text:
Kenya Museums
Fort Jesus
Fort Jesus, located on the edge of a coral ridge overlooking the entrance to the Old Port of Mombasa, was built by the Portuguese in 1593 to protect their trade route to India and their interests in East Africa. Designed by an Italian architect, Jao Batisto Cairato, the Fort was his last assignment as Chief Architect for Portuguese possessions in the East, and was the 'crown jewel' of his career; the Fort is today hailed as one of the best examples of 16th century Portuguese military architecture.
Throughout its tumultuous history, the Fort changed hands no less than nine times between the Portuguese and Omani Arabs. When Kenya was made a British Colony, the British government used the Fort as a prison; this was the case until 1958, when the government declared Fort Jesus an historical monument under the National Parks, and later under the NMK. Excavation work was carried out between 1958 and 1962, when the Fort opened its doors to the public as a museum.
Today Fort Jesus is a popular destination for foreign and local tourists, researchers, and students. It receives hundreds of thousands of visitors a year, who come to see not only the impressive fort, but the small exhibit gallery which holds finds from archaeological excavations along the coast, and within the Fort itself, as well as a new exhibit depicting the culture and history of the coast and its peoples. Also on display are artifacts excavated from the underwater shipwreck of the which sank in Mombasa harbour off Fort Jesus in 1697.
Fort Jesus Museum is also important as it is host to numerous a Conservation Lab, an Education department, and an Old Town Conservation Office. There is also a museum gift shop and cafeteria, and guided tours of the Fort are available.
Hyrax Hill Museum
In 1926, while excavating a nearby site, famed palaeontologist Louis Leakey noted evidence of prehistoric habitation of Hyrax Hill. Eleven years later, his wife and fellow palaeontologist, Mary Leakey, noted several more habitation sites, including a stone walled fort and a group of pits. Mary Leakey began excavating the site in mid 1937 and her work produced evidence of an Iron Age stone walled enclosure and a Neolithic burial mound occupation level.
The results of these numerous excavations yielded three major areas of prehistoric settlement: the oldest dating to 3,000 years and the youngest to possibly two to three hundred years. There was little doubt that the early field work at Hyrax Hill provided a new understanding to an important part of Kenya's prehistory. Because of its significance, the site was proposed as a national monument and confirmed as one in 1943. In 1965 the site was established as a site museum, with a small gallery established at the base of the hill in a house donated by Mrs A. Selfe. It is now one of the regional museums of the NMK, with displays of ethnographic material of the different Rift Valley peoples; Neolithic cultures in the area are represented by excavated materials from the Hyrax Hill sites, and include various types of obsidian tools and a stone platter recovered from a burial site.
Jumba la Mtwana
Located approximately 20 kilometres north of Mombasa on Kenya's northern mainland, this site represents the remains of a 13th century Swahili settlement. Abandoned about a hundred years after its foundation, Jumba can still boast magnificent standing remains of domestic houses, mosques and tombs. The domestic houses are rich in carved vidaka (or niches) and arched doors, forming part of the decorative motifs.
While its name literally means "large house of the slave", there is neither historical nor archaeological evidence that suggests that this may have been the case.
A stroll through the ancient ruins provide a sense of what life must have been like over six hundred years ago, when it was home to Swahili fisherman, craftsmen and merchants who traded precious products from the African interior with their maritime trading partners from India and Arabia. Excavations at the site, the most recent being in 1991, have revealed numerous artefacts including decorated local pottery and shell beads, imported Chinese and Islamic ceramics, and glass beads. Located on a beautiful stretch of sandy beach, among giant boabab trees and rich foliage, Jumba is a popular venue for residents and tourists alike.
Kabarnet Museum
One of the newest of the regional museums, it is set among the Tugen Hills of Baringo District on the western edge of the Rift Valley. Established in the former District Commissioner's residence, this new museum has four main public galleries which feature exhibits on the material culture of the local peoples, Lake Baringo and its environment, indigenous knowledge, and science for education.
In the large surrounding garden are located many old trees, plants and shrubs which will be used to develop interest in plant and tree identification. While the surrounding area is rich in both palaeontological and archaeological sites, most of the fossil sites are found in the lower semi-arid area within the Valley; the best known include Chemera, Ngorora and Chesowanja.
Kapenguria Museum
This new museum, opened in 1993, reflects Kenya's political development and the attainment of independence by Kenya in 1963. The museum itself is the site where several of the founding fathers of the Kenyan nation were detained during the struggle for independence; they included such figures as Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, Kungu Karumba, Fred Kubai, Paul Ngei and Hon. Ramogi Achieng Oneko. Its exhibits, which include newspaper articles on the Mau Mau movement, photographs and artefacts from the period – give an insight to the sufferings of the many who died during Kenya's struggle for independence.
There is also an Uhuru Memorial Library and the Heroes' Cells where the late president Mzee Jomo Kenyatta and others were jailed. Cultural materials of some peoples of Western Kenya are also preserved and conserved. Through displays, Kapenguria Museum has been educating local students on the cultural and material conservation of the Pokot. Traditional homesteads of both Cherengani and Pokot people help show the culture of these people.
Karen Blixen Museum
This museum was originally the home of Karen Blixen, who came to Kenya from Denmark in the early part of this century; the present museum site is at the heart of the larger coffee plantation run by Blixen between 1914 and 1931. The house and surrounding land was donated by the Danish government to Kenya at independence; the house was restored by the Danish government and was used during the filming of Out of Africa, which immortalised Karen Blixen's book by the same name. The Museum was opened to the public in 1986.
Much of the original furniture is on display in the house, and combined with the beautifully landscaped gardens and encompassing view of the Ngong Hills, the Museum has continued to be very popular destination for international and local visitors.
The original kitchen has been restored and is now open for viewing. A Dove Stove similar to the one used by Blixen is on display, as are other period kitchen utensils. Reconstruction of the coffee factory as an additional attraction is underway and other early farm machinery is also on display, depicting the early settler life in Kenya
Kariandusi
This site, located two kilometres to the east of Lake Elementeita along the main Nairobi-Nakuru highway, is an Acheulian site characterised, like Olorgesailie, by the presence of heavy hand axes and cleavers. A walk through the site takes visitors through several excavation pits, undertaken by Louis Leakey in 1928, each displaying a scattered assortment of stone tools, many made from obsidian: the black volcanic rock found in lava flows. Kenya is well known internationally for her palaeontological and archaeological sites; materials from sites such as Kariandusi are a major source of information about the history of humankind, particularly biological and cultural evolution.
Kariandusi is also important because of the commercial mining activities at the diatomite deposits nearby. The opening of the mines, apart from unveiling more archaeological materials, has made it possible for dating of the site by use of pumice and other datable materials in the sediments. Apart from the open excavation sites, there is a small site museum with displays of excavated fossils and stone tools.
Kisumu Museum
Officially opened to the public in 1980 , this museum is located within Kisumu town; it serves not only an educational and recreational centre for visitors, but also as an educational channel on the maintenance and sustainability of the biodiversity of Lake Victoria due to its proximity to this second largest fresh-water lake in the world. Its small yet comprehensive exhibit gallery focuses on displays of material culture of the peoples of the Western Rift valley and Nyanza Province. This includes traditional clothing and adornment, basketry, fishing gear, agricultural tools and hunting weaponry. Also on display are several dioramas, including a lion, De Brazza monkey, and the largest Nile Perch ever caught in Kenya.
Unique to the Kisumu Museum are its natural history exhibits in the form of a fresh-water aquarium, and outdoor snake park and tortoise pens.A visit to the museum is not complete without viewing the 300 year old giant tortoise, imported to Kenya from the Seychelles in 1930. Beyond the exhibit gallery and snake park is a life-size replica of a traditional Luo homestead. The homestead, which represents the houses of the three wives and the eldest wife's first son, and includes livestock pens and a granary, give foreign visitors a unique insight into a traditional Luo home.
Kitale Museum
Originally established as a private museum by the late Colonel H. Stoneham, it was bequeathed to the NMK and later opened to the public. Its exhibits include the material culture of the peoples of Western Kenya, prehistory and natural history. A collection of the late Col. Stoneham's publications is maintained by the museum and can be consulted by special request. Thirty acres of museum land are dedicated to a Nature Reserve; this remnant of indigenous riverine tropical forest is home to the rare De Brazza monkey and a number of reptile, mammal and bird species.
A Swedish-sponsored Vi-Agroforestry Centre is based within the land at the Olof Palme memorial building. The biogas plant serves to illustrate the importance of alternative sources of energy in conservation. Also of interest at the museum are replicas of traditional homesteads of the Bukusu, Luo, Turkana and Elgon Maasai peoples. Guided tours of the Museum, Nature Trail and Agroforestry Centre can be arranged, and a well stocked shop sells locally made handicrafts.
Koobi Fora
Lying on the eastern shore of Lake Turkana, Koobi Fora is one of the worlds leading prehistoric sites for the study of the evolution of man. In 1972 the area was gazetted as the Sibiloi National Park. The region is virtually uninhabited except for infrequent visits by nomadic groups such as the Gabbra; wildlife species such as oryx, gerenuk, Grevy's zebra and Somali ostrich can also be seen at times.
A unique wealth of prehistoric remains is found in an area approximately 90 km by 30 km extending from Ileret in the north to just south of Allia Bay. This site was first explored by a team from the National Museums of Kenya led by Dr. Richard Leakey. Many very important fossils have been recovered, including a skull of Homo habilis (KNM-ER 1470), one of the earliest recognised species of the genus Homo.
