William Marbury, plaintiff in Marbury v. Madison

The Federal Ethics Center, a private group, is requesting that Congress hold hearings concerning the actions of judges in the Federal 5^th Circuit. One of the judges demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder “confirm that the rule of Marbury v. Madison applies to the President.,” a really weird request since the 1803 case had one of the most convoluted decisions in Supreme Court history and appears to have nothing to do with anything the President has done. It involved a lame duck president and congress appointing 16 judges to newly created benches and the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison, refusing to deliver the commissions. A President telling the Supreme Court that one of their decisions sucks is not a violation of the separation of government branches.

Congress does not have jurisdiction over stupidity on the Federal bench. The Senate has jurisdiction over the confirmation of new judges to fill vacant seats, and President Obama simply stopped sending nominations to the Senate when all of his were filibustered into the trash can. There are around 80 current vacancies in the Federal Courts. The last time it was this bad was when Republican senators refused to confirm any of Bill Clinton’s appointees. It took Sen. Patrick Leahy over a year to clear the backlog when he became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When a Federal judge is behaving in an unprofessional manner or a Federal court is being mismanaged, members of the district’s bar associations – lawyers who work with that court – file complaints with the Judicial Review Board in Washington. And investigation team is sent in to analyze the court and the actions of the judge. They report to the person in charge of the Federal judiciary – the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Review Board can be a waste of time. They have been known to make arrangements to have other judges in a jurisdiction “ease the caseload” of erratic or unprofessional judges who are nearing retirement. It’s a way of containing the damage without destroying a good man’s record. They also have a bad habit of not doing adequate follow-ups after a review, especially if their review discovered problems in the management of a court. They walk away and let good people be hurt by vengeful managers who were embarrassed by the review.

Congress has only one real power when it comes to the Judicial Branch, and it’s the reason we should restore the Democrats to power in Congress. They can impeach a Supreme Court Justice. The power of impeachment does not cover the charge of being ethically impaired, but it does cover Justice Clarence Thomas’ disdain for the rules of financial disclosure and de facto bribery.

The cases that the Federal Ethics Center has alerted Congress to could also provide cause for the impeachment of Chief Justice John Roberts if it is discovered that complaints of unprofessional behavior or evidence of impairment in a judge have been properly reported to the Federal Review Board and no action has taken place. But the FEC needs to follow routine procedures, and not try to give Congress a power it is denied in the Constitution.

This is not a good time for removing bad judges. Our Federal courts are dangerously understaffed. In order to comply with the Speedy Trial Law for criminal cases, civil cases are being back-burnered. We must retain all the judges we have, good or bad, because we cannot push justice any further into the future for those awaiting it. If the FEC truly wanted to help clear the benches of bad judges, they would be loudly and persistently petitioning the Senate Republicans to get off their obstructionist asses and fast-track nominations to the bench. They claim they are preventing the Federal Courts being overrun with vermin liberals, but what they are really doing is flexing their little filibuster muscles. If they can stop judicial nominees, as they did to Clinton, they can run on the message that the courts are malfunctioning under Obama.

The ironic thing is, Marbury v. Madison reaffirmed the separation of the three branches of government.

Related articles

• Marbury v. Madison Debate Sparked by Obama’s Supreme Court Health Law Remarks(blippitt.com)

  ---

• Senator Leahy Threatens Justice Roberts In Advance of the Obamacare Decision(independentsentinel.com)

  ---

• Shaw: Pushing and tugging on the Supreme Court (osvdailytake.com)
• Holder reaffirms Marbury (scotusblog.com)
• AG Eric Holder to 5th Circuit: We’re aware of Marbury v. Madison (legaltimes.typepad.com)

The decision is in a class-action lawsuit. It is the first decision to be handed down since President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage.

Wilken is just the latest judge to rule in this manner. Conservative and liberal judges have upheld the Constitution and its provisions which render DOMA unconstitutional. Wilken found, like many others, that Section 3 of DOMA, which is the federal definition of marriage and spouse, “vilates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff same-sex spouses.” Furthermore, subparagraph C of Section 7702B(f) of the Internal Revenue Code “violates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff registered domestic partners.” The court found that “both provisions are constitutionally invalid to the extent that they exclude Plaintiff same-sex spouses and registered domestic partners from enrollment in the CalPERS long-term care plan.”

Wilken ordered CalPERS not to use DOMA or that tax provision to deny enrollment to same-sex spouses and domestic partners in California. She also ordered that the federal government not disqualify CalPERS’ plan from the beneficial tax treatment for following her order. The order, however, has been stayed to see if there will be an appeal.

According to MetroWeekly:

The case comes about because, even if CalPERS wanted to allow the participation of same-sex married couples or domestic partners in its long-term care program, Section 7702B(f)(2) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) disqualifies a state-maintained plan from favorable tax treatment if it provides coverage to individuals other than those specified under the tax-code provision, which was signed into law a month before DOMA was in 1996. As Wilken noted, “The list of eligible individuals in Section 7702B(f)(2)(C) includes state employees and former employees, their spouses, and individuals bearing a relationship to the employees or spouses which is described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of 26 U.S.C. § 152(d)(2).” Wilken found the decision to include subparagraphs (A) through (G) — and not (H) — of the underlying tax provision relevant because subparagraph (H) would have allowed for coverage for domestic partners, among others.

TJ Lane

Judge Timothy Grendell has determined that Chardon High School shooter TJ Lane will be tried as an adult in the deaths of three students. It is clear, according to Grendell, that Lane planned to murder people at the school in a deliberate and calculated manner. Grendell also ordered that Lane be held without bond.

Lane’s grandparents were in the court, along with relatives of those who were murdered. The court did hear from a Geauga County Sherrif’s deputy and both prosecutors and defense attorneys before making its ruling. Lane’s lawyer has stated that Lane admitted that no one picked on him or bullied him. Geauga County Sheriff’s deputy John Bilicik stated that Lane admitted to the crimes when interviewed by the police.

According to NewsNet5, this exchange occurred:

BILICIK: “Why did you shoot people?”
LANE: “I have no idea. I don’t really understand it myself.”

BILICIK: “How many did you shoot?”
LANE: “I don’t know. I was aiming for heads so they wouldn’t suffer.”

BILICIK: “Did someone piss you off?”
LANE: “No one pissed me off. I have no problem with people.”

Footage from cameras in and around the high school was shown in court, but the Media was not allowed to see it. Prosecutors were concerned that it would prejudice a future jury. Lane’s defense attorney wanted him to remain in the juvenile court system because of his diagnosis of having schizophrenia and unspecified psychosis.

Lane admitted to opening fire in Chardon High School, killing three students and injuring two others.

Ravi was facing up to ten years in prison for using a webcam to spy on his roommate Tyler Clementi during an intimate encounter. While typically bias laws are aimed at those who act out of utter hatred for a minority, they can target those who act with malicious intent out of a biased or prejudiced manner such as Ravi did.

According to NJ.com:

Superior Court Judge Glenn Berman sentenced Ravi to 30 days in the county jail, three years of probation and 300 hours of community service. The judge also ordered him to have counseling and contribute $10,000 to a state-licensed, community-based organization dedicated to assisting victims of bias crimes.

The sentence was a stunning departure from state sentencing guidelines that require the judge to find extraordinary circumstances to overcome the presumption of a prison term for the second-degree convictions and replace them with probation. Second-degree convictions carry a presumption of five to seven years in prison.

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey president Leslie Sinemus feels that there is a good likelihood that the sentence will be overturned and stated “I’m not sure 30-day sentence as condition of probation sends the defendant or future defendants the message.”

What may be at issue is the fact that Judge Berman did not agree with the Grand Jury’s finding of a bias crime, nor the verdict of the jury that there was a bias crime. Berman called the spying “cold, calculated and methodically conceived”, but only handed down a thirty-day sentence over ‘trying to hinder his own apprehension by lying to investigators and tampering with evidence by removing tweets from his Twitter account.’

The Supreme Court. Back: Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito and Kagan. Front: Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy and Bader Ginsberg

There are five weeks remaining in the Supreme Court’s term and over 20 cases still undecided. On Monday, they released decisions on three minor cases.

The basic theme of yesterday’s decisions was the courts should not read into laws more than what is actually there.

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and the Pacific territories, had ruled that non-citizens how had committed deportable offenses, could apply the residency of their parents to the requirement that if they had been lawful residents for at least five years, residing in the United States continually for seven years and have not been found guilty of any aggravated felony could seek cancellation of their deportation orders. In an unanimous decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court ruled that people could not apply the residency of their parents because that is not what the law says.

In the second case, the Court ruled that a Japanese baseball player did not have to pay translation fees because lost his lawsuit against a Northern Mariana Islands resort. The law says that the loser of a case pays for an interpreter for the documents involved. The Court ruled that the law calls for losers paying for “interpreters” not for written translations, therefore, the law does not cover document translation. The ruling was written by Justice Samuel Alito, with five justices concurring, including Justice Kagan. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

In the third case, Justice Ginsberg wrote for the whole Court that children born from frozen sperm after the death of the sperm donor do not qualify for survivors’ benefits under Social Security. The ruling was in response to and supported state laws that limit inheritance to children born or conceived during the deceased’s lifetime, not those conceived after death. The only way that these laws can be overruled is if the deceased had made provisions for possible posthumous births in his will.

The Court accepted for next term a lawsuit brought by attorneys, journalists and human rights organizations including Amnesty International over a Federal wiretapping law allowing warrantless tapping of non-citizens or resident outside the United States for purpose of collecting foreign intelligence. The Court is being asked to consider if the plaintiffs have a right to challenge the law based on a fear of being wiretapped and not evidence that they have been wiretapped. Presumably, the wiretapping involves calls or internet communications to persons inside the United States, since tapping phones and computers in foreign countries is so not legal.

Three down and the biggies yet to go. We are still waiting for a ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

Related articles

• Supreme Court Decides On Deportation, Takes Up Wiretapping(huffingtonpost.com)

  ---

• Approval of Supreme Court Falls for Republicans and Democrats(wnyc.org)

  ---

A judgement agreed to by Couch and the school district agreed that he can wear the shirt and the district must pay $20,000 in damages and court costs for violating Couch’s freedom of speech.

The BBC reports that the accused threw water at the judge as well as directed obscene gestures at him. The judge stated that the long sentence was imposed because of the “nature of the facts, the refined way they were planned and their duration”. He also did not buy Robert M’s expressions of remorse.

Robert M was convicted of abusing 67 victims at two Amsterdam nurseries and at homes where he babysat. He taped the abuse and shared the videos on the internet. His husband, Richard O, was sentenced to six years in prison for facilitating the commission of the crimes.

While the majority of pedophiles are straight men, there are some gay men who do molest children. There are also women who molest children sexually.

Of course, we wonder if Rena Lindevaldsen. . .wait, that name sounds awfully familiar.

Oh yes, Lindevaldsen is the legal specialist from Liberty Council behind the Lisa Miller case, and she even wrote a propaganda book about it. She claims that child sexual abuse and Satanism leads to one being a lesbian. It should be noted that her most prominent case not only ended up a complete and total debacle, but resulted in a loss before every single court it was taken before- including the US Supreme Court.

Thus, it is not surprising that this legal expert is basing her case on “allegations that Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg held separate meetings with Republican legislators to pressure them to change their vote. The claim is that at one of the meetings, lawmakers who backed the bill were offered campaign cash and those who maintained opposition were told donations would be made to their opponents.”

New York has an open-meeting law that requires that gatherings of lawmakers be made known and open to the public. It also states that “a violation takes place when a quorum of legislators from one political party meets, a member of another party is present and the meeting is closed to the public. That is precisely what occurred when Cuomo, a Democrat, and Bloomberg, an independent, met with the Republican caucus to persuade and pressure members to change their vote to support the Marriage Equality Act, critics allege.

