According to Cheshire County Attorney Peter Heed, Mack may have been having problems with his relationship with a young woman. Heed in formed the AP that “It clearly involved a relationship issue; I think that is fair to say.”

Mack is in the ICU.

Heed stated in a news conference that “Our hearts go out to the family of this young man and our thoughts go out to all of the students that were in the school at this time.” He did not go into many specifics.

Cindy Mack, the cousin of Hunter Mack’s father, stated “We’re all just waiting to hear about our little boy. He’s a wonderful little boy. He’s an avid hunter – like his name. He is very smart. He won prizes at school. He shot his first deer last year. He’s a great, great kid.”

Some of the students interviewed for the news have said that there was some kind of medical issue that Mack needed medication for. One student told WCAX “Like all I know is that he was friendly and he had to take medicine because he had problems, that is all I know, and he was a nice guy.”

Ethan Symonds, a seventh-grader who was near Mack when he shot the gun, said that he heard something “a little bit louder than a chip bag popping,” but when he saw blood, he ran. He was one of seventy students in the cafeteria at the time. There are 170 students at the school. Nick Phillips, who shared home room with Mack, said that the young man had been depressed lately.

At about 1pm, parents were informed about the lockdown thanks to the automated call system. They were allowed, at that time, to come and get their children.

Governor John Lynch stated “The state of New Hampshire is offering whatever assistance it can to the community, along with all of our thoughts and prayers.” The town of about 3,000 is near the Vermont state line. The school itself runs from grades five through eight.

The new rules provide an exemption when it comes to the coverage of contraception so long as the institution is wholly religious in nature and provides no other services that are outside the religious sphere. It actually sounds as if EWTN is exempt from the rule given that they provide no other service than religious programming. Religious hospitals, universities and colleges provide services that have nothing to do with religion or only tangentially with religion. They provide healthcare or education.

Here in is something of a problem. Here, as an example, is Arkansas’ law states that:

(a) Every health benefit policy that is delivered, issued, executed, or renewed in this state or approved for issuance or renewal in this state by the Insurance Commissioner on or after August 12, 2005, that provides coverage for prescription drugs on an outpatient basis shall provide coverage for prescribed drugs or devices approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use as a contraceptive.

(b) Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to require any insurance company to provide coverage for an abortion, an abortifacient, or any United States Food and Drug Administration-approved emergency contraception.

It does contain an exemption for religious employers as defined as an entity “that is organized and operated for religious purposes and has received a section 501(C)(3) from the Internal Revenue Service”; “that has as one of its primary purposes the inculcation of religious values; and that employs primarily persons who share its religious tenets.”

Kathleen Sebilius noted on 5 February that “we specifically carved out from the policy religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith. This exemption includes churches and other houses of worship, and could also include other church-affiliated organizations,” and that “The religious exemption in the administration’s rule is the same as the exemption in Oregon, New York and California.”

In fact, it appears that many religious employers, including EWTN, are already exempt from this mandate.

It should be interesting to see how the judges note this one. It seems like a very frivolous lawsuit.

Oh, and it looks like no one actually read the blasted thing.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have both condemned the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stating that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. It is not surprising that they decided to attack the ruling even though it was based on accurate law and precedent. Romney attacked the judges because they are “unelected”, and Gingrich attacked it because of the supposed way it assaults the “Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.

Romney stated

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

Gingrich stated

With today’s decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States….

Should the Supreme Court fail to heed the disastrous lessons if its own history and attempt to impose its will on the marriage debate in this country by affirming today’s Ninth Circuit decision, it will bear the burden of igniting a constitutional crisis of the first order.

The Social Conservatives are up in arms over the ruling, and already threatening to appeal the ruling even though the appeal might not be in their best interest. The probability is that the Supreme Court will rule against Prop 8, and that is even if they are willing to take the case.

The Ninth’s ruling is based on established precedent that it is unlikely that the Court will likely want to revisit at this point. Even with the Court moving more towards the Right, there is still a probability that they will be unwilling to take up the case given the way the ruling was worded and structured.

The big problem for the pro-Prop 8 groups is that appealing this ruling is far more risky than it is if they leave it. It will set precedent that will make repealing same-sex marriage laws impossible, but appealing it risks sending this to the Supreme Court where the likelihood is that it will be ruled unconstitutional 5 to 4 due to the way that the current Court is structured, and at that point, they could widen the ruling to make it unconstitutional across the board.

At the time, Walker wrote that “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

In fact, Walker wrote a very carefully constructed opinion on the subject. Supporters of the amendment presented next to no evidence that the measure had any value and was based on anything other than anti-LGBT bigotry. Walker, who came out officially after he retired, has been at the center of their attempts to try and get the ruling vacated due to the fact that he is gay. People have pointed out that, if Walker is ruled out for being gay, then any straight judge would have to be ruled out as well.

Walker’s sexuality was known very well long before he officially came out. Even those of us at LezGetReal knew that he was gay.

Supporters of Prop 8 can now appeal to the eleven panel Court of Appeals or they can appeal directly to the US Supreme Court. It is not clear how they would rule, or if they would even be willing to take this case.

Update:

Lambda Legal stated:

This is exciting news. It’s especially thrilling for those of us at Lambda Legal who remember our first efforts working toward legal recognition of our relationships nearly 20 years ago in Hawaii all the way through to our victories before the California Supreme Court in 2008 and the Iowa Supreme Court in 2009 and our ongoing lawsuit in New Jersey. The tide is not just turning; it has turned.

In the Prop 8 case, we joined our sister LGBT rights organizations National Center for Lesbian Rights, ACLU of Northern California and Equality California in filing friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Ninth Circuit to uphold the 2010 ruling, as well as the decision denying Prop 8 proponents’ attempt to vacate that ruling.

The Court stayed today’s decision, so same-sex couples in California will still have to wait before they can once again exercise their right to marry. And the ruling is likely to be appealed. Still, this is an enormous step toward marriage equality, not only for California, but for all Americans.

The New York Times also noted that:

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling states.

The court crafted a narrow decision that applies only to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states. California is the only one of those states where the ability for gays to marry was granted then rescinded.

“Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question,” the court said. “We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case.

The Transgender Law Center issued a statement saying “We’re thrilled that today the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that under our constitution, all loving couples must be allowed to marry, regardless of the gender of either partner. The state should not be in the business of policing who can marry based on gender. I’m optimistic that full equality for all our families is on the horizon.”

While the Court has turned more Conservative of late, it is likely that the decision will come down as a 5 to 4 split with the Liberals and Moderates taking it. This is, of course, if they even choose to take up the case.

What will help this case when it gets to the Supreme Court is that it will be argued by former G.W. Bush Solicitor General Theodore Olson and David Boies. The two men have argued before the Supreme Court in the past, including, it should be noted, in opposition to each other in the case Bush v. Gore. Given his conservative credentials, Olson will likely be the choice to argue the case in front of the Supreme Court, as he would likely have some sway over the Conservative justices.

Should the case go to the Court, though, it would behoove Antonin Scalia to recuse himself as he has already adjudicated the case in his mind and ruled that bans on same-sex marriage are Constitutional.

According to Gay City News “Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s opinion for the court faulted Ware’s ruling, in particular, for what the panel concluded was his failure to properly contextualize Walker’s original assurance to the parties that the recording would be used only for the court’s internal purposes.”

Proponents of Prop 8 have argued vehemently for the tapes to be kept under wraps in large part because they were incapable of mounting a decent defense, and video of that could be used to hurt them rather strongly when it comes to the public. They fielded only two experts, both of whom were easily refuted.

Judge Walker told the supporters of Prop 8 that the tapes would remain sealed due to the fact that the Supreme Court had stated that the trial would not be broadcast. Reinhardt wrote in chastising Ware that “Chief Judge Walker’s assurances were compelled by the Supreme Court’s ruling in this very case. After the Supreme Court held that his order to broadcast the trial had ‘complied neither with existing rules or policies nor the required procedures for amending them,’ Chief Judge Walker could not lawfully have continued to record the trial without assuring the parties that the recording would be used only for a permissible purpose.”

The sentencing kept being put off time and again due to problems with lawyers and timing.

According to Edge on the Net “In a statement, the Commission for Gender Equality says the Cape Town court’s ruling is a lesson to perpetrators of homophobic violence. The commission said it would work to stop ‘this continued violation of gays’ and lesbians’ rights.’”

Unfortunately, the sentence is going to be seen as being too light by most people who will be wondering why a violent hate murder has been treated with such a relatively light jail term.

The suit challenges the constitutionality of DOMA as well as the law that governs the Department of Veterans Affairs policy on these matters.

Severicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis welcomed the lawsuit. The Army veteran stated “SLDN welcomes today’s filing by the Southern Poverty Law Center and looks forward to coordinating in any way they deem appropriate. We have worked with the plaintiff, Tracey Cooper-Harris, in the past, and we believe that her case is compelling. This filing today advances the cause of equality for gay and lesbian service members and veterans.”

Christine P. Sun, the deputy legal director for the SPLC, stated “The government’s refusal to grant these benefits is a slap in the face to the gay and lesbian service members who put their lives on the line to protect our nation and our freedoms. Especially given the recent repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it’s shocking that the federal government continues to demean Tracey’s years of service and the service of many others in this way.”

