The "Summer Intern Project" was terrific. Be sure to watch it past the credits!

Laws that protect privacy and other rights are enforced in courts when people claim that their rights were violated. How do you enforce a violation of the Papers Please Laws, such as a claim that police stopped people for no reason other than that they looked Hispanic? If cops don't come out and admit that, the case has to go to court. If the claimants were in the country illegally, they'll belong gone before court proceedings are scheduled. If they'e not illegal, it will be the hispanic looking claimants' word against the word of the police.

Police can stop you on any pretext. You littered (they don't have to bring in the litter, or can pick up something from the street); you were loud and boisterous; you jaywalked. They can even stop and search you (see Terry v. Ohio). Police can easily claim that they stopped you for these kinds of reasons if you claim you were stopped because of how you looked. In court, police will have a detached, professional demeanor when they testify, though that may differ greatly from how they acted when they stopped claimants on the street. If you're suing for a violation of civil rights, they'll claim you're pulling a race card and are just out to get money. Unless the incident is audio-visually recorded, who, in this post 9/11 world, is jury likely to believe? What if the jury panel is drawn from the population of a state that has a popular Papers Please Law?

The same problem arises when police gain information from unlawful use of a drone. They can claim the drone was being used lawfully, or that the information came from another source, such as a confidential informant. In a criminal proceeding, these kinds of issues are typically decided by a judge. Judges are either elected, or appointed by politicians. What are the odds of a judge deciding that the police are liars, even if he or she privately believes they're lying?

The drone code of conduct is an attempt by the industry to make itself appear less threatening. It's not binding, and if it can only be enforced in courts, where a claimant's word is pitted against the word of law enforcement authorities, it will not be enforced fairly or even handedly. In a similar vein, SCOTUS upheld the Papers Please provisions only because they hadn't gone into effect yet, and there was no record of how it was ,or would be, enforced. The record of how the provisions are enforced will be the cumulative record of individual cases, in which individual's account of events will be pitted against the word of law enforcement authorities. More to the point, that record will consist of the cumulative decisions, in individual cases, of whether or not the Papers Please provisions were enforced lawfully or not. Those decisions will be made by judges, and sometimes juries, deciding if they're willing to say they don't believe the testimony of law enforcement authorities.

Fl. Gov. Scott decided his plan to force all businesses to use E-Verify was foolish as he spoke to agriculture groups who need migrant workers to keep their costs down and crops picked. It is nice when reality trumps political rhetoric. Of course, donations from sugar and citrus industries made it easier. Now the big hospital industry, in which Scott used to be a major player, (HCA) needs to help Scott feel foolish denying Medicaid expansion. Hopefully the new donations will decrease Scott's political zeal against insuring more of the poor in FL.

What weird program do you use for these videos? I've got almost every one out there, and these things never play.

Is discussion of the Rolling Stone interview with Doctor Maddow off limits on this blog? Her revelation of her emotionally debilitating bouts with depression is indeed revealing and instructive. It helps to explain Doctor Maddow's proclivities. It is in the public record now and should be allowed, like fine wine, to breathe. The article shows that Doctor Maddow's life is indeed a struggle for control of her body and her mind. It also shows that she is indeed a performer and has created an on air persona. It brings awareness and understanding. It is inherently valuable.

Re the news article about the farm labor shortage:

Some Americans screech and rant about illegal immigrants, but the reality is that Americans don't want to do the work. Farm work, like landscaping, is hard, manual labor. Most young loiterers I see on the streets couldn't sweep a sidewalk properly, never mind pick a crop. What no one likes to admit is that immigrants do the work we don't want to do.

Interesting information from Charleston, SC:

Sheriff Cannon’s Deadbroke Racket

July 4, 2012

CHARLESTON, SC: Sheriff Cannon has been running an illegal peonage racket for the last 20

years, and no one knew about it until the US Supreme Court shut it down on June 30

th, 2011.

The landmark case,

Turner v. Rogers (10-10) reaffirmed prior cases, that “deadbeat dads” could

be jailed, but “deadbroke dads” cannot be jailed as they have no money, are disabled, or out of

work. I am sure you have heard before that there is a difference between being “broke” and

being “deadbeat” and that the family court judges make that distinction before sending a father to

jail. Not so in South Carolina. If you got laid off from work, or your company downsized, you

went straight to jail for a year of hard labor with the sheriff pocketing the profit.

Sheriff Cannon kept a constant 250 “deadbroke” black fathers in jail and suffered them to 14

hour days, seven days a week, year round slave labor. If a true “deadbeat” get’s thrown in jail,

they immediately pay the money and get themselves out as fast as possible. But the

“deadbrokes” had no money, and were stuck in jail in Cannon’s black slave labor gangs.

From this pool of 250 deadbroke victims, Cannon selectively killed the black guys that were not

producing enough labor and profit. He killed one father because he was 60 years old and could

not lift 100 pound boxes from trucks all day. Some were killed because they had costly medical

bills and could not work, or he killed those that were mentally ill and unable to work. I have

documented close to a dozen father’s that Cannon killed. Cannon maintains one hypothermic

cold cell killing chamber in the jail’s booking area.

The annual cost to illegally keep 250 black slaves housed in jail cost the Charleston County taxpayers,

$5 million dollars a year, while Cannon pocketed over $9 million in slave labor wages.

The federal government paid Cannon over $150,000 to illegally house the indigent. Over a 20

year period, the tax payers were fleeced out of $100 million dollars just to given Cannon and his

cronies $180 million of unreported profits. The only income he reported to the county treasurer

was $70,000 that he paid the deadbrokes at 17 cents per hour wage. No monies were ever paid

as child support to the custodial parents; it all went to Cannon and his comrades in crime.

Those running the racket were a state attorney named John Magera, and two family court judges,

Garfinkel and Cate. A federal court judge, Judge Carr, who was fired last year, was illegally

running immunity over murder as lawsuits were filed on behalf of the murdered black fathers.

Magera has been terminated, but Judge Garfinkel and Cate still illegal jail indigent black fathers,

as they and Cannon, refuse to obey the law. As of July 2012, the racket and killing continue.

The residents of Charleston County are now only being informed.

For more information, see:

www.davidbardes.com