TO RECEIVE MY LATEST BLOGS, RADIO SHOW NEWS, AND ACTIVISM UPDATES!
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
LIKE ANGLE, LIKE PALIN
It goes to show you that when Republicans are in trouble, they don't want the press to cover them, which is why they run like pussies and cunts.
Sarah Palin admits she quit as Governor because of the media.
From the Daily Caller:
From a remote location on an island off Alaska’s coast, former Governor Sarah Palin is blasting what she describes as the “sick puppies” in the media who immediately and ruthlessly attacked her when Sen. John McCain picked her as his running mate during the 2008 presidential campaign.
By "attacked her" she really means "investigated her", which to Palin must have seemed like an attack since, up until then, the Alaska media had rolled over to have its tummy rubbed every time she walked into the room and rarely asked her any difficult questions, or in Palin parlance, "gotcha questions."
In exclusive remarks to The Daily Caller, Palin described “hordes of Obama’s opposition researchers-slash ‘reporters’” descending upon Alaska in the days after she was picked by McCain.
She said the media became a key reason she decided not to finish out her term as governor and faults, in part, the McCain campaign for failing to vigorously defend her.
I have heard that "hordes of Obama opposition researchers" claim since the day Palin was picked as Old Man McCain's arm candy, but in fact most of the reporters who came up here were simply trying to learn more about this newly minted national politician who hardly anybody knew anything about.
Hell I was doing research as well, and I can assure you that NOBODY paid me a dime to do so.
Palin chose to be a public figure at the highest level, as a candidate in a presidential campaign, arguably inviting the most intense scrutiny imaginable.
“It was too obvious to me, my family, my administration and anyone else who knew me (and my record) that we were in a defenseless position the minute I gave my acceptance speech and the hordes of Obama’s opposition researchers-slash ‘reporters’ had descended upon Alaska,” Palin told The DC.
Palin, whose conflicts with key McCain campaign staffers are infamous, said the campaign could have stood by her more firmly.
“To not have had the McCain campaign staff defend my record was an insurmountable challenge, because once a bell is rung, it’s impossible to un-ring,” Palin said.
I believe what Sarah is referring to here is the McCain campaign's refusal to lie about Todd Palin's membership with the Alaska Independence Party.
“It didn’t help, either, that the hours and hours of interviews with the likes of Katie Couric resulted in a few minutes here and there of selected snippets of my annoyed answers. (I naively had not believed at the time of some of the badgering questions [for example, questioning my pro-life position] that the editing process would fulfill their biased purpose),” Palin said.
Another ridiculous accusation. Palin also recently looked like an idiot while being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, was THAT also edited? The truth is that the woman always looks like an imbecile unless somebody asks her only soft ball questions or scripts them with her ahead of time. And often that does not help either.
“I said, ‘Enough. Political adversaries and their political friends in the media will not destroy my State, my administration, nor my family. Enough.’ I knew if I didn’t play their game any longer, they could not win. I would not retreat, I would instead reload, and I would fight for what is right from a different plane.”
So there you have it from "Mama Grizzly" herself. Palin quit the job she was elected to, because she simply could not stand up to the media and the bloggers.
There you go Republicans, THAT is the woman who energizes your base like no other, the woman who is the darling of the Teabaggers who are actively hijacking your party.
Good luck with that.
By the way, just so we are all on the same page, NOBODY fears the media unless they have something to hide. Remember that.
Friday, July 23, 2010
THEY SHOULD CONTINUE TO STOP OFF-SHORE DRILLING
From theimmoralminority.blogspot.com:
I have a new hero and his name is Judge Ralph Beistline, the man who said NO to offshore drilling in the Chukchi Sea.
From ADN:
U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline said the Minerals Management Service failed to analyze the environmental effect of natural gas development despite industry interest and specific lease incentives for such development. The agency analyzed only the development of the first field of 1 billion barrels of oil -- despite acknowledging that the amount was the minimum level of development that could occur on the leases.
The agency also failed to determine whether information it acknowledged was missing before the sale was relevant or essential under environmental law, or whether the cost of obtaining that information was exorbitant.
Beistline enjoined all activity under the lease sale pending additional environmental reviews.
Caroline Cannon, president of the Native Village of Point Hope, an Inupiat Eskimo whaling community of more than 700 on a peninsula jutting into the Chukchi, said news of the decision brought tears of joy in the village.
You know I think that last line, pretty much says it all.
I have a new hero and his name is Judge Ralph Beistline, the man who said NO to offshore drilling in the Chukchi Sea.
U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline said the Minerals Management Service failed to analyze the environmental effect of natural gas development despite industry interest and specific lease incentives for such development. The agency analyzed only the development of the first field of 1 billion barrels of oil -- despite acknowledging that the amount was the minimum level of development that could occur on the leases.
The agency also failed to determine whether information it acknowledged was missing before the sale was relevant or essential under environmental law, or whether the cost of obtaining that information was exorbitant.
Beistline enjoined all activity under the lease sale pending additional environmental reviews.
Caroline Cannon, president of the Native Village of Point Hope, an Inupiat Eskimo whaling community of more than 700 on a peninsula jutting into the Chukchi, said news of the decision brought tears of joy in the village.
You know I think that last line, pretty much says it all.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
KEITH OLBERMANN IS SO SPOT ON!
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?", Mr. Welch to Sen. Joe McCarthy, now a dead man.
Glenn Beck should not be a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He is not a Christian of any kind by any remote way.
Jesus Christ fed the poor, healed the sick, and raised the dead. He gave the Sermon on the mount on the basis of "come, follow Me." He chased thieves out of the Temple.
He died on the Cross. He told the thief next to Him, "for tomorrow you will be in Paradise." He died. He went to the dead in the dark. He visited all the righteous, taught all the repentant, and opened the Gates of Heaven.
He then left His tomb.
Mary Magdaline was looking for Him. She thought He was the gardener, and begged to take His body.
Jesus came back.
He also visited the Native Americans, the Polynesians, and the Ten Tribes.
---------------------------------------
"Senator [Dan Quayle], I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Sen. Lloyd Bentsen in the 1988 Vice Presidential Debate.
Beck, I was in the Pre-Existence. I was with Jesus Christ. I knew and still know Jesus. He is my Best Friend
You sir, are no Jesus Christ.
You don't know Jesus Christ.
As Keith Olbermann would say, "you sir, are an idiot."
YOU ARE A MOR-ON!
You weren't the first. It was Andrew Notsobriteassbitch that launched the attack on Shirley Sherrod. The clip where it was claimed that she discriminated against a White farmer was severely edited. The point was to show that Obama is a "racist", and will hurt and discriminate against White people. The entire Fux Propaganda Channel is trying to promote this and other allegations, such as Obama was born in Kenya, and that Obama is some sort of "Muslim" "Socialist" or "Fascist".
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961, the 17th anniversary of the day Anne Frank and seven others were arrested by the Gestapo (Richard Belzer, the future Det. Munch, was also probably riding in his birthday present with his cousin, the future Arthur Fonzerelli, that day.), in Honolulu, Hawai'i. He was not born in Kenya, or anywhere out of the United States. They don't like Obama as President, BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.
Hitler didn't like Jews, because they were Jews.
"They passed a law in '64 to give others a little more.", Bruce Honrsby and the Range, "That's the Way It Is".
GET THE FUCK OVER IT!
THIS IS 2010, NOT 1960!
The Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party of 1860. It is a shell of the Democratic Party of 1860.
Ayn Rand Paul stated on the Rachel Maddow Show that he wanted segregation back. The Republican Party and its supporter, the Fux Propaganda Channel, have not condemned Paul; therefore, they are just as racist as the Southern Democrats were in the 1960's. Ask Latinos in Nazizona.
---------------------------------------------
"She [Anne Frank] asks as if we started the War. Did we start the War?", Herman Van Pels ("Van Daan"). "The Diary of Anne Frank".
"We didn't start the fire! It was always burning as the world was turning!" Billy Joel, "We didn't start the fire!"
Glenn Goldenass Beck is a fraud. He advertises for Goldline. Goldline has ripped off thousands of people for thousands of dollars, including seniors. He is also a liar, and is not close to be a journalist. The Fux Propaganda Channel is just that, a cable channel to spread unfounded conservative propaganda, and then pose it as news. It is a giant amonium nitrate (bull shit) factory. Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and the rest of the staff are no better than Joseph Goebbels, and the Ministry of Information and Propaganda.
I say all this because Shirley Sherrod was asked to resign by sending a text by cell phone on the way back to Athens, Georgia, because she was going to be a topic of Glenn Beck's show on the Fux Propaganda Channel.
Beck is a liar, fraudster, and thief. He should be excommunicated from the Church. I would not sustain him in any Church Office! His ass should be dragged to Congress and interrogated and interviewed by a House Committee. It does not matter if he is blind, HE IS ALREADY SPIRITUALLY BLIND! His acts in destroying people should force him to be humble. He is nothing more than Father Coughlin and Morton Downey, Jr. Beck is an embarrasment to the Church. He should, for his mental and physical health, must quit his radio and TV shows, if he is ever going to be closer to God again. If he doesn't, the Fux Propaganda Channel signed it's own death warrant. They are Joseph Goebbels and Joseph McCarthy combined, and if they don't understand it, then we are not the United States of America, but United States Hospital. Welcome to the Insane Asylum.
Sharron Sherrod should get her job back. Obama ought to quit pretending that the Republicans are going to be "bipartisan" when they want to go back to the days between 1994-2008. FUCK THEM! They started the Great Depression in the 1930's and started this Recession. It wasn't the Democrats. Between 2001-2009, the Republicans spent monies like they're the bunch of drunken sailors. It fine time in 2010, this November, more of them should be defeated, not less. Nancy Pelosi will remain the Speaker, and Harry Reid (Righteous and sane man) will remain the Senate Majority Leader. The Republicans and the Fux Propaganda Channel all drank the Kool Aid. So did Tom Vilsack. He should text his resignation on the Beltway.
Nikita Khrushchev said in "Enemy at the Gates", "He's [Marksman Vasili Zaytsev] making the Germans shit in their pants!"
The Republicans and the Fux Propaganda Channel should shit their pants.
Rue Britannia.
Viva la Revolucion!
Vive la France Libre!
Es lebt unser heiliges Deutschland!
United We Stand!
Go to hell Glenn Beck!
KEITH OLBERMANN IS SO SPOT ON!
This is also from theimmoralminority.blogspot.com:
Hard to hear. But extremely important that it be heard.
More from digbysblog.blogspot.com
Civil Rights and Shirley Sherrod's Family
by batocchio
Earlier this week, Digby posted some of Shirley Sherrod's speech - the parts Andrew Breitbart and his team chose to hide. (Media Matters has the video.) If you haven't seen it yet, it's pretty moving and thoughtful.
Three recent posts delve more into her story, her father's and her husband's.
"Hosie Miller: Shirley Sherrod's dad, and a casualty in a forgotten war," by Will Bunch:
How unusual was it for a black man to be killed by a white man in the Deep South up through the mid-1960s with no one brought to justice. Way too common. We hear a lot about one particular killing in Mississippi -- the 1964 murder of a trio of civil rights activists that included two white college kids from up North -- but in reality dozens of black men were killed for taking a stand, for trying to vote or just on a whim. If you want to read something sobering, check out this letter from 2007 from the Southern Poverty Law Center, asking the FBI to investigate some 74 additional unsolved deaths from the era.
"The civil rights heroism of Charles Sherrod," by Joan Walsh:
People who care about civil rights and racial reconciliation may eventually thank Andrew Breitbart for bringing Shirley Sherrod the global attention she deserves. Really. Her message of racial healing, her insight that the forces of wealth and injustice have always pit "the haves and the have-nots" against each other, whatever their race, is exactly what's missing in today's Beltway debates about race. What's even more amazing, but almost completely unexplored in this controversy, is the historic civil rights leadership role of her husband, Charles Sherrod, an early leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, who served on the front lines of the nonviolent civil rights movement in the early 1960s.