Lindevaldsen is making her arguments in an appeal by the State of New York in the case of NY Count Judge Robert Wiggins’ ruling regarding the case. It should be noted that Wiggins was not sure that the law had been broken and stated “…The Court must consider allegations by Plaintiff as true. Considering Plaintiff’s allegations, and without deciding matter at this time, the Court feels that is a justiciable issue presented whether there was a violation of the Open Meetings Law.”

Cuomo and Bloomberg maintain that they were invited guests at the Republican meeting. Lindevaldsen countered that with “The standard definition of guest refers to someone who was invited to someone else’s home or to [whom] hospitality is extended. In this case, the meeting was held by Cuomo at the governor’s mansion. How could he possibly be a guest? He was the host, not the Republican conference.” The meeting was, indeed, held at the Governor’s mansion, but that does not mean much, in the end, and what could also be argued is that a quorum requires more than one person of each party.

Most legal experts are doubtful of the claims that this suit is going to either overturn the law, or result in much more than a lot of wasted time even if it is found that this meeting did violate the open meetings law, which even the original judge said was doubtful.

Coat of Arms of Vatican City

It is not surprising that the University of Notre Dame is suing the Obama Administration and its officials over the mandate requiring that almost all employers in the United States cover birth control. The school is claiming that the mandate violates religious freedom by requiring many religiously affiliated schools, hospitals and charities to provide this medication that can be used for non-contraceptive reasons. It is the latest in a long line of schools doing this.

The university is considered to be the most prominent Roman Catholic school in the nation, and the Vatican has been doing everything it can to force President Barack Obama, who is not a Catholic, to enforce their doctrinal beliefs. Since taking office, Pope Benedict has pushed the Catholic Church deeply into American politics- a move that is starting to cause severe unrest among Catholics.

President Obama offered to alter the rules regarding the mandate, but the US Conference of Catholic Bishops refused the offer. This is part of a wider war on women that Pope Benedict and the Catholic Hierarchy are engaged in.

Entering a store nude

A woman who walked naked into two New York stores and asked for the time has been charged by police with public lewdness, the Times Union newspaper reports.

The woman, who has been identified by Saratoga County District Attorney James Murphy III as Barbara Lafleur, of Saratoga Springs, calmly walked in each store and was captured by security cameras in each.

The first store on Lafleur’s short shopping tour was Curtis Lumber in Ballston Spa, New York. While there, witnesses said she approached two employees before leaving the store of her own accord, telling one employee on the way out, “Have a good day.”

“No one wanted to say much to her,” remarked store manager Bob Eakin to the Times Union. “It’s not a situation you want to be involved in.” It is kinda awkward.

Having failed to score any wood at the lumberyard, Lafleur then walked into a Stewart’s shop nearby, before being asked to leave. One employee told the Union:

“The manager said, ‘Ma’am, are you aware you have no clothes on?’ She was kosher and cool about it, and the manager told her she needed to leave.”

Nudists protesting their rights to be nude

Lafleur has since been charged with public lewdness. In a statement released shortly after charges were pressed, Murphy III gave an insight into Lafleur’s motives:

“While the defendant claimed she was merely expressing her freedom to be fully liberated by walking nude into Stewart’s and Curtis Lumber, this alleged conduct is actually a crime under the penal law. Surprisingly, mental health found no psychiatric issues whatsoever.”

Lafleur could face a maximum of 90 days in jail if convicted.

Related articles

• Naked Woman Walks In Two New York Stores, Asks For Time (inquisitr.com)
• Woman Arrested After Strolling Through Store Naked (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• Public nudity is just “self-expression” (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)

William A. Clark buying his Senate seat. The Anaconda Standard, Oct. 28, 1900

The Virginia-based American Tradition Partnership sued the State of Montana to force the state abandon their campaign financing laws and allow unrestricted corporate money to do the same kind of damage in Montana elections as it is doing in national ones. The state courts ruled for the State, so ATP took the case to the Federal level. They have asked the Supreme Court, which created this mess with its Citizens United ruling to overturn the state court decisions. The Supremes have blocked Montana’s law until they can “look at the case.”

In Supreme Court cases, it is possible for “interested parties” to file briefs in support of one side or the other. In this case, 22 state’s attorneys and the district of Columbia have filed such briefs. The states’ briefs say that the Montana law is different from the issues in the Citizens United case and the ruling should not apply to Montana.

Citizens United is one of the most controversial and unpopular rulings not related to social issues to ever come out of the Supreme Court. It wiped out decades of attempts to regulate the money spent in elections. It allows the creation of political action committees who can collect and spend unlimited amounts of money and keep the sources from public view. While campaign finance control has been the will of the people, Citizens United is the will of the very wealthy who seek to gain control over our government and install elected officials who will turn the law to their benefit.

Montana’s citizens in 1912 passed strict campaign finance laws because of rampant corruption in their state government. Bribery and vote buying were the manner in which the battling owners of copper mines fought for power. One copper baron, William A. Clark, literally bought a seat in the United States Senate in 1899. His selection led to the passage of the 17th Amendment, direct election of senators.  The voters rose up against the way very wealthy men were buying their government, and in a voter initiative, banned all corporate contributions to political campaigns.

In Citizens United, the Roberts Court ruled that no one should have their freedom of speech limited, and declared that corporations were people with the right of free speech, and independent political action committees should be free to spend as much money as they wish on campaigns, so long as they are not advocating for a specific candidate. They can crucify a candidate, as was planned with the Joe Ricketts anti-Obama ad campaign centering on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but they cannot support one.

Legal experts do not expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Montana. At best, they might tweak the Montana law. The Roberts Court has four devout Republicans who have consistently ruled for their party. There are four liberal justices and one swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has voted with the conservatives 87% of the time.

The Montana case is unique. We have argued that the citizens of a state should not determine social issues by popular referendum since those are the issues where the popular vote will frequently limit the rights of a minority, and I have argued that the state of California should limit referendums in their governance. But in Montana, in 1912, the populace rose up to stop criminal and quasi-criminal behavior that was denying them their constitutional rights. This referendum did not limit anyone’s rights or screw up the state’s government. The law the people of Montana passed a hundred years ago reinforced the rights of the people and ended the sale of their government to the highest bidder.

The group that brought the suit to void Montana’s law is based in Virginia. They are not Montanans. It’s none of their freaking business what the people of Montana do. Like most of these conservative groups trying to bend the American people to their will, they have a nice, patriotic sounding name. But the true American tradition has always been that buying elections is wrong, no matter how one sugar-coats it.

Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, also support Montana. They have cited evidence that the Citizens United ruling was wrong in saying that unlimited corporate spending would not lead to corruption, because it has, and not just at the federal election level. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was caught on tape promising a wealthy donor that after destroying the public sector unions, he would go after the private sector unions for the sake of his donors.

The states who filed the brief supporting Montana are New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The balance in that list between conservative and liberal states says a lot about how Americans are reacting to Citizens United and a Supreme Court that has forgotten who and what they are supposed to be working for.

Related articles

• Montana wins states’ backing over Citizens United fight(guardian.co.uk)

  ---

• 22 states join campaign finance fight (wvgazette.com)
• A Democrat and a Republican want the Supreme Court to revisit “Citizens United” (underthelobsterscope.wordpress.com)
• States Wage War Against Citizens United (huffingtonpost.com)

Earlier this month, the openly gay teen was expelled from Arsenal Technical High School for bringing a stun gun to school and firing it into the air to protect himself against bullies. Young had been under attack from bullies for several months.

Court documents are saying that Delay told mall security that he remembered Young from the news and tried to talk to him about the incident at school, and according to Delay, the teen then “got in his face and that he pushed Young.”

However, there was a witness to the incident. Both Young and a mall janitor have told the police that “Delay told the teen to get away from him after he walked passed his table in the food court. Delay spewed anti-gay epithets at Young, pushed him and hit him in the face.” The janitor called mall security, and there is evidence that Delay did attack Young.

But, the fact that the President voided those parts of the NDAA did not stop a group of journalists from bringing suit against the law. Lead plaintiffs Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges of the Nation Institute, Tangerine Bolen of RevolutionTruth, joined by Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers, MIT professor and activist Noam Chomsky and WikiLeaks Birgitta Jonsdottir, argued to Federal Judge Katherine Forrest that the law infringes on freedom of the press, freedom of speech and due process.

The prime issue to Hedges and Bolen is the vague definition in the law of who could be indefinitely detained as “a person who was a part of or substatially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces.” Hedges and Bolen, along with a lot of American journalists, have had contact with terrorists as part of their work. Anyone who has ever worked in the Middle East or has investigated terror cells in any country might have come in contact with such persons. In another one of those “if we don’t defend it, it will go away” moments we have come to appreciate in the Holden Justice Department, the DoJ attorney defending the law refused to say that the government would never detain without charges or trial any member of the press. If the DoJ had argued that based on what Obama would do, there was no guarantee that the promise of journalistic immunity would be honored by a subsequent administration. Better to have the law stricken down by the court.

Judge Forrest, who was appointed in 2011 to the historic United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, one of the first courts established by our government, ruled that she found the language of the law “too vague.” She wrote, “At the hearing on this motion, the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [section] 1021. Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years. An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doind so. In the fact of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more.”

Bolen, unfortunately, went overboard with her victory speech. She said “We dealt a pretty big blow to two branches of Congress and President Obama.” Like Jonsdottir, she works on WikiLeaks and the Bradley Manning case and has interviewed Iraqis and Afghans as part of her defense of WikiLeaks and Manning. With typical WikiLeaks lack of journalistic research, she did not understand that the President had already voided the provisions she was objecting to. Jonsdottir, however, is an Icelandic citizen and this ruling would not blanketly exempt her from arrest if she were engaged in activities involving terrorists. Paranoia must be contagious in WikiLeaks because Bolen was pretty sure that if she “became a thorn in the side of the U. S. Government in fighting for our rights…” she could be rounded up and detained.

Author/activist Naomi Wolf was even more over-the-top with her assessment of the hearing, saying that she found the judges questions to the federal lawyers and them not answering chilling, saying “To hear those words — it’s so true, it’s so obvious — it puts in glaring relief the hideousness, the unconstitutionality, the darkness of this legislative efffort and others like it. She [Judge Forrest] is so completely, obviously right. It’s nothing short of treason to have put forward legislation like this, let alone to have had most of the people who represent us and our president sign off on this clearly, obviously criminally unconstitutional — unconstitutional is inadequate. It’s anti-constitutional. It’s dictatorial. I’m so happy as a mother. It’s so profound. All of us were put in danger by this law.”

I really hope that Daniel Ellsberg at least is mature and rational enough to understand that the Obama administration handed this ruling to them. President Obama was opposed to this section of the law, but could not veto the law without cutting off paychecks for our troops and their families. By using a signing statement, he preserved the operational flow of the military and killed those provisions he objected to.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Reps. Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington, and Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, have offered an amendment to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that would also void Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. According to Rep. Amash, their amendment would “..ensure that persons arrested on U. S. soil aren’t detained indefinitely without charge or trial.” Amash asked his colleagues in the House to pass the amendment because, “If our constituents haven’t sent a clear enough message, tonight’s ruling surely does. Congress must act now to guarantee the constitutional right to a charge and trial.”

Aw, shucks. Didn’t anyone explain to Amash that his own party loves this section and loves to ignore the signing statement because then they can accuse the President of trying to be a dictator who “wipes his ass” with the Constitution.

I will never claim that I am familiar with every law that our Congress has ever passed or every court ruling ever handed down, but I can’t recall off-hand any time a section of a law was killed three times just for good measure.

Related articles

• Smith-Amash Detainee Amendment Is Dangerous Policy(heritage.org)

  ---

• Is the NDAA illegal? NOT NO BUT HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!! (tatoott1009.com)
• NDAA 2013 Headed to Full House; Smith/Amash Amendment Offered (revolutioninmedia.com)
• Journalists, Activists Challenge NDAA Law (commondreams.org)

Documents specifically relating to the alleged abuse by defrocked priest Michael McCarthy have become part of the case as the prosecution details how the archdiocese handled abuse complaints against some twenty priests over the years. None of the priests were ever charged because the complaints were never brought to the authorities. The complaints were kept locked away in the archdiocese for years.

