Saturday, November 29, 2008
Both corporations and limited liability companies are considered to "stand apart" from their investors for legal purposes. In essence, both entities are considered to be "persons" under the law. This legal fiction is, of course, what gives rise to the asset protection element of both entities. Unfortunately, many small businesses don't understand this distinction and lose the asset protection when the most need it.
To maintain the asset protection benefits of a business entity, you must treat it as an independent party. For instance, you do not "own" a corporation. Such statements can come back to haunt you when a plaintiff's attorney presents them in court while arguing the entity is a sham. To avoid this problem, you can simply say you are the President of the business entity or whatever position you hold.
Friday, November 28, 2008
In the American community these are the times when you either travel across the country to visit family or await the arrival of family you may not have seen…well, since last year about this time. These are the days that most people cant wait for, the turkey, ham, cranberry sauce, the aunt that complains that she's cooking too much with little help and swears she'll not do it again next year, even though she's repeated this script for the last four or five decades! The children whom have grown oh so fast, the culmination of in-laws and step-families or the extended family whatever. We get a few days off work, if we're smart we get "sick" right after the holiday so we don't have to make such a hasty return to the grind.
With all of this excitement and prolonged family gathering, there is another community; the legal community. For us, we have a few extra days to complete a document that would have otherwise have been a late filing, or how about the fact that we get some amnesty in returning that "urgent" client call…because all client call are "urgent" right. Well the holidays for me are a bit of both, but for every slice of pie, I check a voicemail, for every sip of nog, I send an e-mail, and just when things are getting relaxed I realize; I have a twenty page document that must be finalized and submitted Monday morning, bright and early. I slip away to the library or den and while the rest of my family are deep in dialog about well what else, family, I am typing, maybe this message, but mostly the preparations for the continuance I desperately need in a city I cant be in on Wednesday, or even how to tell a client I cant continue working on their project even though I know it will almost be devastating for there matter. I worry through my holiday about problems…not my own, but the problems and concerns of others. Trouble that others have gotten themselves into that it is now my challenge to insulate them from, or get them out of it all together and of course if I don't…its now "my fault". Just remember one thing, even though I will be wearing this tuxedo for the next thirty days attending holiday party, Las Vegas shows and Beverly Hills red carpet events throughout the new year…my mind will not only be on my friends and family, but on the problems and worries of everyone whom have charged me with protecting them.
My holiday wish is that I succeed. If this comes true, I will have happily given thanks. J.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The source of the issue is something called the Emoluments Clause, which is a clause in the Constitution that essentially states that, while a person is serving a term of office to which they were elected, he or she may not be appointed to any civil office which was newly created, or for which the compensation was increased in that same term. So because there was a pay raise given to the position of Secretary of State during Senator Clinton's current term, she is ineligible for appointment to this office.
The wording: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
That's not all, either. This is not, apparently, the first time the issue has come up. Multiple examples are available at the sources above, but one in particular would be pertinent in the case of Hillary. When President Nixon wanted Sen. William Saxbe for his Attorney General, he had Congress reduce the wage, which had been increased and triggered the clause, in order to get around the restriction. The maneuver has been dubbed the "Saxbe fix".
The DailyKos article urges action soon, seeming to favor a Saxbe fix. The Volokh article features two legal experts who each arrive at a different conclusion, one favoring a Saxbe fix, one opposed. The grounds of their two positions are thick in the style of attorneys writing to attorneys, but worth reading anyway.
One thing does seem clear. It is, as John O'Connor put it, "beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State." After reading three articles on the subject, thick though they are with legalese, it's hard to argue with that assessment. Hillary Clinton is, under the emoluments clause, currently ineligible for the office of Secretary of State. What will be done about that status remains to be seen.
Update I: More from Volokh, an email from Constitutional Law expert Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen is available here. Excerpt:
Thanks for alerting me to this fascinating (and fun) issue! I've played in this particular sandbox before [as to Lloyd Bentsen], and am amused to see it return in slightly different form.
So, "Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?" In a word, Yes -- or, to be more precise, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be unconstitutional.
The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." As I understand it, President Bush's executive order from earlier this year "encreased" the "Emoluments" (salary) of the office of Secretary of State. Last I checked, Hillary Clinton was an elected Senator from New York at the time. Were she to be appointed to the civil Office of Secretary of State, she would be being appointed to an office for which "the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased" during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator. The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to bar her appointment ... if the Constitution is taken seriously (which it more than occasionally isn't on these matters, of course).
Update II: More details from the Washington Post
Monday, November 24, 2008
However, there are a few steps a small firm or solo practitioner can take to add some safeguards. One of these is to avoid signing such agreements until you are fairly certain there is work on the table. Don't make the mistake of Cindy, a consultant who was desperate for work. She signed a fairly onerous agreement with clients who said they had a rush project. Cindy couriered the document back to the supposed clients -and then waited. And waited, And waited. So much for the "rush" work! Trouble is, Cindy was now bound by restrictions preventing her from working for other companies in the same industry as the vanished client. Waiting until there's firm work on the table means you won't be locked out of more tangible opportunities.