Despite Breitbart's attempt to cast Shirley Sherrod as The, um, Man ("The Woman" doesn't have the same ring), out to keep oppressed white folk down, under our first black racist president, she turned out to be the opposite, an advocate of justice for everybody. Given that history, it's fascinating to learn more about her husband, an early SNCC leader known for being willing to work with white volunteers even after tension developed over the role of whites in the organization. Charles Sherrod is important for much more than the fairness with which he treated whites, but given Breitbart's attempt to make his wife the poster woman for black "racism," that footnote to his leadership history is particularly noteworthy. If there's anyone more clueless about our civil rights history than Breitbart, as well as more abusive to it, I'm challenged to think of who it might be. He tests my commitment to nonviolent social change, but I'll share the work of Charles Sherrod to remember my values.
"Shirley Sherrod and the Dark History of Baker County," by Elizabeth Holtzman:
The bad news is that the forces of racism and those who cower before it are alive and well. The good news is that both the Spooners, the poor white farmers that Ms. Sherrod helped, and Ms. Sherrod were able to reject that racism to find what connected them. The best news would be if the country would decisively cast off the legacy of Sheriff Screws, Sheriff Johnson, and all the racist evil they represent.
Out here in L.A., some of the local PBS stations have been re-running Eyes on the Prize this year. I doubt Breitbart will watch it, but it seems it's always timely.
Glenn Beck should not be a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He is not a Christian of any kind by any remote way.
Jesus Christ fed the poor, healed the sick, and raised the dead. He gave the Sermon on the mount on the basis of "come, follow Me." He chased thieves out of the Temple.
He died on the Cross. He told the thief next to Him, "for tomorrow you will be in Paradise." He died. He went to the dead in the dark. He visited all the righteous, taught all the repentant, and opened the Gates of Heaven.
He then left His tomb.
Mary Magdaline was looking for Him. She thought He was the gardener, and begged to take His body.
Jesus came back.
He also visited the Native Americans, the Polynesians, and the Ten Tribes.
---------------------------------------
"Senator [Dan Quayle], I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Sen. Lloyd Bentsen in the 1988 Vice Presidential Debate.
Beck, I was in the Pre-Existence. I was with Jesus Christ. I knew and still know Jesus. He is my Best Friend
You sir, are no Jesus Christ.
You don't know Jesus Christ.
As Keith Olbermann would say, "you sir, are an idiot."
YOU ARE A MOR-ON!
You weren't the first. It was Andrew Notsobriteassbitch that launched the attack on Shirley Sherrod. The clip where it was claimed that she discriminated against a White farmer was severely edited. The point was to show that Obama is a "racist", and will hurt and discriminate against White people. The entire Fux Propaganda Channel is trying to promote this and other allegations, such as Obama was born in Kenya, and that Obama is some sort of "Muslim" "Socialist" or "Fascist".
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961, the 17th anniversary of the day Anne Frank and seven others were arrested by the Gestapo (Richard Belzer, the future Det. Munch, was also probably riding in his birthday present with his cousin, the future Arthur Fonzerelli, that day.), in Honolulu, Hawai'i. He was not born in Kenya, or anywhere out of the United States. They don't like Obama as President, BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.
Hitler didn't like Jews, because they were Jews.
"They passed a law in '64 to give others a little more.", Bruce Honrsby and the Range, "That's the Way It Is".
GET THE FUCK OVER IT!
THIS IS 2010, NOT 1960!
The Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party of 1860. It is a shell of the Democratic Party of 1860.
Ayn Rand Paul stated on the Rachel Maddow Show that he wanted segregation back. The Republican Party and its supporter, the Fux Propaganda Channel, have not condemned Paul; therefore, they are just as racist as the Southern Democrats were in the 1960's. Ask Latinos in Nazizona.
---------------------------------------------
"She [Anne Frank] asks as if we started the War. Did we start the War?", Herman Van Pels ("Van Daan"). "The Diary of Anne Frank".
"We didn't start the fire! It was always burning as the world was turning!" Billy Joel, "We didn't start the fire!"
Glenn Goldenass Beck is a fraud. He advertises for Goldline. Goldline has ripped off thousands of people for thousands of dollars, including seniors. He is also a liar, and is not close to be a journalist. The Fux Propaganda Channel is just that, a cable channel to spread unfounded conservative propaganda, and then pose it as news. It is a giant amonium nitrate (bull shit) factory. Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and the rest of the staff are no better than Joseph Goebbels, and the Ministry of Information and Propaganda.
I say all this because Shirley Sherrod was asked to resign by sending a text by cell phone on the way back to Athens, Georgia, because she was going to be a topic of Glenn Beck's show on the Fux Propaganda Channel.
Beck is a liar, fraudster, and thief. He should be excommunicated from the Church. I would not sustain him in any Church Office! His ass should be dragged to Congress and interrogated and interviewed by a House Committee. It does not matter if he is blind, HE IS ALREADY SPIRITUALLY BLIND! His acts in destroying people should force him to be humble. He is nothing more than Father Coughlin and Morton Downey, Jr. Beck is an embarrasment to the Church. He should, for his mental and physical health, must quit his radio and TV shows, if he is ever going to be closer to God again. If he doesn't, the Fux Propaganda Channel signed it's own death warrant. They are Joseph Goebbels and Joseph McCarthy combined, and if they don't understand it, then we are not the United States of America, but United States Hospital. Welcome to the Insane Asylum.
Sharron Sherrod should get her job back. Obama ought to quit pretending that the Republicans are going to be "bipartisan" when they want to go back to the days between 1994-2008. FUCK THEM! They started the Great Depression in the 1930's and started this Recession. It wasn't the Democrats. Between 2001-2009, the Republicans spent monies like they're the bunch of drunken sailors. It fine time in 2010, this November, more of them should be defeated, not less. Nancy Pelosi will remain the Speaker, and Harry Reid (Righteous and sane man) will remain the Senate Majority Leader. The Republicans and the Fux Propaganda Channel all drank the Kool Aid. So did Tom Vilsack. He should text his resignation on the Beltway.
Nikita Khrushchev said in "Enemy at the Gates", "He's [Marksman Vasili Zaytsev] making the Germans shit in their pants!"
The Republicans and the Fux Propaganda Channel should shit their pants.
Rue Britannia.
Viva la Revolucion!
Vive la France Libre!
Es lebt unser heiliges Deutschland!
United We Stand!
Go to hell Glenn Beck!
KEITH OLBERMANN IS SO SPOT ON!
This is also from theimmoralminority.blogspot.com:
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment for July 21, 2010.
Hard to hear. But extremely important that it be heard.
More from digbysblog.blogspot.com
Civil Rights and Shirley Sherrod's Family
by batocchio
Earlier this week, Digby posted some of Shirley Sherrod's speech - the parts Andrew Breitbart and his team chose to hide. (Media Matters has the video.) If you haven't seen it yet, it's pretty moving and thoughtful.
Three recent posts delve more into her story, her father's and her husband's.
"Hosie Miller: Shirley Sherrod's dad, and a casualty in a forgotten war," by Will Bunch:
How unusual was it for a black man to be killed by a white man in the Deep South up through the mid-1960s with no one brought to justice. Way too common. We hear a lot about one particular killing in Mississippi -- the 1964 murder of a trio of civil rights activists that included two white college kids from up North -- but in reality dozens of black men were killed for taking a stand, for trying to vote or just on a whim. If you want to read something sobering, check out this letter from 2007 from the Southern Poverty Law Center, asking the FBI to investigate some 74 additional unsolved deaths from the era.
"The civil rights heroism of Charles Sherrod," by Joan Walsh:
People who care about civil rights and racial reconciliation may eventually thank Andrew Breitbart for bringing Shirley Sherrod the global attention she deserves. Really. Her message of racial healing, her insight that the forces of wealth and injustice have always pit "the haves and the have-nots" against each other, whatever their race, is exactly what's missing in today's Beltway debates about race. What's even more amazing, but almost completely unexplored in this controversy, is the historic civil rights leadership role of her husband, Charles Sherrod, an early leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, who served on the front lines of the nonviolent civil rights movement in the early 1960s.
Despite Breitbart's attempt to cast Shirley Sherrod as The, um, Man ("The Woman" doesn't have the same ring), out to keep oppressed white folk down, under our first black racist president, she turned out to be the opposite, an advocate of justice for everybody. Given that history, it's fascinating to learn more about her husband, an early SNCC leader known for being willing to work with white volunteers even after tension developed over the role of whites in the organization. Charles Sherrod is important for much more than the fairness with which he treated whites, but given Breitbart's attempt to make his wife the poster woman for black "racism," that footnote to his leadership history is particularly noteworthy. If there's anyone more clueless about our civil rights history than Breitbart, as well as more abusive to it, I'm challenged to think of who it might be. He tests my commitment to nonviolent social change, but I'll share the work of Charles Sherrod to remember my values.
"Shirley Sherrod and the Dark History of Baker County," by Elizabeth Holtzman:
The bad news is that the forces of racism and those who cower before it are alive and well. The good news is that both the Spooners, the poor white farmers that Ms. Sherrod helped, and Ms. Sherrod were able to reject that racism to find what connected them. The best news would be if the country would decisively cast off the legacy of Sheriff Screws, Sheriff Johnson, and all the racist evil they represent.
Out here in L.A., some of the local PBS stations have been re-running Eyes on the Prize this year. I doubt Breitbart will watch it, but it seems it's always timely.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
WHAT ABOUT SEX OFFENDERS?
From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:
Video Link |
YouTube Channel
Marc Klaas' daughter Polly was murdered when she was 12 years old and he has
devoted his life to protecting children from murderes/sex offenders since then.
Are the laws in place which limits sex offenders to where they can live really
helping or are they backfiring? Marc Klaas says that there needs to be a way to
differentiate certain sex offenders from others and then make the punishments
equal.
YouTube Channel
NOT EVEN THE NEW YORK GOVERNOR IS IMMUNE
From: sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:
Original Article
07/08/2010
By Mark Hamblett
Former Governor George E. Pataki and other officials can be sued for the involuntary civil commitment of violent sexual predators without notice or a hearing upon the completion of their prison terms, a federal judge has ruled.
Southern District Judge Jed S. Rakoff concluded that Mr. Pataki, the former commissioners of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, the state Office of Mental Health and others are not shielded by qualified immunity for actions that "rather blatantly violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights."
The inmates were shuttled directly from prison to the Manhattan Psychiatric Center after Mr. Pataki unilaterally promulgated a Sexual Violent Predator Initiative in September 2005. He acted after the Legislature several times failed to enact a civil confinement statute.
Judge Rakoff said the governor's initiative ran afoul of U.S. Supreme Court case law and, in any event, "no balancing of public and private interests can remotely justify what happened here."
The state Attorney General's Office has appealed Judge Rakoff's decision in Bailey v. Pataki, 08 Civ. 8563, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Both the office and Mr. Pataki, now of counsel at Chadbourne & Parke, declined comment yesterday.
Six plaintiffs sued Mr. Pataki and several officials alleging a politically motivated conspiracy to violate their civil rights.
The governor's program authorized involuntary civil commitment pursuant to New York Mental Hygiene Law §9.27, which allows two state-employed psychiatrists to commit, without a prior judicial hearing or determination, "any person alleged to be mentally ill and in need of involuntary care and treatment."
But in 2006, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in State ex rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio, 7 N.Y. 3d 607 (2006), that post-release commitment could only occur through Correction Law §402, which permits transfers of inmates to civil confinement in a psychiatric facility only upon a judicial determination made after notice, hearing and examination by court-appointed psychiatrists.
Before the Harkavy decision, the six plaintiffs were all near the end of their prison terms when they were transferred to the psychiatric facility.
After briefing and oral argument, Judge Rakoff dismissed some claims against some of the defendants. But he left in place allegations against Mr. Pataki and his former aides under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, conspiracy under §§1983 and 1985, state constitutional claims and state law claims for negligence and gross negligence, and claims by three of the plaintiffs for false imprisonment.
'Essential Requirements'
In his opinion Tuesday, Judge Rakoff cited Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980), in which the U.S. Supreme Court called involuntary psychiatric commitment "a massive curtailment of liberty" that cannot be done without adequate due process protection, including notice and a hearing.
