Margaret Marks has a post entitled "Judge cuts lawyer's fees for typos / Anwaltsgebühr vom Richter wegen Tippfehler gekürzt". The post is about a lawyer who is incompetent at writing legal papers. Her post highlights an article at law.com. An excerpt from the article is below:
Finding that attorney Brian Puricelli's courtroom work was "smooth" and "artful" in securing a $430,000 verdict in a civil rights suit, but that his written work was "careless" and laden with typographical errors, a federal magistrate judge has ruled that his court-awarded fees should be paid at two rates -- $300 per hour for the courtroom work, but $150 per hour for work on the pleadings."Mr. Puricelli's complete lack of care in his written product shows disrespect for the court. His errors, not just typographical, caused the court a considerable amount of work. Hence, a substantial reduction is in order. We believe that $150 per hour is, in fact, generous," U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart wrote in his 12-page fee opinion in Devore v. City of Philadelphia.
In the suit, plaintiff John Devore, a former Philadelphia police officer, claimed that he was harassed and ultimately fired in retaliation for reporting that his partner had stolen a cell phone.
Hart said he recognized that the case was a complicated one, but said he found some of Puricelli's writing in the amended complaint to be "nearly unintelligible."
Maybe Puricelli needs to get some help from a couple of experts in legal writing, Eugene Volokh and Howard Bashman.
The Global Corruption Report 2003 is now online.
There's also the The ANTI-CORRUPTION GATEWAY FOR EUROPE AND EURASIA. The ANTI-CORRUPTION GATEWAY FOR EUROPE AND EURASIA is a significant entrance way to information about combating corruption. It offers primary materials and direct links to major information sources for anti-corruption practitioners and analysts engaged in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. The GATEWAY serves as an easily accessible repository of anti-corruption project documentation, legislation, regional and international agreements, news, survey results, reports, and research. By sharing this information widely, it is hoped that new and productive initiatives will be generated to reduce corruption in these regions.
Looks like the water supply in Washington DC is almost like that in a third world country. The Washington Post has an editorial about the sad state of affairs in Washington DC, part of which is below:
D.C. Needs AnswersSaturday, February 28, 2004; Page A20
OFFICIALS OF THE D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, as well as the mayor and members of the D.C. Council, should not be surprised that Congress is taking on the problem of excessive lead in the District's water supply. The performance of WASA, the District government and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been far below what citizens have a right to expect from their public officials. City officials belatedly emerged from behind closed doors yesterday to say that, beginning next week, they will hold news conferences three times a week. They also said that they will begin offering free blood tests at D.C. General Hospital in Southeast Washington this morning and that they intend to distribute free water filters to day-care centers next week. And Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), who chairs the council's WASA oversight committee, has joined the mayor in asking for congressional investigations. It's long past time for action. Local and EPA officials have clearly fallen down on the job.
Maybe the problem is too many bureaucrats and nobody willing to take responsibility for anything.
ABC Action News in Tampa has a story entitled "Are bad cops the ones being promoted in Tampa?". The following is an excerpt:
Are bad cops the ones being promoted in Tampa?
an ABC Action News report 5/02/03TAMPA - They carry badges and guns, but some have broken the law.
ABC Action News investigator Mike Mason did some digging, and found some disturbing examples of Tampa police behavior, including sex on-duty, drunk driving, bar room brawls.
Now, some officers wonder why bad cops are the ones getting big promotions.
For example, surveillance tape obtained by ABC Action News shows Sgt. Pete Brevi, on-duty, heading into a cubicle, where he had sex with a female employee. At the time, Brevi had just been promoted.
Sex while on duty is an obvious flaunting of police department policy, yet Brevi (above) was merely suspended and allowed to keep his new rank.
"Mike, do me a favor and go away, all right?" was all Brevi had to say when Mike Mason asked him about the incident.
In another case, Officer Donna Noblitt was reprimanded for lying in a police report about how she handled evidence at a crime scene. When she complained to her major, he gave her the benefit of the doubt and dropped the charge that she lied. However, Noblitt was still reprimanded for mishandling the crime scene.
Officer Donna Noblitt as she appeared in her mug shot.
Later, Noblitt went to jail for ignoring a court order to return her children to her ex-husband. Even after all of that, Noblitt was promoted to detective.She, too, brushed off Mike's request for an interview.
In a third example, off-duty officer Paul Luscynski head-butted another officer during an argument at a bar in Ybor City. He was only given a written warning, and has since been promoted to corporal.
