By GottaLaff
The justices unanimously disagreed on that legal point and in a 5-2 vote upheld a provision banning the screens and establishing procedures for paper ballot voting. [...]Now about the rest of the country and those Diebold machines....
“It has a huge precedential value because it confirms the power of the people at the local level to ensure the accuracy of elections,” [Thomas D. Shults, a lawyer for the Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections] said.
By GottaLaff
Via an e-mail:
Twelve days ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling striking at the heart of our democracy. The Court disregarded more than a century of precedent and ruled that our Constitution prevents the American people from regulating corporate money in our elections and politics. That’s wrong and we don’t buy it.
And twelve days ago, we stood up to fight back. Thousands of you joined us in our call for a constitutional amendment to defend our democracy and to restore the First Amendment to its intended purpose: to protect people, not corporations.
And, today, Congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland has introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Court’s ruling. Joined by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, the Edwards amendment will ensure that Congress and the states may prohibit corporations from spending their funds for political activity.
CLICK HERE to watch this interview with Congresswoman Edwards discussing her constitutional amendment.
And CLICK HERE to see our press release applauding her introduction of this amendment.
The Framers of the Constitution intended the First Amendment to protect the rights of citizens, everyday people, not corporations. Corporations are not people. They are artificial entities created by the state with state-based advantages. In fact, the recent ruling will certainly drown out the voices of the very citizens the First Amendment was meant to protect.
We as a nation have amended the United States Constitution before. Twenty-seven times. That history includes amendments in response to US Supreme Court rulings directly threatening the democratic process. The Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC demands a similar constitutional amendment response.
But to do this, we need to build a broad-based democracy movement. You can help make this happen.
Ways to Get Involved
* Forward this email to at least 10 or more of your friends urging that they join us and sign the petition.
* Contact your Member of Congress in the House of Representatives and United States Senate, about the Edwards amendment.
* Organize a local amendment committee.
* Donate to support this campaign.
* Follow Free Speech for People on Twitter and Facebook to receive the latest news on the campaign.
* CLICK HERE to find out other ways to get involved.
Together, we will reclaim our First Amendment and our democracy.
Thank you.
The Free Speech for People Campaign
http://FreeSpeechforPeople.org
By GottaLaff
The US government said Friday it will review the decision by a US court to drop charges against American private security guards accused of killing 14 Iraqi civilians in an unprovoked attack in 2007."We respect the independence of the judiciary. The decision of the judge does not exonerate the defendants or necessarily terminate the proceedings," State Department spokesman PJ Crowley told reporters.
"The Department of Justice, in consultation with the State Department, will carefully review the judge's decision and assess all available legal options," said Crowley, the assistant secretary of state for public affairs.
Color me jaded.
By GottaLaff
WICHITA, Kan. – A judge ruled Tuesday that Kansas law doesn't allow a so-called "necessity defense" in the trial of a man charged with killing one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.
The decision was another blow to lawyers for 51-year-old Scott Roeder, who has confessed to shooting Dr. George Tiller on May 31 and says it was necessary to save "unborn children." [...]
In his ruling, Judge Warren Wilbert cited a 1993 criminal trespassing case involving an abortion clinic in which the Kansas Supreme Court said that allowing a person's personal beliefs to justify criminal activity to stop a law-abiding citizen from exercising his rights would "not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy."
Darned activist judges. He must be one of us Commie gay abortionists.
He noted abortion is legal and told attorneys he found it difficult to consider the shooting of Tiller in the back of a church on a Sunday morning, with no overt act by Tiller himself, as an act spurred by an imminent threat of death or bodily harm.
Abortion is legal. Abortion is legal.
Abortion. Is. Legal.
One's beliefs do not justify murder.However, Wilbert told attorneys he would "leave the door open" to consider later whether to allow specific evidence on the use of force for the defense of another person before letting the jury hear it.
"That doesn't mean it is wide open ... we can discuss it," Wilbert said.
By GottaLaff
Via an L.A. Times e-mail alert:
Case against Broadcom founder, CFO dismissed
A federal judge this morning dismissed the criminal stock-options backdating case against Broadcom Corp. co-founder Henry C. Nicholas III and the company's former chief financial officer William J. Ruehle.
U.S. Discrict Court Judge Cormac J. Carney took the step less than a week after he dismissed the conviction of Broadcom co-founder Henry Samueli, saying he did not believe he committed a crime.
Carney ruled that prosecutors had improperly intimidated witnesses, tainting their testimony and making the case "a mockery of justice." He said the government's conduct in the case was "shameful."
