Friday, April 23, 2010

Sophisticated Crooks

2. Sophisticated Crooks Posted by: "" fixoakland

Date: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:23 pm ((PDT)

Unfortunately, advances in technology, coupled with cost cuts by banks, have made it easier for sophisticated crooks to use ATM and even credit cards.Here is how they do it:The personal identification number is the key. Once you have the card number on a debit or credit card, all you have to do is call the bank customer service number. If you punch in the card number and PIN, the automated system gives you the account balance. Go to the nearest ATM (of any bank, not necessarily the bank issuing the card), and use the PIN to withdraw the maximum daily limit of cash — which can be as high as $1500 or more per day.Because most banks no longer have toll-free numbers to call, their computer system cannot capture caller ID from a blocked phone. If a toll-free number is called, even from a "blocked" phone, the caller's number is displayed to the receiving party, because that is who is paying for the call.And with the widespread installation of ATMs at bars, inside small stores and convenience stores, and even large stores like CVS at 51st. Broadway, a crook does not need to go to a bank. These small ATMs do not have surveillance cameras — which banks do.One solution would be to require ALL ATMs installed in Oakland to have a surveillance camera. Technology also exists where a thumbprint would be required to withdraw cash or conduct a transaction, but the cost of installing that in every ATM would be high. Banks also do not want to increase the "hassle" factor for customers using ATMs.A crime such as the one described here is not a "bank loss", even though it was an unauthorized use, because the bank was not negligent. If banks were held responsible for such losses, their cost-benefit analysis would be different — and they might opt for greater security and resultant expenses,

Sanjiv Handa,
East Bay News ServiceIn a message dated 4/22/10 1:13:08 AM, writes:>
From a neighbor on Richmond Blvd.:> >
At 11:30pm on Wednesday night (4/14), I was robbed>
as I was getting out of my car. There were 2 men, one black,>
the other I did not see the face of. The black man is slender>
and about 6' tall, black hoodie drawn tightly over his face.>
The other guy I saw from behind, 5'7", 170 lbs. The taller>
man threatened to hurt me if I didn't face forward in my>
car, give him my wallet and give my atm pin. I did.>
That process took about 4 minutes, they used a handheld>
wireless device to do something with my atm card.>
They left quickly and I went in my house and cancelled>
my atm, visa etc. In the 5 minutes to accomplish that,>
$500 was withdrawn or transferred from the atm acct.> >
At first they misunderstood the pin I gave them which was correct.>
They got upset and threatened me and I repeated it...>
they had a real time 'read' on whether it was the correct number...>
keep this in mind if you are in the same situation.> >

They took my wallet and headed towards 30th on Richmond.>
Please keep an eye out for a brown wallet and a bunch of cards, etc.>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]Messages in this topic (1)This email list is for the residents of Oakland's Piedmont Ave. neighborhood; dedicated to keeping our community informed about news, crime and relevant information. (OPD non emergency: 777-3333)

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

an old question and an old choice to make.

It is always alluring to work with an elected official from the local official
party who might implement some of the public policies we have worked so long and
so hard to promote.

The argument sounds very practical on the surface since we do not stand much of
a chance of getting elected ourselves, a frank look at the views of those who do
hold the franchise seems like the only real way to move our agenda forward. So
we are tempted to support the lesser evil to promote, or at least protect the
greater good.

Two of the political careers that show how in practice it is the status quo that
wins out and the liberal Democrat "effecting practical change from within" who
looses out are those of Ron Dellums and Jean Quan.

When I lived in Nicaragua and Ron Dellums was the CHAIR of the armed services
committee it was obvious to all of us that nothing was holding back the CIA and
their illegal war. At the same time Ron was holding forth on Pacifica Radio and
Bill Clinton was being "practical" by having his Arkansas National Guard in
Honduras ready to help invade Nicaragua in case old Ronald Regan gave the word.
When I think of Ron Dellums I think of the time that I saw a stack of students
piled into my shop. For a shop teacher it was not a good day to be stacking
students up while we waited to ship them somewhere for coffins.

In a much less dramatic way, Jean Quan has been part of how Oakland is being run
for most of the last 20 years. Richmond gets community policing and Oakland
gets Measure Y and the broken promise of community policing.

