Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts

Friday, September 18, 2015

Irving Texas Arrests Muslim Kid Too Smart for Irving Texas

photo bomb-batman.gif

14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed has a bright future as a scientist of tomorrow. But until yesterday his high school in Irving, Texas, merely thought of him as "That Muslim Kid" or "Who?"

Now they won't ever forget his name. And they'll never live down what they did to him.



See, this smart kid made a clock and took it to school. Some hysterical and stupid teacher thought it was a BOMB. However, no bomb squad was ever called, and the school wasn't evacuated. But the principal and police still interrogated this boy without his parents beside him for two hours. Over a clock that wasn't a bomb.

By the middle of the day, the obviously frightened child in a NASA t-shirt was handcuffed, arrested, and taken to jail. For being smart. And Muslim. And unfortunately for Irving, Texas, what they did there infuriated most of the known world as the hashtag #IStandWithAhmed trended for 24 hours. Now he has been invited to the White House, NASA, MIT, Harvard, Twitter, Facebook - you name it! Ahmed's story has a totally happy ending. Irving, Texas, not so much.







From the New York Times
HOUSTON — Ahmed Mohamed’s homemade alarm clock got him suspended from his suburban Dallas high school and detained and handcuffed by police officers on Monday after school officials accused him of making a fake bomb. By Wednesday, it had brought him an invitation to the White House, support from Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mark Zuckerberg, and a moment of head-spinning attention as questions arose whether he had been targeted because of his name and his religion.
. . . The thing in question was the product of Ahmed’s love of invention. He made the clock out of a metal briefcase-style box, a digital display, wires and a circuit board. It was bigger and bulkier than a typical bedside clock, with cords, screws and electrical components.

He said he took it to school on Monday to show an engineering teacher, who said it was nice but then told him he should not show the invention to other teachers. Later, Ahmed’s clock beeped during an English class, and after he revealed the device to the teacher, school officials notified the police, and Ahmed was interrogated by officers.
“She thought it was a threat to her,” Ahmed told reporters Wednesday. “So it was really sad that she took a wrong impression of it.”


















Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Bigoted Fossil Judge Roy Moore Doubles Down on Gay Marriage

photo 14873610-mmmain.jpg

Cartoon: J.D. Crowe on AL.com

Previous Related Posts:
Gay Marriage Comes to Alabama
"Godless Perverts" - Religious Right Upset by Supreme Court DOMA Ruling
Stacey "Don't Say Gay" Campfield Voted Out in Tennessee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judge Roy Moore, the Chief Justice of Alabama, has taken a stand on Gay Marriage in his state that is in opposition to the Federal Supreme Court, which is leaning towards striking down all state bans on same sex marriage in our country.

Moore is such an ancient bigoted fossil that he (A) Keeps doubling down on his untenable position and (B) doesn't realize what a fool he is making of himself. However, it's quite a satisfying spectacle to watch unfold. :)

Even in Alabama, Moore is considered an extremist. In 2003, he was removed from the same Chief Justice post for putting up a copy of the Ten Commandments in his office.

From CNN

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- Alabama's judicial ethics panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office Thursday for defying a federal judge's order to move a Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building.
The nine-member Court of the Judiciary issued its unanimous decision after a one-day trial Wednesday.
The panel, which includes judges, lawyers and non-lawyers, could have reprimanded Moore, continued his suspension or cleared him.
The ethics panel said Moore put himself above the law by "willfully and publicly" flouting the order to remove the 2.6-ton monument from the state judicial building's rotunda in August.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled the granite carving was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Moore refused to obey the order but was overruled by his eight colleagues on the state Supreme Court. (Full story)
On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Moore's appeal of Thompson's ruling. (Full story)
Moore "showed no signs of contrition for his actions," the Court of the Judiciary found.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party voters of Alabama returned him to his post:

From New York Times
He ran for governor twice, and failed, but in 2012, he shocked the political establishment with his re-election to the state’s high court, cashing in on name recognition and Alabama’s widespread Christian sentiment and skeptical stance toward federal government power.

“If you look at the professional class in Alabama, most of them would say they’d wish he’d just quit this foolishness and let Alabama move along with the rest of the country,” said Glen Browder, professor emeritus in American democracy at Jacksonville State University and a former Democratic congressman from Alabama. “But he’s popular in the church crowd.”

Chief Justice Moore’s office is decorated with a wooden plaque of the commandments, along with a portrait of George Washington and a photograph of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy. (Chief Justice Moore said that he has never been a segregationist, but that has no qualms about making arguments in favor of states’ rights when they are warranted.)



