window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"jbrooks": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "80",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "80",
"found": true
},
"name": "Jon Brooks",
"firstName": "Jon",
"lastName": "Brooks",
"slug": "jbrooks",
"email": "jbrooks@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"science"
],
"title": "Digital Editor",
"bio": "Jon Brooks is a former Digital Editor for KQED Science. He is the former editor of KQED’s daily news blog, News Fix. In 2014, he won a California Journalism Award for his coverage of ride services like Uber and Lyft and the taxi industry. A veteran blogger, he previously worked for Yahoo! in various news writing and editing roles. Jon is also a playwright whose work has been produced in San Francisco, New York, Italy, and around the U.S. He has written about film for his own blog and studied film at Boston University.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "jbrooksfoy",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"Contributor",
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "mindshift",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jon Brooks | KQED",
"description": "Digital Editor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jbrooks"
},
"kqed": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "236",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "236",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqed",
"email": "faq@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqed"
},
"kqednewsstaffandwires": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "237",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "237",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqednewsstaffandwires",
"email": "onlinenewsstaff@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "lowdown",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff and Wires | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqednewsstaffandwires"
},
"lairdharrison": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "1367",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "1367",
"found": true
},
"name": "Laird Harrison",
"firstName": "Laird",
"lastName": "Harrison",
"slug": "lairdharrison",
"email": "laird_harrison@yahoo.com",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cd1a94b071427a71ecfcbc115c6b0efe?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Laird Harrison | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cd1a94b071427a71ecfcbc115c6b0efe?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cd1a94b071427a71ecfcbc115c6b0efe?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/lairdharrison"
},
"ianhill": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11430",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11430",
"found": true
},
"name": "Ian Hill",
"firstName": "Ian",
"lastName": "Hill",
"slug": "ianhill",
"email": "ihill@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/23990ff754640c3e53f489390266e5f2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "americangraduate",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Ian Hill | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/23990ff754640c3e53f489390266e5f2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/23990ff754640c3e53f489390266e5f2?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/ianhill"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_category_law-and-justice": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"score": 13.555733
},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"title": "Law and Justice",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 446
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?category=law-and-justice",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 446
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_82210": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_82210",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82210",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354775780000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354775780,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Oakland Police Avoid Federal Takeover, Give Up Control of Department",
"title": "Oakland Police Avoid Federal Takeover, Give Up Control of Department",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_82214\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/OaklandPoliceBadge2.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-82214\" title=\"oaklandbadge\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/OaklandPoliceBadge2-300x202.jpg\" alt=\"Oakland police captain. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images\" width=\"300\" height=\"202\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Oakland police captain. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Oakland police officials have agreed to surrender authority of the department's command staff to a court- appointed director. City leaders say they’re optimistic the deal with plaintiff’s attorneys and the police union will prevent a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/15/oakland-police-face-possible-takeover-in-2-weeks/\" target=\"_blank\">federal takeover\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The department was under that threat after failing to complete court-ordered reforms in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/20/BAGPSOO8BR1.DTL\" target=\"_blank\">2003 Riders misconduct case\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Critics have said Oakland police were slow in meeting the reforms, and this year \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/04/30/federal-monitor-weighs-in-on-police-response-to-occupy-oakland/\" target=\"_blank\">federal monitors said\u003c/a> the department had stalled on key tasks such as tracking problem officers, reporting the use of force and conducting internal affairs investigations.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/06/oaklands-agreement-on-police-dept-receivership-by-any-other-name/\" target=\"_blank\">Receivership by any other name?\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>As part of the agreement, a federal officer, who would be called a compliance director, would have the power to fire the police chief, overrule him on major decisions and demote his command staff.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"This is a team effort. I look forward to working closely with the compliance director and all the other stake holders to make sure that we are in compliance with the orders that the judge issued some ten years ago,\" said Police Chief Howard Jordan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The agreement must be approved by a federal judge.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "82210 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=82210",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/05/oakland-police-avoid-federal-takeover-give-up-control-of-department/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 211,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 8
},
"modified": 1398733253,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Oakland police officials have agreed to surrender authority of the department's command staff to a court- appointed director. City leaders say they’re optimistic the deal with plaintiff’s attorneys and the police union will prevent a federal takeover. The department was under that threat after failing to complete court-ordered reforms in the 2003 Riders misconduct case. Critics have said Oakland police were",
"title": "Oakland Police Avoid Federal Takeover, Give Up Control of Department | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Oakland Police Avoid Federal Takeover, Give Up Control of Department",
"datePublished": "2012-12-05T22:36:20-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:53-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "oakland-police-avoid-federal-takeover-give-up-control-of-department",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/82210/oakland-police-avoid-federal-takeover-give-up-control-of-department",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_82214\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/OaklandPoliceBadge2.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-82214\" title=\"oaklandbadge\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/OaklandPoliceBadge2-300x202.jpg\" alt=\"Oakland police captain. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images\" width=\"300\" height=\"202\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Oakland police captain. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Oakland police officials have agreed to surrender authority of the department's command staff to a court- appointed director. City leaders say they’re optimistic the deal with plaintiff’s attorneys and the police union will prevent a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/15/oakland-police-face-possible-takeover-in-2-weeks/\" target=\"_blank\">federal takeover\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The department was under that threat after failing to complete court-ordered reforms in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/20/BAGPSOO8BR1.DTL\" target=\"_blank\">2003 Riders misconduct case\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Critics have said Oakland police were slow in meeting the reforms, and this year \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/04/30/federal-monitor-weighs-in-on-police-response-to-occupy-oakland/\" target=\"_blank\">federal monitors said\u003c/a> the department had stalled on key tasks such as tracking problem officers, reporting the use of force and conducting internal affairs investigations.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/06/oaklands-agreement-on-police-dept-receivership-by-any-other-name/\" target=\"_blank\">Receivership by any other name?\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>As part of the agreement, a federal officer, who would be called a compliance director, would have the power to fire the police chief, overrule him on major decisions and demote his command staff.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"This is a team effort. I look forward to working closely with the compliance director and all the other stake holders to make sure that we are in compliance with the orders that the judge issued some ten years ago,\" said Police Chief Howard Jordan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The agreement must be approved by a federal judge.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/82210/oakland-police-avoid-federal-takeover-give-up-control-of-department",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_18",
"news_416"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_82020": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_82020",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82020",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354676558000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354676558,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Alameda County Sheriff Explains Drone Request",
"title": "Alameda County Sheriff Explains Drone Request",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_82027\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/Scout_flying.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-82027\" title=\"Scout_flying\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/Scout_flying-300x199.jpg\" alt='Aeryon Labs submitted a bid to Alameda County to purchase this \"Scout\" surveillance drone. (Courtesy Aeryon Labs)' width=\"300\" height=\"199\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Aeryon Labs submitted a bid to Alameda County to purchase this \"Scout\" surveillance drone. (Courtesy Aeryon Labs)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The Alameda County Board of Supervisors was set to consider a request from Sheriff Gregory Ahern to approve the purchase of a drone for his department on Tuesday morning. But at the last minute, the sheriff voluntarily pulled the request from the agenda. Ahern says his decision to push the discussion to next month has nothing to do with privacy advocates' concerns.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Privacy advocates including ACLU of Northern California are breathing a tentative sigh of relief though. Host Stephanie Martin \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2012/12/04/112168/alameda_sheriff_retracts_request_for_drone?category=bay+area\" target=\"_blank\">talked\u003c/a> with them about why the sheriff's original request to the supervisors concerned her.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Below is an edited transcript of KQED's conversation with Ahern about his drone request.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Stephanie Martin, KQED:\u003c/strong> I understand that you had an agenda request today on the Board of Supervisors’ agenda, and it was something like item number 66. Some privacy experts said that it was kind of buried in there and they were concerned about it. What prompted you to pull that request from the agenda?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern:\u003c/strong> Because I had promised to take this matter in front of the Public Safety Committee before I asked the Board of Supervisors to vote on this. There was a previous scheduled meeting for us at the Public Safety Committee but we got postponed. And so because we hadn’t yet vetted this out, no matter which we said, I requested that the matter be pulled.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> So do you disagree with the charge that you had somehow buried this as somehow a way of pushing this through.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I absolutely disagree with that. I heard comments that said something about a press conference. I learned about the press conference after it was already gone. No one asked for my input as regards to this whatsoever. We drafted this letter the day before, with nothing other than getting it before the public safety committee.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> I know drones have some potentially helpful uses, wildfire surveillance for example, search and rescue missions. Isn’t that what you told the public you wanted to consider buying one for?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> Yes, we’ve been working on this since August 2012. We brought this in front of the public at a Sheriff’s Advisory Committee meeting, and in order to be transparent in order to tell the community what we were requesting from Cal-EMA. At that time in August [we] told the community what the limitations and capabilities of this device were. And their uses are for search and rescue and they’d be helpful in disaster work or we could deploy our unit to see what the proper area to approach, an affected area. Also be effective in helping us evacuate people from an area. And a safe route both in and out of an area. We could also use this unmanned areal system for apprehension of violent felons and we told them we’d use it during events where people are trying to flee from law enforcement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> Now the ACLU has obtained documents that say you want the drone for something called intelligence and information sharing and dissemination, is that correct?\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> That is correct, but the information and intelligence gathering would be during a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. Say for instance this area where we live had an Oakland Berkley Hills fire, or had an earthquake called a Loma Prieta, or a storm like we had this weekend. We could deploy our unmanned areal system, put it up in an area and see what areas had been affected and that’s how we’d gather our information and intelligence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> Now privacy advocates have raised the concern that you might use this for spying. What do you say to that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> I say that’s inappropriate and offensive to me that people would make claims that I would do such a thing. We take the rights of people very seriously. Our duty is to protect people’s rights. So to violate that public trust would be wrong and unethical. And against the integrity that I have for what we do and what our agency has done in its history. So we would never use this system for civilian surveillance. And anyone that suggests we would do so is inaccurate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> What should the county do make sure that citizens understand that and know that there are limits to how you use drones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> Well drones have a negative connotation. First of all, we’re trying to buy something about the size of a laptop. It has very strict limitations, [it] can fly about 400 feet in the air and has to fly within line of sight with the operators, [this] is one of the units we’re looking at. So that has a great deal of restrictions to it, along with the limitations. But we’d never use it for anything involving civilian surveillance. And I’ve agreed to put that in our policy, it would be written and it’s also, I believe, it’s in the requirements for the operator to be certified that they understand those privacy rights and how sensitive it is to our entire community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> State Senator Alex Padilla has just introduced a bill to regulate drones in California. Is this something you support?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> I haven’t had an opportunity to review that specific legislation, but the requirements from the FAA that I’ve been made aware of, and the policies and procedures that would be set in place, the public should be very comfortable knowing that we would never use this for anything other than a mission specific event and those events would be: search and rescue, pursuing violent felons, pursuing people evading law enforcement and having the air support during a natural disaster to see the safest routes for people to travel in and out of an area.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> You’ve described this as the size of a laptop. How does it fly and what kind of surveillance can it take? I assume pictures are part of it, does it have an audio component?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> I’m not sure about the audio component of the one we’re looking at, but it has the capability to video link to the operator, or video downlink to a command post, or a mobile command post. They also have the ability to fly in an area…say there was a refinery that had poisonous gases, we’d be able to fly it in through the cloud and take samples so chemists would be able to detect what was in the cloud and what the hazards would be so we could warm people in the area what to do, shelter in place, or evacuate. Different units have different capabilities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> Are you surprised that the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other privacy advocates are raising concerns here?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> I wouldn’t use the term surprised. They haven’t spoken to me about my intentions and they’ve made inferences that I don’t think are fair. But I have told the people I’m talking to and my agency and the politicians that are aware of what we are doing, what our capabilities are what our limitations and restrictions are and that we follow our policy and procedures in that vein. And we have prior history of following our procedures in that we are accredited in at least five other disciplines. We are required to obtain accreditation, like proof of complying with what we have in writing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> Have you been talking with colleagues in other districts who may be considering a drone as well?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> No. My understanding would be [the] Alameda County Sheriff’s Office would be the first law enforcement in California to put an unmanned areal system into place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> What’s ideal about Alameda County that would make this ideal place for that kind of aerial system?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> We have a history in this area that shows a need for this type of technology that would be beneficial to saving lives. We’ve had the earthquake in ’89, the firestorms in’91, we’ve had tsunami warnings in recent years that have done damage to our shores, we’ve had oil spills in the Bay, we have recent storms that have done severe damage. This is a great use of technology that will be of use to the community and I believe it will save lives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> Do you think you can sell this to the community?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> I have. I have sold it to the community. Everyone I’ve talked to except the ACLU is in favor, 100 percent in favor. No one I’ve presented this to, and I’ve presented it to dignitaries, community groups, put on the display in our urban field training exercised this summer. Everyone was impressed with the capabilities of this unit.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "82020 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=82020",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/04/alameda-county-sheriff-explains-drone-request/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1553,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 29
},
"modified": 1354677293,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The Alameda County Board of Supervisors was set to consider a request from Sheriff Gregory Ahern to approve the purchase of a drone for his department on Tuesday morning. But at the last minute, the sheriff voluntarily pulled the request from the agenda. Ahern says his decision to push the discussion to next month has nothing",
"title": "Alameda County Sheriff Explains Drone Request | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Alameda County Sheriff Explains Drone Request",
"datePublished": "2012-12-04T19:02:38-08:00",
"dateModified": "2012-12-04T19:14:53-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "alameda-county-sheriff-explains-drone-request",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/82020/alameda-county-sheriff-explains-drone-request",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_82027\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/Scout_flying.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-82027\" title=\"Scout_flying\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/Scout_flying-300x199.jpg\" alt='Aeryon Labs submitted a bid to Alameda County to purchase this \"Scout\" surveillance drone. (Courtesy Aeryon Labs)' width=\"300\" height=\"199\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Aeryon Labs submitted a bid to Alameda County to purchase this \"Scout\" surveillance drone. (Courtesy Aeryon Labs)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The Alameda County Board of Supervisors was set to consider a request from Sheriff Gregory Ahern to approve the purchase of a drone for his department on Tuesday morning. But at the last minute, the sheriff voluntarily pulled the request from the agenda. Ahern says his decision to push the discussion to next month has nothing to do with privacy advocates' concerns.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Privacy advocates including ACLU of Northern California are breathing a tentative sigh of relief though. Host Stephanie Martin \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2012/12/04/112168/alameda_sheriff_retracts_request_for_drone?category=bay+area\" target=\"_blank\">talked\u003c/a> with them about why the sheriff's original request to the supervisors concerned her.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Below is an edited transcript of KQED's conversation with Ahern about his drone request.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Stephanie Martin, KQED:\u003c/strong> I understand that you had an agenda request today on the Board of Supervisors’ agenda, and it was something like item number 66. Some privacy experts said that it was kind of buried in there and they were concerned about it. What prompted you to pull that request from the agenda?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern:\u003c/strong> Because I had promised to take this matter in front of the Public Safety Committee before I asked the Board of Supervisors to vote on this. There was a previous scheduled meeting for us at the Public Safety Committee but we got postponed. And so because we hadn’t yet vetted this out, no matter which we said, I requested that the matter be pulled.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> So do you disagree with the charge that you had somehow buried this as somehow a way of pushing this through.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I absolutely disagree with that. I heard comments that said something about a press conference. I learned about the press conference after it was already gone. No one asked for my input as regards to this whatsoever. We drafted this letter the day before, with nothing other than getting it before the public safety committee.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> I know drones have some potentially helpful uses, wildfire surveillance for example, search and rescue missions. Isn’t that what you told the public you wanted to consider buying one for?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> Yes, we’ve been working on this since August 2012. We brought this in front of the public at a Sheriff’s Advisory Committee meeting, and in order to be transparent in order to tell the community what we were requesting from Cal-EMA. At that time in August [we] told the community what the limitations and capabilities of this device were. And their uses are for search and rescue and they’d be helpful in disaster work or we could deploy our unit to see what the proper area to approach, an affected area. Also be effective in helping us evacuate people from an area. And a safe route both in and out of an area. We could also use this unmanned areal system for apprehension of violent felons and we told them we’d use it during events where people are trying to flee from law enforcement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> Now the ACLU has obtained documents that say you want the drone for something called intelligence and information sharing and dissemination, is that correct?\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> That is correct, but the information and intelligence gathering would be during a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. Say for instance this area where we live had an Oakland Berkley Hills fire, or had an earthquake called a Loma Prieta, or a storm like we had this weekend. We could deploy our unmanned areal system, put it up in an area and see what areas had been affected and that’s how we’d gather our information and intelligence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> Now privacy advocates have raised the concern that you might use this for spying. What do you say to that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> I say that’s inappropriate and offensive to me that people would make claims that I would do such a thing. We take the rights of people very seriously. Our duty is to protect people’s rights. So to violate that public trust would be wrong and unethical. And against the integrity that I have for what we do and what our agency has done in its history. So we would never use this system for civilian surveillance. And anyone that suggests we would do so is inaccurate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> What should the county do make sure that citizens understand that and know that there are limits to how you use drones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> Well drones have a negative connotation. First of all, we’re trying to buy something about the size of a laptop. It has very strict limitations, [it] can fly about 400 feet in the air and has to fly within line of sight with the operators, [this] is one of the units we’re looking at. So that has a great deal of restrictions to it, along with the limitations. But we’d never use it for anything involving civilian surveillance. And I’ve agreed to put that in our policy, it would be written and it’s also, I believe, it’s in the requirements for the operator to be certified that they understand those privacy rights and how sensitive it is to our entire community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> State Senator Alex Padilla has just introduced a bill to regulate drones in California. Is this something you support?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> I haven’t had an opportunity to review that specific legislation, but the requirements from the FAA that I’ve been made aware of, and the policies and procedures that would be set in place, the public should be very comfortable knowing that we would never use this for anything other than a mission specific event and those events would be: search and rescue, pursuing violent felons, pursuing people evading law enforcement and having the air support during a natural disaster to see the safest routes for people to travel in and out of an area.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> You’ve described this as the size of a laptop. How does it fly and what kind of surveillance can it take? I assume pictures are part of it, does it have an audio component?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> I’m not sure about the audio component of the one we’re looking at, but it has the capability to video link to the operator, or video downlink to a command post, or a mobile command post. They also have the ability to fly in an area…say there was a refinery that had poisonous gases, we’d be able to fly it in through the cloud and take samples so chemists would be able to detect what was in the cloud and what the hazards would be so we could warm people in the area what to do, shelter in place, or evacuate. Different units have different capabilities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> Are you surprised that the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other privacy advocates are raising concerns here?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> I wouldn’t use the term surprised. They haven’t spoken to me about my intentions and they’ve made inferences that I don’t think are fair. But I have told the people I’m talking to and my agency and the politicians that are aware of what we are doing, what our capabilities are what our limitations and restrictions are and that we follow our policy and procedures in that vein. And we have prior history of following our procedures in that we are accredited in at least five other disciplines. We are required to obtain accreditation, like proof of complying with what we have in writing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> Have you been talking with colleagues in other districts who may be considering a drone as well?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> No. My understanding would be [the] Alameda County Sheriff’s Office would be the first law enforcement in California to put an unmanned areal system into place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> What’s ideal about Alameda County that would make this ideal place for that kind of aerial system?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> We have a history in this area that shows a need for this type of technology that would be beneficial to saving lives. We’ve had the earthquake in ’89, the firestorms in’91, we’ve had tsunami warnings in recent years that have done damage to our shores, we’ve had oil spills in the Bay, we have recent storms that have done severe damage. This is a great use of technology that will be of use to the community and I believe it will save lives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Martin:\u003c/strong> Do you think you can sell this to the community?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ahern:\u003c/strong> I have. I have sold it to the community. Everyone I’ve talked to except the ACLU is in favor, 100 percent in favor. No one I’ve presented this to, and I’ve presented it to dignitaries, community groups, put on the display in our urban field training exercised this summer. Everyone was impressed with the capabilities of this unit.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/82020/alameda-county-sheriff-explains-drone-request",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_260",