Since the mid 1970s this area has been the focus of an international Koobi Fora Field School programme in Palaeo-anthropology, now run jointly by Rutgers University and the National Museums of Kenya. There are also camping facilities which can be booked through NMK headquarters in Nairobi.
Lamu Museum
Lamu town is the oldest living Swahili town in Kenya, comparable to others such as Zanzibar in Tanzania. Founded around the 13th century, Lamu flourished as a maritime trading centre whose main population, the Swahili, engaged in international trade, fishing and farming. The architecture of Lamu is uniquely Swahili, with its narrow streets, storied buildings, intricately carved wooden doors and numerous mosques.
Lamu is also unique in that it is host to four museums, namely: Lamu Museum , Lamu Fort Environment Museum, German Post Office Museum, and Swahili House Museum. Lamu Museum can arrange guided tours to various archaeological and historical sites, whether to neighbouring Manda Island or farther afield to Pate Island, where the ruins of the earliest known Swahili settlement of Shanga – dated to the 8th century AD – can be visited.
Mnarani Ruins
The ruins of the Swahili settlement of Mnarani are located on the south bank of the Kilifi Creek on Kenya's north coast. Among the ruins are a magnificent Pillar Tomb, which was recently dismantled and carefully reconstructed to avoid potential collapse. Also worth seeing are the remains of a large Friday [or congregational] Mosque and several tombs dating to the 15th century. An hour's drive north of Mombasa, this site museum – with its scenic view of the creek and its many sailing and fishing craft – provides an excellent picnic venue.
Narok Museum
The NMK has set up this new museum with pictures and artifacts to preserve the beauty and strength of the rich cultural traditional culture of the Maasai and other speakers of the Maa language, for a better understanding by the whole community.
The Maa speakers in Kenya comprise the Maasai (Narok and Kajiado District), Samburu (Samburu and Laikipia District), Njemps (Baringo District) and groups of Ndorobo who are neighbours of Maasai.
The collection of cultural artefacts forms the heart of the exhibition. The different categories provide insight and information on the traditional lifeztyles of Maasai and Samburu.
On the other side of town, next to Narok Stadium, the NMK acquired a site with an exceptional natural beauty in a well preserved bend of the Engere Narok River. At the dawn of the 21th century, this site will host the proposed full-fledged Museum of Maa Cultures, a museum complex with collection facilities, a cultural centre with community meeting rooms, library, workshops, bandas, etc. The NMK, Narok Town Council and Maa Development Association are partners in this major project, that will have its impact far beyond the region.
Olgorgesailie
This Acheulian site is located about 90 kilometres south-west of Nairobi on the road to Magadi. The drive all the way to Magadi is characterised by beautiful panoramic views leading up to the shoulder of the Ngong Hills and descending onto the floor of the Rift Valley. The site of Olorgesailie, donated to the Kenyan Government by the Maasai community, covers an area of 52 acres. First discovered by Mary Leakey in 1942, this site was excavated continuously between 1942 and 1947. The area continues to be under investigation to this date, with a team from the Smithsonian Institution, USA, making annual surveys and excavations. Olorgesailie is the largest of the National Museums' prehistoric sites, and is characterised by in situ displays of prehistoric materials, including numerous hand axes and fossilised skeletons of extinct species of elephant and a hippopotamus.
The small but excellent site museum at Olorgesailie was recently renovated, and holds exhibits on human evolution, stone tools, and site formation. A raised wooden catwalk has been built around an impressive in situ display of stone tools and animal fossils, all dating from 1.2 million years ago. Also at the site is a large picnic shade and four camping cottages, which can be booked through NMK headquarters in Nairobi.
Now privately run, Nairobi's Railway Museum is a natural draw for rail fans. It's signposted ten minutes walk from the railway station. The main hall contains a mass of memorabilia: photos of early stations, of the "lunatic express" East African Railway from Mombasa to Kampala being built, and the engineering feats involved in getting the carriages up and down the escarpment and the strange pieces of hardware, such as the game-viewing seat mounted at the front of the train. In the Museum annexe, the motorized bicycle inspection trolley is quite a sight but, as the write-up explains, the experiment in the 1950's "was not really successful", as the wheels kept slipping off the rail.
Outside, exposed to the elements, is the museums collection of old locomotives, most of them built in Britain.
Lions figure predominantly in the early history of the Uganda Railway. Look in the shade for the first class coach no.12 to learn the story of Superintended C. H. Ryall. During the hunt for the "man eaters of Tsavo" in 1898, Ryall had readied his gun one evening, settled down in the carriage and offered himself as bait. Unfortunately, he nodded off and was dragged from his carriage and devoured while colleagues sat frozen in horror. The coach together with the repainted loco no.301 took part in the filming of the movie "Out of Africa" at Kajiado.
Siyu Fort
Siyu is one of the Swahili settlements in the Lamu archipelago, and has a history dating from at least the 15th century. The present village of Siyu is still known for its well established leather craft, including sandals, belts and stools. It became famous in the late 19th century, when it resisted Omani domination, culminating in the building of a Fort as an effort by the Omani Arabs to subdue the residents of Siyu. Apart from the impressive fort, which is open to the public, Siyu is also host to the remains of magnificent tombs and mosques.
Takwa Ruins
The ruins of Takwa are located on Manda Island, a 30 minute boat ride from Lamu town. Here one can witness the remains of a thriving 16th century Swahili trading post. Among the more notable features at Takwa is the unique Friday Mosque with a large pillar atop the qibla wall; while the significance of the pillar is not known with certainty, some believe it to symbolise the burial of a Sheikh below the wall. A day's visit is quite a unique experience, and can be complimented by a picnic or overnight camping.
The museums most extensive collections are Ornithological with most of Kenya's thousand-plus species of birds represented. Kenya's birdlife usually makes a strong impression, even to the non-bird-watchers. Look out for the various species of hornbills, turacos and rollers and for the extraordinary standard-wing nightjar, which is frequently seen fluttering low over a swimming pool at dusk, hunting for insects. There are also dioramas of Kenyan mammals in the large mammal room, casts of fish, even a whale skeleton, as well as the skeleton and a fiberglass replica of Ahmed, the famous elephant from Marsabit.
The geology gallery is a mine of information on plate tectonics and the life cycle of volcanoes, with a good collection of rocks and minerals that you might see especially if you visit the Rift valley. The Gallery of the contemporary East African Art is an exhibition for principally Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ugandan artists to display their works and wares. It's also become an increasingly popular venue for foreign embassies in Nairobi to mount exhibitions from their own countries.
The prehistory Gallery where the paleontology exhibits are housed has walls disguised with stunning reproductions of a series of Tanzanian rock paintings. Ahead, on the floor, is a cast of wide–splayed, human-looking footprints-two walking side by side and the third in the prints of one of the others- which were discovered at Laetoli in Tanzania. They belong to Australopithecines and were squeezed in to the mud about 3,500,000 years ago. Down the hall, eerily life-size reconstructions of a family of Homo erectus {rather like a scene from planet of the apes.} wolfing down an antelope carcass bring the story of human evolution vividly to life.
There's separate display telling the story of lake Turkana Koobi fora excavations-" The origin of man in Kenya" on the ground floor to the right of the prehistory gallery entrance. The ethnographic exhibits contain some fascinating odds and ends. Don't miss the Maasai ear-stretching devices, and the "Divining sandals" made of elephant hide tanned in dung and urine. The collections indicate the tremendous diversity of Kenya's cultures.
The Lamu gallery provides an excellent introduction to the Swahili culture.
Thimlich Ohinga
Declared as a National Monument in 1983, Thimlich Ohinga serves as an example of the dry stone enclosures widespread in the South Nyanza area of Western Kenya. Similar in construction to the well known ruins of Great Zimbabwe in southern Africa, the Thimlich Ohinga structures represent some of the finest examples in East Africa.
About 46 kilometres northwest of Migori town in Nyanza Province lie these striking stone wall enclosures nestled among the trees and shrubs of a gently sloping hill. From a distance the hill seems more like a forest, with Euphorbia candelabrum towering above all the other trees and shrubs. From here, one can see how the hill got its name: in the DhoLuo language spoken in Nyanza Province, 'Thimlich' means literally 'frightening dense forest'. As one moves closer to the hill, it seems less like a forest. Winding along a narrow car track, one comes to a small, traditional Luo homestead. Behind this compound, and on the rest of the hill, lie the enclosures whose architecture is not only captivating but is also unique. The homestead and its adjacent enclosures form the Thimlich Ohinga Prehistoric Site.
The site's name combines the description of the hill as seen from a distance of the hill from a distance ('Thimlich'), and the presence of stone enclosures (Ohinga-sing./Ohingni-pl.) on the hill. It is most likely that when researchers from the National Museums of Kenya began working at this site in 1980, the hill was much more forested than it is today.
In addition to its scenic location, the site is famous mainly for its stone wall enclosures which were built around 500 years ago. They are the results of the Late Iron Age (LIA) settlers in the Lake Victoria region. The first communities to settle here, mainly of Bantu origin, introduced this stone building tradition to meet their security requirements and also to exploit the environmental resources effectively: abundant rocks on the hilly areas were a ready resource to construct complex villages or cities. As a result, both early (Bantu) and later (Nilotic) settlers in the region constructed about 521 enclosures in 139 localities in the entire Lake Victoria region.
Thimlich is well placed in the south-western tourist circuit, and forms a perfect stop-over for those on their way to or from the nearby Ruma National Game Park, Gogo Falls, the Macalder gold mines, and even the distant but well-linked Maasai Mara Game Reserve.
Accomodation Map Museums Parks Fact Sheet
Disclaimer | Privacy | Terms & Conditions | FAQs | Testimonials | Images | Contacts | Sitemap