"The fact that a citizen has been previously convicted of an offense involving sexual violations in no way deprives him of this protection," Judge Rakoff said, adding that the plaintiffs' evidence shows that "none of the essential requirements set forth in Vitek was met."
The plaintiffs, he observed, were transferred "without the slightest advance notice" after being evaluated by two physicians prior to transfer. And he said there was nothing in the record, when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, that suggested it was infeasible to accord procedural safeguards to the inmates.
The judge rejected the defendants' claims that their actions were objectively reasonable and not in violation of clearly established law. He added that "it would have been the easiest thing in the world" to follow all the required procedures.
"This is so obvious that no reasonable defendant official could have failed to miss it," Judge Rakoff said.
He said the plaintiffs had put forth evidence that could lead a jury to conclude that the officials knew they were violating the inmates' rights but persisted "in a deliberate decision taken for political reasons."
"To deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights for political gain can never be reasonable," he said.
And while Mr. Pataki and the other defendants "vehemently" deny they acted for political advantage, he said, "plaintiffs have proffered sufficient competent evidence to make this a jury question."
Plaintiffs' attorney Ameer Benno said it was absurd for Mr. Pataki and others to claim qualified immunity because they are being indemnified under Public Officers Law §17.
"The whole doctrine of qualified immunity is based on the idea that public officials should be able to act in a way that is bold and decisive without fear of personal litigation," Mr. Benno said. "This perpetrates a fraud on the community, which is not aware that these officials are not going to pay out of their own pocket."
Assistant Attorneys General Edward J. Curtis Jr., Jane R. Goldberg and Matthew Silverman represent the defendants.
After Mr. Pataki left office in 2006, the Legislature enacted Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, which established a process for civil confinement of sexual offenders.
Original Article
07/08/2010
By Mark Hamblett
Former Governor George E. Pataki and other officials can be sued for the involuntary civil commitment of violent sexual predators without notice or a hearing upon the completion of their prison terms, a federal judge has ruled.
Southern District Judge Jed S. Rakoff concluded that Mr. Pataki, the former commissioners of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, the state Office of Mental Health and others are not shielded by qualified immunity for actions that "rather blatantly violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights."
The inmates were shuttled directly from prison to the Manhattan Psychiatric Center after Mr. Pataki unilaterally promulgated a Sexual Violent Predator Initiative in September 2005. He acted after the Legislature several times failed to enact a civil confinement statute.
Judge Rakoff said the governor's initiative ran afoul of U.S. Supreme Court case law and, in any event, "no balancing of public and private interests can remotely justify what happened here."
The state Attorney General's Office has appealed Judge Rakoff's decision in Bailey v. Pataki, 08 Civ. 8563, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Both the office and Mr. Pataki, now of counsel at Chadbourne & Parke, declined comment yesterday.
Six plaintiffs sued Mr. Pataki and several officials alleging a politically motivated conspiracy to violate their civil rights.
The governor's program authorized involuntary civil commitment pursuant to New York Mental Hygiene Law §9.27, which allows two state-employed psychiatrists to commit, without a prior judicial hearing or determination, "any person alleged to be mentally ill and in need of involuntary care and treatment."
But in 2006, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in State ex rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio, 7 N.Y. 3d 607 (2006), that post-release commitment could only occur through Correction Law §402, which permits transfers of inmates to civil confinement in a psychiatric facility only upon a judicial determination made after notice, hearing and examination by court-appointed psychiatrists.
Before the Harkavy decision, the six plaintiffs were all near the end of their prison terms when they were transferred to the psychiatric facility.
After briefing and oral argument, Judge Rakoff dismissed some claims against some of the defendants. But he left in place allegations against Mr. Pataki and his former aides under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, conspiracy under §§1983 and 1985, state constitutional claims and state law claims for negligence and gross negligence, and claims by three of the plaintiffs for false imprisonment.
'Essential Requirements'
In his opinion Tuesday, Judge Rakoff cited Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980), in which the U.S. Supreme Court called involuntary psychiatric commitment "a massive curtailment of liberty" that cannot be done without adequate due process protection, including notice and a hearing.
"The fact that a citizen has been previously convicted of an offense involving sexual violations in no way deprives him of this protection," Judge Rakoff said, adding that the plaintiffs' evidence shows that "none of the essential requirements set forth in Vitek was met."
The plaintiffs, he observed, were transferred "without the slightest advance notice" after being evaluated by two physicians prior to transfer. And he said there was nothing in the record, when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, that suggested it was infeasible to accord procedural safeguards to the inmates.
The judge rejected the defendants' claims that their actions were objectively reasonable and not in violation of clearly established law. He added that "it would have been the easiest thing in the world" to follow all the required procedures.
"This is so obvious that no reasonable defendant official could have failed to miss it," Judge Rakoff said.
He said the plaintiffs had put forth evidence that could lead a jury to conclude that the officials knew they were violating the inmates' rights but persisted "in a deliberate decision taken for political reasons."
"To deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights for political gain can never be reasonable," he said.
And while Mr. Pataki and the other defendants "vehemently" deny they acted for political advantage, he said, "plaintiffs have proffered sufficient competent evidence to make this a jury question."
Plaintiffs' attorney Ameer Benno said it was absurd for Mr. Pataki and others to claim qualified immunity because they are being indemnified under Public Officers Law §17.
"The whole doctrine of qualified immunity is based on the idea that public officials should be able to act in a way that is bold and decisive without fear of personal litigation," Mr. Benno said. "This perpetrates a fraud on the community, which is not aware that these officials are not going to pay out of their own pocket."
Assistant Attorneys General Edward J. Curtis Jr., Jane R. Goldberg and Matthew Silverman represent the defendants.
After Mr. Pataki left office in 2006, the Legislature enacted Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, which established a process for civil confinement of sexual offenders.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE PROVISION? BULL FUCKING SHIT!
This is clearly judicial activism by these conservative Judges. Instead of doing their duties; they're are finding ways not to handle justice.
From circuit9.blogspot.com:
Lee v. Lambert, No. 09-35276 (7-6-10) (O'Scannlain joined by Wolle, D.J.; concurrence by N. Smith). AEDPA does not have an innocence exception to its statute of limitations. That was the decision by the 9th, where the panel reversed and remanded a granting of relief by a district court. The petitioner had been convicted of various counts of child molestation in Oregon, but his challenge, with a compelling innocence claim, was outside AEDPA's statute. The 9th chose this case to quash any assumption that there was an exception for innocence, stating that it was basically a waste of time and judicial resources and that district courts are deciding cases differently (see pp. 9533 & 9534). The decision by the 9th boils down to the plain language of the statute and that Congress was aware of such a possible judicial created exception, but did not fashion such an exception in the final legislation. The decision by the 9th creates a circuit conflict with the 1st, 5th, 7th, 8th, and now 9th, aligned against the 6th. N. Smith concurred, focusing on the lack of AEDPA deference given to the state courts by the district court under AEDPA.
From circuit9.blogspot.com:
Lee v. Lambert, No. 09-35276 (7-6-10) (O'Scannlain joined by Wolle, D.J.; concurrence by N. Smith). AEDPA does not have an innocence exception to its statute of limitations. That was the decision by the 9th, where the panel reversed and remanded a granting of relief by a district court. The petitioner had been convicted of various counts of child molestation in Oregon, but his challenge, with a compelling innocence claim, was outside AEDPA's statute. The 9th chose this case to quash any assumption that there was an exception for innocence, stating that it was basically a waste of time and judicial resources and that district courts are deciding cases differently (see pp. 9533 & 9534). The decision by the 9th boils down to the plain language of the statute and that Congress was aware of such a possible judicial created exception, but did not fashion such an exception in the final legislation. The decision by the 9th creates a circuit conflict with the 1st, 5th, 7th, 8th, and now 9th, aligned against the 6th. N. Smith concurred, focusing on the lack of AEDPA deference given to the state courts by the district court under AEDPA.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
YOU GO CINDY!
General Atomics ought to shit their pants.
From cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com:
General Atomics Afraid of Peace of the Action by Cindy Sheehan
Jackwagons
Cindy Sheehan
Last week I was getting ready to head out to DC for Peace of the Action’s Sizzlin’ Summer Protest when I got a call with a 202 (DC) area code. This is how the conversation went:
Me: Hello, this is Cindy.
Caller: Hello, my name is (I forget) from PM Realty in Washington, DC.
Me: And? What can I do for you?
Caller: I was looking at your website and I noticed that I represent one of the clients you are going to protest next week and I want to know what you are planning.
Me: I am protesting a lot of places, which do you represent?
Caller: I represent the landlord?
Me: The landlord of the White House? Can you please be more specific?
Caller: I represent the landlord where General Atomics has offices.
Me: Oh (this was what I thought he was talking about), and what do you want to know?
Caller: Well, exactly what do you have planned?
Me: Well, I can tell you what we don’t have planned—we aren’t going to call a drone strike on the building and drop a hellfire missile on it.
Caller: I have to protect my clients.
Me: From what? Peace activists?
Then I hung up.
Today, my colleague, Josh Smith and I went to 1899 Pennsylvania Ave where General Atomics has its offices to recon for our protest tomorrow. If you go to the website of General Atomics, not only will you find out exactly where its offices are (they are not hiding), you will find out that General Atomics builds Predator unmanned aerial vehicles that are used by the US military to drop Hellfire missiles from thousands of feet above on to mostly civilian targets and have killed thousands of innocent people.
When we arrived at the building that is directly across the street from the World Bank in the NW quadrant of DC, we walked right in the front door and right up to the front desk (Josh was wearing his Peace of the Action shirt) and asked a uniformed security guard what floor GA is on. She looked at a list on the desk and said: “Third floor.” We thanked her and left. The reason we wanted to confirm that GA is in the building is because when we protested at the Joint Command for the Gulf Disaster in New Orleans, there was some controversy if we were protesting at the right place.
So, Josh and I left GA and walked across the street to the CVS to grab a cold drink. We walked back across the street to head for the Metro at Faragut Wast, and three men were congregated in front of 1899 Penn Ave checking us out. Two of the men were “suits” and one was a black man who was dressed in street clothes, but with a badge around his neck.
I took some pictures of the entrance and the address, and the black man quickly approached us. He said: “We want to know why you entered the building and asked what floor General Atomics was on.”
“Who are you?” I asked.
“Security for General Atomics,” he answered.
Josh: “We asked because we wanted to know what floor it was on.”
Security: “Why do you want to know?”
Me: “It’s really none of your business.”
Josh: “Just stay away from us.”
Security: “Okay, okay.”
Then we walked away.
We cut through some buildings on the way to the Metro Station so I could find a bathroom. Josh and I went down to the train platform and were chatting about and chuckling about General Atomics being so concerned about a few people standing in front of their building with a banner, when Josh said: “Hey, isn’t that the security guy!?”
I turned around to where Josh was pointing, and sure enough, he was walking past us with a ball-cap on, carrying a backpack. When he saw that we recognized him, he sheepishly tipped his cap to us and said: “Hey, how’s it going?” Then he walked past us.
A train pulled up that wasn’t ours, so we jumped on it and tried to make our way back to where we were staying in a non-direct way.
So—what is this all about?
On Monday, my wallet was stolen and literally a few minutes after it was stolen, someone tried to use it at a DC Target Store to buy EXACTLY 911.00 worth of merchandise.
What are these evil “Jackwagons” up to?
What does Jackwagon mean? I don’t know, but I heard it today and liked it and without using profanity, it fits!
If you are able, join Peace of the Action as we protest an evil war profiteer in DC. (Safety in Numbers).
For more info go to www.PeaceoftheAction.org
PS: If Josh and I “disappear” call General Atomics and ask what they did to us.
From cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com:
General Atomics Afraid of Peace of the Action by Cindy Sheehan
Jackwagons
Cindy Sheehan
Last week I was getting ready to head out to DC for Peace of the Action’s Sizzlin’ Summer Protest when I got a call with a 202 (DC) area code. This is how the conversation went:
Me: Hello, this is Cindy.
Caller: Hello, my name is (I forget) from PM Realty in Washington, DC.