The judge scheduled a Feb. 2 hearing to consider whether he should consider narcotics distribution charges against Nicholas -- the only remaining charge in the case.
By GottaLaff
Court rules in favor of NOLA residents re: flooding during Hurricane Katrina.... that it was a "man made disaster". This is a district court ruling. It could have huge implications for the region and issues of accountability.UPDATE:
So essentially, the Army Corps of Engineers were sloppy, and that was one of the elements resulting in the flooding.
In a groundbreaking decision, a federal judge ruled late Wednesday that the Army Corps of Engineers' mismanagement of maintenance of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet was directly responsible for flood damage of homes in St. Bernard Parish and the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.Follow the link for more details.The decision by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. could result in the federal government paying $700,000 in damages to three people and a business in those areas, but also sets the stage for judgments against the govenment for damages by as many as 100,000 other residents, businesses and local governments in those areas who filed claims with the corps after Katrina.
If successful, the damage claims could total billions of dollars.
Duval ruled, however, that WDSU-TV anchor Norman Robinson and his wife were not entitled to damages because the corps' dredging of the MR-GO did not affect the levee system that protects eastern New Orleans from hurricane storm surge. That probably means eastern New Orleans residents also would not be able to collect on claims they've filed against the corps, said attorneys representing plaintiffs in the case.
By GottaLaff
This can't end well. Then again, it didn't begin well.Check out these sentences from the lengthy order by Judge David Carter of the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California:
[T]he Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
By GottaLaff
A U.S. District Court judge has dismissed one of Orly Taitz's birther lawsuits, saying it would be unconstitutional for the courts to "effectively overthrow a sitting president."
You don't say.
Judge David O. Carter:
"Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction," Carter wrote. "Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic."
Suh-nap!
Ruling in its entirety here.
By GottaLaff
Walter Bagdasarian [...] was sentenced[...] to 24 days of prison time already served, 60 days in a halfway house, two years of supervised release and a $500 fine.
No federal prison for you!
The ruling must have been from a judge who wants to look forward, and not backwards.
One [Internet message] used a racial slur and said Obama should be shot. Another read: "He will have a 50 cal in the head soon." Authorities say they found a .50-caliber rifle in his home.
Bagdoiuakjhxlksdfljfdsqad's lawyer said the guy was drunk and really, really wasn't going to do anything bad, honest!
So remember all you hostile racist Obama haters out there: Get drunk, threaten the president, keep lethal weapons in your home, and you'll get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
What possible harm is there in that?
By GottaLaff
Former Guantanamo Bay inmate Binyam Mohamed says U.S. and British agents knew he was being tortured. Britain said releasing a summary of his treatment would harm relations with U.S. intelligence."No intelligence" seems apt here. How smart is it to have tortured these people, considering that torture provides no reliable information, and often results in lies?
An American document that allegedly describes the torture of a former Guantanamo Bay inmate should be made public, a British court ruled Friday, dismissing Britain's argument that it was suppressing the information to preserve its intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and to uphold national safety. [...]
Mohamed, 31, a British resident, alleges that he was subjected to torture, including beatings and sexual mutilation, by interrogators in Pakistan and elsewhere with the full knowledge of American and British intelligence agents. The high court ruled that the secret synopsis, which had been blacked out in previous court filings, had no intelligence value and could be released.
Rather, the judges wrote, "the public interest in making the paragraphs public is overwhelming," because the summary could shed light on illegal activities carried out by the U.S. and British governments.IMHO, this was a very wise judge:
"It cannot be suggested that information as to how officials of the U.S. government admitted treating [Mohamed] during his interrogation is information that can in any democratic society governed by the rule of law be characterized as 'secret' or as 'intelligence,' " the court said, adding that "the risk to national security . . . is not a serious one."*****
By GottaLaff
Counsel Orly Taitz is hereby ordered to pay $20,000.00 to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of the date of this Order as a sanction for her misconduct in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Here are some excerpts from the official document that shows how willful and negligent Mental Taitz was. Oh, and for the record, this judge was appointed by Boy Georgie W:
The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel’s pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court.
Ouch! Then again, I wonder if any of that will even penetrate Taitzless' thick skull.
I hear the real estate biz is about to pick up. Taitzless should really think about going back to her day job.Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court. [...] The Clerk’s Office was burdened by Ms. Taitz’s inability to follow the Court’s rules regarding pro hac vice admission and the Court’s rules for electronic filing. On five separate occasions in a short period, the Clerk’s Office personnel error-noticed counsel for her failure to follow simple rules. At the hearing, counsel failed to make coherent legal arguments but instead wasted the Court’s time with press conference sound bites and speeches.