Even when there is billable work to be done, you still need to exercise some caution. Always check to see that there are some protections for any work product you deliver to your clients. For example, how well does the NDA bar your client from showing your report to your competitors? If you have developed some proprietary formats for delivery or have some techniques that are unique to your firm, you will want to safeguard these. Otherwise, you will find your work being brandished about town to your detriment. This occurred to David when there was a change in personnel at his client company; the person who had contracted for David' services left and the new appointee didn't think anything of showing David's report to potential new suppliers. This was especially troubling because the report, in the newcomer's view, was unsatisfactory, and he made no bones about saying so to all those firms called in to pitch for new business.
If you want to avoid having competitors pinch your best ideas or just want to avoid some embarrassment, it may be time to look at adding a few clauses to any NDAs you're asked to sign. Either on your own or with the help of an attorney, if you have one, draw up one or two well-worded and concise clauses which can be added your client NDAs. (Words from the wise: don't let the attorney get carried away. It's unlikely the client will agree to sign a document you produce. Keep it simple: 2 or 3 short clauses at most and it's more likely that the client will accommodate the request.)
Prior to your client actually forwarding the documents, raise the issue and ask to speak to someone directly in the legal department. If you explain you are only adding clauses to protect your deliverables and methodologies, and that you won't alter the bulk of the document, your client or their legal department is more likely to agree.
And the more you build your firm and your track record, the more you'll have to protect. Take steps to make sure all parties keep it confidential!
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Sometimes gross violations may even lead to termination of employment. However, if your employment has been terminated on unknown grounds, it would constitute wrongful termination. Generally, being wrongfully terminated means that you have been discharged from your employment for unjust reasons.
Still not every unjust or unfair discharge of an employment constitutes wrongful termination. Though this is the most widely used term, other terms referring to unfair or unjust employment discharge are the following:
- wrongful firing
- wrongful discharge
- wrongful dismissal
- illegal termination
- illegal dismissal
- illegal discharge
These alternate terms connote that an employer must have discharged an employee, illegally, so that such act would constitute wrongful termination. This is connotations is based at the very least on the legal implications of such terms.
If you, as employee, believed that your termination seem unfair, however, in the legal sense, the employer's discharge of your employment cannot be classified as illegal, then the act cannot be considered as wrongful termination.
It is helpful for an employee to be aware of the laws involving wrongful termination. Though knowing and understanding the laws would not prevent you from being wrongfully terminated from an employment, your knowledge will lead you to the ways of fighting against this unjust and illegal treatment and stop abusive employers from practicing such against others.
There is no federal law, which concerns only the subject of wrongful termination. However, a variety of federal laws exists that prevents employers from illegally dismissing/terminating or discharging their employees.
Wrongful termination may be wrongful if:
- it violated the Federal or state's discrimination law
- it violated the rights indicated in the "First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution"
- the act itself violated the discharge policy being enforced by the employer
- led to a breach of implied or explicit contract of employment and/or a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and union
- led to infringement of the "covenant of good faith and fair dealing"
- employee is not willing to break a rule or law
- disguised in a false statement of facts
- due to employees' jury duty
Furthermore, it might be considered wrongful termination if the employer discharged an employee as retaliation for the following:
- lawful exercise of employee rights based on the appropriate labor and employment laws
- lawful exercise of union rights
- taking legitimate leave under the FMLA or Family and Medical Leave Act
- served time in the country's military reserve
- whistle blowing
Based on several significant provisions in wrongful termination laws, victims can seek relief and damages by filing certain complaints with the respective government agency enforcing the laws that had been violated. Victims can also file private lawsuits against their employees or even both of these legal actions.
Keep in mind that knowing your rights and learning what you can do about any violation of it is empowering enough for employees.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Even when not detecting the use of alcohol, police officers are permitted to arrest motorists when seeing traits or behaviors which they associate with DUI driving, such as a reddened face, watery eyes or other traits which could result from medical ailments.
Urine and blood tests, administered after arrest, detect even small quantities of lawful medications or illegal drugs. Since lawful medication or illegal drug consumption may have been of a quantity insufficient to impair a motorist's driving abilities or may have occurred too many days or weeks earlier to lawfully warrant an arrest, DUI defense attorneys frequently succeed in having judges exclude from evidence all laboratory results of urine tests.
It is up to the arrested person (through his or her attorney), and not the State Attorney prosecuting the case, to inform the judge when the results of urine and breath tests should be kept out of evidence. When judges order that evidence obtained from urine tests be excluded (thrown out), prosecuting attorneys frequently plea bargain by dismissing DUI criminal charges and substituting them with the less serious offense of reckless driving.
Drivers who accept plea offers on the less serious charge of reckless driving with a withhold of adjudication may seek to seal their records if having no prior arrests. When DUI charges are dismissed, whether by jury acquittal or judges, persons never arrested before are eligible to seek to expunge their criminal record.
Since medical conditions often mimic the side effects of alcohol and drug use, a well intentioned police officer can wrongly assume you were drinking to excess, ingested too much lawful medication to safely drive or were high on illegal drugs. Innocent people are arrested on DUI charges when exhibiting a few or even one of the characteristics police officers associate with drunkenness, illegal drug use or impairment from use of prescription medication:
- a face which is reddened, flushed, blank or expressionless - eyes which are red or watery - slurred speech - poor balance / poor coordination - slow to react - tiredness or fatigue - jerky eye movements - slow recall or memory- irritability - excessive sweating - nausea / vomiting
Here is a sampling of medical conditions which can place you at high-risk for wrongfully being arrested on criminal charges, along with a description of their DUI-lookalike symptoms:
ACNE: Can cause overall facial redness.