The documents show that the archdiocese ignored the complaints until a donor complained about a competing business that McCarthy was apparently running. McCarthy has denied the allegations that he molested two young boys, including one at the house where he lives today.

The accuser informed the archdiocese back in 1991 about the abuse. McCarthy, then a teacher at Cardinal O’Hara High School, allegedly plied the minor with alcohol, removed his underwear while wrestling, and fondled the young man in bed. The youth did not complain fearing that he would be retaliated against.

At the time, Lynn was subordinate to Monsignor James Molloy, and would succeed him as secretary for the clergy the next year. Lynn’s memo of a meeting states that Molloy assured the accuser that McCarthy was unlikely to retaliate given past cases. In 1983, a mother filed a complaint against McCarthy. A note in the margin apparently from Molloy reads “Unnecessary statement. Never admit to a victim that there have been other cases.” This means that they were covering something up.

Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua promoted McCarthy the following year to lead a parish in Norristown, and it was about that time that a travel agent whose husband donated $25,000 to the archdiocese complained about McCarthy running a travel business which had robbed her of bookings from within the parish. McCarthy’s fellow priests also complained about the man’s temperament, sexually-charged speeches, underwear catalogs and gay pornography found in his bedroom. In fact, an in-house raid found pornography and an homoerotic poster on his room’s wall.

McCarthy was then given a psychiatric evaluation, deemed to be an “homosexual ephebophile” (an ephebophile is someone who is attracted to post-pubescent youths below the age of consent), and put on “health leave” he remained there until 2006 when he was defrocked. According to The Edge:

On cross-examination, a lawyer for Lynn noted that McCarthy underwent a psychiatric evaluation in June 1992 – the very month Lynn became secretary for clergy. And he last worked at a parish in 1993, defense lawyer Jeffrey Lindy noted, even if he was still allowed to say the occasional Mass for family celebrations.

Lynn remains the only official of the archdiocese charged in the case. Molloy died in 1996, and Bevilacqua this year. Prosecutors could wrap up their two-month presentation this week. Jurors are expected to get the case before Memorial Day.

Originally posted 11 May 2012

There are some of us (myself for instance) who would probably make really horrible bosses because, well, I would rather not hire any men to work for me. Still, I’m hardly in a position to do that kind of hiring or firing, and, well, despite my dislike of men, I have brought a few men to work on LGR in the past. Still, the boss of Jamie Ardigo of Hoboken, NJ got a surprise when he went to work for J. Christopher Burch of New York.

Ardigo is suing Burch, the head of J. Christopher Capital, for sex-discrimination and wrongful termination. Ardigo, who is gay, alleges that Burch is anti-straight. Well, anti-straight male.

Ardigo told ABC that he did not know he was being hired by a biased company. He stated “Did I have any inkling what I was getting into? No, I did not. I went there with the expectation that, as I’d been told, there was a family environment where employees and managers supported one another, and there was an open-door policy.”

Less than a month later, he was in a meeting where Burch allegedly announced that he only hired gay men because they were supposedly more productive and because he trusted them. Ardigo also stated that there were other times when he would witness “it in meetings with the executive management team, where he’d blatantly state the fact that he only likes to hire gay men and beautiful women.”

ABC reports that “Ardigo found this troubling on two levels, he says: As a gay man, he personally was offended. And as an HR professional ‘keenly aware’ of the need to maintain a non-discriminatory atmosphere in the workplace, he knew that both the attitude expressed and any hiring that bore it out was contrary to federal and New York City law.”

Ardigo stated that “I was highly concerned for the organization and uncomfortable myself working there. I had never worked for an organization that made decisions based on that or that made comments like that.”

Brian Cousin, Burch’s lawyer, refutes Ardigo’s story and said that he was fired for performance-related issues. He also told ABC that “The company has reviewed the allegations and denies any wrongdoing. It denies there was discrimination or retaliation.” Bias laws do not usually cover Whites or males.

ABC also reported that:

Ardigo, for his part, says he was fired because he called management’s attention to instances of discriminatory and inappropriate behavior, including one in which a female employee, when being introduced for the first time to Ardigo, said to the person making the introduction, “Oh, are you going to introduce me to another gay guy?!”

In another alleged instance, a male employee insinuated that a female employee had a vibrating dildo in her purse.

When Ardigo reported this last incident to management and sought to have the male employee reprimanded, his says his report was ignored and no reprimand was given. “The investigation ended in absolutely nothing. The recommendation I had made was not followed through on.”

According to several sources in the company, Ardigo’s performance was never an issue. According to Ardigo, his supervisor pressured him to reveal information about himself. He stated that “He stated that he needed to trust me, and in order to do that he needed to know more about me.” Ardigo was not comfortable with that saying “Knowing the culture of the organization, hearing about their hiring only gay men, I felt there was an expectation that I had to reveal that information in order to be successful at work.”

Originally posted 11 May 2012

We have been informed that the case of Kenneth L. Miller has been rescheduled to 21 June 2012 when pretrial conference or a change of plea hearings will be heard. The case is set to go before the Honorable William K. Sessions III. This moves back the selection of a jury to 10 July 2012.

Miller has been charged as an accessory to the kidnapping and removal from the country of Isabella Miller, the daughter of Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller during their civil union. Judge William Cohen of Vermont gave numerous opportunities to Lisa Miller to comply with the court’s order that Jenkins have visitation with Isabella, but ultimately, Miller absconded with the child only to end up in Central America.

Rusconi believes that the couple targeted him because he is gay and a single father. Rusconi stated “They all called me a sexual deviant and a pervert. That’s all stemming from my sexuality.”

He was arrested on 17 June 2011, and both of his daughters were taken away from him and given to the couple making the accusations. They stated that they were the best caretakers for the twins. Rusconi was released the next day on $220,000 bail. Six months later, a rape kit produced negative results and by that point, prosecutors were unconvinced by the allegations. At that point, he got his daughter back. He is now suing his accusers saying “the people I let into my life is much tighter, and I intend on keeping it that way.”

The Huffington Post notes that “The photographer is known for his celebrity photography, including photos featuring Mary-Kate Olsen, Tyra Banks, Karl Lagerfeld, and President Barack Obama.”

A Chicago jury has convicted the former brother-in-law of Jennifer Hudson of murdering her mother, brother and 7-year-old nephew. Prosecutors described the act as that of vengeance perpetrated by a jilted husband. Hudson endured weeks of testimony about the murders which occurred back in October 2008. She also showed open disdain for William Balfour, the man convicted of the murder. She was visibly overcome with emotions when the verdict was read, even tearing up.

Balfour showed no emotion when the verdict was read. He now faces life in prison.

It took three days of jury deliberation before Balfour was convicted. The former gang member is the estranged ex-husband of Julia Hudson, Jennifer Hudson’s sister. They were not yet divorced at the time of the murders. At the time, Balfour was on probation for other crimes.

The verdict came through circumstantial evidence. There were no fingerprints or witnesses. There were witnesses who had overheard Balfour threaten to kill the entire family if Julia purned him. Balfour’s attorneys tried to push an alternative theory that someone else had in that neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side had targeted the family because of alleged crack dealing being done by Jason Hudson. Balfour’s attorneys presented no evidence to support this theory, and called only two witnesses. Public defender Amy Thompson said that she would appeal the verdict.

She stated that “It has always been our position and it still is that William Balfour is innocent of these murders.”

Initially, the jurors sent the judge a note that they were split, but they did not want to give up just yet. According to the Huffington Post “Jennifer Hudson, who was in Florida at the time of the killings, attended every day of the two-weeks of testimony, sobbing when photos of her relatives’ bloodied bodies were displayed to jurors during closing arguments. Known for wearing tony designer dresses on Hollywood’s red carpets, Hudson wore toned-down clothes at the trial, often all black.”

According to witnesses, Balfour often stalked the three-story Englewood home where the Hudsons lived. The murders occurred the morning after Julia’s birthday. Prosecutors say that Balfour visited the home, saw a gift of balloons from her new boyfriend, and became enraged. After Julia left for her job as a bus driver, Balfour went into the home with a .45-caliber handgun and shot Darnell Donerson, the Hudsons’ mother, in the back, then shot Jason Hudson twice while he was asleep in bed. He then drove off in Jason Hudson’s SUV with Julian, the son of Julia. He then shot Julian three times in the head and left his body abandoned in the SUV. He was found three days later.

During closing arguments, Thompson nearly shouted saying how the prosecutors had failed to prove their case, but Prosecutor James McKay countered that Thompson was trying to exploint the popular misbelief that circumstantial evidence means lesser evidence.

As has been noted in another case here in Vermont, it is possible to get a conviction even without a body.

The two are set to be tried as adults. According to attorney Tommy Maddox “He was just violated in every way you can imagine.” Forensics indicate that the allegations have merit, and it appears to have not been the first time that the student was assaulted by the two teens as they allegedly went on for months, but the ten-year-old boy was too afraid to report the attacks.

Speaker of the House John Boehner by Donkey Hotey, Creative Commons

Word has come down from Servicemembers Legal Defense Network or SLDN today that House Speaker John Boehner has filed a request to intervene in McLaughlin v. US. “The landmark federal court case filed in October 2011 by eight married gay and lesbian service members and veterans, who are represented by SLDN and Chadbourne & Parke. The case challenges the constitutionality of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and three other federal statutes – Titles 10, 32, and 38 – that preclude the military from providing equal recognition, support, and benefits for all military families. “

SLDN went on to note:

“Speaker Boehner’s request to defend this case in the wake of the ongoing harm done to military families by these discriminatory laws is reprehensible and callous. The Speaker has turned a deaf ear to the urgent pleas of CW2 Charlie Morgan and countless families like hers, who are living with the day-to-day realities of a military that has been forced to create two classes of service members,” said Army veteran and SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis.

In February, Chief Warrant Officer (CW2) Morgan, a member of the New Hampshire National Guard and a plaintiff in McLaughlin v. U.S. – who also is battling incurable stage IV breast cancer – traveled to Washington, D.C. to tell her story on Capitol Hill and ask Boehner not to intervene in the case.

“Should I not survive this bout with cancer, my wife Karen will not receive any survivor’s benefits, social security benefits or health insurance coverage. Karen is a stay-at-home mom, taking care of our four-year old daughter while I undergo chemotherapy. Now, after fighting for my country in Iraq and fighting for my life with this illness, I am forced to fight the Speaker of the House in order to make sure that my family is cared for when I am gone. It’s shameful,” Morgan said today.

“Speaker Boehner’s politically motivated ongoing defense of these unjust laws is hurting military families. It’s time to repeal DOMA and revise these antiquated laws that are preventing all military families from being treated with fairness and equality. There cannot be two classes of service members,” said Sarvis.

Sperm doing their thing (photo by ALAMY)

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has vetoed an attempt to get on the ballot a measure that would have given embryos full rights. The ballot measure is part of the personhood movement. It is an attempt to give rights to a small bundle of cells that cannot breathe, eat, or live outside the womb. The court ruled it “clearly unconstitutional”. The measure would have violated the US Supreme Court’s 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This allows states to pass some abortion restrictions so long as they do not block the constitutional right to end a pregnancy.

The court wrote in its decision that “The mandate of Casey is as binding on this Court today as it was twenty years ago. Initiative Petition No. 395 conflicts with Casey and is void on its face and it is hereby ordered stricken.”

Anti-abortion groups want a measure or a law like this on the books so that they can try and get Roe v. Wade overturned. They have not been successful. In Mississippi, where they did go before the voters, the measure lost.

Nancy Northup, the President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights (who filed the suit against the measure) stated “This amendment would have run roughshod over the fundamental, constitutionally protected reproductive rights of all Oklahoma women. In affirming our request to strike it down, the court has struck a powerful blow against the repugnant tactics of those who seek to vote down the rights of others, and to enshrine their hostility to women’s lives, health, and rights in the laws of the land.”