Me: And? What can I do for you?
Caller: I was looking at your website and I noticed that I represent one of the clients you are going to protest next week and I want to know what you are planning.
Me: I am protesting a lot of places, which do you represent?
Caller: I represent the landlord?
Me: The landlord of the White House? Can you please be more specific?
Caller: I represent the landlord where General Atomics has offices.
Me: Oh (this was what I thought he was talking about), and what do you want to know?
Caller: Well, exactly what do you have planned?
Me: Well, I can tell you what we don’t have planned—we aren’t going to call a drone strike on the building and drop a hellfire missile on it.
Caller: I have to protect my clients.
Me: From what? Peace activists?
Then I hung up.
Today, my colleague, Josh Smith and I went to 1899 Pennsylvania Ave where General Atomics has its offices to recon for our protest tomorrow. If you go to the website of General Atomics, not only will you find out exactly where its offices are (they are not hiding), you will find out that General Atomics builds Predator unmanned aerial vehicles that are used by the US military to drop Hellfire missiles from thousands of feet above on to mostly civilian targets and have killed thousands of innocent people.
When we arrived at the building that is directly across the street from the World Bank in the NW quadrant of DC, we walked right in the front door and right up to the front desk (Josh was wearing his Peace of the Action shirt) and asked a uniformed security guard what floor GA is on. She looked at a list on the desk and said: “Third floor.” We thanked her and left. The reason we wanted to confirm that GA is in the building is because when we protested at the Joint Command for the Gulf Disaster in New Orleans, there was some controversy if we were protesting at the right place.
So, Josh and I left GA and walked across the street to the CVS to grab a cold drink. We walked back across the street to head for the Metro at Faragut Wast, and three men were congregated in front of 1899 Penn Ave checking us out. Two of the men were “suits” and one was a black man who was dressed in street clothes, but with a badge around his neck.
I took some pictures of the entrance and the address, and the black man quickly approached us. He said: “We want to know why you entered the building and asked what floor General Atomics was on.”
“Who are you?” I asked.
“Security for General Atomics,” he answered.
Josh: “We asked because we wanted to know what floor it was on.”
Security: “Why do you want to know?”
Me: “It’s really none of your business.”
Josh: “Just stay away from us.”
Security: “Okay, okay.”
Then we walked away.
We cut through some buildings on the way to the Metro Station so I could find a bathroom. Josh and I went down to the train platform and were chatting about and chuckling about General Atomics being so concerned about a few people standing in front of their building with a banner, when Josh said: “Hey, isn’t that the security guy!?”
I turned around to where Josh was pointing, and sure enough, he was walking past us with a ball-cap on, carrying a backpack. When he saw that we recognized him, he sheepishly tipped his cap to us and said: “Hey, how’s it going?” Then he walked past us.
A train pulled up that wasn’t ours, so we jumped on it and tried to make our way back to where we were staying in a non-direct way.
So—what is this all about?
On Monday, my wallet was stolen and literally a few minutes after it was stolen, someone tried to use it at a DC Target Store to buy EXACTLY 911.00 worth of merchandise.
What are these evil “Jackwagons” up to?
What does Jackwagon mean? I don’t know, but I heard it today and liked it and without using profanity, it fits!
If you are able, join Peace of the Action as we protest an evil war profiteer in DC. (Safety in Numbers).
For more info go to www.PeaceoftheAction.org
PS: If Josh and I “disappear” call General Atomics and ask what they did to us.
FINALLY, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES NAZIZONA
Now if the pass immigration reform in Congress, we'd be in business.
From bsnorrell.blogspot.com:
U.S. Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
ACLU and Other Groups Also Challenging Law Laud Obama Administration's Action
BY ACLU
WASHINGTON, July 6 -- The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit today challenging Arizona's recently enacted racial profiling law known as SB 1070. In taking this extraordinary action, the federal government has sent a clear message that it will not tolerate state laws that invite racial stereotyping and profiling and interfere with federal immigration priorities and policies.
The American Civil Liberties Union, along with a coalition of leading rights groups, filed a lawsuit in May challenging the constitutionality of the law.
The civil rights coalition includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice – ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is serving as pro bono co-counsel in the case.
The following statements can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.
Lucas Guttentag, Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project:
"We commend the Obama administration for taking this critical step to negate Arizona's unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority and its invitation to racial profiling. The administration's lawsuit is a cannon shot across the bow of other states that may be tempted to follow Arizona's misguided approach. We will continue to aggressively pursue our legal challenge and welcome the Justice Department's participation in the battle to preserve American values of fairness and equality."
Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC:
"States planning to follow in Arizona's misguided footsteps should take note: the United States cannot and should not allow immigrants and communities of color to be targets of hateful racial profiling legislation that puts their civil liberties on the line. We are pleased to see that the government has exercised its legal right to protect the rights of those within its borders and ensure that federal issues remain squarely in the federal domain."
Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:
"The Obama administration's action against this 'show me your papers' law sends a loud and clear message against state laws that institutionalize racial profiling of Latinos and result in an erosion of trust between law enforcement and the community. There has been a long history of racial profiling of Latinos in our state, particularly in Maricopa County, causing witnesses and victims of crime to be less willing to come forward. We will fight vigorously to keep this law from going into effect, and welcome the administration's efforts toward the same goal."
Julie Su, Litigation Director, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice:
"We welcome the Department of Justice's action against Arizona's law that invites racial profiling of anyone who might be perceived as being foreign, including Asian Americans. We hope the DOJ's challenge to this discriminatory law signals a willingness on the part of the federal government to address the myriad ways that our country's broken immigration system affects Americans and those who seek a better life by coming to America. We need federal action to prevent more cities and states from introducing copycat measures that violate core American values of fairness and equality."
Chris Newman, Legal Director, NDLON:
"The Department of Justice has the legal and moral obligation to challenge SB 1070, not just to protect civil rights in Arizona but also to defend the federal government's exclusive authority to define and implement United States immigration policy."
Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP:
"In filing this lawsuit, the Obama administration has taken a strong and principled stand against Arizona's discriminatory law. African-Americans have the misfortune of being all too familiar with the pernicious effects of racial profiling, and we welcome the addition of the administration to the broad spectrum of organizations already challenging this unconstitutional law. Laws that encourage discrimination have no place in this country. We are confident that the courts will prevent it from ever taking effect."
Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Guttentag, Omar Jadwat, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi
MALDEF: Thomas A. Saenz, Nina Perales, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limon, Nicholas Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal
NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri
ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai
APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo
NDLON: Newman and Lisa Kung
NAACP: Laura Blackburne
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer and Benjamin Maro
Roush, Mccracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.
More information about the Arizona law, including an ACLU video and slide show, can be found at: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona
SOURCE American Civil Liberties Union
From bsnorrell.blogspot.com:
U.S. Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
ACLU and Other Groups Also Challenging Law Laud Obama Administration's Action
BY ACLU
WASHINGTON, July 6 -- The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit today challenging Arizona's recently enacted racial profiling law known as SB 1070. In taking this extraordinary action, the federal government has sent a clear message that it will not tolerate state laws that invite racial stereotyping and profiling and interfere with federal immigration priorities and policies.
The American Civil Liberties Union, along with a coalition of leading rights groups, filed a lawsuit in May challenging the constitutionality of the law.
The civil rights coalition includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice – ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is serving as pro bono co-counsel in the case.
The following statements can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.
Lucas Guttentag, Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project:
"We commend the Obama administration for taking this critical step to negate Arizona's unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority and its invitation to racial profiling. The administration's lawsuit is a cannon shot across the bow of other states that may be tempted to follow Arizona's misguided approach. We will continue to aggressively pursue our legal challenge and welcome the Justice Department's participation in the battle to preserve American values of fairness and equality."
Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC:
"States planning to follow in Arizona's misguided footsteps should take note: the United States cannot and should not allow immigrants and communities of color to be targets of hateful racial profiling legislation that puts their civil liberties on the line. We are pleased to see that the government has exercised its legal right to protect the rights of those within its borders and ensure that federal issues remain squarely in the federal domain."
Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:
"The Obama administration's action against this 'show me your papers' law sends a loud and clear message against state laws that institutionalize racial profiling of Latinos and result in an erosion of trust between law enforcement and the community. There has been a long history of racial profiling of Latinos in our state, particularly in Maricopa County, causing witnesses and victims of crime to be less willing to come forward. We will fight vigorously to keep this law from going into effect, and welcome the administration's efforts toward the same goal."
Julie Su, Litigation Director, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice:
"We welcome the Department of Justice's action against Arizona's law that invites racial profiling of anyone who might be perceived as being foreign, including Asian Americans. We hope the DOJ's challenge to this discriminatory law signals a willingness on the part of the federal government to address the myriad ways that our country's broken immigration system affects Americans and those who seek a better life by coming to America. We need federal action to prevent more cities and states from introducing copycat measures that violate core American values of fairness and equality."
Chris Newman, Legal Director, NDLON:
"The Department of Justice has the legal and moral obligation to challenge SB 1070, not just to protect civil rights in Arizona but also to defend the federal government's exclusive authority to define and implement United States immigration policy."
Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP:
"In filing this lawsuit, the Obama administration has taken a strong and principled stand against Arizona's discriminatory law. African-Americans have the misfortune of being all too familiar with the pernicious effects of racial profiling, and we welcome the addition of the administration to the broad spectrum of organizations already challenging this unconstitutional law. Laws that encourage discrimination have no place in this country. We are confident that the courts will prevent it from ever taking effect."
Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Guttentag, Omar Jadwat, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi
MALDEF: Thomas A. Saenz, Nina Perales, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limon, Nicholas Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal
NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri
ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai
APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo
NDLON: Newman and Lisa Kung
NAACP: Laura Blackburne
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer and Benjamin Maro
Roush, Mccracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.
More information about the Arizona law, including an ACLU video and slide show, can be found at: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona
SOURCE American Civil Liberties Union
PALIN A NOMINEE; YES. PRESIDENT PALIN? NEVER!
If she ever becomes President, I'm Anne Frank!
From theimmoralminority.blogspot.com:
Chris Matthews lays out how Palin could win the GOP nomination, and he is absolutley right. And the people who should be the most frightened by that prospect are in the GOP.
The question of whether Sarah will, or won't, throw her Naughty Monkey Pumps into the ring is now academic. She will.
She cannot win the general, and I seriously doubt she will win the primary, but she is DEFINITELY going to run! That is why there is such a push to tie up all of the loose ends in Wasilla and to get Levi back into the camp.
I am currently scouring the state looking for REAL patriotic Alaskans willing to come forward and tell the unvarnished truth about Sarah Palin. If you are one of those people, or know one, please contact me at gryphen2009@yahoo.com. I will be more than happy to listen to your story.
From theimmoralminority.blogspot.com:
Chris Matthews lays out how Palin could win the GOP nomination, and he is absolutley right. And the people who should be the most frightened by that prospect are in the GOP.
The question of whether Sarah will, or won't, throw her Naughty Monkey Pumps into the ring is now academic. She will.
She cannot win the general, and I seriously doubt she will win the primary, but she is DEFINITELY going to run! That is why there is such a push to tie up all of the loose ends in Wasilla and to get Levi back into the camp.
I am currently scouring the state looking for REAL patriotic Alaskans willing to come forward and tell the unvarnished truth about Sarah Palin. If you are one of those people, or know one, please contact me at gryphen2009@yahoo.com. I will be more than happy to listen to your story.
Monday, July 5, 2010
IT'S TIME OBAMA TO PACK THE SUPREME COURT
It seems that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court want their own judicial activism. They're fucking hypocrites. They don't want "judical activism" on liberal issues, but only on conservative ones. Fine, it shouldn't happen. We should have more liberal Justices on the Supreme Court to prevent going back to the Stone Age. If it encourages more liberal judicial activism, then hell yes. The Warren and Burger Courts were right in the first place.
See the L. A. Times.
See the L. A. Times.
