Mediaboss Marketing

Breakbulk carrier Westlink Logistics has transported a cargo of ammonia flow control units to the U.S. from Australia.

The consignment involved project management, operational supervision, ocean freight, and transportation by road to several U.S. sites.

We managed to reduce costs and time for this project by shipping the over-dimensional cargo on conventional container lines. This successful first delivery for our client has resulted in the awarding of further contracts for similar scopes of work, said Alex Cecchi, business and operations coordinator at Westlink.

Westlink Logistics is a member of the Project Cargo Network, or PCN, a breakbulk association that connects carriers, operators and forwarders worldwide.

Hong Kong PCN member OLA Logistics recently delivered two sets of truck cranes via Nansha Port using 40-foot flat racks.

As truck cranes are self-propelled cargo, we would usually use a ro-ro service. However, the ro-ro service only runs one vessel per month from the required port and the customer was eager to receive the cranes, said William Wan, director of OLA.

Photo : Westlink transported the AFCUs across the U.S. by road. Credit: Westlink

See the article here:
Westlink Delivers Ammonia Flow Control Units - http://www.breakbulk.com

After the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown, Fox approached Gina Prince-Bythewood to create a fictional television series about police brutality.

Prince-Bythewood felt a responsibility to address the sensitive topic after the black teenagers death at the hands of a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.

The show, Shots Fired, is the first television series of the UCLA film alumnas career. Her previous writing and directing credits include the films The Secret Life of Bees, Beyond the Lights and Love & Basketball.

Prince-Bythewood co-created, co-directed, co-wrote and co-executive produced Shots Fired alongside her husband, Reggie Rock Bythewood. It premieres Wednesday on Fox.

Shots Fired follows the parallels and intersections of two fictional killings in North Carolina: one case with heavy media attention in which a black officer kills an unarmed white boy and one neglected case of a mysterious murder of a black boy.

The Daily Bruins Shayda Dehnow spoke with Prince-Bythewood to discuss the conception of Shots Fired and the representation of racial conflict and police brutality on television.

Daily Bruin: What made you passionate about creating this series?

Gina Prince-Bythewood: I have two boys. (Reggie and I) wanted to be able to tell a story that we felt was extremely important not just for the world, but for our boys as well. They were really affected by the George Zimmerman verdict after Trayvon (Martin) was killed. They couldnt understand how (Zimmerman) could get off and it was a big, big thing in our family, trying to help them understand.

We felt this show was an opportunity to help the world understand how things like that cant happen why they happen, why they shouldnt happen and how we can do things differently.

[Related: Gina Prince-Bythewoods Beyond the Lights]

DB: Why did you choose to include the storyline about a white boy being killed at the hands of a black cop, though it may seem subversive to the white-on-black police brutality in the mainstream news?

GPB: We really wanted to illustrate how broken our justice system is how justice really does have a color and we felt that an interesting way in was to flip the narrative initially.

When people see one of these shootings on the news, if they dont identify with the victims, who are always black, sometimes its hard to empathize and its very easy to turn off the TV and think, Hey, thats not me. But for a lot of us its extremely personal because we know it could happen to us and we feel a different way about it, and theres a different level of fear and recognition to it.

This gives us an opportunity to have a segment of the population of the audience put themselves in our shoes and understand what it feels like. Dealing with these two murders of one white teenager and one black teenager allowed us to show the difference in the way the community, the way the media, the way the police treat murders when a victim is white as opposed to when a victim is black. For us, our mantra was, Get the audience on the edge of their seat, and when they lean forward, hit em with the truth.

[Related: UCLA alumni to present horror-comedy series at Sundance 2017]

DB: Was there a specific audience you wanted tohit with the truth?

GPB: We really want to reach everybody. For the black audience, we dont have a lot of shows, especially dramatic shows. Were excited about this in terms of the characters who we are putting on screen as well as for the white audience to again, watch a great mystery and while theyre watching this, learn something that they may not have known.

DB: How did your personal connections to the themes of the show affect how you approached it?