"I think I've earned my promotion, my assignment. Obviously the chief of police and the staff did," he said.
A fourth case involves officers Keith and Mary O'Connor. When deputies arrested Keith for drunk driving, his wife, Mary, tried to kick out the windows of the patrol car and punched one of the deputies.
Mary was suspended for 165 days. However, she and her husband were both recently promoted; he is a corporal, she is a detective.
"The joke around the department is, you've got to get in trouble first before you get promoted," John Bushell told Mike Mason.
Bushell worked at the Tampa Police Department for 30 years, and said he has had enough. He just retired as a deputy chief, one of the chief's top staff members.
Former deputy chief John Bushell called the police department "a good ol' boy system."
"There's still too much of the friendship going on rather than real performance," Bushell said, adding that since Bennie Holder became chief, "you still have a good ol' boy system."However, Chief Holder defended every one of his promotions.
"I do mine different than a lot of most folks, I get complete staff input, which a lot of times, people don't do. So I'm very comfortable with the process, you know no system is perfect," he said.
It may not be perfect in St. Petersburg either, but Mike Mason found that police department would never stand for such behavior. Action News looked through dozens of police personnel records and discovered officers there would have been punished much more severely.
For instance, if Sgt. Brevi were a St. Petersburg cop, he would have likely been fired for having sex on the job.
Mary O'Connor would have likely been fired for punching another officer.
Even Keith O'Connor's drunk driving arrest would have landed him a 30-day suspension, five years of probation, and he would have had to sign an agreement never to drink alcohol again.
Detective Mary O'Connor declined to comment about her status.
Back in Tampa, Cpl. Steve Thurman has been trying to get promoted for years. He has a clean record and scored high on the promotions test, but he says Chief Holder told him he would never be promoted because he investigated city corruption.
"We need officers that are corrupt out. We need officers that have integrity and smarts promoted," he said. "We're not promoting the brightest and the best and that's quite unfortunate."
In the course of investigating this story, Mike Mason was contacted by some Tampa cops who said they were afraid to come forward for fear of retaliation by the chief of police and the police union, which, they say, the chief controls.
Well, the psycho ex-wife (the one I divorced in 1980), her family, and their mentally ill, disbarred, white supremacist, Sovereign Citizen legal advisor, Roger Weidner, sent some people over to remind me I was still married to Faye Marie Oekerman and that if I go out with any other women, I'm committing adultery. They also reminded me I should come back to my wife.
Man, I'm telling you, these people live in a fantasy world all their own. You can't reason with them because they are NUTS to the max.
The following was written by somebody to an email list.
Bell sat on the King's Bench, presided over by Chief Justice Charles Stewart of the Multnomah County Common Law Court (MCCLC), with such luminaries of the common law as Roger Weidner, the deputy district attorney for fraud, the man who discovered it in the system and went mad, forcibly interred at the state hospital for the insane by Judge Dorothy Baker, of the Multnomah County District Court, who, 13 years ago was in the same office Bell is suspected of bombing.And on the other side of Bell, on the King's bench, sits Lunch, Dick Lancial, who the editor met in the back of a donut shop, magnificent guy, clerk for the MCCLC, charged with simulating court process, rousted from bed in his underwear and his computer seized by Portland city police the same moments the Feds were kicking in the door of Bell's elderly parents in their sweet Vancouver, Washington home to seize his computer.
A document found on Bell's computer reportedly bragged about bombing the editor's office 13 years ago.
Twelve angry men. Some quiet, reserved, others open and talkative. Some with grievances. Some with quieter agendas.
All of them white men. Calvinist Jeff Weakly, pastor for the court, who the editor met in a bookshop, standing behind a counter expounding on the true lost tribes of Israel.
Jim Bleakly, campaign manager for a gubernatorial candidate in Washington State, who the editor met while doing a talk show in a radio station.
The following is an excerpt from an Oregon Judicial Watch newsletter dated October 2003.