Yesterday he pointed out that he has Gay Friends. Yes, he really said that, with no apparent irony. So yeah, if he has homosexual friends, then there's no problem that he tried to halt gay marriage in Alabama, right?



Via Talking Points Memo
"I've had many friends who are homosexual," Moore said during an interview with John Heilemann and Mark Halperin of Bloomberg Politics. "I've treated people just like other people. This is not about how I treat people, or how I go to a wedding or a marriage or anything. It's about the constitution of Alabama and the Constitution of the United States."

"You wouldn't be reluctant, personally, to go to a same-sex wedding, then?" Halperin prodded.

"I would not go to a same-sex wedding," Moore responded. "No."







Amazing showdown on CNN with Chris Cuomo today:




CNN Transcript 2-12-2015, Chris Cuomo and Judge Roy Moore
CUOMO: . . . I understand what you're trying to do here, you're trying to defeat the federal law. The question is, why?

MOORE: No, I'm not trying to defeat the federal law. There is no federal law and that's the point. No judge in the United States or federal district court has the right to invent the definition of marriage, which is not even contained in the United States Constitution. And that's the problem. We have people going in trying to mandate to the state of Alabama that the sanctity of marriage amendment in our Constitution is wrong, and that's simply not right to do.

CUOMO: Well -- well, it certainly is right. That's how this works, right, is that the federal law says that a state law is discriminatory and they change it. And certainly the distinction you're trying to draw with the district court, you don't have an independent case in front of you, your honor, about your own marriage law. This is about gay marriage in general and the equality in general and that's why the district court's able to say it. But again, you're right, we shouldn't get into the thickets.

I would suggest something else looking at your letter that you wrote to the governor of Alabama. For you, marriage is about the divine institution. It's as true as your words and as the pin on your lapel. You want to say that God says marriage is a certain thing and you don't want to hear anything else about what a definition of marriage could be. Is that a fair suggestion?

MOORE: No, that's not a fair suggestion. I go by the law. Of course I believe marriage was defined by God, but so does the United States Supreme Court. In the case of Murphy versus Ramsey, they said that marriage and family are the basis from the holy union of one man and one woman in the state of matrimony. That was clearly the United States Supreme Court opinion. It's been the court of opinions in state courts across this country. And especially in Alabama, we've recognized it as a divine institution in our law. Naturally it existed hundreds and even thousands of years before the United States even came into existence.

CUOMO: Right, but we are a nation of laws and not just God's law. And what your state did in 2006 was what many did, which was, you tried to define marriage to exclude. And what happened in U.S. v. Windsor, the case that is on everybody's lips now because it changed it, is that those laws that define marriage as only between a man and a woman are unfair and fail the test of equal protection. You know that. You know that when they meet this spring many people believe the Supreme Court will affirm this and say that state laws and constitutional provisions like your own are unfair. The question is, why won't you accept that definition of marriage?

MOORE: First, when the Supreme Court meets, I believe state's rights is going to be a big part of this. And I don't believe they have the right to push upon the state a definition which this state does not recognize, indeed, which the United States Constitution does not recognize. In fact, in Loving versus Virginia in 1967, when they declared that interracial marriages could not be prohibited, correctly so, they referenced marriage as the right of free men and women to enter into pursuit of happiness. They quoted basically out of the Declaration of Independence which said that God gave us these rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They're unalienable because they can't be taken away and they can't be mandated on the state in this instance.

CUOMO: Of course they can, though, your honor. That's what happens. It used to be legal to have slaves. Your state had a lot of laws on the books, like other states, where times changed and those laws had to change. And this is another example of that.

MOORE: You know slavery -- slavery was wrong and in 1857, when the Supreme Court of the United States declared in Dred Scott that black people could be property, one justice dissented. He said that when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution. We're under a government of individual men who, for the time being, have the power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what they think it ought to mean. Those words by Benjamin Curtis are exactly what's going on in the United States Supreme Court and the federal courts of this state -- of this nation today.

CUOMO: And just as they were --

MOORE: And the United States Supreme Court hadn't ruled on this issue.

CUOMO: And they will. But they have ruled on what the substance of it is. And you've had a federal court tell you to marry people and you're not. And I would suggest that, based on what we're hearing right now, your refusal goes to what you believe marriage is about and not just to the law.

MOORE: No.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

. . . MOORE: Nobody's arguing about racial discrimination in this case. This is not about racial discrimination.

CUOMO: It's about discrimination.

MOORE: It's about sexual -- it's about sexual preference.

