Sarah Palin's newest ghost writer on Facebook

By GottaLaff

Illiterata McKidScrawl got someone brand new to post for her on her Facebook blog! To see how bright and shiny and defensive he is, follow this link:

Let this latest dismissed complaint serve as a reminder for one of the real—and stated—reasons for her voluntary relinquishment of office, an office she campaigned for diligently, tirelessly and effectively. It stands as a marker that occasionally, every so often, there are public servants who can recognize the difference between self-interest and public interest. Sarah Palin is one such public servant.

- Thomas Van Flein, personal attorney for Sarah Palin

Yes, she is. Illiterata can tell the difference, and chose the former.

Shallow Thoughts: Liz Cheney edition

By GottaLaff



Shallow Thoughts:

Liz Cheney is branding lawyers who defend terrorists as Al Qaeda sympathizers.

Does that mean that lawyers who defend serial killers are homicidal maniac sympathizers? And that those who defend the worst kind of kidnappers are pedophile sympathizers?

Despicable Dickette may have forgotten: Defense lawyers have a job to do. It entails defending their clients. That's called "being professional" and it's how the American legal system works. If they fail to do that, they can be sued for malpractice.

Now go slither back under that rock.

That was today's Shallow Thought. Thank you for wading in.

Video- CNN spends 8 minutes asking if DOJ lawyers are "disloyal"

Glenn Greenwald rips 'em a new one over this here. Via Media Matters.

Yoo asked for it

By GottaLaff

Yoo hooooo!

As reports circulate that the Justice Department has softened its criticism of attorney John Yoo for memos approving the Bush administration's treatment of terrorism suspects, several prominent lawyers are urging a federal appeals court in San Francisco to hold Yoo accountable.

They have submitted arguments opposing dismissal of a prisoner's lawsuit that accuses the former Justice Department attorney of providing a legal cover for torture. The suit covers much of the same ground as the department's ethics investigation of Yoo. [...]

Yoo says he always gave good-faith legal advice and denies authorizing torture. Those claims could be tested in a San Francisco federal court, however, unless Yoo can persuade a court to dismiss Jose Padilla's lawsuit. [...]

Yoo has appealed, saying the suit would interfere with presidential war-making authority. The Obama administration has taken his side, arguing that courts should not meddle in questions of national security.

But in filings over the last 10 days, groups of constitutional law professors, legal ethics scholars and former government attorneys urged the court to keep Padilla's suit alive.

They argue that this is not a dispute over legal advice, as Yoo contends, but the case of a lawyer who allegedly stepped out of his role to take part in planning detention and interrogation policies, and then devised legal opinions to justify those policies.

And who are some of these very principled, very learned, very ethical lawyers who support the novel concept of upholding the-- What's it called again? Oh yeah-- U.S. Constitution? Here's who:

Erwin Chemerinsky, law school dean at UC Irvine; Alan Morrison, an assistant law dean at George Washington and former director of Public Citizen Litigation Group; and Norman Dorsen of New York University, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Also, Stanford's Deborah Rhode and former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, not to mention Bruce Fein, special assistant to the director of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in President Ronald Reagan's administration.

They stressed the importance of applying ethical standards to lawyers who advise the president on constitutional issues.

There is much more here. (h/t: VNDNBRG)

And here:

*****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Justice Department seeking lawyers with ‘mental retardation’

By GottaLaff

Will MeanGirl McTelePalmer go after the Obama administration for this?

The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants with targeted disabilities to apply. Targeted disabilities are deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorder, mental retardation, mental illness, severe distortion of limbs and/or spine.

Maybe she and Boss Limpdong can team up for a lawsuit or some good old fashioned slander, since he's on her good side now. Oh wait. She doesn't have a good side.

Via Raw Story:

In its ostensible attempt to create a nondiscriminatory application process, the Department of Justice is inviting candidates with "mental retardation" to pursue attorney posts.

