief Hurley, instructions to reduce the criminal behavior of young black males. The chosen strategy between them, to insure optical success, was to stop using the Criminal Justice System to punish black student behavior. Instead they instructed the School Resource Officers to use school discipline in place of criminal justice.

Former M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley with son and wife

Another approach was the use of The Baker Act, to quantify behaviors under health HIPPA law secrecy by assigning the students with psychological problems. This allowed them to again use school discipline and work around criminal reports.
Without the reports, the statistics would improve immensely;  And improve they did.

The final approach, to insure no-one would find out about the manipulation, was to change the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for inter-agency information sharing.
This new SOP was outlined by a communications directive in 2010 forbidding the sharing of Miami-Dade School Police reports to outside agencies without redaction. Officers had to send any and all requests through the public information officer.
Hence, the furor of Chief Hurley when the Robles article hit the press and cited police reports – Hurley smelled a leaker and launched an investigation.
Ultimately the internal affairs investigation initiated by Hurley led to his own firing, because the officers questioned told the internal affairs investigators the truth of what was going on and outed the scheme.
One of the examples of this in action was the jewelry incident and Trayvon Martin – as accidentally outlined in the Herald report. But the Herald never knew their reporting had launched an internal affairs investigation which led to the collapse of the scheme.
Meanwhile the stolen jewelry from the burglary (PD111021-422483) was sitting on a shelf in the Property Room listed as (2011-11477 “found items) gathering dust.
Until we started digging, and the FOIA requests revealed not only the scheme, but the fact a victim was never made whole with the return of their items.
That is, until now.
Yesterday we contacted Detective Manresa, assigned to the burglary case, of the Miami-Dade Police Department to notify him some of his victims’ stolen items were actually in the Miami-Dade property room:

Subject: Attn: Detective Omar Manresa [RE: PD111021-422483 Burglary at XXXX XX XXXXX]

Dear Detective Manresa,

Per phone conversation of 4/30/13 @ 10:20am regarding burglary incident #PD111021-422483

During the course of research surrounding an internal affairs M-DSPD investigation in March/April of 2012 it coincidentally came to our attention that School Resource Officer Darryl Dunn (Dr. Krop Senior High School) filled out a report of items from a student’s backpack without criminal attachment.

The internal documentation used by SRO Dunn only listed the contents of the backpack as “found items” and a burglary tool. He was trying to avoid subjecting the student [Trayvon Martin] to a criminal investigation, therefore no criminal report, nor investigation was initiated.

This action by SRO Dunn was taken at the direction and request of former M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley who had advised his officers to avoid writing criminal reports on student offenders; Apparently in an attempt to artificially improve the recorded criminal student statistics.

The internal report #2011-11477 never attached the stolen property to the student who was carrying it when searched. The property was taken to the custody of Carmen Gonzalez, Property Specialist, where it was held, and still should be located.

The details surrounding this event are outlined in the following sworn affidavits completed by members of the Miami-Dade School Police Department. (they are extensive)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135564937/Sergeant-William-Tagle-Internal-Affairs-Investigative-Report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135684004/Steven-N-Hadley-Sr-affidavit-and-investigation

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135692728/Affidavit-From-Commander-Deanna-Fox-Williams

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136164820/sergeant-Lourdes-Hodges-Sworn-Statement-Affidavit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136392330/Sworn-affidavit-of-Detective-Gylamar-Ochoa-MDSPD

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136642019/Sergeant-Bradley-Rosh-MDSPD-Sworn-Affidavit

As mentioned, if you contact the victim of Miami-Dade burglary #PD111021-422483, and review with them the property confiscated by M-DSPD SRO Dunn listed under #2011-11477, we believe you will be able to return at least a portion of the stolen merchandise.

Perhaps some of the items returned may have sentimental, as well as obvious financial, value.

Right is Right Even If Nobody Does it; and Wrong is Wrong, even if Everybody Does it…