The SPLC Notes that:

While in the Army, Tracey reached the rank of sergeant and served in Kyrgyzstan and Kuwait in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. She received more than two dozen medals and commendations and was honorably discharged in 2003.

Five years later, she married her partner, Maggie, in Van Nuys, Calif. In 2010, she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS), which the VA has determined is connected to her military service. There is no known cure for MS, a disabling disease that attacks the brain and central nervous system.

Tracey received disability benefits, but the VA denied her application for additional compensation to which married veterans are entitled – benefits meant to help ensure financial stability for spouses – even though her marriage is legally recognized in California. The denial also means the couple will not be permitted to be buried together in a national veteran’s cemetery.

Ward was required to support the sexual orientation of her clients, as per the DSM IV. As a graduate student, she was assigned a client who needed counseling regarding a same-sex relationship, and she refused referring the client to another counselor. After trying to resolve the situation, she was expelled because she could not fulfill her academic requirements.

The appeals court ruled on 27 January that “A reasonable jury could conclude that Ward’s professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith, not due to a policy against referrals.”

Ward, who is an Evangelical Christian, was defended, in part, by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty whose litigation director Eric Rassback stated “No individual should be forced out of their profession solely because of her religious beliefs.”

The university noted that the court has not ruled in favor of Ward, but called for more legal consideration. They stated that “This case has never been about religion or religious discrimination. It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a person who is in need of counseling.”

The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not consider homosexuality to be a disorder, and have backed the data that shows that homosexuality is innate to the person and that attempts to ‘cure’ homosexuality are damaging, and that those within their purview should treat lesbians and gays without prejudice.

Via Washington Post

They have been ridiculed, certainly, but they have never been prosecuted. In fact, case law has said that religious leaders can preach against homosexuality, interracial marriages, etc, all they want. Still, these four men have filed a lawsuit to get the hate crimes law torn down. They have already had the suit thrown out once by the district court.

At the center of the lawsuit are Gary Glenn of the Michigan American Family Association and Pastors Jim Combs, Rene Ouellette and Levon Yuille. They are represented by the Thomas More Law Center.

At the center of this is something that Glenn stated:

“Homosexual activists have clearly and openly admitted that they want to see pastors and others who speak out against the homosexual political agenda criminally prosecuted as ‘accessories’ any time a violent crime is committed against an individual who engages in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing.”

“The concern is that simply making a statement on your radio program or from a pulpit could be interpreted at some point in the future as having induced or encouraged someone to commit an act of violence.”

While many LGBT Activists would like to see this occur, it cannot because of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and several cases that have gone to the US Supreme Court have already ruled in favor of that. In other words, while hate speech can and does lead to hate crimes, under the First Amendment, no matter how vile the speech is, its speaker cannot be held criminally liable unless it is a direct threat or directly leads to the harm of a person.

Of course, that is not what this is about, but that is normal.

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act explicitly talks about punishments for anyone who attempts to or “willfully causes bodily injury” to a person and “is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim.” Nothing in there about “thought crimes”, huh?

According to Talking Points Memo that the argument for the four men:

“primarily argues that the law is unconstitutional because it ‘elevates those engaged in certain deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law.’ Or as George Orwell put it, the complaint says, creates a special class of people who are ‘more equal than others.’
“In another reference to Orwell, the suit fears that the law promotes ‘thought crimes,’ as it ‘criminalizes certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make the crime deserving of federal prosecution.’”

“The suit calls hate crimes prosecutions ‘inherently divisive,’ and adds that the law ‘is intended to send a government-endorsed message to those persons who oppose the homosexual agenda on the basis of deeply held religious beliefs,’ and to ‘eradicate religious beliefs opposing the homosexual agenda from the marketplace of ideas by demonizing, vilifying, and criminalizing such beliefs as a matter of federal law and policy.’”

The suit was already dismissed by US District Judge Thomas L. Ludington who agreed with Holder’s argument that the “plaintiffs do not allege that they have been prosecuted under the Act, that they have been threatened with such prosecution or that they intend to engage in any conduct prohibited by the Act.”

Holder also wrote “The Act does not proscribe speech. It prohibits only violent conduct and includes specific provisions ensuring that it may not be applied to infringe any rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Ludington apparently wrote that “It is entirely speculative that Plaintiff’s conduct would be prosecuted under the Act.”

Kelly anchors Good Day New York, and use to be a FOX News correspondent. The DA’s office has not commented. Police spokesman Paul Browne also could not comment on the case, but did say that the police commissioner had been made aware of it.

Reports from the New York Times and the Daily News, Commissioner Kelly was aware that the boyfriend of a woman claimed that the reporter had sexually assaulted the woman. Browne has been quoted as saying that the man had said “’your son ruined my girlfriend’s life’. The commissioner said ‘Well, what do you mean?’ He said he didn’t want to talk about it here so the commissioner told him to send a letter.”

Greg Kelly served as FOX News’ White House correspondent from 2005 to 2007. He is a former Marine Corps veteran and reservist.

Via NJ.com

Andre Davis

In November, Andre Davis, 29, was found guilty of 14 counts of felonious assault for having unprotected sex after learning he was HIV-positive. Monday, he was sentenced to 32 years in prison in a Hamilton County, Ohio, courthouse. Davis told the judge that he was a “sex addict” and it is a worse addiction than any other. “Drugs and alcohol are terrible, but sex is something everybody wants,” he said, adding “I am not a monster.” No, he’s just a possible murderer.

Davis’ attorney, Greg Cohen, had argued that the state law regarding HIV and felonious assault does not include any proof of intent to cause harm, and that the women Davis had sex with were equally responsible for allowing unprotected sex. Davis received his diagnosis in July, 2009, when he failed a World Wrestling Entertainment physical. Cohen also argued that since it was a company and not a doctor who had told Davis he was HIV-positive, it was not conclusively proven that his client was carrying the virus. Cohen told the Associated Press that the case will be appealed because he doubts the constitutionality of the law.

Davis is also facing similar charges in Warren County, Ohio.

Related articles

• Former pro wrestler gets 32 years in prison for not warning sexual partners he was HIV positive (offthebench.nbcsports.com)
• Critics assail crime laws aimed at people with HIV (msnbc.msn.com)
• Former Pro Wrestler Sentenced To 32 Years For Not Sharing His HIV Status (suburbanmen.com)
• Ohio wrestler convicted in HIV assault case (sportsillustrated.cnn.com)
• Andre “Gangsta of Love” Davis Convicted of Knowingly Sleeping With 12 Women While HIV Positive (subzinfo.wordpress.com)

Emily Dievendorf, Director of Policy for Equality Michigan stated:

“Children are at risk when two loving parents are prevented from jointly adopting them. Michigan has had ample time to commit to caring for our state’s children in the way that psychologists and social workers have always promoted — by ensuring that kids have two loving parents who have the resources to best support their family.”

“Children in the foster care system are in need of immediate and consistent care. April and Jayne have shown the dedication and love that so many neglected children deserve. They should be recognized as legal parents who can provide a permanent, stable, and healthy home for their children.”

“Michigan can step up to the plate by moving along the existing adoption bills introduced by Senator Rebekah Warren (Senate Bill 167) and Representative Jeff Irwin (House Bill 4249). We’ve seen a bipartisan effort to support gay and lesbian parents on the federal level, yet it remains an ignored effort in Michigan.”

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a Washington, D.C., nightclub owner in connection with drug trafficking because the police planted a GPS device on his Jeep without a warrant.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area.” All nine justices agreed that the placement of the GPS was a violation of the suspect, Antoine Jones’, rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, wrote that the court should have gone further and decided the rules concerning the use of the built-in GPS devices in such things a cell phones and car guidance systems. His opinion did not mention the constitutionality of using these devices in finding missing persons or tracking the location of persons known to have been kidnapped.

The ruling simply says that if the police have reason to believe that a person is engaged in criminal activity all they have to do is get a warrant to tag a vehicle. It’s just a case of making sure the cart is in front of the horse so that other cases don’t get overturned, and in the Jones case, the police should have taken this concept into consideration.

The case, U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259, was originally overturned by a Federal Appeals Court. The Supreme Court technically upheld the Appeals Court ruling.

This case is fairly typical of the lag government has in dealing with technology. Rules are not changed fast enough to accommodate the changes or they are written too rapidly by people who don’t fully understand the technology.

Related articles

• Breaking: SCOTUS Rules in Highly Anticipated GPS Tracking Case (abovethelaw.com)
• Supreme Court unanimously rules warrants required for GPS tracking (venturebeat.com)
• Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking (wired.com)
• Victory for the Fourth Amendment: SCOTUS Rules Warrants Needed for GPS Monitoring (pumabydesign001.com)

Family spokesman Dan McGinn stated “Over the last few days Joe Paterno has experienced further health complications. His doctors have now characterized his status as serious. His family will have no comment on the situation and asks that their privacy be respected during this difficult time.”

Paterno, who is 85, has been in the hospital since 13 January for observation. His cancer diagnosis came days after he was ousted in the child sex abuse scandal involving former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

Paterno has not been charged with anything involved in the case, and he has maintained that he did what he thought was right at the time.