A DOJ job listing at its official Web site reveals that its Civil Rights Division is seeking 10 "experienced" trial attorneys for its Voting Section in Washington, D.C. and is encouraging "qualified applicants with targeted disabilities to apply."

The targeted disabilities it mentions include "mental retardation" and "mental illness," among others such as blindness and deafness.

Cheese and crackers, talk about inclusive! What will the R-word police say about that? Will they demand that future Civil Rights Divisoners take literacy tests?

Or will people just make jokes:

"Recruiting mentally retarded lawyers to litigate civil rights cases for the DOJ may take the expression 'good enough for government work' too far," wrote Above The Law's David Lat.

Former DOJ lawyer Ty Clevenger jested, "Having worked there, I think CRD has plenty of mentally retarded lawyers already. Mostly in supervisory positions."

And who is this David and Ty we speak of?

David Lat.

Ty Clevenger. Another link. And another.

VIDEO- Boston Legal's Alan Shore: "Enough of this Freedom of Religion Crap"

By GottaLaff

This was tweeted to me in response to my previous post, Christians claim Matthew Shepard hate crimes law "criminalizes the Bible":



You can't "license persecution":

Alan Shore (James Spader) of Boston Legal argues to cut down on freedom of religion.

H/t: Nanotyrnns

An unlikely lunch date--Alaskan bloggers meet Sarah Palin's lawyer

By GottaLaff

Thomas Van Flein and organizer Liz Behlke

Yesterday I posted Gryphen's version of events, and what a version it was! Today, my sweet pal Celtic Diva has her post up, and has graciously allowed me to share it with you.

Instead, I'll give you a few tease-y excerpts, and send you back to her place for the rest:

First impressions: Thomas Van Flein was charming and had a sense of humor. I was also amused by how he enjoyed the "power" of information. He seemed to get a kick out of watching people's reactions when he'd ask a question he thought would be "unexpected". [...]

After about 15 minutes, I jumped into the deep end of the pool and basically asked Mr. Van Flein why he continues to give the impression that all of the ethics complaints against the Governor have been dismissed when he knows it's not true. [...]

I already expected his reaction and justification, but it was interesting to hear it directly. It's not a surprise that no one seems to take ethics seriously anymore. [...]

Other issues we discussed:

--Trig
--The "pretty" issue
--Jealousy
--Gryphen's and my experiences with the Palinistas this year

To see the details that go with those topics, and to fill in the blanks of the other bits and pieces I gave you, go here.

And go Linda!

Alaskan bloggers' lunch with Sarah Palin's lawyer

By GottaLaff

Two of my favorite bloggers had lunch with Thomas Van Flein, Sarah Palin's attorney. So far, only one of them has posted about the experience, which was fascinating. Celtic Diva's is coming, I'm sure.

Here is a snippet or three from Gryphen's account of his Big Lunch:

Both Linda [Celtic Diva] and I offered some advice for Van Flein to take back to his client. We talked about the perception that people had of her as a mother based on the photographs of her constantly carrying little Trig off of planes and buses in her high heel shoes and with his little legs exposed. [...]

Probably the most interesting exchange came when suddenly Van Flein leaned toward me and asked point blank: " Do you sincerely, honestly believe that Trig is not her baby?"

To which I replied: "Yes, I sincerely, honestly believe that Trig is not her baby. Do you sincerely honestly believe it is her baby?"

VF: "I have no doubt."

G: "No doubt because you were there and watched it pop out?"

This is why I adore Gryphen.

Please read the rest here.

Barbara Boxer calls out the hypocrites

By GottaLaff

Barbara Boxer just now on the Senate floor (I'm watching the health care debate on CSPAN2):

"I find it amazing that the first person Senators call when they're in trouble with their work is an attorney... They pay the best attorney, they pay a high price." [slightly paraphrased]

New rule: Nail the hypocrites.