text:
anti-choice racism
USA – The Anti-Abortion Movement Is More Conspiracy-Addled Than Ever
From rampant antisemitism to groomer panic, pro-life activists are knee-deep in the far-right fever swamp.
Audrey Clare Farley
The "pro-life" movement has gone full groomer. Scroll the Twitter feed of the movement's darling, Live Action founder Lila Rose, and you'll find as many recent posts about the sexualization of children as you will see missives that are singularly about abortion. Take a gander at the feed of Students for Life, and you'll find people calling Planned Parenthood staff "groomers." Turn the television channel to EWTN, a staunchly anti-abortion Catholic network and the largest religious broadcast in the world, and you'll find hosts decrying Disney's "transgender grooming" of kids.
Continued: https://newrepublic.com/article/169461/anti-abortion-movement-antisemitic-conspiracy
anti-choice anti-Semitism
anti-choice conspiracy theories
anti-choice cruelty
anti-choice hatred
anti-choice insanity
anti-choice misinformation
anti-choice misogyny
Christian antisemitism
David W. Lafferty
Jews for Abortion Access
Lila Rose
Michael A. Hoffman
National Council of Jewish Women
How White Nationalists Are Hijacking the Anti-Abortion Movement
The growing overlap between anti-abortion activism and far-right extremism has started to spill into the real world in high-profile ways.
By Tess Owen and Carter Sherman
On New Year's Eve, a fire ripped through the last Planned Parenthood in East Tennessee, turning the Knoxville abortion clinic into a hunk of rubble. As the ruins smoldered, some anti-abortion activists and members of the far-right celebrated online.
A Telegram meme account affiliated with the Proud Boys, a far-right street-fighting gang, responded to the literal fire with a string of fire emojis. "Aww, what a shame," they wrote. "That will set their genocidal plans and baby parts market back for months."
Continued: https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7n4bq/white-nationalist-anti-abortion-movement
America First
Anthea Butler
anti-choice arson
anti-choice extremism
anti-choice terrorism
anti-choice violence
anti-choice white supremacy
Cassie Miller
Church at Planned Parenthood
clinic arson
Eric Rudolph
far-right extremism
Great Replacement theory
John Brockhoeft
Karissa Haugeberg
Knoxville Planned Parenthood
National Abortion Federation
Nick Fuentes
Operation Rescue
Patriot Churches
Patriot Front
Paul Gosar
Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi
Proud Boys
Thomas Rousseau
Tory Mills
White nationalists are flocking to the US anti-abortion movement
The white supremacist and anti-choice movements have always been closely linked. But more and more, they are becoming difficult to tell apart
Moira Donegan
This weekend's March for Life rally, the large anti-choice demonstration held annually in Washington DC to mark the anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, has the exuberant quality of a victory lap. This, the 49th anniversary of Roe, is likely to be its last. The US supreme court is poised to overturn Roe in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health, which is set to be decided this spring. For women in Texas, Roe has already been nullified: the court went out of its way to allow what Justice Sonia Sotomayor called a "flagrantly unconstitutional" abortion ban to go into effect there, depriving abortion rights to the one in 10 American women of reproductive age who live in the nation's second largest state.
Continued: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/24/white-nationalists-are-flocking-to-the-us-anti-abortion-movement
Clarence Thomas
involuntary sterilization
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Kristen Hatten
Leslie Reagan
New Wave Feminists
race suicide
Tim Bishop
Traditionalist Worker party
Texas, Harbinger of Doom
By Charles M. Blow
When Jim Crow was originally established, it
spread from state to state like a contagion, each subsequent state taking
lessons from the ones before it.
Mississippi was one of the states at the vanguard of the first Jim Crow; Texas
may well be at the vanguard of the next. And the oppressive crusade is broader
than race. It includes gender and identity.
Continued: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion/texas-abortion-voting-transphobia.html
Charles M. Blow
Jim Crow laws
Texas abortion ban
voting restrictions
USA – Abortion Has Never Been Just About Abortion
By Thomas B. Edsall
As recently as 1984, abortion was not a deeply partisan issue.
"The difference in support for the pro-choice position was a mere six percentage points," Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, told me by email. "40 percent of Democratic identifiers were pro-life, while 39 percent were pro-choice. Among Republican identifiers, 33 percent were pro-choice, 45 percent were pro-life and 22 percent were in the middle."
Continued: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/opinion/abortion-evangelicals-conservatives.html
Alan Abramowitz
anti-choice opposition to voting rights
Bart Bonikowski
Center for Human Dignity
Darren Dochuk
David Leege
Jefferson Cowie
Jerry Falwell Sr.
Katherine Stewart
Michele Margolis
Paul Weyrich
Rachel Rebouché
Randall Balmer
Rebecca Kreitzer
Richard Viguerie
Thomas B. Edsall
USA – The EACH Act would overturn a "blatantly racist" abortion rule. Will it pass?
By Clare Busch
When Stephanie Loraine Piñeiro was 17, she found out she was pregnant. Loraine Piñeiro decided to have an abortion, but because she was Medicaid recipient — like more than 72 million other Americans — her insurance wouldn't cover the costs of the procedure. So, Loraine Piñeiro picked up extra shifts at her restaurant job, earning $2.17 per hour in base pay, to earn the necessary $450. She was still in high school.
She was in that position thanks to the Hyde Amendment, a policy dating back to 1976 that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or if the pregnant person's life is in danger. "When I learned about the Hyde Amendment, I realized how much it affected my life," Loraine Piñeiro tells Mic. "I had no idea how I would figure out how to pay for an abortion. Those types of resources aren't easily available."
Continued: https://www.mic.com/p/the-each-act-would-overturn-a-blatantly-racist-abortion-rule-will-it-pass-77726691
Access Reproductive Care-Southeast
All Above All
anti-choice restrictions
EACH Act
Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act
Florida Access Network
Joe Manchin
Medicaid abortion
Oriaku Njoku
Stephanie Loraine Piñeiro
Tammy Duckworth
USA – A new, racialized assault on abortion rights is headed to the Supreme Court
Opinion by Melissa Murray
A federal appeals court last week allowed an Ohio law to take effect that bars doctors from performing abortions on women who choose to end their pregnancies because the fetus has Down syndrome. The law presents a head-on challenge to the right to abortion that could soon land at the Supreme Court — this time interlaced with sensitive questions of race and eugenics.
Such intrusive "reason bans," which have been enacted around the country, are controversial — and almost immediately challenged — because they prohibit abortion before fetal viability. Most courts have applied the Supreme Court's long-standing precedents to strike down such bans.
Continued: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/18/new-racialized-assault-abortion-rights-is-headed-supreme-court/
eugenic abortions
eugenics and abortion
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Thickening the Thin Blue Line at the Capitol and the Clinic
In Louisville, Ky., an armed police officer joined an anti-abortion protest outside a clinic. When the thin blue line of the police becomes aligned against upholding the law, injustice prevails.
by CAROL MASON
Defying the law is not what police and governmental officials are supposed to do; they are supposed to uphold the law. But recent events illuminate concerted efforts to radicalize officers as anti-government agents. Those investigating such radicalization in relation to storming the Capitol might also look at what has been going on around abortion clinics. Anti-abortion militants have a well-developed rationale with which they encourage law enforcement to defy the law.
Continued: https://msmagazine.com/2021/03/02/thin-blue-line-capitol-anti-abortion-clinic-police-protest-operation-save-america-kentucky/
anti-choice insurrection
anti-choice police
Carol Mason
clinic violence
deadly force to stop abortion
Erika Shields
Jecorey Arthur
Joe Arpaio
Matthew Trewhella
Meg Sasse Stern
Missionaries to the Preborn
Operation Save America
Richard Mack
Rusty Thomas
Before he stormed the Capitol, ex-W.Va. lawmaker harassed women at an abortion clinic
By Samantha Schmidt and Caroline Kitchener
Derrick Evans walked with his phone out in front of him, camera facing forward, as he advanced on the patient in the abortion clinic parking lot. Surrounding the car, clinic volunteers tried to shield the patient with umbrellas and their own bodies. It was no use: On this February morning in 2019, Evans captured the patient on Facebook live, streaming to tens of thousands of followers.
"You will not do this in secret in West Virginia," Evans said. He wore a "Make America Great Again" hat, as he did every week when he protested outside the Women's Health Center, the only abortion clinic left in the state.
Continued: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/16/derrick-evans-abortion-clinic/
anti-choice bigotry
anti-choice zealotry
Ben Queen
Danielle Walker
Derrick Evans
Jamie Miller
Katie Quinonez
Reva Sanders-Wallace
Stacy Kay
Women's Health Center
The Long History of the Anti-Abortion Movement's Links to White Supremacists
Racism and xenophobia have been woven into the anti-abortion movement for decades, despite the careful curation of its public image.
By Alex DiBranco
(posted online January 8, 2021)
The anti-abortion movement in the United States has long been complicit with white supremacy. In recent decades, the movement mainstream has been careful to protect its public image by distancing itself from overt white nationalists in its ranks. Last year, anti-abortion leader Kristen Hatten was ousted from her position as vice president of the anti-choice group New Wave Feminists after identifying as an "ethnonationalist" and sharing white supremacist alt-right content. In 2018, when neo-Nazis from the Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP) sought to join the local March for Life rally organized by Tennessee Right to Life, the anti-abortion organization rejected TWP's involvement. (The organization's statement, however, engaged in the same false equivalency between left and right that Trump used in the wake of fatal white supremacist violence at Charlottesville. "Our organization's march has a single agenda to support the rights of mothers and the unborn, and we don't agree with the violent agenda of white supremacists or Antifa," the group wrote on its Facebook page.)
Continued: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/anti-abortion-white-supremacy/
A Voice for Men
Abolish Human Abortion
Alex DiBranco
American Front
anti-choice xenophobia
Army of God
Christians for Life
Dennis Baxley
James Kopp
John Burt
John Wilder
Killing for Life
Loretta Ross
Men's Rights Activists
Nicola Beisel
Paul Elam
Paul Hill
Randall Terry
Rescue America
secular misogyny
Tennessee Right to Life
Tom Metzger
Traditionalists Worker Party

