The Spokane Police Ombudsman Commission seems to have a problem with its members.

First it was Coeur d’Alene’s own export, Rachel Dolezal.   Good ol’ Rach and two of her fellow commissioners were removed from the Ombudsman Commission in 2015 for abusing their authority.

Now in this morning’s Spokesman-Review skews paper article headlined Visa request of man picked to be Spokane police ombudsman denied, but commission hasn’t given up, we learn that provisional ombudsman selectee Raheel Humayun has been denied the expedited visa necessary for him to accept the job.  It seems the ombudsman job didn’t meet the requirements for an expedited visa.  (Didn’t the City of Cowlesville hire an immigration attorney to help him through the process to make sure that didn’t happen?)

But ne’er fear.  The current chairman of the Ombudsman Commission, Reverend Debra Conklin, has a workable solution:  Change some of the information provided by Humayun on his visa application, the one that was denied.  Or as the Cowles rag puts it:

Commission Chairwoman Deb Conklin suggested tweaking Humayun’s visa application and having him apply again at the Canadian border, an action recommended by an immigration attorney who has consulted with the commission. [emphasis ours]

Here’s the thing.  Visa appliction forms generally require the applicant to personally or digitally sign the application.  By signing, the applicant is certifying that he has read and understood the questions in the application and his answers are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.   The applicant is also informed that the submission of an application containing false or misleading statements may result in the permanent refusal of a visa or the denial of entry into the United States.

OpenCdA does wonder what makes this Canadian citizen Raheel Humayun so indispensible to the Spokane Police Ombudsman Commission that its Chairman is encouraging him to “tweak” his visa application at the border?

After 33 years with the US Geological Survey, the Cal-Tech Earthquake Lady is movin’ on.  On March 30, 2016, Dr. Lucy Jones will retire.  Well, not quite.

Today’s Los Angeles Times has a deservedly flattering story about her life including her personal and professional accomplishments.  It’s headlined The Earthquake Lady is leaving her job — to shake up how you think about climate change.  This is a story that every parent with a student in grade school or high school ought to read.  Then have your daughters, sons, and grandchildren read it.

When we put up our OpenCdA post entitled We Love Lucy! on February 21, 2016, we didn’t know Dr. Jones was contemplating retirement.  We’re thrilled and completely unsurprised that she’s taking on a new scientific challenge.  Her philosophy of science is, “What good is scientific knowledge if people don’t use it?”

One of Dr. Jones’ biggest challenges was to get citizens and officials to take earthquake preparedness seriously.  More broadly, her biggest challenge was to get officials to incorporate verified science into public policy formulation.

In her next career, Dr. Jones hopes to create a center that helps bridge the fault between science and public policy formation.  We can’t think of a better person and a more qualified scientist to do it than Dr. Lucy Jones.

On Thursday, March 7, 2016, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) jointly issued a public safety announcement entitled Motor Vehicles Increasingly Vulnerable to Remote Exploits.  This PSA is far more complete than the information-lite versions of it in various online articles.

OpenCdA thinks that another logical attack against automotive electronic systems will be the passive acquisition of measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) from those automotive systems that now or soon will store information collected by the vehicle’s event data recorder, its onboard GPS and call-for-help systems (note the date on the linked article) as well as the operator’s personal biometric identifiers.

Car hacking is real, and it won’t be going away.

Idaho’s Senate has passed Senate Bill 1389 and sent it on to Idaho’s House for consideration.  According to its Statement of Purpose, “The purpose of this bill is to make consistent state law regarding concealed weapons carry.  The bill provides for concealed carry consistency between counties and cities.”

OpenCdA hopes that this bill’s proponents and the Idaho Legislature have asked federal authorities such as the US Attorney for the District of Idaho and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) for their input on how Idaho’s proposed law change will interact with the federal law popularly known as the Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) codified at 18 USC §§ 921 and 922.  Our concern is that in their haste and zeal, our legislators may not have fully explored the potential unintended consequences of SB 1389.

For example, a citizen holding a valid Idaho concealed weapons permit and carrying a concealed weapon can lawfully drive on a public street or walk on a public sidewalk within the 1000-foot school zone without violating the GFSZA.  Under Idaho’s proposed no-permit-required state law, it appears that same person who did not have a valid Idaho CWP could be in violation of the GFSZA.

Here is the ATF’s response to an inquiry submitted in 2013 by a private organization in Oklahoma.  (Oklahoma is in the Tenth Federal Judicial District whereas Idaho is in the Ninth.)

Here’s another question for consideration.  Idaho Code § 18-3302(5) exempts certain persons from requirement to secure a license to carry concealed weapons.  Those exempted include officials of a city, county or the state of Idaho and any publicly elected Idaho official.   Are these exemptions recognized by the federal government or are these officials who have been exempted under state law thereby liable under the federal GFSZA?

All we’re suggesting is that the bill’s proponents and Idaho’s legislators need to be certain that their proposed relaxation of Idaho’s concealed weapons permit laws do not, in fact, increase our citizens’ criminal liability under federal law.