Joe Scarborough's 'Team' Asks for, Receives Special Treatment from Newsweek

By GottaLaff

Remember back on June 2 when I posted about this?

The frustrating search for an attorney for Michael F. Griffin, the man charged with killing an abortion doctor, ended with his hiring of Clearwater defense lawyer Patrick Doherty. [...]

Doherty agreed to take the Pensacola anti-abortion protester's case after a 3-hour meeting with Griffin and [Joe] Scarborough on Saturday.

Those were the days, weren't they, when nobody paid much attention to the information reflected in that rather startling little Tweet? Well Tee Vee Machine commentator Joan Walsh did.

She just tweeted:

Unfortunately, this Gawker story abt Scarborough/Newsweek rings true to me, & Jon Meacham should be ashamed

Here's the premise of the Gawker story Joan refers to:

Newsweek interviewed MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough last week, and prominently mentioned when Scarborough defended the murderer of an abortion doctor. That didn't go over well in Scarborough country, so Newsweek editor— and frequent Scarborough guest—Jon Meacham changed it.

Follow the link for more.

All of the BushCo lawyers agreed on legality of torture

By GottaLaff

See? The BushCo lawyers said torture was legal, so it was! That does it. They're off the hook. A-Ok. Innocent... Right? The Nation of Dick's wet dream (apologies for the visual):

When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal.

Previously undisclosed Justice Department e-mail messages, interviews and newly declassified documents show that some of the lawyers, including James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who argued repeatedly that the United States would regret using harsh methods, went along with a 2005 legal opinion asserting that the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency were lawful.

That opinion, giving the green light for the C.I.A. to use all 13 methods in interrogating terrorism suspects, including waterboarding and up to 180 hours of sleep deprivation, “was ready to go out and I concurred,” Mr. Comey wrote to a colleague in an April 27, 2005, e-mail message obtained by The New York Times. [...]

None of the Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the interrogation question argued that the methods were clearly illegal. [...]

C.I.A. officials had been nervous about the legality of their proposed methods from the start in 2002. They had asked Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, to grant interrogators immunity in advance from prosecution for torture. Mr. Chertoff refused, but neither did he warn the agency against the methods it was proposing.

The agency’s worst fears about the potential liability of its officers returned with a vengeance in 2004, after the sharp criticism from the agency’s inspector general and Mr. Goldsmith’s withdrawal of the first torture memorandum. C.I.A. officials demanded a comprehensive legal review. [...]

By April 2005, the opinions were in final form, and Mr. Comey, who had set his own resignation for August, concurred in the 46-page opinion affirming the legality of the 13 techniques. But he told Mr. Gonzales that he strongly objected to Mr. Bradbury’s second opinion, allowing multiple techniques to be used in a single interrogation session.

Mr. Gonzales told him that he was “under great pressure” from Vice President Dick Cheney to complete both memorandums and that President George W. Bush had asked about them, Mr. Comey recounted in one of the 2005 e-mail messages.

There's lots more. Go read.

Tuh-Weet! Scarborough helped "abortion doc killer" Griffin edition

By GottaLaff

Well, well, what have we here:

(click on image to enlarge)

Who is Michael F. Griffin?

Guilty

Michael Frederick Griffin (born September 11, 1961), murdered Dr. David Gunn in Pensacola, Florida on March 10, 1993. This was the first killing of an OB-GYN for performing abortions. [...] A jury deliberated three hours before finding him guilty on March 4, 1994. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Who is the attorney who represented him?

The frustrating search for an attorney for Michael F. Griffin, the man charged with killing an abortion doctor, ended with his hiring of Clearwater defense lawyer Patrick Doherty. [...]

Doherty agreed to take the Pensacola anti-abortion protester's case after a 3-hour meeting with Griffin and [Joe] Scarborough on Saturday.

Who went out of his way to help Griffin?