Next meeting will be Saturday, Nov. 8, 2 – 4 pm, at the Beaverton Public Library, 5th & Hall. Come and listen to Roger Weidner explain how successful he believes the Weidner Method is. For those who wonder what is the Weidner Method, it’s preparing and filing in court a Request for Summary Judgment; get a court hearing date, then go to court with a group of sup-porters; state the facts of your case; the opposition states their position; and the judge hands down a decision. At the October meeting Roger faced down a dissident group asking him to resign as President of OJW. Dissidents are unhappy with his charging for helping prepare legal papers to represent themselves in court as he is a disbarred lawyer and they are unhappy also for charging to publish their story in THE OREGON OBSERVER. When does a reputable newspaper charge for a news worthy story? They ask does the Weidner Method get back our children? Our land? Our property? Keep us out of prison? No, it does not. Beautiful little Melissa Gaston has been adopted away. The legal heir of the multi-million dollar Kettleberg Estate did not receive a dime. Hartford VanDyke is in prison. Lanny Mateir is in prison. The Reussers did not prevail against Washington Mutual (Ken tells us though Roger has not charged them a dime). In these and many other court battles where the Weidner Method has been tried, including Roger’s own attempt to save his investment in a houseboat, all lost. Can it honestly be said failure was due to a corrupt judicial system? Or can it be said that fine points of law were missed? And that judges being human beings retaliate to name calling and threats and intimidation from what appears to them to be vigilantes? The Oregon Bar doesn’t seem to care what Roger does. Why is that? Because they see him as inconsequential? Or is it because he prevents Oregon Judicial Watch from being well accepted and a moving force for constructive change?
There is evidence that retired Washington County Sheriff Jim Spinden had close ties to the Victor Oekerman/Roger Weidner gang. This leads to some questions:
Under Jim Spinden's watch as a mediocre sheriff of Washington County, Oregon, Washington County became a favorite hangout of a crazy, white supremacist gang.
Under Jim Spinden's watch, did this crazy gang stash a bunch of weapons and explosives for their End of Time, imminent war against the "inferior" races in various rural areas of Washington County?
If the crazy gang did hide a bunch of weapons and explosives, did Jim Spinden know about it?
If Jim Spinden knew about it, did he have a legal or a moral obligation to inform the ATF or the FBI?
Was Jim Spinden involved in Thomas Huffman's bizarre schemes to get me drunk and then to get me to drive?
If Jim Spinden was involved with the crazy gang and Roger Weidner, did Jim Spinden engage in any actions which would protect the gang from being caught by various law enforcement authorities?
Was Jim Spinden involved in the bizarre, homophobic, racist labor practices of Stream International in Washington County?
The One True b!X has a post at the link below about the latest anti-gay marriage initiatives here in Oregon.
The One True b!X's PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE: Draft Ballot Titles Released For Anti-Marriage Initiatives
The Oregon Blog has info about the Oregon Bus Project.
The following will tell you what the Oregon Bus Project is:
The grassroots Oregon Bus Project started up in 2001 as the result of motivated youth deliberations over some of the most pressing needs in Oregon and the U.S.: the need for meaningful dialogue between urban and rural parts of the state; the need to connect young people with experienced political leaders; and the need for a grassroots progressive movement. By the 2002 election, more than 4,000 people had engaged with the project as volunteers, supporters, listeners, and leaders.Throughout 2002, we cruised around Oregon in our 1978 charter bus and supported fourteen candidates throughout the state. We zoomed through Salem and Siletz, Madras and Medford, joined together to rap politely on nearly 70,000 doors, and educated voters about progressive candidates running for state legislative seats. Voters elected seven of these candidates to office - tying the Oregon Senate for the first time in more than a decade. Hundreds of Oregonians found a meaningful way to meet their neighbors and work toward change - many of them canvassed, supported a candidate, or volunteered for the first time.
Psychscape has a post that says while English may not be the world's dominant language, nevertheless, it will be the language that promises greater international unity. An excerpt from the post is below:
According to David Graddol, "The world's language system is undergoing rapid change because of demographic trends, new technology, and international communication." Both written and spoken commuication are affected. Contrary to what seems to be the current trend, English may not be the dominant language - it may perhaps be Mandarin. The author looks at the current languages spoken (the top 4 are Chinese, English, Hindi/Urdu and Spanish) and he projects that according to population statistics the top 4 in the year 2025 will be Chinese, Hindi/Urdu, Arabic and English.Globalization of scientific English seems to promise greater international unity. English has become the language of choice for international meetings, for corporate science, multinational research programs, and official Web sites.The implications are important and have both positive and negative aspects. The role of English greatly increases the possibilities for international commerce in scientific work, on many levels but the dominance of English can weaken the relevance of other tongues. Scientists with a limited command of English may find it more difficult to publish in international journals and thus to reach a corresponding audience. "Such dominance can yield the illusion of a communicational tyranny by English and the underdog psychology that goes with it."
