NLRB rules that Northwestern University football players are employees

March 29, 2014

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Good afternoon:

Peter Sung Ohr, the Regional Director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a Decision in 13-RC-121359 finding that Grant-in-aid scholarship football players enrolled at Northwestern University qualify as employees under the NLRA given the amount of revenue they generate for the university and time they spend on football related activities as opposed to student activities. Therefore, he has issued an order directing that an election take place.

His decision has caused a lot of controversy primarily from people who cling to the quaint idea that athletes on scholarships are student athletes and amateurs, not professionals.

Football teams for Division I universities generate millions of dollars in revenues for their respective universities. The players who devote so much of their time to football that they have little time to do anything else. They also risk serious injury every time they play in a game. Since the NCAA prohibits paying the players, the universities get to keep most of the money that the players generate.

There is something fundamentally unfair about that arrangement and it’s long past time to abandon the requirement that Division I football players must remain amateurs in order to continue to play for their teams.

What do you think?


Angela Corey should be disbarred for demonizing Marissa Alexander

March 27, 2014

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Good evening:

Angela Corey should be disbarred for demonizing Marissa Alexander.

Demonizing Marissa Alexander with two irrelevant and extremely prejudicial booking photos and using over large emboldened fonts to make her points is not setting the record straight.

Therefore, it’s prohibited by RPC 4-8.4(d) which states,

A lawyer shall not:

engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage,humiliate, or discriminate against litigants . . . on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic;

Marissa Alexander is a litigant. She is the defendant in a criminal case.

RPC 3.8 (f), Special Duties of a Prosecutor, provides in pertinent part,

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Finally RPC 4-3.6 (a) states:

Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

That’s a trifecta of serious violations that establishes that she is unfit to serve as a prosecutor.

Justice Sutherland said long ago in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.

We have a right to expect no less from state prosecutors.

I believe she should be disbarred for this extremely unprofessional stunt and the case against Marissa Alexander should be dismissed with prejudice for deliberate prosecutorial misconduct that has made it impossible for her to get a fair trial.


Did Angela Corey Violate the Rules of Professional Conduct?

March 27, 2014

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Good morning:

I begin today with this question:

Did Florida State Attorney Angela Corey violate the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct when she sent the unsolicited three-page statement below regarding the prosecution’s case against Marissa Alexander to the Duval County members of the Florida legislature?

Ms. Alexander was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to 20 years. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The new trial is scheduled to begin on July 8th.

Ms. Corey’s statement bears the title, STATE OF FLORIDA VS. MARISSA ALEXANDER. Immediately beneath it are two jail booking photographs of Ms. Alexander dressed in jail clothing. One is dated August 2010 and the other is dated December 2010.

The following statement appears below the photographs:

Marissa Alexander to her husband: “I’ve got something for your ass.”

Ms. Corey increased the size of the font and emboldened Ms. Alexander’s alleged statement.

The rest of the three-page statement sets forth the prosecution case against Ms. Alexander in considerable detail. Ms. Corey claims that the purpose of the letter is to set the record straight, and that it is based on “testimony at trial” and various legal rulings.

At various times in the recent past, Ms. Corey has publicly complained about media reports that Ms. Alexander fired a warning shot into the ceiling of her kitchen to prevent her abusive ex-husband from assaulting her. Ms. Corey has since claimed that she produced the statement in response to a request by state Representative Mia Jones regarding the state’s stand-your-ground law, a defense that was rejected in Ms. Alexander’s case.

Representative Jones denies that she requested the statement.

Read the relevant rules of professional conduct that I have set forth below and decide whether you think Angela Corey violated them. Then let us know what you think. With the exception of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Rule 3.6, which I cite below, all of the rules are from the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC). Bracketed and italicized material are my comments.

1. RULE 4-3.5 IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL

(a) Influencing Decision Maker. A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror,
prospective juror, or other decision maker except as permitted by law or the rules of court.