Via AP

James Madison, 4th President, author of the Bill of Rights, by Gilbert Stuart

My paternal grandmother was born in Chile and raised in England. Her parents had died when she was a child and she was raised by her uncle, who was an ambassador. He retired to the Dominican Republic, where she met a French-American engineer and married him. Shortly after the birth of their son, Aubrey did a bunk, emptying her bank account before taking off for parts unknown.

The Dominican Republic was a Catholic country, and canon law dictated secular law. There was no divorce in the Dominican Republic. There was no legal way for her to pursue her husband for the return of the money that had been held in trust for her since her parents’ deaths. It was legally his. Matilda had no legal rights because under Church law, women were chattel, the property of their husbands, and had no rights of their own.

She ended up dependent on the charity of her relatives. Eventually, she met my grandfather and became his mistress and for the birth of their third child, my father, he brought her to New York. For two years after my dad was born, Matilda came up with excuses to not return to the Dominican Republic. Finally, when grandfather was back in the Caribbean on business, she moved and left no forwarding address. Matilda reinvented herself as a war widow, made herself respectable, got a job and raised her four sons. She also rented out the spare room in her apartment, which is how I got an aunt out of the deal.

Matilda’s experiences taught me one important thing about America – the writers of the Bill of Rights knew which end was the cart and which was the horse when they wrote the First Amendment. It states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” They put the horse in front of the cart. One cannot have freedom OF religion unless one first has freedom FROM a state supported or imposed religion. It’s that simple.

So why is it that all the lawsuits about same-sex marriage and abortion avoid that simple piece of Constitutional principle? Why is it that no one challenges the Rick Santorums and Michele Bachmanns and all the religious candidates on this principle? Why do we avoid telling all of them to bugger off?

It really is simple. The only “evidence” they provide for anti-abortion legislation is Biblical discussions of when the soul enters the body. The only “evidence” they offer for anti-same-sex marriage amendments and laws is Biblical passages about homosexuality. They have not and cannot offer any scientific proof that homosexuality harms society or that aborting an unwanted first-trimester fetus is more harmful to society than allowing that child to be born, abused, raised in abject poverty and vulnerable to criminal behavior. The only justification they have is their religion.

The only explanation I can come up with is a literal reading of the Amendment. As long as no law is passed by Congress that says “We are a Presbyterian nation,” or “We are a Catholic nation,” then, in the most literal sense, we have not violated the First Amendment. But these laws – anti-abortion and anti-gay laws – are back door means of imposing a Judeo-Christian Biblical limitation on our secular society. They deny those of us who do not adhere to the Bible, with its contradictory and competing translations, the right to practice our own religions, or not practice any religion at all. It is time we rejected the idea that people came here for religious freedom and embraced the truth – they came here to escape countries that had a state religion which they did not belong to, and not belonging to that state religion made them victims of discrimination and denied them full citizenship.

The Civil Rights Agenda stated in a press release:

The Civil Rights Agenda is currently working with members of the Springfield City Council and other allies to determine the best course of action. The Civil Rights Agenda’s Legal Council confirms that the Committee meeting, held in private with no notice to the public, could in fact be a violation of the Open Meetings Act. While it is unfortunate that this may impede the enforcement of civil union health benefits that should be granted to Springfield city employees, The Civil Rights Agenda must address the larger issues of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and access to decision-making bodies acting on behalf of the public, which is addressed under the Open Meetings Act.

“This will not deter nor derail our efforts to ensure that couples in a civil union are recognized as spouses by the City of Springfield, and granted the benefits as required by State law,” stated Anthony Martinez, executive director of The Civil Rights Agenda. “However, we must recognize that failure to meet the criteria of the Open Meetings Act is also a civil rights violation. This definitely complicates matters, but the issues addressed in this lawsuit, if found valid, will only ensure the citizens of Springfield will be afforded a government aligned with the ideals of civil liberties for all.”

The issues of transparency of the Joint Labor/Management Health Care Committee were brought to light last week during the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the Springfield City Council. Many Aldermen, including Alderwoman Gail Simpson, voiced concern that the autonomy and private nature of the Committee potentially put the city at risk for legal action. Alderman Frank Edwards pointed out that the Committee, which oversees the City’s self insurance fund, required confidentiality due to the fact that collective bargaining agreements and HIPAA were matters overseen by the committee and thus require privacy due to Federal law.

“It is clear to The Civil Rights Agenda that the Joint Labor/Management Health Care Committee has achieved great outcomes in recent years, reversing a shortfall and creating a financial cushion for the City’s Insurance Fund,” said Lowell Jaffe, political and policy director for The Civil Rights Agenda. “With that said, there are clearly systemic issues that the City of Springfield needs to confront. It seems to us that the Committee and the City Council has received bad advice regarding the City’s requirement to fulfill its obligations under Illinois laws as it relates to civil rights. Although it’s difficult to see this issue drag on, we hope doing so will remedy what has clearly been a wrong approach, and has deprived the citizens of Springfield the transparency they deserve.”

John Edwards with Attorney Abbe Lowell leaving court today

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards who is being charged with diverting one million dollars in campaign donations to cover up his affair and illegitimate child, has been granted a delay in his trial date due to the need to under a medical procedure.

Edwards has been diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmia, an irregular heartbeat. He collapsed while jocking a few weeks ago. The standard treatment for this condition is the insertion of a pacemaker. Judge Catherine Eagles was given letters from the 58-year-old Edwards’ cardiologists expressing their concern that the stress of a trial, and travel would be “life-threatening” for Edwards. It has been noted in the press that Edwards walked into the courtroom unassisted and appeared healthy, which is not unusual with this type of heart condition.

Edwards, whose late ex-wife Elizabeth became a beloved public figure during her long battle against breast cancer, has moved his mistress, Rielle Hunter, and their daughter into his home. He has custody of his two younger children with Elizabeth and has continued a strong relationship with his older, adult children. He has claimed that the money used to divert attention from Ms. Hunter during his presidential campaign was a gift from a supporter who knew that there was an issue in Edwards’ life that threatened his candidacy, and that, though the money was related to his campaign, it was not technically a campaign contribution.

Judge Eagles has postponed the trial until at least March 26. Edwards is tentatively scheduled for his procedure during February.

Related articles

• Source: John Edwards has life-threatening heart condition – CNN (edition.cnn.com)
• John Edwards trial delayed over heart condition – BBC News (bbc.co.uk)

Pfc. Bradley Manning entering Fort Meade hearing (Mark Wilson, Getty Images)

Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, who presided over the seven-day Article 32 evidentiary hearing for Pfc. Bradley Manning held last month, has issued his recommendation. He believes the Army has enough evidence to move forward to a general court martial for Manning. Now, the recommendation goes up the chain of command, to Col. Carl Coffman, garrison commander of Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall and then to Maj. General Michael Linnington, the Military District of Washington commander. Linnington will be the one to authorize the court martial. There was no timeline released for these steps.

Manning faces 22 counts including aiding the enemy in giving to WikiLeaks over 700,000 Army and State Department documents he downloaded from a military computer in Iraq onto at least one Lady Gaga CD (or he e-mailed them, reports vary) and mailed to Sweden. In Sweden, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange contracted with four international newspapers to redact the material and print it. Most of the State Department cables were released unredacted by WikiLeaks, and subsequent to the newspaper publications, they also released the military files.

The Article 32 hearing provided a preview of Manning’s defense attorneys’ plans to put the Army on trial for not discharging Manning after repeated incidents of erratic and violent behavior, show that he was deeply stressed by the restrictions of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and that the materials that were released did not in fact aid our enemies.

Lawyers for WikiLeaks had asked for access to the court martial proceedings, but their request has been denied.  Unlike civilian courts, military courts do not allow “interested parties” to participate.

Manning is currently being held in the general population at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. For the Article 32 hearing, Manning was transported to Fort Meade in Maryland. It is assumed that is where his court martial would take place as well. Jeff Paterson, fo the Bradley Manning Support Network, said that the group hopes to arrange for thousands to demonstrate at Fort Meade during the court martial. Like Julian Assange, Manning is seen as some kind of hero of free information, even though most of the material Manning released to Assange was already known by the general public.

Related articles

• Army Officer Recommends Trial In WikiLeaks Case (baltimore.cbslocal.com)
• New Recommendation Made In Manning Case (huffingtonpost.com)
• Army officer recommends court-martial for Manning – CBS News (cbsnews.com)
• Court rejects petition from Assange (politico.com)

James O'Keefe and one of his identity thieves

Once again, to prove fraud exists, James O’Keefe solicited acts of fraud. This time, however, he and his co-conspirators at Project Veritas may be facing serious Federal and state charges.