"news_1859"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81815": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81815",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81815",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354547993000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354547993,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Supreme Court Action on Same-Sex Marriage This Morning; Announcement May Come Friday",
"title": "No Supreme Court Action on Same-Sex Marriage This Morning; Announcement May Come Friday",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81808\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 640px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-81808\" title=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\" alt=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\" width=\"640\" height=\"398\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage was not on the U.S. Supreme Court's \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">list of orders\u003c/a> when it was released at about 9:30 a.m. That means we'll have to wait until Friday to find out if the high court will review the case concerning Prop 8, California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>An appeals court previously upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated Proposition 8. That is one of two laws involving same-sex marriage that the high court may review next spring. The court is also weighing overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court will announce whether or not it will review the cases in a list of orders. \"The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders,\" the Supreme Court website \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\">states\u003c/a>. \"Such an order will, for example, deny a petition... without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but 'miscellaneous' orders may be issued in individual cases at any time.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The next announcement of miscellaneous orders is expected Friday, when the Supreme Court also will hold its final conference of 2012 to discuss petitions from those asking the high court to review cases. SCOTUSblog, a Bloomberg Law-sponsored blog covering the court, \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/275616145120301056\">tweeted\u003c/a> that the court \"is almost sure to act on same-sex marriage late this Friday afternoon so it can hear arguments this March.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Want to learn more about the case while you wait for the announcement? Here are some resources you may want to check out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court/\">Clarifying What's Before the Court\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/\">End of the Road or Next Chapter for Prop. 8?\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/\">KQED's Prop. 8 blog\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/radiospecials/R201202071800\">KQED's Prop. 8 special\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8\">Wikipedia's summary of Prop. 8\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\">Supreme Court Orders\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?s=same+sex+marriage&searchsubmit=Blog\">SCOTUSblog coverage of same-sex marriage\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/scotusblog\">SCOTUSblog on Twitter\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81815 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81815",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/03/no-supreme-court-action-on-same-sex-marriage-this-morning-announcement-may-come-friday/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 360,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 7
},
"modified": 1398733254,
"excerpt": "\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-81808\" title=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\" alt=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\" width=\"640\" height=\"398\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a>\r\n\r\nSame-sex marriage was not on the U.S. Supreme Court's \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">list of orders\u003c/a> when it was released at about 9:30 a.m. That means we'll have to wait until Friday to find out if the high court will review the case concerning Prop 8, California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.\r\n\r\nAn appeals court previously upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated Proposition 8. That is one of two laws involving same-sex marriage that the high court may review next spring. The court is also weighing overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\r\n\r\nThe Supreme Court will announce whether or not it will review the cases in a list of orders. \"The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders,\" the Supreme Court website \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\">states\u003c/a>. \"Such an order will, for example, deny a petition... without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but 'miscellaneous' orders may be issued in individual cases at any time.\"",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "\r\n\r\nSame-sex marriage was not on the U.S. Supreme Court's list of orders when it was released at about 9:30 a.m. That means we'll have to wait until Friday to find out if the high court will review the case concerning Prop 8, California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.\r\n\r\nAn appeals court previously upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated Proposition 8. That is one of two laws involving same-sex marriage that the high court may review next spring. The court is also weighing overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\r\n\r\nThe Supreme Court will announce whether or not it will review the cases in a list of orders. "The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders," the Supreme Court website states. "Such an order will, for example, deny a petition... without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but 'miscellaneous' orders may be issued in individual cases at any time."",
"title": "No Supreme Court Action on Same-Sex Marriage This Morning; Announcement May Come Friday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Supreme Court Action on Same-Sex Marriage This Morning; Announcement May Come Friday",
"datePublished": "2012-12-03T07:19:53-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:54-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "no-supreme-court-action-on-same-sex-marriage-this-morning-announcement-may-come-friday",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81815/no-supreme-court-action-on-same-sex-marriage-this-morning-announcement-may-come-friday",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81808\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 640px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-81808\" title=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\" alt=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\" width=\"640\" height=\"398\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage was not on the U.S. Supreme Court's \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">list of orders\u003c/a> when it was released at about 9:30 a.m. That means we'll have to wait until Friday to find out if the high court will review the case concerning Prop 8, California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>An appeals court previously upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated Proposition 8. That is one of two laws involving same-sex marriage that the high court may review next spring. The court is also weighing overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court will announce whether or not it will review the cases in a list of orders. \"The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders,\" the Supreme Court website \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\">states\u003c/a>. \"Such an order will, for example, deny a petition... without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but 'miscellaneous' orders may be issued in individual cases at any time.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The next announcement of miscellaneous orders is expected Friday, when the Supreme Court also will hold its final conference of 2012 to discuss petitions from those asking the high court to review cases. SCOTUSblog, a Bloomberg Law-sponsored blog covering the court, \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/275616145120301056\">tweeted\u003c/a> that the court \"is almost sure to act on same-sex marriage late this Friday afternoon so it can hear arguments this March.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Want to learn more about the case while you wait for the announcement? Here are some resources you may want to check out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court/\">Clarifying What's Before the Court\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/\">End of the Road or Next Chapter for Prop. 8?\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/\">KQED's Prop. 8 blog\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/radiospecials/R201202071800\">KQED's Prop. 8 special\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8\">Wikipedia's summary of Prop. 8\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\">Supreme Court Orders\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?s=same+sex+marriage&searchsubmit=Blog\">SCOTUSblog coverage of same-sex marriage\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/scotusblog\">SCOTUSblog on Twitter\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81815/no-supreme-court-action-on-same-sex-marriage-this-morning-announcement-may-come-friday",
"authors": [
"11430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_893",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81629": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81629",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81629",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354335001000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354335001,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court",
"title": "Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to review two sets of decisions by lower courts involving same-sex marriage. Despite widespread anticipation, the court did not announce today whether or not it would hear the cases, so everyone will have to wait till at least Monday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81634\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81634\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A same-sex marriage protester before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>One set of rulings the court is weighing overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the other case, an appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Scott Shafer interviewed Vikram Amar, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Davis, to get a better idea of what issues are at play in the court's decision of whether to take up the matter of same-sex marriage. Edited transcript...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> What is the standard the Supreme Court uses for granting review of a lower court’s ruling?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>UC Davis law professor Vik Amar:\u003c/strong> A very small percentage of cases in which review is sought are granted certiorari, or review. They get 7-8,000 petitions a year and they grant maybe eight. So you are talking about maybe one in a hundred. Cases that involve national issues and cases that involve a statute of Congress, or cases in which a statute or initiative of a big state like California have been struck down by a lower court stand a much better chance of getting the Supreme Court’s attention.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The two most important factors the court looks at are how important is this issue and how much confusion or variant is there in the way lower courts are dealing with it. In those cases, it’s going to grant review even if it thinks the lower court got the decision right. So it’s not about doing justice in an individual case, it’s about clarifying questions in constitutional law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: By this standard how strong is the case for taking up the Prop. 8 issue?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: Judged by that standard, the Prop. 8 case has a very strong argument for review, probably not as strong as the DOMA cases out of the First Circuit, because in those cases a federal court of appeal struck down an act of Congress.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 case, a court struck down an act of California. And while California is incredibly important, it’s not quite on the level of a federal statute. So I think if the court were granting review of only one law, I would expect it to grant review of the DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: What would be the argument for combining not just the DOMA cases but DOMA with Prop. 8?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">I think some members of the court don’t want to issue rulings that with the hindsight of 10 or 12 years look anachronistic and look like they mispredicted the arc of history. But at the same time some members of the court don’t want to get too far ahead and make predictions that may not turn out to be true, which is why in general the court likes to wait and see how these issues play out in political circles for some period of time...\u003cbr>\n--UC Davis Law Prof. Vik Amar\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: They could do that to get a better idea of the different sides of the same-sex marriage controversy. Remember in the DOMA cases the question posed is whether the federal government has to recognize people who are married under a state law that permits same-sex marriage. So in those cases, same-sex couples are not arguing that there is an affirmative constitutional right to get married. They are just saying, “If the state I live in accepts it, then you the federal government should accept it for the purpose of benefits as well.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Ninth Circuit court tried to limit its reasoning on Prop 8 so it wouldn’t call into question bans that other states have on same-sex marriage, because those bans are different than Prop. 8 in certain respects. But I don’t think the court is going to find that limiting aspect of the Ninth Circuit opinion in the Prop. 8 case persuasive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So in some sense the DOMA cases are narrower than the Prop. 8 case, but in another aspect the Prop. 8 case is narrower because it’s a California statute. So you could argue that the court should take one or the other. But you could also argue that the court should take both so it could have the full range of issues concerning same-sex marriage before it when it decides to weigh in on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court takes the Prop 8 case it could do all kinds of things with it. It could decide that the Prop. 8 sponsors lack standing in federal court and erase the whole Prop. 8 litigation on that basis, which would leave same-sex couples in California free to get married because neither the governor nor the attorney general is going to stop them. But it wouldn’t really provide a judicial ruling in favor of same-sex marriage the way the Ninth Circuit opinion did.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: So if they did that, would it only apply to just the four plaintiffs? I know there was an argument earlier that this wasn’t a class action.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: So in legal technicality, the only couples who would have a right to marry would be those who sued to marry in Vaughn Walker’s court. But since we know that the governor and the current attorney general are going to take the same position that Gov. Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Brown took in not defending Prop. 8, then any other same-sex couple could file suit, and this one could be a class-action suit, and we know what the result would be. It’s just a matter of a little time and a little process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: Looking at the big picture here, how has the legal landscape changed since 2008 when Prop. 8 first passed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think the legal landscape has changed in that you have courts of appeal having struck down DOMA, and you have the Ninth Circuit court that has struck down a state’s ban on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>These decisions by federal courts of appeal are the first of their kind arguing in favor of at least some kinds of rights of same-sex couples to marry in some sets of circumstances. And that’s a dramatic difference in terms of lower court law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The other thing that has changed is that you have legislatures and electorates that have weighed in in different ways. Just earlier this month we had for the first time same-sex marriage winning at the ballot box.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And even though strictly speaking the constitutional questions are separate from the question of whether the people of the United States in their various state legislatures and their state populaces want to have same-sex marriage, the reality is that whether there is a federal Constitutional right to something depends on the way states are resolving the questions about these things and how common or unusual is the state’s practice that is being challenged.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: In that regard, the Human Rights Campaign is running ads in Washington D.C. They are not aimed at the Supreme Court specifically. But the judges presumably watch TV from time to time, and hopefully listen to the radio. Do you think this has any impact on them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think some members of the court don’t want to issue rulings that with the hindsight of 10 or 12 years look anachronistic and look like they mispredicted the arc of history. But at the same time some members of the court don’t want to get too far ahead and make predictions that may not turn out to be true, which is why in general the court likes to wait and see how these issues play out in political circles for some period of time and not have to weigh in before the trend lines are clear.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the case of DOMA I don’t think they can avoid taking the case because the First Circuit and now the Second Circuit have struck down a federal statute. In the case of Prop. 8 and the full frontal assault on bans on same-sex marriage, I think the court might want to wait a while before resolving that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the conservatives on the court might think about Justice Kennedy, whose vote would be necessary in order to protect a right to same-sex marriage -- you can’t get to five votes in favor of same-sex marriage without Justice Kennedy. The conservatives might think now is the time to resolve same-sex marriage because Justice Kennedy might not be ready to proclaim any kind of national right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And a decision against same-sex marriage now, if that’s what they would like Kennedy to join onto, might make it a little bit harder for the court to reverse itself in the intermediate term, even if the trend line changes with the elections in 2014 and 2016 and beyond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: Finally if they do strike down DOMA, what difference would that make in California?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: The circuit courts ruled against DOMA on the grounds that couples in states that recognize same-sex marriage should also have federal benefits. It’s not clear that that rationale would also apply to those states in which same-sex marriage is available by virtue of a federal judicial ruling, as in California and the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But putting that aside, what invalidation of DOMA at the Supreme Court level would mean is that in every state that recognizes same-sex marriage, same-sex couples in that state would be entitled to the full range of federal benefits concerning social security and survival benefits, tax consequences etc. It would harmonize federal law with state law in those states that recognize same sex unions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: But it would not compel, say Nevada, to recognize same-sex marriage in California...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: No. the First Circuit in its DOMA ruling was very clear that it was deciding whether the federal government had to follow the lead of those states that recognize same sex-marriage, without deciding that there was a general right to same-sex marriage that compels states that haven’t already recognized it to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: What do you think is the most likely scenario?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think it would be extremely unlikely for the court to grant review of Prop. 8 and not DOMA. I think it would also be extremely unlikely for the court to deny the Prop. 8 case altogether -- that is, to just leave the Ninth Circuit decision alone. I think they will either grant cert in both the DOMA and the Prop. 8 case, or perhaps more likely they will grant it in the DOMA case and sit on the Prop. 8 case, and we won’t know what they’re going to do with that until after they resolve DOMA.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>End of interview, and if you read this far you're probably ready to take the California Bar Exam\u003c/em>. \u003cem>We'll see what happens next week.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81629 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81629",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1999,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 36
},
"modified": 1398733255,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to review two sets of decisions by lower courts involving same-sex marriage. Despite widespread anticipation, the court did not announce today whether or not it would hear the cases, so everyone will have to wait till at least Monday. One set of rulings the court is weighing overturned",
"title": "Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court",