CUOMO: It's about discrimination.

MOORE: Being -- overcoming an institution which has existed in our state, in our United States, for centuries. And I think it's wrong.

CUOMO: But it's about discrimination. In 2006, you created a constitutional amendment that, by design, discriminated against gay people. And now you are being told by the federal law that is wrong.

MOORE: Again -- again -- again, that is a constitutional amendment to the Alabama constitution, and it's clearly within the bounds of state law and federal law. Again, there is nothing in the constitution about marriage. How can judges go in and define a word? They're doing exactly what they did in 1857 in Dred Scott.-

CUOMO: They just did it in U.S. v. Windsor. They just looked at the Defense of Marriage Act and said you cannot define marriage as just between a man and woman.

MOORE: That was between Congress. It did not affect the state, according to the ruling in Windsor.

CUOMO: But you can't say that the Court hasn't spoken about it. It was the exact same issue. It just wasn't a state law and that's why we're having the next case in June --

MOORE: I can say the Court -- I can say the Court spoke about it, because they said this does not apply to the state. It applies to the federal law passed by Congress.

CUOMO: That's right, because of the specific issue before them. And now they're meeting again in June. And if June comes and they hold the same way, then what will you do?

MOORE: Then I will do what the Court should -- or what the Court should have done under Dred Scott. If it's an unlawful mandate, you don't have to recognize it. You can recuse from the case.

CUOMO: So you still --

MOORE: You can dissent. You can dissent to the United States Supreme Court, just like you can dissent to anything else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

. . . CUOMO: State by state, the rulings all going the same way. State by state, they're all going the same way

MOORE: You can't say the law -- you can't say what the law is with the United States Courts of Appeals differ on this very issue.

CUOMO: And you can't say that even if the Supreme Court rules against your personal position, you won't follow it because it offends your faith. You can't do that as Chief Justice.

MOORE: I said I would not -- I would not oppose the law except with an opinion or a dissent. That's what I said.

CUOMO; No, I asked you would you follow it.

MOORE: I did not say I would not recognize the law.

CUOMO: I asked you if you would follow it and you went into a word salad about whether I would follow it.

MOORE: And I asked you if you would follow Plessy versus Ferguson.

CUOMO: I am not the Chief Justice.

MOORE: Well, you can't answer the question either.

CUOMO: You answer it first. Will you follow it if they decide in June that gay marriage is equal protection.

MOORE: I will recognize -- I will recognize the United States Supreme Court opinion is binding over the state courts. Me, personally, I will make that decision when it comes, sir.



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gay Marriage Comes to Alabama ~ Updated

photo AlabamaOutline.png

The Supreme Court allowed Gay Marriage to go forward in the state of Alabama this week, and the results were both exhilarating and at the same time a throwback to the equal-rights battles of the 60s. Some judges apparently forgot their learnin' and decided to forget that Federal Law trumps State Law.

Alabama Chief Justice, Roy Moore, tried to stop the whole process last week when he ordered Judges not to obey.

From Alabama.com
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore late Sunday ordered all probate judges and employees in Alabama to follow existing state law and not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or recognize same-sex marriages.
. . . Moore wrote that if any probate judge defies the order, Governor Robert Bentley would have the responsibility of ensuring that state law is "faithfully executed."
He has also said that the judges are not bound by the orders issued in that case, Searcy v. Strange. Instead, he said, probate judges fall under the direct supervision and authority of the chief justice.

Well, let's just say he was wrong, and most Judges chose not to follow the order. Some stalled and hid in their offices or decided not to perform any marriages at all, like the Probate Judge of Mobile. Some just delayed a few hours, probably hoping the TV cameras would go away, or maybe to talk down some of the employees screaming that it was against their religion, etc.

But in most places on Monday morning, February 9, 2015, same-sex weddings began to occur all over the state of Alabama - a historic sight.

UPDATE: "Redneck Reporter" Jeremy Todd Addaway posted a hilarious spoof of the fear-mongering going on in Alabama (and other states) over Gay Marriage and how it effects everyone else.

“I read on the news today some information, that homosexuals will be getting married in Alabama today, so I wanted to give you a live report from Blount County,” he began.

. . . “This pile of brush is still here, and there are no homosexuals layin’ on top of it, doin’ homosexual things,” Addaway said.

“None in the shed either, but we need to check into this further,” he continued, delving ever deeper into his backyard.

“We’re back here by a pile of junk — and it’s still here — and there’s no homosexuals doin’ homosexual things here either, so it looks like we’re pretty safe here in Blount County, don’t think we’re gonna be subject to plagues of homosexuals fallin’ from the sky.”