I believe the military should be able to present it's recruiting propaganda on high school campuses and college campuses. Students should be allowed to hear the presentations from the various services and make their own choices. I'm not saying this just because I'm a veteran. I'm saying it because censoring the military is not a good idea.
Phil Carter has a post entitled "Military's Right to Recruit on Law School Campuses" wherein he posts:
Three student organizations representing veterans of the armed forces have filed a "friend of the court" brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reject a lawsuit that threatens the ability of the military to recruit on campus, on the grounds that allowing law schools to ban on-campus military recruitment would hurt both the military and law students."[A]llowing law schools to exclude military recruiters without facing the consequences provided for in the Solomon Amendment would cause serious harm to the Nation, to those individuals who are now serving or who in the future will be serving in the military, and to law students with an interest in military service," the brief argues.
The brief was filed by Howard J. Bashman, a Philadelphia-based appellate lawyer who edits the How Appealing weblog, on behalf of three veterans organizations: the UCLA School of Law Veterans Society, Washburn University Veterans Law Association, and the College of William & Mary School of Law Military Law Society. It marks the first time in the current series of court battles over this issue that a student organization has filed a brief supporting the military’s unrestricted ability to recruit on law school campuses.
Phil Carter's post has all the links and more info about this subject.
According to a report from the Federal Register, the following seems to me to be a good idea.
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Vessels Catching Pacific Cod for Processing by the Inshore Component in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of AlaskaAGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the interim 2004 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod apportioned to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component of the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 24, 2004, until superseded by the notice of Final 2004 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish for the GOA, which will be published in the Federal Register.
Outside the Beltway has an interesting post entitled "Amending the Constitution".
James Joyner says:
If we’re going to amend the Constitution so regularly, I’d much prefer that we do it in the manner actually prescribed in the Constitution, with a supermajority of the representatives of the people in Congress and three quarters of the states having their say, rather than have it done by unelected judges. Indeed, I find this whole discussion ironic, since George W. Bush has infinitely less power to amend the Constitution than does Sandra Day O’Connor.
I agree with him on this. I would like to add that I believe the constitution's basic purpose is to define what the federal government can and can not do. Also, it limits the power of the states to enforce certain laws passed by any particular state. In certain instances, for example, if the states pass laws that infringe on an individual's rights under the US constitution, then those state laws can be declared unconstitutional.
The 18th Amendment - the Prohibition Amendment, I believe, was the first "social engineering" amendment. It failed miserably.
The constitution, it seems to me (I'm not a lawyer or, even worse, a law prof) should be confined to what the government should be able to do or not to do. Amendments to the constitution seeking to define what an individual can do or can not do is way out of line.
James goes on to write:
Michael cites Kevin Drum’s post pointing out that President Bush has called for, at one time or another, five amendments (Flag burning, Victims rights, Abortion, Balanced budget, and Gay marriage) and quip, “He really seems to think the constitution is just a rough draft, doesn’t he?” Says Michael, “Just think. If every president supported five new amendments and they all passed, how many would we have?”
Bush's call for the following amendments: Flag burning, Victims rights, Abortion, Balanced budget, and Gay marriage, is, in my opinion, just plain ridiculous.
Here in Oregon we have a constitution with a Bill of Rights which restricts the state's power even more, in many instances, than the U. S. Bill of Rights restricts the federal government's ability to violate a person's rights.
As we all know DB's Medical Rants is blatantly opinionated but I read the blog anyway. Right now DB's Medical is studying existentialism. The following seems relevant, mainly, because it's posted on the post at or on about existentialism.
- Mankind has free will.
- Life is a series of choices, creating stress.
- Few decisions are without any negative consequences.
- Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
- If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.
Some existential thought says there is no God. I believe there is a God. I believe God created valium because he knew someone would invent existentialism. It could be worse, though, it could be Marxism.
Quotes by Groucho Marx courtesy of Nikke's Index.
The Oregon Legislature spends a lot of its time with the respresentatives and senators from urban and suburban Oregon warring against the legislators from rural Oregon. However, occasionally they get together to come up with ridiculous schemes and one of their schemes is now going to affect the Oregon Health Plan, and the effect is not going to be favorable. Rob Saltzman posts that the Oregon Health Plan might lose about 63 million smackers.