"datePublished": "2012-11-30T20:10:01-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:55-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81629/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to review two sets of decisions by lower courts involving same-sex marriage. Despite widespread anticipation, the court did not announce today whether or not it would hear the cases, so everyone will have to wait till at least Monday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81634\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81634\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A same-sex marriage protester before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>One set of rulings the court is weighing overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the other case, an appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Scott Shafer interviewed Vikram Amar, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Davis, to get a better idea of what issues are at play in the court's decision of whether to take up the matter of same-sex marriage. Edited transcript...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> What is the standard the Supreme Court uses for granting review of a lower court’s ruling?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>UC Davis law professor Vik Amar:\u003c/strong> A very small percentage of cases in which review is sought are granted certiorari, or review. They get 7-8,000 petitions a year and they grant maybe eight. So you are talking about maybe one in a hundred. Cases that involve national issues and cases that involve a statute of Congress, or cases in which a statute or initiative of a big state like California have been struck down by a lower court stand a much better chance of getting the Supreme Court’s attention.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The two most important factors the court looks at are how important is this issue and how much confusion or variant is there in the way lower courts are dealing with it. In those cases, it’s going to grant review even if it thinks the lower court got the decision right. So it’s not about doing justice in an individual case, it’s about clarifying questions in constitutional law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: By this standard how strong is the case for taking up the Prop. 8 issue?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: Judged by that standard, the Prop. 8 case has a very strong argument for review, probably not as strong as the DOMA cases out of the First Circuit, because in those cases a federal court of appeal struck down an act of Congress.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 case, a court struck down an act of California. And while California is incredibly important, it’s not quite on the level of a federal statute. So I think if the court were granting review of only one law, I would expect it to grant review of the DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: What would be the argument for combining not just the DOMA cases but DOMA with Prop. 8?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">I think some members of the court don’t want to issue rulings that with the hindsight of 10 or 12 years look anachronistic and look like they mispredicted the arc of history. But at the same time some members of the court don’t want to get too far ahead and make predictions that may not turn out to be true, which is why in general the court likes to wait and see how these issues play out in political circles for some period of time...\u003cbr>\n--UC Davis Law Prof. Vik Amar\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: They could do that to get a better idea of the different sides of the same-sex marriage controversy. Remember in the DOMA cases the question posed is whether the federal government has to recognize people who are married under a state law that permits same-sex marriage. So in those cases, same-sex couples are not arguing that there is an affirmative constitutional right to get married. They are just saying, “If the state I live in accepts it, then you the federal government should accept it for the purpose of benefits as well.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Ninth Circuit court tried to limit its reasoning on Prop 8 so it wouldn’t call into question bans that other states have on same-sex marriage, because those bans are different than Prop. 8 in certain respects. But I don’t think the court is going to find that limiting aspect of the Ninth Circuit opinion in the Prop. 8 case persuasive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So in some sense the DOMA cases are narrower than the Prop. 8 case, but in another aspect the Prop. 8 case is narrower because it’s a California statute. So you could argue that the court should take one or the other. But you could also argue that the court should take both so it could have the full range of issues concerning same-sex marriage before it when it decides to weigh in on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court takes the Prop 8 case it could do all kinds of things with it. It could decide that the Prop. 8 sponsors lack standing in federal court and erase the whole Prop. 8 litigation on that basis, which would leave same-sex couples in California free to get married because neither the governor nor the attorney general is going to stop them. But it wouldn’t really provide a judicial ruling in favor of same-sex marriage the way the Ninth Circuit opinion did.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: So if they did that, would it only apply to just the four plaintiffs? I know there was an argument earlier that this wasn’t a class action.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: So in legal technicality, the only couples who would have a right to marry would be those who sued to marry in Vaughn Walker’s court. But since we know that the governor and the current attorney general are going to take the same position that Gov. Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Brown took in not defending Prop. 8, then any other same-sex couple could file suit, and this one could be a class-action suit, and we know what the result would be. It’s just a matter of a little time and a little process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: Looking at the big picture here, how has the legal landscape changed since 2008 when Prop. 8 first passed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think the legal landscape has changed in that you have courts of appeal having struck down DOMA, and you have the Ninth Circuit court that has struck down a state’s ban on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>These decisions by federal courts of appeal are the first of their kind arguing in favor of at least some kinds of rights of same-sex couples to marry in some sets of circumstances. And that’s a dramatic difference in terms of lower court law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The other thing that has changed is that you have legislatures and electorates that have weighed in in different ways. Just earlier this month we had for the first time same-sex marriage winning at the ballot box.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And even though strictly speaking the constitutional questions are separate from the question of whether the people of the United States in their various state legislatures and their state populaces want to have same-sex marriage, the reality is that whether there is a federal Constitutional right to something depends on the way states are resolving the questions about these things and how common or unusual is the state’s practice that is being challenged.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: In that regard, the Human Rights Campaign is running ads in Washington D.C. They are not aimed at the Supreme Court specifically. But the judges presumably watch TV from time to time, and hopefully listen to the radio. Do you think this has any impact on them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think some members of the court don’t want to issue rulings that with the hindsight of 10 or 12 years look anachronistic and look like they mispredicted the arc of history. But at the same time some members of the court don’t want to get too far ahead and make predictions that may not turn out to be true, which is why in general the court likes to wait and see how these issues play out in political circles for some period of time and not have to weigh in before the trend lines are clear.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the case of DOMA I don’t think they can avoid taking the case because the First Circuit and now the Second Circuit have struck down a federal statute. In the case of Prop. 8 and the full frontal assault on bans on same-sex marriage, I think the court might want to wait a while before resolving that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the conservatives on the court might think about Justice Kennedy, whose vote would be necessary in order to protect a right to same-sex marriage -- you can’t get to five votes in favor of same-sex marriage without Justice Kennedy. The conservatives might think now is the time to resolve same-sex marriage because Justice Kennedy might not be ready to proclaim any kind of national right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And a decision against same-sex marriage now, if that’s what they would like Kennedy to join onto, might make it a little bit harder for the court to reverse itself in the intermediate term, even if the trend line changes with the elections in 2014 and 2016 and beyond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: Finally if they do strike down DOMA, what difference would that make in California?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: The circuit courts ruled against DOMA on the grounds that couples in states that recognize same-sex marriage should also have federal benefits. It’s not clear that that rationale would also apply to those states in which same-sex marriage is available by virtue of a federal judicial ruling, as in California and the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But putting that aside, what invalidation of DOMA at the Supreme Court level would mean is that in every state that recognizes same-sex marriage, same-sex couples in that state would be entitled to the full range of federal benefits concerning social security and survival benefits, tax consequences etc. It would harmonize federal law with state law in those states that recognize same sex unions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: But it would not compel, say Nevada, to recognize same-sex marriage in California...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: No. the First Circuit in its DOMA ruling was very clear that it was deciding whether the federal government had to follow the lead of those states that recognize same sex-marriage, without deciding that there was a general right to same-sex marriage that compels states that haven’t already recognized it to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: What do you think is the most likely scenario?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think it would be extremely unlikely for the court to grant review of Prop. 8 and not DOMA. I think it would also be extremely unlikely for the court to deny the Prop. 8 case altogether -- that is, to just leave the Ninth Circuit decision alone. I think they will either grant cert in both the DOMA and the Prop. 8 case, or perhaps more likely they will grant it in the DOMA case and sit on the Prop. 8 case, and we won’t know what they’re going to do with that until after they resolve DOMA.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>End of interview, and if you read this far you're probably ready to take the California Bar Exam\u003c/em>. \u003cem>We'll see what happens next week.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81629/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court",
"authors": [
"1367"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_893",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81508": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81508",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81508",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354307720000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354307720,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases",
"title": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-81554\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 10, 2013: \u003c/strong>The court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/10/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\">did not release\u003c/a> its opinions on either case today. The decisions are expected by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(AP) Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices met Friday to discuss whether they should deal sooner rather than later with the claim that the Constitution gives people the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There was no announcement about the court's plans on Friday. The next opportunity for word on gay marriage cases is Monday, although the justices also could put off a decision until their next private meeting in a week's time. That will be their last meeting until January. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/\">\u003cstrong>Analysis: SCOTUS and Prop 8: End of Road or Next Chapter?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\">\u003cstrong>More Prop 8 coverage and legal analysis\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Any cases would be argued in March or April, with a decision expected by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state's constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The biggest issue the court could decide to confront comes in the dispute over California's Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California's ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation's largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But if the high court ends up reviewing the case, both sides agree that the larger constitutional issue would be on the table, although the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Throughout U.S. history, the court has tried to avoid getting too far ahead of public opinion and mores. The high court waited until 1967 to strike down laws against interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some court observers argue that the same caution will prevail in the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"What do they have to gain by hearing this case? Either they impose same sex marriage on the whole country, which would create a political firestorm, or they say there's no right to same-sex marriage, in which case they are going to be reversed in 20 years and be badly remembered. They'll be the villains in the historical narrative,\" said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. Koppelman signed onto a legal brief urging the justices not to hear the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Yet some opponents of gay marriage say the issue is too important, and California is too large a state, for the court to take a pass.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The question is whether there's a civil right to redefine marriage, as the California Supreme Court did. We don't think there is,\" said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Regardless of the decision on hearing the California case, there is widespread agreement that the justices will agree to take up a challenge to a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The law was passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for all purposes under federal law as between a man and a woman and has been used to justify excluding gay couples from a wide range of benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Four federal district courts and two courts of appeal have overturned the provision in various cases on grounds that it unfairly deprives same-sex couples of federal benefits. The justices almost always will hear a case in which a federal law has been struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama administration broke with its predecessors when it announced last year that it no longer would defend the provision. President Barack Obama went further when he endorsed gay marriage in May.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Republicans in the House of Representatives stepped in to take up the defense of the law in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer representing the House, said the law was intended to make sure that federal benefits would be allocated uniformly, no matter where people live.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"DOMA does not bar or invalidate any state-law marriage, but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriage,\" Clement said in court papers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has several cases to choose from, including that of 83-year-old Edith Windsor of New York. Windsor faces $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her partner of 44 years in 2009. In two other cases, same-sex couples and surviving spouses of gay marriages in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are seeking a range of federal benefits, including Social Security and private pension survivor payments, access to federal employee health insurance and the right to file a joint federal income tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the only instance in which a gay couple already is receiving federal benefits, federal court employee Karen Golinski in San Francisco has been allowed, under a court order, to add her wife to her health insurance coverage. That could be reversed if the Supreme Court upholds the marriage law provision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>No matter which case the court chooses, the same issue will be front and center — whether legally married gay Americans can be kept from the range of benefits that are otherwise extended to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Elena Kagan strongly suggested in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that she would not take part in a gay marriage case from Massachusetts because she worked on it while at the Justice Department. The Massachusetts case is one of only two cases that have been decided by a federal appeals court. Windsor's is the other.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another case, from Arizona, has some similarities to the Defense of Marriage Act appeals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which invalidated Proposition 8 in California, struck down a state law that said only married state employees were eligible for health benefits and withdrew domestic partner benefits for unmarried state workers. Separately, the Arizona constitution bars same-sex marriage, so gay couples had no way to obtain the state benefits.\n\n\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81508 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81508",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1274,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 32
},
"modified": 1370875669,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Jun 10, 2013: The court did not release its opinions on either case today. The decisions are expected by the end of June. (AP) Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices met Friday to discuss whether they should deal sooner rather than later",
"title": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases",
"datePublished": "2012-11-30T12:35:20-08:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-10T07:47:49-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81508/no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-81554\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 10, 2013: \u003c/strong>The court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/10/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\">did not release\u003c/a> its opinions on either case today. The decisions are expected by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(AP) Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices met Friday to discuss whether they should deal sooner rather than later with the claim that the Constitution gives people the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There was no announcement about the court's plans on Friday. The next opportunity for word on gay marriage cases is Monday, although the justices also could put off a decision until their next private meeting in a week's time. That will be their last meeting until January. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/\">\u003cstrong>Analysis: SCOTUS and Prop 8: End of Road or Next Chapter?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\">\u003cstrong>More Prop 8 coverage and legal analysis\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Any cases would be argued in March or April, with a decision expected by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state's constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The biggest issue the court could decide to confront comes in the dispute over California's Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California's ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation's largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But if the high court ends up reviewing the case, both sides agree that the larger constitutional issue would be on the table, although the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Throughout U.S. history, the court has tried to avoid getting too far ahead of public opinion and mores. The high court waited until 1967 to strike down laws against interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some court observers argue that the same caution will prevail in the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"What do they have to gain by hearing this case? Either they impose same sex marriage on the whole country, which would create a political firestorm, or they say there's no right to same-sex marriage, in which case they are going to be reversed in 20 years and be badly remembered. They'll be the villains in the historical narrative,\" said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. Koppelman signed onto a legal brief urging the justices not to hear the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Yet some opponents of gay marriage say the issue is too important, and California is too large a state, for the court to take a pass.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The question is whether there's a civil right to redefine marriage, as the California Supreme Court did. We don't think there is,\" said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Regardless of the decision on hearing the California case, there is widespread agreement that the justices will agree to take up a challenge to a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The law was passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for all purposes under federal law as between a man and a woman and has been used to justify excluding gay couples from a wide range of benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Four federal district courts and two courts of appeal have overturned the provision in various cases on grounds that it unfairly deprives same-sex couples of federal benefits. The justices almost always will hear a case in which a federal law has been struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama administration broke with its predecessors when it announced last year that it no longer would defend the provision. President Barack Obama went further when he endorsed gay marriage in May.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Republicans in the House of Representatives stepped in to take up the defense of the law in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer representing the House, said the law was intended to make sure that federal benefits would be allocated uniformly, no matter where people live.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"DOMA does not bar or invalidate any state-law marriage, but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriage,\" Clement said in court papers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has several cases to choose from, including that of 83-year-old Edith Windsor of New York. Windsor faces $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her partner of 44 years in 2009. In two other cases, same-sex couples and surviving spouses of gay marriages in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are seeking a range of federal benefits, including Social Security and private pension survivor payments, access to federal employee health insurance and the right to file a joint federal income tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the only instance in which a gay couple already is receiving federal benefits, federal court employee Karen Golinski in San Francisco has been allowed, under a court order, to add her wife to her health insurance coverage. That could be reversed if the Supreme Court upholds the marriage law provision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>No matter which case the court chooses, the same issue will be front and center — whether legally married gay Americans can be kept from the range of benefits that are otherwise extended to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Elena Kagan strongly suggested in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that she would not take part in a gay marriage case from Massachusetts because she worked on it while at the Justice Department. The Massachusetts case is one of only two cases that have been decided by a federal appeals court. Windsor's is the other.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another case, from Arizona, has some similarities to the Defense of Marriage Act appeals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which invalidated Proposition 8 in California, struck down a state law that said only married state employees were eligible for health benefits and withdrew domestic partner benefits for unmarried state workers. Separately, the Arizona constitution bars same-sex marriage, so gay couples had no way to obtain the state benefits.\n\n\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81508/no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81205": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81205",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81205",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354058810000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354058810,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "SF Lawsuit Demands Combat Roles for Women",
"title": "SF Lawsuit Demands Combat Roles for Women",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>They get shot at. They get bombed. The risk death for their country. Now some military women are fighting for the right to official combat positions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81229\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Staff-Sgt-Jennifer-Hunt-by-aarthi-shahani.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81229\" title=\"Staff Sgt Jennifer Hunt by aarthi shahani\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Staff-Sgt-Jennifer-Hunt-by-aarthi-shahani-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt is one of four women suing to allow combat roles for U.S. military women. (Aarti Shahani/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>On Tuesday, four women represented by the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in San Francisco challenging a 1994 ban on women in combat roles. The women argue that keeping them out of the high-prestige combat jobs stunts their careers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Your infantrymen, your artillerymen -- those are the people that are the cool kids of the lunchroom, so to speak,\" said plaintiff Jennifer Hunt. Hunt received a Purple Heart for service in Iraq, where shrapnel tore through her face and arms while she was driving a military jeep. Hunt says the policy blocks her from climbing up the ranks, even when she's equally qualified.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"So if I were to go up on a board against another civil affairs staff sergeant, and he was a male and he had come from the combat arms community, he would still get looked at more favorably for having that combat arms experience. I would have absolutely no chance to make up that cultural bonus that he gets from having that position open to him.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/hegar-et-al-v-panetta-complaint\">The text of the lawsuit\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.defense.gov/news/WISR_Report_to_Congress.pdf\">A report on the Defense Department's review of women in combat\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15217\">The Defense Department's announcement of new positions open to women\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The four plaintiffs said they have fought alongside male colleagues, but can't get access to the career tracks to which these experiences entitle men. For example Major Jennings Hegar, stationed in Mountain View by the California Air National Guard, was shot down when her helicopter was flying a rescue mission in Afghanistan in July 2009. Wounded by an enemy bullet, Hegar returned fire and completed her mission.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Despite recognition she received for this success, Hegar is quitting the Air National Guard because of the rule barring her from positions she wants.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The suit coincides with a Pentagon review of the policy. In May, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta began allowing exceptions to the ban on combat for women with the goal of studying how women perform in these roles. The change opened up 14,500 positions to women,said Pentagon spokesperson Eileen Lainez in an email.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The services will continue to review positions and requirements to determine what additional positions may be opened to women,\" said Pentagon spokesperson Eileen Lainez in an email. \"Our goal is to ensure that the mission is met with the best qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plaintiffs in the lawsuit say the changes are coming too slowly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>More than 144 female troops have been killed and more than 860 have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began, according to Pentagon statistics reported by the Associated Press. Roughly 20,000 of the 205,000 service members currently serving in Afghanistan are women.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, the AP reported.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81205 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81205",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/27/sf-lawsuit-demands-combat-roles-for-women/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 523,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 13
},
"modified": 1354059751,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "They get shot at. They get bombed. The risk death for their country. Now some military women are fighting for the right to official combat positions. On Tuesday, four women represented by the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in San Francisco challenging a 1994 ban on women in combat roles. The women argue",