UPDATE: Allow me to add this, as iterated by Shoq, the author of the Tweet:

Not wrong to seek counsel for killers. Simply curious that the only time joe [...] does it, it' is for a domestic terrorist, eh?

Agreed. Our point is not that he found a lawyer for him, it's that when he goes out of his way to do so, it's for an extremist like Griffin.

UPDATE: More here. Looks like the story's growing. Aww, what a shame for ol' MoJo.

Lawyers give Sotomayor mixed reviews

By GottaLaff

Why does this remind me of a Facebook page?

[A]ccording to anonymous comments from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary:

Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability.
"She is very good. She is bright."
"She is a good judge."
"She is very smart."
"She is frighteningly smart. She is intellectually tough." [...]
"She is a good judge, but not quite as smart as she thinks she is."
"She has a very good commonsense approach to the law."
"She looks at the practical issues." [...]
"She is smart. She is not an as intellectual as some."
"It is fair to say she has done better than many people predicted. I'd say she is in the bottom of this court--but, the competition is pretty stiff."
"She is one of the few civil rights lawyers to be appointed to the court. Sometimes I think she is at war with herself. In her heart I think she still thinks from the bottom up. When you argue before her you have the sense that she is waiting for you to give her a reason to win. If you don't give it, she will rule against you."
"I am not too impressed with her. She is bright, but she doesn't always get the facts."

Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed.
"She is a terror on the bench."
"She is very outspoken."
"She can be difficult."
"She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry."
"She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament."
"She abuses lawyers."
"She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts."
"She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack for making an argument she does not like."

Lawyers said Sotomayor is very active and well prepared at oral argument.
[...]
"She participates actively in oral argument. She is extremely hard working and always prepared."
"She dominates oral argument. She will cut you off and cross examine you."
"She is active in oral argument. There are times when she asks questions to hear herself talk."
"She can be a bit of a bully. She is an active questioner."
"She asks questions to see you squirm. She is very active in oral argument. She takes over in oral argument, sometimes at the expense of her colleagues." [...]
"She can become exasperated in oral argument. You can see the impatience."
[...]

Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor is liberal.
"She is liberal."
"She is broadly inclined in a more liberal direction, but is very careful to follow precedent." [...]
"She is quite liberal."
"She is not necessarily pro-government.''
"She is not a government pushover. She is fair."
"She is trying to move to the right."
"She has no discernible leaning."

Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions.
"Her opinions are O.K, by and large."
"She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions." [...]
"Her opinions are generally well-reasoned and well-argued."
"She writes well." [...]
"Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent."

And she's, like, rilly, rilly popular and junk, but oh em gee, she is such a bitch! I totally wanna be her bff.

Liberal groups seek disbarment of Bush lawyers over torture

By GottaLaff

"Many view" this as a good start:

A coalition of progressive groups sought Monday to have 12 Bush administration lawyers disbarred for their roles in crafting the legal rationale for so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that many view as torture.

Yes, "many" have a sense of justice, morality, and the rule of law. "Many" understand that torture doesn't work. "Many" are rational members of society and are sick and tired of secrecy. "Many" want BushCo to be put under oath, but "many" realize that I'm off on a tangent here.

Kevin Zeese, an attorney for the coalition:

"Just as the bar would suspend an attorney who advised a police officer to torture and brutalize a detained immigrant or criminal defendant, the bar must suspend these attorneys for advocating and causing the torture of war detainees. The disciplinary boards that hear these complaints must act or they will be seen as complicit in the use of torture."

Zeese called disbarment "an important step toward the ultimate accountability of criminal prosecution."

The group registered formal complaints against David Addington, John Ashcroft, Stephen Bradbury, Jay Bybee, Michael Chertoff, Douglas Feith, Alice Fisher, Timothy Flanigan, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes II, Michael Mukasey, and John Yoo. [...]

The complaints, filed with the state bars in California, the District of Columbia, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas, also seek other forms of disciplinary action in addition to disbarment.