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Even if you're walking your laid-back pooch on a leash, there's always a chance that an aggressive dog will run up and start getting scrappy. So, what should you do if a fight breaks out?
Never reach down and grab either dog around the face or neck or you'll risk getting bitten. When dogs are on leashes, each person can pull their pooch back. But if both dogs are off leash, two people should work together — each on a dog, lifting its hind legs and pulling it away from the other.
Once the dogs are separated and under control, move your buddy out of sight of his canine competition. Try to calm yourself so that your dog follows suit and starts relaxing, too. Then check your pooch for blood, puncture wounds or anything else abnormal. In many cases, it's best to take your dog right in for evaluation at an emergency clinic.


text:
125 F. 3d 996 - United States v. W Westbrook
125 F3d 996 United States v. W Westbrook
47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1024
Charles W. WESTBROOK, Defendant-Appellant.
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Feb. 14, 1997.
Decided Sept. 3, 1997.
Frances C. Hulin, David E. Risley (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Springfield, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Eric M. Schwing (argued), Babette P. Salus, Schwing & Salus, Springfield, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before RIPPLE, MANION and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.
Following a jury trial, Charles W. Westbrook was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. He was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment followed by a five-year period of supervised release. On appeal he requests our consideration of three issues: the district court's denial of his motion to suppress statements made after his arrest, its refusal to admit evidence of gang affiliation at trial, and its denial of his motion to find unconstitutional the federal crack cocaine laws and the corresponding sentencing guidelines. For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
* BACKGROUND
On January 30, 1995, while traveling in their patrol car on South Grand Avenue in Springfield, Illinois, State Troopers Brad Carnduff and Donald Buckley spotted a possible burglary in progress. They observed a man (later identified as Charles Westbrook) looking back over each shoulder and then squeezing through the cracked-open doorway of room 228 on the second floor of the Red Roof Inn. The officers drove back and watched room 228 from an adjoining parking lot. Parked in front of the room was a green Chevrolet Caprice occupied by a woman later identified as Charles Westbrook's wife, Sonya Westbrook. The troopers saw Mr. Westbrook leave room 228, come down the stairs, talk with his wife, return to room 228, and then leave the room again, this time with another man (later identified as Charles Dean). When the two men came down the stairway they were out of view of the troopers for one or two minutes. The officers then watched the men walk to the Chevrolet, get in and drive away.1
When the green Chevy did not appear on the main highway as they had expected, the troopers began looking for it. Finding the car parked unoccupied on a car dealership lot near the Red Roof Inn, they checked the car's vehicle identification number and license plate number and learned there was no registered owner. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Westbrook returned to the car. She first denied that she had been in the car and then gave conflicting stories to the troopers about the ownership of the car. When Mr. Westbrook came up, the officers learned that neither Westbrook had a valid driver's license or car insurance. The troopers told the Westbrooks they could not move the car without a licensed driver and proof of insurance; the Westbrooks replied that their friend had gone back to the motel to get his driver's license and that they would walk home to arrange for insurance.
After the Westbrooks left, Trooper Buckley stayed at the Westbrooks' car and Trooper Carnduff returned to the Red Roof Inn to tell the Westbrooks' friend about the needed insurance. The officer did not find their friend but did find crack cocaine buried in the mulch area behind the motel. Trooper Carnduff radioed Trooper Buckley that he had found "a lot of" narcotics, and then requested assistance. Master Sergeant Avart arrived to help Trooper Carnduff collect, photograph and secure the crack cocaine in the Master Sergeant's squad car. Master Sergeant Locke went to the car dealership and stayed with the Westbrooks' car while Trooper Buckley drove to the Red Roof Inn to see the crack.
A few minutes after Officer Buckley returned to the dealership, a taxicab brought the Westbrooks back to their car. Trooper Buckley placed them under arrest and advised Mr. Westbrook he was being arrested for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He ordered the Westbrooks to lie on the ground; when Trooper Locke returned to assist Trooper Buckley, the two officers handcuffed Mr. and Mrs. Westbrook, placed them each in separate squad cars and transported them to the Red Roof Inn. No Miranda warnings were given at this point.
As Trooper Buckley approached the Red Roof Inn with Mr. Westbrook in his squad car, Mr. Westbrook looked toward the area where the crack cocaine had been found and said, "Man, I didn't know anything about that stuff." R.74 at 109. The officer told Mr. Westbrook to relax and assured him that someone would come to speak to him soon. Trooper Buckley then exited the squad car and left Mr. Westbrook, handcuffed and unattended, for approximately 45 minutes. While Mr. Westbrook was waiting in the squad car, he testified, he yelled out to Officer Carnduff; and when Officer Carnduff opened the driver's door of the squad car, Mr. Westbrook told him that the drugs were not his.2 Neither trooper gave Mr. Westbrook his Miranda warnings during this time.
Special Agents O'Neal and Fisher of the Illinois State Police Enforcement Group, a drug task force, then arrived at the motel. They directed that the Westbrooks be taken to the Investigations Office and placed in separate interview rooms. Mr. Westbrook was interviewed by Agent O'Neal, Mrs. Westbrook by Agent Fisher. Mr. Westbrook and Agent O'Neal gave diametrically different accounts of the interview. At the suppression hearing, Mr. Westbrook testified that Agent O'Neal never advised him of his Miranda rights; rather, he simply handed Mr. Westbrook some papers and "told me to initial here, here, here." R.52 at 12. Agent O'Neal testified that he took Mr. Westbrook's personal history, read Mr. Westbrook his Miranda rights and gave him a written form with those rights, each of which Mr. Westbrook read and initialed after stating that he understood it. Afterwards, stated the officer, Mr. Westbrook signed a waiver of those rights and agreed to give Agent O'Neal a written statement. In that statement Mr. Westbrook said he had met a person the previous day named Kevin Dean3 who paid Mr. Westbrook $20 to give him a ride from Evergreen Terrace to the Red Roof Inn and who then paged Mr. Westbrook later that day to come pick him up at the Red Roof Inn. According to Mr. Westbrook, he just had returned to that motel, after being paged, when the police saw him.
At some point during Mr. Westbrook's interview, Agent Fisher came into the room. Again the testimony of Mr. Westbrook differs significantly from that of Agent O'Neal. According to Mr. Westbrook, Agent Fisher held up a bag of marijuana and said, "Look what I found." R.52 at 13. He then told Mr. Westbrook that, if Westbrook cooperated in finding Kevin Dean, nothing would be said about the marijuana. Mr. Westbrook made his written statement for Officer O'Neal at that time. Agent O'Neal, however, testified that Mr. Westbrook signed the Miranda form, after being advised of each right, and that he agreed to waive his rights and signed the waiver portion of the Miranda form. According to the agent, Mr. Westbrook then wrote out a statement, voluntarily and without guidance from the officer. Agent O'Neal also testified that Agent Fisher came into the room with a bag of marijuana at some point, but the timing of the other agent's arrival was never clarified. Agent O'Neal denied that Mr. Westbrook was told that, if he cooperated, nothing would be said about the marijuana. Mr. and Mrs. Westbrook were released following their interviews but were told that the investigation would continue.
Some time later, in an unrelated investigation, Charles Dean (the man Mr. Westbrook had identified as "Kevin" Dean) was charged in the Southern District of Illinois with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Dean pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government concerning any illegal activities in which he was involved. Pursuant to his plea agreement, therefore, Dean gave information about his criminal involvement in this investigation. When Agent O'Neal interviewed him, Dean told the officer about the events of January 27-30, 1995, and about the arrangement he had with Mr. Westbrook. Dean also testified at Mr. Westbrook's trial.4 Dean, Mr. Westbrook and the police officers presented three versions of the facts that differed significantly in their content.5 On March 29, 1996, following a three day trial, the jury found Mr. Westbrook guilty of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. This appeal followed.
A. Motion to Suppress
Mr. Westbrook sought to suppress both his oral statements to Troopers Carnduff and Buckley at the Red Roof Inn and his written statement made later during Special Agent O'Neal's interrogation. He submitted that the statements were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment Miranda rights and were coerced. Following a hearing, the district court denied Mr. Westbrook's motion to suppress. We review the appeal of that decision under the two-pronged standard set forth in Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), and its progeny. The Ornelas Court established that appellate courts are to review de novo the ultimate questions of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1663. Since Ornelas, we have followed that reasoning by requiring independent review of the district court's determination of whether the interrogation was custodial, see United States v. Yusuff, 96 F.3d 982, 988 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 999, 136 L.Ed.2d 878 (1997), whether the confession was voluntary, see United States v. D.F., 115 F.3d 413 (7th Cir.1997), and whether the Miranda waiver was voluntary, see United States v. Mills, 122 F.3d 346 (7th Cir.1997). However, our review of the district court's findings of historical fact is deferential; absent clear error, we shall not reverse those findings. We now turn to Mr. Westbrook's claims concerning the pre-Miranda oral statements and then to the post-Miranda written statement.
1. Custodial Interrogation: Pre-Miranda Statements
When Mr. Westbrook made his oral statements at the Red Roof Inn, he was in custody but had not been advised of his Miranda rights. On this point, there is no disagreement. Mr. Westbrook contended that the questions put to him without Miranda warnings amounted to unlawful custodial interrogation.
The district court did not agree. The court concluded first that the defendant had volunteered the incriminating statements and had not been under a compelling influence to incriminate himself. It reached this determination because it found Mr. Westbrook's testimony concerning coercive police conduct to be uncorroborated and incredible:
Westbrook testified that he was arrested at gunpoint by fifteen officers. He claimed that the police probed for information and encouraged him to talk. Finally, he claimed that while he was sitting in the police car at the Red Roof Inn, on[e] of the officers waved the bag of drugs in his face and asked if it looked familiar. These claims are not corroborated and do not mesh with the other testimony.
R.53 at 7. The court also determined that the police did not subject Mr. Westbrook to interrogation or its functional equivalent. This conclusion was based on the court's factual finding that the police followed their ordinary preinterrogation procedure when they brought Mr. Westbrook back to the motel:
[T]hey did not ask any questions of him; they did nothing designed to induce Westbrook to talk. The testimony at the hearing indicated that all the officers did was stand around waiting for Special Agent O'Neal to arrive and respond to Mr. Westbrook's persistent inquiries.
Id. at 6-7. Based on these conclusions, the court denied Mr. Westbrook's motion to suppress.a.
