How will parents react when they find out they will be expected to provide workers' compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time for…babysitters? Dinner and a movie night may soon become much more complicated.
Assembly Bill 889 (authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will require these protections for all “domestic employees,” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers.
The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature – and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor's desk.
Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck.
Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.)
Unfortunately, the unreasonable costs and risks contained in this bill will discourage folks from hiring housekeepers, nannies and babysitters and increase the use of institutionalized care rather than allowing children, the sick or elderly to be cared for in their homes. I can't help but wonder if that is the goal of AB 889 – a terrible bill that needs to be stopped.
More information on the text and status of the bill can be accessed from my webpage at senate.ca.gov/lamalfa.
Here's a copy of the Bill last amended on July 12, 2011:
BERKELEY, Calif. (KGO) -- A bill that would expand the rights and protections of domestic workers in California is coming under fire, ironically from some of the workers themselves.
Next week, California lawmakers will consider a bill that would guarantee overtime pay, meal and rest breaks and paid vacation for in-home care givers. But some workers worry, Assembly Bill 889 could cost them their jobs.
"I live here five days," said Dolma Tsering.
Tsering works 24 hours a day, five days a week caring for an elderly man with dementia in his Berkeley home. His care is paid for by his family. Tsering does not get paid overtime per se, but she and others who work similar shifts through an agency called Senior Helpers make more than $200 per day. With overtime pay, that salary would more than double, which Tsering says would force her client into a nursing home.
"I'm going to lose my job. Nobody can afford that much money," said Tsering.
"What it will do to the clients is it will raise the cost of their care so high, it's not going to be affordable," said Susan Grant from Senior Helpers. "The lower income will have IHHS there. The very, very wealthy will have their own employees and they don't need anybody like us. We take care of the middle class."
Assm. Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, is one of AB 889's co-sponsors.
Supporters include the Oakland-based California Domestic Workers Coalition and a group called Hand In Hand.
"We actually believe that this bill actually improves the quality of care for seniors and people with disabilities as well as employers more generally and we don't think it significantly affects affordability," said Steph St. Clair from Hand in Hand.
AB 889 has already passed the full assembly. A state senate committee is expected to take it up next week.
UPDATE 12/18/11 Jotta's winning song, We Are The World
UPDATE 9/18/11
Jotta A has taken the world by storm with his powerful, uplifting Christ centered performances. Michely Manuely joins Jotta on stage for possibly the most awe-inspiring performance yet. Watch this special performance of Hallelujah.
UPDATE 8/30/11
Jotta A. stole our heart last week with his unbelievable performance of Agnus Dei. While his vocal talent is undeniable, there is something extra special in the heart of this performance of Amazing Grace that will take your breath away. He has the voice of an angel and his heart is bursting with praise to the Lord. You HAVE to see this!!
8/28/11
An AMAZING performance by this child from Brazil....This performance will take your breath away. Jotta A is a child singing sensation from Brazil and has a special love for his Lord and Savior. Enjoy this unforgettable performance of Agnus Dei. WOW!
In spite of the widespread belief that Communism is dead, this lecture given in 1968 is far from outdated. Communism has changed its name to Social Democracy but continues to be a dynamic revolutionary force around the world. Drawing upon Marxist revolutionary textbooks, Mr. Griffin shows that there are two kinds of revolution: violent and non-violent. The non-violent stage is accomplished in the name of democracy, and that is where most of the action is happening in America and across the world today.
General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt makes a speech during a "Jobs for America Summit" …
HANOVER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - The United States needs to reform its corporate tax code and should consider eliminating all loopholes that allow companies to pay less than the statutory rate, General Electric Co 's chief said.
The largest U.S. conglomerate would accept the elimination of loopholes "in a heartbeat" if it was coupled with a lowering of the statutory 35 percent rate, Jeff Immelt told a group of students on Thursday.
"Corporate tax in this country needs to be reformed," Immelt said at Dartmouth College, in Hanover, New Hampshire. "Stuff that the deficit commission came up with, which was a lower corporate tax rate ending every loophole, is what we would take, with a territorial system, we would take in a heartbeat. The fact is I'd take Germany's or Japan's or the U.K.'s corporate tax policy today, sight unseen, without any dispute, I would take any of those tax policies today."