GPB: We just felt an incredible responsibility to get it right and make sure it never felt exploitative. We just did a ton of research and met with everybody on all sides of the issue.

We were very fortunate to meet with Wanda Johnson, whos the mother of Oscar Grant. We met with Eric Holder, an incredible man and our former attorney general. I met with Raymond Kelly, who used to be the police chief of New York City and really created stop and frisk. I met with (Cheryl Dorsey) who was in the LAPD for twenty years and is very blunt about what really goes on within the department. Stories like that were really great for the characters.

Read more from the original source:
Q&A: Alumna explores police brutality, race relations in TV show 'Shots Fired' - Daily Bruin

By Laurie Chapman

March 20, 2017

Following on the heels of the Third Amendment, and enforcing the notion that each mans home is his castle, the Fourth Amendment has been the basis for many opinions regarding appropriate law enforcement and governmental procedures. Again, we are looking at an individuals right to privacy and freedom from governmental intrusion.

The following is a transcription of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in its original form.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Numerous court decisions have further clarified the definition of a reasonable search and seizure. To date, decisions have been reached regarding searches of homes, persons, cars and schools.

The earliest case was decided in 1946, Davis vs. United States, and stated a warrantless search can be made if an officer is given consent by a homeowner. The most recent cases were both decided in 2009, and both involve vehicle searches Arizona vs. Gant and Arizona vs. Johnson.

Following is a summary of decisions relating to the Fourth Amendment:

Payton vs. New York, 1980, search and seizure in a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. It also states warrantless searches may be made if there is probable cause or when lives are in imminent danger or belief exists that evidence will be destroyed. Other court cases define exceptions to warrantless searches;

Davis vs. United States, 1946, consent by homeowner;

United States vs. Robinson, 1973, search is permissible in relation to a lawful arrest;

Maryland vs. Macon, 1985, when evidence is in plain view;

Terry vs. Ohio, 1968, when an officer observes an individuals unusual behavior he can be compelled to confirm or dispell his suspicions by searching the person;

New Jersey vs. TLO, 1985, school officials have authority to search students without warrant if reasonable suspicion exists;

Arizona vs. Gant, 2009, an officer may search a vehicle if probable cause exists it contains evidence;

United States vs. Arvizu, 2002, traffic stops are permissible if a violation has been observed or suspicion is aroused that a crime is imminent;

Arizona vs. Johnson, 2009, officers have authority to pat down drivers and passengers during a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity;

Illinois vs. Cabales, 2005, drug-sniffing dogs may search the exterior of a vehicle during a valid traffic stop without the requirement of suspicion;

United States vs. Montoya de Hernandez, 1985, border agents are authorized to conduct routine stops and searches;

Illinois vs. Lidster, 2004, checkpoints are permissible to allow law enforcement to gather information from motorists;

Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz, 1990, like the above case this decision allows the use of highway sobriety checkpoints; and

City of Indianapolis vs. Edmond, 2000, interestingly to the contrary a state may not use a highway checkpoint to discover illegal narcotics.

The one case I expect to see more prominently tested in the coming years is the Terry vs. Ohio case. Commonly referred to as the stop-and-frisk approach, its use has been frequently publicly debated, even recently during the past election debates.

Law enforcement agencies must engage delicately in this tactic to avoid racial profiling. Determining the line between our personal right to privacy and public safety can be tricky. Especially when a criminal element refuses to conform to legal standards and will manipulate the system to his advantage.

Resources: http://www.uscourts.gov, supreme.justia.com

Laurie Chapman publishes Political Broad bi-monthly and takes an informative, opinionated peek at the functions of government. If you have a suggestion for the author, e-mail her at lchapman@idahocountyfreepress.com or call her at 208-983-1200.

More here:
Fourth Amendment addresses search procedures - Idaho County Free Press (blog)

National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers joined Republican lawmakers in blasting unacceptable leaks of sensitive information, during testimony Monday before the House Intelligence Committee.