In the real world joining the system is the practical way to be taken for
granted and only be allowed a few moments of showtime. The show is run by the
same big money that runs our public life in general. Ask an honest labor leader
what it feels like to have no choice but to support the Democrats.

In the real world it has been the outsiders who cause more change. The
mainstream parties change more to keep us out of power than they ever do once we
join them. Only the nation's only elected socialist, Bernard Sanders came close
to forcing a vote on single payer health care. The insiders did not even get
that. If that is what one Sanders can do, I want two, then I will want four ...

In the real world we get stuck with Obamacare because we let the center be
between him and the Republicans. No wonder the Republicans take them to the
cleaners all the time, bit money is defining the issues and the "progressive"
don't even get off the bench to play with a few notable marginalized exceptions.

Joining the system to create change has wasted the time and efforts of thousands
of Americans who then get to see their tiny gains swept off the table by the
back of the Republican hand.

Let us never forget that moment of sheer backwardness when Regan had the solar
cells taken off the roof of the White House. That is the real America we live

New "practical" Democrats are telling us to be overjoyed at what they see as
forward motion when it is not even half of what they have lost.

Last year I went to the Truman Library with my son Rene and we saw an exhibit of
what he wanted as a domestic policy. It is way to the left of Obama and even
worse, we have wasted two generations of time not getting any of it done.

Practically speaking our country really needs a strong opposition and an
alternative. Everything else has painfully proven itself to be a waste of time.


Monday, April 19, 2010

Gang Injunction Removal

Dear John Russo, April 15, 2010
City Attorney, Oakland CA
RE: Gang Injunction Removal

We, the three candidates for Mayor of Oakland, Orlando Johnson, Don Macleay and Dr. Terence Candell, ask you to withdraw the Oakland Gang Injunction. Instead, your office, the Alameda DA’s office and the Oakland Police Department should spend those resources needed to enforce gang injunctions on implementing policies known to work and known not to provoke civil rights lawsuits. Policies, such as classic police work, “street outreach” and “restorative justice”, normal criminal prosecution, and tactics developed working together with community task forces should be implemented in areas affected by gang violence in Oakland.

This gang injunction is a violation of the spirit of due process and is unconstitutional. If the city does not have the proof to arrest and prosecute alleged gang members, then they will not limit freedoms guaranteed to individuals under the Constitution of the United States of America. Indeed, the Gang Injunction targets directly and exclusively African American and Latino men. That is called race discrimination!! As the majority of arrests made in this city for gang and drug-related incidents involve African American and Latino youth, the gang injunction is a violation of their 14th Amendment rights.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Sec. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is also an ethical issue. It is not a civil issue. It is a criminal issue and should remain such. If you have so much evidence, why don’t you just go and pick them up? I’m sure we’d all feel a lot safer! Until then, let’s stop perpetrating and trying to take their money for something they haven’t even been convicted of doing. Oakland does not need to fall short on our commitment to due process.
In fact, the injunction is violation of 1st Amendment rights and is a precursor to broaden the city’s ability to violate all of our 1st Amendment rights:
First Amendment - Religion and Expression
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”
Whose rights are next? Yours? Mine?
None of us should ever lose our civil liberties because of our racial or ethnic background; because of the way we look; or because of what others think they know about what we are doing.

Due to the wording of the injunction, there is room for very loose interpretation by police officials. An anti-gang injunction is a recipe for the kind of abuse that Oakland has seen too much of in the past and again, will open the floodgates for more unwinnable lawsuits…

This injunction will have a marginal effect on crime, but will have a highly detrimental effect on the youth in our community, particularly African American and Latino. As even Chief Batts notes, “We will not be able to arrest our way into a peaceful, civil community.” There is a high probability that the injunction will make a bad situation worse among certain communities. Let’s keep it criminal. It appears that we want to collect the blood money of criminals. Is that the purpose of this injunction? Are we that hard up for cash?

At-risk youth, who are not attracted to gang membership, will now find their peer group under attack. Even if the injunction is only for certain named persons, others of their age, ethnicity and cultural habits will also feel targeted. Therefore, the target list will increase… This will cause the youth culture to fold in on itself and identify MORE with the gangs, and to shun both the police and the mainstream society... all because of a bad policy.
We all know that we have the right to trial by jury under the 6th Amendment, right? Well, there is also the very real possibility that the list of persons named is wrong or exaggerated; but, we will never know, because a jury will never see the case! No, my friend, there is far too much room for abuse. Don’t let this happen to you.
The public has every right to expect you and other city officials to do all you can to fight crime, but the gang injunction will not work.