A preliminary internal report on the Justice Department investigation into the authors of the Bush administration's so-called "torture memos" indicated the federal government might also urge state bar associations to take sanctions against the memo writers, according to two government sources familiar with the report.

The draft, which has been sent to Attorney General Eric Holder for approval or revisions, reportedly does not call for criminal prosecutions.

Sources familiar with the report said investigators for the Justice Department's ethics unit — the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) — have focused heavily on internal communications involving Bradbury, Bybee, and Yoo.

How and why a Spanish judge might put BushCo lawyers on trial

By GottaLaff

I'm not giving up on the idea of prosecutions. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving up, I'm not giving up ::eyes shut tightly, clicks heels three times::

Times editorial writer Marjorie MillerMarjorie Miller asked British barrister and law professor Philippe Sands, author of the book "Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values," to explain the legal underpinnings of such a procedure.

The Spanish case targets the government lawyers -- including former Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales -- whose legal opinions laid the groundwork for so-called harsh interrogations. Why the lawyers?

When the administration decided to move to aggressive techniques, it seems they turned to lawyers who could be relied upon to sign on. They systematically excluded from the process those lawyers who would have given contrary advice. But for the lawyers, these abuses, this torture, would not have happened.

So the administration got bad advice from lawyers; they didn't have to take it. Why does that make the lawyers guilty?

The lawyers appear to have been part of a plan to subvert the law. First the administration fixed on a policy of cruelty, then they found the lawyers to sign off on it. On my reading, the lawyers acted not in the service of providing fearless, independent legal advice, but provided support to a predetermined policy of abuse. In that way, they became complicit in a policy of torture.

Is there legal precedent in going after the lawyers?

There is legal precedent. The precedent includes U.S. military tribunals in Germany in the 1940s. More recently, you've got actions in Britain, Spain and the United States where lawyers, for example, designed money-laundering schemes intended to subvert rules that criminalize money laundering. There are plenty of cases to show that, where lawyers act in a way to subvert the rules, they can themselves become complicit in crime.

Still, why not the torturers or the top political leaders?

I focused on the lawyers because I wanted to understand the circumstances in which they became complicit, but of course it goes even higher. As of April 29, the case in Spain has taken a broader and more extensive turn. Judge Baltasar Garzon will look at the Bush Six and all those individuals who bear responsibility for the policy of torture and abuse. The case will look not just at the "framers of the legal decision," as President Obama put it. It will look at those higher up and perhaps also those lower down who contributed to the implementation of the decision.

So BushCo fixed the memos around their policy. What does that remind us of, hmm?

More here.

Bristol Palin's future mother-in-law has a fancy new lawyer

By GottaLaff

I wonder who's paying for Lawbooks McHotshot... Sarah Palin maybe? Or perhaps Sherry sold enough Oxycontin to Rush Limbaugh to be able to save up:

Sherry Johnston came to court Friday morning with an entourage -- son Levi, daughter Mercedes, and her new attorney, prominent Anchorage defense lawyer Rex Butler.

Johnston left with a new trial date: May instead of March.

The 42-year-old pleaded not guilty last month to six felony counts of possessing and selling the prescription painkiller OxyContin. [...]

Her arrest received national attention because her son, Levi Johnston, 18, is the father of Gov. Sarah Palin's grandson, Tripp, born in December. [...]

With the presidential election over and the national media long gone, no one paid special attention to the group, though Superior Court Judge Eric Smith did ask one of the young men to remove his ball cap.

Butler told Smith that he filed notice Friday morning that he was taking over as Johnston's lawyer, replacing a state-funded attorney from the Office of Public Advocacy. He asked Smith to push back the trial to allow him to get up to speed on the case.

Smith set a new trial date of May 18.

Butler [is]one of the busiest defense attorneys in Anchorage...

Now Sherry can say the Butler did it.

Tomorrow's USA Today/Gallup: Obama leads by 11

By GottaLaff

A grab bag post. Please note, I changed the post title.