Adm. Rogers spoke alongside FBI Director James Comey, both holdovers from the Obama administration, in a hearing addressing claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election and other controversies.

Comey confirmed at the hearing that the bureau is investigating Russias meddling as well as any potential ties to the Trump campaign. But both officials also decried intelligence leaks, which GOP lawmakers describe as a major security threat some of those leaks have fueled recent reports about the status of the FBIs Russia probe.

Rogers said he is greatly concerned about leaks of classified information.

Comey echoed Rogers, stressing how seriously we take leaks of classified information. He also said hes seen a lot of conversations about classified matters showing up in the press, and a lot of it is dead wrong.

As the officials lamented leaks, Republicans sought to press the witnesses for details on who might be responsible. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., asked Comey to confirm what former Obama administration officials could have had access to unmasked names or American citizens incidentally recorded in conversations with surveillance targets.

The term unmasked refers to what happens when the inadvertent subject of government surveillance is named and documented, as was reportedly done with former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in conversations with Russias ambassador, leading to his resignation.

When asked specifically if he briefed former President Barack Obama on any calls involving Flynn, Comey said he couldnt get into the particular case or any conversations he had with the president.

Gowdy also read off a list of names, asking about former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Comey would not confirm specifics, but agreed those positions could have access to unmasked names.

Though they may have access to the names, that doesnt meant they were in a position to do the unmasking.

When Rogers was asked how Flynns identity could have been revealed, he said, Im not going to discuss hypotheticals about individuals. Rogers said he and 19 other people at the NSA have the authority to unmask the identity of Americans.

Rogers said he couldnt provide the number of Americans who have been unmasked since June 2016 until more research is completed, but did acknowledge that when U.S. citizens are unmasked, it hurts national security.

Rogers has served in the Navy for the past three decades and graduated from the National War College. He was appointed by Obama as the director of the NSA, taking office in April of 2014 in the wake of massive leaks by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Last fall, he drew criticism when he met with President Trump in New York, reportedly angering senior members of the Obama administration by failing to clear the visit with his superiors. It was reported at the time that Clapper and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter called for Rogers to be fired -- not because of his meeting with Trump, but because of security breaches at the NSA and questions over his leadership.

When asked for a response to calls for his dismissal in November, Rogers said "I'm not going to go down that road," telling a reporter, I'm accountable for my actions."

Rogers also said Monday there was no evidence to support the claim that the Obama administration instructed British intelligence organization GCHQ to spy on the Trump team during the campaign.

More:
NSA chief, GOP lawmakers rip 'unacceptable' leaks - Fox News

March 20, 2017, 8:21 a.m.

The director of the National Security Agency said the Obama administration did not ask British intelligence to spy on Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, as White House Press SecretarySean Spicer alleged last week.

Adm. Mike Rogers said such a request to eavesdrop on a U.S. citizen would be "expressly against the construct" of intelligence agreements with the British and other close allies.

"I have seen nothing on the NSA side that we ever engaged in such activity" or was asked to conduct surveillance of Trump by Obama, Rogers said.

Rogers testified during the first congressional hearing into Russia's role during the 2016 presidential campaignand into President Trump's claims, first made on Twitter, that Obama had wiretapped him at Trump Tower.

Last Thursday, Spicer repeated a claim by a Fox News commentator that British intelligence had spied on Trump before his inauguration to keep "American fingerprints" off the surveillance.

The British signals agency, known as GCHQ, issued a rare and angry denial. A spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May also denied the charge, and the British Embassy in Washington complained to the White House.

Trump last week declined to withdraw the allegation during a newsconference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and referred reporters to Fox News for comment. Fox News later said it had no evidence "full stop" to support the commentator's claim.

Rogers declined to discuss press reports that U.S. surveillance picked up several telephone conversations between retired Lt. Gen Mike Flynn, who was ousted as national security adviser last month, and Sergey Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United States, after last year's election.

View original post here:
NSA director says US government did not ask British intelligence to spy on Trump - Los Angeles Times