A so-called Congressional "super committee" is working on a way to find another $1.2 trillion in cuts from the nation's budget over the next decade, terms that were part of the recent deal to raise the U.S. debt limit and avoid a default. Existing tax breaks for businesses and individuals cost the government some $1 trillion per year, but Republicans may agree to cutting those if the move is coupled with a reduction in the top tax rates for companies and people.
Immelt also acknowledged the criticism the world's largest maker of jet engines and electric turbines came under this year for its recent low tax rate. A study released in June by the left-leaning research group Citizens for Tax Justice found that GE had an effective tax rate of negative 61.3 percent in 2010, making it one of at least eight big U.S. companies to record a tax benefit rather than a bill for the year.
"GE has paid tens of billions of dollars in taxes over the last decade," he told the crowd at the Ivy League university where he played football as an undergraduate. "Our technique for paying low taxes in 2009 and 2010 was writing off $32 billion (in losses) at our financial service business. I don't recommend it."
Troubles at the GE Capital arm contributed significantly to the company's woes during the financial crisis that sent its shares to 18-year lows in early 2009. They have since rebounded to almost three times their crisis level and closed at $15.34 on Thursday, down 5.5 percent on a day the U.S. stock market dropped sharply.
'RUBBISH' THAT UNCERTAINTY HAMPERING INVESTMENT
Immelt, who leads a panel advising the Obama administration on job creation, said he puts little stock in talk that the government could do more to encourage companies to invest and lower the nation's persistently high unemployment rate.
"A lot has been said that business isn't investing because of uncertainty. I think that's rubbish," the 55-year-old CEO said. "The government couldn't do anything to make me invest and believe me the rest of the world isn't that stable either. We've made our own choices that we're going to keep investing regardless of what happens in Washington."
But in an uncharacteristically animated moment, he blasted critics who contend that companies like GE that do much of their sales outside the United States are hurting the economy. He noted that GE sells 90 percent of its jet engines abroad but manufacturers all of them in U.S. factories.
"That's not taking jobs out of the United States, that's what we have to do," Immelt said. "We've gotten this psychotic thing that anybody that does business outside the United States is a heathen, anti-American ... I don't understand why we're rooting against companies that are out there competing because we're creating good jobs here."
(Reporting by Scott Malone, editing by Bernard Orr)
"As the country faces an unemployment crisis, President Obama, lawmakers and business lobbyists have all touted the country’s biggest companies as critical to creating jobs.
The head of Obama’s jobs council, General Electric chief executive Jeff Immelt, said during a tour of a company plant in Greensboro, S.C., that firms should be ready to answer questions from the public.
“If you want to be an admired company, you better know, you better have accountability, and you better think through where the jobs are,” he said."
*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****
Immelt: Businesses must do more on jobs
By Chris Isidore@CNNMoneyJuly 11, 2011: 6:13 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The head of General Electric told a jobs summit at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Monday that businesses needed to take the lead on job creation.
At a conference where many of the comments were focused on government barriers to hiring, GE (GE, Fortune 500) Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt acknowledged there needed to be some policy changes by Congress and the Obama administration. But he said that the responsibility for hiring lay with businesses.
"The people who are part of the business sector, the people in this room, have got to stop complaining about government and get some action underway," he told the group. "There's no excuse today for lack of leadership. The truth is we all need to be part of the solution."
Immelt is the chair of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. He said the group has made a number of recommendations for changes in government policies that should be able to help job creation, such as the executive order announced Monday asking independent agencies to rid their books of old and outdated regulations.
Immelt said he is committed to working with Obama on other moves that can help hiring, and that he expects to have proposals by the end of the year that should help to create up to 1 million jobs.
But he said that it's important that businesses take action -- like taking some risks, and thinking about bringing back jobs that had been moved overseas.
If companies examine the changing economics of some of those jobs, Immelt said they would find it is beneficial to bring jobs back home, which he said GE has done with some jobs now being moved back to Kentucky and Michigan.
And he said that arguing between business groups and the government isn't in the best interest of the nation's economy.