And the Supreme Court gave a strong signal that Alabama is a bellwether state for the rest of the country, as well as Federal Law:






























Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Part Three: The Grand Jury Misled by Prosecutors

photo 4ce8aa42-4cc4-42b3-885b-be2b3fd575e2.jpg

Previous Related Posts:
Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Part Two: Darren Wilson's Weird Testimony
Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Part One - No Indictment, but Blame the Victim and Social Media
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Grand Jury in Ferguson was not only misled by strange testimony from Officer Darren Wilson about the "demon" Mike Brown, but was also misled several ways by Prosecutor Bob McCulloch. While at first we thought McCulloch's main sin was his hands-off approach to steering the Grand Jury one way or another, he may have actually broken the law by giving the jury illegal instructions. And I'm sure there is more to come about how corrupt this process was, not only for Missouri, but for the country as a whole.

Full (and bizarre) Statement from Prosecutor Bob McCulloch in Ferguson, MO.




Ferguson reminds us that we still have a race problem in America. But the face of this problem is not Darren Wilson’s. It’s Bob McCulloch’s.
. . . McCulloch short-circuited the process — reinforcing a sense among African Americans, and many others, that the justice system is rigged. He almost certainly could have secured an indictment on a lesser charge simply by requesting it, yet he acted as if he were a spectator, saying that jurors decided not to return a “true bill” on each possible charge — as if this were a typical outcome.~
~ Dana Milbank on Washington Post

The St. Louis County prosecutors were trying to be clever, repurposing an ancient institution for the contemporary political situation. They seemed to think that, because the grand jury members are drawn from the public, they would create public validation for whatever outcome the grand jury reached.
Yet public validation of ordinary jury trials depends on the public having heard the evidence. The Constitution provides that criminal trials be held publicly, precisely so that the citizenry knows what's going on. Grand jury proceedings are held in secret. That must've appealed to St. Louis County prosecutors, who sought to avoid a media circus. But releasing a summary of the grand jury transcripts afterward is a far cry from a public trial. Secret evidence was unlikely to produce public validation -- as, in fact, it did not.
~ Noah Feldman on Bloomberg

From Think Progress:
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.
In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available.

Bob McCulloch had no answers - the "Fix was In."



According to Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, Jurors were given copies of a 1979 Statute concerning when it is lawful for a cop to shoot a fleeing suspect. The problem is that the law was ruled unconstitutional in the 1980s, so . . . that's a huge problem. How could Bob McCulloch NOT know that the law was unconstitutional?