Yeakel wrote in his ruling that “The court is particularly influenced by the potential for immediate loss of access to necessary medical services by several thousand Texas women. The record before the court at this juncture reflects uncertainty as to the continued viability of the Texas Women’s Health Program.”

The Huffington Post noted that:

After HHS cut off Texas’ Medicaid money, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) promised to make up for the $30 million funding gap and pay for the Women’s Health Program with the state’s own money. But conservative Texas officials have suggested that they would rather end the entire program than allow Planned Parenthood to participate in it.

Planned Parenthood pleaded with Perry on Monday to keep the program in place despite the court’s ruling, because it offers cancer screenings, birth control, testing and treatment for STDs and other health exams to low-income women across the state.

Patricio Gonzales, CEO of Planned Parenthood Association of Hidalgo County “We call on Governor Perry and the state to put Texan women first and set aside any vendetta they may have against Planned Parenthood. No woman should ever have to fear being cut off from her doctor’s care because of shortsighted political games.”

Of course, the Republicans are not waging a war on women in the same way that the sun isn’t going to rise in the East.

Three years ago, this case seemed to be one of those that Liberty Counsel and those behind them had been trying to make into a martyrdom case with ‘poor’ Lisa Miller at the center.

Here is the decision from the court provided by a reader to the site:

KENNETH L. MILLER, :
:
Defendant. :
OPINION and ORDER
Defendant Kenneth L. Miller is charged with aiding and abetting an international parental kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1204 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Miller has moved to dismiss the one-count indictment on two grounds: one, that the indictment fails to state an offense, and two, that venue in the District of Vermont is improper.

Background1
In December 2000, Lisa Miller2 entered into a civil union in Vermont with Janet Jenkins. In April 2002, Lisa Miller gave birth to IMJ. Miller and Jenkins’s relationship disintegrated in the fall of 2003, and Lisa Miller moved with IMJ from Vermont to Virginia. In November 2003, Lisa Miller filed to dissolve the civil union in the Family Court of Rutland, Vermont. In June 2004, the family court issued a temporary order awarding Lisa Miller temporary legal and physical rights and responsibilities, and assigning Janet Jenkins temporary parent-child contact rights. After Miller repeatedly failed to allow any contact between IMJ and Jenkins, in September 2004 the family court found her in contempt for willful refusal to comply with the temporary visitation order. In November 2004, the family court determined that both Miller and Jenkins had parental interests in IMJ.

The family court’s interlocutory orders were affirmed by the Vermont Supreme Court in 2006. See Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins (“M-J I”), 2006 VT 78, ¶¶ 2, 72, 912 A.2d 951, 956, 974. In litigation commenced by Lisa Miller in Virginia, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held that the Vermont court had jurisdiction over the issues of custody and visitation, and that a Virginia court must extend full faith and credit to the custody and visitation orders of the Vermont court. Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins (“M-J II”), 637 S.E.2d 330, 337-38 (Va. App.2006); see also Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins (“M-J III”), 661 S.E.2d 822, 827 (Va. 2008) (confirming the Court of Appeals’ judgment as the law of the case).

In June 2007, following a trial on parental rights and responsibilities, the family court ordered sole physical and legal custody of IMJ to Lisa Miller, subject to Jenkins’s visitation rights. The court warned Miller that continued interference with the relationship between IMJ and Jenkins could warrant a modification of the custody order. See Miller-Jenkins Case 2:11-cr-00161-wks Document 25 Filed 04/25/12 v. Miller-Jenkins (“M-J IV”), 2010 VT 98, ¶ 5, 12 A.3d 768, 772 (mem.). Since 2007, Lisa Miller violated several visitation orders and was found in contempt of court seven times. Id. ¶ 7, 12 A.3d at 773.

Jenkins moved to modify the Rutland Family Court’s order concerning parental rights and responsibilities in August 2009. On August 21, 2009, the family court held a hearing on Jenkins’s motion. Lisa Miller did not attend, but filed an affidavit objecting to any exercise of Jenkins’s visitation rights and arguing against any transfer of primary custody of IMJ to Jenkins. On November 20, 2009, the family court concluded that Miller had willfully interfered with Jenkins’s visitation rights, and it awarded Janet Jenkins sole physical and legal custody of
IMJ.

However, early on September 22, 2009, Lisa Miller and IMJ crossed the Canadian border between Buffalo, New York, and Ontario, Canada, in a car registered to a New York taxi company. Later that day, Lisa Miller and IMJ flew from Toronto, Ontario, Canada to Mexico City, Mexico. From Mexico City, they flew to El Salvador and on to Managua, Nicaragua. According to United States border records, they have not returned to this country. The Government alleges that Kenneth Miller and Timothy Case 2:11-cr-00161-wks Document 25 Filed 04/25/12 Page 3 of 23 3 Timothy Miller is not related to Lisa Miller or Kenneth Miller. 4 Miller3 helped Lisa Miller and IMJ travel from Virginia to Nicaragua through Canada and Mexico. Kenneth Miller, a Mennonite minister and resident of Virginia, contacted a fellow Mennonite in Canada to arrange for him to meet Lisa Miller and IMJ in Canada and take them to the airport for their flight to Nicaragua. Kenneth Miller contacted Timothy Miller, a Mennonite living in Nicaragua, to arrange for their airline tickets and to pick them up at the airport when they arrived.

Kenneth Miller was charged by criminal complaint with aiding and abetting international parental kidnapping in violation of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (“IPKCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1204 and 2, on November 18, 2011. He voluntarily returned from Ireland, where he had been serving as a missionary since the summer of 2010, in order to address the charges, and
was arrested on December 5, 2011, in the District of Vermont. On December 15, 2011, the federal grand jury sitting in Burlington, Vermont, returned a one-count indictment alleging that “[f]rom on or about September 21, 2009, to on or about September 23, 2009, in the District of Vermont and elsewhere, defendant KENNETH L. MILLER aided and abetted Lisa Miller in the removal of a child from the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1204

Discussion
I. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State an Offense According to Kenneth Miller, the indictment is facially defective because “it fails to allege that Lisa Miller could not remove a child from the United States or that she lacked parental rights or authorization to remove a child from the United States.” Mot. to Dismiss 2, ECF No. 21.

The indictment alleges that from on or about September 21, 2009, to on or about September 23, 2009, in the District of Vermont and elsewhere, defendant Kenneth Miller aided and abetted Lisa Miller in the removal of a child from the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1204 and 2. Section 1204 makes it a federal offense to “remove a child from the United States, or attempt[] to do so, . . . with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 1204(a).

To establish a violation of the IPKCA, the government must prove that IMJ was previously in the United States; that Lisa Miller took IMJ from the United States to another country; that she did so with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of Janet Jenkins’s parental rights; and that Kenneth Miller aided and abetted Lisa Miller in the commission of that crime. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1204(a), (2); see United States v. Miller, 626 F.3d 682, 688 (2d Cir. 2010). To establish that Kenneth Miller aided or abetted Lisa Miller in committing this crime, the government
must prove that Kenneth Miller knowingly associated himself in some way with the crime, and that he participated in the crime by doing some act to help make the crime succeed. See United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2006); Leonard B. Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions ¶ 11.01 (2011). The indictment plainly is not facially defective; it “‘track[s] the language of the statute charged and state[s] the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime.’” United States v. Pirro, 212 F.3d 86, 92 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 44 (2d Cir. 1999)). It satisfies Rule 7(c)’s requirement that an indictment “be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c), and it “sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.” Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763 (1962) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Kenneth Miller also asserts that the indictment fails to charge an offense, because Janet Jenkins had no lawful parental rights at the time of the offense. “Parental rights” is defined in the statute as “the right to physical custody of the child—(A)whether joint or sole (and includes visiting rights); and (B) whether arising by operation of law, court order, or legally binding agreement of the parties.” 18 U.S.C. §1204(b)(2). According to the legislative history of the IPKCA, “‘parental rights’ are to be determined by reference to State law, in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction.” H.R. Rep. No. 103- 390, at *4 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2419, 2422; see United States v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873, 878 (2d Cir. 1997). Chapter I, Article 3 of this Convention provides that The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, . . . either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

The rights of custody mentioned in subparagraph a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State. Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, art. 3, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670. Further, if a State has different laws applying to child custody in different territorial units, “any reference to habitual residence in that State shall be construed as referring to habitual residence in a territorial unit of that State; [and] any reference to the law of the State of habitual residence shall be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit in that State where the child habitually resides. Id. Art. 31; see Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217, 221-222 (3d Cir. 1995). Kenneth Miller reasons that provides: A civil union . . . between persons of the same sex
purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, . . .entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
Va. Code Ann. § 20-45.3.8 Virginia was IMJ’s habitual residence, that Virginia law therefore applies, and that under Virginia law Jenkins could have no parental or custody rights with respect to IMJ, quoting Virginia’s Marriage Affirmation Act (“MAA”). See VA Code Ann. § 20-45.3.4
By September 2009, Jenkins had been awarded visitation rights by a Vermont family court. See M-J IV, 2010 VT 98, ¶ 5, 12 A.3d at 772. The Virginia Court of Appeals had held that the Vermont court had properly exercised jurisdiction, had declined to consider whether the MAA applied, and had concluded that the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 in any event required

Virginia courts to give full faith and credit to the Vermont court’s child custody determinations. See M-J II, 637 S.E.2d at 334-35, 337; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. The Vermont custody order had been recognized as the law of the case by the Virginia Supreme Court. See M-J III, 661 S.E.2d at 827. Moreover, in an unrelated case, the Virginia Court of Appeals subsequently held
that the MAA did not void an order adjudicating custodial and visitation rights with respect to the child of a same-sex couple. See Prashad v. Copeland, 685 S.E.2d 199, 208 (Va. App. 2009) (holding that nonbiological parent’s custodial and visitation rights arose out of his relationship with the child, not from his relationship with the biological parent). Consequently, in this particular case the law of Vermont and the law of Virginia agree that Jenkins has parental rights with respect to IMJ. The Government has demonstrated that it has evidence under both Vermont and Virginia law to satisfy this element of its case.

Kenneth Miller also asserts that Jenkins was not exercising her custody rights at the time Lisa Miller took IMJ out of the country, as required to show wrongful removal under the Hague Convention. On the contrary, the Government has demonstrated that it has evidence that Janet Jenkins was actively exercising her custody rights with respect to IMJ at the time of her removal and for several years before, by seeking a modification of the custody order and by attempting to enforce multiple court orders directing that she be allowed to see and visit with IMJ. The motion to dismiss for failure to charge an offense is therefore denied.

II. Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue Kenneth Miller asserts that the Government lacks any
evidence that would support venue in the District of Vermont. The Government responds that it will be able to show that venue is proper under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), because essential elements of the offense took place in Vermont, and in the alternative, that it will be able to show that venue is proper under 18 U.S.C. § 3238 if the essential nature of the offense arose outside the
United States.

The indictment alleges that Kenneth Miller committed the offense of aiding and abetting in the removal of a child from the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights “in the District of Vermont and elsewhere.” Indictment, ECF No. 16. The indictment therefore is not facially defective. When venue is disputed, but the indictment alleges
venue without a facially obvious defect, the issue should be submitted to the jury. See United States v. Engle, No. 10-4850, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 641031 at *3 (4th Cir. Feb. 29, 2012); United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 332 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Sutton, 13 F.3d 595, 598 (2d Cir. 1994). But see United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108, 119 n.5 (2d Cir. 2007) (suggesting that venue disputes may not necessarily be submitted to a jury).

The Government has the burden of proving that venue is proper, by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 119. Upon the close of the evidence, the Court will determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support a jury finding that the crime was committed within the district. See United States v. To be precise, Article III addresses venue, the place of trial, and the Sixth Amendment addresses vicinage, the place from which a jury must be selected. The distinction is not significant in this case. See United States v. Royer, 549 F.3d 886, 893 n.8 (2d Cir. 2008).

11
Acosta-Gallardo, 656 F.3d 1109, 1118 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 540 (2011). Although the resolution of this issue must await a trial of this matter, the Court sets forth here its understanding of what the Government must prove in order to establish that venue properly lies in this District under § 3237(a) or § 3238.