ANEMIA: Symptoms frequently include fatigue and facial paleness.
ANXIETY: Sweating, fatigue, irritability and memory problems are typical occurrences.
BELL'S PALSY: Damaged facial muscles cause flat, expressionless features, often occurring suddenly, sometimes with eye redness and irritation.
CARPAL-TUNNEL SYNDROME: This nerve disorder, common in hands and wrists, limits dexterity. Someone with Carpal-Tunnel Syndrome is likely to fare poorly when following a police officer's command to perform a DUI physical test of closing both eyes and repeatedly alternating hands while bringing fingertips to the tip of their nose. Often caused by repetitive motion at work, most people linger with Carpal-Tunnel Syndrome for months or years before being diagnosed.
COMMON COLD: Red, watery eyes and tiredness.
DERMATITIS: This skin ailment causes slight to bright redness, often to the face and forehead. Typically, the occurrences are sporadic.
DEPRESSION: Fatigue, spontaneous crying and irritability, all typical symptoms of depression, are among the same indicators which police officers associate with DUI impairment.
DIABETES - JUVENILE / TYPE 1: Hypoglycemic reactions can induce a fruity alcoholic breath odor and behavior closely mimicking drunkenness. Nervousness, confusion and difficulty when concentrating are other common traits of hypoglycemia. Neuropathy in limbs can make it difficult to perform well when taking DUI tests, such as walking a line, balancing while one leg is raised and repeatedly bringing fingertips to tip of nose while eyes are closed. Retinopathy, a diabetes-related eye disease, can blur vision - sometimes for just a few hours - temporarily and unexpectedly diminishing driving skills and performance when taking DUI physical tests.
DIABETES - ADULT ONSET / TYPE 2: Neuropathy in limbs can make it difficult to perform well on DUI test taking exercises such as walking a line, balancing while one leg is raised and when repeatedly bringing fingertips to tip of nose while eyes are closed. Retinopathy, a diabetes-related eye disease, can blur vision - sometimes for just a few hours - temporarily and unexpectedly diminishing driving skills and performance when taking DUI physical tests. Persons with adult onset diabetes are often obese, further complicating their performance when taking DUI physical tests. As many as 80% of persons with this form of diabetes are unaware they have the disease.
EAR INFECTIONS: Dizziness which often accompanies ear disorders can impact performance while walking a line or when balancing while one foot is raised, two of the tasks frequently assigned in DUI physical tests.
FIBROSITIS: Muscle inflammation in the neck, shoulder, arms, lower back and thighs is often accompanied by stiffness and weakness. Frequently worsened by fatigue and often undiagnosed, the ailment can diminish a motorist's performance when taking DUI physical tests.
GOUT: Persons with this type of joint inflammation to their feet, ankles, hands, arms or shoulders typically experience pain and limited mobility. They are likely to fare poorly when performing DUI physical tests such as walking a straight line, balancing while one foot is raised or closing their eyes while repeatedly bringing fingertips to tip of nose.
HEEL SPUR: This painful bony growth in the foot makes walking and standing painful and difficult. Sometimes leads to painful back and knee ailments. The ailment lessens one's ability to walk along a straight line or to balance while standing on one foot.
LYME DISEASE: Muscle pain and fatigue, common symptoms, are likely to likely to diminish one's ability to perform demanding DUI physical tests to the satisfaction of the observing police officer. People with Lyme Disease typically are plagued with it for months or years before being diagnosed. MENIERE'S DISEASE: This inner ear disorder impairs balance, making it difficult to fare well when taking DUI physical tests. Jerky eye movements, often associated with Meniere's Disease, can confuse police officers who conduct on-the-scene eye examinations (checking for HGN or Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus). In training, police officers are instructed that jerky eye movements (a lack of smooth pursuit of eye pupils) are an indication of alcohol or drug impairment. Vomiting and excessive sweating are among other symptoms of the illness.
MENINGITIS: Frequently suffered from for some time prior to diagnosis. Those afflicted share numerous characteristics often associated with DUI, including eye sensitivity to light, irritability, confusion, fatigue and nausea / vomiting.
MENOPAUSE: Dizziness, moodiness, fatigue, tension, anxiety, bladder irritability and other menopausal symptoms are similar to the symptoms police officers associate with alcohol or drug impairment.
MONONUCLEOSIS: Persons 40 years of age and under, the group most susceptible to mono, comprise the same demographic group which police officers consider the highest risk for being under the influence of illegal drugs. When accompanied by discoloring of skin and / or eyes, police officers can mistakenly believe someone with mono is DUI.
OBESITY: In addition to obese people being less able to perform well on DUI physical tests, such as walking a line or balancing on one leg, they are more likely than most others to have weight-related medical disorders (including diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure) which can further impact observations and judgments being made about their physical condition.
PREMENSTRUAL SYNDROME / PMS: Rapid emotional changes, dizziness, irritability, anxiety and nervousness are among the same the symptoms police officers associate with alcohol or drug impairment.
PULMONARY DISORDERS: Fatigue, dizziness, restlessness, anxiety and faintness can be confused with the traits police officers associate with alcohol or drug impairment.
SODIUM IMBALANCE: Symptoms of this often undiagnosed ailment include excessive sweating, anxiety, confusion and restlessness, traits police officers consider to be caused by alcohol and drug impairment.