Via RawStory
O’Donnell said that early on in the jurors’ deliberations, Alizadeh handed them a copy of a 1979 Missouri statute saying police were “justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape from custody.” However, he explained, the Supreme Court found those kinds of statutes to be unconstitutional six years later.
As the Daily Kos reported, the high court found in Tennessee v. Garner that “where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”
. . . handing the jurors the original statute, O’Donnell said, ...conveyed the message that Wilson did not feel his life needed to be in danger for him to be legally justified in shooting and killing 18-year-old Michael Brown on Aug. 9.





~~~~~~~~~~~~









Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Part Two: Darren Wilson's Weird Testimony

photo c3b463e7-c0f1-46b0-9a99-4fe895af13c6.jpg

Previous Related Post:
Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Part One - No Indictment, but Blame the Victim and Social Media

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm no legal scholar, but there is something seriously wrong with Officer Darren Wilson's testimony in the Ferguson case. He actually sounds deranged and not fit for street duty, describing Mike Brown as a "demon" and "Hulk Hogan." Clearly the police lawyer who coached him felt that if the victim card worked for George Zimmerman with Trayvon Martin, then it would work for Darren Wilson with Mike Brown.





Nancy Grace : "It doesn't add up."










































Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Governor Rick Perry Indicted and Booked in Texas

photo 03e685ed-7ae2-4cbf-96dd-93ab2865bd9d.jpg

Rick Perry's Mug Shot

Previous Related Posts:
Oops, Rick Perry Looks Like Grumpy Cat
Rick Perry thinks Obama is Sending Small Children to the Border
Gov. Rick Perry Attacks Wendy Davis

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rick Perry, who desperately wants to be President of the United States, has been indicted in Texas for abusing his power as Governor. Maybe he shouldn't plan anymore trips to Iowa to campaign until he gets this cleared up. Just Sayin'.

Getting rid of something called the "Integrity Unit" probably wasn't a great idea. But please, proceed, Governor. Texas Democrats are popping corn. No, make that ALL Democrats.

From CNN
A grand jury in Travis County indicted Perry last Friday on two felony counts stemming from his threat to veto funding for a statewide public integrity unit run by Travis Country District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, unless she stepped down, according to the special prosecutor in the case, Michael McCrum.
The case centers on Perry's June 2013 veto of the $7.5 million budget for the unit run by Lehmberg, after she refused his demand to resign following her drunken driving arrest and conviction.
Perry faces accusations of coercion of a public servant and abuse of his official capacity in connection with the threat and veto.



KXAN News
AUSTIN (KXAN) – Governor Rick Perry arrived at the Blackwell-Thurman Criminal Justice Center in Austin right at 5 p.m. Tuesday to be booked on felony charges stemming from an indictment issued Friday.
Perry arrived to supporters chanting “Perry, Perry Perry!” before stopping to briefly speak with the media before walking inside.
“I’m here today because I believe in the rule of law,” the Texas Governor said. He continued to speak saying the actions he took were “lawful and legal.”
“If I had to do so, I would veto funding for the public integrity unit again,” he said.
























Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, July 12, 2014

The Boehner Lawsuit is about . . . Obamacare! Surprise!

photo 1567e57c-8cac-4ac2-ba58-82ed9dd971c8.jpg

On Monday, July 7, 2014, House Speaker John Boehner made his case against President Obama in an Op-Ed for CNN:
. . . later this month, we will bring legislation to the House floor that would authorize the House of Representatives to file suit in an effort to compel President Obama to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country.
The President's response: "So sue me."
What's disappointing is the President's flippant dismissal of the Constitution we are both sworn to defend. It is utterly beneath the dignity of the office. I know the President is frustrated. I'm frustrated. The American people are frustrated, too.
. . . Over the last five years, starting -- not coincidentally -- when his political party lost the majority in the House of Representatives, the President has consistently overstepped his authority under the Constitution, and in so doing eroded the power of the legislative branch.
The legislative branch has an obligation to defend the rights and responsibilities of the American people, and America's constitutional balance of powers -- before it is too late.

But it wasn't until Thursday that he actually explained the basis of the lawsuit: John Boehner and the Republicans in Congress are suing President Obama over the "employer mandate" part of ACA/Obamacare which was postponed for small business owners - because they asked for it! Now the GOP is saying that Obama shouldn't have delayed it, and he overstepped the bounds of his office. But let's not forget - the GOP hates both ACA and the mandate, so this is all a farce of epic proportions. Let's just hope a Judge sees it that way and isn't in cahoots, as the Supreme Court apparently is.

From the New York Times
On Thursday, Mr. Boehner said the lawsuit would specifically challenge the president’s decision to delay imposing penalties on employers who do not offer health insurance to employees in compliance with the Affordable Care Act.

“The current president believes he has the power to make his own laws — at times even boasting about it,” Mr. Boehner said in his statement. “He has said that if Congress won’t make the laws he wants, he’ll go ahead and make them himself, and in the case of the employer mandate in his health care law, that’s exactly what he did.”

“If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well,” the speaker added. “The House has an obligation to stand up for the legislative branch, and the Constitution, and that is exactly what we will do.”

When questioned about the lawsuit, Boehner blew up about Obama's lack of "responsibility." This is from a man famous for holding up votes in the House - such as Immigration - just because the Tea Party doesn't like Obama. But he's let them vote to repeal ACA/Obamacare FIFTY times! And this lawsuit is just more nonsense.

You're drunk, Boehner. Go home.

He's been President for five-and-a-half years! When is he going to take responsibility for something?



photo BsPKpPvCUAIydk5-1.jpg

The President had quite a bit to say about the lawsuit in Texas this week, and he couched it in terms of Congress doing nothing while he is at least trying to get things done.

Transcript via WhiteHouse.gov