"title": "SF Lawsuit Demands Combat Roles for Women | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "SF Lawsuit Demands Combat Roles for Women",
"datePublished": "2012-11-27T15:26:50-08:00",
"dateModified": "2012-11-27T15:42:31-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "sf-lawsuit-demands-combat-roles-for-women",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81205/sf-lawsuit-demands-combat-roles-for-women",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>They get shot at. They get bombed. The risk death for their country. Now some military women are fighting for the right to official combat positions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81229\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Staff-Sgt-Jennifer-Hunt-by-aarthi-shahani.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81229\" title=\"Staff Sgt Jennifer Hunt by aarthi shahani\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Staff-Sgt-Jennifer-Hunt-by-aarthi-shahani-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt is one of four women suing to allow combat roles for U.S. military women. (Aarti Shahani/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>On Tuesday, four women represented by the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in San Francisco challenging a 1994 ban on women in combat roles. The women argue that keeping them out of the high-prestige combat jobs stunts their careers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Your infantrymen, your artillerymen -- those are the people that are the cool kids of the lunchroom, so to speak,\" said plaintiff Jennifer Hunt. Hunt received a Purple Heart for service in Iraq, where shrapnel tore through her face and arms while she was driving a military jeep. Hunt says the policy blocks her from climbing up the ranks, even when she's equally qualified.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"So if I were to go up on a board against another civil affairs staff sergeant, and he was a male and he had come from the combat arms community, he would still get looked at more favorably for having that combat arms experience. I would have absolutely no chance to make up that cultural bonus that he gets from having that position open to him.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/hegar-et-al-v-panetta-complaint\">The text of the lawsuit\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.defense.gov/news/WISR_Report_to_Congress.pdf\">A report on the Defense Department's review of women in combat\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15217\">The Defense Department's announcement of new positions open to women\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The four plaintiffs said they have fought alongside male colleagues, but can't get access to the career tracks to which these experiences entitle men. For example Major Jennings Hegar, stationed in Mountain View by the California Air National Guard, was shot down when her helicopter was flying a rescue mission in Afghanistan in July 2009. Wounded by an enemy bullet, Hegar returned fire and completed her mission.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Despite recognition she received for this success, Hegar is quitting the Air National Guard because of the rule barring her from positions she wants.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The suit coincides with a Pentagon review of the policy. In May, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta began allowing exceptions to the ban on combat for women with the goal of studying how women perform in these roles. The change opened up 14,500 positions to women,said Pentagon spokesperson Eileen Lainez in an email.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The services will continue to review positions and requirements to determine what additional positions may be opened to women,\" said Pentagon spokesperson Eileen Lainez in an email. \"Our goal is to ensure that the mission is met with the best qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plaintiffs in the lawsuit say the changes are coming too slowly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>More than 144 female troops have been killed and more than 860 have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began, according to Pentagon statistics reported by the Associated Press. Roughly 20,000 of the 205,000 service members currently serving in Afghanistan are women.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, the AP reported.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81205/sf-lawsuit-demands-combat-roles-for-women",
"authors": [
"1367"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_80",
"news_440",
"news_2833"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81184": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81184",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81184",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354040394000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354040394,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "SF Sheriff's Deputy Pleads Not Guilty in Bank Robbery",
"title": "SF Sheriff's Deputy Pleads Not Guilty in Bank Robbery",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>(BCN) A San Francisco sheriff's deputy accused of robbing a bank in the city's Outer Richmond neighborhood earlier this month pleaded not guilty today to felony robbery and commercial burglary charges.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Philip Chun Tong, 36, was arraigned this afternoon on the two charges, which stem from a\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/16/san-francisco-sheriffs-deputys-charged-in-bank-robbery-case/\"> Nov. 7 robbery \u003c/a>at a Bank of America branch at 3701 Balboa St.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tong, who is out of custody after posting $150,000 bail, declined to speak to reporters outside of court, as did his attorney Eileen Burke.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Court documents show that Tong, who lives in Pacifica, filed for bankruptcy in July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Police said that on the day of the robbery, a man entered the bank and handed a teller a note demanding money. The note said the man was armed, but no weapon was seen, police said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The teller handed over about $1,700 in cash and the suspect left on foot. Investigators identified Tong as the suspect using video surveillance and his fingerprints, which were found on the demand note, according to the district attorney's office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He was arrested on Nov. 16 and has since been suspended without pay, sheriff's spokeswoman Susan Fahey said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tong was ordered today by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Samuel Feng to hand over all of his weapons, as well as his passport. His attorney told the judge he has already done so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He was also ordered to stay away from the teller and the bank that was robbed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tong will return to court on Dec. 17 for a status hearing and to set a date for the preliminary hearing in the case.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81184 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81184",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/27/sf-sheriffs-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-bank-robbery/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 273,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 12
},
"modified": 1354046747,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "(BCN) A San Francisco sheriff's deputy accused of robbing a bank in the city's Outer Richmond neighborhood earlier this month pleaded not guilty today to felony robbery and commercial burglary charges. Philip Chun Tong, 36, was arraigned this afternoon on the two charges, which stem from a Nov. 7 robbery at a Bank of America",
"title": "SF Sheriff's Deputy Pleads Not Guilty in Bank Robbery | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "SF Sheriff's Deputy Pleads Not Guilty in Bank Robbery",
"datePublished": "2012-11-27T10:19:54-08:00",
"dateModified": "2012-11-27T12:05:47-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "sf-sheriffs-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-bank-robbery",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81184/sf-sheriffs-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-bank-robbery",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>(BCN) A San Francisco sheriff's deputy accused of robbing a bank in the city's Outer Richmond neighborhood earlier this month pleaded not guilty today to felony robbery and commercial burglary charges.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Philip Chun Tong, 36, was arraigned this afternoon on the two charges, which stem from a\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/16/san-francisco-sheriffs-deputys-charged-in-bank-robbery-case/\"> Nov. 7 robbery \u003c/a>at a Bank of America branch at 3701 Balboa St.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tong, who is out of custody after posting $150,000 bail, declined to speak to reporters outside of court, as did his attorney Eileen Burke.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Court documents show that Tong, who lives in Pacifica, filed for bankruptcy in July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Police said that on the day of the robbery, a man entered the bank and handed a teller a note demanding money. The note said the man was armed, but no weapon was seen, police said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The teller handed over about $1,700 in cash and the suspect left on foot. Investigators identified Tong as the suspect using video surveillance and his fingerprints, which were found on the demand note, according to the district attorney's office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He was arrested on Nov. 16 and has since been suspended without pay, sheriff's spokeswoman Susan Fahey said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tong was ordered today by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Samuel Feng to hand over all of his weapons, as well as his passport. His attorney told the judge he has already done so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He was also ordered to stay away from the teller and the bank that was robbed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tong will return to court on Dec. 17 for a status hearing and to set a date for the preliminary hearing in the case.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81184/sf-sheriffs-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-bank-robbery",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_38",
"news_1973"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_80821": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_80821",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "80821",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1353456704000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1353456704,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Federal Judge’s Rulings Favored Companies in Which He Owned Stock",
"title": "Federal Judge’s Rulings Favored Companies in Which He Owned Stock",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>by Jennifer Gollan and Shane Shifflett, \u003ca href=\"http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/federal-judge-s-rulings-favored-companies-which-he-owned-stock-18680\">California Watch\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A federal judge has issued three key rulings over a four-year period that favored companies in which he owned stock, a California Watch analysis has found.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Measures are in place to prevent judges from violating federal conflict-of-interest laws. But Judge Manuel Real, a 46-year veteran of the bench appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, appears to have skirted those safeguards, records and interviews show.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_80826\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/judge-with-gavel.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-80826\" title=\"judge with gavel\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/judge-with-gavel-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Thinkstock\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Judges are supposed to disclose everything from their investments to their attendance at expenses-paid seminars. When a financial conflict arises, no matter how small, they are required to step aside, by federal law and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is what we call a ‘bright line’ rule, meaning that it gives clear and unambiguous guidance to judges and the public,” said Steven Lubet, a Northwestern University law professor who specializes in judicial ethics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But in at least three cases before the federal District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, Real did not recuse himself:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>In 2008, he awarded Microsoft Corp. $746,027 in damages and fees in a copyright infringement case against a computer sales and repair company. At the time, Real held Microsoft stock worth between $15,001 and $50,000, \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517649-real-finanical-disclosure-2008.html\" target=\"_blank\">according to his financial disclosures\u003c/a>.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>In another 2008 case involving a contract dispute between Atlanta Cancer Care and biotech giant Amgen, Real dismissed the suit against Amgen. Real held between $15,001 and $50,000 of \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517649-real-finanical-disclosure-2008.html\" target=\"_blank\">Amgen stock\u003c/a>, too, which he transferred to someone else shortly after the case was appealed.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The following year, Real dismissed a lawsuit against Verizon. After the plaintiff in the case appealed the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517652-real-financial-disclosure-2010.html\" target=\"_blank\">Real bought Verizon stock worth $15,001 to $50,000\u003c/a>. The appeals court upheld Real’s dismissal, but returned the case to Real for further deliberation. The parties reached an agreement in February 2011, and Real dismissed the case.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>In all three cases, the company’s stock rose at least a dollar per share during the two months following Real’s ruling or dismissal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“When there is money involved, it is human nature to protect your own interests,” said John Schneider, a plaintiff in the Verizon case and a retired electrical contractor. “I would say he looked out for his financial interests before he looked out for mine. Judges should be above reproach.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real, previously reprimanded for poor conduct on the bench, did not respond to repeated interview requests made via email or messages left with his courtroom clerk.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is no indication that Real had a financial incentive in making his decisions, and many factors affect stock prices. But legal experts consulted by California Watch indicated that Real’s rulings were, at a minimum, good news for the companies. California Watch asked law professor Laurie Levenson, who holds the David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, to review the cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A judge who repeatedly fails to withdraw from cases can face sanctions ranging from a private reprimand to suspension from hearing cases. Beyond that, a judge can be referred to Congress for an impeachment hearing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If a judge is willfully disregarding the disqualification rules, there is precedent for saying he should be disciplined,” said Charles Geyh, an expert in judicial ethics who teaches law at Indiana University. “In addition, where judges are not diligent in keeping track of their financial conflicts, where there is a pattern of incompetence, they could also be sanctioned.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Geyh acknowledged that such sanctions are rare, typically occurring only in extreme situations. One recent case involved a federal district judge from New Orleans, impeached and removed from office by the U.S. Senate in 2010 for failing to disqualify himself from cases in which he accepted cash and favors from lawyers and a bail bonds company.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Potential ethics violations fall to the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit to investigate. Chief Judge Alex Kozinksi, chairman of the council, did not return calls seeking comment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Federal judges are required to report not only their financial holdings, but also those of their spouses to the federal court system. Since September 2006, they are supposed to use special conflict-checking software, which cross-references their stock holdings against their courtroom dockets, automatically flagging potential problems.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But technology is no panacea. Courts generally afford judges autonomy in who does the checks and how often. Some judges run checks before every case, while others do so intermittently, according to Central District of California communications specialist Gary Horimoto. The district is the largest of the 94 federal judicial districts, serving a population of more than 18 million people in Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It is up to each judge to actually run these reports,” said Molly Dwyer, clerk of court of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “We are not policing the judges. … We are accepting them at their word.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Public scrutiny of the financial disclosures is complicated by logistical hurdles. While anyone can request judges’ annual financial disclosures through the federal courts’ administrative office in Washington, the process of obtaining these documents and cross-checking them against court rulings is cumbersome and expensive. Judges file annual financial disclosures by May 15.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>In the courtroom\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real, 88, was first appointed to the bench in 1966. He earns $174,000 a year and like other federal trial court judges enjoys what has effectively become life tenure, a benefit engineered by authors of the Constitution to protect the court’s independence. A graduate of the University of Southern California, Real earned a law degree from Loyola Law School before becoming assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California and, in 1964, the district’s U.S. attorney.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One of Real’s more notable decisions was a 1970 order to use mandatory busing to desegregate Pasadena schools.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Among judicial ethicists as well as attorneys who have argued cases before him, Real is known as an iconoclast.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On a recent day, Real rarely looked up from his desk as a string of lawyers directed their arguments at the top of his head. Dwarfed by his burgundy leather chair, Real commanded the cavernous courtroom with the occasional gruff directive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Then a mustachioed man in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs appeared. He was there to plead guilty to being caught in the country after being deported.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real leaned forward and peppered the inmate with questions. Then, when a prosecutor from the Justice Department urged Real to make sure the man understood the facts of the crime before accepting his plea – as required by federal rules – Real lashed out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I just went through all that with him,” Real responded. “What do you think that was all about? We went through the elements of the offense.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The attorney said nothing more.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Notable cases\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real is famous for a courtroom spat with Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt in 1984. Flynt had refused to reveal the source of a video of a sting operation that he had given to a television network. He appeared before Real and after repeated outbursts, Real ordered Flynt gagged and handcuffed to his wheelchair.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Years later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in which it criticized Real for his accounting of $33.8 million in disputed assets of the Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The assets had been held in a Merrill Lynch account while the courts decided how to divide funds among various claimants, including Filipinos who claimed to have suffered human rights abuses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real, the \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517643-marcos.html\" target=\"_blank\">court documents indicated\u003c/a>, declined to provide more than a brief accounting “filled with cryptic notations” of the transactions involving the assets or who authorized them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real faced a potential \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517644-impeachment-inquiry.html\" target=\"_blank\">impeachment inquiry\u003c/a> by Congress in 2006 over misconduct allegations, congressional documents show. He was accused of showing favoritism in a bankruptcy case toward a woman whose probation he supervised.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the end, Congress did not pursue the impeachment. But shortly after the congressional hearing, the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517646-real-reprimand-letter.html\" target=\"_blank\">publicly reprimanded Real\u003c/a> for showing favoritism in the bankruptcy case and making misleading statements to investigators.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States asked the 9th Circuit to review a complaint in which Real was accused of failing to provide the required reasons for his rulings. In April 2010, the conference reaffirmed the conclusion of the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit, which had reviewed 38 of Real’s cases, that there was no misconduct – but warned Real that his decisions would be closely scrutinized.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Arthur D. Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and leading authority on the federal courts, said few federal judges have received as much scrutiny from the 9th Circuit as Real.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I doubt that there is any federal judge that has been taken off as many cases as Judge Real,” Hellman said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Federal trial court judges do not have to detail their reasons for withdrawing from cases, so it is difficult to pinpoint how many avoid financial conflicts of interest. The Central District doesn’t track how often judges withdraw from cases, said Horimoto, the district communications specialist.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, Real has been taken off at least 20 cases over the past 25 years by the 9th Circuit, which has criticized him for making decisions that ignore precedent, court records show, and creating “an atmosphere in which an objectively fair trial could not be conducted.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>‘A controversial judge’\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It is unclear how Real’s multiple conflicts of interest could have escaped notice. His annual financial disclosures list the companies involved in the three cases, a connection the conflict-checking software is designed to catch. At least two of the cases were resolved before Real was required to file his annual disclosures, however, leaving the attorneys involved no means for evaluating his financial interests on their own.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In one of Real’s cases, Microsoft claimed that All-Valley Computer in Cathedral City and its owner, Glenn Somervell, distributed software that infringed on Microsoft’s copyrights and trademarks. All-Valley failed to respond to Microsoft’s complaint by the deadline, and Microsoft’s lawyers urged Real to issue a judgment against All-Valley. Real \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517658-microsoft-real-order.html\" target=\"_blank\">awarded Microsoft about $746,000\u003c/a> in damages and fees.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two weeks later, Real added a \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517657-microsoft-real-permanent-injunction.html\" target=\"_blank\">permanent injunction\u003c/a> against All-Valley that prohibited it from distributing software protected by Microsoft trademarks or selling counterfeit Microsoft products.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Somervell, who closed All-Valley before the suit to care for his dying mother, said Real’s decisions damaged his career prospects.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I probably can’t get a job for the rest of my life; it doesn’t look too good on my résumé,” Somervell said. “If (Real’s) involved with Microsoft, he is going to take their side. It’s totally unfair.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Amgen case, Atlanta Cancer Care – which runs medical practices in and around Atlanta – alleged that the biotechnology company wrongfully recouped $184,625 in rebates owed to the oncology practice for medications it purchased for patients. Real was unmoved. Siding with Amgen’s lawyers, he \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517656-amgen-manuel-real-order.html\" target=\"_blank\">dismissed the suit\u003c/a>. But the 9th Circuit disagreed, reversing Real’s decision and sending the case back to him in late 2009 for further consideration. The parties reached a negotiated settlement in the case at the end of that year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Leland Wahl, one of the lead attorneys representing Atlanta Cancer Care in the lawsuit, said Real did not disclose his financial interest in Amgen during the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“He is a controversial judge,” Wahl said. “If he does something unusual, many people would not be surprised, including me.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And in the Verizon case, the communications company stood to lose millions. That’s because Schneider, the retired electrical contractor, brought a class-action suit on behalf of Verizon customers challenging the company’s practice of billing each of them up to $149 for canceling their Internet service before the end of their contract.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Schneider’s attorneys argued that the early termination fee was designed to lock in customers and had little bearing on the actual costs of cancellation. Verizon’s attorneys countered that the complaint lacked merit. Real dismissed the suit. On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed part of Real’s decision and sent the rest back to him. Verizon later settled the case with Schneider, but no money was awarded to its other customers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Checking for conflicts\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Around the nation, attorneys and legal scholars point to judges and judicial districts that are doing things right – examples that differ from some of California’s practices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One federal judge who pursues conflict checking with vigor is Chief Judge David R. Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois. He believes it is essential, he said, to retain the public’s trust.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A nominee of President Bill Clinton on the bench for 14 years, Herndon does not rely on conflict-checking software alone. He posts a list of his stock holdings online, updating it monthly, in the hope that litigants and lawyers will catch any conflicts he fails to see.