STRABISMUS: A disorder of uncoordinated muscle movement between the eyes, impairing one's ability to focus. Diminished depth perception further impairs the ability fare well on DUI physical tests, such as walking toe to heel along a straight line, particularly in darkness. Uncoordinated eye movements can confuse police officers who are trained to associate a lack of smooth pursuit of eye pupils with DUI impairment during their on the scene eye examination for HGN or Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. Police officers are trained to associate jerky eye movements (a lack of smooth pursuit of eye pupils) with alcohol or drug impairment.
SUN POISONING: Deep sunburns common in South Florida can not only redden skin, but may cause fatigue and dizziness.
TRANSIENT ISCHEMIC ATTACK: Brief episodes of sudden decreased blood flows to the brain induce confusion, dizziness, slurred speech, visual irregularities, traits police officers consider to be caused by alcohol and drug impairment.
Medical ailments - including those which have not yet been diagnosed in his clients - can make motorists appear to be impaired by alcohol, prescription medications or illegal drugs. Among the DUI clients a practiced DUI attorney effectively represents are persons whose medical ailments play a role in their having been arrested.
"I was walking down the street and saw you on the other side. I walked to the corner to cross at the light, crossed the street and walked quickly to catch up with you. I got close and saw it wasn't you. - $50.00."
The National Black Republican Association has issued a petition to Barack Hussein Obama, the leader of the Democratic Party, requesting that Obama issue a formal proclamation of apology for the Democratic Party's 150-year history of racism.We recognize that this is likely too much to ask of the oh so "racially sensitive" Democrats who want us to ignore their racist past and failed socialism that have caused so much harm to black Americans. So we will not hold our breath waiting for their response.
Petition to Barack Hussein Obama for a Proclamation of Apology for the Democratic Party's 150-year History of Racism
We, black American citizens of the United States and the National Black Republican Association, declare and assert:
WHEREAS, the healing of wounds begins with an apology, and the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices against black Americans during the past 150 years, nor held accountable for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices are having on us today,
WHEREAS, as a result of the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission Report of May 31, 2006, the North Carolina Democratic Party issued a unanimous apology on January 20, 2007 for the Democratic Party's 1898 murderous rampage against blacks,
WHEREAS, inner-city minister Rev. Wayne Perryman wrote a book, "Unfounded Loyalty: An In-depth Look Into The Love Affair Between Blacks and Democrats", and filed a lawsuit against the Democratic Party on December 10, 2004, but, after admitting their history of racism under oath in court, the Democrats refused to apologize,
WHEREAS, history shows that the Democratic Party through its racist agenda and "States' Rights" claim to own slaves, sought to protect and preserve the institution of slavery from 1792 to 1865, thus enslaving millions of African Americans, while the Republican Party was started in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, fought to free blacks from slavery and championed civil rights for blacks,
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party enacted fugitive slave laws to keep blacks from escaping from plantations; instigated the 1856 Dred Scott decision which legally classified blacks as property; passed the Missouri Compromise to spread slavery into 50% of the new Northern states; and passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act designed to spread slavery into all of the new states,
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party in the South formed the Confederacy, seceded from the Union and fought a Civil War (1861 to 1865) to expand slavery where over 600,000 citizens were killed, including many thousand blacks,
WHEREAS, starting in 1861, anti-Civil War Democrats in the North were called "copperheads" like the poisonous snake because they (a) wanted to appease the South and accept a negotiated peace that would have resulted in an independent Confederacy where blacks were kept in slavery, and (b) showed their deep opposition to the Civil War draft by taking their anger out on blacks, murdering and maiming blacks in virtually every Northern state,
WHEREAS, anti-Civil War Democrats in New York engaged in "Four Days of Terror" against the city's black population from July 13-16, 1863, and the anti-Civil War chant of the Democrats, as reported by one Pennsylvania newspaper, was: "Willing to fight for Uncle Sam", but not "for Uncle Sambo,"
WHEREAS, the anti-Civil War Democrats verbally attacked Republican President Abraham Lincoln because he wanted to free the slaves through war and grant blacks civil rights, and drafted Northern men into the army to fight and die to make his Emancipation Proclamation a reality – a Proclamation that became the source of the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today,
WHEREAS, after the Civil War, the Republican Party (a) pushed to amend the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment); (b) passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875; and (c) designed Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for African Americans,
WHEREAS, anti-civil rights Democrat Andrew Johnson became president when Republican President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and after the Civil War, the Democratic Party fought to end Reconstruction and deny blacks the promised "40 acres and a mule;" fought to overturn all civil rights legislation from the 1860's to the 1960's; and passed repressive legislation including the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws,
WHEREAS, the book "A Short History of Reconstruction" by the renowned historian, Dr. Eric Foner, revealed that: (a) the Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by Democrats as a Tennessee social club; (b) the Ku Klux Klan became a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy; and (c) the Ku Klux Klan spread into other Southern states, launching a 'reign of terror' against Republican leaders, black and white,
WHEREAS, the book "A Short History of Reconstruction" by Dr. Eric Foner exposed the facts that: (a) the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877 was an attempt by Republicans to get the Democrats to stop lynching Republicans, black and white, and respect the rights of blacks; and (b) contrary to legend, President Rutherford Hayes did not remove the last federal troops from the South, but merely ordered federal troops surrounding the South Carolina and Louisiana statehouses to return to their barracks,
WHEREAS, after taking control of Congress in the late 1800's, the Democratic Party passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans, including the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875,
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party supported the "Plessy v. Ferguson" decision in 1896 that established the "separate but equal" segregation doctrine,
WHEREAS, historical documents show that: (a) in an effort to stop the Democrats from lynching and denying civil rights to blacks, the NAACP was founded on Republican President Abraham Lincoln's 100th birthday, February 12, 1909, by white Republicans Oswald Garrison Villard, Mary White Ovington and William English Walling; and (b) the first black general secretary of the NAACP was black Republican James Weldon Johnson who became the general secretary of the NAACP in 1920 and, in 1900, wrote the song, "Lift Every Voice," known as the "Black National Anthem" in collaboration with his brother, John Rosamond Johnson,
WHEREAS, after Democrat President Woodrow was elected in 1912 and while Congress was controlled by the Democrats, black American civil employees where pushed out of federal government jobs, and the greatest number of bills proposing racial segregation and discrimination were introduced than had ever been proposed in our nation's history,
WHEREAS, even though Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the vote of many black Americans due to his "New Deal," he banned black American newspapers from the military because he was convinced the newspapers were communists and rejected anti-lynching laws pushed by Republicans, as well as efforts by Republicans to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission that did not get established until 1958 under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower,
WHEREAS, Democrat President Harry Truman not only rejected Republican efforts to enact anti-lynching laws and establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission, but also failed to enforce his 1948 Executive Order designed to desegregate the military, an order that was not effectively enforced until Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was elected,