"We can't always be fighting. We need to act, and the private sector can do more," he said.
The Chamber's jobs summit came in the wake of a disappointing government jobs report that showed hiring ground to a near halt in June. Immelt and other speakers referred to the report as a sign of the serious problems facing the labor market.
"We have a lot of work to do," he said.
Earlier in the day, Chamber President and CEO Thomas Donohue laid out his group's broad plans to improve hiring, with most of the focus on changes in government policies. Among the changes he called for were the passage of pending free trade agreements, reform of visa rules to allow companies to hire skilled workers and recent graduates from overseas and to boost spending by foreign visitors. He also called for easier permitting of new projects and reform of government regulations.
"Can you blame these businesses? They don't know what's going to hit them next, and that's what worries them the most," said Donohue.
Donohue and Immelt both said it is important that Congress quickly agrees to raise the debt ceiling to remove that uncertainty. Donohue said this should be done in conjunction with a long term plan to cut the deficit, primarily though spending cuts. The Chamber chief also advocated more infrastructure spending on things such as road projects, and he said a higher gas tax is needed to fund those projects.
The Chamber also released a poll of small businesses that showed only 19% of businesses plan to add jobs in the next year, little changed from the 18% that increased their payrolls in the last year. Nearly 40% of those surveyed cited either worries about what the government will do next, the requirements of the new healthcare bill or too much regulation as the number one obstacle to hiring.
But economic uncertainty by itself was the biggest obstacle for 30% of those surveyed, while lack of sales was the biggest problem for 22%.
Nelson Ching, Bloomberg News
Lin Zuoming, president of Aviation Industry Corporation of China, with Jeffrey R. Immelt, G.E.’s chief, at a 2009 event in Beijing.
G.E. to Share Jet Technology With China in New Joint Venture
By DAVID BARBOZA, CHRISTOPHER DREW and STEVE LOHR
Published: January 17, 2011
As China strives for leadership in the world’s most advanced industries, it sees commercial jetliners — planes that may someday challenge the best from Boeing and Airbus — as a top prize.
And no Western company has been more aggressive in helping China pursue that dream than one of the aviation industry’s biggest suppliers of jet engines and airplane technology, General Electric.
On Friday, during the visit of the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, to the United States, G.E. plans to sign a joint-venture agreement in commercial aviation that shows the tricky risk-and-reward calculations American corporations must increasingly make in their pursuit of lucrative markets in China.
G.E., in the partnership with a state-owned Chinese company, will be sharing its most sophisticated airplane electronics, including some of the same technology used in Boeing’s new state-of-the-art 787 Dreamliner.
For G.E., the pact is a chance to build upon an already well-established business in China, where the company has booming sales of jet engines, mainly to Chinese airlines that are now buying Boeing and Airbus planes. But doing business in China often requires Western multinationals like G.E. to share technology and trade secrets that might eventually enable Chinese companies to beat them at their own game — by making the same products cheaper, if not better.
The other risk is that Western technologies could help China play catch-up in military aviation — a concern underscored last week when the Chinese military demonstrated a prototype of its version of the Pentagon’s stealth fighter, even though the plane could be a decade away from production.
The first customer for the G.E. joint venture will be the Chinese company building a new airliner, the C919, that is meant to be China’s first entry in competition with Boeing and Airbus.
For the most part, Western aviation executives say the Chinese are simply too far behind in both civilian and military airplane technology to cause any real fears anytime soon — although it does put pressure on Boeing and Airbus to continue to innovate and stay technologically ahead of China.
G.E., which said it had briefed the commerce, defense and state departments on details of the deal, acknowledges that pairing up with a Chinese firm is a delicate dance. But because the commercial aircraft market in China is expected to generate sales of more than $400 billion over the next two decades, it is not a party the company is willing to miss.
Eventually, G.E. executives say, China will become a potent player in the commercial jetliner market, and the company wants to be a major supplier to the emerging Chinese producers.
“They are committed for the long term and they have every probability of being successful,” said John G. Rice, vice chairman of G.E. “We can participate in that or sit on the sidelines. We’re not about sitting on the sidelines.”
Mr. Rice also said that the Chinese joint venture partner — the aerospace design and equipment manufacturer Aviation Industry Corporation of China, or Avic — has supplied G.E. with some parts for jet engines for years. And he said he had personally known Avic’s president for a decade.
“This venture is a strategic move that we made after some thought and consideration, with a company we know,” Mr. Rice said. “This isn’t something we were forced into” by the Chinese government.
G.E.’s new joint venture in Shanghai will focus on avionics — the electronics for communications, navigation, cockpit displays and controls. G.E. will be contributing its leading-edge avionics technology — a high-performance core computer system that operates as the avionics brain of Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner.
The joint venture has a ready customer in the C919’s builder, the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, which is also a government-owned enterprise. The plane will be a single-aisle airliner, carrying up to 200 passengers, intended to compete with Boeing 737s and Airbus 320s. Although the Chinese hope to begin deliveries in 2016, analysts say the schedule may well slip.
With or without the C919, the Chinese market for commercial airliners is already huge and growing fast — a big market for G.E. jet engines and other systems, as well as Boeing and Airbus planes. But if the C919 grabs any significant slice of that market, it would represent a new, expanded opportunity for G.E. The company has already been chosen to supply engines for the Chinese plane, through its long-standing partnership with Snecma of France. Though the world’s largest producer of jet engines, G.E. has trailed other suppliers of avionics in overall sales, behind Honeywell, Rockwell Collins and Thales, all of whom competed for the C919 business.
Several other American companies have also been chosen as suppliers for the C919 aircraft, providing power generators, fuel tanks, hydraulic controls, brakes, tires and other gear. The roster of United States suppliers includes Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, Hamilton Sundstrand, Parker Aerospace, Eaton Corporation and Kidde Aerospace.
In fact, the corporate competition for contracts on the C919 became a “frenzy,” said Mark Howes, president of Honeywell Aerospace Asia Pacific. The Chinese government, he said, had made it clear to Western companies that they should be “willing to share technology and know-how.”
But the G.E. avionics joint venture, analysts say, appears to be the deepest relationship yet and involves sharing the most confidential technology. And G.E.’s partner, Avic, also supplies China’s military aircraft and weapons systems.
G.E. executives would not comment on the details of the joint venture. But a person involved in the talks said the 50-50 venture is for 50 years. G.E., the person said, is putting in technology and start-up capital of $200 million. Avic will initially contribute $700 million, the person said, including the cost of a new research and development lab already under construction.
To address American government security concerns, the joint venture in Shanghai will occupy separate offices and be equipped with computer systems that cannot pass data to computers in Avic’s military division, G.E. executives say. And anyone working in the joint venture must wait two years before they can work on military projects at Avic, they added.
While Boeing and Airbus would probably rather not see their suppliers help the Chinese so much, both those companies must also constantly balance the risks and rewards of operating in China.
Boeing has subcontracted parts work to China for many years, and it is expanding a joint venture in Tianjin that makes parts with composite materials for several of its planes. And Airbus has built a factory that assembles A320s in the same city.
Boeing has “opted to accept the reality of both partnering and competing with China,” Boeing’s chief executive, W. James McNerney Jr., said in a speech last year.
Indeed, China’s push into the commercial aircraft industry will probably increase exports from American aviation equipment manufacturers for years to come, according to industry analysts. Whether China succeeds or fails, the state-owned companies will keep investing, generating sales for the suppliers.
The real concern lies further head, according to a study of China’s strategy included in a report published in November by a bipartisan Congressional advisory group, the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The group concluded that China’s huge state subsidies for its own industry, its requirements that foreign companies provide technology and know-how to gain access to the Chinese market, along with the close ties between its commercial and military aviation sectors all raise concerns and “bear watching.”
The big aviation equipment makers say that, by now, they are experienced at grappling with matters of technology transfer in China. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Kent L. Statler, an executive vice president for commercial aviation at Rockwell Collins, observes that his employees often ask whether the company is trading its future for immediate sales in China.
“I think you’re naïve if you don’t take into account that you could be standing up a future competitor,” Mr. Statler said. Any company in a global business is in a race, he added, and staying ahead is the only defense. “At the end of the day, our technologies and processes have to continue to improve,” Mr. Statler said. “It comes down to who can innovate faster.”