[“other decision maker” includes prospective jurors]

2. RULE 4-3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY

(a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an
extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of
public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a
substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of
an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

[“extrajudicial” means out of court]

Comment

It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding
the right of free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some
curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about a party prior to trial, particularly
where trial by jury is involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical
nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules
of evidence. On the other hand, there are vital social interests served by the free dissemination
of information about events having legal consequences and about legal proceedings themselves.
The public has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its
security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in
matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often
of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public policy.

3. RULE 4-3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR

Comment

A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an
advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations such as making a reasonable
effort to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to and the procedure for obtaining
counsel and has been given a reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel so that guilt is decided
upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Precisely how far the prosecutor is required to go in this
direction is a matter of debate. Florida has adopted the American Bar Association Standards of
Criminal Justice Relating to Prosecution Function. This is the product of prolonged and careful
deliberation by lawyers experienced in criminal prosecution and defense and should be consulted
for further guidance. See also rule 4-3.3(d) governing ex parte proceedings, among which grand
jury proceedings are included. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and
knowing disregard of these obligations or systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could
constitute a violation of rule 4-8.4.

4. ABA Model Rule 3.6: Trial Publicity

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

[Should Ms. Corey have reasonably foreseen Representative Mia Jones’s dissemination of the three-page statement to the public?]

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:

(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

(2) information contained in a public record;

(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;

(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;

(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;

(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and

(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):

(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;

(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;

(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

[Can Ms. Corey claim that her disclosure is authorized by subsection (c)?]

5. ABA Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity – Comment

[1] It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about a party prior to trial, particularly where trial by jury is involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. On the other hand, there are vital social interests served by the free dissemination of information about events having legal consequences and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public policy.

[2] Special rules of confidentiality may validly govern proceedings in juvenile, domestic relations and mental disability proceedings, and perhaps other types of litigation. Rule 3.4(c) requires compliance with such rules.

[3] The Rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer’s making statements that the lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. Recognizing that the public value of informed commentary is great and the likelihood of prejudice to a proceeding by the commentary of a lawyer who is not involved in the proceeding is small, the rule applies only to lawyers who are, or who have been involved in the investigation or litigation of a case, and their associates.

[4] Paragraph (b) identifies specific matters about which a lawyer’s statements would not ordinarily be considered to present a substantial likelihood of material prejudice, and should not in any event be considered prohibited by the general prohibition of paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of the subjects upon which a lawyer may make a statement, but statements on other matters may be subject to paragraph (a).

[5] There are, on the other hand, certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration. These subjects relate to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;

(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or that person’s refusal or failure to make a statement;

(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration;

(5) information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial; or

(6) the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

[6] Another relevant factor in determining prejudice is the nature of the proceeding involved. Criminal jury trials will be most sensitive to extrajudicial speech. Civil trials may be less sensitive. Non-jury hearings and arbitration proceedings may be even less affected. The Rule will still place limitations on prejudicial comments in these cases, but the likelihood of prejudice may be different depending on the type of proceeding.

6. Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Comment

[5] Paragraph (f) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutor’s extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused. Nothing in this Comment is intended to restrict the statements which a prosecutor may make which comply with Rule 3.6(b) or 3.6(c).

[6] Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rules 5.1 and 5.3, which relate to responsibilities regarding lawyers and nonlawyers who work for or are associated with the lawyer’s office. Paragraph (f) reminds the prosecutor of the importance of these obligations in connection with the unique dangers of improper extrajudicial statements in a criminal case. In addition, paragraph (f) requires a prosecutor to exercise reasonable care to prevent persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making improper extrajudicial statements, even when such persons are not under the direct supervision of the prosecutor. Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions to law- enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals.