RUSHED LIMBURGER NEEDS TO KEEP HIS PROMISE TO MOVE TO COSTA RICA
From digbysblog.blogspot.com:
Inalienable Gasbags
by digby
Rush Limbaugh says Elena Kagan wants to flush the Declaration of Independence down the toilet:
KAGAN: Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I'm not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws, but my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.
RUSH: And to hell with the Declaration of Independence. She is basically just throwing the whole concept of natural law down the toilet and flushing it. She is throwing the Declaration of Independence down the toilet. [Did she say or imply it? Bull shit!]
I wonder how he explains the arch conservative Texas School Board's decision to downgrade Jefferson in their schoolbooks because they've traced "separation of church and state" to him.
Conservatives have a very hard time with the founding documents because they really don't believe in human rights --- they believe in property rights, which they confuse with freedom. Glenn Beck even changes the terms of the Declaration by making up a story out of whole cloth about how Jefferson originally wrote "life, liberty and property," but it was changed to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" by northerners in the Continental congress because of slavery. It didn't happen.
I just have to share this extended comment by Rush about inalienable rights. It's hilarious:
Rush: Now, I know the Declaration of Independence is not law, but the Declaration of Independence defines us as a people. One of the reasons why this is one of the greatest countries on earth is the Constitution and the founding documents -- all of them, including the Declaration. "We are all endowed by our Creator, certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. If the government, whatever branch, will not stand for those things, who will? Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, held the Declaration above even the Constitution, its ideals at least.
So it makes sense that those who seek to re-enslave us, loosely defined, would feel the opposite way. They've convinced themselves that there is a "living, breathing Constitution," which means there's no Constitution at all. [Shows how much Rushed is a stupid dumb fuck cunt!] The Constitution is what they want it to be at any given moment. So inalienable rights -- an absolute guaranteed by God no less -- they find threatening. [Must be on Oxycotin all of these years, the last 60 of them!] And we're about to put somebody who obviously holds this view on the United States Supreme Court. I wonder if Elena Kagan would agree that all human beings have an alien right to live in the United States and become US citizens. [Fine, support amnesty, you shithead!] Obama clearly does. Obama vomited the cliche line: "These people are only seeking a better life." The implication was, "They're only seeking a better life! Who are we to tell 'em they can't have a better life?" So I guess the people coming here illegally, they got all kinds of rights and we're going to make sure that they are enshrined somewhere. In the process, the natural rights and conferred rights of American citizens are going to take a hit administered by this administration. [What citizens? Corporate "citizens"? People with money? Of course, but Rushed doesn't give a shit about the middle and poor classes, so why the fuck does Unclear Asschannelled put him on 600 stations? To copy the movie "Network"?]
I guess Rush thinks our "Creator" didn't mean for all those aliens to have inalienable rights -- indeed, those "natural rights" are reserved for Americans. Like I said, very confused.
If you haven't read the Declaration recently, it's worth looking at today. It, along with Bill of Rights, is the best realization of the founders' idealistic vision.
Inalienable Gasbags
by digby
Rush Limbaugh says Elena Kagan wants to flush the Declaration of Independence down the toilet:
KAGAN: Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I'm not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws, but my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.
RUSH: And to hell with the Declaration of Independence. She is basically just throwing the whole concept of natural law down the toilet and flushing it. She is throwing the Declaration of Independence down the toilet. [Did she say or imply it? Bull shit!]
I wonder how he explains the arch conservative Texas School Board's decision to downgrade Jefferson in their schoolbooks because they've traced "separation of church and state" to him.
Conservatives have a very hard time with the founding documents because they really don't believe in human rights --- they believe in property rights, which they confuse with freedom. Glenn Beck even changes the terms of the Declaration by making up a story out of whole cloth about how Jefferson originally wrote "life, liberty and property," but it was changed to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" by northerners in the Continental congress because of slavery. It didn't happen.
I just have to share this extended comment by Rush about inalienable rights. It's hilarious:
Rush: Now, I know the Declaration of Independence is not law, but the Declaration of Independence defines us as a people. One of the reasons why this is one of the greatest countries on earth is the Constitution and the founding documents -- all of them, including the Declaration. "We are all endowed by our Creator, certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. If the government, whatever branch, will not stand for those things, who will? Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, held the Declaration above even the Constitution, its ideals at least.
So it makes sense that those who seek to re-enslave us, loosely defined, would feel the opposite way. They've convinced themselves that there is a "living, breathing Constitution," which means there's no Constitution at all. [Shows how much Rushed is a stupid dumb fuck cunt!] The Constitution is what they want it to be at any given moment. So inalienable rights -- an absolute guaranteed by God no less -- they find threatening. [Must be on Oxycotin all of these years, the last 60 of them!] And we're about to put somebody who obviously holds this view on the United States Supreme Court. I wonder if Elena Kagan would agree that all human beings have an alien right to live in the United States and become US citizens. [Fine, support amnesty, you shithead!] Obama clearly does. Obama vomited the cliche line: "These people are only seeking a better life." The implication was, "They're only seeking a better life! Who are we to tell 'em they can't have a better life?" So I guess the people coming here illegally, they got all kinds of rights and we're going to make sure that they are enshrined somewhere. In the process, the natural rights and conferred rights of American citizens are going to take a hit administered by this administration. [What citizens? Corporate "citizens"? People with money? Of course, but Rushed doesn't give a shit about the middle and poor classes, so why the fuck does Unclear Asschannelled put him on 600 stations? To copy the movie "Network"?]
I guess Rush thinks our "Creator" didn't mean for all those aliens to have inalienable rights -- indeed, those "natural rights" are reserved for Americans. Like I said, very confused.
If you haven't read the Declaration recently, it's worth looking at today. It, along with Bill of Rights, is the best realization of the founders' idealistic vision.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
HAS ARIZONA CHANGED OVER THE YEARS? NO!
From bsnorrell.blogspot.com:
Arizona's White Supremacy: A New Look for Old Racism
Art by Marco Frucht.
Article by Brenda Norrell
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com
TUCSON- Arizona's new push for racist laws by the governor and legislators exposes a truth that many want concealed. Not only have white racists taken over control of Arizona lawmaking, but they are now battling to disguise their intentions, and the fact that racism toward people of color thrives in Arizona.
For Indigenous Peoples living in their homelands on the US/Mexico border, the racial profiling is already constant. People of color are already constantly stopped, detained and questioned for no reason by the US Border Patrol and police along the border.
Both the US Border Patrol and police officers along the border act with impunity. They stop, detain and question people without reason. (This even happens to me, a news reporter, when I travel with Tohono O'odham. I am stopped, detained and questioned for no reason.)
The abuse does not stop here. Ofelia Rivas, O'odham human rights activist, has been handcuffed and thrown up against a police vehicle as a Tohono O'odham police officer, a non-Indian, tried to silence her. She has been held at gunpoint by Border Patrol. Other O'odham have been beaten by Border Patrol agents, some in front of their young children.
As for the migrants in the desert, it only takes a look at federal court records in Tucson to see that US Border Patrol agents get away with murder. They shoot and kill people for throwing rocks. They murder people at close range without provocation.
Unless one lives in the border region, and is either a person of color, or spends time with people of color, the truth is not always apparent.
Racism thrives within the US Border Patrol and in police departments along the border, from California to Texas.
The Arizona governor and legislators will not be able to conceal the racism that infests Arizona. Marciopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a living symbol of racism in Arizona, a living symbol that injustice and racism flourish in Arizona law enforcement.
The armed patrols stalking migrants in the desert are another dangerous infestation of racism, one of the many hate groups in Arizona.
Racists in Arizona are always looking for laws and rhetoric to avoid the truth, to put a new spin on their quest for power.
But the truth is, the United States was colonized by immigrants, immigrants who murdered entire Indian Nations and kidnapped, tortured and murdered blacks as slaves. The colonizers of the United States carried out a holocaust.
Just as Arizona lawmakers want to put a spin on their racism, the United States conceals the true foundation of its colonization, which was carried out by murderous white immigrants.
Arizona's White Supremacy: A New Look for Old Racism
Art by Marco Frucht.
Article by Brenda Norrell
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com
TUCSON- Arizona's new push for racist laws by the governor and legislators exposes a truth that many want concealed. Not only have white racists taken over control of Arizona lawmaking, but they are now battling to disguise their intentions, and the fact that racism toward people of color thrives in Arizona.
For Indigenous Peoples living in their homelands on the US/Mexico border, the racial profiling is already constant. People of color are already constantly stopped, detained and questioned for no reason by the US Border Patrol and police along the border.
Both the US Border Patrol and police officers along the border act with impunity. They stop, detain and question people without reason. (This even happens to me, a news reporter, when I travel with Tohono O'odham. I am stopped, detained and questioned for no reason.)
The abuse does not stop here. Ofelia Rivas, O'odham human rights activist, has been handcuffed and thrown up against a police vehicle as a Tohono O'odham police officer, a non-Indian, tried to silence her. She has been held at gunpoint by Border Patrol. Other O'odham have been beaten by Border Patrol agents, some in front of their young children.
As for the migrants in the desert, it only takes a look at federal court records in Tucson to see that US Border Patrol agents get away with murder. They shoot and kill people for throwing rocks. They murder people at close range without provocation.
Unless one lives in the border region, and is either a person of color, or spends time with people of color, the truth is not always apparent.
Racism thrives within the US Border Patrol and in police departments along the border, from California to Texas.
The Arizona governor and legislators will not be able to conceal the racism that infests Arizona. Marciopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a living symbol of racism in Arizona, a living symbol that injustice and racism flourish in Arizona law enforcement.
The armed patrols stalking migrants in the desert are another dangerous infestation of racism, one of the many hate groups in Arizona.
Racists in Arizona are always looking for laws and rhetoric to avoid the truth, to put a new spin on their quest for power.
But the truth is, the United States was colonized by immigrants, immigrants who murdered entire Indian Nations and kidnapped, tortured and murdered blacks as slaves. The colonizers of the United States carried out a holocaust.
Just as Arizona lawmakers want to put a spin on their racism, the United States conceals the true foundation of its colonization, which was carried out by murderous white immigrants.
WE WERE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME! THE REALITY OF SARAH PALIN
On Facebook, I've called Sarah Palin a cunt. Why? She's the stupidest bitch around. Born an Idawhore, she is raised either by just as ignorant parents or is an older sister who feels that she has to be better than everybody else. I have a sister like that (but she's still a Democrat). The problem is that Sarah feels that she doesn't have to be better than everybody else; SHE IS BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE, despite her limitations. If she was going to be a journalist, what type of education did she get?
Now, I don't always like Jim Hill. However, he's a better football player than most Americans (Hell, he played for the Chargers.). He knows football, and has been off and on KNXT/KCBS-TV and recently with KCAL-TV for over 35 years. When Jim Hill jumped to KABC-TV, KCBS-TV hired Keith Olbermann from KTLA, and he became the sports anchor until 1992 when KCBS-TV changed general managers, and insisted on having Jim Hill back. KCBS-TV then fired Olbermann, despite being over-qualified and sarcastic. Olbermann didn't become a hit on KTLA by doing what Palin did, merely read from a teleprompter and whose only qualification was having tits and ass. Olbermann wasn't a Mr. Olympian, quarterback, pitcher, point guard, or jockey, but he delivered sports news with eloquence, even though Hill still had 15 years experience at the time. Playing favorites at KCBS-TV don't work very well still, and they haven't been doing good since 1975 when they fired Jerry "From the Desert to the Sea, and to all of Southern California" Dunphy as Anchor. Both Olbermann and Hill are qualified as Sports Anchors. Who the fuck is Sarah Palin?
Palin is the bitch you want to beat up in Carson, California in broad daylight. She is a diva bitch who thinks she knows everything, but actually doesn't know shit! She sits on a pedastal thinking that she's all holier than thou. She is actually a sociopath, which is now typical of the Republican Party. I don't like Hill, but after seeing Sarah for the last two years, Hill can do a better job at being the Governor of Alaska (In a good way, not like what Tony Montana said to Seidelbaum after he got arrested.).