A version of this article appeared in print on January 18, 2011, on page B1 of the New York edition.
The NY Times recently reported that GE would sign a lucrative joint-venture deal with a state owned Chinese manufacturer to provide the same high-tech avionics technology Boeing uses in their new advanced airliner the 787 Dreamliner.
Considering China’s recent introduction of a stealth fighter, does anyone besides me see this technology share as a bad thing. The technology includes the highly sophisticated computer control and networking system, core to the avionics brain of the Dreamliner. This sounds like a very bad idea to me.
The first customer of this joint-venture is the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, also a government owned company. They manufacture the C919 Airliner which is a 200 seater and directly competes with the Boeing 737.
This comes on the tail of Boeing’s recent announcement that a soft aircraft market has pushed them to layoff 1,100 workers across multiple locations. How many more layoffs will come should Boeing begin losing airliner sales to the Chinese?
While Ohio is traditionally thought of once being a center of auto manufacturing, there was such a strong tradition of light-bulb production in the state that the world's largest maker of light bulbs, General Electric, located the headquarters of its light bulb division in Cleveland. The jobs provided by light-bulb manufacturing allowed people to buy homes, send their kids to college, and fuel a vibrant economy in Ohio for decades.
But in the last decade, GE has closed over fifteen factories in Ohio and downsized numerous others. Since 1980, employment in GE Lighting has dropped by 68 percent.
A large chunk of that manufacturing has gone to China, and now GE plans to send even more to China in the wake of new clean energy policies. By 2014, Americans will only be able to purchase more energy efficient CFL light bulbs. However, GE has located all of its facilities for high-efficiency light bulbs to China and has told the union representing the workers that they have no intention to locate compact flourescent facilities in the United States.
GE is currently threatening to close one factory in Niles, Ohio that produces light bulbs. The workers, members of United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE) at one are calling on GE to look for a way to refit their plant so that they can be part of the new clean energy economy. Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Tim Ryan wrote a letter to GE's CEO Jeffery Immelt expressing "deep concern" for the workers at the plant:
"The workers and tradition of the Niles facility present an enormous opportunity to show how we can transition manufacturers from contracting industries, like incandescent bulbs, to emerging industries in energy and medical IT."
Ohio could indeed be a hub of new light bulb production. Recently, a Chinese-owned manufacturer of high-efficiency light bulbs has opened a factory, citing Ohio as having some of the world's most highly skilled light-bulb workers.
Ohio's legacy of bulb production, and its factories that could easily be converted from incandescent production to CFL production, presents a grand opportunity to employ workers in building a green energy economy in Ohio.
The IMPACT Act introduced by Brown in the Senate would help small and medium-sized manufacturers transition to the clean energy economy. Brown's bill creates a $30 billion Manufacturing Revolving Loan Fund to provide these manufacturers with much-needed access to credit to improve energy efficiency and retool for the clean energy industry.
So far, GE has shown every intention to take the American tax dollars being used to subsidize the green-energy economy and use them to build Chinese factories and pay Chinese workers. As I wrote earlier this week, in spite of GE CEO Jeffery Immelt's statement that companies need to stop outsourcing, GE continues to lead the effort to outsource clean-energy jobs. Most recently, GE has cut off a contract with a windmill factory in Indiana and shipped the work to China despite the factory offering to sell their parts at the same price as their Chinese competitors.
To add insult to injury to workers losing their jobs from foreign outsourcing, GE has even launched a television ad campaign promoting American manufacturing. "GE has the ability to locate its new manufacturing for CFL's, LED's, as well as the new incandescent lighting technologies in Ohio and elsewhere in the U.S. So far they have not done this, and we see no sign that they are even considering doing this. GE Lighting workers in the U.S. see little to cheer in GE's pronouncements and feel good advertising because for several decades now every plant has been on an extended deathwatch," said Chris Townsend of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers.
It's time that CEO's like Jeffery Immelt live up to their word and help rebuild the American economy by keeping American manufacturing jobs in America. It's also time that we adopt a comprehensive policy that promotes American manufacturing and prevents companies like GE from using taxpayer funds intended to stimulate the American economy to undermine our economy instead.