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Software is not infallible; humans are not infallible,” Herndon said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Herndon and a staff member cross-check his case assignments against his financial holdings daily, he said. In addition, he said, he has instructed his broker not to invest in large companies involved in frequent litigation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From October 2011 through September, five federal judges in the Southern District of Illinois recused themselves on 14 occasions, Herndon said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Northern District of Iowa, the clerk’s office – rather than judges or their chamber staff – screens for conflicts before assigning cases. The Iowa district also posts judges’ stock holdings and other information on its website, including law firms or businesses affiliated with their family members.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It helps lawyers sort out whether judges have conflicts,” said Robert Phelps, the district’s clerk of court. “In creating the list and publishing it, it also puts that consideration into the minds of judges.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In California, Dwyer, the 9th Circuit court clerk, said privacy and security considerations keep California’s disclosures offline. Among the information included in the filings are details such as addresses of rental properties judges own or the name of their spouse’s employer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I don’t think judges want their holdings known by everyone and their mother,” Dwyer said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Geyh, the Indiana law professor, scoffed at those objections, pointing out that the financial disclosure is technically a public record, so the lack of online posting merely makes it harder to get.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It is the price you pay for being a government employee,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Obtaining financial filings\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Without such Web access, obtaining judges’ financial filings is complicated. A written request must be sent to federal officials in Washington, and judges are warned about who is scrutinizing their disclosures. In some cases, \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05a/usc_sec_05a_00000105----000-.html\">under federal law\u003c/a>, judges may black out key information, if it includes “revealing personal and sensitive information (that) could endanger” the judge or a family member.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For example, in mid-2008, Real transferred 19 stocks – most of which were worth between $15,001 and $100,000 each, one worth up to $500,000 – to a recipient whose name has been blacked out. The companies ranged from Adobe Systems to UnitedHealth Group.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another Southern California federal court judge, Percy Anderson, issued more than two dozen rulings in a 2007 trademark infringement case involving Verizon, including a preliminary injunction and some other rulings in favor of the company.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Eight months into the continuing Los Angeles case, Anderson withdrew, saying “that he should not preside over this case because it was reasonably brought to his attention that he has a financial interest in one of the parties,” \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517661-anderson-recusal.html\" target=\"_blank\">court records show\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Verizon was the only publicly traded company involved in the case. Lawyers said Anderson recused himself because he owned Verizon stock. But there is no way to know for sure because Anderson was allowed to \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517664-anderson-financial-disclosure-2007.html\" target=\"_blank\">black out his financial disclosures\u003c/a> before they were released to the public.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Anderson did not respond to messages left with his courtroom clerk.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Once financial documents are obtained, they must be checked against hundreds of cases each judge oversees, making it difficult to determine whether Real is an anomaly or a symbol of a wider problem.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A California Watch analysis of Northern California district judges, for instance, found that they issued at least 20 rulings involving companies in which they owned stock between 2006 and 2010, according to court records and financial disclosures.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For the most part, however, those rulings did not appear to be favorable or significant enough to sway the cases in favor of the judge’s stock, according to legal experts who reviewed the cases for California Watch.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In one instance, Judge Marilyn Patel presided over a case involving ReliaStar Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of ING Groep N.V., beginning in April 2009. Five months into the case, Patel bought $50,000 to $100,000 worth of stock in ING Groep. She sold it at the end of that year for a profit of $5,001 to $15,000, two months before she signed a court order dismissing the case at the request of the parties. In a letter to California Watch, Patel defended her role, saying she did not issue any rulings in the case while she held the ING stock.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It appears that the system in place for performing conflicts checks did not reveal ING Groep since it was not a party to the action,” wrote Patel, who retired from the bench in September.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It is not clear whether Patel reviewed one of the first court filings in the case, which disclosed ING's affiliation with ReliaStar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>She added: “I do not manage our family portfolio and am not involved in the buying or selling of stocks in it.”\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "80821 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=80821",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/20/federal-judges-rulings-favored-companies-in-which-he-owned-stock/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 3102,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 78
},
"modified": 1398733256,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "by Jennifer Gollan and Shane Shifflett, California Watch A federal judge has issued three key rulings over a four-year period that favored companies in which he owned stock, a California Watch analysis has found. Measures are in place to prevent judges from violating federal conflict-of-interest laws. But Judge Manuel Real, a 46-year veteran of the",
"title": "Federal Judge’s Rulings Favored Companies in Which He Owned Stock | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Federal Judge’s Rulings Favored Companies in Which He Owned Stock",
"datePublished": "2012-11-20T16:11:44-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:56-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "federal-judges-rulings-favored-companies-in-which-he-owned-stock",
"status": "publish",
"WpOldSlug": "federal-judge%e2%80%99s-rulings-favored-companies-in-which-he-owned-stock",
"path": "/news/80821/federal-judges-rulings-favored-companies-in-which-he-owned-stock",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>by Jennifer Gollan and Shane Shifflett, \u003ca href=\"http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/federal-judge-s-rulings-favored-companies-which-he-owned-stock-18680\">California Watch\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A federal judge has issued three key rulings over a four-year period that favored companies in which he owned stock, a California Watch analysis has found.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Measures are in place to prevent judges from violating federal conflict-of-interest laws. But Judge Manuel Real, a 46-year veteran of the bench appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, appears to have skirted those safeguards, records and interviews show.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_80826\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/judge-with-gavel.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-80826\" title=\"judge with gavel\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/judge-with-gavel-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Thinkstock\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Judges are supposed to disclose everything from their investments to their attendance at expenses-paid seminars. When a financial conflict arises, no matter how small, they are required to step aside, by federal law and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is what we call a ‘bright line’ rule, meaning that it gives clear and unambiguous guidance to judges and the public,” said Steven Lubet, a Northwestern University law professor who specializes in judicial ethics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But in at least three cases before the federal District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, Real did not recuse himself:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>In 2008, he awarded Microsoft Corp. $746,027 in damages and fees in a copyright infringement case against a computer sales and repair company. At the time, Real held Microsoft stock worth between $15,001 and $50,000, \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517649-real-finanical-disclosure-2008.html\" target=\"_blank\">according to his financial disclosures\u003c/a>.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>In another 2008 case involving a contract dispute between Atlanta Cancer Care and biotech giant Amgen, Real dismissed the suit against Amgen. Real held between $15,001 and $50,000 of \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517649-real-finanical-disclosure-2008.html\" target=\"_blank\">Amgen stock\u003c/a>, too, which he transferred to someone else shortly after the case was appealed.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The following year, Real dismissed a lawsuit against Verizon. After the plaintiff in the case appealed the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517652-real-financial-disclosure-2010.html\" target=\"_blank\">Real bought Verizon stock worth $15,001 to $50,000\u003c/a>. The appeals court upheld Real’s dismissal, but returned the case to Real for further deliberation. The parties reached an agreement in February 2011, and Real dismissed the case.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>In all three cases, the company’s stock rose at least a dollar per share during the two months following Real’s ruling or dismissal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“When there is money involved, it is human nature to protect your own interests,” said John Schneider, a plaintiff in the Verizon case and a retired electrical contractor. “I would say he looked out for his financial interests before he looked out for mine. Judges should be above reproach.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real, previously reprimanded for poor conduct on the bench, did not respond to repeated interview requests made via email or messages left with his courtroom clerk.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is no indication that Real had a financial incentive in making his decisions, and many factors affect stock prices. But legal experts consulted by California Watch indicated that Real’s rulings were, at a minimum, good news for the companies. California Watch asked law professor Laurie Levenson, who holds the David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, to review the cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A judge who repeatedly fails to withdraw from cases can face sanctions ranging from a private reprimand to suspension from hearing cases. Beyond that, a judge can be referred to Congress for an impeachment hearing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If a judge is willfully disregarding the disqualification rules, there is precedent for saying he should be disciplined,” said Charles Geyh, an expert in judicial ethics who teaches law at Indiana University. “In addition, where judges are not diligent in keeping track of their financial conflicts, where there is a pattern of incompetence, they could also be sanctioned.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Geyh acknowledged that such sanctions are rare, typically occurring only in extreme situations. One recent case involved a federal district judge from New Orleans, impeached and removed from office by the U.S. Senate in 2010 for failing to disqualify himself from cases in which he accepted cash and favors from lawyers and a bail bonds company.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Potential ethics violations fall to the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit to investigate. Chief Judge Alex Kozinksi, chairman of the council, did not return calls seeking comment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Federal judges are required to report not only their financial holdings, but also those of their spouses to the federal court system. Since September 2006, they are supposed to use special conflict-checking software, which cross-references their stock holdings against their courtroom dockets, automatically flagging potential problems.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But technology is no panacea. Courts generally afford judges autonomy in who does the checks and how often. Some judges run checks before every case, while others do so intermittently, according to Central District of California communications specialist Gary Horimoto. The district is the largest of the 94 federal judicial districts, serving a population of more than 18 million people in Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It is up to each judge to actually run these reports,” said Molly Dwyer, clerk of court of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “We are not policing the judges. … We are accepting them at their word.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Public scrutiny of the financial disclosures is complicated by logistical hurdles. While anyone can request judges’ annual financial disclosures through the federal courts’ administrative office in Washington, the process of obtaining these documents and cross-checking them against court rulings is cumbersome and expensive. Judges file annual financial disclosures by May 15.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>In the courtroom\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real, 88, was first appointed to the bench in 1966. He earns $174,000 a year and like other federal trial court judges enjoys what has effectively become life tenure, a benefit engineered by authors of the Constitution to protect the court’s independence. A graduate of the University of Southern California, Real earned a law degree from Loyola Law School before becoming assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California and, in 1964, the district’s U.S. attorney.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One of Real’s more notable decisions was a 1970 order to use mandatory busing to desegregate Pasadena schools.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Among judicial ethicists as well as attorneys who have argued cases before him, Real is known as an iconoclast.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On a recent day, Real rarely looked up from his desk as a string of lawyers directed their arguments at the top of his head. Dwarfed by his burgundy leather chair, Real commanded the cavernous courtroom with the occasional gruff directive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Then a mustachioed man in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs appeared. He was there to plead guilty to being caught in the country after being deported.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real leaned forward and peppered the inmate with questions. Then, when a prosecutor from the Justice Department urged Real to make sure the man understood the facts of the crime before accepting his plea – as required by federal rules – Real lashed out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I just went through all that with him,” Real responded. “What do you think that was all about? We went through the elements of the offense.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The attorney said nothing more.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Notable cases\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real is famous for a courtroom spat with Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt in 1984. Flynt had refused to reveal the source of a video of a sting operation that he had given to a television network. He appeared before Real and after repeated outbursts, Real ordered Flynt gagged and handcuffed to his wheelchair.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Years later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in which it criticized Real for his accounting of $33.8 million in disputed assets of the Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The assets had been held in a Merrill Lynch account while the courts decided how to divide funds among various claimants, including Filipinos who claimed to have suffered human rights abuses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real, the \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517643-marcos.html\" target=\"_blank\">court documents indicated\u003c/a>, declined to provide more than a brief accounting “filled with cryptic notations” of the transactions involving the assets or who authorized them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Real faced a potential \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517644-impeachment-inquiry.html\" target=\"_blank\">impeachment inquiry\u003c/a> by Congress in 2006 over misconduct allegations, congressional documents show. He was accused of showing favoritism in a bankruptcy case toward a woman whose probation he supervised.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the end, Congress did not pursue the impeachment. But shortly after the congressional hearing, the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517646-real-reprimand-letter.html\" target=\"_blank\">publicly reprimanded Real\u003c/a> for showing favoritism in the bankruptcy case and making misleading statements to investigators.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States asked the 9th Circuit to review a complaint in which Real was accused of failing to provide the required reasons for his rulings. In April 2010, the conference reaffirmed the conclusion of the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit, which had reviewed 38 of Real’s cases, that there was no misconduct – but warned Real that his decisions would be closely scrutinized.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Arthur D. Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and leading authority on the federal courts, said few federal judges have received as much scrutiny from the 9th Circuit as Real.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I doubt that there is any federal judge that has been taken off as many cases as Judge Real,” Hellman said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Federal trial court judges do not have to detail their reasons for withdrawing from cases, so it is difficult to pinpoint how many avoid financial conflicts of interest. The Central District doesn’t track how often judges withdraw from cases, said Horimoto, the district communications specialist.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, Real has been taken off at least 20 cases over the past 25 years by the 9th Circuit, which has criticized him for making decisions that ignore precedent, court records show, and creating “an atmosphere in which an objectively fair trial could not be conducted.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>‘A controversial judge’\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It is unclear how Real’s multiple conflicts of interest could have escaped notice. His annual financial disclosures list the companies involved in the three cases, a connection the conflict-checking software is designed to catch. At least two of the cases were resolved before Real was required to file his annual disclosures, however, leaving the attorneys involved no means for evaluating his financial interests on their own.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In one of Real’s cases, Microsoft claimed that All-Valley Computer in Cathedral City and its owner, Glenn Somervell, distributed software that infringed on Microsoft’s copyrights and trademarks. All-Valley failed to respond to Microsoft’s complaint by the deadline, and Microsoft’s lawyers urged Real to issue a judgment against All-Valley. Real \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517658-microsoft-real-order.html\" target=\"_blank\">awarded Microsoft about $746,000\u003c/a> in damages and fees.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two weeks later, Real added a \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517657-microsoft-real-permanent-injunction.html\" target=\"_blank\">permanent injunction\u003c/a> against All-Valley that prohibited it from distributing software protected by Microsoft trademarks or selling counterfeit Microsoft products.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Somervell, who closed All-Valley before the suit to care for his dying mother, said Real’s decisions damaged his career prospects.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I probably can’t get a job for the rest of my life; it doesn’t look too good on my résumé,” Somervell said. “If (Real’s) involved with Microsoft, he is going to take their side. It’s totally unfair.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Amgen case, Atlanta Cancer Care – which runs medical practices in and around Atlanta – alleged that the biotechnology company wrongfully recouped $184,625 in rebates owed to the oncology practice for medications it purchased for patients. Real was unmoved. Siding with Amgen’s lawyers, he \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517656-amgen-manuel-real-order.html\" target=\"_blank\">dismissed the suit\u003c/a>. But the 9th Circuit disagreed, reversing Real’s decision and sending the case back to him in late 2009 for further consideration. The parties reached a negotiated settlement in the case at the end of that year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Leland Wahl, one of the lead attorneys representing Atlanta Cancer Care in the lawsuit, said Real did not disclose his financial interest in Amgen during the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“He is a controversial judge,” Wahl said. “If he does something unusual, many people would not be surprised, including me.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And in the Verizon case, the communications company stood to lose millions. That’s because Schneider, the retired electrical contractor, brought a class-action suit on behalf of Verizon customers challenging the company’s practice of billing each of them up to $149 for canceling their Internet service before the end of their contract.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Schneider’s attorneys argued that the early termination fee was designed to lock in customers and had little bearing on the actual costs of cancellation. Verizon’s attorneys countered that the complaint lacked merit. Real dismissed the suit. On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed part of Real’s decision and sent the rest back to him. Verizon later settled the case with Schneider, but no money was awarded to its other customers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Checking for conflicts\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Around the nation, attorneys and legal scholars point to judges and judicial districts that are doing things right – examples that differ from some of California’s practices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One federal judge who pursues conflict checking with vigor is Chief Judge David R. Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois. He believes it is essential, he said, to retain the public’s trust.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A nominee of President Bill Clinton on the bench for 14 years, Herndon does not rely on conflict-checking software alone. He posts a list of his stock holdings online, updating it monthly, in the hope that litigants and lawyers will catch any conflicts he fails to see.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Software is not infallible; humans are not infallible,” Herndon said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Herndon and a staff member cross-check his case assignments against his financial holdings daily, he said. In addition, he said, he has instructed his broker not to invest in large companies involved in frequent litigation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From October 2011 through September, five federal judges in the Southern District of Illinois recused themselves on 14 occasions, Herndon said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Northern District of Iowa, the clerk’s office – rather than judges or their chamber staff – screens for conflicts before assigning cases. The Iowa district also posts judges’ stock holdings and other information on its website, including law firms or businesses affiliated with their family members.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It helps lawyers sort out whether judges have conflicts,” said Robert Phelps, the district’s clerk of court. “In creating the list and publishing it, it also puts that consideration into the minds of judges.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In California, Dwyer, the 9th Circuit court clerk, said privacy and security considerations keep California’s disclosures offline. Among the information included in the filings are details such as addresses of rental properties judges own or the name of their spouse’s employer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I don’t think judges want their holdings known by everyone and their mother,” Dwyer said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Geyh, the Indiana law professor, scoffed at those objections, pointing out that the financial disclosure is technically a public record, so the lack of online posting merely makes it harder to get.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It is the price you pay for being a government employee,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Obtaining financial filings\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Without such Web access, obtaining judges’ financial filings is complicated. A written request must be sent to federal officials in Washington, and judges are warned about who is scrutinizing their disclosures. In some cases, \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05a/usc_sec_05a_00000105----000-.html\">under federal law\u003c/a>, judges may black out key information, if it includes “revealing personal and sensitive information (that) could endanger” the judge or a family member.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For example, in mid-2008, Real transferred 19 stocks – most of which were worth between $15,001 and $100,000 each, one worth up to $500,000 – to a recipient whose name has been blacked out. The companies ranged from Adobe Systems to UnitedHealth Group.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another Southern California federal court judge, Percy Anderson, issued more than two dozen rulings in a 2007 trademark infringement case involving Verizon, including a preliminary injunction and some other rulings in favor of the company.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Eight months into the continuing Los Angeles case, Anderson withdrew, saying “that he should not preside over this case because it was reasonably brought to his attention that he has a financial interest in one of the parties,” \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517661-anderson-recusal.html\" target=\"_blank\">court records show\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Verizon was the only publicly traded company involved in the case. Lawyers said Anderson recused himself because he owned Verizon stock. But there is no way to know for sure because Anderson was allowed to \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/517664-anderson-financial-disclosure-2007.html\" target=\"_blank\">black out his financial disclosures\u003c/a> before they were released to the public.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Anderson did not respond to messages left with his courtroom clerk.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Once financial documents are obtained, they must be checked against hundreds of cases each judge oversees, making it difficult to determine whether Real is an anomaly or a symbol of a wider problem.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A California Watch analysis of Northern California district judges, for instance, found that they issued at least 20 rulings involving companies in which they owned stock between 2006 and 2010, according to court records and financial disclosures.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For the most part, however, those rulings did not appear to be favorable or significant enough to sway the cases in favor of the judge’s stock, according to legal experts who reviewed the cases for California Watch.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In one instance, Judge Marilyn Patel presided over a case involving ReliaStar Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of ING Groep N.V., beginning in April 2009. Five months into the case, Patel bought $50,000 to $100,000 worth of stock in ING Groep. She sold it at the end of that year for a profit of $5,001 to $15,000, two months before she signed a court order dismissing the case at the request of the parties. In a letter to California Watch, Patel defended her role, saying she did not issue any rulings in the case while she held the ING stock.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It appears that the system in place for performing conflicts checks did not reveal ING Groep since it was not a party to the action,” wrote Patel, who retired from the bench in September.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It is not clear whether Patel reviewed one of the first court filings in the case, which disclosed ING's affiliation with ReliaStar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>She added: “I do not manage our family portfolio and am not involved in the buying or selling of stocks in it.”\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/80821/federal-judges-rulings-favored-companies-in-which-he-owned-stock",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_47"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_80609": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_80609",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "80609",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1353111577000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1353111577,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "San Francisco Sheriff's Deputy's Charged in Bank Robbery Case",