By GottaLaff
In 2005, Jamie Lee Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter.Are you getting angry yet? Good. But guess what? A ray of sunshine, a silver lining, a moment of sanity... an actual victory:
KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. After 15 months in arbitration, Jones and her lawyers went to court to fight the KBR claims. Yesterday, a court ruled in favor of Jones.” Mother Jones reports:Jones argued that the alleged gang rape was not related to her employment and thus, wasn’t covered by the arbitration agreement. Finally, two years later, a federal court has sensibly agreed with her. Tuesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 ruling, found her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract.
One of the judges who ruled in her favor, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and one of the court’s most conservative members, a sign, perhaps, of just how bad the facts are in this case. It’s a big victory, but a bitter one that shows just how insidious mandatory arbitration is. It’s taken Jones three years of litigation just to get to the point where she can finally sue the people who allegedly wronged her. It will be many more years before she has a shot at any real justice.
A sigh of relief... for now.
By GottaLaff
Just FYI, this report is from ClusterFox News. I had to correct two spelling errors.A federal judge is criticizing the CIA, saying it's hiding behind dubious national security claims to shield itself from a potentially embarrassing lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth already has ruled that CIA officials committed fraud to protect a former covert agent accused in the lawsuit. The judge rejected an emergency request to put the case on hold while the government appeals. [...]
In the suit, a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent claims the CIA illegally wiretapped his home when stationed in Rangoon, Burma. The CIA argues that allowing the case to proceed would divulge classified information.
By GottaLaff
Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the "morning after" contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.Amen.
In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block 2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the pills. [...]
The plaintiffs asserted that their Christian beliefs prevented them from dispensing the pills, which can prevent implantation of a recently fertilized egg. They said that the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they regard as a form of abortion. [...]
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction, saying the district court was wrong in issuing it based on an erroneous finding that the rules violated the free exercise of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution. [...]
Although the courts have yet to pronounce judgment on other aspects of the lawsuit, the unanimous ruling on the free-exercise clause could portend further judgments, as the case moves forward, that a patient's right to timely medication supersedes a pharmacist's personal convictions. [...]
The right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," the 9th Circuit panel wrote.
"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.
By GottaLaff
Last night I posted about John Yoo being ordered to testify about his handywork leading to torture. Here's an update:A prisoner who says he was tortured while being held for nearly four years as a suspected terrorist can sue former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo for coming up with the legal theories that justified his alleged treatment, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Friday.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White's decision marks the first time a government lawyer has been held potentially responsible for the abuse of detainees.
"Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct," White said in refusing to dismiss Jose Padilla's lawsuit against Yoo.
If Padilla, now serving a 17-year prison sentence on terrorism charges, can prove his allegations, he can show that Yoo "set in motion a series of events that resulted in the deprivation of Padilla's constitutional rights," White said.
That's a big "if".
John Eastman, law school dean at Chapman University in Orange County, where Yoo taught for the past year, [...] predicted that the Justice Department will file an immediate appeal, going to the Supreme Court if necessary. [...]
Declared an enemy combatant, Padilla was held in a Navy brig for three years and eight months and was denied all contact with the outside world for the first half of that period, his suit said. He was then taken out of the brig and charged with taking part in an unrelated conspiracy to provide money and supplies to Islamic extremist groups. He was convicted and has appealed.
His suit against Yoo covers his time in the brig. He says he was detained illegally, held for lengthy periods in darkness and blinding light, subjected to temperature extremes and sleep deprivation, confined in painful stress positions, and threatened with death to himself, harm to his family and transfer to a nation where he would be tortured.
The suit said Yoo - who has acknowledged being a member of an administration planning group known as the "war council" - personally reviewed and approved Padilla's detention in the brig and provided the legal cover for his treatment.
At a hearing in March, Justice Department lawyer Mary Mason told White that courts had no power to scrutinize high-level government decision-making, especially in wartime.
But White said Friday that Padilla had a right to sue "the alleged architect of the government policy" on enemy combatants. He said an examination of Yoo's publicly disclosed writings would not damage national security, and an inquiry into "allegations of unconstitutional treatment of an American citizen on American soil" would not affect foreign relations.
By GottaLaff
A federal judge has ruled that John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer who wrote crucial memorandums justifying harsh interrogation techniques, will have to answer in court to accusations that his work led to a prisoner’s being tortured and deprived of his constitutional rights.Suh-weet.