WHEREAS, with the party slogan: "Segregation Forever!," the Dixiecrats, who were Democrats, (a) formed the States' Rights Democratic Party for the presidential election of 1948; (b) remained Democrats for all local elections and all subsequent national elections; and (c) did not all migrate to the Republican Party as Democrats today falsely claim, but instead those racist Democrats died Democrats and had declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks,
WHEREAS, during the civil rights era of the 1960's, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was a Republican, was fighting the Democrats including: (a) Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox who famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant; (b) Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor in Birmingham who let loose vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators; and (c) Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace who stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,"
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party supported the Topeka, Kansas school board in the "Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka", Kansas (a 1954 Supreme Court decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower) which declared that the "separate but equal" doctrine violated the 14th Amendment and ended school segregation,
WHEREAS, in 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent the desegregation of a Little Rock public school, resulting in Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sending federal troops to prevent violence and enforce a court order desegregating the Little Rock school,
WHEREAS, Democratic President John F. Kennedy was not a civil rights advocate because he: (a) voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law (that was pushed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower); (b) opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (that was organized by black Republican A. Phillip Randolph); (c) authorized the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) to wiretap and investigate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on suspicion of being a communist in order to undermine that Civil Rights leader; (d) was later criticized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for ignoring civil rights issues; and (e) only grudgingly agreed to make a telephone call to get Dr. King, Jr. out of the Birmingham jail after members of the King family requested Kennedy's help,
WHEREAS, after the nearly 100 years of opposition to civil rights laws by Democrats, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act and ran for president against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, was unfairly criticized by hypocritical Democrats because Goldwater was opposed to only portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that he believed was an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers,
WHEREAS, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans due to the strong opposition of Democrats, and in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, Johnson mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights and not one word about voting rights,
WHEREAS, it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who was key to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Dirksen was also instrumental to the enactment of civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing,
WHEREAS, the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan, who made a 14-hour filibuster speech in the Senate in June 1964 in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
WHEREAS, because Republican Senator Everett successfully fought to pass civil rights laws in the face of strong opposition to civil rights laws by the Democrats, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen's "able and courageous leadership;" and "The Chicago Defender," the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen "for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction,"
WHEREAS, the statement by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson about losing the South after passage of the 1964 civil rights law was not made out of a concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party that was fighting for the civil rights of blacks, but instead, was an expression of fear that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States' Rights Democratic Party,
WHEREAS, after Democrat President Lyndon Johnson expressed his concern that the racist Democrats in the South would be lost after the passage of the 1964 civil rights laws, Johnson's concern came true when Alabama's Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Atlanta Mayor Lester Maddox,
WHEREAS, in March of 1968, while referring to the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. left Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited, which motivated Dr. King to return to Memphis a few weeks later where he was assassinated on April 4, 1968,
WHEREAS, Democrats expressed little, if any, concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats; yet unfairly deride Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party that began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values, and who were discriminating against blacks,
WHEREAS, Republican President Richard Nixon began enforcement of Affirmative Action as a merit-based system to help African Americans prosper with his 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's first goals and timetables, as well as his 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act that made merit-based Affirmative Action programs the law of our nation, but Democrats turned Affirmative Action into an unfair quota system;
WHEREAS, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military complained in one letter: "I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds,"
WHEREAS, in the early 1970's, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd pushed to have the Senate's main office building named after a former "Dixiecrat," Democrat Senator Richard Russell who was Senator Byrd's mentor and leading opponent of ant-lynching legislation, and in 2001 Senator Byrd was forced to apologize for using the "N-word" on television,
WHEREAS, Democrats did not denounce Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd who praised Senator Robert Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War; yet Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond who was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats,
WHEREAS, Democrats today demean and discriminate against blacks including (a) Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy who called black judicial nominees "Neanderthals;" (b) Democrat Senator Harry Reid who slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as someone who could not write good English; (c) Joe Biden while he was a Senator who boasted that his home state of Delaware was a slave state; (d) Democratic Party operatives who depicted Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele on the Internet as a "Simple Sambo;" (e) cartoonist Jeff Danziger and Pat Oliphant who portrayed Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice as a "stooge" and a bare foot, "Ignorant Mammy;" (f) Democratic Senator John F. Kerry who denounced affirmative action on the floor of the Senate in the 1990's; (g) President Bill Clinton who – following in the footsteps of his mentor J. William Fulbright, a staunch segregationist – refused to enforce a court-ordered affirmative action plan while president and was himself sued for discriminating against his black employees while he was the Governor of Arkansas; and (h) Barack Hussein Obama while he was an Illinois State senator who provided funding for slum projects in Chicago that kept blacks trapped in rat and roach infested housing, as well as while he was a US senator voted against the minimum wage bill and wrote a letter of support for former Klansman Robert Byrd that helped that racist win re-election,
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party's use of deception and fear to intimidate black Americans into voting for Democrats is consistent with the Democratic Party's heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery – a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party; and the Democratic Party's racist legacy bode ill until this generation of black Americans,
NOW, THEREFORE, for the documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon black Americans, we submit this petition to the head of the Democratic Party, Barack Hussein Obama, for a formal proclamation of apology for the Democratic Party's 150-year history of racism.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
"When you take away the right to bear arms, you take away a fundamental constitution right" Literally!