"title": "San Francisco Sheriff's Deputy's Charged in Bank Robbery Case",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>When you see the words \"San Francisco sheriff\" these days, your mind tends to reflexively \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Mirkarimi-refuses-to-yield-oversight-4042630.php\" target=\"_blank\">go to this topic\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's something different, though not really better. SF District Attorney George Gascón said of the alleged robbery, \"San Franciscans expect the men and women in uniform to uphold the laws and protect our residents.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That's one way to express it. Another way might have been: \"San Franciscans expect men and women in uniform to not go out and, you know, \u003cem>rob a bank\u003c/em>.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keeping in mind it's all still alleged, of course.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Story from Bay City News:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>SAN FRANCISCO (BCN) A San Francisco sheriff's deputy has been charged with felony robbery and burglary charges in connection with a bank robbery in the city's Outer Richmond neighborhood earlier this month, prosecutors said today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Philip Chun Tong, 36, was arrested this morning in the 400 block of Seventh Street by San Francisco police in connection with the Nov. 7 robbery at a Bank of America branch at 3701 Balboa St. \u003c!--more-->Sheriff's spokeswoman Susan Fahey confirmed that Tong is a sworn deputy with the department.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tong allegedly entered the bank around 4:50 p.m. and handed a teller a note demanding money, according to police. The note said the suspect had a weapon, but no weapon was displayed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The teller handed over around $1,700 in cash and Tong left on foot, according to the district attorney's office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Police identified Tong as a suspect in the robbery using video surveillance and his fingerprints, which were found on the demand note, prosecutors said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He has been charged with one count of robbery and one count of burglary, both felonies, prosecutors said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>District Attorney George Gascon condemned Tong's alleged actions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"San Franciscans expect the men and woman in uniform to uphold the laws and protect our residents,\" Gascon said in a statement. \"Mr. Tong's conduct is deplorable and will be met with serious consequences.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Fahey said Tong will be suspended pending an investigation into the case and will be placed on unpaid leave.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "80609 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=80609",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/16/san-francisco-sheriffs-deputys-charged-in-bank-robbery-case/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 351,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 16
},
"modified": 1353113213,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "When you see the words "San Francisco sheriff" these days, your mind tends to reflexively go to this topic. Here's something different, though not really better. SF District Attorney George Gascón said of the alleged robbery, "San Franciscans expect the men and women in uniform to uphold the laws and protect our residents." That's one",
"title": "San Francisco Sheriff's Deputy's Charged in Bank Robbery Case | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "San Francisco Sheriff's Deputy's Charged in Bank Robbery Case",
"datePublished": "2012-11-16T16:19:37-08:00",
"dateModified": "2012-11-16T16:46:53-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "san-francisco-sheriffs-deputys-charged-in-bank-robbery-case",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/80609/san-francisco-sheriffs-deputys-charged-in-bank-robbery-case",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>When you see the words \"San Francisco sheriff\" these days, your mind tends to reflexively \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Mirkarimi-refuses-to-yield-oversight-4042630.php\" target=\"_blank\">go to this topic\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's something different, though not really better. SF District Attorney George Gascón said of the alleged robbery, \"San Franciscans expect the men and women in uniform to uphold the laws and protect our residents.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That's one way to express it. Another way might have been: \"San Franciscans expect men and women in uniform to not go out and, you know, \u003cem>rob a bank\u003c/em>.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keeping in mind it's all still alleged, of course.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Story from Bay City News:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>SAN FRANCISCO (BCN) A San Francisco sheriff's deputy has been charged with felony robbery and burglary charges in connection with a bank robbery in the city's Outer Richmond neighborhood earlier this month, prosecutors said today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Philip Chun Tong, 36, was arrested this morning in the 400 block of Seventh Street by San Francisco police in connection with the Nov. 7 robbery at a Bank of America branch at 3701 Balboa St. \u003c!--more-->Sheriff's spokeswoman Susan Fahey confirmed that Tong is a sworn deputy with the department.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tong allegedly entered the bank around 4:50 p.m. and handed a teller a note demanding money, according to police. The note said the suspect had a weapon, but no weapon was displayed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The teller handed over around $1,700 in cash and Tong left on foot, according to the district attorney's office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Police identified Tong as a suspect in the robbery using video surveillance and his fingerprints, which were found on the demand note, prosecutors said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He has been charged with one count of robbery and one count of burglary, both felonies, prosecutors said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>District Attorney George Gascon condemned Tong's alleged actions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"San Franciscans expect the men and woman in uniform to uphold the laws and protect our residents,\" Gascon said in a statement. \"Mr. Tong's conduct is deplorable and will be met with serious consequences.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Fahey said Tong will be suspended pending an investigation into the case and will be placed on unpaid leave.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/80609/san-francisco-sheriffs-deputys-charged-in-bank-robbery-case",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_1973"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_80516": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_80516",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "80516",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1353095246000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1353095246,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "California AG Holds Human Trafficking Symposium",
"title": "California AG Holds Human Trafficking Symposium",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_80524\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 216px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Kamala-Harris-by-Kevin-Winter-Getty-Images-1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-80524\" title=\"Public Counsel's William O. Douglas Award Dinner - Inside\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Kamala-Harris-by-Kevin-Winter-Getty-Images-1-216x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"216\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Kamala Harris (Kevin Winter/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Traffickers are buying and selling hundreds of people in California, according to a report by the attorney general's office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Attorney General Kamala Harris held a symposium on that topic on Friday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In \u003ca href=\"https://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking/2012/letter-executive\">a report\u003c/a>, the department gives its best estimates of the extent of these crimes. A task force identified 1,277 victims from mid 2010 to mid 2012 and arrested 1,798 suspects.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Contrary to popular perception, the report says, most of the victims seem to be American. Of those whose country of origin could be identified, 72% were born in the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California differs from other regions, the researchers found. Worldwide, there are 3.5 times as many people sold for labor as for sex, but in California 56 percent of the victims were exploited for sex.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Proposition 35, an initiative to increase penalties for human trafficking, passed overwhelmingly on Nov. 6, but has been \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/election2012/2012/11/08/aclu-eff-challenge-human-trafficking-proposition-in-court/\">blocked by a lawsuit\u003c/a>. The American Civil Liberties Union and others object to provisions in the law requiring sex offenders to give out personal information.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "80516 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=80516",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/16/live-california-ag-holds-human-trafficking-symposium/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 182,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 8
},
"modified": 1353111153,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Traffickers are buying and selling hundreds of people in California, according to a report by the attorney general's office. Attorney General Kamala Harris held a symposium on that topic on Friday. In a report, the department gives its best estimates of the extent of these crimes. A task force identified 1,277 victims from mid 2010",
"title": "California AG Holds Human Trafficking Symposium | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California AG Holds Human Trafficking Symposium",
"datePublished": "2012-11-16T11:47:26-08:00",
"dateModified": "2012-11-16T16:12:33-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "live-california-ag-holds-human-trafficking-symposium",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/80516/live-california-ag-holds-human-trafficking-symposium",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_80524\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 216px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Kamala-Harris-by-Kevin-Winter-Getty-Images-1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-80524\" title=\"Public Counsel's William O. Douglas Award Dinner - Inside\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Kamala-Harris-by-Kevin-Winter-Getty-Images-1-216x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"216\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Kamala Harris (Kevin Winter/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Traffickers are buying and selling hundreds of people in California, according to a report by the attorney general's office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Attorney General Kamala Harris held a symposium on that topic on Friday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In \u003ca href=\"https://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking/2012/letter-executive\">a report\u003c/a>, the department gives its best estimates of the extent of these crimes. A task force identified 1,277 victims from mid 2010 to mid 2012 and arrested 1,798 suspects.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Contrary to popular perception, the report says, most of the victims seem to be American. Of those whose country of origin could be identified, 72% were born in the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California differs from other regions, the researchers found. Worldwide, there are 3.5 times as many people sold for labor as for sex, but in California 56 percent of the victims were exploited for sex.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Proposition 35, an initiative to increase penalties for human trafficking, passed overwhelmingly on Nov. 6, but has been \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/election2012/2012/11/08/aclu-eff-challenge-human-trafficking-proposition-in-court/\">blocked by a lawsuit\u003c/a>. The American Civil Liberties Union and others object to provisions in the law requiring sex offenders to give out personal information.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/80516/live-california-ag-holds-human-trafficking-symposium",
"authors": [
"1367"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_18538",
"news_685"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_80397": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_80397",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "80397",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1353020877000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1353020877,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Oakland Police Face Possible Takeover in 2 Weeks",
"title": "Oakland Police Face Possible Takeover in 2 Weeks",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson is running out of patience. In a Nov. 14 order, he has given the city of Oakland just two more weeks to reach an agreement with the very same folks who sued the city over police misconduct during the Riders scandal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_80417\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Jean-Quan-Howard-Jordan.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-80417\" title=\"Mayor Jean Quan Holds Press Conference On Occupy Oakland Protests\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Jean-Quan-Howard-Jordan-300x197.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"197\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan and Mayor Jean Quan (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)by reaching an agreement with the very same folks who sued the city over these violations.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>After that, it looks quite possible that he will appoint a federal receiver to run the police department, a takeover that would be unprecedented in the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But University of California Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring says the judge is sincerely eager for some way to avoid taking over the department.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"There is no real subtlety to the impatience that the court is expressing,\" said Zimring. \"But what Judge Henderson is doing here is acknowledging the administrative difficulties that would be involved with a receivership and trying to dodge that bullet by getting some real negotiated change.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The city has until Nov. 29 to reach an agreement with the plaintiffs in the civil rights lawsuit against it. After that, Henderson has scheduled a Dec. 13 hearing on whether to appoint a federal receiver who would run the department. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The city agreed in 2003 to dozens of changes in management and training intended to end brutality, false arrests and other abuses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Over and over since then, Henderson has blasted the department for dragging its feet in completing these reforms. On Oct. 4 the attorneys who first sued the city in 2000 asked the judge to appoint a receiver.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The city responded by suggesting it hire a new compliance director who would serve under the chief of police. In his order on Thursday, Henderson dismissed the suggestion. \"Either the position is unnecessary and would result in wasted resources, or it is necessary and the failure to adopt such a position earlier indicates a lack of leadership or will.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca title=\"View District Court Judge Thelton Henderson's Nov. 14 order to the Oakland Police. on Scribd\" href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/113418275/District-Court-Judge-Thelton-Henderson-s-Nov-14-order-to-the-Oakland-Police\">District Court Judge Thelton Henderson's Nov. 14 order to the Oakland Police.\u003c/a>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/113418275/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\u003cbr>\nNow he's telling the city to come up with a new settlement that will satisfy the plaintiffs by Nov. 29.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After that comes a Dec. 13 hearing in which the judge will consider the motion to appoint a receiver.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Why not just put a receiver in place?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Once receivership happens what shape it takes and who well it works is going to depend on these same parties negotiating both management strategies and the investment of resources and whatever accountability that effort is going to have back to the court,\" Zimring said. \"So what we mean when something is unprecedented we mean that we're not sure how it's going to work.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The closest precedent would be the takeover of a department of corrections, but running prisons is very different from policing streets, he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the Los Angeles Police Department was able to successfully reform after the Rampart scandal of the late 1990s in which officers were accused of similar abuses, Zimring said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Zimring thinks the police have not made reform a priority. \"The delay game has probably been for a long time an intentional part of the department's relationship to the lawsuit,\" he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The department has \u003ca href=\"http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/getting-away-with-murder/Content?oid=3390191&showFullText=true\">struggled\u003c/a> with rising rates of life-threatening violence at the same time that the economic crisis has constrained its budget.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "80397 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=80397",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/15/oakland-police-face-possible-takeover-in-2-weeks/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 575,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 18
},
"modified": 1398733257,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson is running out of patience. In a Nov. 14 order, he has given the city of Oakland just two more weeks to reach an agreement with the very same folks who sued the city over police misconduct during the Riders scandal. After that, it looks quite possible that he will",
"title": "Oakland Police Face Possible Takeover in 2 Weeks | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Oakland Police Face Possible Takeover in 2 Weeks",
"datePublished": "2012-11-15T15:07:57-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:57-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "oakland-police-face-possible-takeover-in-2-weeks",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/80397/oakland-police-face-possible-takeover-in-2-weeks",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson is running out of patience. In a Nov. 14 order, he has given the city of Oakland just two more weeks to reach an agreement with the very same folks who sued the city over police misconduct during the Riders scandal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_80417\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Jean-Quan-Howard-Jordan.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-80417\" title=\"Mayor Jean Quan Holds Press Conference On Occupy Oakland Protests\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Jean-Quan-Howard-Jordan-300x197.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"197\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan and Mayor Jean Quan (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)by reaching an agreement with the very same folks who sued the city over these violations.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>After that, it looks quite possible that he will appoint a federal receiver to run the police department, a takeover that would be unprecedented in the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But University of California Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring says the judge is sincerely eager for some way to avoid taking over the department.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"There is no real subtlety to the impatience that the court is expressing,\" said Zimring. \"But what Judge Henderson is doing here is acknowledging the administrative difficulties that would be involved with a receivership and trying to dodge that bullet by getting some real negotiated change.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The city has until Nov. 29 to reach an agreement with the plaintiffs in the civil rights lawsuit against it. After that, Henderson has scheduled a Dec. 13 hearing on whether to appoint a federal receiver who would run the department. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The city agreed in 2003 to dozens of changes in management and training intended to end brutality, false arrests and other abuses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Over and over since then, Henderson has blasted the department for dragging its feet in completing these reforms. On Oct. 4 the attorneys who first sued the city in 2000 asked the judge to appoint a receiver.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The city responded by suggesting it hire a new compliance director who would serve under the chief of police. In his order on Thursday, Henderson dismissed the suggestion. \"Either the position is unnecessary and would result in wasted resources, or it is necessary and the failure to adopt such a position earlier indicates a lack of leadership or will.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca title=\"View District Court Judge Thelton Henderson's Nov. 14 order to the Oakland Police. on Scribd\" href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/113418275/District-Court-Judge-Thelton-Henderson-s-Nov-14-order-to-the-Oakland-Police\">District Court Judge Thelton Henderson's Nov. 14 order to the Oakland Police.\u003c/a>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/113418275/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\u003cbr>\nNow he's telling the city to come up with a new settlement that will satisfy the plaintiffs by Nov. 29.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After that comes a Dec. 13 hearing in which the judge will consider the motion to appoint a receiver.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Why not just put a receiver in place?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Once receivership happens what shape it takes and who well it works is going to depend on these same parties negotiating both management strategies and the investment of resources and whatever accountability that effort is going to have back to the court,\" Zimring said. \"So what we mean when something is unprecedented we mean that we're not sure how it's going to work.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The closest precedent would be the takeover of a department of corrections, but running prisons is very different from policing streets, he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the Los Angeles Police Department was able to successfully reform after the Rampart scandal of the late 1990s in which officers were accused of similar abuses, Zimring said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Zimring thinks the police have not made reform a priority. \"The delay game has probably been for a long time an intentional part of the department's relationship to the lawsuit,\" he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The department has \u003ca href=\"http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/getting-away-with-murder/Content?oid=3390191&showFullText=true\">struggled\u003c/a> with rising rates of life-threatening violence at the same time that the economic crisis has constrained its budget.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/80397/oakland-police-face-possible-takeover-in-2-weeks",
"authors": [
"1367"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_18",
"news_116",
"news_3470"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_80381": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_80381",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "80381",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1353005525000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1353005525,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Embezzlement, Scam Shatter Venerable Vanguard Foundation",