7. RULE 4-8.4 MISCONDUCT
A lawyer shall not:

(d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage,
humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on
any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national
origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or
physical characteristic;

Subdivision (d) of this rule proscribes conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice. Such proscription includes the prohibition against discriminatory conduct committed by
a lawyer while performing duties in connection with the practice of law. The proscription
extends to any characteristic or status that is not relevant to the proof of any legal or factual issue
in dispute. Such conduct, when directed towards litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or
other lawyers, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability,
marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, physical
characteristic, or any other basis, subverts the administration of justice and undermines the
public’s confidence in our system of justice, as well as notions of equality. This subdivision does
not prohibit a lawyer from representing a client as may be permitted by applicable law, such as,
by way of example, representing a client accused of committing discriminatory conduct.


Open Thread 3/26/2014

March 26, 2014

posted by Crane-Station

Good evening! Fred and I are sharing a computer currently. We believe we have worked out a truce, as well as a schedule, so that we can both post without killing each other. I will be posting again on Friday. In the upcoming weeks, I am hoping to post some historical essays from the 1930s and 1940s, as my parents are kind enough to share them. I will also address other topics.

Here are some things we have been discussing, at this site:

1. Today I did see one article from Byron Williams at Huffington Post, titled, There Is No Comparison Between Zimmerman and Alexander. I found it unusual that after a couple of hours, there were no comments. That may have changed by now, but I am wondering if this is an indication that internet traffic overall is lower than it has been, or if people are kind of avoiding the topic of Zimmerman, at this point.

There is no comparison between Alexander and Zimmerman for many reasons. State prosecutor Angela Corey has demonstrated competence in little more than getting a conviction in the Dunn case, but not exactly a conviction for killing, but rather for Dunn’s firing at but not killing, three of four teenagers. Corey will re-try Marissa Alexander, and go for 60 years this time around. She also claims that she will retry Dunn, and what is interesting at this point is, it does not look like there will be a continuance. The trial is scheduled for May.

2. #MH370

27th March, 2014: 10.45am (AEDT)

Search and recovery operation for Malaysia Airlines aircraft: Update 21
*All times are expressed in Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time (AEDT). Please note all times are
approximate.

Today’s search and recovery operation in the Australian Search and Rescue Region for Malaysia
Airlines flight MH370 is now underway.

Search activities today will involve a total of 11 aircraft and five ships.

Today’s search is split into two areas within the same proximity covering a cumulative 78,000 square
kilometres.

Two Royal Australian Air Force AP-3C Orions, a Chinese Ilyushin IL-76, a Japanese Gulfstream jet, a
US Navy P-8 Poseidon and a Japanese P-3 Orion will fly sorties throughout the day

Media Release

3. Craig Michael Wood, charged with kidnapping and murder of Hailey Owens in Springfield, Missouri, appeared in court for the first time today.
Accused murderer Craig Wood appears in courtroom for first time

4. Kendrick Johnson. We believe that Kendrick Johnson was most likely murdered. There appear to be no additional articles addressing an email confession, but we will continue to watch.

This is an open thread, please join and share thoughts, videos, music…whatever is on your mind. Here are a couple of videos, if you care to watch. The hat tip for the first goes to yellowsnapdragon at Firedoglake, who shared it yesterday. It is Ode to Joy, a flash mob, in Odessa:

Published on Mar 24, 2014
Flash mob: Odessa Musicians for Peace and Brotherhood.
Флэшмоб: Одесские Музыканты за Мир и Братство.

(Official Video). Saturday, March 22, 2014, 10:29 am. Odessa Fish Market (‘Privoz’). Members of the Odessa Philharmonic Orchestra and Odessa Opera Chorus, Hobart Earle, conductor, perform music from Beethoven’s 9th symphony.

After the devastation of the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Tohoku The Inoue Brothers travelled to the region to start a project with some of the affected local artisans. The result of this collaboration is their “Made in Tohoku” collection.
Credits
A FILM BY The Inoue Brothers – theinouebrothers.net
DIRECTED BY Joppe Rog – jopperog.com
SECOND CAMERA BY Lennert Rog – lennertrog.com
MUSIC BY Sorenious Bonk – soreniousbonk.co.uk
PRODUCTION Present Plus – presentplus.com/


#MH370: The Doppler Effect, the Undisputed Facts and a Theory

March 25, 2014

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777

Have remains of MH 370 been found west of Australia?