On appeal Mr. Westbrook submits that the district court erred in stating that the police did not ask him any questions. He contends that two questions were asked of him. The first came from Trooper Carnduff, who asked Mr. Westbrook the identity of the other person who was with the Westbrooks earlier that day. When Mr. Westbrook answered that he did not know who the other person was, the questioning ended. The second question came from an officer who walked by the window of the squad car in which Mr. Westbrook was being held; according to the defendant, the officer showed him the bag of drugs that had been uncovered, and asked: "Does this look familiar?" Mr. Westbrook testified that he began "screaming and yelling telling them I ain't never seen that before in my life, man." R.52 at 8. The defendant contends that these questions, asked without Miranda warnings while he was in custody, constituted custodial interrogation clearly intended to elicit a statement from him. He also asserts that the acts of transporting him back to the motel, questioning him and showing him the crack cocaine were coercive tactics that frightened him and succeeded in eliciting statements from him. The government responds that Mr. Westbrook initiated all of the conversations with the police and that his voluntarily made statements were not given in violation of Miranda.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), requires that, before a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation, he must be told of his right to remain silent, his right to an attorney, and the possible use of any statement he makes as evidence against him. Id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. In Miranda, the Court defined custodial interrogation as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612 (emphasis added). In Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980), the Supreme Court returned to the concept of "custodial interrogation": "[T]he Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent." Id. at 300-01, 100 S.Ct. at 1689. The Court in Innis defined "interrogation" more expansively to mean "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect." Id. at 301, 100 S.Ct. at 1689. However, volunteered statements are not subject to Miranda warnings. 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1630; see Innis, 446 U.S. at 299-300, 100 S.Ct. at 1689; McGowan v. Miller, 109 F.3d 1168, 1175 (7th Cir.1997). Following Innis and the law of our circuit, we consider whether a reasonable objective observer would have believed that the two questions claimed by Mr. Westbrook to have been unlawful interrogation were in fact "reasonably likely to elicit" an incriminating response. Enoch v. Gramley, 70 F.3d 1490, 1499 (7th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 95, 136 L.Ed.2d 50 (1996); Killebrew v. Endicott, 992 F.2d 660, 663 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Innis, 446 U.S. at 301, 100 S.Ct. at 1690).
The first question was Trooper Carnduff's query whether Mr. Westbrook "knew who the third subject was that was with him earlier." R.52 at 74. There is no dispute as to whether this question was asked. Trooper Carnduff admitted in his testimony that it was asked. Yet, in its disposition of the suppression motion, the district court stated that the troopers "did not ask any questions of him." R.53 at 7. This conclusion is clear error because the transcript simply will not support such a broad assertion.
We begin our evaluation of the contention by placing the remark in context. When the Westbrooks and Trooper Carnduff were at the car dealership lot discussing the Westbrooks' uninsured, unregistered car, Mr. Westbrook told Trooper Carnduff that the friend who had been in the car with them had gone back to the motel to get his driver's license so that he could drive the Westbrooks' car. That statement was made before the crack cocaine was found at the motel and, of course, before Mr. Westbrook was arrested. Trooper Carnduff's inquiry as to the identity of the friend was made later, when Mr. Westbrook was sitting in the trooper's squad car at the motel. At that point, Mr. Westbrook was under arrest and handcuffed.
In its brief to this court, the government omits any substantive comment on Trooper Carnduff's question and Mr. Westbrook's reply that he did not know the identity of the individual. In other cases, we have held that brief informational questions that are not designed to elicit incriminating statements can be proper. We have tolerated inquiries such as the identity of others present in a room at the time the suspect is arrested. See United States v. Guiterrez, 92 F.3d 468, 471 (7th Cir.1996). We also have permitted pre-Miranda questioning about a defendant's identity and residence because the question, in that context, was not one that would be perceived as interrogation by a reasonable person in the same circumstances. See United States v. Edwards, 885 F.2d 377, 386 (7th Cir.1989). Similarly, we have held that an officer's question "What's this?" in the course of a pat-down search did not constitute custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. See United States v. Yusuff, 96 F.3d 982, 988 (7th Cir.1996). Here, the question cannot be characterized quite so easily as a "preliminary" question not calculated to elicit an incriminating answer. Nor can it be justified as a "follow-up" question. If it had been asked earlier, before Mr. Westbrook's arrest, such a characterization might well have been justified. However, the intervening event of Mr. Westbrook's arrest changed substantially the situation. At the time he was asked for the information, Mr. Westbrook was in custody and had been told that he had been arrested for cocaine trafficking. Disclosure of the identity of his confederate was important to the authorities in building the case against him.
Nevertheless, when we evaluate this case in its entirety, we believe that the admission of this statement was harmless error. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 312, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1266, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Killebrew v. Endicott, 992 F.2d 660, 663 (7th Cir.1993). As Mr. Westbrook points out, the government did refer, with some emphasis, to his denials of involvement during the period at the Red Roof Inn. This particular statement was, in that context, merely cumulative.
The second question unlawfully addressed to Mr. Westbrook, he claims, was whether the bag of drugs being held up for him to see "looked familiar" to him. The district court found that the encounter simply was not corroborated and was not credible in light of the other testimony. We must accept the district court's factfinding and credibility determinations and shall not overturn them unless they are clearly erroneous. Yusuff, 96 F.3d at 988; see also McGowan, 109 F.3d at 1175 (upholding trial court's finding that defendant initiated conversation with detective and that defendant's claim that he was interrogated was not truthful).
Moreover, our plenary review of the record leads us to agree with the district court that other statements initiated by Mr. Westbrook were voluntary and that the police conduct did not amount to interrogation.6 Mr. Westbrook himself testified that he initiated unsolicited comments and questions to the officers. Westbrook continued to make statements even after the police, who were conducting their investigation at the Red Roof Inn, advised him to hold his comments until an investigator arrived. The conduct of the officers was neither coercive nor likely to evoke an incriminating response.
2. Custodial Interrogation: Post-Miranda Statement
At police headquarters Mr. Westbrook was interrogated by Special Agent O'Neal. Mr. Westbrook asserts that he was never advised of his Miranda rights. Instead, he submits, he was told to initial some papers handed to him by Agent O'Neal. The papers he initialed and signed were a waiver of his rights. He then provided a written statement to Agent O'Neal. Mr. Westbrook contends that, even though he signed the waiver of his rights, he did so without being advised orally of the Miranda warnings beforehand.
Special Agent O'Neal's testimony contradicted Mr. Westbrook's. The agent testified that he followed his usual procedure when interviewing Mr. Westbrook. First he took Mr. Westbrook's personal history. He then gave Mr. Westbrook an Illinois State Police Constitutional Rights and Waiver Form containing the Miranda admonishment. After explaining the procedure he would follow, Agent O'Neal read each Miranda right statement from the form, asked Mr. Westbrook if he understood, and then asked him to initial the form beside each statement. After reading him all the Miranda rights, he asked whether Mr. Westbrook would give a written statement. Mr. Westbrook agreed; he signed the waiver and proceeded to write a statement.
The district court found Agent O'Neal's testimony "by far more credible than Westbrook's." R.53 at 7. The court believed that the officer read the Miranda warnings to Mr. Westbrook before interrogating him or taking his written statement. The district court's finding that the agent's testimony was more credible than the defendant's was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Navarro, 90 F.3d 1245, 1258 (7th Cir.1996) (affirming district court's historical finding that the officer's testimony was more credible than the defendant's, concluding that Miranda rights were in fact read to defendant).
Mr. Westbrook also claims that his written statement was coerced by the conduct of Agent Fisher. The ultimate determination of the voluntariness of a confession we review de novo. United States v. D.F., 115 F.3d 413, 419 (7th Cir.1997). We accept the district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id.
At the suppression hearing, the defendant testified that Agent Fisher came into the interview room, shook a bag of marijuana at Mr. Westbrook and said, "Look what I found." R.52 at 13. Mr. Westbrook stated that he figured the marijuana came from his wife. According to Mr. Westbrook, Agent Fisher told him that, if he helped them find Kevin Dean, the police would not mention the marijuana; "and so [he] made a statement for Officer O'Neal." Id. at 13-14. Mr. Westbrook now contends that, under these circumstances, the statement attributed to him was the product of coercion and should not have been admitted.
It is undisputed that Agent Fisher transferred Mrs. Westbrook's marijuana to Special Agent O'Neal and advised her that her possession of that marijuana would be weighed along with any cooperation her husband would give.7 Agent O'Neal testified that Agent Fisher came into the interview room and showed a bag of marijuana to Agent O'Neal and Mr. Westbrook. However, he denied that either he or Agent Fisher told Mr. Westbrook that, if he cooperated, the police would say nothing about the marijuana.8
The government urges us to consider the issue one of credibility, resolved by the district court's explicit finding that the testimony of Agent O'Neal was "by far more credible than Westbrook's." R.53 at 7. However, the district court's credibility determination concerned its assessment of the presentation of Miranda warnings, not of the voluntariness of Mr. Westbrook's subsequent written statement. The court did not make a specific finding concerning the coercive nature of Agent Fisher's conduct or its possible effect on Mr. Westbrook's post-Miranda statement. We are quite willing to defer to the credibility assessments of the district court that saw the witnesses and heard their testimony, see Navarro, 90 F.3d at 1258; United States v. Montgomery, 14 F.3d 1189, 1194 (7th Cir.1994), as long as those findings are related to the particular issue on appeal.
However, there is a good reason for the district court's lack of findings on this issue. Mr. Westbrook failed to raise the issue of Agent Fisher's conduct in his motion to suppress or supporting filings. Mr. Westbrook testified about those events for the first time at the suppression hearing; at the end of the hearing, his counsel proffered Agent Fisher's investigative report of Sonya Westbrook's interview. Usually a defendant's failure to raise an argument before the district court waives the issue on appeal. However, because the government did not raise the defense of waiver, it has waived the waiver and we shall address the issue. See United States v. Cichon, 48 F.3d 269, 275 (7th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1111, 116 S.Ct. 908, 133 L.Ed.2d 840 (1996); Garlington v. O'Leary, 879 F.2d 277, 282-83 (7th Cir.1989).
It is clear to us that, even if we assume that Agent Fisher conducted himself as Mr. Westbrook claimed he did, the agent's actions were not coercive. We believe the officer's first announcement as he entered the room, "Look what I found," was neither an interrogation nor the functional equivalent of an interrogation. The officer should not have known that it was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. See Innis, 446 U.S. at 301, 100 S.Ct. at 1690; cf. United States v. Taylor, 985 F.2d 3, 6-7 (1st Cir.) (concluding that officer's statement "You can't be growing dope on your property like that" was spontaneous and noncoercive), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 944, 113 S.Ct. 2426, 124 L.Ed.2d 647 (1993). In fact, Mr. Westbrook does not claim that it caused him to respond. Instead, he submits that he gave his written statement because the agent "told me that upon my cooperation with them finding Kevin Dean that they wouldn't say nothing about the marijuana." R.52 at 14. Agent O'Neal denies the statement was made, but we know through Agent Fisher's report that Mrs. Westbrook was told that her case would be evaluated by the state prosecutor "depending on the level of cooperation received from her husband, Charles, in locating Kevin Dean." Id. Def. Ex.1. Upon reflection, we conclude that neither version of Agent Fisher's statement was coercive.