"title": "Embezzlement, Scam Shatter Venerable Vanguard Foundation",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>by Shoshana Walter \u003ca href=\"http://www.baycitizen.org/philanthropy/story/embezzlement-scam-shatter-venerable/\">The Bay Citizen\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Vanguard Public Foundation was once a social justice leader in one of the country’s most active nonprofit scenes. The organization funded San Francisco’s massive Iraq War protests in 2003 and financed the first battered women’s shelter in the state. But its last cause was lining the pockets of a Belvedere millionaire.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_80382\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Tracy-Gary-The-Bay-Citizen.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-80382\" title=\"Tracy Gary The Bay Citizen\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Tracy-Gary-The-Bay-Citizen-300x199.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"199\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Tracy Gary, one of the original members of the Vanguard collective. ( Michael Short/The Bay Citizen )\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The 40-year-old\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>Bay Area foundation officially shut down last year after falling victim to an elaborate financial scam by Israeli entrepreneur Samuel “Mouli” Cohen. Cohen swindled more than $30 million from Vanguard donors. In April, he was \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515165-governments-sentencing-memorandum.html\">sentenced\u003c/a> in a federal court to 22 years in prison. In exchange for the testimony that put Cohen behind bars, Hari Dillon, Vanguard’s president, \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515159-dillonplea.html\">pleaded guilty\u003c/a> to money laundering and wire fraud. Dillon’s sentencing is set for December.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The criminal convictions for Cohen, 54, and Dillon, 64, represent the denouement for the foundation after years of infighting and suspicion among its members over its finances. A derelict board of directors stood by as Vanguard crumbled. Now, former staff and board members are coming to grips with the facts of Vanguard’s demise.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515161-cohentestimony1.html\">Hundreds of\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515162-cohentestimony2.html\">pages of\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515163-cohentestimony3.html\">court documents\u003c/a>, financial records and interviews with former board members and staff reveal that the storied foundation’s collapse was caused as much by Cohen and his greedy scheme as the charismatic president who fell for it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Board members put all their faith in Dillon, and Dillon put all his faith in Cohen, who eagerly spent their millions on expensive cars, European vacations and private concerts featuring Grammy Award winners. The details of lavish spending, embezzlement and fraud have sent shudders through the nonprofit world.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Long before he met Cohen, Dillon aspired to transform Vanguard from a little-known grassroots group into a vehicle for fame and social change. The progressive star invested millions of would-be Vanguard funds in high-risk ventures, using Vanguard’s top donors as personal bankers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While Vanguard led major star-studded campaigns against racial profiling and the Iraq War, Dillon used Vanguard’s office as the headquarters for his personal investment group. On his watch, millions disappeared, court records show. By the time Dillon met Cohen, several of Vanguard’s board members and wealthiest donors were ready to embrace Cohen’s offer of money and power in the name of Vanguard’s mission to eradicate poverty and racism.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 13-member board did nothing to stop it, officials with the nonprofit acknowledge.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“(Dillon)\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>had this vision of moving massive amounts of money into social justice work and really having the Bay Area be a bastion of social justice and social change, with him at the head of it,” said Kim Klein, who first joined Vanguard in 1978 and left around 1992, when Dillon was hired.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But she said Dillon “really was a victim of blind ambition.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tracy Gary, one of the original members of the Vanguard collective and an heir to the Pillsbury fortune, said Dillon was responsible for the foundation’s downfall. “But so, too, was the culture that all of us created,” Gary said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515160-haricivilsuit.html\">besieged by civil suits\u003c/a>, Dillon said in an interview that he has bounced from home to home for more than a year. On Independence Day this year, he sat in an aging Cow Hollow motel room, surrounded by copious notes, boxes of paper and the few belongings that aren’t locked in a storage space he can no longer afford.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It’s unquestionably a catastrophic tragedy with enormous proportions,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When the foundation began as a collective in 1972, it was one of the first of its kind: a philanthropic organization founded by young heirs and heiresses, including the Pillsbury and DuPont families, who wanted to contribute their inheritances to progressive economic and social causes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Vanguard sparked a movement of community-based philanthropy,” said Gary, a former board member. “The vast majority of the progressive organizations in the Bay Area got their first $5,000 donations, their seed money, from the Vanguard foundation.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Vanguard inspired others with inheritances to establish similar organizations throughout the country, becoming a founding member of the countrywide network of progressive philanthropic organizations called the Funding Exchange. The foundations were the first to give community organizers and activists equal decision-making power.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Vanguard, back in the good old days, was one of the originals,” said Geoff Green, executive director of The Fund for Santa Barbara, who served as a co-chairman of the board of directors at the Funding Exchange.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Dillon met Vanguard co-founder Peter Stern in 1990. At the time, the organization had recently disbanded its original collective and was interested in hiring new leadership. Dillon had the right credentials for the job.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He made a name for himself in progressive politics in the ’60s, when he was jailed while leading the first Third World student strike at San Francisco State University, then called San Francisco State College. The protests led to the first black studies department in the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While a student activist, Dillon forged a friendship with Danny Glover, the actor who would become famous for his roles in the movies “Lethal Weapon” and “The Color Purple,” and for\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>his liberal\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>activism. Dillon’s roster of celebrity endorsements, booming voice and effusive politics won over Vanguard’s mainly white donors and board members.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Flashy events\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From the get-go, former board members said, Dillon seemed prone to flashy events that attracted attention, but also required a lot of money. Some board members lauded his leadership, while others found his actions inappropriate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Many of the board members “felt a lot of shame and guilt” about their inheritances, said Chela Blitt, a former donor whose fortune came from her father’s shopping mall empire. She said she became involved in Vanguard to transfer the power of her money to the people working actively on social change.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In one of his first attempts to bridge divides with the black community, Dillon raised $275,000 for a fundraiser for the renovation of the Bayview Opera House. But former staff and board members said he overspent on the party, leaving nothing for the historic community center until a donor agreed to pitch in a few thousand dollars more.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 1993, Dillon threw Vanguard’s 20\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> anniversary celebration in the ballroom at the Hyatt Regency, flying in keynote speaker Harry Belafonte, actress Whoopi Goldberg, author Alice Walker and performers Carlos Santana and Joan Baez, some on private jets.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It became such a huge thing. Everybody was there. (Politician) Willie Brown was there. The whole freaking town was there,” Dillon said in an interview. “That’s the way these things work. You get your star headliner, and if you’re good, you break even. If you’re not so good, you lose money. Events generate friends, not funds.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Soon after South African civil rights leader Nelson Mandela’s release from prison, Dillon arranged a trip to South Africa for himself and other anti-apartheid activists and had $40,000 of Vanguard money wired to his personal account. Dillon said that the funds were used for armed security, drivers and group meals and that he had Vanguard donors agree to pay the money back.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But before the trip ended, a staff member alerted the board to the transaction, and when Dillon returned to California, he urged board members to consider the importance of Vanguard’s participation in the celebration of the downfall of apartheid, as a way to further its political cause of racial and economic equality.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some board members “felt they would be accused of being traitors to the movement if they went against this. How could you be the person to say that it is not OK to be doing something in South Africa during this period of time?” said Leslie Wozniak, sister of\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and a donor and board member at the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It was done in an underhanded way. It was never presented to the board as something that should have been done. He just decided he could do whatever he wanted with the money,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Over time, former staff members said Dillon began to have strawberries and newspapers delivered to the office, hired a personal driver and paid for expensive hotel stays, dinners and private jets.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Dillon first began talking to Vanguard donors about investing in tech startups in 1997, through board member and donor Rob McKay, a Taco Bell heir who ran a venture capital firm. Some of the investments paid off. By 2000, the group had begun to send fewer and fewer appeals for donations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meeting with Cohen\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 2002, actor Glover introduced Dillon to Mouli Cohen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Charismatic and dapper, Cohen touted his successful entrepreneurial endeavors, including the tech startup Ecast, a digital jukebox service for bars and nightclubs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He hosted parties at his mansion in Belvedere, where he regaled potential investors with stories of his financial prowess\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>and\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>entertained\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>with\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>elaborate meals served by butlers and wait staff.\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>He led tours\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>through his personal art gallery, which included reproductions of Matisse and Picasso paintings that Cohen claimed were originals. Federal authorities said Cohen had hired a professional artist to reproduce the masterpieces, including fake gallery labels, in exchange for fake Ecast stock.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cohen told Glover and Dillon that he thought highly of Vanguard and wanted to give back to his community. He offered them an opportunity: Within six months, he said, Ecast would be acquired by Microsoft, a deal that would make him millions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cohen said he was willing to sell them some of his founder’s shares, but he warned they could not share news of this deal with anyone until it became official; the deal was tantamount to insider trading.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Dillon almost immediately agreed, court records show. So did\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>Glover, who did not respond to requests for comment for this article. Dillon asked Vanguard donors to pitch in $6.2 million with the assurance from Cohen that their funds would grow to $60 million. Emboldened by some of their previous successful investments, the donors and board\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>members were excited about the possibility of generating such large funds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cohen promised the money would come any day, so Dillon financed some of the foundation’s work with a 15-month interest-free loan for $1.5 million with the Mission Area Federal Credit Union, a community development financial institution, according to court records. Cohen also introduced Dillon to an investor, Joseph Ettinger, who promised to contribute $4 million.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But by August 2003, Cohen’s deal still had yet to come to fruition, and the promised funds had not arrived. Tax records show the foundation began racking up a deficit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“ ‘Don’t worry, Hari. Relax, Hari.’ I heard that a million times at the time, and things would be happening very soon on both fronts,” Dillon said Cohen told him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>By December 2003, Cohen had begun a new project and offered Dillon and other Vanguard donors a chance to invest. Concerned about dwindling funds, Dillon declined the opportunity, so Cohen suggested putting money into a trust. Dillon raised $800,000 and sent the money to Cohen’s lawyers. He expected Cohen to give the donors $2.4 million in return. That never came.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In March 2004, Cohen said Microsoft had put the acquisition of Ecast on the back burner\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>to focus on the potential acquisition of Google. To help the investors during\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>the delay, he offered to give them shares of his new company, Dillon testified.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“He said that that was a gift to us because we were a nonprofit and also because it had taken longer than he had originally projected,” Dillon said in court testimony.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Dillon and the donors accepted the shares, but the delays kept coming. By April 2005, Cohen said the acquisition was completed and just needed approval from the Department of Justice. After the department’s approval, Cohen said the deal needed approval from the European Union, Dillon testified.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Finally, Cohen said the group needed to pay bonds and fees to finalize the deal. With donors growing weary of the extra costs, the group asked others to get involved. More than 40 people associated with Vanguard – working professionals, friends and family – poured an additional $22 million into the venture, federal authorities said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At a meeting at Cohen’s home on Nov. 28, 2005, donors told Cohen they could no longer afford to send money. He said if they backed out now, they would lose their stake in the deal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I remember him specifically saying – because he was, like, a little irritated with us – he specifically said, ‘You’re playing with the big boys now,’ ” testified Sam Mills, a major Vanguard donor who sent Cohen more than $13 million. He would lose several homes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cohen assured them that a final $500,000 was all he needed. But in January, five weeks later, he was sent $1.5 million. Three weeks after that, an additional $1.19 million. He convinced the donors that a payoff was imminent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Events continue as Vanguard struggles\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the meantime, Vanguard sponsored lavish events.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At a Vanguard party honoring Ahmed Kathrada, a South African activist, Cohen and Dillon hobnobbed with luminaries, including\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>former Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, activist Dolores Huerta and the Rev.\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>Cecil Williams, leader of San Francisco’s Glide community church. The same year, Dillon threw a 20\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> anniversary celebration for the Funding Exchange and all of its members. Geoff Green, then a co-chairman of the board, was in attendance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“That was before any of this stuff came out. All I knew was that there was this wildly successful organization in my home region,” he said. “He had the star power and activists there. It felt great.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Vanguard and Dillon were desperate for cash. According to financial records, Susanna Moore, a prominent local philanthropist and board member at the time, loaned Dillon $200,000 to purchase a home. Donor Janet Kranzberg loaned Dillon $1.3 million for a home for his son and aunt, which Dillon then used for other items, including additional investments, designer clothing, expensive restaurant meals and $10,000 audio equipment, according to court records. After she sued, Dillon repaid Kranzberg with a $500,000 settlement. Jane Segal, another donor, loaned Dillon close to $6 million. All three women were invested in the fake Ecast deal, according to court records.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to his plea agreement, Dillon also admitted to skimming $2.5 million from payments donors made to Cohen. He told prosecutors that he used the stolen funds to pay off his American Express bills and planned to pay the donors back with profits from the Ecast deal. Many former donors suspect Dillon of stealing even more.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Grants go unfilled\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Vanguard continued to announce awards of small but crucial sums to groups such as Filipino Advocates for Justice and People Organizing to Demand Environmental & Economic Rights. But as early as 2004, many organizations said they never saw the money they were promised. In a letter sent in 2006, the same year Vanguard donated $200,000 to Glover and Belafonte’s Hurricane Katrina efforts, a group of local organizations pleaded with the board to stop issuing new grant letters until prior grants were paid “in full.” Vanguard’s board of directors had stopped meeting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>By 2007, word had spread among foundations across the country that Vanguard was failing to fill grants. Questions about missing funds prompted the Funding Exchange to cast Vanguard, one of its founding members, out of the network.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In an email dated July 28, 2008, some board members admitted they had been negligent in their oversight of Dillon and Vanguard. In the frenzied meetings that followed, they discussed placing Dillon on administrative leave to “look proactive,” brainstormed ways of escaping liability and estimated that the organization owed more than $1 million to the IRS, donors and organizations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Can’t approach this like we’re saintly now,” said board member Cobie Harris, a political science associate professor at San Jose State University.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“On our watch it seems to have withered away,” four board members wrote to Dillon and the rest of the board in 2008. “We should mirror the kind of accountability that we expect from our grantees.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Meanwhile, Cohen was using Vanguard’s money to fund what U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer would call an “obscene lifestyle.” Over the years, he spent more than $6 million on private jets, $1.4 million on a diamond ring and more than $600,000 on a Rolls-Royce and Aston Martin. Cohen continued to insist the deal was still on when Dillon asked him to reconsider the Vanguard donors’ investment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I told him that our group was in dire straits and that Vanguard was in dire straits, and the second tier was in dire straits, and that at this point , it was impacting the group in the community that relied on support from Vanguard, and we had to be bought out,” he testified.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When Cohen continued to offer more excuses for the delay, Dillon broke their confidentiality agreement and asked McKay, the former board member who runs a venture capital firm, to meet with an Ecast executive. McKay learned that the deal had never existed and that Ecast had severed ties with Cohen in 2000.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Last year, the IRS revoked Vanguard’s nonprofit status.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“What we are really, really discussing here is betrayal to a community,” Beth Rosales, who preceded Dillon as Vanguard’s leader, said at a June 9 meeting of concerned former board members and donors. “And a betrayal that has caused some of us to have lost faith in the community.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some former board members and donors said they want to sue on behalf of the unpaid grantees. Others want to reconcile with the board members who seemed to fall down on the job, including Vanguard co-founder Peter Stern, among others. But they remain most angry with Dillon.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I would see Hari and Danny leading the anti-war march with fists raised and feel sick to my stomach. Who was I to criticize? Here they were leading the parade. Who was I?” former board member Wozniak said. “When you have a certain aura, when you surround yourself with the language of social justice, you can easily use that as a smoke screen for personal ambition.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, former Vanguard supporters began raising money to fill at least 24 unpaid grants. The money, the supporters promised, will go only to the grants.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Reyhan Harmanci contributed to this report. This story was edited by Robert Salladay and Mark Katches and copy edited by Nikki Frick and Christine Lee. It was produced by The Bay Citizen, a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting. Learn more at www.baycitizen.org.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "80381 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=80381",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/15/embezzlement-scam-shatter-venerable-vanguard-foundation/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 3271,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 74
},
"modified": 1353020708,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "by Shoshana Walter The Bay Citizen The Vanguard Public Foundation was once a social justice leader in one of the country’s most active nonprofit scenes. The organization funded San Francisco’s massive Iraq War protests in 2003 and financed the first battered women’s shelter in the state. But its last cause was lining the pockets of",
"title": "Embezzlement, Scam Shatter Venerable Vanguard Foundation | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Embezzlement, Scam Shatter Venerable Vanguard Foundation",
"datePublished": "2012-11-15T10:52:05-08:00",
"dateModified": "2012-11-15T15:05:08-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "embezzlement-scam-shatter-venerable-vanguard-foundation",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/80381/embezzlement-scam-shatter-venerable-vanguard-foundation",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>by Shoshana Walter \u003ca href=\"http://www.baycitizen.org/philanthropy/story/embezzlement-scam-shatter-venerable/\">The Bay Citizen\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Vanguard Public Foundation was once a social justice leader in one of the country’s most active nonprofit scenes. The organization funded San Francisco’s massive Iraq War protests in 2003 and financed the first battered women’s shelter in the state. But its last cause was lining the pockets of a Belvedere millionaire.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_80382\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Tracy-Gary-The-Bay-Citizen.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-80382\" title=\"Tracy Gary The Bay Citizen\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Tracy-Gary-The-Bay-Citizen-300x199.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"199\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Tracy Gary, one of the original members of the Vanguard collective. ( Michael Short/The Bay Citizen )\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The 40-year-old\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>Bay Area foundation officially shut down last year after falling victim to an elaborate financial scam by Israeli entrepreneur Samuel “Mouli” Cohen. Cohen swindled more than $30 million from Vanguard donors. In April, he was \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515165-governments-sentencing-memorandum.html\">sentenced\u003c/a> in a federal court to 22 years in prison. In exchange for the testimony that put Cohen behind bars, Hari Dillon, Vanguard’s president, \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515159-dillonplea.html\">pleaded guilty\u003c/a> to money laundering and wire fraud. Dillon’s sentencing is set for December.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The criminal convictions for Cohen, 54, and Dillon, 64, represent the denouement for the foundation after years of infighting and suspicion among its members over its finances. A derelict board of directors stood by as Vanguard crumbled. Now, former staff and board members are coming to grips with the facts of Vanguard’s demise.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515161-cohentestimony1.html\">Hundreds of\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515162-cohentestimony2.html\">pages of\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515163-cohentestimony3.html\">court documents\u003c/a>, financial records and interviews with former board members and staff reveal that the storied foundation’s collapse was caused as much by Cohen and his greedy scheme as the charismatic president who fell for it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Board members put all their faith in Dillon, and Dillon put all his faith in Cohen, who eagerly spent their millions on expensive cars, European vacations and private concerts featuring Grammy Award winners. The details of lavish spending, embezzlement and fraud have sent shudders through the nonprofit world.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Long before he met Cohen, Dillon aspired to transform Vanguard from a little-known grassroots group into a vehicle for fame and social change. The progressive star invested millions of would-be Vanguard funds in high-risk ventures, using Vanguard’s top donors as personal bankers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While Vanguard led major star-studded campaigns against racial profiling and the Iraq War, Dillon used Vanguard’s office as the headquarters for his personal investment group. On his watch, millions disappeared, court records show. By the time Dillon met Cohen, several of Vanguard’s board members and wealthiest donors were ready to embrace Cohen’s offer of money and power in the name of Vanguard’s mission to eradicate poverty and racism.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 13-member board did nothing to stop it, officials with the nonprofit acknowledge.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“(Dillon)\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>had this vision of moving massive amounts of money into social justice work and really having the Bay Area be a bastion of social justice and social change, with him at the head of it,” said Kim Klein, who first joined Vanguard in 1978 and left around 1992, when Dillon was hired.