The right wing uses the term “voter fraud” to cover people who vote using someone else’s identity, vote count frauds, voting machine tampering and voter registration fraud. Decades of investigations at the state and federal level have proven that voter registration fraud happens when people are paid to register voters. Voting machine tampering has been proven to be possible, though no proof of such tampering has ever emerged, in part because many states have laws prohibiting the use of video or cell phone cameras inside the polling place, and vote count frauds have been proven in multiple jurisdictions. But the one thing that has never been proven in more than a handful of cases over the past quarter-century is widespread incidents of people voting using other people’s identities. The cases that have been proven have mostly involved convicted felons who are barred from voting, and use a friend’s or relative’s identity to cast a vote. But the right wing and more specifically the Republican party wherever they have a legislative majority, have used the proven cases of voter registration fraud from 2008 to “prove” voter fraud and push laws that require state-certified birth certificates to be registered and photo ID to vote. The Democrats have objected, as have advocacy groups for the elderly, the disabled, minorities and the poor.

To “prove” that voter identity fraud happens, Project Veritas found the names of New Hampshire residents who died in December, too recently for their names to have been stricken from the voter rolls. Then, several recruits went into the polling places and used these names to vote. One was detected on site because he was using the name of a man known to at least one poll worker. He disappeared before the police arrived. No problem, he might have escaped, but the rest of the crew is on video…James O’Keefe’s video, the one he has proudly put on the web and handed over to mentor Andrew Brietbart and Fox News as his “evidence” of voter fraud.

Where to start, where to start….

Talking Points Memo thinks that James O’Keefe will, once again, walk away from this. That opinion is based on the way O’Keefe operates. People come to him with ideas, such as filing fraudulent applications for Medicaid, and he sort of approves of the idea, but never in such a way that it appears he’s solicited the action. Plausible deniability at its best. But, O’Keefe had foreknowledge of this plan and was the one who distributed the videos. He may not be guilty of actually committing the fraud, or of soliciting the fraud, but it should be possible to get him on multiple charges of conspiracy at commit fraud. Then, there are these little provisions in New Hampshire law about knowing that voter fraud has been committed and not reporting it to law enforcement or the town or state election boards. That’s called a “gotcha.”

The rest of the crew, well, they are on record using false identities to obtain ballots. In fact, the video O’Keefe produced shows the birth and death dates of the people whose identities were stolen. These people are in violation of both state and federal election laws. Period. The Justice Department can let the State of New Hampshire have at them first, and then prosecute them just as they finish up their state sentences.

Of course, a good prosecutor is going to go for a deal in order to get O’Keefe. This man has been getting away with sending others in to commit frauds and commit crimes just so that he can “prove” these frauds and crimes happen. Others have and are continuing to pay for his phony investigative journalism. The entire ACORN assistance network was shut down because O’Keefe’s video “proved” misconduct on the part of ACORN workers and he has “proven” fraud in state agencies. At least that’s what Brietbart and Fox have insisted. Actually, all his videos proved was that his people filed fraudulent applications. No one proved that those applications were processed or approved. If some guy walked into your office and wanted help housing a dozen or more underage girls being smuggled into the country, would you help him? Or, would you take down all his information and the moment he walked out the door, call the proper authorities to go capture him in the act of human smuggling? O’Keefe is being sued in civil court by the man who called the authorities and had his reputation destroyed and his ACORN office shut by O’Keefe, who had no idea his fraud had triggered a border patrol investigation when he presented his video “proof” of ACORN’s illegal activities.

So, this is where we stand in the latest saga of James O’Keefe. He has presented video of his associates falsely obtaining ballots in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. He edited the video. His associates committed identity theft and voter fraud. It appears they did not break any law in using their cameras inside polling places, but they may have broken state laws concerning a zone of privacy for voters. The United States Attorney’s office in New Hampshire is reviewing the videos as are members of the New Hampshire State’s Attoney’s office and their Secretary of State’s office. It is necessary to assemble the charges, and having spent way too much time with the New Hampshire Statutes Annotated this morning, it could take a while to find all the relevant ones.

But one thing is an absolute. Governor John Lynch needs to be convinced that these acts should not go unprosecuted, even if all anyone can prove is a misdemeanor or two. O’Keefe has left a swath of destruction in his wake, trying to make himself into something he isn’t – a real journalist. He thinks he is necessary to the conservative effort to establish a one-party nation. He is a fraud and solicits frauds. He dodged a charge of sexual assault, unlawful imprisonment and harassment involving a woman who wanted to work for him. He pulled too little jail time and too much community service for trying to wiretap a United States Senator’s office. He gets away it over and over. It is time someone had the balls to hit him with a shelf or two of state and federal statute books.

Related articles

• James O’Keefe Allies Try to Commit Felony Voter Fraud (crooksandliars.com)
• Did James O’Keefe Commit Voter Fraud While Investigating Voter Fraud? (alan.com)
• James O’Keefe Commits Voter Fraud to ‘Prove’ Voter Fraud (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• James O’Keefe’s Group Appears To Commit Voter Fraud In Order To Gin Up Hysteria Over Non-Existent Fraud Problem (thinkprogress.org)
• Will James O’Keefe face election fraud charges? (americablog.com)
• Nubby O’Keefe in Trouble for Voter Fraud (hidinginurcloset.wordpress.com)
• New James O’Keefe Hoax Video Purports to Detail Fraudulent Cases of ‘Voter Fraud’ in New Hampshire (bradblog.com)
• BREAKING: James O’Keefe Catches Dead People Voting in New Hampshire – Could Oregon Be Next? (5440fight.com)
• New Hampshire Officials Call For O’Keefe’s Assistants To Be ‘Arrested And Prosecuted’ (hidinginurcloset.wordpress.com)

He had stolen three vehicles from used car lots. The vehicle he was arrested in was the last of the ones he had stolen- an SUV.

According to Yahoo.com:

“I don’t think he dressed that way to fool us,” said Bubba Hunt, owner of Car City Statesboro. Hunt said Robinson arrived at Car City in a Mitsubishi SUV he’d taken from the previous lot Dec. 19, allowed his driver license to be photocopied, test-drove a car he returned and complained about, then test-drove a 2001 Jeep Commander.

“He really liked that one,” Hunt said.

He left and never returned, leaving the stolen Mitsubishi.

“It wasn’t even a fake ID,” said Hunt, referring to the license, adding this was the first time in Car City’s nine years and approximately 4,000 test drives someone had taken a car.

“Could it happen more? Shoot, things are kind of tough out there right now,” Hunt mused.

Billy Hill, another car salesman, reported that Robinson was dressed in women’s clothing. He test drove three vehicles on that lot, and on the final one done on 19 December, Robinson disappeared. Robinson had been arrested twice before for the same crime according to Hill’s questioning of Robinson’s father.

The spree had begun on 19 December. According to a Savannah Chatham Municipal Police Department Officer “He actually doesn’t make a bad-looking woman.”

The Supreme Court of the United States

After almost forty years of courts, lawyers and law enforcement, I can usually make sense of Supreme Court decisions without too much head scratching. But the ruling in the discrimination case that federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought on behalf of Cheryl Perich against Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School was almost impossible to understand. It involves which employees at a religious establishment can file discrimination charges against their employer.

The facts of the case are these: Cheryl Perich was hired by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School as a temporary lay teacher. She was promoted to a “called” teacher in 2000 by a vote of the congregation and hired as a commissioned minister. She taught both secular and religious classes and occasionally led chapel services. In 2004, she developed narcolepsy, a condition in which the victim develops periods of extreme sleepiness every three to four hours during the day. Narcoleptics can literally fall asleep standing up. Perich was on disability leave during diagnosis and early treatment, but when she tried to return to work, she was told that a substitute had been hired for her position for the school year and she could not have her job back. She filed a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and was promptly fired. The church also removed her from their ministry.

Now, the church has claimed the “ministerial exemption” to the ADA, which says that churches have the right to hire and fire ministers. Perich claims that her case does not qualify because she is primarily a teacher, not a minister.

The Court ruled in the church’s favor, but then things got weird. First of all, this court, which is supposed to be a bastion against the “activist judge” problem of liberal judges, just established the “ministerial exception” to the ADA and all other labor laws. And then, in the ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, they basically said, we don’t know a secular employee from a religious one, but we’ll know one when we see one. Say what?

The “ministerial exception” has been floating around the lower courts for a while now. It is based on the premise that the Constitutional separation of church and state exempts religious employees of religious establishments from the labor laws, because the First Amendment shields churches from interference by the government.

Robert wrote for the unanimous decision that “We are reluctant … to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment.” Roberts wrote that allowing fired clergical employees to sue under labor laws “…interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the chruch of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.”

While the attorneys for Hosanna-Tabor were heralding the decision, Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, had a lot of reservations. “Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matter of theology – no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be – have just had the courthouse door slammed in the faces,” Lynn told the press.

The worst case scenario would be a church classifying employees as ministers to protect themselves. Then, a person who is sexually harassed would have no recourse in the law if fired for resisting that harassment. Without a definition of what constitutes a minister, the ruling can be abused to protect predators who are senior clergy. The Court said that the Appeals Court that ruled in Perich’s favor was wrong to weigh the time she spent in her secular duties against the very limited time spent on “ministerial” duties, specifically teaching a religion class that is also taught by lay teachers who are not classified as ministers. A church could argue that licking stamps for a church mailer was a “ministerial duty” or delivering meals to the house-bound. Step back into history and one can find an enormous range of “ministerial duties” done by a local parish’s clergyman.

It is sort of hard to understand the implications for this ruling unless one is familiar with the broad range of how churches get their ministers and how they define their ministers.