Good afternoon:

AMSA cancelled search operations today due to bad weather. They plan to resume the search tomorrow.

The cancelled search provides us with an opportunity to consider the doppler effect and why it establishes that MH370 flew south into the southern Indian Ocean as well to review the undisputed facts in an effort to propose a viable theory (i.e., evidence based) that explains what happened to MH370.

The Doppler Effect

The Doppler Effect is the difference you hear in the sound of a siren on an approaching vehicle compared to the sound you hear as the vehicle passes you and recedes in the distance. The siren continuously sounds the same to the driver and anyone in the vehicle, but it gets louder and higher as the vehicle approaches you and softer and lower as it recedes from you. The only time the siren sounds the same to you as it does to the people in the vehicle is when the vehicle reaches you.

Wikipedia describes the effect withe this analogy:

An analogy would be a pitcher throwing one ball every second in a person’s direction (a frequency of 1 ball per second). Assuming that the balls travel at a constant velocity and the pitcher is stationary, the man will catch one ball every second. However, if the pitcher is jogging towards the man, he will catch balls more frequently because the balls will be less spaced out (the frequency increases). The inverse is true if the pitcher is moving away from the man; he will catch balls less frequently because of the pitcher’s backward motion (the frequency decreases). If the pitcher were to move at an angle but with the same speed, the variation of the frequency at which the receiver would catch the ball would be less as the distance between the two would change more slowly.

From the point of view of the pitcher, the frequency remains constant (whether he’s throwing balls or transmitting microwaves). Since with electromagnetic radiation like microwaves frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength, the wavelength of the waves is also affected. Thus, the relative difference in velocity between a source and an observer is what gives rise to the doppler effect.

Inmarsat was able to use the doppler effect to figure out whether MH370 took the northern or southern route by measuring the frequency of the 8 or 9 pinging radio waves. Relative to the position of the satellite in space, they could determine if MH370 was getting closer to the satellite or farther away. Then they verified their theory by using the satellite to determine if other known flights were approaching or receding from the satellite.

Pending an independent review of the data that validates Inmarsat’s conclusions, I will conclude that MH370 took the southern route into the south Indian Ocean.

Nevertheless, I still find it difficult to believe that someone intentionally decided to kill 238 people on the aircraft and then commit suicide by flying MH370 into the southern Indian Ocean until it ran out of gas and plunged into the sea.

Undisputed Facts

Let’s take a look at the undisputed facts:

1. MH270 departed Kuala Lumpur for Beijing at 12:41 am on Saturday, March 8 with 227 passengers and a crew of 12.

2. MH370 confirms reaching cruising altitude of 35,000 feet at 1:01 am.

3. Last ACARS data transmission received at 1:07 am; MH370 reconfirms altitude of 35,000 feet (the ACARS system was disabled sometime after 1:07 am and the next scheduled transmission at 1:37 am). To disable ACARS, a person would have to access the electrical bay beneath the floor behind the cockpit and disconnect the circuit breakers. Access to the electrical bay is through a trap door in the floor that is concealed by a carpet that must be pulled back to reveal the door. A special tool is required to open the door. Although disabled, the system continues to periodically ping the communication satellite approximately once per hour. Inmarsat, which operates the satellite, used the pings to calculate the location of MH370 and its direction of flight.

4. ATC Kuala Lumpur contacts MH370 at 1:19 am and instructs the pilots to contact ATC Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam for the next leg of the flight. The copilot responds, “All right. Good night.” That is a possibly significant variation in routine, which is to respond, “Roger and out.” Some people, including myself have speculated that the response was a veiled warning that something was amiss. MH370 did not contact ATC Ho Chi Minh City.

5. The transponder was turned off 2 minutes later at 1:21 am.

6. Shortly afterwards the aircraft climbed to 45,000 feet and turned sharply to head back across the Malaysian peninsula. It later traveled some distance at 23,000 feet and even dipped down to 5,000 feet.