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But she said Dillon “really was a victim of blind ambition.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tracy Gary, one of the original members of the Vanguard collective and an heir to the Pillsbury fortune, said Dillon was responsible for the foundation’s downfall. “But so, too, was the culture that all of us created,” Gary said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now \u003ca href=\"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/515160-haricivilsuit.html\">besieged by civil suits\u003c/a>, Dillon said in an interview that he has bounced from home to home for more than a year. On Independence Day this year, he sat in an aging Cow Hollow motel room, surrounded by copious notes, boxes of paper and the few belongings that aren’t locked in a storage space he can no longer afford.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It’s unquestionably a catastrophic tragedy with enormous proportions,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When the foundation began as a collective in 1972, it was one of the first of its kind: a philanthropic organization founded by young heirs and heiresses, including the Pillsbury and DuPont families, who wanted to contribute their inheritances to progressive economic and social causes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Vanguard sparked a movement of community-based philanthropy,” said Gary, a former board member. “The vast majority of the progressive organizations in the Bay Area got their first $5,000 donations, their seed money, from the Vanguard foundation.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Vanguard inspired others with inheritances to establish similar organizations throughout the country, becoming a founding member of the countrywide network of progressive philanthropic organizations called the Funding Exchange. The foundations were the first to give community organizers and activists equal decision-making power.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Vanguard, back in the good old days, was one of the originals,” said Geoff Green, executive director of The Fund for Santa Barbara, who served as a co-chairman of the board of directors at the Funding Exchange.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Dillon met Vanguard co-founder Peter Stern in 1990. At the time, the organization had recently disbanded its original collective and was interested in hiring new leadership. Dillon had the right credentials for the job.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He made a name for himself in progressive politics in the ’60s, when he was jailed while leading the first Third World student strike at San Francisco State University, then called San Francisco State College. The protests led to the first black studies department in the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While a student activist, Dillon forged a friendship with Danny Glover, the actor who would become famous for his roles in the movies “Lethal Weapon” and “The Color Purple,” and for\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>his liberal\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>activism. Dillon’s roster of celebrity endorsements, booming voice and effusive politics won over Vanguard’s mainly white donors and board members.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Flashy events\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From the get-go, former board members said, Dillon seemed prone to flashy events that attracted attention, but also required a lot of money. Some board members lauded his leadership, while others found his actions inappropriate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Many of the board members “felt a lot of shame and guilt” about their inheritances, said Chela Blitt, a former donor whose fortune came from her father’s shopping mall empire. She said she became involved in Vanguard to transfer the power of her money to the people working actively on social change.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In one of his first attempts to bridge divides with the black community, Dillon raised $275,000 for a fundraiser for the renovation of the Bayview Opera House. But former staff and board members said he overspent on the party, leaving nothing for the historic community center until a donor agreed to pitch in a few thousand dollars more.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 1993, Dillon threw Vanguard’s 20\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> anniversary celebration in the ballroom at the Hyatt Regency, flying in keynote speaker Harry Belafonte, actress Whoopi Goldberg, author Alice Walker and performers Carlos Santana and Joan Baez, some on private jets.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It became such a huge thing. Everybody was there. (Politician) Willie Brown was there. The whole freaking town was there,” Dillon said in an interview. “That’s the way these things work. You get your star headliner, and if you’re good, you break even. If you’re not so good, you lose money. Events generate friends, not funds.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Soon after South African civil rights leader Nelson Mandela’s release from prison, Dillon arranged a trip to South Africa for himself and other anti-apartheid activists and had $40,000 of Vanguard money wired to his personal account. Dillon said that the funds were used for armed security, drivers and group meals and that he had Vanguard donors agree to pay the money back.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But before the trip ended, a staff member alerted the board to the transaction, and when Dillon returned to California, he urged board members to consider the importance of Vanguard’s participation in the celebration of the downfall of apartheid, as a way to further its political cause of racial and economic equality.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some board members “felt they would be accused of being traitors to the movement if they went against this. How could you be the person to say that it is not OK to be doing something in South Africa during this period of time?” said Leslie Wozniak, sister of\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and a donor and board member at the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It was done in an underhanded way. It was never presented to the board as something that should have been done. He just decided he could do whatever he wanted with the money,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Over time, former staff members said Dillon began to have strawberries and newspapers delivered to the office, hired a personal driver and paid for expensive hotel stays, dinners and private jets.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Dillon first began talking to Vanguard donors about investing in tech startups in 1997, through board member and donor Rob McKay, a Taco Bell heir who ran a venture capital firm. Some of the investments paid off. By 2000, the group had begun to send fewer and fewer appeals for donations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meeting with Cohen\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 2002, actor Glover introduced Dillon to Mouli Cohen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Charismatic and dapper, Cohen touted his successful entrepreneurial endeavors, including the tech startup Ecast, a digital jukebox service for bars and nightclubs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He hosted parties at his mansion in Belvedere, where he regaled potential investors with stories of his financial prowess\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>and\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>entertained\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>with\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>elaborate meals served by butlers and wait staff.\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>He led tours\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>through his personal art gallery, which included reproductions of Matisse and Picasso paintings that Cohen claimed were originals. Federal authorities said Cohen had hired a professional artist to reproduce the masterpieces, including fake gallery labels, in exchange for fake Ecast stock.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cohen told Glover and Dillon that he thought highly of Vanguard and wanted to give back to his community. He offered them an opportunity: Within six months, he said, Ecast would be acquired by Microsoft, a deal that would make him millions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cohen said he was willing to sell them some of his founder’s shares, but he warned they could not share news of this deal with anyone until it became official; the deal was tantamount to insider trading.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Dillon almost immediately agreed, court records show. So did\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>Glover, who did not respond to requests for comment for this article. Dillon asked Vanguard donors to pitch in $6.2 million with the assurance from Cohen that their funds would grow to $60 million. Emboldened by some of their previous successful investments, the donors and board\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>members were excited about the possibility of generating such large funds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cohen promised the money would come any day, so Dillon financed some of the foundation’s work with a 15-month interest-free loan for $1.5 million with the Mission Area Federal Credit Union, a community development financial institution, according to court records. Cohen also introduced Dillon to an investor, Joseph Ettinger, who promised to contribute $4 million.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But by August 2003, Cohen’s deal still had yet to come to fruition, and the promised funds had not arrived. Tax records show the foundation began racking up a deficit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“ ‘Don’t worry, Hari. Relax, Hari.’ I heard that a million times at the time, and things would be happening very soon on both fronts,” Dillon said Cohen told him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>By December 2003, Cohen had begun a new project and offered Dillon and other Vanguard donors a chance to invest. Concerned about dwindling funds, Dillon declined the opportunity, so Cohen suggested putting money into a trust. Dillon raised $800,000 and sent the money to Cohen’s lawyers. He expected Cohen to give the donors $2.4 million in return. That never came.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In March 2004, Cohen said Microsoft had put the acquisition of Ecast on the back burner\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>to focus on the potential acquisition of Google. To help the investors during\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>the delay, he offered to give them shares of his new company, Dillon testified.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“He said that that was a gift to us because we were a nonprofit and also because it had taken longer than he had originally projected,” Dillon said in court testimony.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Dillon and the donors accepted the shares, but the delays kept coming. By April 2005, Cohen said the acquisition was completed and just needed approval from the Department of Justice. After the department’s approval, Cohen said the deal needed approval from the European Union, Dillon testified.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Finally, Cohen said the group needed to pay bonds and fees to finalize the deal. With donors growing weary of the extra costs, the group asked others to get involved. More than 40 people associated with Vanguard – working professionals, friends and family – poured an additional $22 million into the venture, federal authorities said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At a meeting at Cohen’s home on Nov. 28, 2005, donors told Cohen they could no longer afford to send money. He said if they backed out now, they would lose their stake in the deal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I remember him specifically saying – because he was, like, a little irritated with us – he specifically said, ‘You’re playing with the big boys now,’ ” testified Sam Mills, a major Vanguard donor who sent Cohen more than $13 million. He would lose several homes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cohen assured them that a final $500,000 was all he needed. But in January, five weeks later, he was sent $1.5 million. Three weeks after that, an additional $1.19 million. He convinced the donors that a payoff was imminent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Events continue as Vanguard struggles\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the meantime, Vanguard sponsored lavish events.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At a Vanguard party honoring Ahmed Kathrada, a South African activist, Cohen and Dillon hobnobbed with luminaries, including\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>former Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, activist Dolores Huerta and the Rev.\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>Cecil Williams, leader of San Francisco’s Glide community church. The same year, Dillon threw a 20\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> anniversary celebration for the Funding Exchange and all of its members. Geoff Green, then a co-chairman of the board, was in attendance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“That was before any of this stuff came out. All I knew was that there was this wildly successful organization in my home region,” he said. “He had the star power and activists there. It felt great.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Vanguard and Dillon were desperate for cash. According to financial records, Susanna Moore, a prominent local philanthropist and board member at the time, loaned Dillon $200,000 to purchase a home. Donor Janet Kranzberg loaned Dillon $1.3 million for a home for his son and aunt, which Dillon then used for other items, including additional investments, designer clothing, expensive restaurant meals and $10,000 audio equipment, according to court records. After she sued, Dillon repaid Kranzberg with a $500,000 settlement. Jane Segal, another donor, loaned Dillon close to $6 million. All three women were invested in the fake Ecast deal, according to court records.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to his plea agreement, Dillon also admitted to skimming $2.5 million from payments donors made to Cohen. He told prosecutors that he used the stolen funds to pay off his American Express bills and planned to pay the donors back with profits from the Ecast deal. Many former donors suspect Dillon of stealing even more.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Grants go unfilled\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Vanguard continued to announce awards of small but crucial sums to groups such as Filipino Advocates for Justice and People Organizing to Demand Environmental & Economic Rights. But as early as 2004, many organizations said they never saw the money they were promised. In a letter sent in 2006, the same year Vanguard donated $200,000 to Glover and Belafonte’s Hurricane Katrina efforts, a group of local organizations pleaded with the board to stop issuing new grant letters until prior grants were paid “in full.” Vanguard’s board of directors had stopped meeting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>By 2007, word had spread among foundations across the country that Vanguard was failing to fill grants. Questions about missing funds prompted the Funding Exchange to cast Vanguard, one of its founding members, out of the network.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In an email dated July 28, 2008, some board members admitted they had been negligent in their oversight of Dillon and Vanguard. In the frenzied meetings that followed, they discussed placing Dillon on administrative leave to “look proactive,” brainstormed ways of escaping liability and estimated that the organization owed more than $1 million to the IRS, donors and organizations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Can’t approach this like we’re saintly now,” said board member Cobie Harris, a political science associate professor at San Jose State University.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“On our watch it seems to have withered away,” four board members wrote to Dillon and the rest of the board in 2008. “We should mirror the kind of accountability that we expect from our grantees.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Meanwhile, Cohen was using Vanguard’s money to fund what U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer would call an “obscene lifestyle.” Over the years, he spent more than $6 million on private jets, $1.4 million on a diamond ring and more than $600,000 on a Rolls-Royce and Aston Martin. Cohen continued to insist the deal was still on when Dillon asked him to reconsider the Vanguard donors’ investment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I told him that our group was in dire straits and that Vanguard was in dire straits, and the second tier was in dire straits, and that at this point , it was impacting the group in the community that relied on support from Vanguard, and we had to be bought out,” he testified.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When Cohen continued to offer more excuses for the delay, Dillon broke their confidentiality agreement and asked McKay, the former board member who runs a venture capital firm, to meet with an Ecast executive. McKay learned that the deal had never existed and that Ecast had severed ties with Cohen in 2000.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Last year, the IRS revoked Vanguard’s nonprofit status.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“What we are really, really discussing here is betrayal to a community,” Beth Rosales, who preceded Dillon as Vanguard’s leader, said at a June 9 meeting of concerned former board members and donors. “And a betrayal that has caused some of us to have lost faith in the community.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some former board members and donors said they want to sue on behalf of the unpaid grantees. Others want to reconcile with the board members who seemed to fall down on the job, including Vanguard co-founder Peter Stern, among others. But they remain most angry with Dillon.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I would see Hari and Danny leading the anti-war march with fists raised and feel sick to my stomach. Who was I to criticize? Here they were leading the parade. Who was I?” former board member Wozniak said. “When you have a certain aura, when you surround yourself with the language of social justice, you can easily use that as a smoke screen for personal ambition.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, former Vanguard supporters began raising money to fill at least 24 unpaid grants. The money, the supporters promised, will go only to the grants.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Reyhan Harmanci contributed to this report. This story was edited by Robert Salladay and Mark Katches and copy edited by Nikki Frick and Christine Lee. It was produced by The Bay Citizen, a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting. Learn more at www.baycitizen.org.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/80381/embezzlement-scam-shatter-venerable-vanguard-foundation",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_2173"
],
"label": "news_6944"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"radioSearchSegmentsReducer": {},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?category=law-and-justice": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 5340,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 6189,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_82210",
"news_82020",
"news_81815",
"news_81629",
"news_81508",
"news_81205",
"news_81184",
"news_80821",
"news_80609",
"news_80516",
"news_80397",
"news_80381"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_category_law-and-justice": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_6944": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6944",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6944",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/News-Fix-Logo-Web-Banners-04.png",
"name": "News Fix",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "The News Fix is a daily news podcast from KQED that breaks down the latest headlines and provides in-depth analysis of the stories that matter to the Bay Area.",
"title": "News Fix - Daily Dose of Bay Area News | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6968,
"slug": "news-fix",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/news-fix"
},
"news_152": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_152",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "152",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Government",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Government Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 159,
"slug": "government",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/government"
},
"news_416": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_416",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "416",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Oakland Police Department",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Oakland Police Department Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 425,
"slug": "oakland-police-department",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/oakland-police-department"
},
"news_260": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_260",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "260",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Alameda County",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Alameda County Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 268,
"slug": "alameda-county",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/alameda-county"
},
"news_1859": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1859",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1859",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "privacy",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "privacy Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1874,
"slug": "privacy",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/privacy"
},
"news_893": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_893",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "893",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Defense of Marriage Act",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Defense of Marriage Act Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 903,
"slug": "defense-of-marriage-act",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/defense-of-marriage-act"
},
"news_82": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_82",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBT",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBT Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 83,
"slug": "lgbt",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbt"
},
"news_126": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "126",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 8",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 8 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 130,
"slug": "proposition-8",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-8"
},
"news_322": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_322",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "322",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 330,
"slug": "same-sex-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marriage"
},
"news_8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_8",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "8",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 8,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/news"
},
"news_932": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "supreme court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "supreme court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 942,
"slug": "supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/supreme-court"
},
"news_80": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_80",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "80",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Military",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Military Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 81,
"slug": "military",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/military"
},
"news_440": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_440",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "440",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "military",
"slug": "military-2",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "military | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 449,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/military-2"
},
"news_2833": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2833",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2833",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "women",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "women Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2851,
"slug": "women",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/women"
},
"news_38": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_38",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "38",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 58,
"slug": "san-francisco",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-francisco"
},
"news_1973": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1973",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1973",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco Sheriff",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco Sheriff Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1988,
"slug": "san-francisco-sheriff",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-francisco-sheriff"
},
"news_47": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_47",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "47",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "judge",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "judge Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 47,
"slug": "judge",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/judge"
},
"news_18538": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18538",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18538",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 31,
"slug": "california",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california"
},
"news_685": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_685",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "685",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "human trafficking",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "human trafficking Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 694,
"slug": "human-trafficking",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/human-trafficking"
},
"news_116": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_116",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "116",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "police",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "police Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 120,
"slug": "police",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/police"
},
"news_3470": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3470",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3470",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Thelton Henderson",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Thelton Henderson Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 3488,
"slug": "thelton-henderson",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/thelton-henderson"
},
"news_2173": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2173",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2173",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Philanthropy",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Philanthropy Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2188,
"slug": "philanthropy",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/philanthropy"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
}
}