- Grey Law----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When 10-year-old Austin Smith heard Barack Obama had been elected president, he had one question: Does this mean I won't get a new gun for Christmas?
That brought his mother, the camouflage-clad Rachel Smith, to Bob Moates Sports Shop on Thursday, where she was picking out that special 20-gauge shotgun _ one of at least five weapons she plans to buy before Obama takes office in January.
Like Smith, gun enthusiasts nationwide are stocking up on firearms out of fears that the combination of an Obama administration and a Democrat-dominated Congress will result in tough new gun laws.
"I think they're going to really try to crack down on guns and make it harder for people to try to purchase them," said Smith, 32, who taught all five of her children _ ages 4 to 10 _ to shoot because the family relies on game for food.
Last month, as an Obama win looked increasingly inevitable, there were more than 108,000 more background checks for gun purchases than in October 2007, a 15 percent increase. And they were up about 8 percent for the year as of Oct. 26, according to the FBI.
No data was available for gun purchases this week, but gun shops from suburban Virginia to the Rockies report record sales since Tuesday's election.
"They're scared to death of losing their rights," said David Hancock, manager of Bob Moates, where sales have nearly doubled in the past week and are up 15 percent for the year. On Election Day, salespeople were called in on their day off because of the crowd.
Obama has said he respects Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms, but that he favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault and concealed weapons.
As a U.S. Senator, Obama voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits; and as an Illinois state legislator, he supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on all firearms.
During an October appearance in Ohio, Obama sought to reassure gun owners. "I will not take your shotgun away," he said. "I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."
Gun advocates take some solace in the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 this summer to strike down the District of Columbia's 32-year ban on handguns. For now, gun rights supporters hold a narrow edge on the court, but Obama could appoint justices who would swing it the other way.
Franklin Gun Shop outside Nashville, Tenn., sold more than 70 guns on Tuesday, making it the biggest sales day since the shop opened eight years ago. Guns & Gear in Cheyenne, Wyo., also set a one-day sales record on Tuesday, only to break that mark on Wednesday.
Stewart Wallin, owner of Get Some Guns in the Salt Lake City suburb of Murray, Utah, said he sold nine assault weapons the day after Obama was elected. That same day, the gun store Cheaper Than Dirt! in Fort Worth, Texas, sold $101,000 worth of merchandise, shattering its single-day sales record, store owner DeWayne Irwin said.
One Georgia gun shop advertised an "Obama sale" on an outdoor sign, but the owner took it down after people complained that the shop appeared to be issuing a call to violence against the country's first black leader.
The president of a Montana gun manufacturer stepped down last month after word that he supported Obama led to calls for a boycott of the company.
While Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, attributes some of the sales boom to the tanking economy, he thinks the Democratic sweep is the top reason why guns are suddenly a hot commodity.
"I don't think he'll be able to stand up to that anti-Second Amendment wing of the Democratic party that's just been spoiling for chance to ban America's guns," LaPierre said of Obama.
During the campaign, the NRA warned that Obama would be the "most antigun president in American history." And while Vice President-elect Joe Biden owns shotguns, he has supported a ban on assault weapons and has said private sellers at gun shows should be required to perform background checks.
But Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor who has written a book about the gun debate, said new firearms regulations will be a low priority for an Obama administration and Democratic Congress facing a global economic crisis and two wars.
"Maybe the gun-show loophole will be closed, but not much else," he said in an e-mail. "I'd be surprised, for example, if Congress enacted a new assault gun ban."
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his organization will continue to press for what he calls "sensible" restrictions _ background checks at gun shows, a ban on military-style assault weapons and cracking down on illegal gun trade. He believes he has the backing of the new administration on those issues, but any fears of a broader crackdown are unfounded.
"The one thing that they agree strongly with us on is that it's too easy for dangerous people to get guns in this country," Helmke said. "I guess if you're a dangerous person you might want to run out there and buy some more, but otherwise you should be OK."