If McCain got elected as President, we certainly would have been in a Depression with Marie Antoinette Palin of Idawhore/Alaska next in line. People would be so sad and pissed, doctrines such as Communism would be appealing as it was in 1932. In the ghettos, it would have been worse than the French Revolution, because that Revolution was at least organized hell. She still wants offshore drilling. TELL THAT TO THE PEOPLE OF LOUISANA! She no concept on anything correct. She makes the actual Marie Antoinette look like Kirsten Dunst in real life. She attracts the stupid American types who have no clue on constitutional rights, economics, history, etc. She believes in being Born Again as in God does everything and provides. Yeah, right! God invented physics, and He knew that if people have to do anything, effort must be applied. This issue was already conclusively decided before the Creation. Satan and his followers went down to Earth without a body because he wanted to force everybody to be good, and everybody to get back to Heaven. On top of that, he wanted all the Glory. Sound familar?
Olbermann, now of MSNBC's "Countdown", has called her an idiot. That is being too nice. If she ever became President, she would make Nixon a liberal Democrat. (And hell, Nixon was a crook!) Nobody with a college education would vote for such a cunt. She lacks compassion for people, especially the poor and minorities. Why would she support Jan Sewer and SB 1070? She doesn't give a shit about Latinos. She also doesn't give a shit about Asians and Blacks. I was in a cunt rant against Palin when she said in 2008 "S---- beat the Bitch" as in Obama get the nomination over Hilary Clinton.
President Barack Obama did not earn his title by being on "America's Most Wanted", by ditching school and tagging private property, by playing Nintendo all day, by rapping about rape, or being a drugged-up overhyped athlete. His mother made him do his homework at 4:00 a. m. in the morning. Name a Black parent that does that. Not many. Our President does not need to be referred to a title of a now-discredited restaurant! He was very elected, and he EARNED the title as President of the United States. Bush had to get help from the U. S. Supreme Court in 2000, and the Ohio Supreme Court in 2004 to be SELECTED as President. President Obama has a MANDATE! Bush is a spoiled spoon bitch and cunt! As for the cunt Palin, she needs to be left on a iceberg drifting from Alaska! We need brains not stupidity at the White House, and to quote Vice President Joe Biden, "YES, IT'S A BIG FUCKING DEAL!"
Now, from deadlawyer.blogspot.com:
The Myth of the Constitutional Lawyer
My favorite news columnist today referred to Barack Obama as a “constitutional lawyer.” I forgive her, because the term was relevant to her point, even though there really is no such thing.
When I was a twenty-something law school graduate aspiring to be the world’s greatest trial lawyer, I landed a job working for a large insurance carrier. The position had been a stepping stone for many of the most respected and successful trial lawyers in my city, as it offered a wealth of courtroom experience and the opportunity to dole out millions of dollars in settlements in a short period of time to feeding-frenzied personal injury lawyers.
For a relatively modest salary, expense account, and company car, I exclusively defended lawsuits against employers insured by our company brought by employees who claimed to be disabled on account of a work-related injury. This was a specialty area of practice, with a dearth of paperwork, and the primary function the development of favorable trial testimony from tricky witnesses.
The critical component of any case’s value was expert medical testimony. Whether it be an orthopedic surgeon, neurologist, heart specialist, or psychiatrist; a medical expert was required to prove or disprove disability. The employee’s lawyer would hire a doctor to examine the guy (or gal) and to testify the guy was in his opinion disabled, and we would hire one to examine him and testify he was not. They had their whores; we had ours.
Because courts move at the pace of a physically-challenged snail, and because they schedule trials and witness testimony therein like a cable TV company on acid (“sometime between 9 am and 5 pm tomorrow, next week, any Tuesday afternoon on a first-come, first-served basis; or one of those same times six months from now”), doctors are usually allowed to testify by deposition. The lawyers, a court reporter, and the doctor hold court in the doctor’s back office.
Medical opinions are rendered in response to the legal device known as the hypothetical question. You ask the doctor to assume a certain set of facts, hopefully for your sake the relevant facts developed or to be developed in all the other trial testimony, and then ask for his opinion based on those assumed facts. It’s the other lawyer’s job to object like crazy to the question because the assumed facts are all BS.
One day at one such deposition about a year into the job, a well-established plaintiff’s lawyer who once held my job asked the standard hypothetical question, and because I wanted to impress him, I let loose with a series of pro forma, dippy-shit objections to his question. As the court reporter struggled to keep up with me, the other lawyer chuckled inwardly. Incredulous, he looked at me with the disdain reserved for someone who was wasting his time, and declared “I suppose next you are going to object because it’s unconstitutional.”
I grinned and stood admonished, as there is almost nothing more irrelevant to the everyday practice of law than the United States Constitution.
The Constitution broadly defines the authority of the Supreme Court, the extent of and limitations on Congressional and Executive power generally. Those powers do not have to be explicitly stated, they can be “implied”, or ancillary to one of the powers specifically listed in the Constitution. That notion is reinforced by the “necessary and proper” clause of Article I, Section 8.
The document also broadly outlines a “federalist” system, where a national government coexists with the government of each of the states. Amendments to the Constitution generally have further ensured in general terms the protection of individual rights, and further defined limitations on federal or state power.
The bottom line is that rarely does a legal problem or question get answered by a reference to a specific part of the Constitution. The provisions of the document are interpreted through a series of ostensibly precedent-setting appellate case decisions by the Justices of the Supreme Court—in other words—largely according to the politics of the day. Politics change, and what were case precedents one day can get overturned the next. What might be constitutional in one era; segregation for example, may be reversed and held to be unconstitutional in another.
The pace of constitutional interpretation and change thereto has but minuscule bearing in the professional lives of 99.8% of all lawyers. State trial courts almost never declare laws or practices unconstitutional, and state appellate courts do so with only slightly more frequency than almost never. Federal trial judges will occasionally in egregious cases declare a law or practice unconstitutional; however, much of constitutional doctrine is developed in case controversies by the federal courts of appeals, with the final rules determined by the United States Supreme Court largely through its power of discretionary review, called “certiorari”.
“Constitutional lawyers” in effect are lawyers who practice regularly in the United States Supreme Court, a very select group. Though many of them are brilliant, able, and scholarly, it is not necessarily their ability to understand the Constitution that qualifies them for their jobs. More often, it is their work and political connections combined with their familiarity with the practices of the United States Supreme Court and its Justices that result in their employment and appellation as “Constitutional lawyer.”
Barack Obama probably said the word “constitution” once during his two summers in Chicago as a clerk with the law firms of Sidley Austin and Hopkins & Sutter, and he would have been referring to his ability to digest the food and drink at a firm function rather than the eighteenth century document.
Obama secured a plumb job right out of law school at the University of Chicago in order to write his first book, and he almost immediately thereafter became an instructor in Constitutional Law at the law school without ever having practiced law. He was, in name, hooked up with a Chicago civil rights and neighborhood development law firm for a few years while he taught Constitutional law, but my bet is that he was fairly inactive with the firm. He then became state lawmaker, then President. He hardly ever practiced any law at all, much less enough or the type to be called a “Constitutional lawyer.”
That does not mean; however, that he is not extremely well-qualified. It is hard to say what effect his racial background had, because it surely cut both ways. He was held back in some ways because he was black, and he advanced in some ways because he was black. Regardless, you do not graduate from Columbia, graduate from Harvard Law School where you serve as editor of the Harvard Law Review, and teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago unless you are an exceedingly gifted, brilliant, and hard-working man.
Nor do you become state lawmaker and rise to the office of the President, particularly given his background of relatively few, if any, connections to wealth and power, unless you are an exceedingly skilled and effective politician.
Compare those qualifications with, say, a “constitutionalist” beauty pageant contestant who found it necessary to attend 4 different relatively small colleges in the Northwest, who takes a job as a sportscaster reading a teleprompter (not that there’s anything wrong with that), shortly thereafter marries into an Alaskan fishing business, becomes the mayor of a small town in Alaska, and then rises to Governor of Alaska, a job she quits halfway through to acquire riches from her new-found 15 minutes of fame as the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2008.
I suppose in large part it depends on your politics, but let’s get real, this is really a no brainer—who would you rather have appointing people to interpret the United States Constitution?
We do not need to kill the Constitutional Lawyer, he never really existed. The Politicians do.
Now, I don't always like Jim Hill. However, he's a better football player than most Americans (Hell, he played for the Chargers.). He knows football, and has been off and on KNXT/KCBS-TV and recently with KCAL-TV for over 35 years. When Jim Hill jumped to KABC-TV, KCBS-TV hired Keith Olbermann from KTLA, and he became the sports anchor until 1992 when KCBS-TV changed general managers, and insisted on having Jim Hill back. KCBS-TV then fired Olbermann, despite being over-qualified and sarcastic. Olbermann didn't become a hit on KTLA by doing what Palin did, merely read from a teleprompter and whose only qualification was having tits and ass. Olbermann wasn't a Mr. Olympian, quarterback, pitcher, point guard, or jockey, but he delivered sports news with eloquence, even though Hill still had 15 years experience at the time. Playing favorites at KCBS-TV don't work very well still, and they haven't been doing good since 1975 when they fired Jerry "From the Desert to the Sea, and to all of Southern California" Dunphy as Anchor. Both Olbermann and Hill are qualified as Sports Anchors. Who the fuck is Sarah Palin?
Palin is the bitch you want to beat up in Carson, California in broad daylight. She is a diva bitch who thinks she knows everything, but actually doesn't know shit! She sits on a pedastal thinking that she's all holier than thou. She is actually a sociopath, which is now typical of the Republican Party. I don't like Hill, but after seeing Sarah for the last two years, Hill can do a better job at being the Governor of Alaska (In a good way, not like what Tony Montana said to Seidelbaum after he got arrested.).
If McCain got elected as President, we certainly would have been in a Depression with Marie Antoinette Palin of Idawhore/Alaska next in line. People would be so sad and pissed, doctrines such as Communism would be appealing as it was in 1932. In the ghettos, it would have been worse than the French Revolution, because that Revolution was at least organized hell. She still wants offshore drilling. TELL THAT TO THE PEOPLE OF LOUISANA! She no concept on anything correct. She makes the actual Marie Antoinette look like Kirsten Dunst in real life. She attracts the stupid American types who have no clue on constitutional rights, economics, history, etc. She believes in being Born Again as in God does everything and provides. Yeah, right! God invented physics, and He knew that if people have to do anything, effort must be applied. This issue was already conclusively decided before the Creation. Satan and his followers went down to Earth without a body because he wanted to force everybody to be good, and everybody to get back to Heaven. On top of that, he wanted all the Glory. Sound familar?
Olbermann, now of MSNBC's "Countdown", has called her an idiot. That is being too nice. If she ever became President, she would make Nixon a liberal Democrat. (And hell, Nixon was a crook!) Nobody with a college education would vote for such a cunt. She lacks compassion for people, especially the poor and minorities. Why would she support Jan Sewer and SB 1070? She doesn't give a shit about Latinos. She also doesn't give a shit about Asians and Blacks. I was in a cunt rant against Palin when she said in 2008 "S---- beat the Bitch" as in Obama get the nomination over Hilary Clinton.
President Barack Obama did not earn his title by being on "America's Most Wanted", by ditching school and tagging private property, by playing Nintendo all day, by rapping about rape, or being a drugged-up overhyped athlete. His mother made him do his homework at 4:00 a. m. in the morning. Name a Black parent that does that. Not many. Our President does not need to be referred to a title of a now-discredited restaurant! He was very elected, and he EARNED the title as President of the United States. Bush had to get help from the U. S. Supreme Court in 2000, and the Ohio Supreme Court in 2004 to be SELECTED as President. President Obama has a MANDATE! Bush is a spoiled spoon bitch and cunt! As for the cunt Palin, she needs to be left on a iceberg drifting from Alaska! We need brains not stupidity at the White House, and to quote Vice President Joe Biden, "YES, IT'S A BIG FUCKING DEAL!"
Now, from deadlawyer.blogspot.com:
The Myth of the Constitutional Lawyer
My favorite news columnist today referred to Barack Obama as a “constitutional lawyer.” I forgive her, because the term was relevant to her point, even though there really is no such thing.