The war between the two Oregons continue.
Janet Jackson's historic performance at the Super Bowl half-time show seems to have far reaching implications. But, seriously, would this make her a flibbertigibbet.
We report, you sleaze out.
Senator Ron Wyden is is now a co-sponsor of S. 1925, a bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.
Good. I think this is much needed legislation.
Sometimes people take stuff much too seriously. The Beatles often thought people took the Beatles too seriously, so many times the Beatles would say outrageous things just for fun. I like the Beatles but, after all, they were just a great rock and roll band, among other things.
In January 1967, the Beatles' manager Brian Epstein hired playwright Joe Orton to write their third film. Orton produced a script called Up Against It, which was never produced. According to Paul McCartney:"The reason why we didn't do Up Against It wasn't because it was too far out or anything. We didn't do it because it was gay. We weren't gay and really that was all there was to it. It was quite simple, really. Brian was gay ... and so he and the gay crowd could appreciate it. Now, it wasn't that we were anti-gay -- just that we, The Beatles, weren't gay."
"Wherever we went there's always a few seats laid aside for cripples and people in wheelchairs... they're pushing them at you like you're Christ or something. You'd open up every night, and instead of seeing kids there you'd just see a row full of cripples on the front... It seemed like (we were) just surrounded by cripples and blind people all the time. And when we'd go through corridors, everybody would be -- they'd be all touching us. It got horrifying." --John Lennon
REPORTER: I'd like to direct this question to messrs. Lennon and McCartney. In a recent article, Time magazine put down pop music. And they referred to "Day Tripper" as being about a prostitute...PAUL: Oh yeah.
REPORTER: ...and "Norwegian Wood" as being about a lesbian.
PAUL: Oh yeah.
REPORTER: I just wanted to know what your intent was when you wrote it, and what your feeling is about the Time magazine criticism of the music that is being written today.
PAUL: We were just trying to write songs about prostitutes and lesbians, that's all.
Then there's the American Conservative Union Foundation. They have devoted a full article to analyzing John Lennon's song "Imagine".
I imagine when John Lennon wrote "Imagine" he didn't imagine that "Imagine" would be the muse for the following deep, philosophical paragraph from the article:
"Imagine" envisions a world made more peaceful, first, by the disappearance of religion, an old idea that may have gained new resonance on September 11, 2001. Besides such excesses of what Gibbon drolly referred to as "enthusiasm", religion has frequently shown a willingness to support an unsavory status quo, often at the side of unappetizing allies. It is seems fair to concede that if fanaticism and reaction were religion's sole products, few would hesitate to join Lennon in his wish to see it gone. But religion may have other effects worth considering before it's tossed over the side. For example, it's often claimed that people commonly have a need to invest themselves in some transcendent purpose, with religion providing a relatively benign outlet. Better to sing "Amazing Grace" in church than the "Horst Wessel Song" at a torchlight rally, the argument goes. But Quakerism does not exhaust the range of religious possibilities, so without consideration of, say, Jihadist Islam, the argument falls a bit short. There are other ways, though, that religion may resist the demise of liberal democracy and the development of oppressive rule.
Link via Clayton Cramer.
Critical Mass has post entitled " Due process and domino effects".
The post, in part, says:
Here's an extreme example of how the "guilty until innocent" approach to campus sexual misconduct accusations can play out for the accused.In this unfolding tragedy, Shaoqiang He came to the U.S. from China in the 1990s in order to undertake graduate studies at the University of Memphis. He was expelled in 1998 after a female student accused him of fondling her. Having lost the graduate stipend they were living on, He and his wife then entered such dire financial straits that they surrendered their daughter to foster care, thinking they could get her back when their circumstances improved. The Hes supported themselves by working in Chinese restaurants while they awaited trial. At the trial, He was acquitted. But that is not a happy ending to an awful story.
Not only has He's career been destroyed by an accusation that proved baseless, but the foster parents are moving to adopt the Hes' daughter. The Hes are now embroiled in a nasty custody battle, which in turn is the only thing staving off their imminent deportation.
Had officials at the University of Memphis accorded Shaoqiang He due process, had they held firmly to the tenet that in this country a person is always innocent until proven guilty, he would not have been expelled on the basis of an accusation. He would not have been deprived of his education, he would not have had his career prospects ruined, and he would not have lost his daughter.