Associated Press writers Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington, Angela K. Brown in Fort Worth, Texas, Kate Brumback in Marietta, Ga., Joe Edwards in Nashville, Tenn., Don Mitchell in Denver, Matt Joyce in Cheyenne, Wyo., and Paul Foy in Salt Lake City contributed to this report
Its true, many locations closing, but now is the time indeed to start or invest in a new business venture. Ask me why? ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!
Saturday, November 15, 2008
For the first time in human history, a largely white nation has elected a black man to be its paramount leader. And the cultural meaning of this unprecedented convergence of dark skin and ultimate power will likely become -- at least for a time -- a national obsession. In fact, the Obama presidency will always be read as an allegory. Already we are as curious about the cultural significance of his victory as we are about its political significance.
Does his victory mean that America is now officially beyond racism? Does it finally complete the work of the civil rights movement so that racism is at last dismissible as an explanation of black difficulty? Can the good Revs. Jackson and Sharpton now safely retire to the seashore? Will the Obama victory dispel the twin stigmas that have tormented black and white Americans for so long -- that blacks are inherently inferior and whites inherently racist? Doesn't a black in the Oval Office put the lie to both black inferiority and white racism? Doesn't it imply a "post-racial" America? And shouldn't those of us -- white and black -- who did not vote for Mr. Obama take pride in what his victory says about our culture even as we mourn our political loss?
Answering no to such questions is like saying no to any idealism; it seems callow. How could a decent person not hope for all these possibilities, or not give America credit for electing its first black president? And yet an element of Barack Obama's success was always his use of the idealism implied in these questions as political muscle. His talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America -- and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.
Obama's special charisma -- since his famous 2004 convention speech -- always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up -- given an air of "change" -- by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.
This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life -- the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency -- and presenting himself to a majority white nation -- Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
Obama is what I have called a "bargainer" -- a black who says to whites, "I will never presume that you are racist if you will not hold my race against me." Whites become enthralled with bargainers out of gratitude for the presumption of innocence they offer. Bargainers relieve their anxiety about being white and, for this gift of trust, bargainers are often rewarded with a kind of halo.
Obama's post-racial idealism told whites the one thing they most wanted to hear: America had essentially contained the evil of racism to the point at which it was no longer a serious barrier to black advancement. Thus, whites became enchanted enough with Obama to become his political base. It was Iowa -- 95% white -- that made him a contender. Blacks came his way only after he won enough white voters to be a plausible candidate.
Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years. I believe, for example, that Colin Powell might well have been elected president in 1996 had he run against a then rather weak Bill Clinton. It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don't think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.
But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.
Certainly things other than bargaining account for Obama's victory. He was a talented campaigner. He was reassuringly articulate on many issues -- a quality that Americans now long for in a president. And, in these last weeks, he was clearly pushed over the top by the economic terrors that beset the nation. But it was the peculiar cultural manipulation of racial bargaining that brought him to the political dance. It inflated him as a candidate, and it may well inflate him as a president.
There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
But what about black Americans? Won't an Obama presidency at last lead us across a centuries-old gulf of alienation into the recognition that America really is our country? Might this milestone not infuse black America with a new American nationalism? And wouldn't this be revolutionary in itself? Like most Americans, I would love to see an Obama presidency nudge things in this direction. But the larger reality is the profound disparity between black and white Americans that will persist even under the glow of an Obama presidency. The black illegitimacy rate remains at 70%. Blacks did worse on the SAT in 2000 than in 1990. Fifty-five percent of all federal prisoners are black, though we are only 13% of the population. The academic achievement gap between blacks and whites persists even for the black middle class. All this disparity will continue to accuse blacks of inferiority and whites of racism -- thus refueling our racial politics -- despite the level of melanin in the president's skin.
The torture of racial conflict in America periodically spits up a new faith that idealism can help us "overcome" -- America's favorite racial word. If we can just have the right inspiration, a heroic role model, a symbolism of hope, a new sense of possibility. It is an American cultural habit to endure our racial tensions by periodically alighting on little islands of fresh hope and idealism. But true reform, like the civil rights victories of the '60s, never happens until people become exhausted with their suffering. Then they don't care who the president is.
Presidents follow the culture; they don't lead it. I hope for a competent president.
Shelby Steele is an author, columnist and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is among the candidates that President-elect Barack Obama is considering for secretary of state, according to two Democratic officials in close contact with the Obama transition team.Clinton, the former first lady who pushed Obama hard for the Democratic presidential nomination, was rumored to be a contender for the job last week, but the talk died down as party activists questioned whether she was best-suited to be the nation's top diplomat in an Obama administration.
The talk resumed in Washington and elsewhere Thursday, a day after Obama named several former aides to President Bill Clinton to help run his transition effort.
The two Democratic officials who spoke Thursday did so on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Obama and his staff. Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines referred questions to the Obama transition team, which said it had no comment.
Other people frequently mentioned for the State Department job are Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and New Mexico's Democratic governor, Bill Richardson.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Standing not an issue-Birth Certificate not main point of suit. Action was originally filed against both Obama and McCain alleging ineligibility.
On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 2, Section 1, of the US Constitution.
Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason. (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of "standing", but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.
While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case didn't rely upon questioning Obama's birth certificate as the core Constitutional issue. Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth.
The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written "statement", prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were "by law entitled" to be listed on ballots in New Jersey. The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.
The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary's oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the "natural born citizen" requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.
The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President. These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.
Plaintiff-Appellant then initiated the litigation process on Monday, October 27th.
Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the "natural born citizen" issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the "natural born citizen" test. The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.
The action was brought as a "Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs" (aka writ of mandamus) directly to the Appellate Division in NJ. An arduous four day litigation ended with Judge Sabatino denying plaintiff emergency relief.
Plaintiff then submitted the matter to the New Jersey Supreme the next morning, and after an emergency review by multiple Supreme Court Justices, the application for emergency relief was denied.
However, in an incredible turn of events, the NJ Supreme Court specifically ignored the lower court's five page opinion – such opinion having avoided the Constitutional question presented – and relied upon "Movant's Papers" which did discuss and employ Constitutional issues.
This then opened a door to US Supreme Court review. Since "Movant's papers" are based on a Constitutional issue, it is proper for the US Supreme Court to review the case.
Plaintiff-appellant prepared the US Supreme Court emergency stay application over the weekend and then rushed off to Washington DC on November 3rd where he filed an Application For Emergency Stay of New Jersey ballots, and/or a stay of the "national election". Plaintiff's terminology is of vital importance here. Plaintiff's use of the term "national election" includes all aspects thereof, including the popular vote, full election results, and the Electoral College process.
Justice Souter, facing a tough decision in the wake of Obama's landslide victory, took four days to examine the extensive lower court paper trail and legal precedents pertaining thereto, but he eventually denied the application on Nov. 6th, 2008. However, the case is still live, but not for the reason erroneously listed on the SCOTUS Docket.
It appears Justice Souter was misinformed by the US Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell. A full Petition for Writ of Certiorari is listed as "pending" on the Supreme Court docket, and such Petition having not been dismissed by Justice Souter indicates the serious merits of the case, but plaintiff-appellant did not make a full Petition, and so its existence is a procedural fiction. But the case is still live and pending as an Emergency Stay Application.
Due to the emergent nature of Stay proceedings, plaintiff is entitled - by law - under US Supreme Court Rule 22 to resubmit the Application for an Emergency Stay to another Justice of his choice along with a supplemental letter to accompany the original Stay application. Justice Souter had right of first review because he is charged with review of 3rd Circuit actions, and New Jersey is in the 3rd Circuit.
But now that Justice Souter has denied the emergency stay with prejudice, Plaintiff may resubmit the Application For An Emergency Stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to the Honorable US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Furthermore, all nine Justices will be served on this round, according to Rule 22 which requires Appellant to submit 10 copies of the original Stay application for the entire Supreme Court.
A supplemental letter detailing the unorthodox procedural history involved with this case is being prepared for Justice Thomas to review along with the prior Stay application. submitted to the SCOTUS.
Instead of making a full Petition for Certiorari, plaintiff-appellant, as to his Emergency Stay Application, relied on the procedural history in Bush v. Gore, wherein Bush also chose to fore go a full Petition for Cert., and instead relied exclusively on an emergency Stay application handed to one Justice who then empaneled the entire court. The Supreme Court then granted the Stay, treated the Stay application as a full Petition for Certiorari and granted that Petition despite the fact that Bush only submitted the one Application for Emergency Stay. That was done because the urgency of the situation begged resolve of the national Presidential election. The same conditions apply here as the clock is ticking down to December 15th, the day for the Electoral College to meet.
The bi-partisan case progressed quietly through the lower courts with no publicity as the plaintiff-appellant sought to respect court authority seeking only to have the "natural born issue" determined once and for all. He didn't create a web site or request donations. The suit is self financed.
However, due to some very unorthodox treatment of the case in the NJ Appellate Division, and also by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, a press conference is now being prepared to coincide with the resubmission of the Stay application to Justice Clarence Thomas.
To view the official court documents, pleadings and orders,
please see http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen
# # #
Leo Donofrio is a citizen rights advocate. He is a retired attorney who now uses his legal background to identify Government abuse of citizen rights in order to educate the public, "We The People".
"A man with [only] 10 wives would [normally] collapse and die," he told the BBC, "but my own power is given by Allah. That is why I have been able to control 86 of them."
But after six weeks of criticism, at least one fatwa, and an ultimatum from the village chief, Masaba finally agreed to divorce 82 of the wives and try to make do with four. He doesn't seem to have followed through, however, and eventually he was arrested and charged with "incendiary contempt of religious laws and contracting unlawful marriage to 86 wives."
Saying Masaba's rights had been violated, a coalition of human-rights groups assembled to defend him, describing Masaba as "a political prisoner and prisoner of conscience." And what will probably be a fairly chaotic courtroom scene will be enlivened by a very large defense legal team. "The choice of 86 lawyers is deliberate," said a spokesperson. "For each wife, Masaba will have a lawyer."
Hopefully, the Koran doesn't say anything about how many lawyers a man can have. I would argue that as long as a man can care for all of his lawyers, he should be able to have as many as he wants.
Link: BBC News (Aug. 2008)
- You will be instructed to turn off all cell phones while in the courtroom. Ignore this.
- Sit as close to the bench as possible. If you can't sit at the counsel's table, sit in the front row.
- Set ringtone to some sort of rap song.
- If your phone rings, go ahead and answer it and carry on a conversation.
- When the judge becomes visibly angry and says "how dare you answer a phone in court," respond with "Oops, my bad."
- Bonus points if you are in court to face multiple burglary charges.
The boy ended up spending about three hours in a holding cell before he finally agreed to come back and apologize.