By GottaLaff
A federal judge says the United States must publicly reveal the unclassified documents filed in the cases against more than 100 terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay.Attorneys for the detainees had objected to the Justice Department's practice of filing unclassified records under seal.
That was today's Quickie. Will you still respect me in the morning?
By GottaLaff
The Minnesota Supreme Court heard an hour of arguments on whether absentee ballot problems justify reversing a lower-court ruling that declared Al Franken (D) the winner over Norm Coleman (R) in last year's U.S. Senate race, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
The hearing concluded with a justice saying "a decision will be forthcoming" -- offering no indication how long that process could take.
Rick Hasen: "There's no question that Coleman's side got much tougher question than Franken's side, and based upon oral argument I would not be surprised to see a unanimous decision in favor of Franken in a relatively short time frame (within two weeks -- maybe sooner). I counted at least three of the five Justices who were much more willing to accept Franken's arguments than Coleman's arguments, and who asked Coleman's side much more difficult questions."
The only reason for a new federal lawsuit would be to delay the Democrats' ability to obtain a 60th vote [...] Even if Pawlenty chooses not to sign the certificate of election, the Senate, as the constitutionally authorized arbiter of disputed Senate elections, should declare Franken the provisional winner.No matter what happens, the Rushpublics will continue to look like the Party of Constipat--er, Blockage. Their negativity and hypocrisy are astounding, and their lack of respect for democracy could be packaged and sold as Raid Voter Repellent.
A more immediate question if Coleman loses in the Minnesota court is whether the Senate should await the outcome of any direct appeal of the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court before seating Franken.
Coleman ordinarily would have 90 days after the Minnesota judgment to file his petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, and the high court would not be expected to rule on whether or not to hear Coleman's appeal before the beginning of its next term in October, at the earliest. But Coleman can ask to expedite the process. And the Senate should give Coleman only a short window of time to seek an immediate stay of the Minnesota court ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. If Coleman does not quickly seek a stay, or if he files for it and the high court denies the stay, the Senate should provisionally seat Franken.
The U.S. Supreme Court would issue a stay only if it thinks there's a good chance Coleman would win his appeal and that the Senate seating of Franken would irreparably harm Coleman. That's what happened in 2000 when George W. Bush sought a stay to prevent the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recounting of votes in Florida. If the court declines to issue Coleman a stay, it would be time for the Senate to give Franken the seat pending further court developments.
With Coleman facing such long odds at that point, there would be no reason to deny the people of Minnesota half of their Senate representation for another three or more months.
By GottaLaff
You ain't seen nothin' yet:
Advocate reporter Sue Rochman snapped this photo of the scene outside the courthouse in San Francisco moments before the supreme court justices announced their decision on Prop. 8.
By GottaLaff
Another day, another ruling. I smell an appeal:
A federal judge has rejected aspects of the Obama administration's definition of who can legally be held as a prisoner in the war on terror.
In a 22-page decision issued Tuesday evening, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates ruled that members in Al Qaeda or the Taliban could be detained, but that mere support for Al Qaeda activities is not a sufficient basis for the government to hold prisoners at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere.
Bates said he pressed the Justice Department to explain why rendering assistance to Al Qaeda was enough to lock someone up without criminal charges.
"After repeated attempts by the Court to elicit a more definitive justification for the 'substantial support' concept in the law of war, it became clear that the government has none," wrote Bates, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush. "Regardless of the reasonableness of this approach from a policy perspective, a detention authority that sweeps so broadly is simply beyond what the law of war will support. The government's approach in this respect evidences an importation of principles from the criminal law context," Bates said. [...]
Bates's decision does not mean it would be impossible to hold someone for knowingly giving aid to Al Qaeda. Rather, the government would have to proceed with a criminal indictment or perhaps a military commission or court-martial, all of which would are likely to give Guantanamo prisoner more rights than he currently enjoys.
Bates's reservation on the support issue put him at odds on that point with one of his colleagues, Judge Reggie Walton, who essentially adopted the Obama definition last month in the first ruling to consider the issue. One or more of the rulings is likely to be appealed to the D.C. Circuit and eventually to the Supreme Court.
A government official noted that Bates rejected an argument by detainee lawyers that the government could only detain individuals who directly participated in hostilites against the U.S. Bates made clear in his ruling that simple membership in Al Qaeda or the Taliban was enough to permit detention. [...]
Bates's analysis on the support issue was strikingly similar to that which the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Ken Roth, gave reporters and bloggers during conference calls on Monday discussing the Obama Administration's detention policy.
.jpg)