One hopes He's accuser is satisfied. And one hopes the Memphis administrators who trampled He's rights in their eagerness to prove their commitment to women's safety will take a moment or two out of their busy days to reflect on what they have done.
Looks like three examples of sleaze combined to produce extreme injustice. First, there's false accusations from a sleazeball.
Then the school administration jumps the gun and does away with due process and objectivity. Gosh, I wonder if the administrators believe in the international, homosexual, intergenerational Satanic Ritual Cult and the space aliens who kidnap students.
Then, get this, a foster couple wants to rip of someone's kids just because the parents of that kid have been having a tough time. Man, if every family that had tough times had their kids ripped off, why then, why then, we might become a nation of voodoo school administrators.
TalkLeft has two posts dealing with the Oklahoma. The first is here. The second is here. In the second post TalkLeft has an excerpt from an AP story that says:
The FBI believed Timothy McVeigh tried to recruit additional help in the days before the deadly 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and gathered evidence that white supremacist bank robbers may have become involved, according to government documents never introduced at McVeigh's trial.The retired FBI chief of the Oklahoma City investigation, Dan Defenbaugh, said he was unaware of some evidence obtained by The Associated Press and that the investigation should be reopened to determine whether the robbery gang was linked to McVeigh.
The evidence never shared with Defenbaugh's investigators or defense lawyers includes documents showing the Aryan Republican Army bank robbers possessed explosive blasting caps similar to those McVeigh stole and a driver's license with the name of a central player who was robbed in the Oklahoma City plot.
I believe that retired FBI agent Dan Defenbaugh, chief of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, is correct in saying that the investigation should be reopened.
On a related note: A government agency tasked with gathering evidence, intelligence, etc. can amass quantities of evidence and intelligence, but if the agency lacks the manpower to adequately analyze the evidence or intelligence, then the evidence or intelligence is often not used to its full worth or ignored completely. I believe the CIA, the FBI and other agencies need more people to sift through all the stuff that is collected in order to be able to make connections of the various pieces of the puzzle, identity trends, collate data, and do all the other things needed in order to optimize the effectiveness of the various agencies involved in law enforcement or collecting intelligence on threats to America.
America needs more analysts.
What is good is a huge stack of evidence if there is no one to sift through it to determine what is crap and what is not?
What good are mass quantities of intelligence data if there is no one to sift through it and see trends or make sense of the various pieces of the puzzle or differentiate between that which is useless and that which is of value?
Know of corruption in the Customs Service? Then contact John Carman at "Corruption on the Border".
I'm getting a lot of guff from supporters and members of the American Family Rights Association (AFRA) in the comments section at this post. Despite overwhelming evidence that Leonard Henderson, co-founder of AFRA, and many of his associates here in Oregon are in bed with white supremacist, lunatic Roger Weidner and his group, members and supporters of AFRA continue to deny that AFRA is a front for a bunch of Christian Identity and Sovereign Citizen fanatics.
The following is an email I received from Susan Detlefsen, Director of Oregon Family Rights Association, and a close of associate of Leonard Henderson and his buddies.
Date: 11/18/2003 15:06:57 -0800 From: "Susan Detlefsen"To: editor
Subject: Dear Sleazer Editor
I found some of your anonymous Websites over the Internet, namely the ones you put up regarding Roger Weidner, who is one of the most courageous people I have known in Oregon. Mr. Weidner sacrificed a law career by standing up to corruption and taking on the people's fight. I found your comments about him very cowardly.I wonder what happened to you that has made you say these things? Mr. Weidner wonders if perhaps there has been a misunderstanding that has prompted your slanderous attacks on him.
Here is his number if you would like to speak to him: 503-232-6691. Knowing the kind of man he is, I'm sure he would welcome the opportunity to speak to you in person to discuss your opinions of him.
Susan Detlefsen
If it's true that AFRA is not a front and that I'm mistaken about AFRA, then it wouldn't be difficult for them to publicly repudiate their association with Roger Weidner and his merry band of morons.
As long as people are going to associate with lunatic Roger Weidner and his racist, homophobic buddies, they are never going to be taken seriously by the average citizen. In fact, the average citizen will look upon them with disgust.
Maybe they ought to listen to more Beatles music.
Revolution by the BeatlesYou say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world.
Tou tell me that it’s evolution,
Well, you know
We all want to change the world.
But when you talk about destruction,
Don’t you know that you can count me out.
Don’t you know it’s going to be alright,
Alright, alright.