United States Department of Homeland Security - Customs and Border Protection - Border Patrol
End of Watch: Wednesday, December 15, 2010
August 11, 2011
In a surprise move in a controversial case, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona is opposing a routine motion by the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry to qualify as crime victims in the eyes of the court.
The family asked to intervene as victims in the case against Jamie Avila, the 23-year-old Phoenix man who purchased the guns allegedly used to kill Terry. Such motions are routinely approved by prosecutors, but may be opposed by defense attorneys.
However in this case, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke argues because the family was not "directly or proximately harmed" by the illegal purchase of the murder weapon, it does not meet the definition of "crime victim" in the Avila case. Burke claims the victim of the Avila's gun purchases, "is not any particular person, but society in general."
Prominent litigator and the former U.S. Attorney in Florida, Kendall Coffey disagrees.
"The government apparently is saying they're not victims, even though it was a federal crime that put the murder weapon in the hands of the killer of Brian Terry," says Coffey. "They are simply rights of respect, rights of communication and the right to be heard."
Coffey and others wonder if Burke has a conflict. It was his office that led Operation Fast and Furious. The operation, while executed by agents for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, was managed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley. Hurley drafted the response to the family's motion. It was signed by Burke.
Congressional investigators are expected to subpoena both to appear before the House Government and Oversight Committee next month to answer questions about the flawed operation that put some 2,000 weapons in the hands of the Sinaloa cartel.
"The government leaders responsible for the tragic mistakes of Operation Fast and Furious have a lot of explaining to do before Congress. But at the same time, they still have a duty under federal law to give answers, to consult and extend respect to the family," said Coffey.
Under the federal Crime Victims Rights Act, the Terry family would have the right to confer with prosecutors and speak at Avila's sentencing. Some speculate that the U.S. Attorney's Office may cut a deal with Avila in exchange for information to be used against his associates. That deal could mean little or no jail time, and a controversial sentencing day in the courtroom. Having the Terry family fight that deal, could further embarrass and complicate Burke's case.
Burke may also be trying to protect the federal government. The family may pursue a wrongful death claim against federal agents, including Burke himself.
"If the evidence shows Brian's death was proximately caused by the negligence of government, there may be a cause of action," said Paul Charlton, the family's attorney.
Coffey says that puts Burke in a tough spot.
"The government's already been put on notice that they might be facing a wrongful death action by the family. And you have to wonder if the government's efforts to deny the family the status of 'crime victims' is part of a strategy to avoid legal responsibility for some of the tragic mistakes of Operation Fast and Furious," he said.
Burke refused comment when asked why he opposed the family’s motion and his possible conflict of interest.
On September 16, 2009, Dennis K. Burke was sworn in as the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona. He was appointed to serve on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee (AGAC) which advises the Attorney General on policy, management, and operational issues at the Department of Justice. He was also appointed as the Chair of the AGAC Subcommittee on Border and Immigration Law Enforcement and is a member of two other AGAC Subcommittees, Native American Issues and Civil Rights.
Burke has over 20 years of public service at both the federal and state levels. Burke served as a Senior Advisor to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. He served as Chief of Staff to Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano from 2003 to 2008. Prior to that position, he worked in the Arizona Attorney General's Office as the Chief Deputy Attorney General. He is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Arizona prosecuting drug trafficking cases, was the Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs at the United States Department of Justice, served as a Senior Policy Analyst for the White House Domestic Policy Council during the Clinton Administration and as a Majority Counsel for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, where he worked on three Supreme Court nominations, intellectual property as well as crime and law enforcement legislation.
He graduated from Georgetown University in 1985 and received a law degree in 1988 from University of Arizona, College of Law in Tucson, where he served as Executive Editor of the Arizona Law Review. After law school, Burke was a clerk for the Honorable James Moeller on the Arizona Supreme Court. He was also an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. Burke has received numerous awards and commendations for his years in public service, including the Public Advocate Award from Chicanos Por La Causa in Phoenix and the Minuteman Award from the Arizona National Guard.
Burke was nominated by President Obama in July 2009 and confirmed by unanimous consent by the U.S. Senate on September 15, 2009.