Signed by the following Oakland Patriots:

Dr. Terence Candell
Candidate for Mayor

Orlando Johnson
Candidate for Mayor

Don Macleay
Candidate for Mayor

Sunday, April 11, 2010

The gang injunction is off track


It sound like a worthwhile trade off at first. Known gang members get their freedom of motion restricted and in exchange law abiding residents get some protection from the gangs.

The problem is that neither are going to happen.

Now I am the one who is not going to be PC and I expect to be accused of a lot that I am not saying by speaking out against this injunction.

It is not legal to be a member of a criminal gang. So what do we mean by "known gang members"? They seem to mean suspected gang members against whom the police/DA/City Atty. do not have proof enough to prosecute.

And since there is no proof, and no arrests for real crime, then what makes us think they will go away? The real criminals are making money on what they do. They have no reason to go away because we make it semi illegal to look like one of them. The gangs will find a way to stay in business. Anyone want to bet on that?

What do we think our public relations are going to look like with the communities where these suspected gang members come from? We need to be winning hearts and minds and this kind of stuff is worthy of our failures in the mid east.

Do we think the gang injunction will get more people from those communities to help the police? Do we think that youth who are treated like gang suspects because they are of the same race and culture of real gang members will be LESS attracted to gang membership because of this injunction?

If the threat of real prison has not worked, why will they quit now?

The MOST main stream research institutes who are studying crime in the USA, especially in California all conclude that we are failing.

The lock-em-up policies have lead to a couple of disasters, one of which will lead to a major increase of early release to OAKLAND this and next year. Our prisons do near nothing in the way of reform. The parole system is a failure. We get about 1300 people a year dropped into our community after being brutalized in prison. They come to us without much in the way of integration support. Gang injunctions have been tried again and again. The results have been short term and poor at best.

Setting aside the very important legal stuff we need to ask ourselves how we will deal with this crime because we DO have a right to live in peace and security. To provide that common security is explicitly the job of government. In my view we have been neglected by our civic leaders in this. But they are too busy doing things like 3 strikes, gang injunctions, mandatory sentences, and basically exploiting our concerns about crime to pump up their political careers and get lots of funding to their supporters. The prison guard union has a lot of power. There are a lot of private companies who make a good living out of us locking people up.

I would back off on the gang injunction and spend the time, money and political capital on law enforcement that works. We should be trying to find out who the real gang members are and prosecute and we should be trying to isolate them from their peer group youth.

The documentary that people are referring to has been discredited. We have big crime problems, but they do not look like that TV show.

We have a high murder rate combined with a low percentage of victim's families willing to cooperate with the police. (ask the police about this, they will tell you) We also have a giant non-gang related crime problem. The police have to give up on over a thousand reported crimes a month because they have no way to even begin to solve those crimes.

Now let's put the legal argument back in. That argument is that no-one should be denied their liberties without due process. If you do not like it then your problem is with the US Constitution.

Our City Attorney should have known, and probably did, that this injunction would gain Oakland this lawsuit. This lawsuit is going to help us fight crime? Why pick a fight like this?

And do we really want Oakland going on record as backing the ideas that led to Club Guantanamo? Is that going to help us fight crime? Is that going to improve our public image?

One could go on a long time on this, and it would be a good idea to have a public debate on this. I'd be glad to participate.

I look forward to some honest discussion and respectful presentation of other ideas.

Don Macleay

t the ACLU has > to stop being so single minded. The citizens as a whole need
to be > protected from gangs. If we are imposing upon some of their rights, so
be it. > The rights of the rest of us to live in peace and free of fear from
gang > violence should take precedence over any inconvenience of a known gang
member > from being questioned or stopped by the police.

> Did any of you see any of the two hours' worth of expose on the Discovery >
Channel today (this afternoon) called "Gang Wars: Oakland"? It was > chilling,
at least to me. It made a truly convincing case for the ability of the > OPD
to pull over anyone known to be associated with a gang.