There are a number of Republicans, including a number in the Texas delegation, who are mad at me for taking these actions. They actually plan to sue me. (Laughter.) Now, I don’t know which things they find most offensive -- me helping to create jobs, or me raising wages, or me easing the student loan burdens, or me making sure women can find out whether they’re getting paid the same as men for doing the same job. I don’t know which of these actions really bug them. (Laughter.)

The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years. So it’s not clear how it is that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did. (Applause.) Maybe it’s just me they don’t like. I don’t know. Maybe there’s some principle out there that I haven’t discerned, that I haven’t figure out. (Laughter.) You hear some of them -- “sue him,” “impeach him.” Really? (Laughter.) Really? For what? (Applause.) You’re going to sue me for doing my job? Okay. (Applause.)

I mean, think about that. You’re going to use taxpayer money to sue me for doing my job -- (laughter) -- while you don’t do your job. (Applause.)

photo bafdd117-9ff8-4b66-80cd-d8dc124716d9.jpg

There’s a great movie called “The Departed” -- a little violent for kids. But there’s a scene in the movie where Mark Wahlberg -- they’re on a stakeout and somehow the guy loses the guy that they’re tracking. And Wahlberg is all upset and yelling at the guy. And the guy looks up and he says, “Well, who are you?” And Wahlberg says, “I’m the guy doing my job. You must be the other guy.” (Laughter and applause.) Sometimes, I feel like saying to these guys, I’m the guy doing my job, you must be the other guy. (Applause.)

So rather than wage another political stunt that wastes time, wastes taxpayers’ money, I’ve got a better idea: Do something. (Applause.) If you’re mad at me for helping people on my own, let’s team up. Let’s pass some bills. Let’s help America together. (Applause.)

It is lonely, me just doing stuff. I’d love if the Republicans did stuff, too. (Laughter.) On immigration issues, we’ve got -- and to their credit, there are some Republicans in the Senate who actually worked with Democrats, passed a bill, would strengthen the borders, would help make the system more fair and more just. But the House Republicans, they haven’t even called the bill. They won’t even take a vote on the bill. They don’t have enough energy or organization or I don’t know what to just even vote no on the bill. (Laughter.) And then they’re mad at me for trying to do some things to make the immigration system work better. So it doesn’t make sense.

In the Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart quotes Lawrence Tribe, a professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard:
Tribe told me yesterday that he is “now convinced that there’s no ‘THERE there.” And that was BEFORE the speaker released language of a bill seeking authorization to sue the president “over the way President Obama unilaterally changed the employer mandate” in the Affordable Care Act. Boehner’s announced action solidified Tribe’s view.

"The very fact that Boehner is willing to say the House of Representatives is injured by the President’s decision to delay the implementation of the employer mandate is bizarre in itself, given how often the House has voted not just to delay it but to scuttle it,” Tribe told me via e-mail last night. “And it’s hard to imagine what conceivable remedy a federal court could possibly issue: an order directing the President to reverse course and implement the employer mandate sooner? Hardly!”

. . . the House of Representatives doesn’t have standing because none of Boehner’s accusations shows any harm to the House as an institution.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~













Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 24, 2014

#Walkergate Email Dump in Wisconsin

photo Corbis-EV110-001-1.jpg

Previous Related Posts:
Grinchy Scott Walker: Don't Buy Your Kids Toys, Just Send Me Money
Wisconsin Judge Tosses Scott Walker's Anti-Union Law
Wisconsin Aftermath of Walker Recall Vote
Badgers Vote and the Whole World Watches

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ever since a recall election failed to toss Governor Scott Walker from office in Wisconsin, there have been persistent rumors of wrongdoing on the part of his staff, and many have been tried and convicted. And now that the Chris Christie offenses are mounting up, prosecutors in Wisconsin seem to be zeroing in on Scott Walker once more. Like Christie, Walker downplays the scandal in hopes he might be a viable GOP candidate for President in 2016. But with baggage like this, his chances are shrinking daily, right along with Christie's.

Walkergate Commercial


A few weeks ago, a staffer named Kelly Rindfleisch was back in court appealing her charges when a Judge decided that her emails should be released to the public - probably not the outcome Rindfleisch was hoping for. She has become Walker's scapegoat in much the same way that Bridget Kelly, David Wildstein and others are falling under suspicion for being close to Chris Christie.

From Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal
Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Curley ruled last week that thousands of records in the appeal of Kelly Rindfleisch should be available in the court file of her misconduct in office case, even though the documents have long been sealed as part of a secret investigation of former Walker aides.
. . . (Judge) Curley wrote records collected as part of a criminal investigation are routinely included in court files and that court records are to be available to the public except in unusual circumstances.

Rindfleisch, who served as Walker's deputy chief of staff when Walker was Milwaukee County executive, is one of six people convicted as the result of a John Doe investigation led by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm. John Doe proceedings are often conducted in secret and give prosecutors the power to compel people to produce documents and testify.
The records in question include emails from Rindfleisch's personal computer and private email account, affidavits supporting John Doe search warrants, and a transcript of a secret hearing on search warrants issued the day before Walker was elected governor in 2010.
Likely included in the emails are messages exchanged with Walker or his top political aides as he ran his 2010 campaign for governor.

Although Rindfleisch sat just 25 feet from Walker’s office, was one of his top staffers and was illegally raising funds for Davis while on county time, the governor himself was not charged and the investigation was closed in early 2013. It resulted in the convictions of five former aides and associates and one contributor to Walker’s gubernatorial campaign.
According to prosecutors, there were at least 3,486 emails between Rindfleisch and members of Walker’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign. Most were sent and received during normal business hours while Rindfleisch was at her $59,560-a-year county job.
~ Wisconsin State Journal

Some of the emails uncovered in the investigation are just downright nasty:

photo WalkerMail1.png

photo WalkerMail2.png

photo WalkerMail4.png