The U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona is committed to ensuring that the rights of victims are protected.
Victim/Witness staff is available to help all victims of crimes and to ensure that questions and concerns of victims and witnesses are addressed and promptly answered. There are highlighted links below this paragraph to provide specific information about the Victim Witness Program and updated information on specific cases.
If you were notified of a case by letter to check this section, then your case will have an update provided. Click here to locate case specific, victim notification information.
What if I move? How will I get my money? A major problem with the District Court is that victims of a crime may move or otherwise change addresses and do not inform the Court. If you are owed restitution and you move, it is your responsibility to notify the Court. If you move or change your address, please complete a Change of Address form (PDF) and mail it to the address shown on the form.
Victim / Witness Staff
The Victim Witness staff for the District of Arizona are shown below:
I guess the victim/witness program doesn't consider parents of a murdered US Border Patrol Agent victims. I'll bet if this was the parents of an murdered illegal alien, they would get more compassion.
This just doesn't smell right. They are just trying to protect themselves because they know they have blood on their hands.
Michele
"I realize that on the sea of life, I can't control the weather, but I can adjust my sails." Unknown
All the phone numbers in your phone are now on Facebook, warns an alarmed statement making the rounds on the social network, and the numbers are there whether you've allowed the site access to them or not.
That's not exactly true, Facebook argues, noting that the feature has existed for over a year. But users, just now realizing the sensitive information they're sharing, are buzzing up a storm. And for some people, it's one sting too many from a company they're growing reluctant to trust with their data.
"That might be the last straw," wrote one worried Facebook user.
"All my friend's personal phone numbers are on there! Not happy," another complained.
Facebook adamantly denied that the confidential phone numbers of friends and family are freely accessible online, as many have worried. The company posted a statement to its site at the end of the day to address user concerns.
"Rumors claiming that your phone contacts are visible to everyone on Facebook are false," reads a response the company has posted to its website. "Our Contacts list, formerly called Phonebook, has existed for a long time. The phone numbers listed there were either added by your friends themselves and made visible to you, or you have previously synced your phone contacts with Facebook."
"Just like on your phone, only you can see these numbers."
To see the phonebook that's causing all the fuss, click on Account in Facebook's top right corner, then click on Edit Friends, and click Contacts at the left side. Indeed, Facebook does store a list of phone numbers, both contacts you have imported from your phone as well as information your Facebook friends have themselves added.
And that may even be a handy tool, pointed out Don Debolt, director of threat research for Internet security firm Total Defense.
"In some ways, Facebook is attempting to be very helpful," Debolt told FoxNews.com. The site syncs information from your phone to help you find new friends and connect with them, one of a variety of handy features in the social networking tool bag.
"But how exactly they are using this information isn't exactly clear," Debolt noted. "We don't know how our data is being used, we don't know how our data is being monetized."
The real concern for many is the world of underage children on Facebook -- as many as 7.5 million kids under the age of 13, despite the company's official prohibition on those under 16, and 5 million under the age of 10, according to one recent survey.
"I think this is a wake-up call for sure for parents to get involved," Debolt told FoxNews.com. "Teenagers that have Facebook accounts and mobile phones? Their numbers are being shared openly as well."
Children using social networks are far more willing to accept friend requests from people they don't know, even random strangers, warned Noah Kindler, founder of Social Shield, an online monitoring service that helps parents keep track of their children's online activity.
"They don't realize that the same rules that work offline -- don’t talk to strangers -- apply online as well," Kindler told FoxNews.com. Parents simply peering over a child's shoulder every few minutes isn't good enough, he advised. Yet that's all too many parents do.
A new survey conducted by NPD Data and Comscore for Social Shield found most parents admitting that they don't have the tools, knowledge or time to properly monitor their children on social networks -- and many admit that they take no precautions at all.
And those phones busily syncing phone numbers to every member of the social group? About 30 percent of kids have smart phones, the survey found.
"By 8 or 9 years old, 30 to 40 percent of kids have a cellphone," Kindler said.
Many parents use the controls built in to their computers to monitor their children's activity. That's not good enough either, advised Torben Mottes, director of product management with Social Shield.