A defendant has a constitutional right to be tried in the federal judicial district in which the crime occurred. Article III of the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he trial of all Crimes, . . . shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” U.S. Const., art. III, § 2, cl. 3; see also id. amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law. . . .”).5 This constitutional right “serves to shield a federal defendant from ‘the unfairness and hardship’ of prosecution ‘in a remote place.’” Rommy, 506 F.3d at 119 (quoting United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405, 407 (1958)); see also Johnston v. United States, 351 U.S. 215, 220-21 (1956) (noting that the venue requirement “states the public policy that fixes the situs of the trial in the vicinage of the crime rather than the residence of the accused); United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 275 (1944) (articulating an additional policy
consideration of avoiding the appearance of abuse in the selection of a tribunal deemed favorable to the prosecution).

Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[u]nless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed.’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 18; see United States v. Saavedra, 223 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Rule 18 . . .codifies the constitutional command . . . .”). Section 1204 does not have an express venue provision. The Government asserts, and the defendant does not disagree, that international parental kidnapping is a continuing offense. See United States v. Clenney, 434 F.3d 780, 781 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); cf. United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 281 (1999) (noting that kidnapping is a continuing offense, committed in all of the places that any part of it took place); United States v. Sandoval, 347 F.3d 627, 634 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[A] continuing offense, like kidnapping, may be prosecuted ‘in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.’”) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)); United States v. Seals, 130 F.3d 451, 462 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (collecting cases holding that kidnapping is a continuing offense); United States v. Denny-Shaffer, 2 F.3d 999, 1018 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding that the kidnapping statute defines a continuing offense); United States v. Garcia, 854 F.2d 340, 344 (9th Cir. 1988) (same); Hess v.United States, 254 F.2d 578, 584 (8th Cir. 1958) (holding that § 3237 applies to kidnapping); United States v. Fell, No. 2:01-CR-12-01, 2005 WL 1026599 at *1 (D. Vt. Apr. 22, 2005) (same, citing Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 281).A. Venue Under § 3237(a)

Continuing offenses without an express venue provision are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), which provides that an offense “begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in
more than one district, may be . . . prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a). More specifically, “[any] offense involving the use of the mails [or] transportation in interstate or foreign commerce . . . is a continuing offense, and . . . may be . . .prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which such . .. mail matter . . . or person moves. Id.; see also United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d 477, 480 (2d Cir. 1985) (“[W]here the acts constituting the crime and the nature of the crime charged implicate more than one location, the constitution does not command a single exclusive venue.”).

As a continuing offense, venue for an international kidnapping offense is therefore appropriate in any district in which the offense was begun, continued, or completed. 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a). Because Kenneth Miller is charged as an aider and abettor, the Government may establish venue through the acts of Lisa Miller, because “[v]enue is proper where the defendant’s accessorial acts were committed or where the underlying crime occurred.” United States v. Smith, 198 F.3d 377, 383 (2d Cir.1999).

“In determining whether an offense was committed in a particular district, [a court] look[s] to ‘the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it.’” United States v. Magassouba, 619 F.3d 202, 205 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1, 5 (1998) (“The locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it.”)). To determine the nature of the crime, “a court must
initially identify the conduct constituting the offense.”

Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 279; accord Magassouba, 619 F.3d at 205. The Rodriguez-Moreno Court emphasized that this inquiry involves examining the statute to ascertain the “essential conduct elements” of the crime. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 280. Section 1204(a) prohibits the removal of a child from the United States, with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights. There are three elements to the offense: 1) that the child was in the United States; 2) that the defendant removed, or aided and abetted the removal of the child from the United States; and 3) that the defendant did so with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights. 18 U.S.C. § 1204(a); see also Leonard B. Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions ¶ 42.03 (2011). The elements of aiding and abetting in this case are that the defendant 1) knew that the child was being removed from the United States in order to
obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights, and 2) “acted . . . with the specific intent of advancing the commission of the underlying crime.” United States v. Richards, 302 F.3d 58, 67
(2d Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Venue is proper only where the acts constituting the offense—the crime’s ‘essential conduct elements’—took place,” however. United States v. Tzolov, 642 F.3d 314, 318 (2d Cir. 2011) (emphasis supplied); accord United States v. Bowens, 224 F.3d 302, 309 (4th Cir. 2000) (“[V]enue is limited to the place ‘where the criminal act is done,’” however, and “limit[s] venue in a criminal trial to the place of the essential conduct elements of the offense.”) (quoting United States v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 699, 705 (1946)). “[W]here ‘the acts constituting the crime and the nature of the crime charged implicate more than one location,’ venue is properly laid in any of the districts where an essential conduct element of the crime took place.’” Ramirez, 420 F.3d at 139 (quoting Reed, 773 F.2d at 480). Additionally, in this Circuit, “when venue may properly lie in more than one district under a continuing offense theory, [a court] should also ask ‘whether the criminal acts in question
bear substantial contacts with any given venue.’” Id. (quoting Saavedra, 223 F.3d at 93); see also Saavedra, 223 F.3d at 93 (“The substantial contacts rule offers guidance on how to determine whether the location of venue is constitutional, especially in those cases where the defendant’s acts did not take place within the district selected as the venue for trial.”).

This substantial contacts rule takes into account such factors as “the site of the defendant’s acts, the elements and nature of the crime, the locus of the effect of the criminal conduct, and the suitability of each district for accurate factfinding.” Reed, 773 F.2d at 481; accord Tzolov, 642 F.3d at 321. Kenneth Miller asserts that he did not commit any crime within the District of Vermont, that at all relevant times he was in Virginia, and that none of the essential conduct of the underlying crime took place within the District of Vermont. The Government contends that the “essential elements” of the crime took place in Vermont, in that Lisa Miller initiated child
custody litigation in Vermont, that she and IMJ were parties to The Court notes that technically IMJ is not a party to the Miller-Jenkins litigation, nor is her continued presence within the state necessary for the Vermont family court to retain jurisdiction to make a child custody determination. See Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1032(a), (c) (2010); see also M-J I, 2006 VT ¶ 17, 912 A.2d at 959.17 this Vermont litigation from 2003 until 2009, and that Lisa Miller removed IMJ “as a Vermont party.” Gov’t Resp. 17, ECF No. 24. It contends further that “[t]he essential conduct criminalized by section 1204 is the removal of the child from the jurisdiction addressing IMJ’s parental rights. Lisa Miller and Kenneth Miller’s conduct was aimed squarely at removing IMJ as a party in Vermont litigation.” Id. at 18.

The statute, however, does not criminalize removing a child as a party in litigation. Nor does it criminalize removing a child from a state’s jurisdiction. Nor does it criminalize removing a child from the United States with the intent to avoid the jurisdiction of a state court.6 Under Rodriguez-Moreno, and Second Circuit caselaw following that decision, the essential conduct elements of an offense are to be found by examining the statute that proscribes the conduct. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 280; accord, e.g., Magassouba, 619 F.3d at 205-206; Ramirez, 420 F.3d at 143-144; United States v. Rowe, 414 F.3d 271, 278 (2d Cir. 2005); Saavedra, 223 F.3d at 91. Section 1204(a) criminalizes removing a child from the United States with the
intent to obstruct the exercise of parental rights. There is the intent to obstruct is an essential element, but it is not an essential conduct element. See Clenney, 434 F.3d at 781-82; see also Ramirez, 420 F.3d at 144 (holding that a scheme to defraud, an essential element of mail fraud, was not an essential conduct element for venue purposes); United States v. Perlitz, 728 F. Supp. 2d 46, 54 (D. Conn. 2010) (holding that formation of intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct is an essential element of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), but not an essential conduct element for venue purposes, following Ramirez). In any event, the Government does not contend that either Lisa Miller or Kenneth Miller formed an intent to obstruct within the District of Vermont. only one essential conduct element of this offense: removing a child from the United States.7 See Clenney, 434 F.3d at 781-82. Whatever additional state or federal laws Lisa Miller may have
violated, she did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1204(a) until she allegedly acted to remove IMJ from the United States. Kenneth Miller did not aid and abet a violation of § 1204 until he
allegedly assisted in that removal.

Thus, in United States v. Clenney, an international parental kidnapping case, the Fifth Circuit rejected the contention that venue was proper where parental rights were exercised or where
the child resided, and concluded that venue lay in the district from which the child was removed. Id.; cf. Tzolov, 642 F.3d at 319-320 (analyzing conspiracy charges differently, permitting
venue in any district in which an overt act in furtherance of the purpose of the conspiracy is performed, whether lawful or unlawful); accord Royer, 549 F.3d at 896; Rommy, 506 F.3d at 119-120; United States v. Svoboda, 347 F.3d 471, 483 (2d Cir. 2003)).

To be sure, the Government must prove that Jenkins had parental rights, and for that purpose will show that her parental rights arose from orders issued by a Vermont court. It undoubtedly will seek to introduce evidence that Lisa Miller willfully and repeatedly flouted those orders, and ultimately left the country to avoid complying with those orders. Nevertheless, in order for venue to properly lie in this district under § 3237(a), the Government must show that Lisa Miller or Kenneth Miller did or caused something to be done in the District of Vermont that furthered the crime of international parental kidnapping, or that it was “‘foreseeable that such an act would
occur in the district of venue [and it did].’” Royer, 549 F.3d at 894 (quoting Svoboda, 347 F.3d at 483). If the Government presents evidence of such conduct, then the Court will consider whether these acts bear substantial contacts with the District of Vermont. See id. at 895 (“[V]enue must not only involve some activity in the situs district but also satisfy the ‘substantial contacts’ test of Reed.”). The Reed factors—the site of the acts, the elements and nature of the
crime, the locus of the effect of the criminal conduct and the suitability of the district for accurate factfinding—will only come into play if the Court determines that § 3237(a) permits venue to lie in the District of Vermont. See Saavedra, 223 F.3d at 92-93.

B. Venue Under § 3238 “[W]here the acts constituting the crime and the nature of the crime charged implicate more than one location, the constitution does not command a single exclusive venue.” Reed, 773 F.3d at 480. The Government argues in the alternative that 18 U.S.C. § 3238 establishes venue for this offense. Section 3238, captioned “Offenses not committed in any district,” provides that “[t]he trial of all offenses begun or committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, shall be in the district in which
the offender, . . . is arrested or is first brought . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3238. The Second Circuit, in dictum, indicated that this provision “applies only to those offenses ‘not committed in any district,’ as its title indicates.” United States v. Gilboe, 684 F.2d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 1982); see also United States v. Pace, 314 F.3d 344, 351 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[Section] 3238 does not apply unless the offense was committed entirely on the high seas or outside the United States (unless, of course, the offense was ‘begun’ there.”); cf. United States v. Bin Laden, 146 F. Supp. 2d 373, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (holding that § 3238 supplied venue for a conspiracy offense that began outside the United States, even though overt acts were committed within the United States, citing
and quoting 2 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 304 (3d ed. 2000)).

More recently, the Third Circuit in United States v. Pendleton, 658 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2011), considered whether § 3238 applies when a defendant commits part of his offense within the
United States and part of his offense overseas. The Pendleton court applied Rodriguez-Moreno to identify the conduct constituting the offense and then to discern the location of the criminal acts, in a prosecution for illicit sexual conduct with a minor in a foreign place in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) and (f)(1). 658 F.3d at 303. It concluded that the locus delicti of a § 2423(c) offense is the place where the illicit sex occurs, and given that the “crux” of the defendant’s offense was committed out of the jurisdiction of any district, § 3238 applied. Id. at 304-05; see also United States v. Levy Auto Parts, 787 F.2d 946, 952 (4th Cir. 1986) (holding that an aborted
conspiracy was “essentially foreign,” justifying venue under where one of the co-conspirators was arrested); Bin Laden, 146 F. Supp. 2d at 381.