It is not improperly coercive conduct for an officer to tell a suspect that the prosecutor will be informed of his cooperation and will evaluate his case in light of his cooperation. United States v. Rutledge, 900 F.2d 1127, 1130-31 (7th Cir.) ("Government is not forbidden to 'buy' information with honest promises of consideration."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 875, 111 S.Ct. 203, 112 L.Ed.2d 164 (1990). An officer's statement or promise to a defendant that the prosecutor would be told of the defendant's cooperation does not transform a defendant's otherwise voluntary statement into an involuntary one.9 "The police are allowed to play on a suspect's ignorance, his anxieties, his fears, and his uncertainties; they just are not allowed to magnify those fears, uncertainties, and so forth to the point where rational decision becomes impossible." Rutledge, 900 F.2d at 1131 (concluding that the statement "all cooperation is helpful" is not improper inducement).
In this case, if we assume Mr. Westbrook's version of the facts, the agent presented Mr. Westbrook with the reality that his wife had marijuana in her purse and made him an offer: If he would cooperate by helping the police find Dean, that cooperation would be helpful. According to Agent Fisher's report, it would be helpful because the state prosecutor would take it into consideration when evaluating Mrs. Westbrook's case. According to Mr. Westbrook's claim, it would be helpful because there would be no mention of the marijuana.10 Mr. Westbrook does not contend that the marijuana was mentioned as a factor in later legal proceedings; therefore we have no reason to believe a false promise was made. See Sprosty v. Buchler, 79 F.3d 635, 646 (7th Cir.) (stating that "the state is not prohibited from inducing a confession with an honest promise of leniency"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 150, 136 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996). Indeed, nothing in this record leads us to believe the agents misled him or exploited Mr. Westbrook's anxiety to the point that he was unable to make a rational decision about whether to confess. See id. at 647; Rutledge, 900 F.2d at 1131. Nor do we believe that the agent placed undue psychological coercion on Mr. Westbrook by suggesting that it would be to his wife's benefit, rather than (or as well as) to his own benefit, to cooperate. It is clear to us that Agent Fisher was inviting Mr. Westbrook to cooperate and nothing more. The agent's statement pointed out the desirability of cooperation and did not misrepresent the government's intention or purpose. The record reflects that, after hearing this comment simply urging him to cooperate with the police, Mr. Westbrook made a voluntary, common-sense decision to cooperate. Finally, we believe the agent's showing of the bag of marijuana, along with discussion about cooperation, was not unduly coercive. See United States v. Toro-Pelaez, 107 F.3d 819, 826 (10th Cir.) ("That the troopers showed [the defendant] the cocaine and pointed out the possible consequences if convicted in an effort to elicit cooperation does not compel a finding of coercion."), pet'n for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3257 (U.S. May 22, 1997) (No. 96-9380).
In sum, we conclude that Agent Fisher's actions were not unconstitutionally coercive. We also have examined the totality of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Westbrook's statement--including the conditions of the interrogation and detention, the conduct of other officers, the age and characteristics of the suspect and his susceptibility to coercive tactics. We hold that, on this record, Mr. Westbrook was not compelled to make a statement that was not a product of a free intellect. Having concluded that Mr. Westbrook voluntarily made his written statement after Miranda warnings were properly given and properly waived, we hold that the district court did not err when it denied the motion to suppress.
B. Exclusion of Evidence
Mr. Westbrook submits that the district court erred in disallowing testimony from Charles Dean and Special Agent O'Neal about Dean's affiliation with the Gangster Disciples gang. He asserts first that the testimony was relevant to defend his credibility and to explain his fear of reprisal. He testified he misidentified Charles Dean as "Kevin Dean" because he did not want to put his wife and her children in danger. He contends now that evidence about the Gangster Disciples would certainly be material to the reasonableness of his fear of gang reprisals. Mr. Westbrook also claims that the real conspiracy in this case was not between Dean and himself but between Dean and gang members who were trying to bring drugs into Springfield and who conspired to use Westbrook as a "fall guy." Relying on United States v. Thomas, 86 F.3d 647 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 392, 136 L.Ed.2d 307 (1996), Mr. Westbrook asserts that he should have been allowed to pursue the relationship between Westbrook on one hand and Dean and the other government witnesses on the other. The court's determination that evidence of gang affiliation was irrelevant was, insists Mr. Westbrook, a prejudicial error of law.
The government responds that there was no evidence that anyone was a member of a gang. According to the government, Mr. Westbrook prior to trial never advised any of the agents that he feared for his or his wife's safety or even that Dean was a member of the Gangster Disciples. There was no evidence of threats made to the Westbrooks; in fact, Mr. Westbrook testified that he went with his wife and her children to see Dean on January 30, 1995, after the Westbrooks' release by the agents. In addition, the government notes, Mr. Westbrook challenged Dean's credibility at length on cross-examination. The jury was fully apprised of facts from which to assess Dean's version of events.
The admission of gang affiliation evidence at trial is generally governed under Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.11 We review a district court's ruling concerning the admissibility of evidence of gang membership for a clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Sargent, 98 F.3d 325, 328 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Irvin, 87 F.3d 860, 863 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 259, 136 L.Ed.2d 184 (1996). Evidence of gang affiliation is admissible in cases in which it is relevant to demonstrate the existence of a joint venture or conspiracy and a relationship among its members. Thomas, 86 F.3d at 652; United States v. Lewis, 910 F.2d 1367, 1372 (7th Cir.1990). We are fully cognizant of the powerful nature of such evidence; when introduced by the government against a criminal defendant, it can taint a defendant in the eyes of the jury and also can establish criminal intent or agreement to conspire. Sargent, 98 F.3d at 328 (collecting cases). For this reason, in our review we examine the care and thoroughness with which a district judge considered the admission or exclusion of gang-involvement evidence. See United States v. Butler, 71 F.3d 243, 251 (7th Cir.1995) (stating that this court demands careful consideration by district judges in determining admissibility of gang evidence).
This case is unusual. Typically the defendant claims that the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighs its probative value.12 In this case, however, the defendant objects to the exclusion of such evidence because he believes it would substantiate his claim that he feared reprisal.
Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Fed.R.Evid. 401. "Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible." Fed.R.Evid. 402. One measure of the relevance of evidence is whether " 'its exclusion would leave a chronological and conceptual void in the story.' " Wilson v. Groaning, 25 F.3d 581, 584 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Vretta, 790 F.2d 651, 655 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 851, 107 S.Ct. 179, 93 L.Ed.2d 115 (1986)). On the other hand, evidence is not relevant if there is no connection between the evidence and the issues of the case or material facts at issue. See United States v. Mazzanti, 888 F.2d 1165, 1169 (7th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 930, 110 S.Ct. 2167, 109 L.Ed.2d 497 (1990); see also United States v. Rubio-Topete, 999 F.2d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir.1993) ; United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1032, 1038 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1125, 111 S.Ct. 1086, 112 L.Ed.2d 1191 (1991).
Following our review of the record, we are confident that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of gang membership evidence in this case. Mr. Westbrook was permitted to testify, over objection, that he knew Charles Dean was affiliated with the Gangster Disciples gang and that the gang's members were dangerous. In fact, he further explained that he had known Dean from East St. Louis, had seen him using the Gangster Disciple handshake (which Mr. Westbrook then demonstrated), and knew Dean had a Gangster Disciples tattoo. Although Agent O'Neal later testified on rebuttal that Dean did not have any tattoos, the evidence of Dean's gang affiliation was before the jury. Mr. Westbrook also testified that he was afraid of Dean and concerned that he might put his wife and her kids in jeopardy. This testimony allowed the defendant to put to the jury his fear-of-reprisal theory of defense.
However, the court properly sustained objections to Mr. Westbrook's questions about the possible gang affiliation of Harold Lacy and Hernando Wilson, two men not called to testify and not even involved in the events surrounding Mr. Westbrook's arrest and indictment. The court also refused to permit Agent O'Neal to present general information about the Gangster Disciples. As the court explained on the record, after a side bar:
First thing is that [defense counsel] wanted to recall Special Agent O'Neal for the limited purpose of inquiring about the Gangster Disciples. The Government objected to that as being totally irrelevant to the issues before the Court in this case and in this prosecution. I agreed with the government that it was not an issue and it was not an element, and therefore I allowed the objection, and Agent O'Neal was not recalled by [defense counsel] for that purpose.
R.76 at 494-95.
We believe that the trial court, in its discretion, properly limited the admission of evidence in this case. Mr. Westbrook's testimony about Dean's gang affiliation was the only evidence of gang membership in the trial; Mr. Westbrook did not examine other witnesses to establish their gang affiliation or their relationship with Dean as anything other than relative or friend. There was no evidence that Dean had reason to conspire with other witnesses to testify falsely against Mr. Westbrook. Finally, no relationship or connection was drawn between the material facts at issue at trial, namely the evidence of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine on January 30, 1995, and affiliation with the Gangster Disciples. No foundation was laid, no proffer was made to establish the relevance of such evidence. See Mazzanti, 888 F.2d at 1169-70 (concluding that defendant's failure to proffer evidence connecting gang operation to the cocaine transactions at issue in that case led to proper exclusion of gang evidence on relevancy grounds). We thus conclude that the trial court in this case properly acted within its discretion in excluding, on relevance grounds, testimony concerning gang affiliation.
C. The Constitutionality of Federal Crack Cocaine Laws
Mr. Westbrook raises a constitutional challenge to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for offenses involving crack cocaine and to the mandatory penalties of § 841(b).13 Relying on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), he first claims that Congress lacks the authority to enact federal laws concerning crack cocaine because the manufacture of crack is a local activity, one that has nothing to do with interstate commerce. We review de novo his challenge to the constitutionality of this provision. See United States v. Turner, 93 F.3d 276, 286 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 596, 136 L.Ed.2d 524 (1996).
In Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause when it enacted the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The Court struck down the act as unconstitutional on the ground that it was "a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise." 514 U.S. at 561, 115 S.Ct. at 1630-31. In this circuit, we recently distinguished Lopez from cases involving drug offenses: "Unlike possession of firearms, which the Gun-Free School Zones Act proscribed, drug dealing is an economic activity that affects interstate commerce." United States v. Rogers, 89 F.3d 1326, 1338 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 495, 136 L.Ed.2d 387 (1996). We concluded that the defendant's convictions for various drug-related activities were not constitutionally invalid, given Congress' broad authority to regulate drug-related activity. Id. In United States v. Stowe, 100 F.3d 494 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 1438, 137 L.Ed.2d 545 (1997), we also rejected the claim that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause when it created the sentencing penalty for crack cocaine. Id. at 501 (noting that "local distribution of cocaine-based drugs, such as the crack in this case, [is] part of a long and continuous chain of international and interstate commerce" and that "[l]ocal participation in the international and interstate drug trade bears [a substantial] relation [to interstate commerce]") (quoting Lopez, 514 U.S. at 559, 115 S.ct. at 1630).