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan.
You ask me for a contribution,
Well, you know
We’re doing what we can.
But if you want money for people with minds that hate,
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait.
Don’t you know it’s going to be alright,
Alright, alright.
You say you’ll change a constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head.
You tell me it’s the institution,
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead.
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao,
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.
Don’t you know it’s going to be alright,
Alright, alright.
This report from the GAO says that the Department of Defense still has a huge backlog of security clearances to process. The following is from the report:
DOD did not know the size of its security clearance backlog at the end of September 2003 and has not estimated the size of the backlog since January 2000. DOD cannot estimate the size of its backlog of overdue reinvestigations that have not been submitted for renewal, but prior estimates of this portion of the backlog suggest it was sizeable. Using September 2003 data from DSS, OPM, and nine adjudication facilities, GAO calculated the size of investigative and adjudicative portions of the backlog at roughly 270,000 and 90,000 cases, respectively. Because these estimates were made using time-based goals that varied from agency to agency, the actual backlog size is uncertain.Several impediments hinder DOD’s ability to eliminate—and accurately estimate the size of—its clearance backlog. Four major impediments slowing the elimination of the backlog are (1) the large numbers of new clearance requests; (2) the insufficient investigator and adjudicator workforces; (3) the size of the existing backlog; and (4) the lack of a strategic plan for overcoming problems in gaining access to state, local, and overseas information needed to complete investigations. Two other factors have hampered DOD’s ability to develop accurate estimates of the backlog size. DOD has failed to provide adequate oversight of its clearance program, including developing DOD-wide backlog definitions and measures and using the measures to assess the backlog regularly. In addition, delays in implementing its Joint Personnel Adjudication System have limited DOD’s ability to monitor backlog size and track when periodic reinvestigations are due.
DOD’s failure to eliminate and accurately assess the size of the backlog may have adverse effects. Delays in updating overdue clearances for command, agency, and industry personnel who are doing classified work may increase risks to national security. Slowness in issuing new clearances can increase the costs of doing classified government work. Finally, DOD’s inability to accurately define and measure the backlog and project future clearance requests that it expects to receive can adversely affect its ability to develop accurate budgetary and staffing plans.
In December 2003, advisors to OPM’s Director recommended that the authorized transfer of DOD’s investigative functions and personnel to OPM should not occur for at least the rest of fiscal year 2004. That recommendation was based on uncertainties over financial risks that OPM might incur. An alternative plan being discussed by DOD and OPM calls for leaving investigative staff in DSS and giving them training for, and access to, OPM’s case management system. A DOD official estimated that using the OPM system, instead of DOD’s current system, would avoid about $100 million in update and maintenance costs during the next 5 years. Also, as of December 16, 2003, the Secretary of Defense had not provided Congress with certifications required prior to any transfer.
I wonder if tranferring the responsibilities of one incompetent bureaucracy to another incompetent bureaucracy would help the situation. Nah, probably not.
This story from PalmBeachPost.com points out:
Healthy profits for a private company caused dangerous conditions and inmate injuries at a local prison while state officials looked the other way, according to a grand jury report released Monday.Premier Behavioral Solutions Inc. skimped on staffers and training at its prison in suburban West Palm Beach, grand jurors determined. Leaders at the Florida Institute for Girls locked inmates in their cells and canceled school because there weren't enough guards to watch them.
Low-paid staffers did not have enough training to prevent violence and injuries. Officials for the state responded to the critical report and ongoing problems Monday by ending its three-year, $15.6 million contract with Premier. The company will run the prison until a replacement is found.
The story goes on to say:
The prison's plan to control the girls' behavior was taken from programs that worked with less-troubled boys, jurors wrote. Yoga, aerobics and dance programs fizzled without workers to run them. When staff was short, girls were locked in bare cells and forced to miss school and outdoor activities. Classes were canceled 41 times in less than seven months during 2003 because the prison did not have enough staff to supervise them.The "inexcusable" cancellations frustrated the girls and caused them to act out, the jury said. In was not a coincidence, they wrote, that a violent struggle that fractured a girl's arm in July happened after the girls had been locked up nearly all day.
Staff shortages also compromised security and left the girls at risk, according to the report. The prison assigned only one staff member to monitor 32 security cameras, often without a lunch break. And though company policy prohibited male guards from working alone with teenage girls, they sometimes did. One guard left alone on the wing was arrested on charges that he fondled an inmate. He was convicted of assault.