~~~~~~~
From Time.com
Six former Walker aides and allies have been convicted of wrongdoing following an investigation into improper campaign activities by official staff when Walker was Milwaukee County executive mounting a campaign for the governor’s mansion. The release last week of tens of thousands of pages of documents from that first investigation was branded as “old news” by Walker, who noted repeatedly that a Democratic prosecutor had closed the investigation last year without any accusation that he had done anything improper. ”People want to go through 27,000 pages plus of details, and our approach is ‘case is closed,’” Walker said. “A Democrat district attorney looked at it, and he’s done. It’s done.”

To put it mildly, this is a BFD. For once, we have proof that Scott Walker encouraged government workers to campaign for him while on government time, which is illegal in Wisconsin. Scott Walker has been dishonest about the allegations of corruption surrounding him from the outset, and we finally have indisputable proof that Walker encouraged illegal campaigning.
~ The Prairie Badger



In one message, Walker aide Cindy Archer wrote to deputy chief of staff Kelly Rindfleisch that she used a private email account to communicate with Walker and his chief of staff, Tom Nardelli.
“Consider yourself now in the ‘inner circle’ :) I use this private account quite a bit to communicate with SKW and Nardelli,” Archer wrote, referring to Walker’s initials. “You should be sure you check it throughout the day.”
~ Wisconsin State Journal

From Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal
Tapping out a message on his campaign Blackberry on the afternoon of May 4, 2010, Walker urged county aides, campaign staffers and other trusted volunteers to go to an online Journal Sentinel business story and respond to critics of his plan to privatize the airport in the comments section below the story.
"Someone should comment on the fact that the only way for the county to benefit from that success is to contract out operations," Walker wrote in an email. "Having a well performing airport increases the value that the county could receive."
A half-hour later, Brian Pierick — the boyfriend of Walker aide Timothy D. Russell — posted a comment on the story under the alias "WI_Calvin," calling rising airport traffic "another example of Scott Walker's outstanding leadership."
. . . Pierick and Russell were both later convicted of other activities in the secret probe.
Walker's airport directive came a little more than a week before he ousted county aide Darlene Wink after the Journal Sentinel reported she had been spending much of her government work hours posting anonymous political comments promoting Walker on the JS Online website.

Walker Evades Questions on Fox News, Via aattp.org
Question: if county workers were doing nothing wrong, why should they be using a private e-mail account?

WALKER: Well, but that’s exactly to my point. you had a Democratic district attorney spend almost three years looking at every single one of those communications, interviewing people, talking to people and closed the case.

WALLACE: Did you have your own private e-mail account?

WALKER: It’s one of those where I point out district attorney has reviewed every single one of these issues.

WALLACE: But sir, you’re not answering my question.

WALKER: No, because I’m not going to get into 27,000 different pieces of information.





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Wisconsin Judge Tosses Scott Walker's Anti-Union Law

Photobucket

Read the Judge's Complete Ruling Here

Huffington Post Story
The law, a crowning achievement for Walker that made him a national conservative star, took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.
Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void.

In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."
Colas also said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally.

The ruling applies to all local public workers affected by the law, including teachers and city and county government employees, but not those who work for the state. They were not a party to the lawsuit, which was brought by a Madison teachers union and a Milwaukee public workers union.