When I was a twenty-something law school graduate aspiring to be the world’s greatest trial lawyer, I landed a job working for a large insurance carrier. The position had been a stepping stone for many of the most respected and successful trial lawyers in my city, as it offered a wealth of courtroom experience and the opportunity to dole out millions of dollars in settlements in a short period of time to feeding-frenzied personal injury lawyers.
For a relatively modest salary, expense account, and company car, I exclusively defended lawsuits against employers insured by our company brought by employees who claimed to be disabled on account of a work-related injury. This was a specialty area of practice, with a dearth of paperwork, and the primary function the development of favorable trial testimony from tricky witnesses.
The critical component of any case’s value was expert medical testimony. Whether it be an orthopedic surgeon, neurologist, heart specialist, or psychiatrist; a medical expert was required to prove or disprove disability. The employee’s lawyer would hire a doctor to examine the guy (or gal) and to testify the guy was in his opinion disabled, and we would hire one to examine him and testify he was not. They had their whores; we had ours.
Because courts move at the pace of a physically-challenged snail, and because they schedule trials and witness testimony therein like a cable TV company on acid (“sometime between 9 am and 5 pm tomorrow, next week, any Tuesday afternoon on a first-come, first-served basis; or one of those same times six months from now”), doctors are usually allowed to testify by deposition. The lawyers, a court reporter, and the doctor hold court in the doctor’s back office.
Medical opinions are rendered in response to the legal device known as the hypothetical question. You ask the doctor to assume a certain set of facts, hopefully for your sake the relevant facts developed or to be developed in all the other trial testimony, and then ask for his opinion based on those assumed facts. It’s the other lawyer’s job to object like crazy to the question because the assumed facts are all BS.
One day at one such deposition about a year into the job, a well-established plaintiff’s lawyer who once held my job asked the standard hypothetical question, and because I wanted to impress him, I let loose with a series of pro forma, dippy-shit objections to his question. As the court reporter struggled to keep up with me, the other lawyer chuckled inwardly. Incredulous, he looked at me with the disdain reserved for someone who was wasting his time, and declared “I suppose next you are going to object because it’s unconstitutional.”
I grinned and stood admonished, as there is almost nothing more irrelevant to the everyday practice of law than the United States Constitution.
The Constitution broadly defines the authority of the Supreme Court, the extent of and limitations on Congressional and Executive power generally. Those powers do not have to be explicitly stated, they can be “implied”, or ancillary to one of the powers specifically listed in the Constitution. That notion is reinforced by the “necessary and proper” clause of Article I, Section 8.
The document also broadly outlines a “federalist” system, where a national government coexists with the government of each of the states. Amendments to the Constitution generally have further ensured in general terms the protection of individual rights, and further defined limitations on federal or state power.
The bottom line is that rarely does a legal problem or question get answered by a reference to a specific part of the Constitution. The provisions of the document are interpreted through a series of ostensibly precedent-setting appellate case decisions by the Justices of the Supreme Court—in other words—largely according to the politics of the day. Politics change, and what were case precedents one day can get overturned the next. What might be constitutional in one era; segregation for example, may be reversed and held to be unconstitutional in another.
The pace of constitutional interpretation and change thereto has but minuscule bearing in the professional lives of 99.8% of all lawyers. State trial courts almost never declare laws or practices unconstitutional, and state appellate courts do so with only slightly more frequency than almost never. Federal trial judges will occasionally in egregious cases declare a law or practice unconstitutional; however, much of constitutional doctrine is developed in case controversies by the federal courts of appeals, with the final rules determined by the United States Supreme Court largely through its power of discretionary review, called “certiorari”.
“Constitutional lawyers” in effect are lawyers who practice regularly in the United States Supreme Court, a very select group. Though many of them are brilliant, able, and scholarly, it is not necessarily their ability to understand the Constitution that qualifies them for their jobs. More often, it is their work and political connections combined with their familiarity with the practices of the United States Supreme Court and its Justices that result in their employment and appellation as “Constitutional lawyer.”
Barack Obama probably said the word “constitution” once during his two summers in Chicago as a clerk with the law firms of Sidley Austin and Hopkins & Sutter, and he would have been referring to his ability to digest the food and drink at a firm function rather than the eighteenth century document.
Obama secured a plumb job right out of law school at the University of Chicago in order to write his first book, and he almost immediately thereafter became an instructor in Constitutional Law at the law school without ever having practiced law. He was, in name, hooked up with a Chicago civil rights and neighborhood development law firm for a few years while he taught Constitutional law, but my bet is that he was fairly inactive with the firm. He then became state lawmaker, then President. He hardly ever practiced any law at all, much less enough or the type to be called a “Constitutional lawyer.”
That does not mean; however, that he is not extremely well-qualified. It is hard to say what effect his racial background had, because it surely cut both ways. He was held back in some ways because he was black, and he advanced in some ways because he was black. Regardless, you do not graduate from Columbia, graduate from Harvard Law School where you serve as editor of the Harvard Law Review, and teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago unless you are an exceedingly gifted, brilliant, and hard-working man.
Nor do you become state lawmaker and rise to the office of the President, particularly given his background of relatively few, if any, connections to wealth and power, unless you are an exceedingly skilled and effective politician.
Compare those qualifications with, say, a “constitutionalist” beauty pageant contestant who found it necessary to attend 4 different relatively small colleges in the Northwest, who takes a job as a sportscaster reading a teleprompter (not that there’s anything wrong with that), shortly thereafter marries into an Alaskan fishing business, becomes the mayor of a small town in Alaska, and then rises to Governor of Alaska, a job she quits halfway through to acquire riches from her new-found 15 minutes of fame as the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2008.
I suppose in large part it depends on your politics, but let’s get real, this is really a no brainer—who would you rather have appointing people to interpret the United States Constitution?
We do not need to kill the Constitutional Lawyer, he never really existed. The Politicians do.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
GOD HAS NO PLANS FOR WOMEN TO BE RAPED
But the devil, from the time of Adam & Eve, has always promoted false doctrine. This time, Nevada Senate candidate Sharon Angle, cunt and idiot, wants to force women to have babies by rapists who raped them.
Now, I'm personally not in favor of abortions for all purposes, but to demand that a rape victim keep her baby, then you must go back to the State Hospital you escaped from, and take your legal meds.
This reminds me of a Season 12 episode of E. R. that aired in 2006, a month after the Christmas episode. At the end of the Christmas episode, Abby tells Luka, her once again boyfriend, and the new E. R. Chief the good news (unless you're the asshole type that doesn't want to pay child support) that she's pregnant. Maybe after having a bipolar mother and brother, it is debateable about whether she needed an abortion (she didn't). Another part of the post-Christmas episode was a 15-year old came to the E. R., because she was pregnant. She later admitted that she was date-raped, but her fucked up parents wanted her to keep the baby. They might as well play "kick the baby"! Why should any child who has been raped "serve a sentence"?!!! No child should be forced to a) carry a child to term that wasn't her fault to begin with, and b) raise a product that was made by a violent ASSHOLE (rape is not a crime of sex, but a crime of violence)! What if the 15-year old was raped by a Phillip Garrido-type? It should be noted that Garrido raped a California woman in Reno in 1976. The problem is that the rape victim had to endure the act of violence, and then she is asked or demanded to endure nine months of hell because of the rapist, and further raise the son or daughter of the rapist for the next 18 years! Angle is a cunt, dingbat, meatball, meathead, bitch, whore, and is absolutely stupid! Why should anybody vote for a coldless and heartless bitch?
[UPDATE: I could have send everybody to TNT to watch the E. R. reruns, but I found out tonight that they don't air them now. Fuck, the original Star Trek lasted only three years, and everybody is into that? E. R. had been on the air for 15 years. A few series like Gunsmoke and the original Law & Order lasted 20 years. It's fine time to have Gunsmoke, Law & Order, and E & R Conventions.]
I can see it now. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid being reelected. It would not happen if:
1. Reid's opponent was "Reaganesque".
2. Reid's opponent gave coherent views to voters.
In order to avoid being "Martha-Coaxleyed" out of office, Reid should still campaign like hell, but with Angle being more stupid than a retarded person, it makes you wonder what the Republican Party has been up to. The Republincans better find better messages to the voters, or we may have a one-party nation, because the other party is ran by State Hospital escapees or everybody in the South is "high on the Jack Daniels' supply".
"Lesson No. 2, don't get high on your own supply."-Elvie Hancock, "Scarface".
From Eschaton:
God Has A Plan For Women To Be Raped
Unlike some, I don't find being against a rape exception to be any more repugnant than being against choice generally. It's much more morally consistent to be against all abortion than it is to be against all except a few that are ok. It's one of those carveouts designed to give the squishy middle crowd a Sensible Centrist position on the issue.
But having the view that raped and impregnated women are all part of God's plan, well, interesting God you've got there.
Now, I'm personally not in favor of abortions for all purposes, but to demand that a rape victim keep her baby, then you must go back to the State Hospital you escaped from, and take your legal meds.
This reminds me of a Season 12 episode of E. R. that aired in 2006, a month after the Christmas episode. At the end of the Christmas episode, Abby tells Luka, her once again boyfriend, and the new E. R. Chief the good news (unless you're the asshole type that doesn't want to pay child support) that she's pregnant. Maybe after having a bipolar mother and brother, it is debateable about whether she needed an abortion (she didn't). Another part of the post-Christmas episode was a 15-year old came to the E. R., because she was pregnant. She later admitted that she was date-raped, but her fucked up parents wanted her to keep the baby. They might as well play "kick the baby"! Why should any child who has been raped "serve a sentence"?!!! No child should be forced to a) carry a child to term that wasn't her fault to begin with, and b) raise a product that was made by a violent ASSHOLE (rape is not a crime of sex, but a crime of violence)! What if the 15-year old was raped by a Phillip Garrido-type? It should be noted that Garrido raped a California woman in Reno in 1976. The problem is that the rape victim had to endure the act of violence, and then she is asked or demanded to endure nine months of hell because of the rapist, and further raise the son or daughter of the rapist for the next 18 years! Angle is a cunt, dingbat, meatball, meathead, bitch, whore, and is absolutely stupid! Why should anybody vote for a coldless and heartless bitch?
[UPDATE: I could have send everybody to TNT to watch the E. R. reruns, but I found out tonight that they don't air them now. Fuck, the original Star Trek lasted only three years, and everybody is into that? E. R. had been on the air for 15 years. A few series like Gunsmoke and the original Law & Order lasted 20 years. It's fine time to have Gunsmoke, Law & Order, and E & R Conventions.]
I can see it now. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid being reelected. It would not happen if:
1. Reid's opponent was "Reaganesque".
2. Reid's opponent gave coherent views to voters.
In order to avoid being "Martha-Coaxleyed" out of office, Reid should still campaign like hell, but with Angle being more stupid than a retarded person, it makes you wonder what the Republican Party has been up to. The Republincans better find better messages to the voters, or we may have a one-party nation, because the other party is ran by State Hospital escapees or everybody in the South is "high on the Jack Daniels' supply".
"Lesson No. 2, don't get high on your own supply."-Elvie Hancock, "Scarface".
From Eschaton:
God Has A Plan For Women To Be Raped
Unlike some, I don't find being against a rape exception to be any more repugnant than being against choice generally. It's much more morally consistent to be against all abortion than it is to be against all except a few that are ok. It's one of those carveouts designed to give the squishy middle crowd a Sensible Centrist position on the issue.
But having the view that raped and impregnated women are all part of God's plan, well, interesting God you've got there.
NANCY GARRIDO STILL WANTS TO SEE JAYCEE DUGARD
WHAT A CUNT!
Nancy Bocanegra Garrido wants to still see Jaycee Dugard. She makes Sarah Palin a rocket scientist (but Sarah's still a cunt). This Nancy cunt bitch gets busted last August, and comes across as "Who me?", and "Why me?" It's like it's not her fault for:
1. Marrying rapist Phillip Garrido.
2. Helping to kidnap Jaycee.
3. NOT calling the Police!
4. Looking stupid and oblivious for the last 20 years.
Instead of seeing Jaycee Dugard, Nancy should do this:
1. Talk to her own real family, the Bocanegras.
2. Divorce Phillip Garrido.
3. Confess to her minister from the Jehovah's Witnesses (OK, I disagree with their beliefs, but she was raised in that religion, so she should say it to the people she's familiar with).