Gilboe involved a fraud on the international shipping industry. The defendant was arrested in the District of Connecticut, and tried and convicted of wire fraud and transportation of funds obtained by fraud in the Southern District of New York. On appeal Gilboe claimed that he could
only have been tried in the District of Connecticut, under §3238. The Second Circuit, assuming that Gilboe’s objection to venue had been preserved, held that Gilboe was properly tried in the Southern District of New York under § 3237(a), on the basis of numerous communications between the district and various overseas locations, and the fact that the proceeds of the fraud
were transferred through the district. 684 F.2d at 239. In rejecting Gilboe’s claim that § 3238 was the only applicable venue statute, it noted that § 3238 applies only to offenses not committed in any district. Id.

This Court believes that were the issue squarely presented to the Second Circuit today, the court of appeals would apply Rodriguez-Moreno and identify the essential conduct elements of the offense. If the essential conduct elements were begun or committed outside of any district then venue would be proper in the district where the defendant was arrested or first brought. See Pendleton, 658 F.3d at 303-05. Accordingly, if the Government presents evidence that the essential conduct of removing a child from the United States occurred outside the United States, then venue will be appropriate in the District of Vermont, where Kenneth Miller was arrested. See § 3238; Gov’t Resp. 20 (“After all, the removal of the child cannot be accomplished anywhere in the United States.”).

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Kenneth Miller’s motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense or for improper venue is denied.

On Wednesday, a young man told a jury about how he was sexually assaulted as an altar boy by two priests in Philadelphia. The young man turned to drugs beginning at age 11 in order to try and deal with the abuse. He has tried drug treatment almost two dozen times in order to deal with the addictions to painkillers, heroin and other drugs. He was the son of a police officer.

According to the young man, parish priest Edward Avery raped him twice after Mass back in 1999. At the time, he was ten. He is testifying in the trial of Monsignor William Lynn, a former secretary for clergy at the Philadelphia archdiocese. Avery has pled guilty to the crimes leveled against him, but that has not been told to the jurors. Defense lawyers did not cross-examine the accuser. Prior to the trial, the lawyers attacked his account of the attacks. Defense lawyers may have chosen to not cross-examine due to the fact that the judge threatened to allow the jury to find out about Avery’s plea.

According to the Edge, the jury did not “hear the witness say he had also been raped by his fifth-grade teacher from the parish school, as he alleged in his 2010 grand jury testimony.

“One juror fought back tears as the witness described closed-door “sessions” with Avery.”

The Edge also noted that “The young man – who has brooding eyes, a buzz cut and closely-cropped facial hair – came to court in a dark suit and tie. Prosecutors earlier showed school photographs of him as a sunny, slightly-built boy in a parochial school uniform and as an altar boy, sporting a floor-length white cassock and gold cross.”

According to the young man, Avery put on church music, made him do a striptease and then engaged in mutual oral sex and masturbation in the anteroom inside St. Jerome’s Church in northeastern Philadelphia. He did not tell anyone until years later. According to his testimony “I thought I did something wrong – and it’s a priest. I didn’t think anyone would believe me.”

Front: Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Bader Gingsburg. Rear: Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito Kagan

Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182 (2012) is the official name of the case. The State of Arizona is suing to enforce Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which Governor Jan Brewer signed on April 23, 2010, making it an Arizona misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to be in Arizona without a green card, authorized state and local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration laws and created penalties for sheltering, hiring or transporting illegal immigrants. Specifically, the law required police to check immigration status of anyone being detained for a crime or just suspected of being an illegal, required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, bar illegals from seeking work in public places (as in sites on street corners where men or women stand around waiting for someone to offer them day labor), and allowed arrests without warrants on suspicion of any deportable crime.

The Obama administration cried foul. According to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power…to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The “immigration laws” passed by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1870 all dealt with naturalization. The first law limiting immigration was passed in 1875. It and the laws of 1891, 1892, 1903, 1906, 1917 and 1918 all dealt with “undesirable” immigrants, specifically, Asians. The first real immigration law was passed in 1921, limiting immigrants from any country to 3% of the number of people from that country living in the United States in 1910. The next major immigration law was designed to keep out European Jews. There have been a total of 22 Federal laws passed dealing with immigration and naturalization.

To this day, being in the United States “illegally” is a misdemeanor.

The Feds object to Arizona SB1070 because it treads on Federal jurisdiction in a matter which effects all fifty states. The also do not want local law enforcement getting in the way of the Border Patrol and most of Arizona’s local law enforcement doesn’t want to. To them, the task of enforcing Federal law is an unnecessary burden on already overtaxed police departments and sheriff’s offices.

State Senator Russell Pearce, who was defeated in a recall election in November, pushed the law because his son was shot by an illegal immigrant years ago. Governor Brewer signed it because of “headless corpses” in the Arizona desert. They sold the idea to Arizona residents as a way to stop drug crime, not as a way to end illegal immigration. Since Arizona SB 1070 was passed, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah have passed similar laws. Portions of them will be effected by the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in this case.

The states have claimed that these laws are necessary because the Obama administration isn’t doing its job protecting our border. They were all passed by Republican legislatures. No one ever made this much fuss over lack of border protection when a Republican was in the White House. The Obama administration’s record on border protection and arrest and deportation of illegals is impressive. A half-million potential crossers were stopped at the border, another half-million have been arrested and deported, and most importantly, the administration set up a network that can be accessed by any law enforcement agency in the country so that illegals who commit crimes do not simply cross state lines and get away. They have also greatly expanded the verification service for employers.

The issue that will be heard in oral arguments this week is jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction over immigration – the individual states or the Federal government? The Constitution did not specifically address immigration because our founding fathers did not foresee a time when we would want to limit the number of immigrants coming to America. They also didn’t envision the United States including Hawaii and Alaska and having 311 million citizens.

The stupidest piece of propaganda to come out of the immigration battle says that Obama was elected with the illegal votes of illegal immigrants. To the right wing, that explains McCain losing by 9.5 million votes. There are 11.5 million illegals. The “illegal immigrant vote” is also the driver behind the new voter ID laws which are also making their way through the Federal court system. There’s only one thing wrong with their “logic” – if you take the vote statistics from the 2008 election, deduct a number from Obama’s votes equal to the number of illegals in the state, he would still have won. Obama would have lost 42 electoral votes, but the total would have been 323-215 instead of 365-173. Even if every one of the illegal immigrants in America right down to the smallest child had voted for Obama, they would not be the reason he won.

As in all Supreme Court cases, there will be oral arguments this week which will not be televised. There will be endless dissection of the arguments by commentators and analysts on the news programs and it will be weeks, if not months before we know the Court’s ruling.

This one should provide a better gauge of the Court than the Affordable Care Act ruling will. The conservative justices are supposed to be absolute sticklers for the Constitution, unlike those “activist” liberal justices. But the Constitution and the entire history of immigration legislation lays jurisdiction clearly in the Congress. If the Court should rule in favor of the State of Arizona, posterity will have its proof that this is one of the most biased Supreme Courts in our history.

Related articles

• Supreme Court faces test with Arizona and illegal immigrants(bangordailynews.com)

  ---

• Supreme Court to hear Arizona immigration case this week – MiamiHerald.com(miamiherald.com)

  ---

• Arizona’s illegal immigrants adapt to life under a crackdown(staradvertiser.com)

  ---

• The Arizona Immigration Law is a Constitutional Nightmare(usnews.com)

  ---

• Seattle Times: Strike Down SB 1070(lawprofessors.typepad.com)

  ---

Both McCloskey, 55, and Johnston, 22, are transsexual, and both deny that they are involved in the bomb threats. According to McCloskey “We have absolutely nothing to do with (the threats), except for wanting the people who are making the threats caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Whoever is doing this is a lunatic.”

Both of them have surrendered their computers for study and will appear before the grand jury.

Johnston stated “I’m very afraid, but I’m as confident as any innocent person can be in this country.” So far, it is not clear if anyone else has been ordered to appear at the grand jury, and the coujple did not know of any other subpoenas. The US Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the case.

McCloskey believed that her and Johnston’s names were given to the authorities due to an ongoing legal dispute between Johnston and the university. According to Pittsburgh Live:

The university in January expelled Johnston, a junior computer science student, from Pitt-Johnstown this year and charged him with indecent exposure after he used a men’s locker room. His birth certificate identifies him as female though he is undergoing hormone therapy.

Johnston is appealing the expulsion to Pitt Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg and is awaiting trial on the criminal charges. He said he filed a civil lawsuit and complaints with several human relations commissions against the university.

“They already had this issue going on. Why not kill an extra bird with one stone?” Johnston said.

After their mother died, the two grew close and began an incestuous relationship. The two have insisted that their love is no different than any other form of love, but it should be noted that two of their children are described as being disabled.

The two took their case to the courts, and finally as high as the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that German has every right to ban incest.

According to the BBC “their lawyer argued that there is also a greater risk when disabled people have children, or with older women, but such circumstances are not banned.”

It does appear that the rates of disability with children born of an incestuous relationship is much higher than with those who are disabled or among older mothers. Take note of this case all those who love to claim that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to brothers and sisters marrying.

George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman’s attorneys have withdrawn from the case after having not had any contact with their client for two days. According to Hal Uhrig, one of the attorneys,“On Sunday, we lost track of George, in that he would not return our calls. Craig Sonner “I’ve lost contact with him at this point.” Both have said that they felt it would be unethical for them to continue to be his lawyers.

Zimmerman has, apparently, contacted Sean Hannity of FOX News and the Special Prosecutor in the case without contact with the attorneys. Uhrig said that “We were a bit astonished.” Sonner did say that he would be willing to represent Zimmerman again if he got in touch with the lawyers. Zimmerman has been in hiding since the shooting of Trayvon Martin. It is not unheard of for lawyers to communicate with clients via the phone, but apparently Zimmerman has decided to not talk to his attorneys.

Ohio

John Reed is not denying that he shot and killed his long time partner Jeffrey E. Caldwell, but his lawyer is saying that Reed was acting in self defense. The 54-year-old “informed officers that he had been in an argument with his roommate/life partner and the argument turned violent,” according to the police. Bail has been set at $250,000.

Reed “stated (that Caldwell) had been beating him, and he was fearing for his life. He grabbed his .22-caliber revolver and as (Caldwell) cornered him in the bathtub, he shot (Caldwell),” the report says.

The Dispatch reports that:

In a 911 call reporting the shooting, Reed told a dispatcher that he had just shot his roommate because “He was killing me, he was trying to kill me.”

He later told the dispatcher that Caldwell had chased him into the bathroom and thrown him against a wall before the shooting.

Defense attorney Terry K. Sherman informed Pollitt that his client “has a better case of self-defense than George Zimmerman.” Sherman also said that Reed was being attacked and did not fire until he was cornered in the bathroom, where the police did find the gun.

While Spadaccini was kept out of sight in a holding cell, his alleged victims – in school uniforms – and their parents were in court waiting for a confession that did not come.

“He needs a bullet in the head,” said one disgruntled man.

Spadaccini has been jailed on $2 million bail since being arrested Sept. 19 and charged with a battery of sex and morals crimes.

“The evidence in our case is strong, and we’ll be prepared whether the trial is now or four months from now,” Assistant District Attorney Joseph McGlynn after the hearing.

The Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests or SNAP issued a statement that said:

We are hopeful that this trial will bring healing to the victims of Louis Spadaccini. It is very rare that victims of childhood sexual abuse are given a chance to have their day in court , and while it may be difficult for them to go over the sexual violence inflicted on them by this alleged predator, we remain optimistic that hearing the truth become public will prove cathartic.

These brave victims deserve applause for coming forward and protecting other children from being abused by this coach. We hope others who may have seen, suspected, or suffered crimes by Spadaccini will come forward and add their voices to those of these young men.

The charges include gross indecency, indecent assault on a male, sexual assault, unlawfully committing a gross indecency and unlawfully assaulting with intent to commit an indictable offense.

Crown attorney Trina Simms informed the court that she was awaiting the transfer of more charges from Nova Scotia. Those new charges involve an already known alleged victim.

This is the problem in Maryland where a lesbian couple are suing for divorce. The two were married in California back in 2008, and sued for divorce in 2010, but in Maryland. They were informed that their state does not recognize their marriage. However:

Kansas City News notes:

“If you’re validly married somewhere else, the rule in Maryland is your marriage is going to be respected in Maryland, and that’s what we’re asking the court to do here,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.

Judges in Maryland have been inconsistent about granting divorces for gay couples. Lawyers said judges have granted divorces for about half a dozen gay couples, but their clients and at least two other couples were denied. As a result, some couples are waiting for a ruling from Maryland’s high court before filing for divorce, the lawyers said.

The ruling may not matter for very long since this January same-sex marriage is suppose to start. That is, of course, if they can get 56,000 valid signatures by June 30th. The Maryland Marriage Alliance claims that they have collected 20,000.

Current TV has filed their own suit against Keith Olbermann saying that they had the right to fire the man “rather than continuing to pay a princely sum while receiving a pauper’s performance.” Olbermann filed suit yesterday asking for up to $70 million. Current TV’s suit claims that Olbermann “completely shut himself off from the rest of the network.” They provided emails that they claim bolster their allegations.

According to The Daily Beast ”after a problem with an unspecified employee during an appearance by Michael Moore on his show, Olbermann wrote Joel Hyatt, Al Gore’s cofounder at Current: ‘Give me a name so I know which of them to kill with my bare hands.’”

Olbermann responded in a statement that “The Mets put Andres Torres on the DL today. That seems to have as much relevance to my lawsuit as the Current counterclaim I just read.” Patty Glaser, Olbermann’s lawyer and former lawyer for Conan O’Brien, stated “No merit, no defense—in our view, no problem. As Keith said, it should be subtitled ‘How to Try to Pound the Table … and Miss.’”

Principal Randy Gebhardt and the Wayne Local Schools are accuse of violating Couch’s First Amendment rights by forcing him to turn the shirt inside out last April when he wore it for the National Day of Silence, and then refused to allow him to wear it later.

In the lawsuit, Olbermann states “After being enticed to leave MSNBC and come to Current with promise of editorial control, freedom from corporate influence and the professional support to produce a high-caliber political commentary show of the type his viewers have come to expect, Keith Olbermann was disheartened to discover Al Gore, Joel Hyatt and the management of Current are no more than dilettantes portraying entertainment industry executives.”

He also claimed that the public termination last week was “the latest in a series of increasingly erratic and unprofessional actions undertaken by Current’s senior management.” Olbermann has claimed that Current is basically broken and dysfunctional.

TMZ reports that “In the suit, Keith lists the following gripes with the network:”

– broadcasting ads containing Keith’s image without his consent
– using guest hosts for “Countdown” without Keith’s approval
– refusing to give Keith editorial control over special election coverage
– disclosing the confidential terms of his contract
– linking Keith’s name and goodwill with corporate endorsements without his consent
– disparaging Keith publicly
– refusing Keith’s request to stream segments from his show on his website
– refusing to invest resources in the show

Olbermann’s ratings have been slowly sinking as he has taken an increasingly angry tone. The bad news for Al Gore is that, if Olbermann’s departure from Current results in the network’s ratings plummeting, the network could be pulled off of some cable providers.

Keri Flood worked for ABM Janitorial Services-Northeast, the company that cleaned the banks. According to her suit, the company treated her well until they found out that her partner was a woman and then she was fired. Both Bank of America and ABM have stated that the allegations are not true.

House Speaker John Boehner has been hit several times for squandering money in defending DOMA. He hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to try and keep DOMA defended after the Obama Administration cut back on defending the law. So far, he has had trouble winning any cases which have made it clear that DOMA is discriminatory.

The AP reported that:

Police gunned down 17-year-old James Brissette and 40-year-old Ronald Madison, who were both unarmed, and wounded four others on Sept. 4, 2005, less than a week after the storm devastated New Orleans. To cover it up, the officers planted a gun, fabricated witnesses and falsified reports. Defense attorneys have indicated they will appeal.

The rest of the AP report can be read here.

“Solely because of DOMA and its unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples,” the lawsuit states, “these Plaintiffs are being denied the immigration rights afforded to other similarly situated binational couples.” Were the Plaintiffs opposite-sex couples, the suit says, “the federal government would recognize the foreign spouse as an ‘immediate relative’ of a United States citizen, thereby allowing the American spouse to petition for an immigrant visa for the foreign spouse, and place [them] on the path to lawful permanent residence and citizenship.”

Included in the suit are Frances Herbert and her wife Takako Ueda, who is from Japan. The two married a year ago, but now Ueda faces deportation because the Federal Government does not recognize same-sex marriage. They currently reside in Dummerston, VT. Three of the other couples reside in New York while one resides in Connecticut.

Salemi’s lawyer Derek Smith stated “He not only threatened her soul, but he also threatened her livelihood. He thought praying might cure her of her sexuality, but she is someone who didn’t need to be saved.”

Salemi quit the restaurant in 2007, after six years. The jury ordered Globokar and his retaurants to fork over some $1.2 million in punitive damages and some $400,000 in compensatory damages to Salemi. Globokar once owned six Mexican restaurants in Manhattan, but faced constant accusations of telling his employees who did not share his personal religious beliefs that they were going to Hell.

Via NY Post

Well, Maverick didn’t give up. He checked on his rights as a student, and demanded to wear the shirt again this upcoming National Day of Silence. He asked repeatedly and got the same answer- ‘no, and if you do, you will be suspended’.

Maverick didn’t stop there, he went to Lambda Legal, and “On January 24, 2012, Lambda Legal sent an educational letter to the school, something we commonly do in cases like this, reminding school officials that students are protected under the First Amendment. The School Board refused to change its position, arguing that Maverick’s t-shirt is ‘sexual’ and ‘indecent.’”

They have filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio asking that “the court to issue an injunction prohibiting the school from further interference with Maverick’s First Amendment rights.”

This is not just about Freedom of Speech, but Freedom of Religion. Maverick was expressing his views of Christianity, and that is something that many Fundamentalist Christians want to restrict. They want to make sure that people aren’t able to express their views on Christianity because disagreeing with their views opens up the idea that they could be wrong.

Smedley, who is 45, admitted to administering the silicone injections to women in hotel rooms in DC, Baltimore, and other cities between 2003 and 2011, when she was finally busted. She was paid more than $200,000 for the injections over that period of time.

According to the Washington Examiner “Smedley also told women who received buttocks implants that the silicone was medical grade, but it actually was meant to be used for metal or plastic lubrication, as an additive for paint or in furniture or auto polishes, court documents say.”

Smedley stored the silicone in unlabeled water jugs, and used super glue and cotton balls to prevent the silicone from leaking out after the injection. She worked with Martin Freeman, a former DC cop, who provided security at the hotels where Smedley performed her “operations”.

The police only found out about this after an exotic dancer in Baltimore was hospitalized for shortness of breath after receiving the injections. Doctors discovered silicone in her lungs. The dancer had received some nine injections in each buttocks and other injections in her hips.

Social pressures on us women do nasty, terrible things to our minds, bodies and souls. For us, the pressure to look a certain way, behave a certain way, and dress a certain way often means that we have this pressure that hurts and wounds us to the point that we end up engaging in risky behaviors that can get us killed.

For some, that pressure means we drink, or have rampant sex, or do other things which are meant to stop us from feeling bad about how we look. For others, it means having tons of plastic surgery, and if we cannot afford that- well, there’s always those like Smedley who will prey upon that.

For transsexual, transgender and intersexual women, this pressure can be far, far worse because we already have body image issues. We don’t look right in certain aspects, so we often feel even more pressure to conform to the way that society says that we should look as women. We want to get rid of any hint of maleness in our bodies, and that often means taking extreme measures.

Women come in all shapes and forms. Like all the women in my immediate family, I am curved and a bit on the well built side. I’m taller than my family, but not the tallest of the whole family. My great-grandmother would have been taller than I am. She was 6 foot tall.

The time has come that we start rejecting the whole idea of women being forced into Fembot moulds and allowed to be ourselves. Then, perhaps, people like Smedley won’t prey on women’s insecurities any more.

SWAN wrote:

“SWAN is pleased to learn of Judge Kravitz’s Friday ruling in support of our claim that the DOD and VA have failed to provide adequate information to the public about how these agencies approach cases of sexual violence,” said Anu Bhagwati, Executive Director of the Service Women’s Action Network and former marine captain. “Since the first step in devising solutions to military sexual violence is understanding the root of the problem, the public needs this information in order to ensure meaningful reform.”

It is estimated that over 19,000 service members are sexually assaulted each year. In order to fully understand where the biggest flaws in the current military justice system surrounding sexual violence lie, the organizations are seeking access to key data in the thousands of reports filed, including where reports were made and how reports were handled.

“It’s extremely troubling that the government is dragging its feet in the fight to end sexual assault and harassment in our military,” said Sandra Park, staff attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “It is essential that the truth about military sexual violence is exposed so we can move forward to better support victims and prevent incidents in the future.”

Judge Mark R. Kravitz ruled that government officials from both Departments did not conduct adequate searches to respond to portions of the FOIA request, or did not adequately document those searches. In one example, the Army Crime Records Center claimed it couldn’t provide records about “sexual assault” because its records are organized by specific criminal offenses, not under the generic heading of “sexual assault.”

“‘Sexual assault’ is easily read as encompassing rape and other non-consensual sexual crimes defined in the Army’s offense codes,” Judge Kravitz wrote in his order. “The fact that the agency was unwilling to read the Plaintiffs’ request liberally to include such terms seems to be almost willful blindness.”

“When a highly respected federal judge accuses the U.S. Army of ‘almost willful blindness,’ it’s clear that the government is stonewalling the public,” said Doug Lieb, a law student intern with Yale Law School’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic, which represents the requesters. “Instead of releasing the records and addressing the problem of sexual violence, the military and the VA are trying to bury the issue under reams of paper in court. We hope this ruling makes clear they won’t get away with it.”

Judge Kravitz ordered the departments to provide additional documentation related to the insufficient searches by May 15.

”In light of Judge Kravitz’s order, we urge the military agencies to move forward in good faith and search for and release all records responsive to our requests so that we may learn the true extent of military sexual assault,” said Sandra Staub, legal director for the ACLUCT.

The molestation began when the girl was nine.

She told her mother about the first attack, but nothing was ever done about it. Prosecutor Robert Sadd praised the quick thinking of the young victim. She used her Nintendo DS’ camera to capture the assault. Fisher later admitted to two offenses of sexual assault that occurred in January 2010 and November 2011. Fisher has not only been jailed, but has been restricted from contact with children under the age of 16 for the next ten years.

Defense lawyer Steven Dyble stated that Fisher admitted the crimes and had not committed any similar offenses in the past nor served any prison time before. Fisher also admitted to being attracted to girls in their early teens.

Detective Constable Annabelle Bunn of the Suffolk Police praised the girl saying that “Her quick thinking in using her games console to take a photograph of him touching her provided indisputable proof of what had happened. She was brave enough to come forward and report the incident and give us a full and accurate account of what had gone on. Although Fisher initially denied assaulting her, when confronted with the image he had no choice but to concede he had done exactly as she had reported.”

Judge Amy Berman Jackson

District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that the Federal Election Commission did not have the authority to permit groups to remain donor-anonymous when funding certain types of political campaign ads. These ads do not advocate for a particular candidate for federal office, but support issues that are easily related to particular candidates.

In 2007, the FEC ruled that corporations and non-profits could keep their donor lists secret for such ads. That regulation was a response to a Supreme Court ruling that gave more leeway to groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS on pre-election ads. But Judge Jackson has ruled that the regulations should not have been written because the FEC does not have the power to overrule legislation, in this case the laws passed in Congress concerning campaign financing. The response to any Supreme Court ruling concerning campaign financing should have been a change in the laws, not a change in Executive Branch regulations. The Citizens United ruling gave certain groups the right to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns and keep their sources a secret, leading to the establishment of groups with hyper-patriotic names that are fronts for special interest groups. These rulings have favored the money coming from conservative and libertarian sources like the various foundations funded by the Koch brothers.

It was Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland who brought the suit against the FEC last year. He has proposed a bill that would require more detailed disclosure for campaign financing, known as the Disclose Act. In her 31-page ruling, Jackson said the FEC could not change McCain-Feingold, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. She said it is up to Congress to change the law, not the agency. The FEC was created in the 1970s in response to the Watergate scandal and sets regulations for campaign financing and enforces violations. The commission has been unclear about its function with all the rulings coming down from the Supreme Court that cut into McCain-Feingold without replacing its provisions. McCain-Feingold required that all groups spending more than $10,000 a year had to file reports with the commission, but those groups claimed that the filings would be an “administrative burden.” The Supreme Court has gone along with this “sorry, we can’t be bothered” defense of secrecy. Opponents of such Supre-PAC secrecy say that non-disclosure helps to hide the true motives behind the ads.

The media is doing everything it can to expose the sources of money and influence in our politics. We need to know who is involved in ALEC since it appears to be writing our laws and just handing them to conservative legislators to introduce and pass. We need to know how much money the Koch brothers are spending in Wisconsin to defame Democrats and destroy labor unions. We need to know the end game in all the laws which are limiting voter rights and the rights of women in America. As long as the people donating the money can remain in the shadows, we cannot see what they are trying to achieve. Judge Jackson has given us our first victory against the billions of dollars being spent to create an oligarchy, a government of the rich, for the rich and by the rich, in what is supposed to be a nation of, for and by the people.

Related articles

• Koch Brothers, Chamber of Commerce Face Possible Campaign Donation Disclosure After Ruling (the2012scenario.com)
• Citizens United (theobamacrat.com)
• We Need to Talk About Citizens United… (uculr.wordpress.com)
• A Better Way to Buy Politicians (campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com)
• McCain: Super-PACs will “destroy” political process, and it’s the Supreme Court’s fault (hotair.com)
• Former Sen. Feingold: Super-PACs making Supreme Court ‘squeamish’ (thehill.com)
• The Federal Election Commission and Citizens United (themoderatevoice.com)
• Anthony Gregory: Colbert & Stewart Get Last Laughs on Super PAC (huffingtonpost.com)

The Washington Blade notes that:

The three-judge panel will be made up of Chief Judge Sandra Lynch as well as Judges Juan Torruella and Michael Boudin. Lynch was appointed by a Democrat, former President Bill Clinton, while Torruella was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan and Boudin was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush.

Of course, both cases will be defended by former George W. Bush Solicitor General Paul Clement. The defense of the law will be funded with money waylayed for it by House Speaker John Beohner. So far, Boehner has diverted about $1.5 million to defend DOMA and hire Clement. The Justice Department dropped the defense of DOMA last year.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court

As expected, the Walker administration has filed for the State Supreme Court to immediately hear their appeal of the two lower court rulings and the new voter photo ID law is unconstitutional. One judge held the challenge over for full trial next month, while the other just shut it down. Neither case pushed the challenge into the next level, citing how the law requiring photo ID to vote was followed by the shutting down of DMV offices in areas which have historically voted Democratic. That action, an executive act by the Walker administration, is the proof that the law was politically motivated, not fueled by any evidence of any real voter fraud that needs to be addressed by this ID law.

The initial challenge to the law was decided purely on the Wisconsin State Constitution, so it will not be possible to take this challenge into the Federal Court system. There is no citation of Federal law being used because Wisconsin’s “one person, one vote” Constitutional clause is more emphatic than the Federal law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is majority conservative, with one Justice, David Prosser, currently facing ethics and possible criminal charges for physically attacking another justice. The Court is expected to take up the case immediately because of the time element – with the party primaries on April 3 and the recall elections of Governor Walker, Lt. Gov. Kleefisch, three sitting Republican state senators and replacement of one who just resigned.

Aahhh- Wisconsin in the spring…..

Related articles

• Wisconsin Voter ID Law On Hold (lezgetreal.com)
• Wisconsin Voter ID case goes straight to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. (althouse.blogspot.com)
• Wisconsin As “Waterloo”? (lezgetreal.com)
• Things Just Keep Getting More Interesting In Wisconsin… (lezgetreal.com)
• Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Prosser charged with ethics violation (twitchy.com)
• In Wisconsin, Judges Can Have Opinions, Journalists Can’t (lezgetreal.com)
• Judge Halts Restrictive Wisconsin Photo ID Law (news.firedoglake.com)

The Supreme Court of the United States

In thirty years of being married to an employee of the Federal Courts, I learned one thing – never bet on a Supreme Court decision. You may think you know what the justices think, but they will never fail to surprise you.

First thing about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act hearings going on this week…they may not void the whole law. The court has chosen to lump together a set of objections to the law and hear all the arguments at one time. That is why they are holding three sessions of oral arguments, two hours each. They are addressing more than one issue.

Supreme Court does not function the way other courts do. There are very few instances where any witnesses are called. There is a minimum of personal presentations on any case. They are deciding whether or not a lower court made the right call on a case, not hearing the case from beginning to end. On this issue, the lower courts have been divided in their decisions. Ninety percent or more of any case is presented in written form, in briefs filed by the parties who are appealing or fighting the appeal of a lower court case. Outside interested parties can also file briefs trying to influence the court’s decision. Frankly, most of the work is done by the Supreme Court justices’ clerks, who have to read all that material and pick out the facts and relevant information from the mountain of legalese. Oral arguments are simply a chance to summarize the arguments.

As for those protesters, including Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, well, they are wasting their time and breath. They are playing to the cameras and their political bases and their supporters, not to the Court. The nine Supremes don’t give a shit what’s going on on the street.

Here’s the issues being argued and decided:

The Anti-injunction Act:  It is a law passed in 1867 that says a tax cannot be challenged until someone has actually paid it. It is part of the ACA argument because the opposition is claiming the penalties for not having health insurance are unconstitutional. If the Court upholds the Anti-injunction Act, the penalties for not having health insurance cannot be fought in the courts until someone gets a bill for them, which may never happen or minimally won’t happen until someone goes to the hospital with no health insurance and the IRA finds out. If the law is upheld, it pushes the matter of the no-insurance penalties back for at least three years.

This is being argued by someone outside the battle, attorney Robert Long, who was appointed by the SCOTUS to argue this. Neither the supporters nor opponents of the ACA are using this argument. The involvement of this issue is based on the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals use of it in September to put off issuing a ruling on the constitutionality of the whole law.

The Individual Mandate:  This is the big issue to the right wing, who claim that government cannot tell people to buy a product from a private company. An individual mandate is part of the health care laws in both Massachusetts and Hawaii (everyone forgets about Hawaii), and the laws in those states have not been challenged in the same way the ACA has been. The administration, and the Democrats who wrote the law, claim that they have the authority to do so under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the right to regulate and govern interstate commerce. The opponents argue that the decision not to buy health insurance is an inactivity, not an activity, and therefore cannot be regulated by the government. The supporters contend that the inactivity adversely impacts others, particularly the medical service providers who are stuck with unpaid bills and the people who do pay their bills and have insurance because their costs are increased to cover the unpaid bills. Eliminating the individual mandate would effectively remove the part of the law that is designed to lower overall costs, removing from the insurance pool those who pay premiums but use very little of the covered services. The more people in the pool, the fewer people using the services, the lower the premiums. There is no viable “fix” that either party has been able to come up with. The Republicans who are now fighting this are the ones who have been proposing it for decades. Analysts believe that if the individual mandate is cut, and the Congress has the votes to do so, the decision could open the door for the public option – Medicare for all – that the Republicans killed two years ago.

Severabiltiy:  Can the individual mandate be “severed” from the whole law leaving the rest of the law intact. This one is vital to the survival of the important parts of the law, the elimination of policies that keep people from having insurance because of pre-existing conditions, the elimination of limits on benefits, the inclusion of more young adults on their parents’ insurance, the inclusion of basic preventative and diagnostic procedures with no co-pays. This one is the tricky issue, because the Department of Justice is arguing that if the individual mandate falls, the rest of the law becomes untenable, while the opponents want the killing of the whole bill anyway. The 11^thCircuit Court of Appeals found that the individual mandate could be killed while retaining the rest of the law.

The Expansion of Medicaid:  The ACA expanded Medicaid to everyone earning under 133% of the federal poverty level, $14,000 per individual, in 2014. Medicaid is a state-federal co-program and right now, states have to cover certain demographic groups, not everyone within a certain income level. The states hate this provision. They are fighting what it would cost them. We have already seen states cutting into Medicaid coverage, sometimes with deadly results as in Arizona where the state terminated all services for transplants. States have also cut out funding to Planned Parenthood, though is it a Medicaid-approved provider for vital services for women’s health. The DoJ is arguing that the rule is not a burden to the states because they can do what they do already – pull out.

Making assumptions about how the Court will decide is a useless exercise in speculations. Yes, there are four justices assumed to be highly conservative and four assumed to be highly liberal and one who wildcards every case. Justice Kennedy is probably the most “letter of the Constitution” person on the bench. But, the court is deciding the wisdom of the lower courts, more than it is deciding the wisdom of the law. The media analysis is focusing on the arguments about the individual mandate, and not giving much air time to the other issues. They are arguing nitpicky little nuances of law, the Constitution and prior court decisions, as well as the broad issues. Trying to figure out what the Justices think based on their questions to the attorneys is futile. Frankly, there are justices who just like to ask questions to make people think they are deep thinkers and one who never asks questions, Justice Clarenc Thomas.

The Court has indicated that it will issue a ruling fairly quickly, by Supreme Court standards. That could mean a week, a month, six months. There have been very few times when the Court is under any kind of pressure to issue an immediate ruling and this case isn’t the kind that needs an immediate decision, like Gore v. Bush. All we can do is wait.

Well, there is something else we can do….elect enough Democrats to wipe out the Republican majority in the House and cripple the Republican filibuster power in the Senate. Only with a Democratic Congress can we sort out the convolutions of the ACA and finally get the kind of health care system the plurality of us, and the majority of businesses, want – Medicare for everyone.

Related articles

• Second Day of Supreme Court Argument Takes Aim at ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate (greenmountainscribes.wordpress.com)
• Teabaggers Rally Outside Of Supreme Court As “Obamacare” Repeal Case Begins (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Supreme Court, Affordable Care Act: Is the mandate constitutional? (dailykos.com)
• Supreme Court likely to reach merits of individual mandate in Affordable Care Act (dailykos.com)
• Justices Seem Skeptical of Individual Mandate in Supreme Court Health Care Arguments (legaltimes.typepad.com)
• Today Was ‘Train Wreck’ for Health Reform Law (newser.com)
• ACA will survive even if the individual mandate falls (medcitynews.com)
• Do You Think the Individual Mandate is Constitutional? (thedailybeast.com)
• A guide to the health-care case (economist.com)

Prostitutes will still not be allowed to advertise their services in public places, however.

The court agreed with two out of three rulings by Superior Court Judge Susan G. Himel. She ruled that the three provisions in the Criminal Code pertaining to prostitution should be struck down. The appeals court said that the two that they struck down were unconstitutional in their current form.

According to the CBC:

The court said it will strike the word “prostitution” from the definition of “common bawdy-house,” as it applies to Section 210 of the Criminal Code, which otherwise prevents prostitutes from offering services out of fixed indoor locations such as brothels or their homes.
12-month delay

However, the court stayed their decision for twelve months so that the Parliament could have a chance to draft new laws to replace those provision. The CBC also reported that “The court will also clarify that the prohibition of living off the avails of prostitution – as spelled out in Section 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code – should pertain only to those who do so ‘in circumstances of exploitation.’” Those changes will not take place for thirty days.

Alan Young, the lawyer who represented the women who brought the suit, stated “I am thrilled that the Court of Appeal has done the right thing. They may not have gone as far as the Superior Court judge, but when you actually look at the result, they’ve done the right thing in terms of modifying the law so that sex workers will not face the same risks they face on a daily basis.”