USA Today poll numbers: Obama is leading by 11. Susan Page is reporting it on MSNBC right now, before they come out in tomorrow's edition. CBS is reporting a 13 point spread, per Chris Matthews.

Now, on to Montana: We've been asking about how Obama is using his legal team. Here one way:

Get this. The Obama campaign has shipped 300 lawyers to the Big Sky state to assist with the election. What will they do? The Billings Gazette reports they will make sure that voters aren’t “turned away or discouraged from voting.”

Not only that but the Obama effort already “has 40 paid field directors, 14,000 volunteers and more than 60 ’staging locations’ statewide, where workers will coordinate a final get-out-the-vote push that began Friday and culminates Tuesday, Election Day.”

“We are mounting a massive field effort to turn out voters, in a way that this state really hasn’t seen before,” said Caleb Weaver, an Obama spokesman.

That's in Montana. I don't have information that specific about other states.

Party Lawyers Ready to Keep an Eye on the Polls

By GottaLaff

If there's nothing to "worry" about, I doubt if both teams would have lawyers everywhere (apparently, "worry" has become a buzz word here, but I'm using it as a catch-all; so, ahem, no worries... snerk!). Seriously, it's good to know they're on top of it:

With heavy voter turnout expected on Election Day, both parties are amassing thousands and thousands of lawyers to keep an eye on the polls.

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign is expected to send at least 5,000 lawyers to Florida alone. The first recruitment e-mail message the campaign sent out nationally received 6,000 responses from lawyers willing to volunteer. Meanwhile, Senator John McCain’s campaign has lined up “Lawyers for McCain” to spread out at polling places in closely contested states as advocates for the ticket.

Both campaigns plan to use the lawyers to protect their supporters at the polls, help untangle ballot problems and run to court should litigation be necessary. [...]

The role of lawyers, especially at polling places, has grown since the 2000 election. For the Obama campaign, the recruitment of lawyers began the moment it set up field offices and is part of its long-term strategy to make voting easier.

Already, lawyers for Mr. Obama have been talking to county election officials and boards of election to increase the number of early voting sites, to encourage early voting and to make sure that there will be sufficient number of voting machines.

“We have a selective, but ferocious legal strategy,” said Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign’s legal program. “Rather than waiting for Election Day, we’ve had lawyers working from the beginning. We’ve used them for a massive voter education program, so that people know their rights and what to do on Election Day.”

This comes on top of an effort the Democratic National Committee began after the 2000 election. The committee set up a National Lawyers Council to work on ballot issues, established a voter protection hot line and surveyed 1,300 state and local election officials to flag potential Election Day problems in advance.

So far, over 10,000 lawyers have signed up over the committee’s Web site. [...]

“Lawyers have always written checks,” Mr. Kessler said. “Now we are taking it to the next level in assuring that there will be no issues on Election Day. We are learning from the last two elections and we now have the credo ‘Never again.’ If we lose, we lose. But we don’t want it because of something that took place in the polling place.” [...]

All volunteers must undergo a training session either in person or online with the Obama campaign.

“We’re going to have lawyers at the polls and in close proximity to the court houses,” Mr. Johnson said. As an example, he said lawyers could be helpful in keeping the polls open when lines became extremely long.

The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee declined to say how many lawyers they had enlisted. Sean Cairncross, the committee’s chief counsel, said: “We will have enough lawyers to respond to any contingency...”

Mr. Cairncross said Republican lawyers would be on the lookout for voter fraud, and would work to halt such previous stunts as having busloads of voters show up to keep polls open beyond their statutory closing time. [...]

Democrats say their lawyers have already had an impact. In Montana, a federal judge upheld a Democratic challenge to a Republican attempt to purge 6,000 voters from the rolls. And in Detroit, a court settlement was reached over allegations that Republicans were going to use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters.

Vigilance.