4. Plead guilty.
5. ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER OWN ACTIONS! She's acting like a stupid 13-year old juvenile. She's over 50. GROW THE FUCK UP!
6. Accept the fact that Jaycee or her kids are not your family. They are related to Carl and Terry Probyn, Jaycee's parents who had missed her for two decades BECAUSE YOU HELPED KIDNAP JAYCEE!
There are parts of Marsy's Law (Prop. 9) that I do agree with. Jaycee and her family don't want anything to do two MASTER MANIPULATORS. Nancy is just in another scheme by Phillip Garrido to manipulate his case so that he can get another "early release" and pull the same $20 million shit that he did to get out of the 50-year Federal sentence he was supposed to serve for the 1976 kidnapping and rape of Katie Calloway Hall. Unless Nancy fesses up, Phil and Nancy both need to be locked up and thrown away the key.
From the Oakland Tribune:
Nancy Garrido's lawyer argues for visit by Jaycee Dugard and kids
By Sam Stanton Sacramento Bee
Posted: 06/26/2010 07:53:01 AM PDT
Updated: 06/26/2010 03:17:33 PM PDT
Everybody wants to see Jaycee.
Nearly a year after kidnapping victim Jaycee Lee Dugard was found alive, she remains the subject of intense legal and emotional wrangling as the case against her accused abductors slowly inches forward.
On Friday, the latest appeal came from Nancy Garrido's lawyer, who suggested it may be better for Dugard and the two children she had in captivity to see Nancy Garrido privately before she faces her in court.
Nancy Garrido is accused along with her husband, convicted rapist and kidnapper Phillip Garrido, of snatching Dugard off a street in 1991 when she was 11.
The pair are accused of holding her captive until Dugard was freed in August, and they are now in jail awaiting trial on rape and kidnapping charges that could send both to prison for life.
On Friday, following an uneventful court hearing, Nancy Garrido's attorney said he thought such a private meeting would be helpful.
"A couple of shrinks I've talked to say it may be beneficial for Jaycee and the kids to see Nancy before actually seeing them in a court," attorney Stephen Tapson said after the hearing in Placerville.
Tapson noted that a court order forbids the Garridos from trying to contact Dugard, now 30 and living in seclusion with the two girls she bore to Phillip Garrido, the first after she became pregnant at 13.
But he said whatever doctor may be counseling Dugard could reach out to the El Dorado County district attorney for such a meeting.
"A lot of people don't understand, she loves those kids, she loves Jaycee," Tapson said.
"And this is a relationship born of evil, but at the end it came down to a family relationship and she honestly, truly misses them.
"And people will say that's terrible because it's (Nancy Garrido's) fault, but it's a fact and a fact that she misses them."
It is not the first time Tapson has described how much Nancy Garrido misses the three.
But El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson, whose office has been so protective of Dugard and her privacy that his court documents refer to her as "Jane Doe," has made it clear that Dugard wants no contact with the Garridos.
"Ms. Doe has emphatically stated to our office that she does not want any contact with the defendants or their attorneys," Pierson's office stated in a February court filing.
Dugard also has made it clear she wants no contact with a man who has attended two previous court hearings in Placerville and is trying to prove that he is her father, the result of a brief relationship with Jaycee's mother three decades ago.
Dugard, who is expected to testify at trial, has not attended any of the hearings that have been dragging on since last August. But one of Phillip Garrido's former victims — Katie Callaway Hall — has made regular trips from her Nevada home to watch the proceedings.
Hall, abducted and assaulted by Garrido in 1976, makes the drive with her husband, Jim, and says she expects to watch all of the trial.
"I'm hoping to be an eyewitness to this entire event and make sure that no rock goes unturned," she said after Friday's hearing, "and if I can be of any assistance, that's what I'm here for."
Friday's five-minute affair consisted of the judge agreeing to allow the Garridos to speak to each other in the El Dorado County Jail by telephone once in July and once in August, continuing a previous order that allowed five-minute calls between the couple.
The judge also set the next hearing date for Aug. 20, although real evidence in the case is not expected to be presented until early October.
Meanwhile, the defense is poring over documents and evidence prosecutors have turned over.
"We've got another 10,000 pages coming Tuesday, so we'll see," Tapson said.
Nancy Bocanegra Garrido wants to still see Jaycee Dugard. She makes Sarah Palin a rocket scientist (but Sarah's still a cunt). This Nancy cunt bitch gets busted last August, and comes across as "Who me?", and "Why me?" It's like it's not her fault for:
1. Marrying rapist Phillip Garrido.
2. Helping to kidnap Jaycee.
3. NOT calling the Police!
4. Looking stupid and oblivious for the last 20 years.
Instead of seeing Jaycee Dugard, Nancy should do this:
1. Talk to her own real family, the Bocanegras.
2. Divorce Phillip Garrido.
3. Confess to her minister from the Jehovah's Witnesses (OK, I disagree with their beliefs, but she was raised in that religion, so she should say it to the people she's familiar with).
4. Plead guilty.
5. ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER OWN ACTIONS! She's acting like a stupid 13-year old juvenile. She's over 50. GROW THE FUCK UP!
6. Accept the fact that Jaycee or her kids are not your family. They are related to Carl and Terry Probyn, Jaycee's parents who had missed her for two decades BECAUSE YOU HELPED KIDNAP JAYCEE!
There are parts of Marsy's Law (Prop. 9) that I do agree with. Jaycee and her family don't want anything to do two MASTER MANIPULATORS. Nancy is just in another scheme by Phillip Garrido to manipulate his case so that he can get another "early release" and pull the same $20 million shit that he did to get out of the 50-year Federal sentence he was supposed to serve for the 1976 kidnapping and rape of Katie Calloway Hall. Unless Nancy fesses up, Phil and Nancy both need to be locked up and thrown away the key.
From the Oakland Tribune:
Nancy Garrido's lawyer argues for visit by Jaycee Dugard and kids
By Sam Stanton Sacramento Bee
Posted: 06/26/2010 07:53:01 AM PDT
Updated: 06/26/2010 03:17:33 PM PDT
Everybody wants to see Jaycee.
Nearly a year after kidnapping victim Jaycee Lee Dugard was found alive, she remains the subject of intense legal and emotional wrangling as the case against her accused abductors slowly inches forward.
On Friday, the latest appeal came from Nancy Garrido's lawyer, who suggested it may be better for Dugard and the two children she had in captivity to see Nancy Garrido privately before she faces her in court.
Nancy Garrido is accused along with her husband, convicted rapist and kidnapper Phillip Garrido, of snatching Dugard off a street in 1991 when she was 11.
The pair are accused of holding her captive until Dugard was freed in August, and they are now in jail awaiting trial on rape and kidnapping charges that could send both to prison for life.
On Friday, following an uneventful court hearing, Nancy Garrido's attorney said he thought such a private meeting would be helpful.
"A couple of shrinks I've talked to say it may be beneficial for Jaycee and the kids to see Nancy before actually seeing them in a court," attorney Stephen Tapson said after the hearing in Placerville.
Tapson noted that a court order forbids the Garridos from trying to contact Dugard, now 30 and living in seclusion with the two girls she bore to Phillip Garrido, the first after she became pregnant at 13.
But he said whatever doctor may be counseling Dugard could reach out to the El Dorado County district attorney for such a meeting.
"A lot of people don't understand, she loves those kids, she loves Jaycee," Tapson said.
"And this is a relationship born of evil, but at the end it came down to a family relationship and she honestly, truly misses them.
"And people will say that's terrible because it's (Nancy Garrido's) fault, but it's a fact and a fact that she misses them."
It is not the first time Tapson has described how much Nancy Garrido misses the three.
But El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson, whose office has been so protective of Dugard and her privacy that his court documents refer to her as "Jane Doe," has made it clear that Dugard wants no contact with the Garridos.
"Ms. Doe has emphatically stated to our office that she does not want any contact with the defendants or their attorneys," Pierson's office stated in a February court filing.
Dugard also has made it clear she wants no contact with a man who has attended two previous court hearings in Placerville and is trying to prove that he is her father, the result of a brief relationship with Jaycee's mother three decades ago.
Dugard, who is expected to testify at trial, has not attended any of the hearings that have been dragging on since last August. But one of Phillip Garrido's former victims — Katie Callaway Hall — has made regular trips from her Nevada home to watch the proceedings.
Hall, abducted and assaulted by Garrido in 1976, makes the drive with her husband, Jim, and says she expects to watch all of the trial.
"I'm hoping to be an eyewitness to this entire event and make sure that no rock goes unturned," she said after Friday's hearing, "and if I can be of any assistance, that's what I'm here for."
Friday's five-minute affair consisted of the judge agreeing to allow the Garridos to speak to each other in the El Dorado County Jail by telephone once in July and once in August, continuing a previous order that allowed five-minute calls between the couple.
The judge also set the next hearing date for Aug. 20, although real evidence in the case is not expected to be presented until early October.
Meanwhile, the defense is poring over documents and evidence prosecutors have turned over.
"We've got another 10,000 pages coming Tuesday, so we'll see," Tapson said.
FINALLY, SOME CIVIL JUSTICE FOR JAYCEE DUGARD.
I haven't blogged for a while because I wanted to do anytrhing I can to have SB 1070 repealed on Facebook. However, I found out about two days ago that Jaycee Dugard and her family will get $20 million from the State for all of their parole agents not doing their fucking job! $20 million still won't fully compensate Jaycee and her real family for all of the heartache they have suffered.
From Time:
California Gives Kidnapping Victim Jaycee Dugard $20 Million
By: Megan Gibson
In an almost unanimous vote, California legislators are settling kidnapping victim Jaycee Dugard's claim against the state for $20 million. Almost unanimous? So, who's the guy who voted against her claim?
Honestly, the Dugard case is one of the most unbelievable and disturbing kidnapping cases in recent memory. Kidnapped at age 11, Dugard was raped and held captive for 18 years. She had two children while in captivity, fathered by her abductor Phillip Garrido who, along with his wife Nancy, is awaiting trial. And he was on parole for most of that time!
A November report by California Inspector-General David Shaw revealed that, “Garrido committed numerous parole violations and that the department failed to properly supervise Garrido and missed numerous opportunities to discover his victims."
Dugard, who was held in a shed for much of her imprisonment along with her two children, is seeking compensation for psychological, physical and emotional damages. In January, Dugard filed the claim against the state for not properly monitoring Garrido and it was passed Thursday with a 30-1 vote in the Senate and 62-0 vote in the Assembly.
Now $20 million is a lot of money and California has been grappling with budget cuts for some time now, but who could really vote against this? 18 years!
Fortunately for Dugard and her children, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will be signing off on the bill. (via CNN)
From Time:
California Gives Kidnapping Victim Jaycee Dugard $20 Million
By: Megan Gibson
In an almost unanimous vote, California legislators are settling kidnapping victim Jaycee Dugard's claim against the state for $20 million. Almost unanimous? So, who's the guy who voted against her claim?
Honestly, the Dugard case is one of the most unbelievable and disturbing kidnapping cases in recent memory. Kidnapped at age 11, Dugard was raped and held captive for 18 years. She had two children while in captivity, fathered by her abductor Phillip Garrido who, along with his wife Nancy, is awaiting trial. And he was on parole for most of that time!
A November report by California Inspector-General David Shaw revealed that, “Garrido committed numerous parole violations and that the department failed to properly supervise Garrido and missed numerous opportunities to discover his victims."
Dugard, who was held in a shed for much of her imprisonment along with her two children, is seeking compensation for psychological, physical and emotional damages. In January, Dugard filed the claim against the state for not properly monitoring Garrido and it was passed Thursday with a 30-1 vote in the Senate and 62-0 vote in the Assembly.
Now $20 million is a lot of money and California has been grappling with budget cuts for some time now, but who could really vote against this? 18 years!
Fortunately for Dugard and her children, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will be signing off on the bill. (via CNN)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