The “ministerial exception” was designed to protect churches from being forced to accept a minister who is incompatible with the church. But, there are churches that use the term “minister” for people other churches would consider teachers or office workers or counselors. Since various churches have differing ideas of what is a minister, this ruling invites repeatedly revisiting the issue.

Related articles

• Supreme Court: Churches Can’t Be Sued By Ministers For Employment Discrimination (huffingtonpost.com)
• St. Louis Lutheran leader responds to landmark Supreme Court case – STLtoday.com (stltoday.com)
• Court:Judges cannot get involved in church dispute (sfgate.com)
• Teacher loses church-state employment appeal (cnn.com)
• Job-Bias Suits Against Religious Groups Curbed by Top Court (businessweek.com)
• Supreme Court upholds ‘ministerial exception’ (jta.org)

The networks don’t necessarily want a carte blanche to have the f-bomb being used every other word, but they do want some consistency. An accident on a live awards show can trigger large fines, but the same word can clear Standards and Practices if it is used in a movie like Saving Private Ryan. The suit, which has been working its way through the system for a while, cites the fines imposed for a shot of a naked lady’s buttocks in an episode of NYPD Blue which aired in that post 10 p.m. timeslot on the East Coast, but at 9 p.m. Central and Mountain time, as well as those awards show slip-ups. The networks have made the argument that the standards are confusing.

The government has countered that the broadcast networks need to be retained as a “safe have” of family-safe programming, though that idea is debatable. The standards may control language and nudity, but there are plenty of conservatives who will argue that programming like Modern Family is not “family safe.”

Advocates of changing the rules have made the point that nearly nine in ten households in America are hooked up to either cable or satellite, where the majority of the programming has no standards and that people have really lost track of whether they are remoting onto cable channels or broadcast anymore. It’s an insulting argument, presuming that people are too dumb to know that traditional broadcast stations are the single digits on the cable channels. The broadcast networks continue to draw in much larger numbers of viewers than the cable channels.

No matter what the FCC tries to do with regulations, it will be too complicated because of the nature of language.

The simple truth about cuss words is the more they are used the less power they have. Words are not intrinsically bad or good. They are whatever we declare them to be, nothing more. The f-bomb began as a legal term, an abbreviation for the reason someone was incarcerated, a notation in the prison records. It stands for “for unlawful carnal knowledge,” and has been around for at least 200 years. It is people who have made it a dirty word, along with any slang word for any bodily part or function. These are not the same as real cursing, which involves blasphemy and the Third Commandment. Offensive words also include any derogatory slang word for an ethnic group or person – a real tricky area since these words are frequently acceptable when used by the people they refer to but not out of the mouth of anyone else. What is offensive to one person can be perfectly acceptable to others. Years ago, I had a student complain to me that another child had used a dirty word. When I asked about it, I discovered that the “offensive” student had been telling the other kids about a horny toad he had captured. And just try teaching Richard III without using the word “bastard.” What is and isn’t offensive can get seriously nutso. As hard as it is with figuring out FCC regulations, try teaching. It’s far worse.

As with all Supreme Court decisions, it will be weeks before we know the results of today’s hearing.

Related articles

• Indecency on TV: Supreme Court reluctant to ease profanity rules (latimes.com)
• Justices appear to lean toward FCC in case over broadcast TV ‘indecency’ (cnn.com)
• Supreme Court Weighs Relevance of Decades-Old Broadcast Decency Rules (nytimes.com)
• Nudity and profanity debated by US Supreme Court – Montreal Gazette (montrealgazette.com)
• Will Supreme Court Bring Porn To Broadcast TV? (forbes.com)
• High court weighs policy against curse words on TV (newsok.com)

Themis, Goddess of Justice

On 22 December 2008,a woman was gang raped in Richmond, California.

Over three years later, Humberto Salvador and Robert Ortiz are set to stand trial on charges of kidnapping, gang rape and other charges. Salvador is facing hate crime enhancement because he referred to the woman’s sexual orientation. She is lesbian, and was apparently targeted due to the rainbow sticker on her car.

According to authorities, “the woman was gang raped on the street outside her home and then again under the stairs of an apartment complex, where she was left naked.”

Darrell Albert Hodges pled guilty last month to “one count of oral copulation in concert”, and a fourth defendant, Josue Gonzalez, pled guilty “to carjacking and robbery.”

Reports are that the alleged assaults occurred between 15 and 16 November. The police came to know about the incidents after a woman called them. The woman, who is 29, has a high school age sister. The sister told the woman that her 17-year-old male friend had bragged about having sex with McLean.

When questioned, the student said that McLean was in the habit of driving him home after play rehearsals. The teenager said that he was the first to initiate kissing, and that the sex between the two was consensual. Police found explicit text messages between McLean and the student on her cellphone, which was seized along with her car on 28 November.

The Denver Post notes “McLean worked at the school from Aug. 11 to Nov. 18. ‘Lend Me a Tenor,’ her first play as director since succeeding 30-year theater teacher Bill Ambron, was scheduled to be performed Nov. 18-19.”

She was arrested on 4 January.

Gilyard also had to resign as pastor of Jacksonville’s Shiloh Metropolitan Baptist Church on 4 January 2008. He had served there for fifteen years.

Gilyard was released from jail after three years, and is now a registered sex offender.

At one time, Gilyard was a feted and toasted prominent Southern Baptist minister. He was mentored by prominent Southern Baptist leaders including Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines. He was even promoted on Jerry Falwell’s Old Time Gospel.

However, APB notes that “Over the years Gilyard resigned from a total of five churches over charges of sexual misconduct. Many SBC leaders disbelieved the accusations, and continued to support him until the Dallas Morning News published stories in 1991 saying dozens of women had accused him of sexual misconduct, with some alleging rape.”

Gilyard stated “I’m happy to have that dark part of my life over.”

Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike McGrath

For a century, the state of Montana has banned corporate donations to election campaigns. In the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that corporations are people and entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship, Western Tradition Partnership, Champion Painting and the Montana Shooting Sports Association sued in Montana’s state courts to have the state law overturned. A lower court ruled in favor of the corporation.

By a five to two vote, the State Supreme Court re-affirmed the validity of the law.

In his opinion for the majority, Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote a history of Montana’ determination to prevent corporate interference with elections, citing the Anaconda Copper Mining Company which “controlled 90% of the press in the state and a majority of the legislature,” before passage of the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act. McGrath noted that the company continued “controlling ownership of all but one of Montana’s major newspapers until 1959.”

But it was Associate Justice James C. Nelson who took aim at the U. S. Supreme Court in the clearest possible terms. In his dissenting opinion, Nelson wrote, “Corporations are artificial creatures of law…Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people – human beings – to share fundamental natural right with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that hte death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” Yes, he dissented with the majority in this ruling, because he believes the state has to follow the SCOTUS ruling, but he doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court.

It might have been nice if the justices had added one more bit of legal logic to their opinions. Corporations cannot vote. Only those who can vote should be allowed to participate in our electoral process.

Western Tradition Partnership, which has since changed its name to American Tradition Partnerships, is a 501(c)4 PAC which attacks what it describes as “environmental extremism.” Instead of focusing on environmental law, the PAC concentrates on filing lawsuits to overturn the Corrupt Practices Act. With Champion Painting and the Montana Shooting Sports Association, their lawyers are considering an appeal to the same Roberts Court that gave us Citizens United. Now, that one could be a truly fascinating suit, since the Constitution grants states substantial power in establishing their own voting laws.

Related articles

• Montana Supreme Court Defies Citizens United Decision (blogs.wsj.com)
• Montana High Court Says ‘Citizens United’ Does Not Apply In Big Sky State (alternet.org)
• Meanwhile, in Montana, Citizens United Need Not Apply (esquire.com)
• Montana Supreme Court vs. the United States Supreme Court (volokh.com)
• Court restores ban on corporate political money (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Petition to Overturn Citizens United Decision (luminaria.wordpress.com)

Morris was arrested on felony charges stemming from her performing illegal cosmetic surgeries that nearly killed several people. She is charged with injecting people with what turned out to actually be “a toxic brew of substances found in the tire repair product Fix-a-Flat.”

So far, up to thirty victims have been identified or come forward.

One of Morris’ victims, Rajee Narinesingh, came forward after Morris’ recent arrest. According to Narinesing, she went to Morris to try and have her facial features feminized. Instead, Narinesingh said that Morris “turned me into a monster. There was a sisterhood of trust. She was part of the transgender community herself. There was a feeling that she won’t do anything bad, she knows what she is doing.”

According to Narinesingh, a year later, her face “became swollen and disfigured with large nodules that grew to the point they burst.” She had to have a surgeon repair her face. The registered doctor pulled “cement out of the side of my face.”

Narinesingh finally decided to come forward after Morris’ arrest. She had been cnocerned about what had been done to her. She stated that “You get to the point that you’re scared to go out in public, but I finally got to the point that I realized I can be a victim — or I can be victorious. I decided I needed to do something to make things better for our community.”