7. At 1:30 am a pilot on another flight attempted to contact MH370 but only heard mumbling and static.

8. The expected half-hourly ACARS data transmission at 1:37 am did not happen.

9. At 2:11 am the first of seven automated hourly pings received by the Inmarsat satellite.

10. At 2:15 am the Malaysian military lost radar contact with MH370, which was 200 miles northwest of Penang.

11. At 8:11 am, the Inmarsat satellite received the last ping from MH370.

12. Neither the crew nor the aircraft’s onboard communication systems relayed a distress signal, indications of bad weather, or technical problems before the aircraft vanished from radar screens.

A New Theory

I now suspect there was an attempted hijacking and a struggle in the cockpit that ended with the deaths of everyone on board probably due to a decompression of the aircraft.

Tell us what you think.


#MH370: Malaysian PM Razak announces plane crashed in South Indian Ocean

March 24, 2014

Monday, March 24, 2014

A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777

Have remains of MH 370 been found west of Australia?

Good morning:

The New York Times is reporting that Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has announced:

It is therefore with deep sadness and regret that I must inform you that, according to this new data, flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean.

Meanwhile, AMSA is reporting,

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority can advise objects have been located by a Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orion.

HMAS Success is on scene and is attempting to locate the objects in the search for missing Malaysia Aircraft flight MH370.

The objects were spotted in the search area about 2500 kilometres south-west of Perth by the RAAF Orion about 2.45pm (AEDT).

The crew on board the Orion reported seeing two objects – the first a grey or green circular object and the second an orange rectangular object.

The objects identified by the RAAF Orion are separate to the objects reported by the Chinese Ilyushin IL-76 to AMSA earlier today.

The objects reported by the Chinese were also within today’s search area.

The US Navy P8 Poseidon aircraft sought to relocate the objects reported by the Chinese aircraft but were unable to do so.

The US Navy P8 is remains in the search area, while a second RAAF P3 and a Japanese P3 are en route to their assigned search areas.

Evidently, the Prime Minister is relying on some additional evidence that he has not been disclosed because the satellite photos and the search in the south Indian Ocean has not produced a definitive identification of any object as part of Flight MH370.

You may wish to download and watch John Young’s debriefing regarding Monday’s search (Day 7). He is the General Manager of AMSA’s Emergency Response Division.

You are up to date.

Photo by Aero Icarus released under a Creative Commons Share Alike license.


#MH370: Sunday update includes mystery phone call

March 23, 2014

Sunday, March 23, 2014

A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777

Have remains of MH 370 been found west of Australia?

Good morning:

Sunday update:

Eight aircraft searched over 22,800 square miles.

They didn’t find anything.

Nada.

Zippo.

Searchers on a commercial jet that has been participating in the search on Saturday reported seeing a wooden pallet in the ocean surrounded by straps. Unfortunately, they were unable to photograph it. A P3 Orion search plane attempted to verify the sighting but only found seaweed.

The Norwegian merchant ship is abandoning the search to avoid tropical cyclone Gillian which is moving into the area. It’s a Category 1 storm.

You’re up to date on the visual search.

Two intriguing new developments:

(1) France has reported that one of their satellites has spotted a large floating object near the search area, but we haven’t seen the image and don’t know when the photograph was taken or exactly where the object is located.

(2) A mysterious unidentified woman called the pilot while he was in the cockpit just before the flight departed. They had a two-minute conversation. She used a fake identity when she purchased the mobile phone that she used to call him. Investigators were able to determine that because people are required by law to provide ID when they purchase a SIM card.

In this case the SIM card used to call Captain Shah’s phone was traced to a shop in Kuala Lumpur and had been purchased recently by a woman using a false identity.

The practice is common amongst terror groups and every other person who spoke to Captain Shah before the flight has since been interviewed.

Photo by Aero Icarus released under a Creative Commons Share Alike license.


%d bloggers like this: