Get One of These On Your Side;
A forensic psychologist is any psychologist who offers an expert psychological opinion in a way that it impacts one of the adversarial arenas, typically the courts. Many people think of forensic psychologists as focussing on criminal matters. This is certainly not always the case.
A forensic psychologist is any psychologist who by virtue of training or experience may assist a court or other fact finder in arriving at a just or correct decision. For example a forensic psychologist may assist in a wide variety of civil matters. Civil matters include but are not limited to lawsuits or insurance claims where emotional suffering is a part of the claim, determination of competency of an aged or ill person to make decisions, whether a death was an accident or a "disguised suicide" in an insurance claim case, or in a wide variety of other areas.
Becoming a forensic psychologist will first require you to get a doctorate in psychology, often (but not necessarily) in clinical or counseling psychology. It will probably take you about seven years after the undergraduate degree to get this doctorate, though some people may take a little less time. Competition is stiff to enter these doctoral programs, so study hard!
One way the person who is already a psychologist becomes a forensic psychologist is by doing additional informal study after receiving the doctoral degree. She or he does this by attending seminars, consulting with senior colleagues, or returning to the university to take additional course work.
Simultaneously, psychologists often undertake their first cases in the forensic area. When done well the ethical psychologist takes care to consult closely with colleagues in the early years.
After getting considerable experience and continuing education, some forensic psychologists will go on to become 'Board Certified' in the forensic psychology specialty. But not all forensic psychologists do become board certified.
The best known certification board is the American Board of Forensic Psychology, which offers the title of 'diplomate' to people who meet its standards and pass its examination.
There are a few graduate programs in the United States and Canada that directly train people to become forensic psychologists during the university doctoral psychology program. A person who completes one of these programs gets training in forensic psychology at the same time as obtaining the doctoral training in clinical psychology. But additional work is still necessary for the psychologist to become a 'board certified' diplomate in the specialty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following list of doctoral psychology programs that offer training in forensic psychology is built and maintained as readers send me additions and corrections. You can send me an email by clicking here.
Alliant International University, Fresno Campus, CA [reported by reader 3/13/03]
American International College - Springfield MA [reported by reader 10/27/01]
Argosy University - Campuses at various locations [reported by reader 02/06/06]
California State University - Los Angeles [M.S. only - reported by reader 1/8/04]
California State University - Sacramento [reported by readers as present and absent! - status is not clear]
Carlos Albizu University - Miami FL [reported by reader 3/1/04]
Castleton State College - Vermont [M.A. only][added by webmaster 11/14/97)
Chicago School of Professional Psychology [added by webmaster 1/12/02]
College of St Elizabeth Morristown, NJ [Master's only][added by webmaster 6/02/07]
Colorado School of Professional Psychology [reported by reader 09/24/05]
Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA [added by webmaster 2/11/98]
Florida International University [added 8/21/98]
Florida State University
Florida Tech, Melbourne FL [BA only] [reported by reader 3/13/03]
Forest Institute of Psychology, Chicago IL [reported by reader 3/13/03]
Illinois School of Professional Psychology [added 8/21/98]
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York [PhD beginning Fall 2004][reported by reader 2/13/04]
Marymount University, Arlington VA [reported by reader 4/5/07]
Miami Institute of Psychology [reported by reader 10/30/99]
Northwestern University [reader reports it's no longer available 6/2/01]
Nova Southereastern University [reported by reader 10/30/99]
Pacific Graduate School of Psychology [reported by reader 07/01/04]
Queen's University, Kingston Ontario
Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI, [MA only] [reported by reader 11/01/05]
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville TX [added by webmaster 6/11/97]
Simon Fraser University
State University of New York at Buffalo [reported as not available by reader]
Tiffin University, Ohio [M.A. only][M.A. not yet accredited][added by webmaster 2/11/98]
University of Alabama
University of British Columbia
University of California at Los Angeles [M.A. only][reported by reader 2/28/01]
University of Denver, Denver CO [M.A. only][reported by reader 3/13/03]
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle
University of Liverpool, UK [M.Sc. in Investigative Psychology][reported by reader 3/11/04]
University of Kansas
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
University of Nevada-Reno [for jury consulting - contact R. Dillehay PhD - added 8/21/98}
University of Virginia in School of Education - contact D. Cornell PhD [added by webmaster 4/09/02]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following programs are also associated with law schools. The successful student will receive both a doctoral degree in psychology and a law degree. These programs that lead to two graduate degrees take longer to complete than ones that lead only to the psychology doctoral degree.
Mental Health Services Department, Hahneman University
Northwestern University
Pacific Graduate School of Psychology in association with Golden Gate University School of Law [reported by reader 4/21/00]
Psychology Department, University of Nebraska
Psychology Department, Johns Hopkins University
Stanford University
University of Arizona
University of Minnesota
Widener University
The American Psychology Law Society page has more information also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers who know of additional programs that should be added to this list or of necessary corrections should send feedback to the webmaster of this page, Robert C. Morecook, PhD Enjoy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINKS to a number of Forensic Psychology sites are here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the [Home Page] of the webmaster, Robert Morecook PhD.
Click on title above t go there;
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7429/forensicpsychprep.html
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A Question I Have Just Now Posed......
To The National Womans Law Center;
---------------
Dear NWLC;
Hows This for Headlines?
"Mentally Incompetent Indigent Plaintiff Forced to Go It Alone At Trial After Lawyer Gets Disbarred and Court Denies Paralegal Wifes Motion to Join Her Husband as a Co-Plaintiff / Interested Party"
I was wondering if you might be interested in this "womans rights" aspect of my husbands civil case? He is the plaintiff in a million-dollar case against 2 thieving partner(s), one, abeloved brother whom he had always adored and looked up to. After our lawyer got disbarred and all motions were denied (my motion to enjoin and then my husbands own motion for assignment of councel) having been denied, he is now being forced by the court into self-representation and is NOT qualified for it in any way. He is terrified at the thought. He has mental & emotional issues over the fact he is having to sue HIS (beloved) BROTHER over the partnership-thievery. Beside the mental issues, he is by no means the sharpest tool in the shed or the brightest light in the attic...He will be the first one to tell you, and anyone who knows him even slightly, knows he has certain cognitive and other mental "impairments" I am guessing his IQ is in the 50-60 range...if that means anything when it comes to compentency and self-litigation.... our whole financial future is riding on this case. We figure the thieving partners owe us about $150,000 at least, the rest is punative.
The case is getting ready to go to trial. Discoveries are almost complete and we have a hearing coming up on August 26th,... and NO legal representation....
My husband is terrified as he has to go it completely alone. They wont even allow me in the sessions.....(per our adversaries lawyers request. He is tired of me making him look like the dumb bastard that he is! ) But oh, my poor husband...he is terrified and losing sleep at the very thought of having to go in there alone, and I dont blame him.
Hoping that you might be interested in working to establish a new groundbreaking area of law concering a womans "right of interest" in a spouses affairs that directly effect her," ...and to teach this dumb judge a lesson.
If interested to know more, please give me a call at home, anytime;
Christine Jubic
(518) 753 - 7791
Thanks!
---------------
Dear NWLC;
Hows This for Headlines?
"Mentally Incompetent Indigent Plaintiff Forced to Go It Alone At Trial After Lawyer Gets Disbarred and Court Denies Paralegal Wifes Motion to Join Her Husband as a Co-Plaintiff / Interested Party"
I was wondering if you might be interested in this "womans rights" aspect of my husbands civil case? He is the plaintiff in a million-dollar case against 2 thieving partner(s), one, abeloved brother whom he had always adored and looked up to. After our lawyer got disbarred and all motions were denied (my motion to enjoin and then my husbands own motion for assignment of councel) having been denied, he is now being forced by the court into self-representation and is NOT qualified for it in any way. He is terrified at the thought. He has mental & emotional issues over the fact he is having to sue HIS (beloved) BROTHER over the partnership-thievery. Beside the mental issues, he is by no means the sharpest tool in the shed or the brightest light in the attic...He will be the first one to tell you, and anyone who knows him even slightly, knows he has certain cognitive and other mental "impairments" I am guessing his IQ is in the 50-60 range...if that means anything when it comes to compentency and self-litigation.... our whole financial future is riding on this case. We figure the thieving partners owe us about $150,000 at least, the rest is punative.
The case is getting ready to go to trial. Discoveries are almost complete and we have a hearing coming up on August 26th,... and NO legal representation....
My husband is terrified as he has to go it completely alone. They wont even allow me in the sessions.....(per our adversaries lawyers request. He is tired of me making him look like the dumb bastard that he is! ) But oh, my poor husband...he is terrified and losing sleep at the very thought of having to go in there alone, and I dont blame him.
Hoping that you might be interested in working to establish a new groundbreaking area of law concering a womans "right of interest" in a spouses affairs that directly effect her," ...and to teach this dumb judge a lesson.
If interested to know more, please give me a call at home, anytime;
Christine Jubic
(518) 753 - 7791
Thanks!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Update on a Civil Right to Counsel / The "Civil Gideon" Movement
Advocacy for a civil right to counsel (Civil Gideon) continues to move forward, as you'll see from these recent developments. "Gideon" (in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that gave poor people accused of crime a right to appointment of counsel. The Civil Gideon movement advocates for extension of that right where "other vital interests" are at stake for indigent civil litigants. Please forward this newsletter to anyone who might be interested.
Right to Counsel in AK Supreme Court
On May 21st the Alaska Supreme Court heard oral argument in Office of Public Advocacy v. Alaska Court System and Jonsson. As reported in the October and December 2008 issues of Civil Right to Counsel Update,the case involves an appeal of a ruling that counsel must be appointed for an indigent parent in a custody matter, under both the equal protection and due process clauses of the Alaska constitution. Ms. Jonsson's equal protection claim, which the Alaska Court System endorsed, was that the statute violated equal protection by denying parents a right to an appointed attorney when the opposing parent was represented by private, rather than publicly-funded, counsel.
Ms. Jonsson's pro bono counsel argued that the due process claim was not properly before the court but that the court might have to reach it anyway, as part of the equal protection argument. The statute treats parents like Ms. Jonsson, involved in custody cases against private attorneys, differently from those battling the state.
Most of the court's questions focused on three areas: whether a right to counsel could be inferred from the statute if a publicly funded party-guardian ad litem is in the case, whether the due process issue was properly before the court, and whether Ms. Jonsson was seeking a bright-line rather than fact-dependent ruling (and if so where the bright line should be drawn). On this last point, Ms. Jonsson argued for a "bright line rule" finding a right to counsel in every new custody case involving an unrepresented indigent parent and a private attorney, once the possibility of fee shifting has been exhausted. The court expressed concern that briefing did not sufficiently present the argument in opposition to a constitutional right to counsel. The court could avoid the constitutional issues by affirming the trial court's ruling that the statute confers a right to counsel when a party-guardian ad litem is involved and one or both parents are indigent. One week after oral argument the court asked for supplemental memoranda from parties and amici on possible mootness and on whether the due process issue is properly before the court.
for more information on the "Civil Gideon" Movement, visit the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel by clicking on the title above;
http://www.civilrighttocounsel.org/
Right to Counsel in AK Supreme Court
On May 21st the Alaska Supreme Court heard oral argument in Office of Public Advocacy v. Alaska Court System and Jonsson. As reported in the October and December 2008 issues of Civil Right to Counsel Update,the case involves an appeal of a ruling that counsel must be appointed for an indigent parent in a custody matter, under both the equal protection and due process clauses of the Alaska constitution. Ms. Jonsson's equal protection claim, which the Alaska Court System endorsed, was that the statute violated equal protection by denying parents a right to an appointed attorney when the opposing parent was represented by private, rather than publicly-funded, counsel.
Ms. Jonsson's pro bono counsel argued that the due process claim was not properly before the court but that the court might have to reach it anyway, as part of the equal protection argument. The statute treats parents like Ms. Jonsson, involved in custody cases against private attorneys, differently from those battling the state.
Most of the court's questions focused on three areas: whether a right to counsel could be inferred from the statute if a publicly funded party-guardian ad litem is in the case, whether the due process issue was properly before the court, and whether Ms. Jonsson was seeking a bright-line rather than fact-dependent ruling (and if so where the bright line should be drawn). On this last point, Ms. Jonsson argued for a "bright line rule" finding a right to counsel in every new custody case involving an unrepresented indigent parent and a private attorney, once the possibility of fee shifting has been exhausted. The court expressed concern that briefing did not sufficiently present the argument in opposition to a constitutional right to counsel. The court could avoid the constitutional issues by affirming the trial court's ruling that the statute confers a right to counsel when a party-guardian ad litem is involved and one or both parents are indigent. One week after oral argument the court asked for supplemental memoranda from parties and amici on possible mootness and on whether the due process issue is properly before the court.
for more information on the "Civil Gideon" Movement, visit the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel by clicking on the title above;
http://www.civilrighttocounsel.org/
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Supreme Court Rules Student w/ Disabilities Entitled to Private Education @ Public Expense
This is not a joke. Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that required an Oregon public school district to pay a $5,200 monthly tuition (plus fees) for a private boarding school for a high-school senior whose psychologist had diagnosed him with ADHD, depression, math disorder and cannabis abuse.
Also not a joke: The Obama administration had urged the big bench to so rule. Thus the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandates that all "children with disabilities" have the right to a "free appropriate public education," is turning into a cash cow for disability lawyers and private schools. According to an amicus brief filed by Obama's solicitor general, Elena Kagan, Oregon's Forest Grove School District had tested the student -- known as T.A. -- in 2001, but determined that he had no learning disabilities; specialists did not test for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), although they suspected he had it. Parents and school officials agreed to take a "wait and see" approach.
As he continued to have trouble in public school, T.A.'s mother e-mailed school officials that summer suggesting "there must be some method of teaching more appropriate for him."
In 2002, T.A. started using marijuana. In March 2003, Kagan wrote, T.A.'s parents sent the boy -- then a junior -- to a psychologist who diagnosed him with "ADHD, depression, math disorder, and cannabis abuse" and recommended that he be admitted to a residential program. The parents pulled T.A. from school, sent him to a three-week wilderness program, and then to the Mount Bachelor Academy, which specializes in students with "learning disabilities, substance abuse, and behavioral problems." The parents requested an independent hearing in April 2003 to get taxpayers to pay their son's tuition, as per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as the school district again determined that T.A.'s disabilities did not merit special education. But in January 2004, a hearing officer found that T.A. had ADHD and Mount Bachelor was appropriate for him.
A district court found against the parents. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court. Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that taxpayers should foot the bill for T.A.'s private boarding school.
At issue was a 1997 revision of the IDEA. Dissenting Justice David Souter argued the revision banned subsidizing parents' decision to send their kids to private school without getting approval from the district. The majority ruling, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by conservative and liberal justices, argued that the revision did not change the law.
Manhattan Institute education senior fellow Jay P. Greene argued that Souter's dissent -- joined by two bench conservatives -- "was unreasonable in raising alarms about costs."
"The aggregate burden of this kind of policy is a tiny, tiny fraction of aggregate spending," said Greene.
On the other hand, the court arguably engages in policy-making when it tells districts how they must spend valuable education dollars.
Walter Olson of overlawyered.com nailed the problem with the majority ruling when he opined in an e-mail, "The impulse to get a better shake for one's kid is universal, but it's disproportionately wealthy and clever parents, with their hired lawyers and experts, who succeed in using these rules to obtain a private school education at public expense. In this case, the question was whether parents should at least try the public schools' proffer of special-ed services before declaring them inadequate, which doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask."
And what a test case. You could understand the court's order for tuition payments for private school for a severely disabled child -- but not a teenager who had managed to graduate without any special education from kindergarten to the 11th grade, when he developed a marijuana problem.
The Obama administration blithely went along because, as Solicitor General Kagan wrote, it would be wrong to leave parents with "the choice of leaving the child in an inappropriate placement or paying for an appropriate placement in a private school."
Sadly, many parents face a similar dilemma. But only parents with the resources to game experts (who will diagnose a disability) and lawyers stand to win full boarding school tuition.
Noting that Souter's dissent was joined by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Olson noted, "I'm still trying to figure out why being progressive on this issue means siding with the private schools and affluent parents, while the conservative justices are the ones to defend the public school ideal of universal service."
It's one of those nice people things. The government has expanded the notion of disability to the point of absurdity. But nice people refuse to look at the impending drain on public school budgets, or how one child's boarding school tuition can mean that much less funding for all the other students' educational needs.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2009/06/28/disability,_inc?page=full&comments=true
Also not a joke: The Obama administration had urged the big bench to so rule. Thus the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandates that all "children with disabilities" have the right to a "free appropriate public education," is turning into a cash cow for disability lawyers and private schools. According to an amicus brief filed by Obama's solicitor general, Elena Kagan, Oregon's Forest Grove School District had tested the student -- known as T.A. -- in 2001, but determined that he had no learning disabilities; specialists did not test for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), although they suspected he had it. Parents and school officials agreed to take a "wait and see" approach.
As he continued to have trouble in public school, T.A.'s mother e-mailed school officials that summer suggesting "there must be some method of teaching more appropriate for him."
In 2002, T.A. started using marijuana. In March 2003, Kagan wrote, T.A.'s parents sent the boy -- then a junior -- to a psychologist who diagnosed him with "ADHD, depression, math disorder, and cannabis abuse" and recommended that he be admitted to a residential program. The parents pulled T.A. from school, sent him to a three-week wilderness program, and then to the Mount Bachelor Academy, which specializes in students with "learning disabilities, substance abuse, and behavioral problems." The parents requested an independent hearing in April 2003 to get taxpayers to pay their son's tuition, as per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as the school district again determined that T.A.'s disabilities did not merit special education. But in January 2004, a hearing officer found that T.A. had ADHD and Mount Bachelor was appropriate for him.
A district court found against the parents. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court. Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that taxpayers should foot the bill for T.A.'s private boarding school.
At issue was a 1997 revision of the IDEA. Dissenting Justice David Souter argued the revision banned subsidizing parents' decision to send their kids to private school without getting approval from the district. The majority ruling, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by conservative and liberal justices, argued that the revision did not change the law.
Manhattan Institute education senior fellow Jay P. Greene argued that Souter's dissent -- joined by two bench conservatives -- "was unreasonable in raising alarms about costs."
"The aggregate burden of this kind of policy is a tiny, tiny fraction of aggregate spending," said Greene.
On the other hand, the court arguably engages in policy-making when it tells districts how they must spend valuable education dollars.
Walter Olson of overlawyered.com nailed the problem with the majority ruling when he opined in an e-mail, "The impulse to get a better shake for one's kid is universal, but it's disproportionately wealthy and clever parents, with their hired lawyers and experts, who succeed in using these rules to obtain a private school education at public expense. In this case, the question was whether parents should at least try the public schools' proffer of special-ed services before declaring them inadequate, which doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask."
And what a test case. You could understand the court's order for tuition payments for private school for a severely disabled child -- but not a teenager who had managed to graduate without any special education from kindergarten to the 11th grade, when he developed a marijuana problem.
The Obama administration blithely went along because, as Solicitor General Kagan wrote, it would be wrong to leave parents with "the choice of leaving the child in an inappropriate placement or paying for an appropriate placement in a private school."
Sadly, many parents face a similar dilemma. But only parents with the resources to game experts (who will diagnose a disability) and lawyers stand to win full boarding school tuition.
Noting that Souter's dissent was joined by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Olson noted, "I'm still trying to figure out why being progressive on this issue means siding with the private schools and affluent parents, while the conservative justices are the ones to defend the public school ideal of universal service."
It's one of those nice people things. The government has expanded the notion of disability to the point of absurdity. But nice people refuse to look at the impending drain on public school budgets, or how one child's boarding school tuition can mean that much less funding for all the other students' educational needs.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2009/06/28/disability,_inc?page=full&comments=true
Thursday, June 4, 2009
It's OK to Taser a suspect to get a 2nd DNA sample, after cops botch 1st one, NY judge rules
Thursday, June 04, 2009
The suspect, who was accused of a shooting and robbery, had given a sample earlier, but the department sent it to the wrong lab. He refused to give another mouth swab, so they Tasered him. (Shockingly, he agreed to give a sample after that.) The judge said that it's OK to use reasonable force to enforce a court order, though it's rare to use a Taser in these cases.
Thursday, June 04, 2009 at 09:00 AM in Police administration
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b1b869e2011570bed0b6970b
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2009/06/its-ok-to-taser-a-suspect-so-you-can-get-a-dna-sample-ny-judge-rules.html
The suspect, who was accused of a shooting and robbery, had given a sample earlier, but the department sent it to the wrong lab. He refused to give another mouth swab, so they Tasered him. (Shockingly, he agreed to give a sample after that.) The judge said that it's OK to use reasonable force to enforce a court order, though it's rare to use a Taser in these cases.
Thursday, June 04, 2009 at 09:00 AM in Police administration
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b1b869e2011570bed0b6970b
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2009/06/its-ok-to-taser-a-suspect-so-you-can-get-a-dna-sample-ny-judge-rules.html
Bullet-Proof Yourself
Damage Control for You & Your Business Through Crisis Communication
An Interesting Blog
"Insights and analysis of the most pressing issues facing companies, countries and brands today. This is the blog for bulletproofing a reputation when it matters most"
Better name for it is Big Business BS or Propaganda Central
(and a little bit about law, naturally, for we are a Litigation Nation!)
Click on title above to visit the site;
http://www.bulletproofblog.com/
An Interesting Blog
"Insights and analysis of the most pressing issues facing companies, countries and brands today. This is the blog for bulletproofing a reputation when it matters most"
Better name for it is Big Business BS or Propaganda Central
(and a little bit about law, naturally, for we are a Litigation Nation!)
Click on title above to visit the site;
http://www.bulletproofblog.com/
Humane Society of the United States v. Amazon. com; Supporting Animal Cruelty
Amazon.Com Supporting Animal Cruelty
by Jean-Pierre Ruiz
Jean-Pierre Ruiz is a Washington State-based attorney, practicing animal law and corporate law for non-profit organizations. Jean-Pierre received his engineering degree from McGill University, and his law degree from IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law where he was on the Dean’s List. Jean-Pierre was a member of the school’s nationally-recognized Trial Advocacy Team. Jean-Pierre clerked for Judge Warren Wolfson, author of numerous trial advocacy books. Jean-Pierre combines his passion for animal well-being with empathy, sympathy and compassion He inspires trust, confidence and believes in zealous, but civil, representation. Jean-Pierre is a member of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
--------------
In an age where the ethics and morality of executives have been called into ever greater question, where the means justify the end, and extracting the very last penny from the marketplace is more important than making ethically and morally sound decisions, it should come as no surprise that Amazon.com would rather make a few more pennies than take a stand against animal abuse and cruelty.
In the last few weeks, the press has been reporting that Amazon.com was selling Feathered Warrior, a cockfighting magazine. However, today’s perusal of Amazon.com’s choices also reveals such “great” reading as:
The Game Cock: From The Shell To The Pit - A Comprehensive Treatise On Gameness, Selecting, Mating, Breeding, Walking and Conditioning, etc. (History of Cockfighting Series) - $40.45
The Art of Cockfigthing – A Handbook for Beginners and Old Timers - $34.99
Cockfighters: The Interviews (DVD) - $85
Handling and Nursing the Gamecock - $26.95
The Game Cock – Being a Practical Treatise on Breeding, Rearing, Training, Feeding, Trimming, Mains, Heeling, Spurs, etc. - $26.95
(See, the link to Amazon.com's "choice" literature below)
Cockfighting is an “activity” involving two roosters thrown into a pit, called a cockpit, to fight -- sometimes to the death. These are birds specially bred for aggressiveness toward other males, stamina and strength and are “equipped” with 3-inch long razor-sharp metal or plastic spurs, resembling curved ice-picks, which the birds are taught to aggressively use. Fights can last from a few minutes to over half an hour and usually results in the death of the one or both of the “combatants.” . Common injuries include punctured lungs, broken bones, and pierced eyes.
Cockfighting is illegal in all 50 states, and transporting the birds or cockfighting paraphernalia across state lines is now a federal offense. Of course, that is not say that cockfighting (much like dog fighting) does not go on. Law enforcement has connected cockfighting to drug use and distribution, as well as acts of violence. However, the primary purpose of cockfighting is gambling and thousands of dollars can be wagered on a single fight.
Amazon.com, led by its CEO Jeff Bezos, has argued that it has a right to sell these items under the Free Speech clause of the Constitution. However, Mr. Bezos forgets that just because you have a “right” does not make it “right.” Perhaps Mr. Bezos believes that the means justifies the end, and damn the moral or ethical stance, when it comes to increasing Amazon.com’s balance sheet and, no doubt, his personal bank account.
For the fiscal year of 2008, Amazon.com reported that revenues increased by 39% to a total of $14.84B (yes, billions), while profits increased by 69% to a total of $655MM. Amazon.com does not break revenues and profits it makes on each item it sells.
The Humane Society of the United States provides a link to send Mr. Bezos an email requesting that he stop selling animal cruelty books and DVDs (see the link below).
For more info: Amazon.com's link to cockfighting books and magazine: www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=sr_1_1; HSUS link to send Mr. Bezos a letter: community.hsus.org/campaign/US_2008_amazon_fighting4
PT 2
In my last posting, I discussed how Amazon.com is breaking federal law and supporting animal cruelty by selling certain material depicting acts of, and advocating for, animal cruelty. Some people have interpreted my position to mean that I am trying to censor what Amazon.com sells. They are partly right, and partly wrong.
Selling material which depicts, and advocates for, animal cruelty is a violation of federal laws
The material presently on sale on Amazon.com’s website both depicts animal cruelty and advocates for it. For example, Feathered Warrior advertises fighting animals and paraphernalia – including steroids and other drugs for the animals - for sale, as well as the venue of upcoming fights.
Every state has laws against animal cruelty. Furthermore, there are two federal laws which are central to this issue. Namely, the Animal Welfare Act and the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act (See, “For more info” for a link).
Section 2156 of the Animal Welfare Act states:
(c) Use of Postal Service or other interstate instrumentality for promoting or furthering animal fighting venture
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the United States Postal Service or any instrumentality of interstate commerce for commercial speech for purposes of promoting or in any other manner furthering an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the limits of the States of the United States.
Section 48 of the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act states:
(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.— Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Exception.— Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
(c) Definitions.— In this section—
(1) the term “depiction of animal cruelty” means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; and
(See, “For more info” for a link)
The Humane Society of the United States has sued Amazon.com alleging that this latter is in violation, among others, of both of these acts. (See, “For more info” for a link)
Amazon.com has responded that it is entitled to sell this material from a legal standpoint (regardless of whether it’s moral and/or ethical) because the acts infringe on its right to free speech which is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(See, “For more info” for a link)
Free Speech v. the Animal Welfare Act and the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act
It is important to recognize that the Government does not limit speech. We are still free to say, write and publish about anything we like. Rather, the Government can only enact laws that punish certain types of speech.
It could be argued – and often is – that any limitation on free speech ultimately results in censorship and tyranny. If right, the opposite of the argument must necessarily be true. That is, that no limitation on free speech ultimately results in anarchy. Regardless of one’s opinions on the subject, the US Supreme Court has placed limits on the concept of free speech. In essence, the Court placed a value on certain forms of speech relative to what we consider other ideals such as public safety, national security, justice, etc. Hence, the First Amendment does not protect statements which are said with the intent to provoke violent acts or incite illegal actions. Furthermore, the First Amendment does not protect libelous or slanderous statements, or obscene materials. The First Amendment also does not protect speech which conflicts with other legitimate and compelling social or governmental interests where regulations are content-neutral. Contested speech must have religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value to be protected.
At issue from a legal standpoint, therefore, is whether the First Amendment will “protect” the right to sell material which depicts, and advocates for, animal cruelty, or whether the Court will recognize the Government’s compelling interest in prohibiting the sale of such material. That is, does material which depicts animal cruelty has any religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.
A case presently before the US Supreme Court may be partially determinative of HSUS’s case against Amazon.com which is still before the court.
US v. Stevens
In 1999 a federal court sentenced a Virginia man to three years in prison for selling dog fighting videos in violation of the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act (the Act).
In US v. Stevens, the Defendant – a pit bull enthusiast – was convicted by a Federal Court in Pennsylvania of violating the Act for selling videos of pit bull fights and pit bulls attacking other animals. The trial court determined that the videos had no religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value and sentenced Stevens to 37 months in jail. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal was unwilling to create a new category of unprotected speech and ruled that the Act violated the First Amendment because the Government had failed to show a compelling interest, nor show that the Act was narrowly tailored to achieve such interest, or that it provides the least restrictive means to achieve the Government's interest. The Court noted that the Government had failed to show a sufficient link between the law and the Government’s interest in preventing animal abuse, unlike existing state laws criminalizing animal cruelty.
Before the US Supreme Court, the Government will argue that depiction of animal cruelty is not worthy of protection under the First Amendment. In turn, Stevens will argue that showing the proper way to train a pit bull to hunt and further showing pit bull fights to show the difference between a pit bull trained to fight and one trained to hunt has educational value.
If the Court agrees with the Government, it will mark the first time since 1982 that a category of speech is excluded from protection. In 1982, the Court unanimously upheld a New York law banning the sale of child pornography under the theory that the Government had a compelling interest in protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation.
Regardless of the Court’s ruling, Amazon.com should stop selling this material
First, it important to note that Amazon.com’s own policies are that it will not sell a broad range of objectionable, but lawful, material including sexually explicit material, crime-scene photos, human organs or body parts (?), items that promote racism, hatred or religious intolerance, and anything else “[Amazon.com] deems offensive.” (See, “For more info” for a link). In fact, since HSUS filed suit, Amazon.com removed a video titled “Unleashed” from its website. “Unleashed” is a two-hour video in which some 20 dogs are intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed in some 12 dog fights. Some of the dogs in the video are puppies, with one being described as being 11 months old. Over the course of the two-hour video, “Unleashed” depicts thousands of injuries, including one dog having his throat ripped out. Other injuries include large pieces of skins ripped from dogs’ shoulders, necks, faces, the top of their heads. Escape is impossible as the dogs are forcefully kept inside the pit. The final “chapter” of “Unleashed” contains more than 30 minutes of 10 seconds clips alternating between dog fight sequences and clips of nude women undertaking various sexual acts.
I think we can all agree that Amazon.com is selling this material in order to make money. In fact, the “Feathered Warrior” consistently ranks in the top 1% of all magazine subscriptions sold on Amazon.com.
Perhaps we can also agree that there is a difference between material that examines acts we deem immoral and/or unethical (such as WWI, Genocide, 9/11, animal fighting, etc.) from a historical perspective, and material which shows how to perform those acts. I would hope that none of the people who posted comments advocating for Amazon.com’s “right” to sell material depicting, and advocating for, animal cruelty, would also advocate for Amazon.com’s “right” to sell material which would show people how to build a bomb, plant it on the premises of a federal building, and detonate it undetected; or fly a jumbo jet into a sky scrapper; or, run a children pornographic ring; and on, and on.
The connection between acts of animal cruelty and acts of human violence are well documented. For example, a 1983 study noted that more than a third of the children referred to New Jersey’s Division of Youth and Family Services for suspected child abuse were abusive to animals. A 1995 noted that 32% of the pet-owning victims of domestic abuse reported that one or more of their children had hurt or killed a pet. A subsequent study conducted in 1997 reported that 50 of the largest shelters for battered women in the United States found that 85% of women and 63% of children entering shelters discussed incidents of pet abuse in the family. Another study in 1997 by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found that 70% of all animal abusers have committed at least one other criminal offense and that almost 40% had committed violent crimes against people. The study also found that over a 20-year period, a group of individuals who had abused animals as youths were five times more likely to commit violent crimes, four times more likely to commit property crimes and three times more likely to have drug or disorderly conduct offenses than a matched group of non-animal abusers In fact, the FBI now considers animal cruelty to one of the predictors of violence and considers past animal abuse when profiling serial killers. The US Department of Justice emphasizes the importance of including information about past animal abuse when assessing youth who are at risk of committing inter-personal violence. (See, links at “For more info”).
Therefore, I would argue that, from an ethical and moral point of view, Amazon.com should stop selling material which depicts, and advocates for, acts of animal cruelty.
In the end, each of us will make a choice as to what activities propel us forward as a species worthy of survival. I do not believe that acts of animal cruelty profit us as a species or as a society. And since cruelty to animals is linked to acts of human violence, perhaps acts of kindness to animals will lead to acts of kindness toward one another and a more peaceful world.
Finally, my two dogs are pleased to announce that they are indeed treated very well (see picture) and wish every dog out there happy trails.
In my next blog, we’ll take a look at the world of animal fighting and its documented effect on our society.
For more info: Animal Welfare Act: www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/publications_and_reports.shtml; Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D; HSUS's complaint: www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbusdcamazon_hsus.htm; US Constitution: www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1; Amazon.com's policies: www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html; Domestic violence and cruelty to animals, F. R. Ascione: www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/ascione_2.html; The Abuse of Animals and Domestic Violence, F. R. Ascione: www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/ascione_1.html; The Care of Pets Within Child Abusing Families, L. DeViney, J. Dickert, R. Lockwood, 1983 - International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 4(4), 321-336; PAWS - The Animal Abuse - Human Violence Link: www.paws.org/help/report/connection.php; Animal Cruelty: Pathway to Violence Against People, K. M. Heide, Altimara Press (2003); Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application, F. R. Ascione, Purdue University (1998).
Jean-Pierre's Home Page
Click on title above to go there;
http://www.examiner.com/x-9726-Seattle-Pet-Laws-Examiner
by Jean-Pierre Ruiz
Jean-Pierre Ruiz is a Washington State-based attorney, practicing animal law and corporate law for non-profit organizations. Jean-Pierre received his engineering degree from McGill University, and his law degree from IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law where he was on the Dean’s List. Jean-Pierre was a member of the school’s nationally-recognized Trial Advocacy Team. Jean-Pierre clerked for Judge Warren Wolfson, author of numerous trial advocacy books. Jean-Pierre combines his passion for animal well-being with empathy, sympathy and compassion He inspires trust, confidence and believes in zealous, but civil, representation. Jean-Pierre is a member of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
--------------
In an age where the ethics and morality of executives have been called into ever greater question, where the means justify the end, and extracting the very last penny from the marketplace is more important than making ethically and morally sound decisions, it should come as no surprise that Amazon.com would rather make a few more pennies than take a stand against animal abuse and cruelty.
In the last few weeks, the press has been reporting that Amazon.com was selling Feathered Warrior, a cockfighting magazine. However, today’s perusal of Amazon.com’s choices also reveals such “great” reading as:
The Game Cock: From The Shell To The Pit - A Comprehensive Treatise On Gameness, Selecting, Mating, Breeding, Walking and Conditioning, etc. (History of Cockfighting Series) - $40.45
The Art of Cockfigthing – A Handbook for Beginners and Old Timers - $34.99
Cockfighters: The Interviews (DVD) - $85
Handling and Nursing the Gamecock - $26.95
The Game Cock – Being a Practical Treatise on Breeding, Rearing, Training, Feeding, Trimming, Mains, Heeling, Spurs, etc. - $26.95
(See, the link to Amazon.com's "choice" literature below)
Cockfighting is an “activity” involving two roosters thrown into a pit, called a cockpit, to fight -- sometimes to the death. These are birds specially bred for aggressiveness toward other males, stamina and strength and are “equipped” with 3-inch long razor-sharp metal or plastic spurs, resembling curved ice-picks, which the birds are taught to aggressively use. Fights can last from a few minutes to over half an hour and usually results in the death of the one or both of the “combatants.” . Common injuries include punctured lungs, broken bones, and pierced eyes.
Cockfighting is illegal in all 50 states, and transporting the birds or cockfighting paraphernalia across state lines is now a federal offense. Of course, that is not say that cockfighting (much like dog fighting) does not go on. Law enforcement has connected cockfighting to drug use and distribution, as well as acts of violence. However, the primary purpose of cockfighting is gambling and thousands of dollars can be wagered on a single fight.
Amazon.com, led by its CEO Jeff Bezos, has argued that it has a right to sell these items under the Free Speech clause of the Constitution. However, Mr. Bezos forgets that just because you have a “right” does not make it “right.” Perhaps Mr. Bezos believes that the means justifies the end, and damn the moral or ethical stance, when it comes to increasing Amazon.com’s balance sheet and, no doubt, his personal bank account.
For the fiscal year of 2008, Amazon.com reported that revenues increased by 39% to a total of $14.84B (yes, billions), while profits increased by 69% to a total of $655MM. Amazon.com does not break revenues and profits it makes on each item it sells.
The Humane Society of the United States provides a link to send Mr. Bezos an email requesting that he stop selling animal cruelty books and DVDs (see the link below).
For more info: Amazon.com's link to cockfighting books and magazine: www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=sr_1_1; HSUS link to send Mr. Bezos a letter: community.hsus.org/campaign/US_2008_amazon_fighting4
PT 2
In my last posting, I discussed how Amazon.com is breaking federal law and supporting animal cruelty by selling certain material depicting acts of, and advocating for, animal cruelty. Some people have interpreted my position to mean that I am trying to censor what Amazon.com sells. They are partly right, and partly wrong.
Selling material which depicts, and advocates for, animal cruelty is a violation of federal laws
The material presently on sale on Amazon.com’s website both depicts animal cruelty and advocates for it. For example, Feathered Warrior advertises fighting animals and paraphernalia – including steroids and other drugs for the animals - for sale, as well as the venue of upcoming fights.
Every state has laws against animal cruelty. Furthermore, there are two federal laws which are central to this issue. Namely, the Animal Welfare Act and the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act (See, “For more info” for a link).
Section 2156 of the Animal Welfare Act states:
(c) Use of Postal Service or other interstate instrumentality for promoting or furthering animal fighting venture
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the United States Postal Service or any instrumentality of interstate commerce for commercial speech for purposes of promoting or in any other manner furthering an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the limits of the States of the United States.
Section 48 of the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act states:
(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.— Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Exception.— Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
(c) Definitions.— In this section—
(1) the term “depiction of animal cruelty” means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; and
(See, “For more info” for a link)
The Humane Society of the United States has sued Amazon.com alleging that this latter is in violation, among others, of both of these acts. (See, “For more info” for a link)
Amazon.com has responded that it is entitled to sell this material from a legal standpoint (regardless of whether it’s moral and/or ethical) because the acts infringe on its right to free speech which is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(See, “For more info” for a link)
Free Speech v. the Animal Welfare Act and the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act
It is important to recognize that the Government does not limit speech. We are still free to say, write and publish about anything we like. Rather, the Government can only enact laws that punish certain types of speech.
It could be argued – and often is – that any limitation on free speech ultimately results in censorship and tyranny. If right, the opposite of the argument must necessarily be true. That is, that no limitation on free speech ultimately results in anarchy. Regardless of one’s opinions on the subject, the US Supreme Court has placed limits on the concept of free speech. In essence, the Court placed a value on certain forms of speech relative to what we consider other ideals such as public safety, national security, justice, etc. Hence, the First Amendment does not protect statements which are said with the intent to provoke violent acts or incite illegal actions. Furthermore, the First Amendment does not protect libelous or slanderous statements, or obscene materials. The First Amendment also does not protect speech which conflicts with other legitimate and compelling social or governmental interests where regulations are content-neutral. Contested speech must have religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value to be protected.
At issue from a legal standpoint, therefore, is whether the First Amendment will “protect” the right to sell material which depicts, and advocates for, animal cruelty, or whether the Court will recognize the Government’s compelling interest in prohibiting the sale of such material. That is, does material which depicts animal cruelty has any religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.
A case presently before the US Supreme Court may be partially determinative of HSUS’s case against Amazon.com which is still before the court.
US v. Stevens
In 1999 a federal court sentenced a Virginia man to three years in prison for selling dog fighting videos in violation of the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act (the Act).
In US v. Stevens, the Defendant – a pit bull enthusiast – was convicted by a Federal Court in Pennsylvania of violating the Act for selling videos of pit bull fights and pit bulls attacking other animals. The trial court determined that the videos had no religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value and sentenced Stevens to 37 months in jail. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal was unwilling to create a new category of unprotected speech and ruled that the Act violated the First Amendment because the Government had failed to show a compelling interest, nor show that the Act was narrowly tailored to achieve such interest, or that it provides the least restrictive means to achieve the Government's interest. The Court noted that the Government had failed to show a sufficient link between the law and the Government’s interest in preventing animal abuse, unlike existing state laws criminalizing animal cruelty.
Before the US Supreme Court, the Government will argue that depiction of animal cruelty is not worthy of protection under the First Amendment. In turn, Stevens will argue that showing the proper way to train a pit bull to hunt and further showing pit bull fights to show the difference between a pit bull trained to fight and one trained to hunt has educational value.
If the Court agrees with the Government, it will mark the first time since 1982 that a category of speech is excluded from protection. In 1982, the Court unanimously upheld a New York law banning the sale of child pornography under the theory that the Government had a compelling interest in protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation.
Regardless of the Court’s ruling, Amazon.com should stop selling this material
First, it important to note that Amazon.com’s own policies are that it will not sell a broad range of objectionable, but lawful, material including sexually explicit material, crime-scene photos, human organs or body parts (?), items that promote racism, hatred or religious intolerance, and anything else “[Amazon.com] deems offensive.” (See, “For more info” for a link). In fact, since HSUS filed suit, Amazon.com removed a video titled “Unleashed” from its website. “Unleashed” is a two-hour video in which some 20 dogs are intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed in some 12 dog fights. Some of the dogs in the video are puppies, with one being described as being 11 months old. Over the course of the two-hour video, “Unleashed” depicts thousands of injuries, including one dog having his throat ripped out. Other injuries include large pieces of skins ripped from dogs’ shoulders, necks, faces, the top of their heads. Escape is impossible as the dogs are forcefully kept inside the pit. The final “chapter” of “Unleashed” contains more than 30 minutes of 10 seconds clips alternating between dog fight sequences and clips of nude women undertaking various sexual acts.
I think we can all agree that Amazon.com is selling this material in order to make money. In fact, the “Feathered Warrior” consistently ranks in the top 1% of all magazine subscriptions sold on Amazon.com.
Perhaps we can also agree that there is a difference between material that examines acts we deem immoral and/or unethical (such as WWI, Genocide, 9/11, animal fighting, etc.) from a historical perspective, and material which shows how to perform those acts. I would hope that none of the people who posted comments advocating for Amazon.com’s “right” to sell material depicting, and advocating for, animal cruelty, would also advocate for Amazon.com’s “right” to sell material which would show people how to build a bomb, plant it on the premises of a federal building, and detonate it undetected; or fly a jumbo jet into a sky scrapper; or, run a children pornographic ring; and on, and on.
The connection between acts of animal cruelty and acts of human violence are well documented. For example, a 1983 study noted that more than a third of the children referred to New Jersey’s Division of Youth and Family Services for suspected child abuse were abusive to animals. A 1995 noted that 32% of the pet-owning victims of domestic abuse reported that one or more of their children had hurt or killed a pet. A subsequent study conducted in 1997 reported that 50 of the largest shelters for battered women in the United States found that 85% of women and 63% of children entering shelters discussed incidents of pet abuse in the family. Another study in 1997 by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found that 70% of all animal abusers have committed at least one other criminal offense and that almost 40% had committed violent crimes against people. The study also found that over a 20-year period, a group of individuals who had abused animals as youths were five times more likely to commit violent crimes, four times more likely to commit property crimes and three times more likely to have drug or disorderly conduct offenses than a matched group of non-animal abusers In fact, the FBI now considers animal cruelty to one of the predictors of violence and considers past animal abuse when profiling serial killers. The US Department of Justice emphasizes the importance of including information about past animal abuse when assessing youth who are at risk of committing inter-personal violence. (See, links at “For more info”).
Therefore, I would argue that, from an ethical and moral point of view, Amazon.com should stop selling material which depicts, and advocates for, acts of animal cruelty.
In the end, each of us will make a choice as to what activities propel us forward as a species worthy of survival. I do not believe that acts of animal cruelty profit us as a species or as a society. And since cruelty to animals is linked to acts of human violence, perhaps acts of kindness to animals will lead to acts of kindness toward one another and a more peaceful world.
Finally, my two dogs are pleased to announce that they are indeed treated very well (see picture) and wish every dog out there happy trails.
In my next blog, we’ll take a look at the world of animal fighting and its documented effect on our society.
For more info: Animal Welfare Act: www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/publications_and_reports.shtml; Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D; HSUS's complaint: www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbusdcamazon_hsus.htm; US Constitution: www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1; Amazon.com's policies: www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html; Domestic violence and cruelty to animals, F. R. Ascione: www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/ascione_2.html; The Abuse of Animals and Domestic Violence, F. R. Ascione: www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/ascione_1.html; The Care of Pets Within Child Abusing Families, L. DeViney, J. Dickert, R. Lockwood, 1983 - International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 4(4), 321-336; PAWS - The Animal Abuse - Human Violence Link: www.paws.org/help/report/connection.php; Animal Cruelty: Pathway to Violence Against People, K. M. Heide, Altimara Press (2003); Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application, F. R. Ascione, Purdue University (1998).
Jean-Pierre's Home Page
Click on title above to go there;
http://www.examiner.com/x-9726-Seattle-Pet-Laws-Examiner
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Yahoo sues to get free fantasy football info
Last update: June 3, 2009 - 2:26 PM
Featured comment
ironic
This is funny because Yahoo charges you for access to same day, live stats in all their fantasy leagues. The application is called Stat … read more Tracker. What a joke.
-----------
Internet giant Yahoo Inc. has filed suit in Minnesota, demanding free access to the player information that drives its popular fantasy football game.
Yahoo alleges that the NFL Players Association and corporation has no right to charge for the use of players pictures, biographies and on-field statistics, according to its suit filed this week in federal court. In the past, the NFL Players Association has asserted that those things fall under intellectual property rights.
Yahoo's fantasy football site relies upon such real-time statistics. Participants use them to decide which players to draft and trade throughout the football season.
The issue of whether companies can use league information for fantasy sports sites has come up before. Then, the sport was baseball.
In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit decided that CBC Distribution and Marketing Inc. could use Major League Baseball players' names and statistics for its fantasy baseball products -- without paying a licensing fee.
JENNA ROSS
http://www.startribune.com/local/46823867.html?elr=KArksUUUU
Featured comment
ironic
This is funny because Yahoo charges you for access to same day, live stats in all their fantasy leagues. The application is called Stat … read more Tracker. What a joke.
-----------
Internet giant Yahoo Inc. has filed suit in Minnesota, demanding free access to the player information that drives its popular fantasy football game.
Yahoo alleges that the NFL Players Association and corporation has no right to charge for the use of players pictures, biographies and on-field statistics, according to its suit filed this week in federal court. In the past, the NFL Players Association has asserted that those things fall under intellectual property rights.
Yahoo's fantasy football site relies upon such real-time statistics. Participants use them to decide which players to draft and trade throughout the football season.
The issue of whether companies can use league information for fantasy sports sites has come up before. Then, the sport was baseball.
In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit decided that CBC Distribution and Marketing Inc. could use Major League Baseball players' names and statistics for its fantasy baseball products -- without paying a licensing fee.
JENNA ROSS
http://www.startribune.com/local/46823867.html?elr=KArksUUUU
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Lawyer in MN nursing-home abuse case raises Miranda issues
Associated Press
Last update: May 30, 2009 - 7:51 AM
ALBERT LEA, Minn. - The attorney for one of the young women charged with abusing nursing home residents in Albert Lea is questioning whether her statements to police were legally obtained.
Larry Maus was in court in Albert Lea on Friday with his client, 19-year-old Brianna Broitzman.
Police allege that over several months in 2008, Broitzman and co-defendant Ashton Larson sexually and psychologically abused a number of patients at the Good Samaritan Society of Albert Lea while they worked there.
Maus argued that investigators should have formally advised Broitzman of her Miranda rights during interviews at the law enforcement center.
Detective Deb Flatness testified she tried to communicate to the women that the interviews, which were done before their arrest, were voluntary.
___
Information from: Albert Lea Tribune, http://www.albertleatribune.com
Last update: May 30, 2009 - 7:51 AM
ALBERT LEA, Minn. - The attorney for one of the young women charged with abusing nursing home residents in Albert Lea is questioning whether her statements to police were legally obtained.
Larry Maus was in court in Albert Lea on Friday with his client, 19-year-old Brianna Broitzman.
Police allege that over several months in 2008, Broitzman and co-defendant Ashton Larson sexually and psychologically abused a number of patients at the Good Samaritan Society of Albert Lea while they worked there.
Maus argued that investigators should have formally advised Broitzman of her Miranda rights during interviews at the law enforcement center.
Detective Deb Flatness testified she tried to communicate to the women that the interviews, which were done before their arrest, were voluntary.
___
Information from: Albert Lea Tribune, http://www.albertleatribune.com
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Miami attny sues & wins anti-BSL
Where are the NYC attnys?
Mon May 25, 2009 7:03 pm (PDT)
From: Garo
Miami attny sues & wins anti-BSL- where are the NYC attnys?
PLEASE CROSSPOST
WE are allowing the Housing Authority to violate the NYS anti-Breed Specific Law when other cities are suing and winning
All:
Rima Bardawil is the attorney who successfully argued and WON an appeal for
a man's pit bull in Miami-Dade, the only county in the state of FL with a
BSL ordinance. Dahlia Canes organized a group to support Rima's work, and
Edel Miedes a wonderful dog trainer is also involved. Altho the below
article centers on Dahlia it was a group effort that won the appeal. The
same group plans to file suit in court this summer to hopefully overturn
the ordinance once and for all. (After the court case, Animal Svcs. stepped
up its harrassment and confiscation of pits BIG time, often leaving notices
on people's doors when they weren't home that they'd be fined $500 if they
didn't turn their pits in. The announcements say nada about KILLING their
pets but that's the gruesome outcome they face. Many who haven't the money
to fight or the education let their dogs go to be killed ... it's a
travesty.)
There is hope; the article below is wonderfully written and Dahlia who is a
true hero for the breed deserves to be congratulated for managing front
cover billing for pits' cause!
Click on title above to read article;
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2009-05-21/news/pit-bull-ban-spurs-dog-fight/
p.s. Please also contact the Miami New Times and express your gratitude
for such wonderfully positive, supportive coverage for animals and
especially for a very much maligned breed that is ultimately one of
America's favorite family dogs! And if you reside somewhere BSL exists or
is being discussed THIS MAY BE THE ROUTE TO GO. It's for that reason I've
forwarded the article outside just FL.
Garo Alexanian
Companion Animal NetworkTV
Mon May 25, 2009 7:03 pm (PDT)
From: Garo
Miami attny sues & wins anti-BSL- where are the NYC attnys?
PLEASE CROSSPOST
WE are allowing the Housing Authority to violate the NYS anti-Breed Specific Law when other cities are suing and winning
All:
Rima Bardawil is the attorney who successfully argued and WON an appeal for
a man's pit bull in Miami-Dade, the only county in the state of FL with a
BSL ordinance. Dahlia Canes organized a group to support Rima's work, and
Edel Miedes a wonderful dog trainer is also involved. Altho the below
article centers on Dahlia it was a group effort that won the appeal. The
same group plans to file suit in court this summer to hopefully overturn
the ordinance once and for all. (After the court case, Animal Svcs. stepped
up its harrassment and confiscation of pits BIG time, often leaving notices
on people's doors when they weren't home that they'd be fined $500 if they
didn't turn their pits in. The announcements say nada about KILLING their
pets but that's the gruesome outcome they face. Many who haven't the money
to fight or the education let their dogs go to be killed ... it's a
travesty.)
There is hope; the article below is wonderfully written and Dahlia who is a
true hero for the breed deserves to be congratulated for managing front
cover billing for pits' cause!
Click on title above to read article;
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2009-05-21/news/pit-bull-ban-spurs-dog-fight/
p.s. Please also contact the Miami New Times and express your gratitude
for such wonderfully positive, supportive coverage for animals and
especially for a very much maligned breed that is ultimately one of
America's favorite family dogs! And if you reside somewhere BSL exists or
is being discussed THIS MAY BE THE ROUTE TO GO. It's for that reason I've
forwarded the article outside just FL.
Garo Alexanian
Companion Animal NetworkTV
High Court says suspects can be interrogated w/out lawyer
Goodbye Constitution, Goodbye Bill of Rights, Goodbye America as we Knew It;
The Supreme Court overturned a long-standing ruling that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.
The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present.
The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
The court's conservatives overturned that opinion Tuesday, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned, has created no significant reliance interests and [as we have described] is ultimately unworkable."
Justice Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said their decision will have a "minimal" effects on criminal defendants. "Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation," Justice Scalia said.
The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.
"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," Justice Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."
The decision comes in the case of Jesse Jay Montejo, was found guilty in 2005 of the shooting death of Louis Ferrari in the victim's home on Sept. 5, 2002.
He was appointed a public defender at his Sept. 10, 2002, hearing, but was never indicated that he accepted the lawyer's help. Mr. Montejo then went with police detectives to help them look for the murder weapon. While in the car, Mr. Montejo wrote a letter to Mr. Ferrari's widow incriminating himself.
When they returned to the prison, a public defender was waiting for Mr. Montejo, irate that his client had been questioned without him being present.
Mr. Montejo was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed, but the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
-http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=0058021&From=News
The Supreme Court overturned a long-standing ruling that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.
The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present.
The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
The court's conservatives overturned that opinion Tuesday, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned, has created no significant reliance interests and [as we have described] is ultimately unworkable."
Justice Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said their decision will have a "minimal" effects on criminal defendants. "Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation," Justice Scalia said.
The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.
"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," Justice Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."
The decision comes in the case of Jesse Jay Montejo, was found guilty in 2005 of the shooting death of Louis Ferrari in the victim's home on Sept. 5, 2002.
He was appointed a public defender at his Sept. 10, 2002, hearing, but was never indicated that he accepted the lawyer's help. Mr. Montejo then went with police detectives to help them look for the murder weapon. While in the car, Mr. Montejo wrote a letter to Mr. Ferrari's widow incriminating himself.
When they returned to the prison, a public defender was waiting for Mr. Montejo, irate that his client had been questioned without him being present.
Mr. Montejo was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed, but the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
-http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=0058021&From=News
Monday, May 25, 2009
Fla. SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 28 ATTORNEYS
2009-05-06 00:58:00
The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announces that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 28 attorneys, disbarring 10, suspending 16 and placing two on probation. Some attorneys
received more than one form of discipline. Two attorneys were reprimanded. Two
were ordered to pay restitution.
As an official agency of the Florida Supreme
Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with
administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of
professional conduct for the 86,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in
Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’
individual Florida Bar profiles and may be reviewed at and/or downloaded from
The Florida Bar’s Web site, www.floridabar.org.
(Bloggers Note: This is a great service, all about truth & TRANSPARENCY in government and the JustUS system. Why cant every state have one? Just try getting any info on attorney dicipline in New York. That stuff is treated like priority top secret here!)
The following lawyers
are disciplined (Please note that court orders are not final until time expires
to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a
motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline):
James Harutun
Batmasian, 215 N. Federal Highway, Suite 1, Boca Raton, suspended for three
years, effective retroactive to Aug. 30, 2008, following a March 5 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1974) In April 2008, Batmasian pleaded guilty in federal
court, to one count of willful failure to collect or pay over tax, a felony. He
was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised
release and penalties of $30,000. (Case No. SC08-1445)
Daniel Antonio Benito,
2423 SW 147th Ave., No. 362, Miami, suspended until further order, following a
March 3 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1997) According to an emergency
suspension order, Benito appeared to be causing great public harm by
misappropriating and/or diverting client funds entrusted to him. In one
instance, a client sent $80,000 to Benito to be held in trust for the purpose of
funding a marital settlement agreement. When the settlement did not materialize,
the client demanded the return of the funds and Benito refused, claiming he was
entitled to them for attorney’s fees. (Case No. SC09-372)
Roger Besu, 233
Palm Ave., Miami Beach, suspended until further order, following a Feb. 5 court
order. (Admitted to practice: 1974) According to an emergency suspension order,
Besu appeared to be causing great public harm by misappropriating and/or
diverting client funds entrusted to him. In October 2008, a client filed a
complaint with The Florida Bar, alleging that Besu was holding more than $3.5
million of his money in escrow and he had not been able to reach Besu by
telephone or at his office. Besu did not respond to a Bar subpoena. An audit
revealed nearly $2 million was missing from a trust account that he
controlled.(Case No. SC09-187)
A. Clark Cone, 8607 Wendy Lane E., West
Palm Beach, suspended until further order, following a March 19 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1981) According to an emergency suspension order, Cone
appeared to be causing great public harm. The Florida Bar’s investigation found
that in several instances, Cone misappropriated client funds. After settling a
personal injury case, Cone asked a client to endorse her $38,940.38 settlement
check. Cone then deposited the money into his trust account and converted it to
his use. (Case No. SC09-474)
Katherine Denise Crase, 2804 W. Aquilla St.,
Tampa, suspended effective 30 days from a Feb. 25 court order. (Admitted to
practice: 1991) In July 2008, Crase was found guilty of seven felony counts of
conspiracy and mail fraud. She was sentenced to 30 months in prison. (Case No.
SC09-339)
Joseph R. De Lucca, 5089 Greenwich Preserve Ct., Boynton Beach,
suspended until further order, following a March 11 court order. (Admitted to
practice: 1971) According to an emergency suspension order, De Lucca appeared to
be causing great public harm by misappropriating client trust funds or property.
A Florida Bar audit found that De Lucca had a negative balance of $35,572.91 in
his trust account, after using client funds for his own purposes. (Case No.
SC09-430)
Susan Lynn Eberle, 4437 Koger St., Orlando, suspended for 91 days,
effective 30 days from a March 24 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1985)
Eberle is being held in contempt of court for noncompliance with Florida Supreme
Court orders. In March 2006, Eberle was suspended for 30 days and placed on
probation for two years. She violated the terms of that probation and in August
2007, Eberle was given an additional two years probation to run consecutively
after the first. (Case No. SC08-2405)
Nadege Elliott, P.O. Box 121711, Fort
Lauderdale, disbarred, retroactive to Dec. 15, 2008, following a Jan. 30 court
order. (Admitted to practice: 1998) In three separate cases, Elliott provided
incompetent representation, charged excessive fees and mishandled his trust
accounts. (Case No. SC07-2)
Delaila Jannette Estefano, 9200 S. Dadeland
Blvd., Suite 204, Miami, suspended until further order, following a March 9
court order. (Admitted to practice: 1999) According to an emergency suspension
order, Estefano appeared to be causing great public harm. A criminal case
pending in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court alleges that Estefano, working
with two others, engaged in a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent
to defraud and/or obtain property from a mortgage lender by false pretenses. An
investigation by the Miami-Dade Police Department revealed the use of Estafano’s
law firm escrow account in the alleged fraudulent activities. (Case No.
SC09-384)
Stephen Jay Goldstein, 13899 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 307, North Miami
Beach, disbarred effective April 10, following a March 11 court order. (Admitted
to practice: 1972) Goldstein wrote checks from his trust and operating accounts
in the amounts of $22,290.00, $527.83, $50,000 and $43,725. All were returned
for insufficient funds. (Case No. SC09-329)
Christina Gomez, 4440 S.W. Archer
Road, Apt. No. 726, Gainesville, disbarred effective retroactive to Sept. 8,
2008, following an April 2 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1992) Gomez
participated in at least three fraudulent financial transactions, one of which
resulted in her receiving approximately $835,000. Because she failed to provide
all the required subpoenaed records, The Florida Bar has so far been unable to
conduct a complete audit to determine the magnitude of fraud and
misappropriation that may have occurred. (Case No. SC08-2139)
Rafael
Gonzalez, 6309 Wild Orchid Drive, Lithia, suspended for three years, effective
30 days from an Oct. 2, 2008 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1991) Gonzalez
was initially suspended for 14 days in September 2007 and violated the terms of
the court’s order by practicing law. (Case Nos. SC07-2314 and SC08-434)
Webb
Greenfelder, P.O. Box 353, San Antonio, suspended for 91 days, effective
immediately, following a March 5 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1998)
Greenfelder was arrested when police investigated a domestic violence incident
at his home. Charges were later dropped. Greenfelder has been ineligible to
practice law since October 2005 as a result of not paying his Florida Bar dues.
He is also delinquent with his continuing legal education requirements. (Case
No. SC08-1497)
Gloretta Hankins Hall, 221 S.E. Osceola St., Stuart, to
receive a public reprimand, following a March 5 court order. (Admitted to
practice: 1991) In May 2006, Hall was the supervising lawyer on a malpractice
case and her associate was assigned to manage the case. Hall failed to monitor
the associate’s activities in the case and hired her sister to act as an expert
witness, because the associate had not hired a nurse expert. At a later date,
Hall learned that her sister provided testimony at the deposition that was not
truthful regarding their familial relationship. (Case No. SC08-1730)
Joseph
I. Harrison, 800 S. Douglas Road, Suite 450, Coral Gables, disbarred for five
years, effective 30 days from a March 20 court order. (Admitted to practice:
2006) Harrison was further ordered to pay restitution totaling $90,800 to two
clients. In at least three separate cases, Harrison charged excessive fees but
provided no significant legal services. He deposited funds in his operating
account instead of a trust account as required and knowingly made false
statements to a third party. (Case Nos. SC08-76, SC08-575 and SC08-804)
David
Robert Heil, 2324 Lee Road, Winter Park, suspended for 10 days, effective 30
days from an April 2 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1984) In December,
2002, Heil was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In October
2007, without giving prior notice to the client, Heil filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal and subsequently, the statute of limitations ran out on the
case. (Case No. SC08-1748)
George Nicholas Konstantakis, 44 Cocoanut Row,
Suite M210, Palm Beach, disbarred for five years, effective 30 days from a March
5 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1987) He was further ordered to pay
restitution of $26,680 to a client’s living revocable trust. In 2004,
Konstantakis agreed to represent a client in civil proceedings. Thereafter, he
failed to attend the hearings, show up for trial and communicate with the
client. The client was unaware of the final judgment until she was served with
an order of contempt in December 2006 for failure to provide financial
information. (Case Nos. SC08-917 and SC08-1550)
Mark Lawrence, 801 Brickell
Ave., Suite 900, Miami, disbarred effective 30 days from the date of a March 5
court order. (Admitted to practice: 1988) Lawrence admitted to failing to
preserve and apply trust funds as required by Florida Bar rules; issuing checks
from his trust account to pay his child support obligations; and engaging in
dishonest conduct. (Case No. SC09-310)
Jeffrey Merrill Leukel, P.O. Box 8004,
Sanford, suspended for 90 days, effective retroactive to Oct. 20, 2008,
following an April 1 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1986) Leukel was
further placed on probation for three years and ordered to enter into a contract
with Florida Lawyer’s Assistance. In September 2008, Leukel pleaded no contest
to driving while his license was permanently revoked, a third-degree felony.
(Case No. SC08-1957)
Jerona Charmaine Maiyo, 6996 Piazza Grande Ave., Suite
309, Orlando, disbarred effective immediately, following a March 26 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2001) Maiyo failed to perform her duties as a lawyer. She
accepted retainer fees from clients and did not perform work. In some instances,
Maiyo abandoned the cases without giving notice. She did not inform The Florida
Bar of her correct address, so at one point, all correspondence mailed to her
was returned as being unclaimed and not forwardable. In December 2007, Maiyo was
suspended for failure to complete her continuing legal education requirements.
(Case No. SC08-1747)
Andrew William Menyhart, P.O. Box 541739, Merritt
Island, suspended until further order, following a March 19 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1992) According to an emergency suspension order,
Menyhart appeared to be causing great public harm by misappropriating funds from
his trust account. In one matter, a $19,000 check written on Menyhart’s trust
account was returned due to insufficient funds. On another occasion, Menyhart
wrote a check to a client as partial payment of a settlement. That check was
also returned. An audit by The Florida Bar found that Menyhart altered bank
statements to show that he was still holding funds for a $100,000 estate, when
in fact, he was not. (Case No. SC09-475)
Gary Michael Murphree, 142 Beacon
Blvd., #A, Miami, suspended for one year, effective retroactive to Sept. 15,
2008, following an April 2 court order and placed on probation for three years,
effective immediately. (Admitted to practice: 1994) In May 2008, Murphree was
found guilty in circuit court of possessing cocaine and drug paraphernalia with
intent to use. Murphree failed to notify The Florida Bar, as required, of the
charges. (Case No. SC08-1534)
Gregory F. Pillon, 730 NW 40th Ave., Miami,
disbarred effective retroactive to Sept. 12, 2007, following an April 2 court
order. (Admitted to practice: 2004) In May 2007, Pillon pleaded no contest to
obtaining a mortgage by false representation, a felony. The plea agreement
provided that Pillon would surrender his license to practice law. (Case No.
SC07-1681)
David Philip Ryan, III, 250 Catalonia Ave., Suite 804, Coral
Gables, suspended until further order, following a March 3 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1997) According to an emergency suspension order, Ryan
appeared to be causing great public harm by misappropriating and/or diverting
funds entrusted to him. A Florida Bar audit revealed that Ryan used client funds
to satisfy personal matters. (Case No. SC09-338)
Richard Brian Simring, 5400
LaGorce Drive, Miami Beach, disbarred effective retroactive to Sept. 9, 2008,
following an April 2 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1991) In July 2008,
Simring pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money
laundering, a felony. (Case No. SC08-1672)
Fred Rowan Tokarsky, 11156 Cypress
Trail Drive, Orlando, suspended for three years, effective immediately,
following a March 5 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1997) In August 2008,
Tokarsky was found guilty in federal court of three felonies: devising a scheme
to defraud through mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and
theft of government funds. (Case No. SC08-2100)
Kendrick Gerard Whittle, 3646
N.W. 98th St., Miami, disbarred effective retroactive to Oct. 23, 2007,
following a Feb. 24 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1999) In several
instances, Whittle misappropriated client funds. He used approximately
$297,781.73 to pay clients as well as personal bills including rent, utilities
and credit cards. (Case No. SC07-2394)
James Dean Wood, 870 115th Ave.,
Treasure Island, to receive a public reprimand, following a March 5 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1994) Wood received $25,000 to handle a case. He
initially traveled from Pinellas County to Miami to meet with the client. After
that, there is no evidence that Wood researched the case or communicated with
the client. (Case No. SC08-1767)
http://tnmom06.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/florida-supreme-court-disciplines-28-attorneys/#comme
The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announces that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 28 attorneys, disbarring 10, suspending 16 and placing two on probation. Some attorneys
received more than one form of discipline. Two attorneys were reprimanded. Two
were ordered to pay restitution.
As an official agency of the Florida Supreme
Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with
administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of
professional conduct for the 86,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in
Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’
individual Florida Bar profiles and may be reviewed at and/or downloaded from
The Florida Bar’s Web site, www.floridabar.org.
(Bloggers Note: This is a great service, all about truth & TRANSPARENCY in government and the JustUS system. Why cant every state have one? Just try getting any info on attorney dicipline in New York. That stuff is treated like priority top secret here!)
The following lawyers
are disciplined (Please note that court orders are not final until time expires
to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a
motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline):
James Harutun
Batmasian, 215 N. Federal Highway, Suite 1, Boca Raton, suspended for three
years, effective retroactive to Aug. 30, 2008, following a March 5 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1974) In April 2008, Batmasian pleaded guilty in federal
court, to one count of willful failure to collect or pay over tax, a felony. He
was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised
release and penalties of $30,000. (Case No. SC08-1445)
Daniel Antonio Benito,
2423 SW 147th Ave., No. 362, Miami, suspended until further order, following a
March 3 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1997) According to an emergency
suspension order, Benito appeared to be causing great public harm by
misappropriating and/or diverting client funds entrusted to him. In one
instance, a client sent $80,000 to Benito to be held in trust for the purpose of
funding a marital settlement agreement. When the settlement did not materialize,
the client demanded the return of the funds and Benito refused, claiming he was
entitled to them for attorney’s fees. (Case No. SC09-372)
Roger Besu, 233
Palm Ave., Miami Beach, suspended until further order, following a Feb. 5 court
order. (Admitted to practice: 1974) According to an emergency suspension order,
Besu appeared to be causing great public harm by misappropriating and/or
diverting client funds entrusted to him. In October 2008, a client filed a
complaint with The Florida Bar, alleging that Besu was holding more than $3.5
million of his money in escrow and he had not been able to reach Besu by
telephone or at his office. Besu did not respond to a Bar subpoena. An audit
revealed nearly $2 million was missing from a trust account that he
controlled.(Case No. SC09-187)
A. Clark Cone, 8607 Wendy Lane E., West
Palm Beach, suspended until further order, following a March 19 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1981) According to an emergency suspension order, Cone
appeared to be causing great public harm. The Florida Bar’s investigation found
that in several instances, Cone misappropriated client funds. After settling a
personal injury case, Cone asked a client to endorse her $38,940.38 settlement
check. Cone then deposited the money into his trust account and converted it to
his use. (Case No. SC09-474)
Katherine Denise Crase, 2804 W. Aquilla St.,
Tampa, suspended effective 30 days from a Feb. 25 court order. (Admitted to
practice: 1991) In July 2008, Crase was found guilty of seven felony counts of
conspiracy and mail fraud. She was sentenced to 30 months in prison. (Case No.
SC09-339)
Joseph R. De Lucca, 5089 Greenwich Preserve Ct., Boynton Beach,
suspended until further order, following a March 11 court order. (Admitted to
practice: 1971) According to an emergency suspension order, De Lucca appeared to
be causing great public harm by misappropriating client trust funds or property.
A Florida Bar audit found that De Lucca had a negative balance of $35,572.91 in
his trust account, after using client funds for his own purposes. (Case No.
SC09-430)
Susan Lynn Eberle, 4437 Koger St., Orlando, suspended for 91 days,
effective 30 days from a March 24 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1985)
Eberle is being held in contempt of court for noncompliance with Florida Supreme
Court orders. In March 2006, Eberle was suspended for 30 days and placed on
probation for two years. She violated the terms of that probation and in August
2007, Eberle was given an additional two years probation to run consecutively
after the first. (Case No. SC08-2405)
Nadege Elliott, P.O. Box 121711, Fort
Lauderdale, disbarred, retroactive to Dec. 15, 2008, following a Jan. 30 court
order. (Admitted to practice: 1998) In three separate cases, Elliott provided
incompetent representation, charged excessive fees and mishandled his trust
accounts. (Case No. SC07-2)
Delaila Jannette Estefano, 9200 S. Dadeland
Blvd., Suite 204, Miami, suspended until further order, following a March 9
court order. (Admitted to practice: 1999) According to an emergency suspension
order, Estefano appeared to be causing great public harm. A criminal case
pending in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court alleges that Estefano, working
with two others, engaged in a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent
to defraud and/or obtain property from a mortgage lender by false pretenses. An
investigation by the Miami-Dade Police Department revealed the use of Estafano’s
law firm escrow account in the alleged fraudulent activities. (Case No.
SC09-384)
Stephen Jay Goldstein, 13899 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 307, North Miami
Beach, disbarred effective April 10, following a March 11 court order. (Admitted
to practice: 1972) Goldstein wrote checks from his trust and operating accounts
in the amounts of $22,290.00, $527.83, $50,000 and $43,725. All were returned
for insufficient funds. (Case No. SC09-329)
Christina Gomez, 4440 S.W. Archer
Road, Apt. No. 726, Gainesville, disbarred effective retroactive to Sept. 8,
2008, following an April 2 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1992) Gomez
participated in at least three fraudulent financial transactions, one of which
resulted in her receiving approximately $835,000. Because she failed to provide
all the required subpoenaed records, The Florida Bar has so far been unable to
conduct a complete audit to determine the magnitude of fraud and
misappropriation that may have occurred. (Case No. SC08-2139)
Rafael
Gonzalez, 6309 Wild Orchid Drive, Lithia, suspended for three years, effective
30 days from an Oct. 2, 2008 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1991) Gonzalez
was initially suspended for 14 days in September 2007 and violated the terms of
the court’s order by practicing law. (Case Nos. SC07-2314 and SC08-434)
Webb
Greenfelder, P.O. Box 353, San Antonio, suspended for 91 days, effective
immediately, following a March 5 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1998)
Greenfelder was arrested when police investigated a domestic violence incident
at his home. Charges were later dropped. Greenfelder has been ineligible to
practice law since October 2005 as a result of not paying his Florida Bar dues.
He is also delinquent with his continuing legal education requirements. (Case
No. SC08-1497)
Gloretta Hankins Hall, 221 S.E. Osceola St., Stuart, to
receive a public reprimand, following a March 5 court order. (Admitted to
practice: 1991) In May 2006, Hall was the supervising lawyer on a malpractice
case and her associate was assigned to manage the case. Hall failed to monitor
the associate’s activities in the case and hired her sister to act as an expert
witness, because the associate had not hired a nurse expert. At a later date,
Hall learned that her sister provided testimony at the deposition that was not
truthful regarding their familial relationship. (Case No. SC08-1730)
Joseph
I. Harrison, 800 S. Douglas Road, Suite 450, Coral Gables, disbarred for five
years, effective 30 days from a March 20 court order. (Admitted to practice:
2006) Harrison was further ordered to pay restitution totaling $90,800 to two
clients. In at least three separate cases, Harrison charged excessive fees but
provided no significant legal services. He deposited funds in his operating
account instead of a trust account as required and knowingly made false
statements to a third party. (Case Nos. SC08-76, SC08-575 and SC08-804)
David
Robert Heil, 2324 Lee Road, Winter Park, suspended for 10 days, effective 30
days from an April 2 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1984) In December,
2002, Heil was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. In October
2007, without giving prior notice to the client, Heil filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal and subsequently, the statute of limitations ran out on the
case. (Case No. SC08-1748)
George Nicholas Konstantakis, 44 Cocoanut Row,
Suite M210, Palm Beach, disbarred for five years, effective 30 days from a March
5 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1987) He was further ordered to pay
restitution of $26,680 to a client’s living revocable trust. In 2004,
Konstantakis agreed to represent a client in civil proceedings. Thereafter, he
failed to attend the hearings, show up for trial and communicate with the
client. The client was unaware of the final judgment until she was served with
an order of contempt in December 2006 for failure to provide financial
information. (Case Nos. SC08-917 and SC08-1550)
Mark Lawrence, 801 Brickell
Ave., Suite 900, Miami, disbarred effective 30 days from the date of a March 5
court order. (Admitted to practice: 1988) Lawrence admitted to failing to
preserve and apply trust funds as required by Florida Bar rules; issuing checks
from his trust account to pay his child support obligations; and engaging in
dishonest conduct. (Case No. SC09-310)
Jeffrey Merrill Leukel, P.O. Box 8004,
Sanford, suspended for 90 days, effective retroactive to Oct. 20, 2008,
following an April 1 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1986) Leukel was
further placed on probation for three years and ordered to enter into a contract
with Florida Lawyer’s Assistance. In September 2008, Leukel pleaded no contest
to driving while his license was permanently revoked, a third-degree felony.
(Case No. SC08-1957)
Jerona Charmaine Maiyo, 6996 Piazza Grande Ave., Suite
309, Orlando, disbarred effective immediately, following a March 26 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2001) Maiyo failed to perform her duties as a lawyer. She
accepted retainer fees from clients and did not perform work. In some instances,
Maiyo abandoned the cases without giving notice. She did not inform The Florida
Bar of her correct address, so at one point, all correspondence mailed to her
was returned as being unclaimed and not forwardable. In December 2007, Maiyo was
suspended for failure to complete her continuing legal education requirements.
(Case No. SC08-1747)
Andrew William Menyhart, P.O. Box 541739, Merritt
Island, suspended until further order, following a March 19 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1992) According to an emergency suspension order,
Menyhart appeared to be causing great public harm by misappropriating funds from
his trust account. In one matter, a $19,000 check written on Menyhart’s trust
account was returned due to insufficient funds. On another occasion, Menyhart
wrote a check to a client as partial payment of a settlement. That check was
also returned. An audit by The Florida Bar found that Menyhart altered bank
statements to show that he was still holding funds for a $100,000 estate, when
in fact, he was not. (Case No. SC09-475)
Gary Michael Murphree, 142 Beacon
Blvd., #A, Miami, suspended for one year, effective retroactive to Sept. 15,
2008, following an April 2 court order and placed on probation for three years,
effective immediately. (Admitted to practice: 1994) In May 2008, Murphree was
found guilty in circuit court of possessing cocaine and drug paraphernalia with
intent to use. Murphree failed to notify The Florida Bar, as required, of the
charges. (Case No. SC08-1534)
Gregory F. Pillon, 730 NW 40th Ave., Miami,
disbarred effective retroactive to Sept. 12, 2007, following an April 2 court
order. (Admitted to practice: 2004) In May 2007, Pillon pleaded no contest to
obtaining a mortgage by false representation, a felony. The plea agreement
provided that Pillon would surrender his license to practice law. (Case No.
SC07-1681)
David Philip Ryan, III, 250 Catalonia Ave., Suite 804, Coral
Gables, suspended until further order, following a March 3 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1997) According to an emergency suspension order, Ryan
appeared to be causing great public harm by misappropriating and/or diverting
funds entrusted to him. A Florida Bar audit revealed that Ryan used client funds
to satisfy personal matters. (Case No. SC09-338)
Richard Brian Simring, 5400
LaGorce Drive, Miami Beach, disbarred effective retroactive to Sept. 9, 2008,
following an April 2 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1991) In July 2008,
Simring pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money
laundering, a felony. (Case No. SC08-1672)
Fred Rowan Tokarsky, 11156 Cypress
Trail Drive, Orlando, suspended for three years, effective immediately,
following a March 5 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1997) In August 2008,
Tokarsky was found guilty in federal court of three felonies: devising a scheme
to defraud through mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and
theft of government funds. (Case No. SC08-2100)
Kendrick Gerard Whittle, 3646
N.W. 98th St., Miami, disbarred effective retroactive to Oct. 23, 2007,
following a Feb. 24 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1999) In several
instances, Whittle misappropriated client funds. He used approximately
$297,781.73 to pay clients as well as personal bills including rent, utilities
and credit cards. (Case No. SC07-2394)
James Dean Wood, 870 115th Ave.,
Treasure Island, to receive a public reprimand, following a March 5 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1994) Wood received $25,000 to handle a case. He
initially traveled from Pinellas County to Miami to meet with the client. After
that, there is no evidence that Wood researched the case or communicated with
the client. (Case No. SC08-1767)
http://tnmom06.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/florida-supreme-court-disciplines-28-attorneys/#comme
Supreme Court Imposes New Pro-Defendant Pleading Standard on All Civil Litigation
Subject: [federalrights] SCOTUS: Court Imposes New Pro-Defendant
Pleading Standard on All Civil Litigation
In a sweeping decision with the potential to impact every plaintiff in
a civil lawsuit, the Supreme Court announced a new pleading standard
Monday-abandoning the liberal pleading rules which have prevailed for
decades. Writing for the Court's five conservatives in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal (Click on title above for courts opinion) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf ---
S.Ct. ----, No. 07-1015, 2009 WL 1361536 (May 18, 2009), Justice
Kennedy created a two step test which all civil complaints must now
comply with in order to survive a motion to dismiss in federal court.
Additionally, the Court held-despite a concession to the contrary by
the defendants-that a senior federal official cannot be subject to
"supervisory liability" arising from the actions of their subordinates
under the Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Justice Souter wrote the principal
dissent on behalf of the Court's four moderates, with Justice Breyer
also writing a brief dissenting opinion.
Iqbal arose in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007). Twombly required an
antitrust plaintiff to plead specific facts in their complaint in
order to survive a motion to dismiss, sparking confusion in the lower
courts regarding whether this pleading standard applies in all cases
or simply those which are likely to produce sprawling and costly
discovery. Justice Kennedy's decision resolves this question in favor
of defendants-the Twombly pleading standard now applies to all civil
suits-but Iqbal also expands upon Twombly's holding to create a two
step test governing motions to dismiss cases on the pleadings.
Under the new pleading standard announced in Iqbal, a court must first
examine the plaintiff's complaint to determine which of its
allegations are "legal" and which are "factual." Although factual
allegations remain entitled to the traditional presumption of
truthfulness, legal allegations are now deemed "conclusory," and they
play no role in determining whether or not a complaint pleads
sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss. After sorting
factual wheat from legal chaff, the Court then asks whether the
plaintiff's factual allegations, standing alone, "plausibly suggest"
that the defendant engaged in illegal action.
Although the suggestion that a court should not assume either party's
conclusions of law to be true is hardly inappropriate, Iqbal appears
to blur the lines between just what sort of allegations are legal in
nature, and which allegations are factual.. Iqbal's claim that former
Attorney General John Ashcroft was the "principal architect" of a
policy that subjected him to harsh conditions of confinement "solely
on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin" is
dismissed as a legal conclusion because it "amount[s] to nothing more
than a 'formulaic recitation of the elements' of a constitutional
discrimination claim." Conversely, Iqbal's claim that former FBI
Director Robert Mueller "arrested and detained thousands of Arab
Muslim men . . . as part of [the FBI's] investigation of the events of
September 11" was deemed to be a factual assertion. Nevertheless,
having culled the meat of Iqbal's complaint by declaring most of his
allegations to be conclusory legal assertions, the Court determined
that Iqbal's claims against Ashcroft and Mueller must be dismissed for
failure to allege facts which plausibly could lead to the conclusion
that these officials engaged in purposeful discrimination.
Despite no briefing on the question by the parties, the Court also
determined that a Bivens defendant cannot be liable on a theory of
"supervisory liability." Although the defendants' conceded in their
brief that they would be subject to liability if Iqbal could prove
that they "had actual knowledge of the assertedly discriminatory
nature [of Iqbal's detention and treatment,] and they were
deliberately indifferent to that discrimination," the Court sua sponte
determined that such liability does not exist under Bivens.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the opinion, however, is dicta
suggesting that the damages remedy available under Bivens may not be
available to plaintiffs raising claims under certain constitutional
amendments. Noting that "implied causes of action are disfavored,"
the Court stated that "while we have allowed a Bivens action to
redress a violation of the equal protection component of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . . we have not found an
implied damages remedy under the Free Exercise Clause." Nevertheless,
the Court "assume[d], without deciding" that First Amendment claims
are actionable under Bivens. Because this decision arose in the
Bivens context, the Court's dicta focused exclusively on implied
causes of action for a damages remedy and did not directly address the
availability of other remedies against federal officials, such as
declaratory or injunctive relief.
Justice Souter focused most of his dissent on the Court's decision to
sua sponte hold that supervisory liability is not available under
Bivens-a question he would have deferred until a future case which
presented both parties the opportunity to brief the issue. Souter-the
author of Twombly-also took issue with the new pleading standard,
disagreeing both with the majority's decision to sort many of Iqbal's
seemingly factual allegations into the legal wastebasket, as well as
its determination that a court may dismiss a case at the pleadings
stage because it is skeptical of the plaintiff's factual allegations.
Though he also joined Justice Souter's opinion, Justice Breyer wrote
separately to argue that discovery rules provide an adequate means for
judges to protect against "unwarranted litigation," and that the
majority's decision to screen cases at the pleading stage goes too
far.
Ian Millhiser
Public Policy Staff Attorney
Herbert Semmel Federal Rights Project
National Senior Citizens Law Center
1444 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 289-6976 x 212
imillhiser@nsclc.org
Pleading Standard on All Civil Litigation
In a sweeping decision with the potential to impact every plaintiff in
a civil lawsuit, the Supreme Court announced a new pleading standard
Monday-abandoning the liberal pleading rules which have prevailed for
decades. Writing for the Court's five conservatives in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal (Click on title above for courts opinion) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf ---
S.Ct. ----, No. 07-1015, 2009 WL 1361536 (May 18, 2009), Justice
Kennedy created a two step test which all civil complaints must now
comply with in order to survive a motion to dismiss in federal court.
Additionally, the Court held-despite a concession to the contrary by
the defendants-that a senior federal official cannot be subject to
"supervisory liability" arising from the actions of their subordinates
under the Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Justice Souter wrote the principal
dissent on behalf of the Court's four moderates, with Justice Breyer
also writing a brief dissenting opinion.
Iqbal arose in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007). Twombly required an
antitrust plaintiff to plead specific facts in their complaint in
order to survive a motion to dismiss, sparking confusion in the lower
courts regarding whether this pleading standard applies in all cases
or simply those which are likely to produce sprawling and costly
discovery. Justice Kennedy's decision resolves this question in favor
of defendants-the Twombly pleading standard now applies to all civil
suits-but Iqbal also expands upon Twombly's holding to create a two
step test governing motions to dismiss cases on the pleadings.
Under the new pleading standard announced in Iqbal, a court must first
examine the plaintiff's complaint to determine which of its
allegations are "legal" and which are "factual." Although factual
allegations remain entitled to the traditional presumption of
truthfulness, legal allegations are now deemed "conclusory," and they
play no role in determining whether or not a complaint pleads
sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss. After sorting
factual wheat from legal chaff, the Court then asks whether the
plaintiff's factual allegations, standing alone, "plausibly suggest"
that the defendant engaged in illegal action.
Although the suggestion that a court should not assume either party's
conclusions of law to be true is hardly inappropriate, Iqbal appears
to blur the lines between just what sort of allegations are legal in
nature, and which allegations are factual.. Iqbal's claim that former
Attorney General John Ashcroft was the "principal architect" of a
policy that subjected him to harsh conditions of confinement "solely
on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin" is
dismissed as a legal conclusion because it "amount[s] to nothing more
than a 'formulaic recitation of the elements' of a constitutional
discrimination claim." Conversely, Iqbal's claim that former FBI
Director Robert Mueller "arrested and detained thousands of Arab
Muslim men . . . as part of [the FBI's] investigation of the events of
September 11" was deemed to be a factual assertion. Nevertheless,
having culled the meat of Iqbal's complaint by declaring most of his
allegations to be conclusory legal assertions, the Court determined
that Iqbal's claims against Ashcroft and Mueller must be dismissed for
failure to allege facts which plausibly could lead to the conclusion
that these officials engaged in purposeful discrimination.
Despite no briefing on the question by the parties, the Court also
determined that a Bivens defendant cannot be liable on a theory of
"supervisory liability." Although the defendants' conceded in their
brief that they would be subject to liability if Iqbal could prove
that they "had actual knowledge of the assertedly discriminatory
nature [of Iqbal's detention and treatment,] and they were
deliberately indifferent to that discrimination," the Court sua sponte
determined that such liability does not exist under Bivens.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the opinion, however, is dicta
suggesting that the damages remedy available under Bivens may not be
available to plaintiffs raising claims under certain constitutional
amendments. Noting that "implied causes of action are disfavored,"
the Court stated that "while we have allowed a Bivens action to
redress a violation of the equal protection component of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . . we have not found an
implied damages remedy under the Free Exercise Clause." Nevertheless,
the Court "assume[d], without deciding" that First Amendment claims
are actionable under Bivens. Because this decision arose in the
Bivens context, the Court's dicta focused exclusively on implied
causes of action for a damages remedy and did not directly address the
availability of other remedies against federal officials, such as
declaratory or injunctive relief.
Justice Souter focused most of his dissent on the Court's decision to
sua sponte hold that supervisory liability is not available under
Bivens-a question he would have deferred until a future case which
presented both parties the opportunity to brief the issue. Souter-the
author of Twombly-also took issue with the new pleading standard,
disagreeing both with the majority's decision to sort many of Iqbal's
seemingly factual allegations into the legal wastebasket, as well as
its determination that a court may dismiss a case at the pleadings
stage because it is skeptical of the plaintiff's factual allegations.
Though he also joined Justice Souter's opinion, Justice Breyer wrote
separately to argue that discovery rules provide an adequate means for
judges to protect against "unwarranted litigation," and that the
majority's decision to screen cases at the pleading stage goes too
far.
Ian Millhiser
Public Policy Staff Attorney
Herbert Semmel Federal Rights Project
National Senior Citizens Law Center
1444 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 289-6976 x 212
imillhiser@nsclc.org
Sunday, May 17, 2009
DEA Agent Who Shot Self In Foot during Gun Safety Class in Childrens School Sues U.S.
Seeks damages for distribution of humiliating gun accident video
APRIL 11--A Drug Enforcement Administration agent who stars in a popular online video that shows him shooting himself in the foot during a weapons demonstration for Florida children is suing over the tape's release, claiming that his career has been crippled and he's become a laughingstock due to the embarrassing clip's distribution. Lee Paige, 45, blames the video's release on DEA officials in an April 7 federal lawsuit filed against the U.S. government. According to the lawsuit, Paige was making a "drug education presentation" in April 2004 to a Florida youth group when his firearm (a Glock .40) accidentally discharged. The shooting occurred moments after Paige told the children that he was the only person in the room professional enough to carry the weapon. The accident was filmed by an audience member, and the tape, Paige claims, was turned over to the DEA. The drug agency subsequently "improperly, illegally, willfully and/or intentionally" allowed the tape to be disseminated. As a result, Paige--pictured above in a still from the video--has been the "target of jokes, derision, ridicule, and disparaging comments" directed at him in restaurants, grocery stores, and airports. Paige, who writes that he was "once regarded as one of the best undercover agents, if not the best, in the DEA," points to the clip's recent airing on popular television shows and via the Internet as the reason he can no longer work undercover. He also notes that he is no longer "permitted or able to give educational motivational speeches and presentations."
-------------------
Click on title above to see the amazing video and also at the bottom of the page a copy of the 5 page complaint. Notice towards the end of the vid,...just after shooting himself in the foot, the DEA officer attempts to down-play the event and incredibily, goes on to continue with his safety lecture, and even has another gun (a rifle) bought into the room to display to them, but the children are crying, scared and upset and not interested in seeing anymore guns. One even screams to the holder of the weapon to "put the gun down!" which they did, promptly. It was then and only then after the little girl screamed out, that the adults began milling about, slow & confused but at last now taking action in moving towards escourting the wounded officer out of the building and (presumably)to a hospital.) Amazing. The children seem to have more on the ball than the agent or, for that matter, any of the other adults in the room that just stood there, jaws agape and said or did nothing as this idiot went on and on......
I do think not allowing him to give any more gun-safety lessons at schools is a little harsh. Other than being an idiot, he does a pretty good job of it, and, other than that "little incident," he seems to enjoy that kind of work. Just take away his guns and he'll do fine. Afterall, he is now, like it or not, the new official "American Idiot " poster-boy for gun safety, a la DEA.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0411061foot1.html
Court Orders Child to Undergo Chemo
In yet another assault in health freedom, a Minnesota court has ruled that the parents of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser must subject him to toxic chemotherapy treatments or they will be arrested and have their son taken away by state authorities.
It's an outrage, of course, and it puts the State in the position of requiring parents to poison their own children (or go to prison).
Click on title above to Read the astonishing news;
http://www.naturalnews.com/026283.html
Then cut and paste the URL below into your web browser to see new vid posted today, May 17th, 2009;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFNMM1bDDK8
Friday, May 15, 2009
3 Utah counties, oil companies sue Interior
Justice » Uintah, Carbon and Duchesne allege Salazar broke law by voiding 77 leases.
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 05/15/2009 09:52:23 AM MDT
Letter to Bennett
Three petroleum companies and three Utah counties are suing the U.S. Interior Department, alleging that Secretary Ken Salazar broke the law in setting aside 77 disputed oil and gas lease parcels in the Beehive State.
The twin lawsuits, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, argue that federal mining law required the Bureau of Land Management to proceed with issuing leases to winning bidders after a Dec. 19 auction at the BLM's Utah headquarters.
The plaintiffs -- Uintah, Carbon and Duchesne counties and Impact Energy Resources of Colorado, Peak Royalty of Utah and Questar Exploration and Development of Texas -- claim the BLM had to issue the leases within 60 days of the auction.
But those claims could be rejected for lack of standing and the plaintiffs' inability to prove harm, a conservationist attorney said Thursday.
The Dec. 19 auction already was in federal court that day because the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and several other conservation groups had sued to stop it. Ultimately, the groups successfully argued the BLM didn't properly follow environmental law when setting up the sale of 77 parcels on 103,000 acres of public land near Arches and Canyonlands national parks, Dinosaur National Monument and Nine Mile Canyon.
Soon after it commenced, the auction fell into disarray when University of Utah student Tim DeChristopher won 14 bids with no intention of paying for them as a protest against Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
administration drilling policies. BLM Deputy Director Kent Hoffman afterward allowed any of the bidders to withdraw, if they wished, with no penalty.
On Jan. 17, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the auction, finding fault with BLM's air-quality and historic-preservation analyses. The BLM subsequently returned the legitimate bidders' money.
On Feb. 4, shortly after his confirmation, Salazar announced he would shelve the 77 disputed leases pending "a fresh look" at the adequacy of BLM's environmental reviews. At the same time, Salazar refused to bar the parcels permanently from drilling.
Mike Lee, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s former general counsel and attorney for the counties, said even though Salazar made his move after the federal judge's ruling, that didn't give him the authority to suspend the leases.
Salazar's action, Lee said, harmed the counties' economies because they base their budgets on oil and gas royalty revenues as well as taxes realized from gas-field jobs.
"These are local economies, small communities heavily dependent on ... oil and gas production," Lee said Thursday. "It's not just money going to some fat cats."
The Denver-based attorneys for the oil and gas companies didn't respond to a request for comment. Nor did the BLM. But the agency repeatedly has said it is not bound to issue leases just because someone won a bid. If individuals or organizations have protested the leases -- and all of the 77 parcels were under protest -- the BLM must resolve the objections before issuing the leases, a task that can take years.
While SUWA is not a party to the latest lawsuits -- not yet, anyway -- attorney Heidi McIntosh said she doubted the counties or drillers would get far with their claims.
"The counties are trying to base the lawsuit on speculative injury to someone else," she said.
The real crux of the issue is the restraining order, which bars the Interior Department from finalizing the leases, McIntosh said. "Secretary Salazar cannot reinstate those leases at this point."
Salazar challenged
Two lawsuits filed in federal court claim Interior Secretary Ken Salazar acted illegally when he shelved 77 disputed oil and gas lease parcels after the Bureau of Land Management auctioned them in December.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12372304
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 05/15/2009 09:52:23 AM MDT
Letter to Bennett
Three petroleum companies and three Utah counties are suing the U.S. Interior Department, alleging that Secretary Ken Salazar broke the law in setting aside 77 disputed oil and gas lease parcels in the Beehive State.
The twin lawsuits, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, argue that federal mining law required the Bureau of Land Management to proceed with issuing leases to winning bidders after a Dec. 19 auction at the BLM's Utah headquarters.
The plaintiffs -- Uintah, Carbon and Duchesne counties and Impact Energy Resources of Colorado, Peak Royalty of Utah and Questar Exploration and Development of Texas -- claim the BLM had to issue the leases within 60 days of the auction.
But those claims could be rejected for lack of standing and the plaintiffs' inability to prove harm, a conservationist attorney said Thursday.
The Dec. 19 auction already was in federal court that day because the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and several other conservation groups had sued to stop it. Ultimately, the groups successfully argued the BLM didn't properly follow environmental law when setting up the sale of 77 parcels on 103,000 acres of public land near Arches and Canyonlands national parks, Dinosaur National Monument and Nine Mile Canyon.
Soon after it commenced, the auction fell into disarray when University of Utah student Tim DeChristopher won 14 bids with no intention of paying for them as a protest against Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
administration drilling policies. BLM Deputy Director Kent Hoffman afterward allowed any of the bidders to withdraw, if they wished, with no penalty.
On Jan. 17, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the auction, finding fault with BLM's air-quality and historic-preservation analyses. The BLM subsequently returned the legitimate bidders' money.
On Feb. 4, shortly after his confirmation, Salazar announced he would shelve the 77 disputed leases pending "a fresh look" at the adequacy of BLM's environmental reviews. At the same time, Salazar refused to bar the parcels permanently from drilling.
Mike Lee, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s former general counsel and attorney for the counties, said even though Salazar made his move after the federal judge's ruling, that didn't give him the authority to suspend the leases.
Salazar's action, Lee said, harmed the counties' economies because they base their budgets on oil and gas royalty revenues as well as taxes realized from gas-field jobs.
"These are local economies, small communities heavily dependent on ... oil and gas production," Lee said Thursday. "It's not just money going to some fat cats."
The Denver-based attorneys for the oil and gas companies didn't respond to a request for comment. Nor did the BLM. But the agency repeatedly has said it is not bound to issue leases just because someone won a bid. If individuals or organizations have protested the leases -- and all of the 77 parcels were under protest -- the BLM must resolve the objections before issuing the leases, a task that can take years.
While SUWA is not a party to the latest lawsuits -- not yet, anyway -- attorney Heidi McIntosh said she doubted the counties or drillers would get far with their claims.
"The counties are trying to base the lawsuit on speculative injury to someone else," she said.
The real crux of the issue is the restraining order, which bars the Interior Department from finalizing the leases, McIntosh said. "Secretary Salazar cannot reinstate those leases at this point."
Salazar challenged
Two lawsuits filed in federal court claim Interior Secretary Ken Salazar acted illegally when he shelved 77 disputed oil and gas lease parcels after the Bureau of Land Management auctioned them in December.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12372304
Maine Becomes Sixth U.S. State to Ban Extreme Confinement
May 13, 2009
Veal producers often tether calves in crates where they can barely move. Maine will prohibit this. ©Takemoto/Stock.xchng
Maine Governor John Baldacci signed landmark legislation preventing two controversial factory farm confinement methods.
Effective January 1, 2011, the new law will prohibit gestation crates and veal crates—individual cages that virtually immobilize breeding pigs and veal calves for nearly their entire lives.
LD 1021 was sponsored by Senator John Nutting (D-Androscoggin County), Senate Chair of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. It passed the committee and both chambers unanimously.
The Humane Society of the United States strongly backed the legislation.
"It's cruel and inhumane to confine animals in cages barely larger than their own bodies for months on end," said Katie Lisnik, Maine state director of The HSUS.
"We're grateful to Senator Nutting for his humane leadership on this important legislation and hope its enactment sends a message to other states that they should follow suit."
A Wave of Progress
Californians overwhelmingly passed a similar measure, The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, by ballot initiative last fall.
In addition to California, four other states have passed similar reforms, including Colorado, Florida, Arizona and Oregon.
Major national retailers like Safeway and Burger King are increasingly phasing in crate-free and cage-free products due to consumer demand. And the top veal and pork producers in the country—such as Smithfield Foods, Strauss Veal and Marcho Farms—have begun to phase out crates and move toward group housing systems for pigs and calves.
Related Links
Think Outside the Crate Campaign
The HSUS's Campaign to Ban Battery Cages
Californians Make History by Banning Veal Crates, Battery Cages, and Gestation Crates
Click on title above for article with video; http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/maine_bans_veal_gestation_crates_051309.html
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Kansas Supreme Court hears dispute in abortion case
BY JOHN HANNA
Associated Press
TOPEKA - The Kansas Supreme Court's ruling in a legal dispute over subpoenas could determine whether a criminal case against an abortion clinic goes forward, the prosecutor said Wednesday.
Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe made his comment after the court heard arguments from one of Howe's assistants and an attorney for the clinic, operated by Planned Parenthood in Overland Park. The court did not say how quickly it would rule.
The dispute involves subpoenas issued by Phill Kline, Howe's predecessor as district attorney, to four potential witnesses over records sought for a hearing to determine whether the case goes to trial. The clinic faces 107 charges accusing it of falsifying records and performing illegal late-term abortions, which it denies.
Last year, a Johnson County district judge quashed the subpoenas and the district attorney's office appealed. The criminal case remains on hold.
Howe acknowledged that if the court rules against his office, it might not have enough evidence to go to trial.
As state attorney general, Kline began investigating abortion providers under the supervision of Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson. Eventually, Kline obtained access, through Anderson, to edited copies of records from patient files at Planned Parenthood's clinic.
Kline lost his 2006 bid for re-election as attorney general but became Johnson County's prosecutor immediately afterward. He continued his investigation of the clinic, using evidence that he had forwarded to Johnson County.
Assistant District Attorney Steven Obermeier told the court Wednesday that the allegations of falsifying documents involve discrepancies between reports filed by the clinic with the state and copies of the same records later provided to Anderson during Kline's investigation.
Even before Kline filed his criminal case in October 2007, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against him with the Supreme Court, hoping to force him to turn over his evidence to the attorney general's office.
While Planned Parenthood's lawsuit was pending, Kline subpoenaed Anderson, as well as an attorney appointed to review patient records and two state health officials with oversight of abortion reports.
The court told Anderson he couldn't testify, and that was one reason the judge presiding in the criminal case quashed the subpoenas.
The Supreme Court ruled on Planned Parenthood's lawsuit in December, declining to order Kline to turn over his evidence to the attorney general. Anderson's status as a witness -- and the four subpoenas -- remained in limbo.
http://www.kansas.com/topstories/story/811802.html
Associated Press
TOPEKA - The Kansas Supreme Court's ruling in a legal dispute over subpoenas could determine whether a criminal case against an abortion clinic goes forward, the prosecutor said Wednesday.
Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe made his comment after the court heard arguments from one of Howe's assistants and an attorney for the clinic, operated by Planned Parenthood in Overland Park. The court did not say how quickly it would rule.
The dispute involves subpoenas issued by Phill Kline, Howe's predecessor as district attorney, to four potential witnesses over records sought for a hearing to determine whether the case goes to trial. The clinic faces 107 charges accusing it of falsifying records and performing illegal late-term abortions, which it denies.
Last year, a Johnson County district judge quashed the subpoenas and the district attorney's office appealed. The criminal case remains on hold.
Howe acknowledged that if the court rules against his office, it might not have enough evidence to go to trial.
As state attorney general, Kline began investigating abortion providers under the supervision of Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson. Eventually, Kline obtained access, through Anderson, to edited copies of records from patient files at Planned Parenthood's clinic.
Kline lost his 2006 bid for re-election as attorney general but became Johnson County's prosecutor immediately afterward. He continued his investigation of the clinic, using evidence that he had forwarded to Johnson County.
Assistant District Attorney Steven Obermeier told the court Wednesday that the allegations of falsifying documents involve discrepancies between reports filed by the clinic with the state and copies of the same records later provided to Anderson during Kline's investigation.
Even before Kline filed his criminal case in October 2007, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against him with the Supreme Court, hoping to force him to turn over his evidence to the attorney general's office.
While Planned Parenthood's lawsuit was pending, Kline subpoenaed Anderson, as well as an attorney appointed to review patient records and two state health officials with oversight of abortion reports.
The court told Anderson he couldn't testify, and that was one reason the judge presiding in the criminal case quashed the subpoenas.
The Supreme Court ruled on Planned Parenthood's lawsuit in December, declining to order Kline to turn over his evidence to the attorney general. Anderson's status as a witness -- and the four subpoenas -- remained in limbo.
http://www.kansas.com/topstories/story/811802.html
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Qui Tam Actions
Civil actions maintained by private persons on behalf of both themselves and the government to recover damages or to enforce penalties available under a statute prohibiting specified conduct. The term qui tam is short for the Latin qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, which means "who brings the action for the king as well as for himself."
Qui tam actions are unusual in that the plaintiffs do not allege injuries to themselves but rather claim injuries to the government. In a successful qui tam action, the plaintiff, who is known as a relator or informer, shares any monetary recovery with the sovereign (the government).
Qui tam actions are created solely by statute. Legislatures authorize qui tam actions to encourage private citizens to assist the government in enforcing its statutes. By authorizing a qui tam action, the legislature creates a dual enforcement scheme where both private citizens and the Executive Branch may redress violations of the statute creating the action. In some respects a qui tam action is similar to the more common citizens' suit, which allows a private citizen to sue to redress injuries to the public. For example, environmental statutes often authorize citizens' suits as a means for members of the public to redress injuries to the environment. In a citizens' suit, however, the plaintiff citizen alleges an injury to herself as a member of the public at large, whereas a plaintiff in a qui tam action alleges a specific injury to the government.
Although qui tam actions are relatively unknown, they have existed in England for hundreds of years and in the United States since the foundation of the government. And although qui tam actions were authorized by the very first Congress, the most important statute creating qui tam actions was the False Claims Act of 1863. During the Civil War, defense contractors frequently defrauded the Union government. In response, Congress enacted the False Claims Act, which sought to encourage private citizens who had information concerning corrupt defense contractors to come forward.
Under the original False Claims Act, a successful relator in a qui tam action was entitled to one-half of the damages and forfeitures recovered and collected from the defendant, while the other half went to the federal treasury. This procedure was frequently abused, however, as plaintiffs brought qui tam actions when the government had already instituted criminal investigations against defense contractors. Thus, private citizens profited from the government's efforts to stop Fraud by defense contractors. In response, Congress barred qui tam actions based on information already known to the government at the time the civil suit was filed, even if the government had taken no action on the information. Because of this restriction and the repeal of many qui tam statutes, the qui tam action was almost extinct until 1986.
In 1986 Congress revitalized qui tam actions under the False Claims Act in response to the widespread procurement abuses by defense contractors during President Ronald Reagan's defense buildup. The 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C.A. §§ 3729 et seq.) increased the financial incentives for bringing a qui tam action while easing the jurisdictional requirements for instituting a suit. Specifically the 1986 amendments permit relators to bring qui tam actions even if the government is aware of the information on which the action is based, unless the relator obtained the information from public disclosures by the government. As a result of the amendments, the number of companies sued in qui tam actions under the False Claims Act has greatly increased. In addition to defense contractors, Medicare and Medicaid providers have frequently been the target of qui tam actions. The False Claims Act is currently the only widely used statute authorizing qui tam actions.
The 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act have been challenged by defendants and other critics who assert that qui tam actions unconstitutionally delegate the executive branch's obligation to enforce statutes to unaccountable and self-interested citizens. In addition, defendants have argued that relators in qui tam actions lack legal standing to bring a lawsuit. The U.S. Constitution requires a plaintiff in a lawsuit to allege a distinct injury to himself; when a plaintiff fails to allege such an injury, he lacks standing to sue. Critics of qui tam actions point out that qui tam relators are alleging an injury to the government rather than themselves.
Despite these challenges, no court has held the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act unconstitutional. In early 1997 the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of a qui tam action under the False Claims Act but declined to review the Ninth Circuit's determination that the act's qui tam provisions are constitutional (Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 117 S. Ct. 1871, 138 L. Ed. 2d 135 [1997]). Defenders of qui tam actions point out that the individual members of the public are, at least indirectly, hurt by fraud against the government because the government is financially supported by the public. The courts have also repeatedly recognized Congress's authority to legislate the means for implementing its policy objectives. By authorizing qui tam actions, Congress has determined that allowing citizens to sue on behalf of the government is a valid and effective means for enforcing statutes. Thus, the qui tam action remains an important weapon in redressing fraud against the government. In 1996 qui tam actions led to nearly $1.5 billion in recoveries.
Further readings
Boese, John T. 2000. Civil False Claims and Qui Tam Actions. 2d ed. New York: Aspen.
Cahoy, James. 1996. "U.S. Supreme Court to Review Scope of Qui Tam Lawsuits Under Federal False Claims Act." West's Legal News (October 17).
McGreal, Paul E., and DeeDee Baba. 2001. "Applying Coase to Qui Tam Actions Against the States." Notre Dame Law Review 77 (November).
Shane, Peter M. 2000. "Returning Separation-of-Powers Analysis to its Normative Roots: The Constitutionality of Qui Tam Actions and Other Private Suits to Enforce Civil Fines." Environmental Law Reporter 30 (December).
West, Robin Page. 2001. Advising the Qui Tam Whistleblower: From Identifying a Case to Filing Under the False Claims Act. Chicago: General Practice, Solo, and Small Firm Section, Tort and Insurance Practice Section, ABA.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
How to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, add the site to iGoogle, or visit webmaster's page for free fun content.
Link to this page:
Qui Tam Actions
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Qui+Tam+Actions
Qui tam actions are unusual in that the plaintiffs do not allege injuries to themselves but rather claim injuries to the government. In a successful qui tam action, the plaintiff, who is known as a relator or informer, shares any monetary recovery with the sovereign (the government).
Qui tam actions are created solely by statute. Legislatures authorize qui tam actions to encourage private citizens to assist the government in enforcing its statutes. By authorizing a qui tam action, the legislature creates a dual enforcement scheme where both private citizens and the Executive Branch may redress violations of the statute creating the action. In some respects a qui tam action is similar to the more common citizens' suit, which allows a private citizen to sue to redress injuries to the public. For example, environmental statutes often authorize citizens' suits as a means for members of the public to redress injuries to the environment. In a citizens' suit, however, the plaintiff citizen alleges an injury to herself as a member of the public at large, whereas a plaintiff in a qui tam action alleges a specific injury to the government.
Although qui tam actions are relatively unknown, they have existed in England for hundreds of years and in the United States since the foundation of the government. And although qui tam actions were authorized by the very first Congress, the most important statute creating qui tam actions was the False Claims Act of 1863. During the Civil War, defense contractors frequently defrauded the Union government. In response, Congress enacted the False Claims Act, which sought to encourage private citizens who had information concerning corrupt defense contractors to come forward.
Under the original False Claims Act, a successful relator in a qui tam action was entitled to one-half of the damages and forfeitures recovered and collected from the defendant, while the other half went to the federal treasury. This procedure was frequently abused, however, as plaintiffs brought qui tam actions when the government had already instituted criminal investigations against defense contractors. Thus, private citizens profited from the government's efforts to stop Fraud by defense contractors. In response, Congress barred qui tam actions based on information already known to the government at the time the civil suit was filed, even if the government had taken no action on the information. Because of this restriction and the repeal of many qui tam statutes, the qui tam action was almost extinct until 1986.
In 1986 Congress revitalized qui tam actions under the False Claims Act in response to the widespread procurement abuses by defense contractors during President Ronald Reagan's defense buildup. The 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C.A. §§ 3729 et seq.) increased the financial incentives for bringing a qui tam action while easing the jurisdictional requirements for instituting a suit. Specifically the 1986 amendments permit relators to bring qui tam actions even if the government is aware of the information on which the action is based, unless the relator obtained the information from public disclosures by the government. As a result of the amendments, the number of companies sued in qui tam actions under the False Claims Act has greatly increased. In addition to defense contractors, Medicare and Medicaid providers have frequently been the target of qui tam actions. The False Claims Act is currently the only widely used statute authorizing qui tam actions.
The 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act have been challenged by defendants and other critics who assert that qui tam actions unconstitutionally delegate the executive branch's obligation to enforce statutes to unaccountable and self-interested citizens. In addition, defendants have argued that relators in qui tam actions lack legal standing to bring a lawsuit. The U.S. Constitution requires a plaintiff in a lawsuit to allege a distinct injury to himself; when a plaintiff fails to allege such an injury, he lacks standing to sue. Critics of qui tam actions point out that qui tam relators are alleging an injury to the government rather than themselves.
Despite these challenges, no court has held the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act unconstitutional. In early 1997 the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of a qui tam action under the False Claims Act but declined to review the Ninth Circuit's determination that the act's qui tam provisions are constitutional (Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 117 S. Ct. 1871, 138 L. Ed. 2d 135 [1997]). Defenders of qui tam actions point out that the individual members of the public are, at least indirectly, hurt by fraud against the government because the government is financially supported by the public. The courts have also repeatedly recognized Congress's authority to legislate the means for implementing its policy objectives. By authorizing qui tam actions, Congress has determined that allowing citizens to sue on behalf of the government is a valid and effective means for enforcing statutes. Thus, the qui tam action remains an important weapon in redressing fraud against the government. In 1996 qui tam actions led to nearly $1.5 billion in recoveries.
Further readings
Boese, John T. 2000. Civil False Claims and Qui Tam Actions. 2d ed. New York: Aspen.
Cahoy, James. 1996. "U.S. Supreme Court to Review Scope of Qui Tam Lawsuits Under Federal False Claims Act." West's Legal News (October 17).
McGreal, Paul E., and DeeDee Baba. 2001. "Applying Coase to Qui Tam Actions Against the States." Notre Dame Law Review 77 (November).
Shane, Peter M. 2000. "Returning Separation-of-Powers Analysis to its Normative Roots: The Constitutionality of Qui Tam Actions and Other Private Suits to Enforce Civil Fines." Environmental Law Reporter 30 (December).
West, Robin Page. 2001. Advising the Qui Tam Whistleblower: From Identifying a Case to Filing Under the False Claims Act. Chicago: General Practice, Solo, and Small Firm Section, Tort and Insurance Practice Section, ABA.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
How to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, add the site to iGoogle, or visit webmaster's page for free fun content.
Link to this page:
Qui Tam Actions
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Qui+Tam+Actions
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
H.R. 2159: The Un-Arming of America Act
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., sponsor of the Act. Bill empowers attorney general to forbid firearms for those 'suspected dangerous'
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism."
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous."
"[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process," objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "A 'known terrorist?' Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn't have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!"
Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from "right-wing extremists," such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.
"By those standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists," Pratt said. "This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."
Pratt's biggest concern, however, is the sidestepping of the Constitution and due process that the nebulous language of this bill could permit.
"Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast," Pratt told WND. "This is such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."
As WND reported, right-wing "extremists" aren't the only Americans on the DHS watch list.
Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its now notorious warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups as potential "threats."
That memo, the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" expanded the list from typical "right-wing" causes to include left-wing extremism, animal rights activists, black separatists, anarchists, Cuban independence advocates, environmental extremists, the anti-war movement and more. It even insisted some of these groups were prone to violence.
For example, the lexicon defined the "tax resistance movement" – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as "groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. (Bloggers Note: They do) Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, (Bloggers Note: Thats "taxable" income, you dolt! There is NO authority in law that gives the govt a right to tax our wages!) that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified." (Bloggers Note: It wasent)
It further states that tax protesters "have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals." (Bloggers Note: As well as winning legal challanges to the income tax in several courts, you forgot to mention!)
The DHS memos were meant for distribution to law enforcement officials around the country, prompting some to worry the definitions might be used to classify Americans who simply disagree with government policies as being dangerous.
As WND reported, the relative of a Louisiana driver claims her brother-in-law has already been unfairly targeted by police simply for having a supposedly subversive, "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his car.
According to the relative, it happened this way: Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through Ball, La., which has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by ticketing speeders. He was pulled over by police officers who told him "he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car."
"They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes," she told WND.
Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.
WND has withheld the driver's name and the relative's name at their request.
H.R. 2159 has six co-sponsors, from both parties, and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
WND contacted Rep. King's office for comment on the bill, but received no response.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97491
Friday, May 8, 2009
Media myths and falsehoods about the Supreme Court
Media Matters, May 05, 2009 8:07 pm ET
With Justice David Souter's recently announced retirement, Media Matters presents a list of myths and falsehoods advanced by the media about the Supreme Court.
With Supreme Court Justice David Souter's recently announced retirement, Media Matters for America presents the following list of media myths and falsehoods about the High Court.
MYTHS ABOUT THE TRAITS THAT MAKE A STRONG OR POOR NOMINEE
MYTH: Liberals -- but not conservatives -- engage in "judicial activism"
Media frequently suggest liberal judges, but not conservative judges, engage in "judicial activism" -- which media figures often characterize as legislating from the bench. For example, Fox News contributor Fred Barnes said of the process of replacing Souter, "Republicans do have a role here, and it's to talk about judicial activism and the dangers of it"; Barnes also stated that "liberal judicial activism" is "entirely results oriented." And radio host Laura Ingraham recently asserted that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom media have cited as a possible Supreme Court nominee, has "been described as judicially liberal, which means you don't favor the principle of judicial restraint." Ingraham later added that Sotomayor is "a traditional liberal and does not believe in, I think, a strict adherence to separation of powers."
But a 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder showed that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism -- the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Those most frequently labeled "liberal" were the least likely to strike down statutes passed by Congress.
A recently published study by Cass R. Sunstein (recently named by President Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) and University of Chicago law professor Thomas Miles used a different measurement of judicial activism the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies. Sunstein and Miles found that by this definition, the Supreme Court's "conservative" justices were the most likely to engage in "judicial activism" while the "liberal" justices were most likely to exercise "judicial restraint."
MYTH: Diversifying the court would be inconsistent with nominating justices based on merit
Some media figures have suggested that a deliberate effort by Obama to diversify the court by nominating a woman and/or a member of a racial or ethnic minority would mean that Obama's nominee was not chosen based on merit. Such arguments ignore a different explanation -- that the over-representation of white males means that qualified women and minorities have been consistently excluded from the court.
For example, when CNN host Lou Dobbs asked why all of the potential nominees that CNN's Jeffrey Toobin listed were women, Toobin said that "[m]ore than half the law students in the United States are now women. Almost half the lawyers in the United States are women. There's only one out of nine justices on the Supreme Court who are women. I think President Obama, who believes in diversity, thinks it's time to even out the balance a little bit more." Nonetheless, Dobbs responded by asking: "Are you talking about the death of meritocracy on the court? ... Wouldn't it be strange that this court ruled against affirmative action, racial quotas, and ruled in favor of a truly sex -- gender- and race-blind society that then Justice Souter be replaced on the basis of group and identity politics? ... Wouldn't that be captivatingly ironic?" Toobin then explained that "Obama would say diversity is not opposite of meritocracy. Those are very qualified candidates."
Similarly, Buchanan said that Obama should pick a "liberal, Democrat John Roberts who has real stature, impresses people, maybe even gets Republican votes. But I think what he will do is I think he's gonna go for a minority, a woman and/or a Hispanic because he sees that as their turn."
Some conservatives also reject Dobbs and Buchanan's argument. On the May 4 edition of MSNBC Live, for instance, host Andrea Mitchell asked Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) whether, "all things being equal," Obama should nominate a woman. Gregg replied: "I think that in the legal system which we have today, we have a huge amount of talent out there. And you can -- if you feel that the balance on the court should be addressed relative to women being on the court, which I happen to think is a good idea, you can certainly find a lot of extraordinarily talented people who are -- happen to be women also. And that would probably be good."
MYTHS ABOUT OBAMA'S VIEW OF JUDICAL NOMINEES, THE SUPREME COURT
MYTH: Obama suggested he will nominate someone who shows "empathy" rather than a commitment to the law
Media have falsely suggested that Obama has said that he will seek a replacement for Justice Souter who demonstrates the quality of "empathy" rather than a commitment to follow the law. In fact, Obama has said that judges should demonstrate both. After saying that the clip he was about to air offered a "description of how the president hopes his nominee will interpret the law," Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett showed Obama saying on May 1: "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes." Garrett then said: "That aggravates those who believe justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent."
But Garrett omitted Obama's very next sentence, in which Obama stated: "I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role." Obama added, "I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."
MYTH: Obama said it was a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court had not pursued the "redistribution of wealth"
On October 27, 2008, the Drudge Report featured the following false headline: "2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT."
In fact, as the YouTube audio that Drudge linked to demonstrates, during a 2001 interview on Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ, Obama did not say it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not pursued wealth redistribution. The "tragedy" Obama identified was that the civil rights movement "became so court-focused" in trying to effect political and economic justice. Obama stated: "And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."
Later during the same 2001 interview, Obama stated: "You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way." He later added, "You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it."
Numerous media figures echoed Drudge's false headline about Obama's 2001 remarks.
MYTHS ABOUT BUSH'S SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS
MYTH: The GOP has taken a consistent position on the appropriateness of judicial filibusters
The New York Times, the Politico, and Roll Call all recently reported on Senate Republicans' threat to filibuster Obama's judicial nominees under certain circumstances without reporting that a number of these same Republican senators previously took the position that filibusters of President Bush's nominees were unconstitutional or otherwise ran counter to constitutional principles.
Numerous conservative media figures also denounced judicial filibusters of Bush's nominees -- with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Donald Lambro all asserting that Democrats' use of such filibusters was unconstitutional.
MYTH: Dems attacked Alito's ethnicity, suggested he went easy on the mob
MSNBC host Chris Matthews, Buchanan, and Limbaugh were among the media that distorted a Democratic National Committee (DNC) document to claim that the DNC had attacked Alito's ethnicity or had accused him of being "lenient on the mob." In fact, the document simply noted that Alito, as a prosecutor, lost a high-profile mob case -- it made no mention of Alito's ethnicity, nor did it assert or suggest that Alito was "lenient" on the mob.
MYTH: Dems invoked a "religious test" for Bush's nominees
Various media figures baselessly suggested that Democrats opposed Bush's judicial nominees based on the nominees' religious faith. The New York Sun editorial board went so far as to assert that a question Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) reportedly asked of Roberts amounted to an unconstitutional "religious test" -- without noting that Durbin's reported question was similar to one reportedly posed to Roberts by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (OK).
Moreover, despite suggestions by Hannity and other conservatives that opponents of Bush's nominees were injecting religion into the confirmation process, it was, in fact, supporters of Bush's nominees who made religion a key issue. Indeed, both The New York Times and Time magazine reported that the White House and its allies touted Roberts' Catholic faith in attempting to gain support for his nomination from Christian conservatives.
Similarly, during an October 12, 2005, press conference, a reporter asked Bush: "Why do people in this White House feel it's necessary to tell your supporters that [then-Supreme Court nominee] Harriet Miers attends a very conservative Christian church? Is that your strategy to repair the divide that has developed among conservatives over her nominee?" Bush responded, in part: "People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
–D.C.P., J.S., & M.W.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905050040
With Justice David Souter's recently announced retirement, Media Matters presents a list of myths and falsehoods advanced by the media about the Supreme Court.
With Supreme Court Justice David Souter's recently announced retirement, Media Matters for America presents the following list of media myths and falsehoods about the High Court.
MYTHS ABOUT THE TRAITS THAT MAKE A STRONG OR POOR NOMINEE
MYTH: Liberals -- but not conservatives -- engage in "judicial activism"
Media frequently suggest liberal judges, but not conservative judges, engage in "judicial activism" -- which media figures often characterize as legislating from the bench. For example, Fox News contributor Fred Barnes said of the process of replacing Souter, "Republicans do have a role here, and it's to talk about judicial activism and the dangers of it"; Barnes also stated that "liberal judicial activism" is "entirely results oriented." And radio host Laura Ingraham recently asserted that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom media have cited as a possible Supreme Court nominee, has "been described as judicially liberal, which means you don't favor the principle of judicial restraint." Ingraham later added that Sotomayor is "a traditional liberal and does not believe in, I think, a strict adherence to separation of powers."
But a 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder showed that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism -- the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Those most frequently labeled "liberal" were the least likely to strike down statutes passed by Congress.
A recently published study by Cass R. Sunstein (recently named by President Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) and University of Chicago law professor Thomas Miles used a different measurement of judicial activism the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies. Sunstein and Miles found that by this definition, the Supreme Court's "conservative" justices were the most likely to engage in "judicial activism" while the "liberal" justices were most likely to exercise "judicial restraint."
MYTH: Diversifying the court would be inconsistent with nominating justices based on merit
Some media figures have suggested that a deliberate effort by Obama to diversify the court by nominating a woman and/or a member of a racial or ethnic minority would mean that Obama's nominee was not chosen based on merit. Such arguments ignore a different explanation -- that the over-representation of white males means that qualified women and minorities have been consistently excluded from the court.
For example, when CNN host Lou Dobbs asked why all of the potential nominees that CNN's Jeffrey Toobin listed were women, Toobin said that "[m]ore than half the law students in the United States are now women. Almost half the lawyers in the United States are women. There's only one out of nine justices on the Supreme Court who are women. I think President Obama, who believes in diversity, thinks it's time to even out the balance a little bit more." Nonetheless, Dobbs responded by asking: "Are you talking about the death of meritocracy on the court? ... Wouldn't it be strange that this court ruled against affirmative action, racial quotas, and ruled in favor of a truly sex -- gender- and race-blind society that then Justice Souter be replaced on the basis of group and identity politics? ... Wouldn't that be captivatingly ironic?" Toobin then explained that "Obama would say diversity is not opposite of meritocracy. Those are very qualified candidates."
Similarly, Buchanan said that Obama should pick a "liberal, Democrat John Roberts who has real stature, impresses people, maybe even gets Republican votes. But I think what he will do is I think he's gonna go for a minority, a woman and/or a Hispanic because he sees that as their turn."
Some conservatives also reject Dobbs and Buchanan's argument. On the May 4 edition of MSNBC Live, for instance, host Andrea Mitchell asked Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) whether, "all things being equal," Obama should nominate a woman. Gregg replied: "I think that in the legal system which we have today, we have a huge amount of talent out there. And you can -- if you feel that the balance on the court should be addressed relative to women being on the court, which I happen to think is a good idea, you can certainly find a lot of extraordinarily talented people who are -- happen to be women also. And that would probably be good."
MYTHS ABOUT OBAMA'S VIEW OF JUDICAL NOMINEES, THE SUPREME COURT
MYTH: Obama suggested he will nominate someone who shows "empathy" rather than a commitment to the law
Media have falsely suggested that Obama has said that he will seek a replacement for Justice Souter who demonstrates the quality of "empathy" rather than a commitment to follow the law. In fact, Obama has said that judges should demonstrate both. After saying that the clip he was about to air offered a "description of how the president hopes his nominee will interpret the law," Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett showed Obama saying on May 1: "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes." Garrett then said: "That aggravates those who believe justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent."
But Garrett omitted Obama's very next sentence, in which Obama stated: "I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role." Obama added, "I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."
MYTH: Obama said it was a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court had not pursued the "redistribution of wealth"
On October 27, 2008, the Drudge Report featured the following false headline: "2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT."
In fact, as the YouTube audio that Drudge linked to demonstrates, during a 2001 interview on Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ, Obama did not say it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not pursued wealth redistribution. The "tragedy" Obama identified was that the civil rights movement "became so court-focused" in trying to effect political and economic justice. Obama stated: "And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."
Later during the same 2001 interview, Obama stated: "You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way." He later added, "You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it."
Numerous media figures echoed Drudge's false headline about Obama's 2001 remarks.
MYTHS ABOUT BUSH'S SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS
MYTH: The GOP has taken a consistent position on the appropriateness of judicial filibusters
The New York Times, the Politico, and Roll Call all recently reported on Senate Republicans' threat to filibuster Obama's judicial nominees under certain circumstances without reporting that a number of these same Republican senators previously took the position that filibusters of President Bush's nominees were unconstitutional or otherwise ran counter to constitutional principles.
Numerous conservative media figures also denounced judicial filibusters of Bush's nominees -- with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Donald Lambro all asserting that Democrats' use of such filibusters was unconstitutional.
MYTH: Dems attacked Alito's ethnicity, suggested he went easy on the mob
MSNBC host Chris Matthews, Buchanan, and Limbaugh were among the media that distorted a Democratic National Committee (DNC) document to claim that the DNC had attacked Alito's ethnicity or had accused him of being "lenient on the mob." In fact, the document simply noted that Alito, as a prosecutor, lost a high-profile mob case -- it made no mention of Alito's ethnicity, nor did it assert or suggest that Alito was "lenient" on the mob.
MYTH: Dems invoked a "religious test" for Bush's nominees
Various media figures baselessly suggested that Democrats opposed Bush's judicial nominees based on the nominees' religious faith. The New York Sun editorial board went so far as to assert that a question Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) reportedly asked of Roberts amounted to an unconstitutional "religious test" -- without noting that Durbin's reported question was similar to one reportedly posed to Roberts by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (OK).
Moreover, despite suggestions by Hannity and other conservatives that opponents of Bush's nominees were injecting religion into the confirmation process, it was, in fact, supporters of Bush's nominees who made religion a key issue. Indeed, both The New York Times and Time magazine reported that the White House and its allies touted Roberts' Catholic faith in attempting to gain support for his nomination from Christian conservatives.
Similarly, during an October 12, 2005, press conference, a reporter asked Bush: "Why do people in this White House feel it's necessary to tell your supporters that [then-Supreme Court nominee] Harriet Miers attends a very conservative Christian church? Is that your strategy to repair the divide that has developed among conservatives over her nominee?" Bush responded, in part: "People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
–D.C.P., J.S., & M.W.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905050040
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