One report states that:

They have no reports of any fatalities, although many of the victims, like Shaquanda Brown, of North Miami, had to be hospitalized for over a month and continues to suffer sickness. Brown — who is not transgender — also heard about Morris through friends. Eubanks, 40, quoted her a price of $1,000, which she told him she could not afford.They settled on $700 for 12 injections, six to each side. Prior to Mother’s Day 2010, she went to Eubanks’ house in Miami Gardens to have the procedure done, according to court documents.She was asked to lay face down on a massage table. Morris told Brown to relax.“This is my profession, don’t worry,’’ she allegedly told the victims, according to the arrest affidavit.The victim saw a tube of Super Glue and a red soft pack lunch bag.

The TSA stated that one of its officers noticed a suspicious item in a carry-on back while doing an X-ray screening. The checkpoint had to be shut down for an hour as the item was removed.

According to the New York Times “An American Airlines spokesman said the man had a reservation on Flight 3283 from Midland to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. The departure time for the American Eagle plane was 9:45 a.m.”

And the school’s football team…in the communal shower.

Lott was arrested by police after there was a complaint from a student. They found lots of videos of the high school boys at his home when they searched it.

H/T Towleroad

The law exempts clergy from having to solemnize civil unions. The legislation reads “Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any person authorized to perform solemnizations pursuant to chapter 572 or civil unions pursuant to this chapter to perform a solemnization of a civil union, and no such authorized person who fails or refuses for any reason to join persons in a civil union shall be subject to any fine or other penalty for the failure or refusal,”

In the complaint, the lawyer representing the two churches stated that they thought that Act 1 did not include the exemption and Shawn Luiz wrote “Neither Act 1 not it’s [sic] implementing regulations exempts religious institutions, churches and houses of worship, clergy, officers and members from being subject to the injunctive relief and fine provisions of H. R. S. 489. Within the last 12 months, private individuals have already initiated complaints with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission against churches and houses of worship for refusing to rent their facilities for same-sex unions and/or marriage ceremonies.”

They also claim that the bill will have a ‘chilling effect’ on people’s religious expression.

Via Courthouse News
Via OnTopMag

Dye served six months in jail and was ordered to register as a sex offender. She did that in Ohio, but suddenly moved without providing a new address. This occurred last December. Dye moved to California, from whence she was returned to Ohio.

Via the Dispatch.

This is what a circuit judge in Brevard County decided last week, even writing that it broke his heart when he ruled that way; however, a state appeals court in Daytona Beach overturned that decision saying that both mothers have parental rights.

According to the 5th District Court of Appeal, the US and Florida constitution trumps Florida law. They also said that the state’s laws had not kept pace with the times. They wrote “This is a unique case, and the appellate courts in Florida have never before considered a case quite like it.”

Nancy Polikoff, a law professor at American University Washington College of Law, stated that “Any ruling that supports the right of a same-sex couple … is important for its willingness to recognize that these families exist and a child raised in this environment shouldn’t be forced to give up a parent.” She is an expert at LGBT family law.

The couple had been in a committed relationship for eleven years. Before 2004, the couple began fertility treatments. It was at that point that they discovered that one of them, a 39-year-old law-enforcement officer, was infertile. They continued with the other mother, who was then 34 and also in law enforcement, donating an egg which was planted in the then 39-year-old.

In 2004, she gave birth to a baby girl, and the couple split up two years later. A year and a half after that, the birth mother disappeared with the child, but was eventually tracked down to Australia by the other mother. The mother and child have since returned to Florida.

According to the Orlando Sentinal:

The appeals court handed down its ruling Dec. 23. In it, it asks the Florida Supreme Court to weigh in on a very narrow legal issue: Does a woman in a lesbian relationship who gives her egg to her partner have no legal rights to the child it produces?

The Nativity showed silhouettes of lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples holding hands. It was set up outside the Claremont United Methodist Church. The fixtures were set deep into the ground, and John Zachary, the artist who created the display, has said that “I don’t think one person could have done it.” The silhouettes of the gay couple were knocked over and smashed.

Pastor Dan Lewis, who ministers to the Los Angeles church, stated that “We don’t want to invoke hate or violence.”

Via KTLA

Dias was fired after asking her employer for maternity leave from the $36,000-per-year teaching job she had. According to the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, though, she broke the rules set down in her contract whereby she agreed to adhere to Catholic social teachings, and that includes getting pregnant without a husband.

Originally, she was fired because she got pregnant while single, but that was illegal. They then changed it to her being fired for becoming pregnant via artificial insemination. So…getting pregnant without some male intervention is wrong, huh?

As Jezebel notes:

After her firing, she sued her employer for pregnancy discrimination and breach of contract, and insists that her pregnancy and the subsequent birth of her daughter was her choosing to celebrate life, not thumb her nose in the face of Catholic teaching. A spokesperson for the archdiocese says that she has a right to her opinion, but she doesn’t have a right to be employed by a Catholic institution that requires her to adhere to a moral code that differs from how she’s chosen to live.

Dias notes that the rule about artificial insemination is not enforced equally with men, but the Church has said that her lawsuit is “akin to the very institution of religion going on trial.” Of course, it comes down to that. It doesn’t matter if it is a case of child molestation or overturning anti-LGBT issues…it always comes down to religion being on trial for the Catholic Church.

Jezebel also notes that:

Perhaps appropriately, the man who fired Dias, Rev. James Kiffermeyer, was himself suspended in 2002 after allegations arose that he engaged in sexual misconduct with two male high school students. He was reinstated in 2006. The archdiocese of Cincinnati hasn’t escaped the sex scandal that’s engulfed the Catholic Church over the last decade or so, either; in 2003, the archdiocese pled no contest to charges they ignored sexual abuse of boys by clergy in the 1980′s and 90′s. And the two priests alleged to have engaged in the abuse were suspended like Kiffermeyer, not fired as Dias was fired.

But, you know, better mind the uteruses. That’s where the ladies store all their Original Sin-causing evil.

Pfc. Manning escorted into court at Fort Meade (Mark Wilson, Getty Images)

Andrew Longstreth of Reuters has written an interesting view of the defense strategy in Bradley Manning’s expected court martial. Though it appears that the Army’s case is strong, a single sentence in the prosecution’s summation may be the weak part of their case that could force a plea bargain.

Captain Ashden Fein, the lead prosecutor, said that Manning “gave the enemies of the United States unfettered access to these documents.” But did he? Define “enemies.” To prove the most serious charge against Manning, the prosecution must show that he intended the documents to reach our “enemies.”

Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, says that the information was not intended to reach al Qaida or any other enemy. He is very optimistic about their chances, saying “The sky is not falling, the sky has not fallen and the sky will not fall.” If the information was not intended for the use of an enemy, and would have been of no significant use to an enemy, then Coombs may believe that the government will not be able to prove the charges.

It’s a fascinating premise, and Longstreth makes the case with ample expert opinion, but he misses a vital point – Julian Assange’s attitude toward the United States.

Assange has made no secret of the fact that he considers the United States the most dangerous nation on earth and would do anything to bring the U. S. to its knees. Should the prosecution collect enough quotes from Assange, enough evidence of Assange’s campaign to destroy America’s credibility in the world, drive wedges between us and our allies, damage our relations with the world – things that his un-redacted release of the State Department documents were intended to do, they could make the case that Assange IS an enemy.

Coombs has many avenues to pursue in defending Manning, starting with Manning’s psyche evaluations before he was shipped overseas. The Army clearly failed to properly deal with a disturbed young man, and Coombs can make a good case that the Defense Departments “Stop Loss” order had a lot to do with the decision to keep Manning in uniform.

The hearings which were held last week were the equivalent of an evidentiary hearing, to determine if the government has a case that can be taken to trial. In all probability, Manning will be court martialed. There are two phases to a court martial – the proving of the charges and the sentencing. If the Army goes ahead with all the charges and proves them, then the Army’s treatment of Manning becomes an important aspect of the sentencing, where special circumstances can be argued for reducing the sentence.

It could be a few weeks before the determination of the hearing judge is known and a court martial date set.

French reached a plea deal with regards to violating the conditions of his release, including “carrying brass knuckles with the intent to use them”. H was suppose to be released again on 20 December under strict conditions, but that did not happen.

French has no place to live if he is released, and is having trouble finding a place to live. If he does not find a place to live, he will have to be back before the courts on 27 January.

Via WCAX

O'Keefebeing ignored at OWS

James Edward O’Keefe III is 27 years old, runs what he calls an investigative journalism organization to expose liberals and lives with his parents. I just had to get that in.

A criminal complaint was filed against O’Keefe, not by one of the hundreds of people he has damaged with his “investigative reports,” but by one of the people he enlisted to assist him in a sting. Boston conservative blogger Nadia Naffe was enlisted by O’Keefe to assist with an operation at Occupy Wall Street. She took the train to Newark, New Jersey on October 2, where O’Keefe picked her up and drove her to his parents house, after stopping for some booze.

At O’Keefe’s home, she got into an argument with O’Keefe and refused to help him at OWS. She demanded that he take her back to the train station, but he insisted that she spend the night in the barn. Naffe threatened to call the police. At this point, her memories are a bit blurred. She says that “I found it hard to move and control my muscles.” Eventually, O’Keefe and a friend drove her to Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan, but she passed out in the car and awoke in the station. Upon her return to Boston, she discovered that her luggage had been rifled and things were missing – underwear and a wireless mouse.

Nadia Naffe

Then, things got nasty. Naffe received a message from O’Keefe offering her money to keep quiet about the incident. When she refused, she started getting harassing messages from O’Keefe and then from others, some sent to mutual friends to be passed on to her. On November 17, O’Keefe posted a video of her on his website, calling her “filthy” and “dirty.” The video portrayed Naffe as “a tramp.” It has been removed from the site. Naffe says that O’Keefe used other people to torment her.

Unfortunately, Naffe cannot prove that all the harassment originated in the county where O’Keefe lives and where she filed the complaint. For that reason, the court in Westwood had no choice but to dismiss the charges. But as he dismissed the criminal charges, Judge Alan Karch did something unusual. He advised Naffe that she could file a civil suit against O’Keefe. What Karch didn’t say, but hopefully Naffe’s lawyer understands, is that the interstate nature of O’Keefe’s “organization” and the fact that the harassment took place across state lines, puts the potential civil suit into Federal jurisdiction.

O’Keefe became famous because of his staged and edited visits to ACORN offices posing as a pimp with his whore in tow. O’Keefe used these videos to “prove” that ACORN was corrupt and force the organization to be defunded and taken apart. O’Keefe is currently being sued by at least one of the people his little stunt destroyed – a man who listened very attentively to O’Keefe’s spiel about bringing in illegal girls to work at prostitutes, and after O’Keefe left, notified the police. The interview was featured on O’Keefe’s video, but not the aftermath. The aftermath never does – the official notifications to authorities about fake terrorists seeking Medicaid or pimps looking for homes for illegal girls.

His latest attacks involve Occupy Wall Street, where he was spotted and laughed at by the protesters and what is allegedly a video of teacher’s union members in New Jersey posted a year ago bragging about fixed elections. The union disavows the people in the video while Governor Chris Christie praises it as proof of the insidious intentions of teachers’ unions.

O’Keefe is on probation for a conviction arising from his attempts to place listening devices in the telephone system of Senator Mary Landrieu of Lousiana.

Naffe refused to speak with the press after the hearing, and dragged her lawyer away from reporters. A civil suit is devouted to be wished at this point. Everyone who has been harmed by this man should sue. His “exposés” are intentionally deceptive, lacking anything that resembles basic journalistic balance and ethics. He’s not a journalist, he’s a propagandist who is used by Fox News and others to create “moral outrage” over some liberal organization and put an end to it. The only defense against someone like him is the full force of the legal system.

Related articles

• Priceless: James O’Keefe Operatives Turn On Him Because They ‘Feel Exploited’ (mediaite.com)
• Undercover James O’Keefe Receives Surprisingly Warm Reception At Occupy Wall Street (mediaite.com)
• James O’Keefe Defends CNN ‘Sex Boat’ Caper And Racial Aspect Of ACORN Pimp Costume (mediaite.com)
• James O’Keefe’s Latest Project Alleges Journalistic Corruption; Targets HuffPost’s Sam Stein (mediaite.com)
• James O’Keefe Wanted to Frame NPR to Help Republicans (crooksandliars.com)
• James O’Keefe’s Trip to Occupy Wall Street: The Film [Video] (gawker.com)
• Amateur Hour: Did James O’Keefe Target Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert? (crooksandliars.com)
• The derailed plans of James O’Keefe (politico.com)

Via Huffington Post

The Late Christina Santiago

Indiana’s Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced yesterday that all but one of the 65 claimants who had been offered settlements in the Indiana State Fair stage collapse had accepted their settlement offers, and that the payments will begin to go out by the end of December. The settlements will obliterate the entire $5 million in the tort claim fund that is available by law.

Zoeller stated that “Deciding on compensation for the victims of the State Fair tragedy is one of the most difficult duties the Indiana Attorney General’s Office has ever undertaken. From the start we knew that no matter how we divided the $5 million available, it could never replace the seven lives lost nor erase the pain of the injured and grieving. We did all that was possible to treat victims equitably and to assist them with their medical and financial needs within the amount the law allows.”

The Attorney General’s Office takes care of the Tort Claim Fund, which is made up of tax dollars. That means that they defend it from claims and potential lawsuits. In order to set up this particular pay out, Zoeller’s office worked with Kenneth Feinberg, the administrator for the victim compensation programs after 9/11 and the BP Gulf disaster. They set up a system whereby victims could submit a tort claim without a lawyer, if they wanted, and receive an expedited claim.

There were a total of 114 individual claimants with 101 claims. Seven of those were representatives of the deceased, which included several prominent LGBT individuals. The way that the compensation protocol was set up, the estates of the deceased were given at least $300,000. The other 58 claimants who were seriously injured and met at least one other protocol criteria were offered payments that equaled 65% of their medical and hospital bills up to the time of the claim. This pretty much wiped out the entire Tort Claim Fund, so those who had non-physical injuries were not given anything.

The one claimant who did not settle left $1,691, and that was redistributed among the remaining claimants.

The settlement means that the claimants release the State of Indiana from future liability, but did not prevent them from pursuing legal actions against the private entities involved in the stage rigging that collapsed.

According to the Indiana State Government:

After offers were extended, three claimants identified conflicting medical billing data that had been previously submitted to claims manager JWF Specialty Company during the claim-filing period. The disputed claims were carefully reviewed, and the State and JWF agreed to resolve the disputes in favor of the claimants, meaning their offers were revised upward by a combined total of $33,027.31. Since by law the State’s cap per incident is a total $5 million and cannot exceed that, JWF Specialty Company graciously agreed to pick up the difference and pay the increased offers to the three claimants out of its own funds.

Zoeller stated “JWF Specialty provided invaluable service to the State under extraordinarily difficult circumstances under an accelerated claims-review period. We appreciate their good corporate citizenship in resolving disputes in favor of the claimants in keeping with a victim-centered approach, and we thank them for their expertise on an extremely complicated claims-management process. There was nearly 100 percent participation from those claimants who were offered settlements, an indication we believe of how carefully the protocol was developed.”

Via The New York Times

Twelve members of a breakaway Amish sect have been charged with federal hate crimes for cutting the beards and hair of other Amish in Ohio. The seven-count indictment against Samuel Mullet, 66, of Bergholz and eleven relatives or members of his groups was announced in Cleveland on Tuesday. The charges include conspiracy, assault, evidence tampering, and hate-crimes motivated by religious differences. The charges stem from five attacks that occurred between September and November.

The cutting off of hair and beards is considered offensive among the Amish. Mullet and three of his sons were arrested on 23 November.

Via ONNTV

The initiative was filed by the Nevada Prolife Coalition, and would amend the state constitution to protect “the unalienable right to life of every prenatal person.” Simply put, it would define life as beginning at conception, an idea that was first decided upon by a Catholic pope in the 1870′s.

The initiative fell afoul of Nevada law which requires that all initiatives explain their effects so that voters can make an informed decision. Nevada Prolife Coalition, however, chose to only discuss the effects on the legality of abortion, and nothing else. Legal and medical experts have said that these kinds of measures could have irreparable and damaging consequences beyind women’s health and reproductive rights. Both Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the measure citing a belief that it was misleading to voters.

According to Elisa Cafferata, president and CEO of Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates, “Nevadans deserve to know that this initiative seeks to outlaw women’s health services like abortion, the birth control pill and treatment for complicated pregnancies, just to name a few. Nearly 20 years ago Nevada voters affirmed the tenets of Roe vs. Wade and a woman’s right to privacy. Nevadans do not support interfering in women’s personal and private decision making.”

The president of Personhood USA, Keith Mason, stated that the assertions by Planned Parenthood were not true and said “It only affects those procedures in as much as they kill an innocent person; it does not ban those things at all.” Which is a nice bit of doublespeak here since what he just, basically, said was that the initiatives do not outright ban those procedures, but rather makes them pretty much illegal by imposing a religiously decided view of one group upon the entirety of the state.

It should be pointed out that many religions do not even believe that life begins fully at birth, and that it is not until a month or even three months after an infant is born that it can be considered a human being.

Judge James E. Wilson sided with the plaintiffs and determined that the description of the effect of this bill was no where near adequate. He did not say that the measure was illegal, however, but he did order NPC to substitute the following language into the initiative before they collect signatures:

The initiative would protect a prenatal person regardless of whether or not the prenatal person would live, grow, or develop in the womb or survive birth; prevent all abortions even in the case of rape, incest, or serious threats to the woman’s health or life, or when a woman is suffering from a miscarriage, or as an emergency treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to utilize some forms of birth control, including the “pill;” and to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will affect embryonic stem cell research, which offers potential for treating diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and others.

The NPC now has until June to collect 72,352 valid signatures to get the measure on the ballot next year. There are similar amendments being pushed in almost a dozen states including Georgia, Virginia and Florida for the 2012 election and the Republican lawmakers in Congress have also introduced three bills like this on the federal level, all of which have pretty much failed.

Mason said defiantly that “What this amounts to is the judge forcing us to carry the opponents’ talking points in the summary of the bill. We do not agree with that at all, and we’re making the decision of whether to refile the measure with new language or appeal to the Supreme Court.”

The belief that life begins at conception is new, and dates back to a decision by a Catholic pope. It is not a position supported by the Bible, which indicates that ensoulment- or the quickening- beings much later in the process of fetal development.

Via The Huffington Post

According to the Huffington Post “Rivas was the quality-control director for Frederick Precast Concrete Inc. in Greencastle, PA when he signed off on the products.” Those products went on to be used at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge which spans the Potomac River and in the Interstate 70 interchange in Frederick County. When a worker noticed that a structure had cracked open on the I-70 job site, an investigation was opened.

He is one of several criminals who have tried to bilk the government who have been caught and prosecuted under the Obama Department of Justice.

Back in 2007, Cervelli, 42, called the business in question to book a room. They chose the business because it is in Hawaii Kai, which is the same neighborhood of Honolulu where their friend was living. When Cervelli informed the owner that they would need one bed, the owner then asked if the couple were lesbian. Cervelli answered with the truth, and the owner then said she was not comfortable having lesbians in her house due to her religious views.

According to Peter Renn of Lambda Legal’s Los Angeles office, the owner said that she was refusing to let the couple stay there because of their sexual orientation, and that she would also have refused an unmarried heterosexual couple, or a married gay couple. Basically, she wanted either single straight people or married straight people.

The problem is that Hawaii’s public accommodation laws prohibits any inn or other establishment that provides lodging from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, ancestry or disability, and this means that the business violated that law. The couple have said that the experience soured their trip. The couple ended up staying in Waikiki, but, as Cervelli explained, “In my past experiences in Hawaii, people have been so friendly. It was just hurtful. It made me feel we weren’t good enough.”

For her part, owner Phyllis Young is not commenting, but she is represented by Jim Hochberg of the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay group that has a history of defending people in the name of religious tyranny.

Durring the investigation into the incident, the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission was informed by Young that homosexuality is “detestable” and that it “defiles our land”. The commission found that there was reasonable cause to believe that Young violated the law. This cleared the couple to sue.

The Edge reports that:

The lawsuit wants the business to be ordered to comply with the law, for the court to issue a declaration making clear what happened was illegal and for the couple to be awarded unspecified monetary compensation, Renn said: “No amount of money is going to erase the humiliation and pain.”

Renn said Lambda Legal is also looking into whether the bed and breakfast is licensed to operate. Aloha Bed & Breakfast is not on a list of properties approved for transient vacation unit or bed and breakfast use that have been issued nonconforming use certificates by Honolulu’s Department of Planning and Permitting.

The murder occurred because King was openly gay.

A deal was reached in Ventura County last month whereby McInerney pled guilty to second-degree murder and avoid a second trial. He also pled guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter and use of a firearm.

A feud between the McInerney and King was brewing before the February 2008 shooting. According to McInerney, he had reached an emotional breaking point after King had made repeated sexual advances towards him and others.

According to Ventura County Chief Deputy District Attorney Mike Frawley, the plea deal also accounts for time served. He stated that “The total time in custody for 25 years will do that.”

That leaves 21 years in prison for McInerney. He will be released just before he turns 39.

Via The Edge

The murder leaves behind questions and a devastated collection of Gillespie’s friends.

Gillespie was returning from the grocery store when the elevator that she was in stopped on the fifth floor of the apartment building that she lived in. According to a resident of the Prospect Heights building, “She was screaming at the top of her lungs.” The attack happened at around 4:15pm Friday.

The man who murdered her is believed to have known her, and may be have been a current or former boyfriend. He waited in the hallway for her to arrive and then attacked her. He sprayed her with a bottle full of flammable liquid and then used a long nozzle lighter to light up a Molotov cocktail, which he then used to set her on fire. Gillespie had not even managed to get out of the elevator when the man attacked.

According to NYPD spokesman Paul Browne “He opens the door and sprayed her methodically over her head, over her body. She’s cowering, trying to protect her face with her hands.”

The man actually opened the doors to the elevator one last time to spray more accelerant onto Gillespie.

Heidi Matthews, who has known Gillespie for decades, said that Gillespie worked for the Post Office, and stated that “This is devastating. She was a fixture in the neighborhood for years. This is unreal. There was nothing she wouldn’t do for you. She bought me flowers for Mothers’ Day. She would come home from shopping and say, ‘I have some extra of this, do you need anything?’”

A neighbor named David rushed out of his apartment to try and find her, and then “I smelled smoke, and then ran back upstairs to call 911. It sounded like a person being attacked, rather than someone stuck in an elevator. It sounded like she was in trouble.”

Five others were injured, but none seriously, in the resulting fire.

Via NY Post 1
Via NY Post 2

This past Friday, West argued before Judge Jeffrey White that he should just ignore the law which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage and go ahead and grant Karen Golinski health coverage for her wife. Golinski is an attorney with the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals.

Lambda Legal attorney Tara Borelli is heading up Golinski’s challenge, and she indicated that Judge White thanked the DoJ in court for sending West to deliver their arguments against DOMA. Judge White also took issue with US House Republican leadership lawyer Conor Dugan’s decision to submit a law review article into evidence that was filled with stereotypes including about the supposed promiscuity of gay men.

Via Keen News

Julian Assange, by Bob Rand

Following losing his High Court Appeal, Julian Assange chose to appeal for the right to state his case before the British Supreme Court. On February 1, 2012, the Court will convene a two-day hearing of Assange’s request for the Court to put aside the extradition warrant issued by the Swedish government.

The extradition warrant stems from an investigation that began on August 20, 2010, into two charges of sexual misconduct. During the course of the investigation, Assange requested permission to go to England on business, promising to return to complete the investigation. Instead, he dug in his heels in England and refused to return for what he called allegations “without basis” about “consensual” relations. One woman accused him of coercing her into unprotected sex, and the other said that she had consensual sex with Assange, then woke up to find he had penetrated her while she slept. The maximum charge in these cases is rape, which has a very broad definition in Swedish law.

After months of negotiations, Sweden issued a European Arrest Warrant to have him returned. Assange presented himself to the authorities. The first hearing took place on Frebruary 7, 8 and 11, 2011. There, Assange’s bizarre defense was presented. He claimed that the warrant was politically motivated to silence WikiLeaks and if he was returned to Sweden, an neutral country, he would be turned over to the United States and either taken directly to Guantanamo prison on the Cuban island or executed without trial. Sweden had been home to WikiLeaks, and had no reason to try to shut it down. The first court upheld the extradition warrant. Assange then appealed to the London High Court.

The case was heard on July 12 and 13, and the Court deferred their decision u;ntil November. On November 2, extradition was upheld again. On December 5, Assange was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Assange has changed attorneys and defense tactics. He is now fighting the validity of the warrant, claiming that the Swedish authorities have no right to issue it. They are also attempting to try the case in the British courts during these extradition hearings, without success. One of their defense points is that the actions would not qualify as rape in Britain.

Charges have not been filed in Sweden on the accusations. The warrant is purely based on his refusal to complete the investigation. If Assange loses this round, he says he will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. And by the way, the United States government has made it perfectly clear they have no interest in prosecuting Julian Assange. He has broken no American laws.

The plans that Assange has for continuing his “defense” against the extradition may have one minor snag. He’s broke and so is WikiLeaks. He already owes a fortune to both sets of attorneys, and can’t raise money to save his company, no less save his skinny ass.

Related articles

• WikiLeaks’ Assange can appeal extradition (cbc.ca)
• WikiLeaks founder granted extradition appeal in UK (thehimalayantimes.com)
• UK Supreme Court to hear Assange appeal (news.smh.com.au)

The letter reads:

I write on behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenor and Appellant, City and County of San Francisco, to echo the City of West Hollywood’s request that the Court provide the parties advance notice when the decision on this appeal is forthcoming. In several prior instances when decisions have been issued relating to the marriage rights of same-sex couples, there have been large gatherings,
including protesters, at the courthouses and in the Civic Center area of San Francisco. Those
gatherings have involved expressions of intense emotion and sometimes heated debates between
people who strongly disagree. In any instance where crowds of protesters gather, and
particularly where the issue is as emotional and contested as this one, it is helpful for the San
Francisco Police Department to be aware of the gathering in advance to plan for and deploy an
adequate number of officers to the areas where protests are likely to occur. We would therefore
be grateful if the Court could provide advance notice of its intention to issue its decision in this
case.

It appears that San Francisco is getting ready for a riot no matter what the Appeals Court decides. This is not necessarily good news as it could mean a lot of problems for the city. We shall have to wait and see what happens in the not so distant future.

The family also moved out of the duplex in order to “avoid subjecting their family to further humiliating treatment.”

According to the investigation, Hein posted an iron sign that stated “Public Swimming Pool, White Only.” Several witnesses confirmed that the incident did happen, and Hein, who is the landlady, said that she posted the sign because of the hair chemicals that the girl was using would make the pool cloudy.

The Commission stated that the posting of the sign “restricts the social interaction between Caucasians and African-Americans and reinforces discriminatory actions aimed at oppressing people of color.”

The Commission is set to hear a request by Hein to reconsider the decision on Thursday. If the decision is upheld, the case would then go to the Ohio Attorney General’s office.

Via FOX News