It is clear to us that Congress validly exercised its authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq., which includes the cocaine distribution conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846, under which Mr. Westbrook was convicted. See 21 U.S.C. § 801(3)-(6) (Congressional declaration that local narcotics activities have a substantial effect on interstate commerce).14 We held before Lopez that the Controlled Substances Act was a permissible exercise of the Congress' power under the Commerce Clause to regulate and penalize intrastate drug trafficking activities. See United States v. Esposito, 492 F.2d 6, 10 (7th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1135, 94 S.Ct. 879, 38 L.Ed.2d 760 (1974). Like the District of Columbia Circuit, we believe that Lopez does not affect that holding. See United States v. Edwards, 98 F.3d 1364, 1369 (D.C.Cir.1996) (noting that the Drug Act, in contrast with the Gun-Free School Zones Act, "includes specific findings that intrastate drug activity has a substantial effect on interstate drug activities and that effective control of drug activities occurring intrastate requires both interstate and intrastate regulation"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 1437, 137 L.Ed.2d 544 (1997). We join the other circuits that uniformly have held, after Lopez, that it was within the authority of the Congress under the Commerce Clause to create drug laws criminalizing narcotics transactions such as those found under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841.15 We hold that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, under which Mr. Westbrook was convicted, pass constitutional muster.
Mr. Westbrook also asserts that the law governing crack, which establishes a 100-to-1 disparity between crack and powder cocaine, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. In light of the fact that every constitutional challenge to the penalty differential found in 21 U.S.C. § 841 and § 2D1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines has failed, this argument cannot succeed. Since our first consideration of the issue in United States v. Lawrence, 951 F.2d 751, 753-56 (7th Cir.1991), this court has consistently held that the disparity of the penalty structure imposed by the Guidelines between cocaine base and cocaine powder is constitutional.16 We shall not overrule existing precedent.
Finally, Mr. Westbrook asserts that the federal crack cocaine laws usurp the states' traditional police powers under the Tenth Amendment. As we recognized in United States v. Kenney, 91 F.3d 884, 891 (7th Cir.1996), however, the Congress may regulate conduct that a state may also regulate. When the law or regulation in question is a proper exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause and does not require state action, the statute does not violate the Tenth Amendment. Id. (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) does not violate the Tenth Amendment). The same argument has been made in the context of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 as well. See United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 585 (1st Cir.1996) (holding that "courts will not strike down a statute under the Tenth Amendment where Congress was within its powers under the Commerce Clause to enact the statute") (citing United States v. Owens, 996 F.2d 59, 60-61 (5th Cir.1993)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 694, 136 L.Ed.2d 617 (1997). We conclude that the federal statutes criminalizing conduct involving narcotics trafficking, such as the conspiracy to distribute crack at issue here, are constitutional as a proper exercise of Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
When Charles Dean testified at trial, he presented a different version of the departure from room 228. He claimed that Mrs. Westbrook met him and her husband on the stairs to tell them that two state police officers were parked nearby. He testified that the three of them got into the car and that he then got out of the car, returned to room 228 by himself, came down the stairs and buried 10 ounces of crack cocaine under a pine tree behind the Red Roof Inn. Dean testified that, when he was burying the cocaine in the mulch, Mr. Westbrook "just came up and he was walking back toward the car." R.74 at 200
Trooper Carnduff testified at trial that Mr. Westbrook made a more expansive statement. When the officer responded to Mr. Westbrook's head-motioning gesture by coming over to the driver's side of the squad car, Mr. Westbrook nervously told the officer that the dope was not his, that he was just a runner, that he could not afford an ounce of it, and that the person with him earlier had hidden it. Trooper Carnduff told Mr. Westbrook to hold his comments until the agents arrived. Trooper Buckley also testified at trial that Mr. Westbrook stated to him, "man, I can't afford an ounce of that stuff, let alone that much." R.74 at 111
Mr. Westbrook misidentified Charles Dean as Kevin Dean
Dean's testimony at Mr. Westbrook's trial provided this information: Dean knew Charles Westbrook when they were growing up in East St. Louis. In 1993, Mr. Westbrook moved to Springfield, Illinois. Dean and Westbrook met again in mid-1994 at a friend's home in Springfield. Dean was in the drug business; his family and friends knew it. Some weeks later, Mr. Westbrook drove to East St. Louis looking for Dean. According to Dean, Mr. Westbrook wanted Dean to start fronting him cocaine to sell in Springfield, Illinois. Although Dean initially was hesitant, in January 1995 he agreed to supply cocaine to him. On Friday, January 27, 1995, Dean brought to Mr. Westbrook's house, kilogram (9 ounces) of powder cocaine. Together they cooked the cocaine into 13 ounces of crack and packaged it in one-ounce quantities. Dean stayed in room 228 of the Red Roof Inn that weekend; Mr. Westbrook sold the packages over the weekend, keeping Dean advised of his progress
On Monday, January 30, Mr. Westbrook came to the Red Roof Inn to arrange an additional sale of 4+ ounces of crack for $3,200. Dean testified that he said he would page Mr. Westbrook when Dean was ready to deliver the crack. When Dean paged him, Mr. Westbrook returned to the Red Roof Inn with his wife. The two troopers, Carnduff and Buckley, noticed Mr. Westbrook as he glanced over his shoulders when he slid through the narrow doorway into Dean's room. They began the vigil of room 228 that led to Mr. Westbrook's arrest later that afternoon.
At trial Mr. Westbrook testified that he never agreed to help Dean distribute crack. He claimed that Dean came uninvited to his house and suggested that Mr. Westbrook "get part of a little drug ring"; Mr. Westbrook stated he declined. R.76 at 419. On January 30, 1995, Dean flagged Mr. Westbrook down and asked for a ride to the motel. Mr. Westbrook gave Dean his pager number so that Dean could call when he was ready to be picked up. When Mr. Westbrook went to Dean's room, he noticed a gym bag with crack cocaine inside. He then went back to the car and waited for Dean. Mrs. Westbrook, in the car, noticed the police watching them. When Dean came to the car, Mr. Westbrook told him that, if he had crack on him, he couldn't get in the car, because the police might pull him over. So Dean went around to the other side of the motel. Mr. Westbrook admitted he knew Dean was burying the crack, but insists he never touched it. He denies that he ever sold drugs for Dean or cooked crack
See Enoch, 70 F.3d at 1500 (concluding that an officer's identifying of the victim to the suspect and briefly stating the evidence against him was not the functional equivalent of interrogation); Cooper, 19 F.3d at 1162 (noting that "which party encouraged the dialogue between the police and the accused plays an indicative role in the determination of whether the statement was the result of compelled influence"); Killebrew, 992 F.2d at 663 (concluding that Killebrew did not volunteer his incriminating statement but that the error was harmless)
Agent Fisher's report of his interview with Sonya Westbrook states that Mrs. Westbrook voluntarily turned over a plastic bag of cannabis and that Agent Fisher transferred the bag to Special Agent O'Neal. The report continues:
The agents advised Westbrook that it was unknown at this time what the disposition or outcome would be concerning the cannabis that was in Sonya Westbrook's possession. It was explained to Westbrook that depending on the level of cooperation received from her husband, Charles, in locating Kevin Dean for the Illinois State Police, her case would be evaluated by the State's Attorney's office.
R.52, Def. Ex.1.
The government argues in its brief that the agents did not know the identity of the other suspect who had been at the motel until Mr. Westbrook identified him as "Kevin Dean" during his interview. For that reason, insists the government, neither agent could have asked Mr. Westbrook to "cooperate about Kevin Dean" until after Mr. Westbrook had already agreed to give a statement and had, in fact, identified Dean in the statement. Gov't Br. at 19. This argument cannot stand in light of Agent Fisher's report, which states that Mrs. Westbrook told the agent that her husband was going to the Red Roof Inn to meet with Kevin Dean
United States v. Harris, 914 F.2d 927, 933 (7th Cir.1990) (officers may solicit confessions by offer of reduced charges); United States v. Rodgers, 755 F.2d 533, 546 (7th Cir.) (promise to notify prosecutor if defendant cooperated does not render defendant's statement involuntary), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 907, 105 S.Ct. 3532, 87 L.Ed.2d 656 (1985)
Mr. Westbrook certainly has not claimed that he was coerced into speaking by some threat of harm to his wife. These circumstances are in no way similar to Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U.S. 68, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed. 1815 (1949), in which the defendant was threatened that his mother would be arrested unless he agreed to confess
Rule 401 states:
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 403 provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Fed.R.Evid. 401, 403.
See, e.g., Sargent, 98 F.3d at 328 (holding that no abuse of discretion occurred when court admitted evidence of gang membership as explanatory evidence); Irvin, 87 F.3d at 864-66 (concluding that the district court abused discretion in not excluding the gang affiliation evidence)
Title 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) provides the statutory penalties for cocaine offenses. It establishes that 1 gram of cocaine base is treated the same as 100 grams of cocaine when the level of sentence is determined. Section 2D1.1(c) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the Drug Quantity Table, provides the penalties for the guidelines for crack offenses. It incorporates the 100-to-1 penalty ratio found in 21 U.S.C. § 841
In the Introductory Provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, the Congress made certain findings and declarations. They include the following:
(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce....
(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate....
(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.
21 U.S.C. § 801.
See, e.g., Proyect v. United States, 101 F.3d 11, 11 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam) (holding that 21 U.S.C. § 841 represents a valid exercise of the commerce power) (collecting cases); United States v. Zorrilla, 93 F.3d 7, 8 (1st Cir.1996) (listing cases that hold that "drug trafficking is precisely the kind of economic enterprise that substantially affects interstate commerce and that, therefore, comes within Congress's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause"); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir.1996) (holding that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to criminalize the conduct under §§ 841 and 846), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 694, 136 L.Ed.2d 617 (1997); United States v. Genao, 79 F.3d 1333, 1335 (2d Cir.1996) (finding 21 U.S.C. § 846 constitutional under Lopez)
See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 86 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Booker, 73 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (holding that the cocaine base/cocaine powder disparity does not violate the equal protection clause) (collecting cases); United States v. Jones, 54 F.3d 1285, 1294 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 263, 133 L.Ed.2d 186 (1995); United States v. Blanding, 53 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Chandler, 996 F.2d 917, 918-19 (7th Cir.1993) (per curiam)