The people of Wisconsin clearly spoke on June 5. Now, they are ready to move on. Sadly a liberal activist judge in Dane County wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process.
~ Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker

Walker's attempt to silence the union men and women of Wisconsin's public sector was an immoral, unjust and illegal power grab. Now, a court has ruled that the essential provisions of Act 10, Scott Walker's draconian attack on public worker's right to collectively bargain, is unconstitutional.
~ Phil Neuenfeldt, President of the Wisoncin AFL-CIO Union, via CNN

The decision essentially creates the (2011) status quo for municipal employees and school district employees because it declared the essential provisions of Act 10 to be unconstitutional.
~ Lester Pines, attorney for the Madison teachers union, via Milwaukee Journal

This is a sound decision by the court that upholds what we were saying all along — that Act 10 violates constitutional rights.
~ Christina Brey, a spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Education Association Council, via New York Times

We believe the law is constitutional. We are reviewing the decision, but we're planning to appeal.
~ Dana Brueck, spokeswoman for Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, via Milwaukee Journal

This decision will help to re-establish the balance between employees and their employers. The decision gives us an opportunity to get back to the Wisconsin values of sitting down and working together to iron out differences, not taking away the constitutional rights of our citizens.
~ Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha), via Milwaukee Journal

A judge living in the fantasy world of Dane County has decided they are going to substitute their singular opinion as opposed to the collective will of Wisconsin, through the Legislature and the recall process. We have litigated, reviewed and elected people because of Act. 10. In each case, they say the law works. And it is.
~ Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester) , via Milwaukee Journal

Juan Colas is obviously a hispanic, probably got through law school with "affimative action" grades and the same kind of guiltywhiteboy help as Obama. No doubt he is a far left moron, who smolders with resentment against white America, and does everything in his power to undermine our culture.
Americans of European descent demand freedom. WE decide what laws we want, not unelected creeps from the far left. If this punk decision is not overturned, I predict there will be ANOTHER recall, to recall his dumb ass, and undo his wrong-headed idea about the constitution.
The constitution gives power to WE THE PEOPLE, not "we the lawyers"
~ comment by beisbolfan on Politico

Shame on this leftist, partisan activist judge, What an idiot,. This MUST be Overturned. The nation is rooting for Walker and WILL SEE THAT UNION greed and thuggery is topped in its tracks. Americans are so tired of the lazy, bottom-feeder thugs.
~ comment by doveab on Politico

He (Walker) must be on the phone with the Koch Brothers asking them for advice.
~ comment by GOPunishAmerica on Politico

Call Mitt to see if he can convince the judge to self-deport.
~ comment by QueLio on Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal

I'm beginning to doubt he ever read the law he is attempting to repeal. This is the conversation that took place on how he made his decision: "Hi judge, this is Mary Bell, President of WEAC, issue a ruling to repeal this law or I'll personally see that you don't get a single vote from a public union employee in your next election. Have a good day - click"
~ comment by Muktown Resident on Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal

Legislating from the bench. A Dane county specialty. Wonder how many million more dollars the unions are going to cost the good taxpayers of Wisconsin before this is overturned.
I have about as much respect for this judge as I have for AL Qaeda.
~ comment by TerryN on Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal

Without unions you would not have 8 hour work days, fair wages, over time pay, benefits of any kind, safety requirements, paid vacations, medical leave etc, etc,. Whether you are in a union or not you have benefited from unions.
Perhaps you would like to go back to the working conditions of the early 1900's, I don't.
~ comment by clandrummer on Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal

This was never an issue for my entire 50 years of living in Wisconsin until the GOP manufactured it as part of Walker's Divide and Conquer strategy.
~ comment by GDFreethinker on Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal

Next to be declared unconstitutional is Walkers attempt to impede the right to free assembly.
~ comment by Hartland Badger on Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal

If the POS Walker would have worked with these people like he said he would do before the election this stuff wouldn't keep happening. Walker, the liar,is to blame. The GOP wouldn't even acknowledge workers on Labor day. They are anti labor Neocons.
Walmart wage scale is what they want for all workers. Owners worth 100s of billions, that pay their employees less than 10 bucks a hour with no benefits, and the every shrinking middle class of WI, can't get enough of them WI Neocons have given birth to the 2 biggest lying scum bags of all time. John Doe Walker, and Lying Ryan.
Hey WI people, take notice how the rest of the nation is making lying Ryan admit all his lies. You are the only dummies that buy these 2 guys bs hook, line, and sinker. You all deserve to end up poor, and if you keep voting the way you do, you will. WI you can't fix stupid. Now get out there and ensure yourself a huge pay, and benefit cut.
~ comment by samawry on Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal

Typical Walker. The judge, whether one agrees with his reasoning or not, based his decision on constitutional rights. Walker, in reply, points to the results of an election (as if a majority can vote to take away the minority's rights). Just another sign of how little the great patriot Walker really understands or cares about the Constitution or individual liberty. Of course, the flock is rushing to criticize the ruling, but I'll be interested to see if any base their criticism on a Constitutional argument. I won't be holding my breath, though.
~ comment by Big Picture on Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal









Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)