Another male guard had sex with two inmates in the bathroom. Many employees were dedicated, but work at the prison was almost intolerable, grand jurors wrote. Staffers were paid $8.50 an hour -- far less than the state pays -- to deal with troubled girls who often made up abuse reports and physically attacked the staff.
It's beyond me how this situation could have developed in the first place. What's even more amazing is that the situation was allowed to go on until some investigative reporting revealed it. What the hell is going on in Florida???!!! Is Jeb Bush too incompetent to run the state properly?
This is one more reason why some government responsibilities should not transferred to the private sector. There are many government functions that could and should be transferred to the private sector, but prisons and police responsibilites are not among those functions.
a week in the life of a criminal defense attorney... is so depressing. Time to break out the blood and the guts and the beer. Hmmm...I just mopped the floor, maybe I'll just break out the beer.
Link via Crimlaw.
The One True b!X has a post about how Urban Renewal Areas (URA) are financed. It's quite an interesting post. I, personally, believe many URA's are political pork and only benefit a few, mostly those with a little more wealth and political influence than the rest of us.
The One True b!X's post is part of an ongoing dialogue going on in the city of Portland, Oregon concerning a couple of URA's.
Check out some beautiful pictures of Portland's waterfront and a boat. Here is the boat and here are boats and a bunch of guys in a kayak. Man, when I was in the Navy we never had a boat like the boat with all the guys in it. Check out the party boat here. Photos courtesy of Rivrdog.
Question : Why, when the last three or four times I called my parents, John McClelland Hays and Neta Hays, they told me they had never known where I was? This is obviously not true. I went to my sister's wedding, my relatives helped me move into various apartments, and I even went to church with them in Beaverton. They also went to court in Hillsboro, Oregon with me when I was trying to get visitation for my girls.
I had to go to court because somebody convinced the mother of my two daughters I was involved in an intergenerational Satanic Ritual Abuse Cult, and that not only was I a victim of Satanic Ritual Abuse, but that I engaged in Satanic Ritual Abuse. I'm not the only one this foolishness has happened to. Another guy had a sister who believed almost everybody was controlled by a Satanic Cult after only three or four visits to a crooked therapist.
I wonder why my parents are lying to me and why they haven't visited me once since I moved into the house where I'm living. I've been living here for a couple of years and yet they haven't visited or called me since I moved into this house. I wonder what's going on behind my back.
There's a ninth amendment controversy simmering in the blogosphere among some bloggers. The Legal Theory Blog weighs in on this controversy as well as supplying a lot of links to various opinions about this controversy.
The ninth amendment is a part of the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. It is as follows:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Believe it or not, the interpretation of the ninth amendment has been debated for a long time, even before the advent of the internet.
There is an argument advanced by Hamilton that since the government wasn't given the power to disparage this or that right, then what need is there for an amendment to say the government can't do this or that when the government has never been given the right to do this or that. The following is in his words posted on the Legal Theory Blog.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
The following from Hamilton posted on the Right Coast Blog says
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
In a way, Hamilton is sort of right. If you have a Bill of Rights that says the government can't take away certain rights then somebody who wants more, more, more, more power if elected might say, "Well, gee, now that we have a definite set of rights, maybe we can chisel down any unmentioned rights and have a government that should do what I say it should do".
Others, most notably Jefferson and Madison, thought that somebody would assume only those rights enumerated explicitly explained might be the only ones that were really important and that rights not explicity explained and protected might fall by the wayside. They also knew that if they prohibited the government from violating all the rights the government didn't have the power to mess with anyway, they would have a zillion amendments instead of the few. Having a zillion amendments would have been cost prohibitive because Franklin is said to have said, "A penny saved is a penny earned" and he should know because he was a printer who became rich and charmed the women of France.
So somebody came up with the ninth amendment. Again, the ninth amendment says
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I will try to put the ninth amendment into the everyday language of white trailer trash like myself. It is as follows:
Hey, man, just cause we said the government can't mess with the rights explained in the Bill of Them Damn Rights, doesn't mean the government can mess with our other rights. We don't need to explain every damn right we have and make an amendment for it, do we? That would cost too much damn money. We're not like those damn northerners, y'know. Damn northerners come down here with some fancy food called hogs feet and expect us to eat it. We'll just pretend to eat it while they really eat it and we'll secretly eat bison steaks.