text:
Q: UseEffect with getPermissionAsync unfortunately I am struggling with the hook lifecycle in react native.
I have two hooks at the top level.
const permission = useLocationPermission();
const location = useCurrentLocation(locationPermission);

The first one handles the location permission permission and asks the user to grand.
export default function useLocationPermission() {
  const [hasLocationPermission, setHasLocationPermission] = useState(false);
  const appState = useRef(AppState.currentState);

  useEffect(() => {

    hasPermission();
  }, []);

  const hasPermission = async () => {
    const { granted } = await Location.getForegroundPermissionsAsync();
    if (!granted) {
      const { granted: request } =
        await Location.requestForegroundPermissionsAsync();
      if (!request) {
        Alert.alert(
          "Some Message"
        );
        setHasLocationPermission(false);
      } else {
        setHasLocationPermission(true);
      }
    } else {
      setHasLocationPermission(true);
    }
  };

  return hasLocationPermission;
}

The second one handles the current location.
export default function useCurrentLocation(hasPermission: boolean) {
  const [currentLocation, setCurrentLocation] = useState<LatLng>(initLocation);

  useEffect(() => {
    console.log(hasPermission);

    if (hasPermission) {
      setWatcher();

      getCurrentPosition().then((locationObject) => {
        setCurrentLocation({
          latitude: locationObject.coords.latitude,
          longitude: locationObject.coords.longitude,
        });
      });
    } else {
      setCurrentLocation(initLocation);
    }
  }, []);

  const getCurrentPosition = async () => {
    return Location.getCurrentPositionAsync({});
  };

  const setWatcher = async () => {
    await Location.watchPositionAsync({ distanceInterval: 5 }, (locaction) => {
      setCurrentLocation({
        latitude: locaction.coords.latitude,
        longitude: locaction.coords.longitude,
      });
    });
  };
  return currentLocation;
}

My problem is that after the user has granted the permission. The location will not been updated anymore (still the initial location). It seems that the second hook is only called ones.
Is there any best practice to handle such situation. So the location will be updated and the watcher is set after the permission is set.
Thanks a lot.

A: Your list of dependencies for the effect that sets current location is empty. Since you are saying you want that effect to be dependant on hasPermission, set it to [hasPermission] instead.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
High Life Archives
Humans of Poly
Humans of Poly: 2013-2014
Volleyball Bumps Up the Competition
Jackrabbit News Brief
Poly's Marching Band
Molly Flynn, Staff Writter|January 13, 2022
On Wednesday, November 17, Poly High School's marching unit performed in the annual Band Spectacular.
The Band Spectacular is a performance that allows all of the marching bands and color guard teams across the Long Beach Unified School District to showcase their field shows. This year, the Band Spectacular show was held at Cabrillo High School.
Before the event started at 6:30 p.m., the Long Beach City College Viking Show
Band, as well as the LBCC Jazz Big Band, performed a variety of songs, like "Mic Drop" by BTS, "Time Warp" from the Rocky Horror Picture Show, and "bad guy" by Billie Eillish.
At 6:30, Renaissance High School student Blessel Caballero performed the National Anthem alongside Cabrillo's JROTC. Then, the Cabrillo Marching Jaguars went on and performed their set "Latin Closer".
Next, the Lakewood High School Regiment performed their collection of Earth, Wind, and Fire songs, doing lively versions of "In The Stone", "After the Love Has Gone", and "September". Ryanne Sanchez, a sophomore in the HOSM program at Lakewood High School, said "I loved 'After the Love Has Gone'. I liked the trumpet and saxophone solos, and I liked the drill that went with the song."
Wilson Marching Bruins came on third to perform their collection "Artworks", with a vivid and energetic show. Performing fourth was the Jordan Entertainment Group with another collection of Earth, Wind, and Fire music. Apinya Imon, an 11th grade cymbals player from Jordan in the AIMS program, said, "During the show, I was very nervous and anxious, but I am very proud of our performance."
The Poly marching unit performed fifth in the show, and blew the audience away with the story of "Scheherazade," their 2021 field show. The unit created amazing movements, with their synchronized footwork shifting into pictures of ribbons and diamonds. The color guard elegantly spun their colorful flags and rifles to combine their movements with that of the marching unit.
"I felt great the night of Band Spectacular! I've fallen in love with Scheherazade, and savored every moment we performed of it. I especially felt great since events like Band Spectacular are a huge way to represent Poly's amazing music program and I hope we inspired middle schoolers in the audience to want to join this life-changing program," said Abby Crisostomo, a CIC sophomore who plays clarinet for the marching unit. "I am tremendously proud of our performance. I'd say it felt 'spectacular'!" they added.
Many other Poly students in the audience were wowed by the performances too. Oliver Ray Mojarro, PARTS sophomore, said, "I liked seeing the Poly band. I think that Poly performed the best. Poly was very precise and entertaining. I am so proud of Poly's marching band. They did amazing and all of their hard work through so many hours definitely paid off."
The show wouldn't be what it was without the hard work and dedication from the marching unit crew. Chris Stevens, the marching unit director, put so much work into organizing the band and their music with the assistant unit directors Casey Gillett and Sam Perez. Tom Hughes and Ethan Gathe worked with the drumline and front ensemble to help them perfect their sound, tying the show together. The unit's drill designer Bobby Frey was responsible for the beautiful shapes the band formed and showcased, alongside Perez who choreographed the unit. They helped in creating the greatness of the show, with intricate dances and truly dialing into the details. Gillett was also the color guard instructor, who helped the color guard performance shine.
Lastly, Millikan finished off with an interesting and techno filled performance of their set, "The Grid". They incorporated visuals, like lightsticks, and audio, with a voiceover before each performance, into the show.
Finally, at the end of the night, the unit joined all of the other schools and played two final songs. They started by playing "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey before they finished off the show with a performance of "You're a Grand Old Flag".
Overall, the entire show was a fun time for all. It was exciting getting to see the marching programs of LBUSD bounce back after a year and a half of being online. "My favorite part of the night was meeting fellow musicians from other schools, talking and consulting with them, and making friends with them. It made me feel a part of something," said Imon.
The Poly marching unit once again displayed their good sportsmanship, impressive skills, beautiful talent, and hard work, truly showing why the marching band is having such a successful year, earning High Percussion in the 4A Division and High Music at the WUHSD Field Tournament.
Songs To Listen During December
December is coming soon, and an interview was made to get students' opinions on their favorite songs to listen to during december. In the results,...
Addison Rae: He's All That….
Marvels Eternals
Dance Premier
Poly's Dance Program, organized by Cynthia Negrete, held a Dance Premiere on November 18 in the auditorium. Starting at 6:30 p.m. they opened the An...
Summer's New Album: Bops or Flops?
Get Out My Swamp
Hydroflasks… necessity or accessory?
Humans of Poly: November 5, 2021
This Club Is Just Playing Games
Halloween Kills Met With Mixed Reactions From Students.
The student newspaper of Long Beach Polytechnic High School since 1916
The High Life welcomes reader comments on its website. However, any comment reflecting baseless accusations, insults, libelous statements, or obscenities will be removed immediately.
All High Life Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest


Sam Bardfeld is a violinist, composer and arranger. He is a member of The Jazz Passengers and a frequent collaborator of Bruce Springsteen's - a veteran of three recordings and two tours. He has worked with a long list of jazz, pop, folk and experimental acts including Elvis Costello, John Zorn, Calexico, Anthony Braxton, Debbie Harry, Steven Bernstein, John Cale, Kris Davis, The String Trio of NY, The Red Clay Ramblers, Nancy Sinatra, Willie Colon, Johnny Pacheco and The Soldier String Quartet among others.
Bardfeld's recordings, The Great Enthusiasms (BJUR, 2017), Taxidermy (CIMP, 1999) and Periodic Trespasses (FreshSounds, 2006) have earned acclaim, including a "4-Star" rating in Downbeat magazine, raves in Jazz Times, Jazziz magazine and "4-Stars" in All Music Guide (first two). He has performed with his own group at jazz festivals and clubs throughout Europe including Banlieues Bleues (Paris), Sud-Tirol (Italy) and Porgy and Bess (Vienna).
In addition to being a member of the Jazz Passengers, Sam's jazz playing is featured as a member of Roy Nathanson's Sotto Voce and Joel Harrison's String Choir and he has toured and/or recorded with Michael Attias' Sextet, Royal Hartigan's Blood Drum Spirit, Butler/Bernstein, Steven Bernstein's MTO, Anthony Braxton's Trillium Orchestra and many other groups.
Sam's arranging credits include work for Calexico, Nancy Sinatra, film music for Hedwig and the Angry Inch composer Stephen Trask, and work on the Broadway-bound production of Lone Star Love with The Red Clay Ramblers. He has also served as string contractor for Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band (2009 MSG and 2016 US tour), Gilberto Santa Rosa (Carnegie Hall) and Chuck Prophet (2014 US tour).
In the 1990's, Sam's immersion in NYC's fertile Salsa and Latin Jazz scene led to writing a book, Latin Violin (Hal Leonard, 2002), considered to be the authoritative work on the Afro-Cuban violin tradition. He is also an instructor of jazz violin at the New School jazz program in NYC.
Sam studied violin technique with Gerald Beal and Joey Corpus and improvisation with Bill Barron, George Garzone and Richie Beirach. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 1990 where he studied music, anthropology and history. In 1991 he received a year-long Ford Foundation grant to study ethnomusicology at Wesleyan.