"Parental controls don't give them what they need to monitor social networks other than to know that their kids are on it," he told FoxNews.com
Ultimately, it's up to us to know where our information is going, Debolt warned.
"This is an example of the diligence we have to take upon ourselves as we're using new technologies to understand how our data is being used," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FYI...unbeknownst to me, ALL of my phone contacts were showing up under the contacts on FB. I had no idea and have followed this process to remove them.
To see the phonebook that's causing all the fuss, click on Account in Facebook's top right corner, then click on Edit Friends, and click Contacts at the left side. Indeed, Facebook does store a list of phone numbers, both contacts you have imported from your phone as well as information your Facebook friends have themselves added.
Phonebook Contacts
Facebook Phonebook displays contacts you have imported from your phone, as well as your Facebook friends.
If you would like to remove your mobile contacts from Facebook, you need to disable the feature on your mobile phone and visit this page. https://www.facebook.com/contact_importer/remove_uploads.php?r=%2Fphonebook
Remove Imported Contacts
Imported contacts are displayed on your Invites and Imported Contacts page (https://www.facebook.com/invite_history.php ) and synced mobile contacts are displayed in your Facebook Phonebook. Contacts may be used to improve the quality of friend suggestions for you and your friends.
If you remove imported and synced contacts:
Friend suggestions for you and your friends may become less relevant.
Your phonebook will no longer include synced contacts, but will still display the contact info of friends who have included it on their profiles.
Note: Before you click Remove, you need to make sure syncing is switched off. To do this, open the Facebook application on your iPhone, click the Friends icon in the main menu, then click Sync in the upper-right.
This straightforward 5 minute video makes sense out of the debt crisis, how we arrived here, and acknowledges that difficult choices that must be made. By all means, “Share” this with your friends.
If this doesn't wake you up, nothing will. If you don't join in to take control of this country and stop the destruction being perpetrated by the Democrats and Republicans, you are complicit in handing your future generations a country that will be NOTHING like the United States of America.
We have a tough road ahead, but when is it going to be the right time to stop this OUTRAGEOUS out of control spending? This is NOT their money they are spending, it's generations not born yet!
Your vote counts! We must make sure our vote is cast for someone that recognizes this looming disaster and is willing to take a stand against the business-as-usual politician. They must cease and desist on spending money we don't have!
We need politicians that are MORE concerned about our future generations as opposed to winning a future election!!!!!!
~Michele~ ~I realize that on the sea of life, I can't control the weather, but I can adjust my sails~unknown~
Former British Parliament member John Browne says vacuum bred frustration, resentment in UK.
There is a huge feeling of a "Lack of leadership", that politicians are out for themselves. They are out for big business big bankers, and they are making hard working people pay for it. They are spineless, weak, unpatriotic, and they basically have created an atmosphere of great uncertainty politically and economically of great frustration.
People that have good educations, aren't able to get jobs and tremendous resentment, as in the European Union people were pulled in undemocratically. Massive immigration causes problems, and multi-centralism which seems to be failing and of course most of these riots are happening in multi-cultural areas, and that breeds huge anger, of the abuse people feel politicians are subjecting them to and it only requires a spark to turn that into riots.
In the old days when I went to work for Wall-Street, firms were run by partners and invested their money. It then spread to managers who used their customers money to gamble and that was one of the root causes of the turmoil on wall-street.
And this has happened in politics in both our countries. It was once a calling where people gave their time to serve their nation, now they are in there as a career.
With big monetary reward and privilege, think about Obamacare, we are subjected to high cost things but members of congress get a special deal, and not in there at all, and that creates great resentment and frustration.
The problem is, we are under the dictatorship of the parties, as Jefferson so brilliantly put it, as in England and America, you are elected by a pretty fair means into Parliament or Congress and you become a delegate of the parties. You do what the party says or you lose your very rewarding and pension protected career.
That’s what’s wrong with our democracy. The politicians have become delegates of the parties and the parties are greatly removed from the people and are only interested in power and buying votes.
"This blog or any content... on my facebook site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit. This blog does not always agree with certain personal views of the published authors, but I will overlook such views many times in order to gain knowledge from the more important subject matter of the article/op-ed."
